Not that it was without trouble. I found it hard to come up with a good substitute for "only," for example---using "but" made the sentence look pulpy and involved extending the words around it.
Besides, not every adverb ends in "ly"...
For instance, only as in the sense of only child is not an adverb and therefore acceptable.
Ok, I'm going to shut up now.
[This message has been edited by darklight (edited July 08, 2008).]
You might have a character whose speech uses a lot of adverbs, dangles prepositions, uses passive voice, etc. Those patterns are part of the character.
The key is using stronger verbs and never using two words when one will do. I believe the classic example is, instead of "walked slowly", say, "strolled".
When it comes to adjectives and adverbs, rely on the reader's imagination to fill in details. Is an adverb or adjective pertinent? If not, cut it out.
quote:
Is an adverb or adjective pertinent? If not, cut it out.
Exactly. 
Sometimes, but those times are few and far between, a sentece or image is totally changed by the elimination of an adverb. Don't change every adverb, just the ones which can be clearer expressed as a stronger verb.
Chris's example:
quote:
I believe the classic example is, instead of "walked slowly", say, "strolled".
...has antirely different connotation if "walk slowly" is replaced by "crept" or "trudged". Neither image is of rapid movement, but strolled, crept and trudged produce disparate images, which can help foreshadow a scene, event or resonate with a mood.
What you say is also a good demonstration of "show, don't tell"; the choice of "strolled", "crept", or "trudged" not only eliminates the adverb "slowly", it also removes the need to tell the reader that the character is relaxed, cautious, or surly/reluctant.
-G
quote:
Don't change every adverb, just the ones which can be clearer expressed as a stronger verb.
Well said, IB.
This applies to adverbs, adjectives, scenes, characters, descriptions, you name it.
Everything you put in a story should be necessary to make the story work. If the story still works without it, it isn't all that necessary and you should (not may, should) get rid of it (no matter how much you may love it--aka "killing your darlings").
For my last finished thing, I cut every "ly" adverb, along with a lot of rewriting to remove "have / has / had" and "was / were / whatever." Complicated reasons involving what kind of characters I was dealing with...for reasons that seem vague to me now, I wanted to make every verb as immediate as possible...never figured out whether it was the right thing to do or not. (It's up on my website right now, come to think of it.)
RobertB, an adverbial clause is not an adverb. It is a clause that works like an adverb, but it doesn't read like an adverb. Typical fiction writers who advise against adverbs say nothing about adverbial clauses.
He smiled coyly. <- This is an adverb that modifies the verb smiled.
He smiled in that special way he had. <- This is an adverbial clause that modifies the verb smiled.
If you see the adverb above in your narrative you should eliminate it if possible. But if you see the adverbial clause above you should not worry about it.
[This message has been edited by Doc Brown (edited July 09, 2008).]
"So what did he do?" asked Jane quizzically. <- adverb in dialogue tag. Yuck!
"He smiled coyly," said Mary, sighing with the breath of teen love. <- adverb in dialogue is okay.
[This message has been edited by Doc Brown (edited July 09, 2008).]