Via Karen Conlin, a fine defence of using adverbs thoughtfully and appropriately.
Originally shared by Lexicon Valley
Lovingly, Stridently, Unapologetically
Via Karen Conlin, a fine defence of using adverbs thoughtfully and appropriately.
Originally shared by Lexicon Valley
Lovingly, Stridently, Unapologetically
I disagree. I find adverbs the weakest part of speech… especially the “-ly” variety. Since adverbs often indicate writing that can be spruced-up by omitting them. There are two main reasons why.
First off, adverbs often add unnecessary verbiage and are less exact than properly phrased writing that omits adverbs.
For instance, “ran swiftly” is less exact and wordier than “scurried” and “dashed” … or whatever over verb fits your needs best.
Further, adverbs hide or stand-in for descriptions.
For example, take, “Jon assembled widgets rapidly.” The sentence does not show what Jon’s assembling of widgets looks like.
Here is a visceral re-write without adverbs:
… “Jon’s hands became blurs of motion as he snapped the tiny gears into the widget casing.”
Bottom line is that the teachers are right here. Most adverbs need to go.
I disagree. I find adverbs the weakest part of speech… especially the “-ly” variety. Since adverbs often indicate writing that can be spruced-up by omitting them. There are two main reasons why.
First off, adverbs often add unnecessary verbiage and are less exact than properly phrased writing that omits adverbs.
For instance, “ran swiftly” is less exact and wordier than “scurried” and “dashed” … or whatever over verb fits your needs best.
Further, adverbs hide or stand-in for descriptions.
For example, take, “Jon assembled widgets rapidly.” The sentence does not show what Jon’s assembling of widgets looks like.
Here is a visceral re-write without adverbs:
… “Jon’s hands became blurs of motion as he snapped the tiny gears into the widget casing.”
Bottom line is that the teachers are right here. Most adverbs need to go.
You’re saying “often” and “most”, and that’s the point of the article: removing all adjectives is like a fad diet that removes all of one food group. Neither ideal nor sustainable.
You’re saying “often” and “most”, and that’s the point of the article: removing all adjectives is like a fad diet that removes all of one food group. Neither ideal nor sustainable.
Leo Walsh It seems you didn’t read the article. It is by no means advocating weak usages like “ran swiftly.” Instead, it’s pointing out that the true goal isn’t to avoid adverbs, but to avoid weak phrasing. Just as “dashed” is a step above “ran swiftly,” so “dashed listlessly” or “dashed cheerfully” is a step above “dashed.”
Sometimes the contrast between a strong verb and a well-chosen adverb, because of the nuance, saves more words than omitting it.
Leo Walsh It seems you didn’t read the article. It is by no means advocating weak usages like “ran swiftly.” Instead, it’s pointing out that the true goal isn’t to avoid adverbs, but to avoid weak phrasing. Just as “dashed” is a step above “ran swiftly,” so “dashed listlessly” or “dashed cheerfully” is a step above “dashed.”
Sometimes the contrast between a strong verb and a well-chosen adverb, because of the nuance, saves more words than omitting it.
I see a lot of adverb abuse… but this will still be a fun article to share!
I see a lot of adverb abuse… but this will still be a fun article to share!
MJ Bush I did read it. Thought it pointless. It’s title was just trying to generate controversy, IMHO. ANd made sweeping generalizations without textual justification.
The main one, if I trust my memory, being that people write off text ridden with adverbs as feminine. That’s an opinion that was asserted but not supported by any evidence.
Which is why it hit me as a poor article.
Facts are, I agreed with the respected authors quoted in the article who advocate limiting adverb use, from Zisner to Stephen King. I think they are right.
Over-used “-ly” adverbs point to lazy writing. And removing the majority of adverbs improves how writing reads.
What’s more, I INCLUDED text examples to illustrate why I thought the article was off.
Because it’s one thing to say “adverbs need to be limited.” It’s better to illustrate why. And I see
ly adverb over-kill in almost every newer writer that shows up in our writers groups. The more experienced and or published use -ly adverbs sparingly –if at all.The author seemed unsure about their advice.
BTW, I am not against adverbs. Some adverbs are needed — like “almost” and “often.” It’s just that many fiction writers abuse “-ly” ADVERBS. Please note that my post focused on those adverbs.
MJ Bush I did read it. Thought it pointless. It’s title was just trying to generate controversy, IMHO. ANd made sweeping generalizations without textual justification.
The main one, if I trust my memory, being that people write off text ridden with adverbs as feminine. That’s an opinion that was asserted but not supported by any evidence.
Which is why it hit me as a poor article.
Facts are, I agreed with the respected authors quoted in the article who advocate limiting adverb use, from Zisner to Stephen King. I think they are right.
Over-used “-ly” adverbs point to lazy writing. And removing the majority of adverbs improves how writing reads.
What’s more, I INCLUDED text examples to illustrate why I thought the article was off.
Because it’s one thing to say “adverbs need to be limited.” It’s better to illustrate why. And I see
ly adverb over-kill in almost every newer writer that shows up in our writers groups. The more experienced and or published use -ly adverbs sparingly –if at all.The author seemed unsure about their advice.
BTW, I am not against adverbs. Some adverbs are needed — like “almost” and “often.” It’s just that many fiction writers abuse “-ly” ADVERBS. Please note that my post focused on those adverbs.
Leo Walsh Your opinion is noted.
And again, I never advocated not limiting adverbs. Neither does the article, from my standpoint. It simply makes the point that there are ways to use the – ly adverbs to create even stronger sentences. And that is the double-edged point you seem to be missing.
Leo Walsh Your opinion is noted.
And again, I never advocated not limiting adverbs. Neither does the article, from my standpoint. It simply makes the point that there are ways to use the – ly adverbs to create even stronger sentences. And that is the double-edged point you seem to be missing.
MJ Bush Well, given an option between accepting Stephen King & JK Rawlings opinion and a that of random blogger on Slate, I’ll take the best selling author’s opinion.
And when you learn why Rawlings and King think that way (avoid adverbs if possible), you’ll see that their solution leads to more vivid prose.
It’s not the rule that matters. It’s the “why” that matters. And the articles ignores the why to stake a minority position.
All for some silly masculine/ feminine prose distinction that seems questionable at best. And is meaningless conjecture — unless proven by a social psych experiment. Since I can think of various way to test it…
As an FYI, the person in our writing group who has the most problem with adverbs is a real manly-man who’s writing a military spy thriller. Even the female romance writers at their most purple offend less often than he does. So I think that the Slate author’s assertion is a tad off…
MJ Bush Well, given an option between accepting Stephen King & JK Rawlings opinion and a that of random blogger on Slate, I’ll take the best selling author’s opinion.
And when you learn why Rawlings and King think that way (avoid adverbs if possible), you’ll see that their solution leads to more vivid prose.
It’s not the rule that matters. It’s the “why” that matters. And the articles ignores the why to stake a minority position.
All for some silly masculine/ feminine prose distinction that seems questionable at best. And is meaningless conjecture — unless proven by a social psych experiment. Since I can think of various way to test it…
As an FYI, the person in our writing group who has the most problem with adverbs is a real manly-man who’s writing a military spy thriller. Even the female romance writers at their most purple offend less often than he does. So I think that the Slate author’s assertion is a tad off…
Leo Walsh I think I’ve made it clear through context that we’re focusing on different areas, but honestly, the feminine/masculine thing barely registers as part of the substance of the article for me, so I haven’t been defending it. You’re talking to the wrong girl on that point. 🙂
“And when you learn why Rawlings and King think that way (avoid adverbs if possible), you’ll see that their solution leads to more vivid prose.”
What I see is the goal behind the rule that those authors give. (Stronger phrasing.) And I see why they say it the way they do, because it’s easier to speak in generalities, the curse of expertise being what it is. When you’re at their level, you forget that the nuances of such a statement are sometimes lost on others. And even when fully explained, their statements are often taken out of context and used as blanket statements.
I saw this article speaking to those nuances, though it used sensationalism and ironic counter-generalities to do it. I see good specific examples of how to use adverbs well. Which is a rarity. For that alone I would let the rest slide.
Why throw the baby out with the bathwater?
Leo Walsh I think I’ve made it clear through context that we’re focusing on different areas, but honestly, the feminine/masculine thing barely registers as part of the substance of the article for me, so I haven’t been defending it. You’re talking to the wrong girl on that point. 🙂
“And when you learn why Rawlings and King think that way (avoid adverbs if possible), you’ll see that their solution leads to more vivid prose.”
What I see is the goal behind the rule that those authors give. (Stronger phrasing.) And I see why they say it the way they do, because it’s easier to speak in generalities, the curse of expertise being what it is. When you’re at their level, you forget that the nuances of such a statement are sometimes lost on others. And even when fully explained, their statements are often taken out of context and used as blanket statements.
I saw this article speaking to those nuances, though it used sensationalism and ironic counter-generalities to do it. I see good specific examples of how to use adverbs well. Which is a rarity. For that alone I would let the rest slide.
Why throw the baby out with the bathwater?
MJ Bush LOL. Curse of expertise? Doctors are cursed with expertise. As are civil engineers and construction firms who follow through on their plans.
I dare you to drive over an expansion bridge built by people not cursed with expertise.
Just like I dare any aspiring writer to ignore the basic tenets of good writing laid forth by successful authors.
Again, I trust them more than a random Slate blogger. Not because King and Rawling say so and do so in their works. But because I have absorbed the “why.”
That blog post has no why. Just an opinion. Feel free to follow the contrary advice in Slate if you want. I won’t. I’ll stick with the winners.
MJ Bush LOL. Curse of expertise? Doctors are cursed with expertise. As are civil engineers and construction firms who follow through on their plans.
I dare you to drive over an expansion bridge built by people not cursed with expertise.
Just like I dare any aspiring writer to ignore the basic tenets of good writing laid forth by successful authors.
Again, I trust them more than a random Slate blogger. Not because King and Rawling say so and do so in their works. But because I have absorbed the “why.”
That blog post has no why. Just an opinion. Feel free to follow the contrary advice in Slate if you want. I won’t. I’ll stick with the winners.
Leo Walsh You mock because you don’t understand and didn’t bother to look up.
The curse of expertise is a psychological concept specifically referring to the inability to teach beginners well because of a lack of understanding a beginner’s mindset and perspective, and where they will fail to follow your train of thought. It refers to all the nuances that an expert takes for granted and forgets to fill in for the beginner. (And I already accounted for their actually teaching well but statements being taken out of context.)
And again, I’m not saying that anyone should follow “Yay Adverbs!” to its fullest extent. You demean the discussion by bringing it back to a black-and-white mentality. Is there not value in exploring the “why” through the nuances of how to break the rule?
And for the record, I agree with the rule. I simply agree with knowing when and how to break rules, as well. I want to know why and why again. I don’t and won’t stick doggedly to a rule whose goal is deeper and more nuanced than the rule itself. You’ll find that in the mindset of the experts, too.
Leo Walsh You mock because you don’t understand and didn’t bother to look up.
The curse of expertise is a psychological concept specifically referring to the inability to teach beginners well because of a lack of understanding a beginner’s mindset and perspective, and where they will fail to follow your train of thought. It refers to all the nuances that an expert takes for granted and forgets to fill in for the beginner. (And I already accounted for their actually teaching well but statements being taken out of context.)
And again, I’m not saying that anyone should follow “Yay Adverbs!” to its fullest extent. You demean the discussion by bringing it back to a black-and-white mentality. Is there not value in exploring the “why” through the nuances of how to break the rule?
And for the record, I agree with the rule. I simply agree with knowing when and how to break rules, as well. I want to know why and why again. I don’t and won’t stick doggedly to a rule whose goal is deeper and more nuanced than the rule itself. You’ll find that in the mindset of the experts, too.
MJ Bush I understand the concept quite well. The Stanley Milgram experiment, Stanford Prison experiment, etc. The fact that people accept the trappings of authority rather than use their own logic, knowledge and moral compass.
That does not apply here. Because my initial post illustrated WHY adverbs tend to make for bad writing.
If the “appeal to authority” does apply, it’s the assumption that a person published on Slate, which is overall a decent blog, has the same weight as King and Rawlings.
Not so much. Any semi-competent editor would laugh at that assertion.
The article posted is just flat-out silly. Maybe not wrong, but silly.
I get the feeling that it’s attempt to create controversy, since in the blogosphere, controversy drives hits, and hits drive revenue. Whether or not the information provided is accurate or useful.
Which is the core weakness of the blogosphere.
MJ Bush I understand the concept quite well. The Stanley Milgram experiment, Stanford Prison experiment, etc. The fact that people accept the trappings of authority rather than use their own logic, knowledge and moral compass.
That does not apply here. Because my initial post illustrated WHY adverbs tend to make for bad writing.
If the “appeal to authority” does apply, it’s the assumption that a person published on Slate, which is overall a decent blog, has the same weight as King and Rawlings.
Not so much. Any semi-competent editor would laugh at that assertion.
The article posted is just flat-out silly. Maybe not wrong, but silly.
I get the feeling that it’s attempt to create controversy, since in the blogosphere, controversy drives hits, and hits drive revenue. Whether or not the information provided is accurate or useful.
Which is the core weakness of the blogosphere.
No, it has nothing to do with authority. Wrong concept. Sorry. 
No, it has nothing to do with authority. Wrong concept. Sorry. 
MJ Bush You’re the one who accused me of not understanding a psych 101 concept. I was just responding to your accusations. Sorry if you took offense.
I meant nothing personal against you. Just exchanging ideas.
MJ Bush You’re the one who accused me of not understanding a psych 101 concept. I was just responding to your accusations. Sorry if you took offense.
I meant nothing personal against you. Just exchanging ideas.
Leo Walsh​ The curse of expertise has nothing to do with authority. You’re confusing the two concepts. So my only response is that the basis of your comment is wrong. :)
Leo Walsh​ The curse of expertise has nothing to do with authority. You’re confusing the two concepts. So my only response is that the basis of your comment is wrong. :)
It’s also known as the curse of knowledge, if that helps.
It’s also known as the curse of knowledge, if that helps.
MJ Bush Again, doctors, pilots, etc are cursed with knowledge. Does that reflect a lack?
I maintain, and always will maintain that knowledge coupled with clear, hard-thinking is the only way to to anything well. And that knowledge and education is the key to success in everything.
Please note that based on a lot of cognitive science research, it isn’t knowledge that limits creativity. If anything, the most creative are the most knowledgeable.
Though not all knowledgeable people are creative.
Instead of the curse of knowledge, you are looking at the curse of not having imagination and/ or creativity. Which can be measured using several psychological tests, and is distinct from expertise.
MJ Bush Again, doctors, pilots, etc are cursed with knowledge. Does that reflect a lack?
I maintain, and always will maintain that knowledge coupled with clear, hard-thinking is the only way to to anything well. And that knowledge and education is the key to success in everything.
Please note that based on a lot of cognitive science research, it isn’t knowledge that limits creativity. If anything, the most creative are the most knowledgeable.
Though not all knowledgeable people are creative.
Instead of the curse of knowledge, you are looking at the curse of not having imagination and/ or creativity. Which can be measured using several psychological tests, and is distinct from expertise.
Leo Walsh​ I explained what it was. You aren’t speaking to the same concept at all.
Perhaps I’m being too earnest and you’re trolling me. I don’t know.
But the curse of knowledge, the curse of expertise, is the inability to set aside the knowledge you have, to see how others might misinterpret what you’re saying when you teach.
If you infer anything other than that—say, the appeal to authority, or knowledge limiting creativity—you’re not following what I said. The curse is to already see all the nuance and the why, and forget that others don’t see it and need it explained to them. Explicitly.
The point is that things are more nuanced than a simple rule. And a silly, ironic piece like this can be used to open eyes to the idea that the rule isn’t absolute, that the why behind the rule is more important than the rule itself.
You don’t like the way it was presented. I understand that. :)
Leo Walsh​ I explained what it was. You aren’t speaking to the same concept at all.
Perhaps I’m being too earnest and you’re trolling me. I don’t know.
But the curse of knowledge, the curse of expertise, is the inability to set aside the knowledge you have, to see how others might misinterpret what you’re saying when you teach.
If you infer anything other than that—say, the appeal to authority, or knowledge limiting creativity—you’re not following what I said. The curse is to already see all the nuance and the why, and forget that others don’t see it and need it explained to them. Explicitly.
The point is that things are more nuanced than a simple rule. And a silly, ironic piece like this can be used to open eyes to the idea that the rule isn’t absolute, that the why behind the rule is more important than the rule itself.
You don’t like the way it was presented. I understand that. :)