Go ahead. Give ONE sentence that is improved by the use of an adverb. Give me one sentence that falls apart without an adverb.
I double-dog dare you.
You are quite right in your thinking adverbs are the devil, but not 100% right due to the fact that the 'd' and the 'b' only resemble devil's horns and are not really horns.
Is everything you post like reading something from middle school or is it just me?
"That's a long way up," he said doubtfully.
No adverb:
"That's a long way up," he said, doubt written on his face.
or
"That's a long way up," His voice shook with doubt.
ect ect ect
So I could bull shit around with passive voice or muck up the sentence with way more words than are needed, or I could just use one word to condense and keep things moving. Or I could go ever deeper and write a paragraph of 'on the body' bull shit to describe doubtfully.
No one is saying you should use these all the time. It's the same with similies. Just sometimes.
Another example?
Cassady smiled thinly. "It isn't that simple" <-----You know what she's doing. It's not complicated.
Without an adverb:
Cassady smiled. "It isn't that simple" <----doesn't have the same meaning.
I had to reread The Great Gatsby for the novel class. One of my favorite sentences there does have an adverb, without which the sentence would be simply silly:
"Then there was a boom as Tom Buchanan shut the rear windows and the caught wind died out about the room, and the curtains and the rugs and the two young women ballooned slowly to the floor."
Or, one used in dialogue:
"All right," said Daisy. "What'll we plan?" She turned to me helplessly: "What do people plan?"
@Liana-- Do balloons move some other way that slowly? You know how a balloon falls. Everyone does.
How do you turn helplessly? Explain to me the difference between 'turning helplessly' and 'turning helpfully'.
@Matt: Hysterical. You missed your calling, you shoulda been a comedian.
@Bob: When I was a kid, we made the devil sign with the thumb out because supposedly it looked more like a goat's head. Granted, we also though that Kiss stood for 'Knights in the Service of Satan'. I think the index finger and pinkie up are for rock n' roll. And adverbs, my friend, are not rockin'!
Here: An example of an adverb is "simply." (cheeky bullshit, I know, not using the adverb as an adverb)
I don't understand the adverb-hate. I guess once you're convinced they're bad they'll grate on the nerves, but how would someone get to that point? <---- This could've been two sentences.
What about contractions? They piss me off. Show me a sentence that absolutely demands you use a contraction instead of writing everything out, a sentence that'll fall apart if you don't contract two words into one. If you can't, then you shouldn't use contractions anymore, even if people use them in real life. We're not writing real life; we're writing FICTION!
@ Jeff. Actual content of my previous remark aside, did you or did you not notice the adverb in my statement, because without the adverb, the sentence contradicts itself?
Adverb hate is one of those clever little things that you get over when you get past the phase of dishing out writing advice in general.
@J.Y: Contractions are acceptable in dialogue or in 1st POV where the character, not the author, is speaking. The difference between a contraction and an adverb is that a contraction is a convention of modern communication--adverbs are just lazy and poor description. Adverbs don't 'piss me off' any more than passive language. Both are bad writing, opinions or feelings notwithstanding.
Also, contractions don't detract from story--they assist in the flow of one word to the next. If you want proof, I triple-dog dare you to go to work tomorrow and use no contractions.
If you want proof, I triple-dog dare you to go to work tomorrow and use no contractions.
That wouldn't prove anything. I meant it when I said people use 'em. And adverbs don't detract from anything if used correctly.
That wouldn't prove anything. I meant it when I said people use 'em. And adverbs don't detract from anything if used correctly.
A case in point being the fucking title of this thread.
haha
I asked Craig Clevenger about the subject of adverbs. They aren't the devil. Nuff said.
But in my opinion, you can only go so long on verbs and nouns.
The thumb out makes it the sign for "I love you." Not exactly satan. :p The lack of a thumb is actually the traditional sign and was used to ward off bad luck or evil. It was popularized in heavy metal by Ronnie James Dio, and was actually a salute to his grandmother, who used it to ward off evil. It is an occult symbol, just not what people think it is, at least not originally. It's one of those common misconceptions, sort of like the idea of never using adverbs. Occasionally, there is a use for them.
I thought it was used to indicate cuckoldry.
It was, but that was actually pointing the fingers at the person, rather than straight up. At least that was my understanding.
Okay, apparently no one else has seen it. In my original remark, I mentioned that Jeff was 'quite right' in his thinking. Remember, adverbs modify both verbs and adjectives. Quite modifies right in this instance. Without the modifier, the rest of the statement is instantly negated when I say he is not 100% correct, so there would have to be a modifier for the adjective or the sentence is awkward.
Back to the topic at hand, if anyone could ward off Evil, it was Ronnie James Dio. Damn I miss him.
when you get past the phase of dishing out writing advice in general.
I'm not sure I'll ever get into that phase long enough to say I really "left." (If I may get dewy for a moment,) I honestly feel pretty silly in the workshop sometimes. I just need someone to tell me it's alright...
or tell me to fuck the fuck off.
@JY
Well, in workshop it's a different story.
Still, there is a pretty common thing for writers who've been doing it a few years but aren't all that confident yet, not quite published in enough places to feel they're doing well at the game — where they just want to talk about WRITING all the time, dispensing advice like "Cut out all adverbs" or "Make your characters WANT something!!!!" and a hundred other hard-earned quick fixes that could probably do with many qualifications.
I know what you mean. I've gotten some of that stuff on each story I've put up. It doesn't really bother me, but then I wonder if editors think the same kind of thing.
Bob was the only one who offered a cogent and correct answer to the simple challenge I posed. Liana at least tried. I guess the rest of you don't have any particular way or method of writing, just blowin' with the wind, eh? Good on ya, then. See you in the workshop!
For a writer, language is like our tools. Each tool in the box has a use and purpose. To completely discount any one of them would be silly.
To partially discount it would be silly too. Or colorfully discount it. Or barely discount it. Or gleefully discount it.
It's still discounted.
This little schtick you've got going, you know, where you get people thinking, it's actually really boring. Stop it.
I'm sorry that my scrabbling in the muck has aroused thine ire, good sir. May I fetch you a clove-studded orange so as not to disturb your noblesse oblige?
You're very commited to this persona. That's good to know.
Ugh.
Oh come on, that was hilarious.
*Is this thing on?*
Hopelessly and helpfully show something different about the character's state of mind. It's a matter of nuance. If you don't really care about the character's state of mind as you read, then I'd say that's your taste and choice in what you read (and write). Maybe you're more action oriented (although action can come with nuances too). If Fitzgerald wrote "ballooned to the floor," I think there would be some confusion as to what that means, since the word usually means to become inflated. "Slowly" gives a clearer sense of motion and speed, so you can picture what he actually means without having to stop and wonder.
I wanted to point out that in a comment in another thread, you used an adverb. I'm too lazy to look for it now. And maybe you are only bothered by adverbs ending in "ly"? Since, of course, there are many other kinds, used in many ways.
I love the language too much to not use adverbs. The language serves me - I don't serve it.
I agree. Adverbs are the devil.
"So if you meet/read/write me
Have some courtesy
Have some sympathy, and some taste
Use all your well-learned politesse
Or I'll lay your soul to waste."
And, if using adverbs in my writing is wrong, I won't be right....
Or, if you're not a Stones fan - substitute "Here, There, Everywhere" by The Beatles...
@Liana: I would never say that I don't use adverbs. I mean, not in prose, but I would certainly do so in conversation. I assume everyone treats forum posts as conversation. I certainly do.
I said how the balloon falls. Not that it 'ballooned'. You prove my point--if something 'balloons', it is in the midst of expanding. Everyone can and does visualize that expansion. If I say 'Her dress fell like a balloon; after you finished laughing, you'd still know how it fell.
@Boone: You can actually love language without loving every part of it. I hate 'lol', but it's certainly part of the lexicon.
And for the record: I'm a Motown fan, myself.
Look, here's the bottom line. Any story can benefit from cutting every adverb, and then applying them, in a judicious manner, to any place where the advancement of the plot or development of the character would be sacrificed otherwise. Think about where you need this word: no other word can do, and any other word is a lie to the reader.
I don't write about what my characters do. I write about who my characters are. Every action is an extension of that character; and as such, deserves no less assiduous attention to detail than I would afford the character herself.
Thank you for your expertise.
You are wrong, sir Barr. There are plenty of examples above as to why.
Also.
Bob was the only one who offered a cogent and correct answer to the simple challenge I posed. Liana at least tried. I guess the rest of you don't have any particular way or method of writing, just blowin' with the wind, eh?
Get over yourself.
If adverbs are the devil, then what's everyone so afraid of? Makes Hell sound like an incredibly descriptive place. And that's pretty cool.
Well this went as expected. How old are you Barr? Just curious
Are you saying he *poorly* executed this thread?
Ha!
It would be more correct to say, "Adverbs are, collectively, the devil."
What about adverbial phrases or clauses? I find both quite useful.
Not just useful, but quite.
Any sentence using only in reference to physical objects also usually benefits from its inclusion.
And if adverbs can be used in conversation, can they then be used in dialogue?
Whatever. Each part of speech is a tool. I'd sell my soul a thousand times to a devil with an adverb in his toolbox.
Quite sir. Quite.
I think the important thing to see here is that JGB is addressing a popular thought process about writing in general. A bit heavy-handed, maybe, but unless my text/subtext skills have short-circuited lately (<------adverb, mofo) most of that heavy-handedness is tongue-in-cheek. Regurgitated from Stephen King's personal advice column? Maybe. But neither that nor Mr. Barr's comic-abrasive presentation make the practice of adverb-reduction less valid.
For certain strains of fiction. Or maybe more appropriately (<---adverb) for certain voices.
Personally (and take this with a grain of salt: I am not Don Delillo) my revision process involves isolating away as many of my RD adverbs as I can. Along with my thought verbs and my summary statements. That's not because it has to be; it's because that is the direction I am taking my voice at the moment. Whether that is the best choice remains to be seen, but it has lent my writing process a great deal of discipline. I at least force myself to realize that the words I'm putting down are all active choices and that I must make my decisions very carefully.
So while I will not defend Mr. Barr's opinion on adverbs generally, I will defend it specifically as a part of a process of creating discipline (<--more adverbs). I embrace that because for years my writing had very little of that, and suffered for it. The absolute statement at the beginning of this thread might not be strictly correct, but I believe the overall thought process that underlies it has validity.
Stephen Colbert would never be so reasonable!
Fuck! You're right.
HAHAAHA!
It's a beautiful day...
Won't you be my neighbor?
Which one of you little kids wants to see what I've buried under my house?
To concur with Utah, I'm usually receptive to any and all writing advice/recommendation. Keeping an open mind is a good thing, especially in the arena of writing as there's so much leeway on how to approach it. The instance in which I get turned off to it is when the advice is presented in an absolutionist sort of way (as it was done here), and you are deemed an idiot or something akin to that should you not follow it. The absolutionist approach shows me that the person is not open-minded, and therefore, not willing to compromise or adapt their on methods as a matter of principle.
The other part of this, the part that perhaps some people are thinking but not saying, is that Mr. Barr has never published anything, which begs the question: Why should we listen to him? I think I'd have a hard time entertaining the same absolutionist approach from Eugenides or Updike, but coming from a rookie, I can't help but tune out.
If Mr. Barr wants to remain anti-adverb, that's fine, but to start a thread in the vein of "I'm right and you're wrong" with no evidence to back it up beyond his personal tastes...well, no one should be getting flustered. Take it with a grain of salt.
I miss Utah the lesbian
Also Colbert burned a copy of 451 the other day. It was neat.
