Welcome to Gaia! ::


As the title suggests, this thread is about adverbs.

Take heed, wordslinger. Adverbs are the Devil. They are Satan, the Prince of Lies, the Adversary, the Wicked One.

As such, adverbs should be summoned only rarely and with many precautions taken. If you can avoid summoning an adverb from the Pit of Doom, do so. Unless you are a master wordslinger, treat each adverb as an unexploded bomb from the second world war. A nazi unexploded bomb, at that - I'm doing my best here to impress on you how evil adverbs are.

We are all amateur wordslingers here (if any of you have progressed beyond that level, morfe power to ye) and as such, we are constantly tempted by the Dark Spirits of Writing to summon demons, by which I mean adverbs, and place them in our stories. This should not be done unless you have given each summoning great forethought and are willing to be eternally vigilant about what those adverbs are doing behind your back. Check on them constantly - they may be multiplying.

Why are adverbs so evil, you ask? They dillute your message. They make strong writing weak, they make sharp imagery blurry, they gloss over where there should be stark contrast.

I mean, consider this scenario: You are writing a horror story in which one man, Jack, brutally kills a cheerleader with an axe.
Read the above sentence again. What have we really been told here? Not very much. Jack killed the cheerleader, we are told, and we are assured that it was brutal. My friends, this is an axe-murder, and it's so boring I could sleep.
On the other hand, if you remove the adverb and instead say that Jack chopped off both her legs at the knees and then split her lower jaw in an upward swing, that IS brutal. And it certainly is more impressive than "brutally", because "brutally" is also redundant, since it's hard to kill someone with an axe delicately.

Recognize this simple truth, my dear brothers and sisters of the Pen: Adverbs do not add detail to your stories. They obscure detail. Be strong, and keep your prose strong.
Sound advice, and something I hadn't realised before (mainly since I could never remember what an adverb was). I'll take that into account in future.

One thing: presumably, they're still fine in dialogue. Dialogue allows a multitude of things which would seem ridiculous in plain prose (in my opinion, exclamation marks only ever work in speech).
Spatterdash
Sound advice, and something I hadn't realised before (mainly since I could never remember what an adverb was). I'll take that into account in future.

One thing: presumably, they're still fine in dialogue. Dialogue allows a multitude of things which would seem ridiculous in plain prose (in my opinion, exclamation marks only ever work in speech).
Yes, IN dialogue. Not right next to dialogue, such as "He said angrily".
I understand completely what you're talking about. Now that I think about it, adverbs are terrible in that they are generalisations. No one likes generalisations. That was extremely useful information, however the usage and proximity of your vocabulary can make not using adverbs difficult if not impossible. Well, in terms of style.
Axioma
Spatterdash
Sound advice, and something I hadn't realised before (mainly since I could never remember what an adverb was). I'll take that into account in future.

One thing: presumably, they're still fine in dialogue. Dialogue allows a multitude of things which would seem ridiculous in plain prose (in my opinion, exclamation marks only ever work in speech).
Yes, IN dialogue. Not right next to dialogue, such as "He said angrily".


Yeah... I used to do that all the time. *checks recent writing* Dammit, I still do.

(section deleted for what, in retrospect, comes across as sickening brown-nosing.)

Popular Member

7,750 Points
  • Popular Thread 100
  • Overstocked 200
  • Tipsy 100
I think it's more a difference of showing rather than telling.

'His mannerisms were subtle and elegant'

'...he said, twirling his fingers in the air gently, with a grand and yet subtle care to each movement as if his fingers were performing the most intricate ballet or were spinning the finest lace.'


Also, adverbs can create subtleties

'"Very true," she spat.'

'"True," she said caustically, rubbing the edge of her wine with her delicate fingertip, prodicing a peircing ring which she herself seemed blissfully unaware of.'


Redundancy is one thing to avoid, but adverbs are a symptom, not a cause. You can type 'I loved him' too many times and it's redundant and takes away from the story.

It also depends on the style of the writer. Duras wouldn't shut up about how pretty she was when she was a kid, but the sex scenes went fast becuase there were almost no adverbs (I think one or two per scene at most.)

And if this is true, you're ruining a lot by wrecking setting and timing.
I have to admit, I have no idea what caustically means, so I have no idea how one says anything that way. It also seems unneccesary.
Caustic is related to acid is it not? I suppose it could be metaphorically caustic.

Popular Member

7,750 Points
  • Popular Thread 100
  • Overstocked 200
  • Tipsy 100
Axioma
I have to admit, I have no idea what caustically means, so I have no idea how one says anything that way. It also seems unneccesary.


Caustic.

Tehcnically, since I gave no context, one might not know that she's being cuastic without being told.

You can shout 'I love you!' angrily and the reader might need the 'angrily in there, depending on how sudden it is.

Also, you never adressed the 'yesterday' or 'here' as adverbs link, or the rest of my lines, or how anything else can also be redundancy.
If the "True" line is the very first one of the story, then I'll grant you have a point. Otherwise, there's a ton of story to tell us how she says "True". Unless She is saying something like that for the first time since the Primordials were usurped by the Unconquered Sun and locked away in Malefas, I'd say the context ought to already supply the information.

As for yesterday and here, I have not seen them ever commit a crime, so I guess they're off the hook for now.

Popular Member

7,750 Points
  • Popular Thread 100
  • Overstocked 200
  • Tipsy 100
This thread is a logial fallacy known as Misleading Vividness, where several infractions outweigh the good of the whole.

Adverbs are victims, not causes.

Why is 'He killed her brutally bad?' because 'brutally' is vague in that instance, just like the noun 'thing' or the verb 'is' tend to be.

Adverbs have been abused, but they're our friends, and you shouldn't abuse friends.
The thing is, "brutally" is vague despite the fact that it is meant to clarify the very thing it glosses over.

Popular Member

7,750 Points
  • Popular Thread 100
  • Overstocked 200
  • Tipsy 100
Axioma
The thing is, "brutally" is vague despite the fact that it is meant to clarify the very thing it glosses over.


Vagueness is bad. Yes. But that's your point, not adverbs, it seems.

I hope that's the real case, otherwise you're using the same argument as 'All people in the middle east are gonna kil us, so we should take them over'
I_Write_Ivre
Axioma
The thing is, "brutally" is vague despite the fact that it is meant to clarify the very thing it glosses over.


Vagueness is bad. Yes. But that's your point, not adverbs, it seems.
Not just my point, also the point of William Strunk Jr., the author of The Elements of Style.
And Stephen King.

Appeal to Authority? At any rate, most adverbs deserve to be slaughtered simply by the One Heavenly Rule of Stylistic Exellency, "Omit Needless Words."

Popular Member

7,750 Points
  • Popular Thread 100
  • Overstocked 200
  • Tipsy 100
Axioma

Appeal to Authority? At any rate, most adverbs deserve to be slaughtered simply by the One Heavenly Rule of Stylistic Exellency, "Omit Needless Words."


But not all adverbs are needless. In fact, they're hardly needless.

'The axe muderer killed her brutally' bad.

'The axe murderer killed her delicately.' Good, but would need explanation afterwards.

'The axe muderer killed he swiftly' shows a lot about the scene. He is quick with an axe, and has had experience using it and has a lot of upper-body strength and was fast. Presumably, he got her by surprise.

'The axe murderer killed her inexpertly' the shows a lot too. He has very little idea what he's doing with eitehr her or the axe and probably has very little upper body strength.'

'The axe murderer killed her gently' Intriguing and definitely adds to the story.

Needless is purely dependant on the style and the story itself. It can't be confined to 'adverb' or 'particle.'

There are many other books to appeal to authority about this 'Between the lines' 'Adios Strunk and white' and '31 mistakes writers make' and whatever the hell this is if you're going to try that route.

Dear gods, where would Anne Rice or Flaubert be without adverbs? Hell, where would SHAKESPEARE be?

Adverbs are nessecary. Text is not a visual art. The author has to make it a visual art by creating a scene in your mind.

Most mannerisms will not work without adverbs.

And as I've said before, don't blame them. You're taking the forest for the tree heere. Adverbs are your friends and they should not be abused.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum