posted
The Adverb . . . invariably the bane of the editor and the consternation of the novelist. Yes, it modifies the illustrious Verb, it describes an action or an adjective. It is said that adverb use is anathema to good writing.
I nearly fell for that one. I didn't, in fact, fall for it, but I nearly did. Notice the adverbial usage? It changed the meaning of the sentence, and it was somewhat essential. I guess I could say that I 'almost fell for that one'. Does one or the other sound better? Everyone who advises against the use of adverbs, admits to falling prey to them.
Sure, if it induces redundancy, an adverb isn't good, as in --"Hey, you #$%##%, get away from my car," Jack said angrily.-- I know that it is a little bit of an exaggeration, but you get the picture. Originally, formerly, strongly, truly, probably, the list goes on, but I seem to find some of these words invariably essential and without good replacement.
Now I won't say that I don't usually tend to stay away from using a predominantly large portion of adverbs. It's an addiction all of us will eventually try to break away from. Is it just me, or will there always be eternally valid reasons for adverbs? My theory is use them, but don't abuse them.
posted
I don't condone abstinance, because sooner or later you'll be out behind the 7-11 trying to score some adverbs from an out of work librarian, not pretty.
Adverbs have their place, otherwise why would we have them. I agree with you on this point: Moderation in all things, especially adverbs.
posted
An adverb is one of many tools that we have at our disposal. There's no such thing as a good tool or a bad tool, only tools used well or poorly. It's not the adverb that's bad, it's the misuse of it, just like any other tool.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Dec 2003
|
posted
The admonition against using adverbs is as misleading as the admonition against telling rather than showing. In THE RHETORIC OF FICTION, W.C. Booth demonstrates that exposition can "show" just as much as it "tells." If anyone thinks that exposition does not show, just read the Bible.
Adverbs and exposition both have their places in writing. Just don't split those infinitives. "To boldly go where no man has gone before."
posted
Writing demands a certain discernment. Adverbs are as legitimate a tool to writers as nails are to carpenters. However, using adverbs (and adjectives) without discretion results in the dreaded purple prose, reminiscent of a child hammering nails into every surface he can find.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jun 2002
|
Gah. The split infinitive is a part of modern English.
I will split any infinitive I want, as long as there is a reason for it; perhaps to improve the structure of a long sentence that would otherwise be difficult to understand, or simply because (as in the 'to boldly go' example) the sentence has a better rhythm that way around.
posted
I was thinking about this while writing last night. A perfectly good place for an adverb is after "said." Any time a character's attitude isn't completely obvious by their speech, it's a good time to use an adverb, unless a replacement for 'said' happens to work (asked, snarled, snapped, etc), though a writer can easily overuse these, as if he is afraid of the simple (and usually sufficient) "said."
Posts: 292 | Registered: Feb 2004
|
posted
Turn that around, and only replace 'said' with a color word when you would otherwise be forced to employ an adverb.
Posts: 8322 | Registered: Aug 1999
|
quote:Turn that around, and only replace 'said' with a color word when you would otherwise be forced to employ an adverb.
Interesting point. I read somewhere (don't remember exactly where) you shouldn't use verbs to indicate dialog, when the word doesn't, by itself, mean speech. For example: "Why not?" he snapped. or "Get away from there," she growled.
I don't agree with this, though, if the word is used tastefully. Words are just about communicating ideas, right? So even if XXXX isn't really growling, or coughing out, or whatever, we can say he did and the reader gets the point. But I'm sure we've all also seen some far-stretched ideas that maybe should have been rephrased (and I just racked my brain, but really can't come up with a concrete example. Do you still get what I mean?). What do you guys think?
posted
Only saw 'growled' if the speaker is literally growling--making a low, threatening noise in the back of the throat. Same for snapping, meaning to close lips or jaws with a sharp, quick motion.
Don't use words with literal meanings just for flavor. If she was saying things that were snappish, but was not actually snapping when she said them, then don't say she was. Say she was snappish, or took a snappish tone. Actually, that makes for an interesting contrast you can explore, "her languid voice contrasted eerily with her snappish posture and demeaning words."
Anyway, the same applies for all words used in place of 'said' that have literal meanings. Use them only where the speaker is literally performing that action. Cough, snap, growl, yell, hiss, even belch these words all describe things that people can literally do when they vocalize. Use them literally, and only thus, and your prose will not be purple, though your characters may be.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
.
