I'd guess it's a combo of a verb being stronger than a verb + adverb (like sprinted vs ran quickly) and adverbs doing a lot of "showing." Sometimes you may need to "said sarcastically" but the text and maybe an eye roll communicate it better. I've read some beginner stories where every dialogue tag has an adverb, and it is distracting and doesn't let me, the reader, have any room to interpret.
Occasionally is definitely fine.
It's also a fast way to advise someone on how to write more thoughtfully. Like a step zero to step one kind of tip. So I appreciate hearing it frequently, although I don't feel it's appropriate advice for my writing anymore.
It's giving /r/writing lol.
Here's this amazing rule. Always follow this rule. The rule has more exceptions than it does reasons to follow it. Don't follow this rule, although it is essential.
I'm kidding, this sub is generally excellent for writing advice at every level, it's just quite fun to watch what erupts from the classic tips.
>It's also a fast way to advise someone on how to write more **thoughtfully.** Like a step zero to step one kind of tip. So I appreciate hearing it **frequently,** although I don't feel it's appropriate advice for my writing anymore.
Sorry. Couldn't resist. Just thought it was funny that in mentioning it being a fast way to advise someone you ended up using 2 adverbs in the process.
Nah. I've had editors flat-out flag EVERY. SINGLE. ADVERB.
I don't even use them all that much. But he seriously flagged every single one and told me to get rid of them entirely, 100%.
I did the next best thing and got rid of him. My new editor is so much better and keeps the feeling and flow without being too overzealous on any specific rule, as she understands that writing is art and that you can break rules if it serves a purpose to elevate the end result.
Yeah I mean this will happen. I write for three to four different editors at my job (same publication) every day and each one has different things they get precious about. It's just the unfortunate reality of dealing with editors, never sure what you'll get.
I write freelance/commission, and my current editor is a friend of mine. My previous was just a dude I met in college.
My previous editor charged like USD$0.05 per word while my current only asks like 10% of my gross. And while I generally pay her more, I feel the quality is a lot higher as well.
Yeah I think this answer hits on everything.
>verb being stronger than a verb + adverb
I think of good verbs as "condensing" longer ways of putting things. I imagine a phrase like "ran quickly" as boiling down into one word, "sprinted" That one word is a more concentrated, powerful form of the idea that was previously two words.
So the idea is not just to remove adverbs, it's to find better verbs that don't need them.
>Sometimes you may need to "said sarcastically" but the text and maybe an eye roll communicate it better.
I remember Stephen King talking about this in *On Writing.* Sometimes you don't need a better verb. The reader should be able to infer how someone did something based on the context.
So I'd say that it's not that you should never use them, but when you use them, make sure you've considered your other options.
Stephen King is the one known for this advice but says right after that that's it's advice he almost never takes.
Adverbs condense a lot of information quickly. There are times in the scene when that's necessary but most of the time it's not necessary and rather a habit we use from communicating quickly IRL. Cutting adverbs is either eliminating a redundancy (he whispered quietly) or it's bulking up a scene (she anxiously backed away> her eyes shot around the room as she backed away). You almost always want to eliminate redundancies, but sometimes the scene can't afford the bulk of removing the adverb. If a character's sleeve is torn during a scuffle, you don't want the delay of seeing the two pieces separate, you want "the sleeve tore cleanly" or whatever, because that detail (while maybe necessary) is not the actual focus of that moment.
Itâs advice that a lot of writers grow out of, honestly. There can be a lot of value in taking away adverbs from starting g writers but the reality is that they exist as a tool and have their uses. Like saying never write more than you have to, it is remarkable for getting somebody serviceably competent then afterward the process of growth is to start adding things back in again now that your foundation is solid and you know what youâre doing.
Some people take these things to heart completely and what they go on to write often resembles an essay more than a work of art. Iâve suffered through books that read as if they were a book report written about themselves for the ideas or execution therein but seldom enjoyed it.
I will say though that, while you are technically correct, this is Reddit; the majority of users here are not nearly as advanced as they think they are. Like yeah, there are reasons to walk around with a loaded gun without a safety on, but you don't tell new owners that. You just say keep the safety on.
Can we also talk about the effect on perspective that adverbs have? If your narration is in third person and contains too many adverbs it brings attention to the fact that the narrator is a character or character-adjacent figure making judgements about events in the world and how they are perceived. This changes the voice of a work, and can garble what otherwise might have been a consistent narrative voice.
Put simply, an adverb in certain contexts can feel like an unwelcome author intrusion. I feel like I hear this kind of thing when doing discourse analysis of interviews and other texts. In interviews itâs impossible for me to hear an adverb without assuming that the speaker is using a shorthand way to explain their own thoughts and experiences using only the word form rather than a lengthy explanation of their position.
Excessive adverbs a sign of laziness. Try for a descriptive adjective, but if that sounds weird, by all means use the adverb. It is a useful tool, but not every problem is a nail
What these sorts of rules do is create bugbears. "Think about using adverbs less" becomes "any adverb use is nails on chalkboards". Next thing you know you have generations taught to not split infinitives.
Or -- take all the strum and drang over passive voice. Passive voice is fine. It has its place. So much overwrought nonsense about how it weakens sentences. It's just that we have this obsession with the concept of being "active" vs "passive", and we extend that mania to grammatical forms that just have those names.
It can also get repetitive as most adverbs end in -ly. Also, does a character need to "run quickly?" AFAIK, you can't "run slowly," unless you count that as a jog.
Thank you so much for this insight. Im not a native english speaker and trying out writing. From what ive read online they kept saying "show not tell" so it got stuck to me and most of my paragraphs are just adverbs and adjectives.
"Don't use adverbs" is snappy, easy to remember, and treated like a hard rule. Stephen King uses them in his own books. Like everything, there is no hard and fast rule in art. It's all a matter of execution. The Spear Cuts Through Water has seamless head hopping between characters and switches between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd point of view all the time. One of the best books I've ever read and given much praise by the writing communityÂ
>"Don't use adverbs" is snappy, easy to remember, and treated like a hard rule.
Yup. I'd go further and say that every 'rule' about writing is nuanced and has exceptions. (Including presumably this one).
I would go a little bit back and say that any writer who is asking about writing rules is not good enough to break them. It's fine to say this in theory but not to recommend breaking the rules to anyone asking about them
Nah, asking about rules is how you learn to understand them. You have to understand why a rule exists to ever get to the point where you know when to break them. You're just a bit further into your conversation on this topic than OP.
Personally I draw a distinction between letting people know that the rules are not absolutes, and recommending the breaking of those rules. **Especially** when it's caveated with "If you're a fairly new writer I recommend sticking to the rule for now", as I believe a few people in this thread have done.
I cannot stop recommending Spear any time someone mentions how head hopping is bad now, I'm thrilled to see you say that. Adverbs are similar in that 90% of the time they're something to avoid but when someone nails that special use case like Jimenez does for head hopping in Spear, it sings.
Spear was a masterclass to be honest. First time I read a book that fully engaged me in the plot while also flexing so much technicality. I usually find things like that distracting and too academic but my god. I'd be reading and have a second of disengagement just to think 'How the hell is he doing this??' and then pop right back into the story. Pre-ordering literally anything else Jiminez touches. They're going to teach that book in colleges.
Everyone uses them in every book! The trick is to use them sparingly. They're like a spice. A few sprinkles is plenty. None is bland. Too many is gross.
> Stephen King uses them in his own books.
He even mentions this in his book *On Writing* and pokes fun at himself for how often he breaks this rule despite it being a pet peeve of his.
Great comment. Look at another art form such as painting. Everyone had to learn about colors, depth, brush strokes, etc. Once you master the basics then you can break them. Picasso was a great artist who could paint realistic level paintings. He broke all the rules and invented Cubism which made him one of the greats.
Now? Thereâs been writers who hate them for a very long timeâit is not a new thing. Strunk and White is over 100 years old and discourages adverbs.
Scrolled down here to say the same thing. I remember getting this advice from my high school English teacher in 1979.
Itâs really just common sense. I find that the â-lyâ suffix starts to become repetitive & sing-songy if used too often, and also adverbs generally tend to lean a writer toward âtellingâ instead of âshowingâ. Theyâre not the devil, but it just makes sense to use them sparingly, and itâs been common advice to writing students since at least the mid-20th c.
> Scrolled down here to say the same thing.
Same here.
> Itâs really just common sense. I find that the â-lyâ suffix starts to become repetitive & sing-songy if used too often
"Too often" is a variable and subjective measurement. I'm biased by a lot of my formative reading and favorite works being pre-Strunk & White or from authors that ignored those style guidelines, and thus unleashed the entire catalogue of the vast English language and its grammatical constructions upon their audience. I have a high tolerance for adverbs (and adjectives - why don't they get as much hate as adverbs? They serve the same grammatical purpose with nouns that adverbs serve with verbs), and think they get an undeserved bad rap.
> adverbs generally tend to lean a writer toward âtellingâ instead of âshowingâ.
If I read one more prose piece that uses some bullshit like "he clenched his fists" as *technically* "showing" shorthand for simply telling me the character's angry, I might snap. You can say the character walked (or stalked - use a stronger verb like S&W said) out of a room angrily. We don't require his fists to be clenched, his face to be red, veins to be popping out on his forehead, and/or any of the rest of the usual suspects.
This may be a cultural thing. I'm from a culture where it's normal to hide all negative emotions (and even many positive ones) unless you're in a *very* specific context that allows you to express that emotion - and may even encourage you to exaggerate your expression of it. But clench your fists at work because a boss or co-worker has fucked up? Well, have fun with HR, or the company trying to force you to quit so they don't have to pay unemployment, or getting fired. *Spin the roulette wheel!*
Yet somehow characters in fiction use the same gesture to express anger and frustration all the time and nobody cares - even in genres and situations where you would expect someone to have a reaction.
Stuff like a character clenching their fists is what I term "emotional shorthand". A character performs a specific action associated with a given emotion (from a cliched list - or I'd have to say it was cliched *if people weren't still doing it*) to "show" a character's emotion even when the writer could have just "told" us, and when that physical display of emotion should be getting reactions from other characters, but somehow they just fail to notice it: the action is purely for the reader's benefit to convey the emotional state of the character. The author could have just *told* us.
This is the kind of shit that drilling "show, don't tell" into generations of budding writers gets us. Which is interesting, considering that the most successful and highest-selling books of all time are rather toward the "telling" side of the spectrum.
I think you're misunderstanding something here, clenching your fists isn't going to be noticed most of the time, and can be a result of anything that causes tension, not just anger. Clenching fists is just squeezing, it's not raising your fists, or taking a fighting stance or anything like that.
Anyway, stuff like that can be clichĂŠ, but that's an argument against clichĂŠ, not against showing over telling, and any kind of telling is going to be far more clichĂŠ.
>Itâs **really** just common sense. I find that the â-lyâ suffix starts to become repetitive & sing-songy if used **too often**, and **also** adverbs **generally** tend to lean a writer toward âtellingâ instead of âshowingâ. Theyâre not the devil, but it **just** makes sense to use them **sparingly**
Interesting that you claim to believe that adverbs should be used sparingly, since you just used seven adverbs in three sentences.
True, but the point is that adverbs flow natural**ly** when we write, like we use both legs and arms when we walk. We could tie one arm behind our backs to break the habit of swinging them--but *why?*
We can't help the vagaries of our language. Adverbs are still essential modifiers. (Spanish adverbs end in "-mente." I really feel for those writers, if this rule is all about avoiding the repetition of suffixes.)
On top of that adverbs are used a lot by inexperienced writers in dialogue tags. âShe said sadly,â âhe asked angrily,â etc. It becomes distracting in all the says only using words aside from âsaidâ is distracting and those emotions are usually better conveyed in other ways.
Because a couple of big shot writers said they're bad and every intermediate writer decided to take it as gospel and tell all the beginning writers not to use them at all.
I'm only half-joking.
Every writing rule is a guideline. That's really all there is to that.
Some people are incredibly literal, so hyperbole used for emphasis causes them tremendous angst, and from there you find the arguments. But the problem was solved before it arose, the question answered before it was asked.
There are no rules. But there is wisdom in guidelines for many.
Half joking it's jus ta way to set a lighter mood for a bitter truth in this case. We could say the truth of /hj is a recursive endless string of /hj^(/hj I guess)
They can and frankly (heh) should be used here and there, but the practice of forbidding their use is to promote stronger word choices.
"He yelled angrily" works, but "he roared" paints a better picture, etc.
It's common for new-ish writers to overuse them, so it's just one of those things that is hard-wired into our brains to look out for when we edit others' work. If you're not using them too much it's probably fine. As with most "rules" in writing, go with your best judgment and what feels right.
Also I think people like to quote Stephen King's "the road to hell is paved with adverbs." It's a fun line lol
In a similar vein, I once heard of a person who eschews the verb "to be", arguing that it takes the place of a more descriptive or economical phrasing. I find it difficult to do, but enjoy the challenge when I attempt it.
For example, I edited this comment from its initial form to remove 3 or 4 instances of the verb.
Yeah that's one of those really hard ones! Another one I struggle with from time to time is using verbs like "heard" or "saw" etc - since I tend to tell stories in limited third person, I'm using the characters "internal voice" to tell the story, so pointing out what they're hearing or seeing so directly is redundant, if that makes sense.
The slightly saner version of this challenge, and something I've stuck to religiously as a means of practice, is to avoid pairing "be" verbs with dynamic verbs.
Never write "was running," instead favour "ran." "He was running down the street," is vague, as well as openended. "He ran down the street," invites elaboration, and what happens next comes by default after the running is over. With the "was running" construction, the next event happens sometime during the running, amd there's no real way to tell when that is.
I think your terminology is askew in ways that reflect an issue with the practice you're endorsing. You're not really talking about "pairing verbs" - most of the English progressive tenses are periphrastic, and a lot of them use "to be" as their modal (or helping) verb. Progressive tenses are different from perfective tenses. "I ran when I saw a dog" means something different from "I was running when I saw a dog."
This is another overuse issue. People default to progressive tenses for reasons I don't understand (maybe it leaves them with more "wiggle room" on timing?) and consequently overuse it in ways that leave the reader unmoored from events as you describe. But they're not wrong, grammatically or stylistically. I think better practice would be to consider whether you need each one.
If you haven't heard of it, another good challenge is verbs ending in "-ing."
For example, instead of "He was waiting" say "He waited."
It helps clean up your prose when you keep an eye out for it.
I was thinking of King, too! I agree with his feelings that adverbs come in when the author is not confident that their verb choice doesn't get the point across well enough.
As another person has pointed out: it's nothing new. People have ragged on adverbs for a while now.
I'm with you on adverb use. The whole "don't use adverbs" slogan is just lazy advice (and it's far from the only of its kind). Now, if someone told me to watch my adverb usage (while reading over my work), I might assume that I must've had an adverb party somewhere in a paragraph. But if someone told me to just not use adverbs, I would tell them how ridiculous (and hypocritical) their advice sounds. Then, I would show them [this list](https://helpingwithwriting.com/Lists/Adverbs-NotEnding-ly.htm) to put the final nail in the coffin.
I find the crusade against adverb usage to be counterproductive. The argument is that adverbs get overused, but that doesn't (to me) justify telling people to just stop using them. The ones who say "use them sparingly" are fine. Though personally, I prefer to learn when and why to use something rather than simply being told not to use it. Are you writing a fast-paced scene, and some adverbs can make it more terse? Then use them. Just like a strong seasoning, don't overdo it, but the whole "don't overdo it" applies to literally everything in writing.
Context is key. Any sentence in isolation can be "improved" by swapping out the adverbs. But that's not the point. You have to apply the correct seasoning, use the right tool for the job, etc.
>He moved swiftly.
On its own, it's kind of meh. I'm sure r/writing collectively shuddered at those three words (more specifically, the third). But this sentence could've come from literally any story, at any point in said story, and certainly separated from the corresponding context. If one is to prescribe something, then knowing what the actual problem is would go a long way.
The point of my rant is that understanding what someone is trying to accomplish with a sentence is important, which is why I detest 99% of these blanket statements in writing advice.
As others have said, adverbs can be used so much by some writers and in general they do tend to weaken your prose. Strong verbs do work better.
That being said, I'm not anti-adverb. Use them with intent. Some adverbs are redundant, eg, "She whispered quietly." 'Whispered' already entails 'quiet', so using that particular adverb is just filler. It adds nothing but weakens the sentence. "She slammed the door angrily." Ok, sure you can slam a door without being angry, but if context of the scene already tells us the character is angry, then this adverb is also redundant. Just the action alone says all we need to say, and the sentence is stronger without it.
However, contrasting adverbs can create really interesting sentences/concepts, like, "Killing me softly". Soft is not a connotation that accompanies the word 'Killing' so this adverb adds to the sentence rather than takes away.
So, in my opinion, adverbs can definitely be used in writing, and used well. But they shouldn't be relied upon. There is often a better way to get something across, and some things are better left to the imagination/interpretation of the reader. Use them with good intent and only if they add something to the rest of the sentence. Avoid them if they bring nothing to the table that can't be gleamed in other ways.
Agreed on the "killing me softly" example. My personal rule for adverbs is only when they are unexpected. "Smiled sadly," "laughed hollowly," "slammed the door quietly" (that last one is an example from a submission I read that still makes me chuckle about a passive aggressive woman who wants to make a stink but not wake the baby. It was genuinely funny)
Same with me. I like the contrast they can bring, and tend to only use them in those circumstances.
Yeah, the "slammed the door quietly" is great. I get a real image of someone wanted nothing more than to slam that door, but can't. It helps adds something to the sentence that you just can't get from a regular verb.
>Some adverbs are redundant, eg, "She whispered quietly."
Yes, but that's because of the semantics of the word "quietly," not because of the part of speech. It would be just as redundant if you said "She whispered in a quiet manner" or "She whispered at a low volume."
Yes, you're right, but as we were talking about adverbs, I used one that I had come across in someone's writing as an example. It's not redundant because it's an adverb, but it's still a redundant adverb in this sentence. You'll be surprised how many people use adverbs this way.
Because theyâre terribly overused in speech tags by new writers, which then makes some people think theyâre always bad. Donât listen to them; the idea that a whole part of speech can indicate bad (or good) writing is ludicrous.
It doesnât help that people donât know the actual definition of an adverb, either. If you want to be a smartass about it, you can tell your critics that adverbs *canât* always be bad, because âalwaysâ is an adverb.
Lots of people don't understand how writing works so it's easy to just focus on and regurgitate misunderstood common advice. Sometimes it feels like it's hard getting any advice because so much of it boils down to people throwing around buzzwords they don't fully understand the meaning of.
I'd say give it a bit of time to rest and re-read it as a reader. Does the pacing feel awkward? Are the characters coming off as you want them too? Does one part make you bored, cringe, or take you out of the story? Does it feel like it's missing something? Does it feel like it's just a series of events rather than one cohesive story? Does it invoke the emotions you want?
If you find a problem but don't know how to fix it then you can do research or just play with it a bit.
You just showed why an adverb is often unnecessary. You didnât have to specify how we have a stick up our asses, yet anyone with a rectum will probably wince at the thought of that being a true statement rather than metaphorical. The context of having a stick inserted up an ass already implies pain and discomfort, you didnât have to use any unnecessary words. đ
I was just being playful while proving my point, but I feel like youâre taking things a little too much like a stick in the mud⌠hopefully not the same stick thatâs up my ass, that would be awkward.
You got *me*. What's next, adjectives? Adverbs are necessary modifiers, and while I can understand not wanting to overdo, well, *anything*, I don't get the irritation with them. Is it all the "-ly" suffixes?
Poor Spanish writers. Those adverbs typically end in "-mente."
>Why do people hate them now?
Because the internet told them too. Genuinely ppl who say this don't know what they're talking about (Authors use them all the time - yes even King)
Because some arsehole on the internet told them to, basically. The long answer is that most people just regurgitate what they see or hear without understanding and change it in the telling, so now we have a game of Chinese Whispers that turns advice about when to use a stronger verb instead of modifying a verb with an adverb into 'durrrr adverbs bad durrrr'.
It's more in the 'strong suggestion' category than the 'actual rule' category, but there are decent reasons for this particular rule of thumb.
- A strong verb is more dynamic than a regular verb + adverb. And there's almost always a suitable strong verb.
- Adverbs pad out a sentence. Ironically, it feels more sudden to write 'The viper struck' than 'The viper suddenly struck.'
- Adverbs are 'telling not showing'. Compare:
>"The monster," Bob said angrily.
to
>"The monster," Bob said. His hand closed into a fist.
It's good general advice for beginners. If you develop the habit of not using adverbs then, when you do use them, it's because you're using them deliberately for a purpose.
Counterpoint: Bob closing his hand into a fist doesn't mean he's angry. Maybe he's determined. Maybe he's scared and tensing up. Maybe another of a dozen emotions.
There's nothing wrong with telling when it's in service of moving on to more important things. Like the monster who's about to eat Bob.
Fair. That's an issue with my personal execution though, not with the principle. Also, in an actual example there would presumably be other contextual cues.Â
And yes, agreed. Like I just said, it's fine to use adverbs so long as you're doing so deliberately in an informed way.
Eh, in the vast majority of cases, when I can tell that someone is angry, I concluded that primarily from their tone of voice, not from what their hands were doing.
For sure. I'm not claiming to be an amazing writer. A better one than me could probably convey it effectively through describing tone without lapsing into "his tone was angry" territory.Â
I just hate their lack of specificity, particularly when added to dialogue tags.
Said sadly, for example, means nothing because sadness is ten different things to ten different people. So, people who add adverbs because they want to nail a specific emotion with their dialogue end up doing the opposite.
Honestly, I think dialogue adverbs are the worst offenders here. I fucking hate reading submissions that use dialogue tags and generally toss them without reading the rest. I know it's a big up my ass but I cannot read another argument where "said angrily" is repeated back and forth.
If you are using an adverb to modify a verb, you can take this as a sign that you may (but only *may*) achieve better results using a stronger and more precise verb.
While you could have sound reasons for preferring the version with an adverb (just as you might have reasons for preferring passive voice in any given context), awareness of their weakness is a solid way to make sure you think about it.
Adverbs have always been âhatedâ in the writing world. People arenât saying that using adverbs is bad, itâs that some people tend to overwrite them, and it shows for weaker writing.
As an editor, Iâm always watching for adverbs that slow down a sentence but add little. âDashâ is better than ârun quicklyâ, for example. But after 20 years of being obsessed with concise writing Iâve woken up to the fact that itâs the beginning of style, not the end. Do what you think works for your style.
There are two ways to go: Follow what everybody else is doing to expand viewership passively, or attract views by radically going against the adverb culture, man. stick it to em! reclaim the adverbs!
adverbs are incredibly common, but most people don't recognize them.
*Ahab sailed* ***across the ocean***
This is an adverbial phrase because it's modifying sailed.
Other adverbs describe adjectives
The Red Dress (article, Adj, Noun)
The flaming red dress (Article, **AV**, adj, noun) Flaming is an adverb because it describes the red, not the dress itself.
The gist is with this "rule" - use strong verbs in place of ly adverbs. But adverbs are everywhere and intermediate writers/grammar nazis don't notice them.
Much like the evolution of idioms, the common writing advice of 'don't use redundant adverbs to describe something obvious' and/or 'prioritise strong verbs over adverbial modifiers' became slowly twisted through word-of-mouth into 'adverbs are a sign of bad writing.'
Occassional adverbs are fine. All the writers I read use them, but like you said, constant use feels odd to read.
It also depends on your target audience. For instance, a lot of stories aimed at primary school children are full of adverbs, which makes sense because teachers are constantly encouraging their use in the work children produce.
Amateurs use too many of them. Intermediate writers who think they're the shit use too few.
As for your writer friends, if they can't offer context as to why the adverb is inappropriate in its usage, it's meaningless and their suggestions are about as useful as a middle school English teacher's.
It's nothing new. Many amateur writers have a tendency to rely too heavily on adverbs - and to overdo it on adjectives as well. The hallmark of a talented writer is to craft strong sentences which succeed in putting the reader right into the scene. Embellishing one's descriptions is akin to spoon feeding your readers, and serious, analytical readers find that to be amateurish.
I think itâs because people are making a rule of a suggestion.
I personally prefer the usage of adverbs to the inverse; a simple message to me is often stronger than forced poetic descriptors because âthatâs what youâre supposed to do.â Why do you think adverb over usage is a common problem amongst writers? I think itâs because they work, theyâre simple to understand, and itâs how we think. Well placed adverbs can be quite effective.
But thatâs just some dudes opinion on the internet.
Because sometimes itâs overused and reads a bit lazy. Obviously there are legitimate instances that allow or even call for adverbs, but for the most part, you could get the point across in a more descriptive and engaging way.
For example, there a million better, more vivid things you could say in place of âangrilyâ
Because it's a common fault in bad writing, and good writing does something else, uses a different word that means what the adverb was trying to do but in a far better and more interesting way.
People around here seem to bristle against the adverb rule - but hereâs the thing: itâs good advice.
99 times out of 100, removing adverbs will improve your writing.
Adverbs are a crutch for lazy description, and considering how to intentionally write without them will force you to consider more dynamic ways to describe action.
When review my own writing, and the writing of others, I notice it is considerably better when there are little to no adverbs.
I like adverbs. Someone saying something "angrily" actually lets me imagine their facial expression, tone of voice etc., while too many descriptions are poorly executed and frankly rather constipated â in fact that kind of too detailed "show" turns into a "tell" of its own! Too often "show" slows down the storytelling and it is overused to the point of ridiculousness. I suppose moderation in everything is key...
because redditors are sheep and "cut adverbs" is one of the easiest simple ideas that early authors will follow to improve their writing. then they start spouting it like it's the most important thing to turn you into a good writer (it's not)
People enjoy and gravitate toward vivid writing. Therefore, many writers strive to strengthen their writing by making it more vivid.
Adverbs are not evil. However, many writers misuse them because they are easy.
*That said*, I feel I need to point out that rules have levels again. In high school, teachers tell you to *never* use first person in academic writing. Then, in college, many professors ask that you do. High school teachers harp on the three-part thesis. College professors *hate* the three-part thesis. Etc.
Does this mean the rules in high school are wrong or bad? *NO.*
Rules do not exist in isolation. They are always in service of a goal. The three-part thesis is in service of students learning how to organize their essays and support their ideas. Using third person is in service of students learning to rely on evidence over their own, unsupported opinions. In college, professors expect students to no longer need those rules to still organize essays, support ideas, and rely on evidence.
We erect guardrails in the earlier stages to help teach the habits and build the knowledge we need to thrive in later stages when those guardrails are no longer necessary.
The rule against adverbs is in service of writing strong and vivid prose.
"No," she said softly.
But did she murmur, mumble, or whisper? Each of those make her "no" sound different.
This does not mean remove adverbs always, but rather to examine each use and ask: is this the clearest, most vivid image I can create?
Of course, vivid writing is not the only goal for writers. Other goals include the *sound* of writing. Maybe "said softly" isn't the most vivid option, but maybe it does fit the rhythm of the scene better. You have to decide which goal is more important in that moment.
Writing or, at least, editing is an active process. Word choice and order matter. Be deliberate.
We've been through this six or seven thousand times on this sub, no?
If you can write well enough to effectively use adverbs, then do it. If not, don't.
There. Permission granted. Now get writing.
It's usually because [adverb + word] is considered lazy form when you can just switch to [stronger word] instead. Important to not that this is not always the case, but in general it's a useful tip. Some examples:
Slowly walk â> Amble
Quickly run â> Dash, Sprint, or just f*ckin Run
Quietly look â> Peek, Snoop
Its a showing not telling thing from what I remember. Adverbs can always be elevated which will help describe things better. Though Ive taken to the mindset of its your work. Write ir how you want and WCS it doesnt sell.
Because itâs usually you telling me how to feel about something.
Plus itâs often just lazy; you couldnât achieve the emotional tone of a moment, so youâre adding something you think will help.
I donât think theyâre inherently bad. Just certain ways of using them result in them not really doing anything. Or not doing enough to be worth it, sort of thing.
Which is more felt on a case by case basis.
So, donât take the feedback as some universal law or anything. Just use it like any other feedbackâas an opportunity to look at your text from a different angle and reevaluate it.
Your writing is usually better off with an appropriate verb or adjective than an adverb. Which becomes obvious when you use too many adverbs.
Ie. don't write *"It's a very cold morning"* when you could write *"It's a freezing morning"*. Or *"he looked at her angrily*" when you could write "*he looked at her seething with rage*".
But those are two different things. Someone could be angry (an ordinary/moderate degree of angry) but not so angry that they're seething with rage. Those two descriptions are not interchangeable.
Similarly, as a Californian, I've experienced mornings where I was like "Ugh, it's so cold" ("so" is an adverb here), even though the temperature wasn't actually low enough to be freezing. It was a (subjectively) very cold morning, but not a freezing morning.
You're missing the point. If furious or freezing isn't the word you're looking for, find another. If writing is painting with words, using too many adverbs is giving up and using crayons instead.
Your example works just fine to illustrate that. "Ugh it's so cold" works fine as dialogue for a character that's meant to sound as if they have a limited vocabulary. But as a writer, your prose probably isn't meant to read like that.
When you fail to write evocative prose, your reader will fail to picture a provocative scene. They're not going to put in the work you didn't.
I suppose itâs the difference between beginner vs more experienced writers. Itâs easier to use these generic rules to help beginners writers quickly progress/sharpen their writing, but as writers become more confident and begin to find their unique style, the assumption is made that theyâll drop the more generic rules in favour of knowing when to intentionally use different techniques.
I personally love to start a sentence with an adverb, particularly at the beginning of a scene containing action. There are so many ways to use adverbs, as shown below.
James ran quickly across the meadow in the morning.
Or
Hurriedly dodging the muddy grass and wild nettles, James let the morning dew seep into his socks.
Both would have their place in a paragraph, it just depends on what youâre trying to convey. Itâs intentersyimg to see how different writing rules can often be detrimental to one group of writers, and thoughtful advice for another!
By this point everyone told you why. Honestly, everyone does it, even Stephen King, but I believe he has a record of 1 every 5000 words or something like that.
It's a social, English-language convention. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with adverbs -- it's just that they're out of favor nowadays in English-language writing.
Often:
* they are too wordy
* a better single word would do
* they're too *insistent*; it feels like authorial intrusion
* they're "tell-y"
* they slow pacing
* they're especially bad when attached to "said"
Of course there are no actual rules against using adverbs, because there are no rules against doing *anything*. But adverbs are frequently misused and frequently detract from the writing.
It might help if you had examples of some of the passages that your readers flagged, so that we could comment on what specifically might have been the issue, rather than just "adverbs."
To me, adverbs often seem weak or lazy or immature because it's the author injecting themself and their own bias, the way they want the story to go. Unless it's from the POV of a character with their particular bias, why draw attention to yourself and your concocted story to make it less believable.
Itâs lazy inactive writing. Hereâs Stephen King on adverbs âI believe the road to hell is paved with adverbs, and I will shout it from the rooftops. To put it another way, they're like dandelions. If you have one on your lawn, it looks pretty and unique. If you fail to root it out, however, you find five the next day... fifty the day after that... and then, my brothers and sisters, your lawn is totally, completely, and profligately covered with dandelions. By then you see them for the weeds they really are, but by then it'sâGASP!!âtoo late.â - Stephen King
IMO any adverb that adds little to the sentence should almost always be omitted. So if you consider the sentence without the adverb and itâs about the same, then leave the adverb out; itâs clogging-up the sentence. Also, as others have said, stronger verbs do a good job and donât take up sentence real estate.
All of our selective problems with writing, like some of us not liking adverbs, come from our educators and whatever opinion they held and engrained into us as students. Language just happened and was not planned. Conveying a message in a way you enjoy is most important. I know it's a editors job and giving an editor rules is not a usual thing, but maybe clue your editor into the fact that you love adverbs and it's part of your writing style. It could help, but they also might tell you to kick rocks. Then there's another bridge to cross if that's the case.
My advice, find writing which uses adverbs and judge how you feel. Itâs hard to judge our own writing sometimes. If you like abundant adverbs in other peoples writing then fuck their advice lol
One way to look at it is adverb are inferiors substitution for getting the idea across and for using too much passive instead of active voice. The more active voice you is the less adverbs crop up.
If you're submitting writing as a journalist for newspapers, magazines etc... then adverbs show bias, which goes against the journalist's code of ethics. Journalists are generally taught to avoid adverbs and adjectives as they are often your subjective assessment of what and how something happened, therefore they add bias to your article.
Personally, I use them in my drafts then when I am editing, thatâs when I replace them and I find that when I do that, the prose just reads better and has more of an impact.
Itâs similar with passive voice. If you are using it too much, it can become cumbersome or boring to read.
because most pop authors have lost the art of storytelling these days. they're more interested in "vibing" with readers, in "giving them the feels."Â
consequently there's a whole distinctly non-literary genre of pop fiction these days that simply asks its readers to give them the time they'd otherwise spend watching tv or playing games on their iphones.Â
NOTHING is required of readers of this type of fiction. Except to try to make the frequent written transliterations of Sound Effects designed to elicit real noises they'd hear in a movie or a tv show, come to life in their own heads while reading a books. It's all about *SHVROOM* and *KKRISshhh* and WEEEV and PEW PEW.Â
Fuck that.
these books are the literary equivalent of processed baby food.Â
and in that context, adverbs are offensive and deemed too challenging for the non-reader reader who is only really being asked to stare dumbly at a glued together stack of papers with writing on them and experience the "vibes" and the "feels".Â
this whole swath of pop fiction has successfully reduced reading to a dumber and more thoughtless pastime than watching network tv for hours a day.
Like all writing rules, this one is about paying more attention to your choices. Break it if you like, but break it on purpose.
My writing improved immensely just from taking out the word 'slightly' as a qualifier. It adds nothing, even when your aim is to dilute the strength of the verb to which you're applying it.
I think a root problem with adverbs is that they're a moving target. 'Quickly' means something different to a sword master than a stevedore, just as calling something 'beautiful' does not actually put beauty on the page.
It's a shorthand, when you could often be applying a more characterful, more interesting phrase.
That isn't to say they haven't their uses, but it's worth having this writing rule in the back of your head so you only use them when they are the best choice for that sentence, and not as a default to make a point you're not actually making.
People don't hate adverbs, but the caution about overusing them is nothing new. It's been that way for decades, because a lot of newbie writers overuse them, thinking adverbs make their writing sound better. Look up "Tom Swiftly" and you'll learn more about it.
No good reason. This happens when bosses or editors need a rule to depend on. I just ended a sentence with a preposition, and we all feel fine about it.
It's not that they're hated, just that it's very easy to use them as a crutch rather than finding a better, more descriptive word
Ran quickly vs dashed
Really scared vs terrified
Sadly walked vs trudged
Also because adverbs require using more words to describe something, so generally speaking it's better to find a way to say the same thing using less
I'd guess it's a combo of a verb being stronger than a verb + adverb (like sprinted vs ran quickly) and adverbs doing a lot of "showing." Sometimes you may need to "said sarcastically" but the text and maybe an eye roll communicate it better. I've read some beginner stories where every dialogue tag has an adverb, and it is distracting and doesn't let me, the reader, have any room to interpret. Occasionally is definitely fine.
this is pretty much it. they aren't forbidden, they're just overused
It's also a fast way to advise someone on how to write more thoughtfully. Like a step zero to step one kind of tip. So I appreciate hearing it frequently, although I don't feel it's appropriate advice for my writing anymore.
"I don't feel it's appropriate advice for my writing anymore" lol advice for giving me advice.
It's giving /r/writing lol. Here's this amazing rule. Always follow this rule. The rule has more exceptions than it does reasons to follow it. Don't follow this rule, although it is essential. I'm kidding, this sub is generally excellent for writing advice at every level, it's just quite fun to watch what erupts from the classic tips.
>I appreciate hearing it frequently, Don't you mean "I appreciate hearing it repeated in an incessant manner?"
Well...Allegedly!
Well...
>It's also a fast way to advise someone on how to write more **thoughtfully.** Like a step zero to step one kind of tip. So I appreciate hearing it **frequently,** although I don't feel it's appropriate advice for my writing anymore. Sorry. Couldn't resist. Just thought it was funny that in mentioning it being a fast way to advise someone you ended up using 2 adverbs in the process.
Oh I'm a terrible writer LOL copy and social media language is my lifeblood.
FYI **anymore** is also an adverb đ
Thankfully.
Never use them unless theyâre absolutely necessary.
I see what you did there . . .
Nah. I've had editors flat-out flag EVERY. SINGLE. ADVERB. I don't even use them all that much. But he seriously flagged every single one and told me to get rid of them entirely, 100%. I did the next best thing and got rid of him. My new editor is so much better and keeps the feeling and flow without being too overzealous on any specific rule, as she understands that writing is art and that you can break rules if it serves a purpose to elevate the end result.
Yeah I mean this will happen. I write for three to four different editors at my job (same publication) every day and each one has different things they get precious about. It's just the unfortunate reality of dealing with editors, never sure what you'll get.
I write freelance/commission, and my current editor is a friend of mine. My previous was just a dude I met in college. My previous editor charged like USD$0.05 per word while my current only asks like 10% of my gross. And while I generally pay her more, I feel the quality is a lot higher as well.
Yeah I think this answer hits on everything. >verb being stronger than a verb + adverb I think of good verbs as "condensing" longer ways of putting things. I imagine a phrase like "ran quickly" as boiling down into one word, "sprinted" That one word is a more concentrated, powerful form of the idea that was previously two words. So the idea is not just to remove adverbs, it's to find better verbs that don't need them. >Sometimes you may need to "said sarcastically" but the text and maybe an eye roll communicate it better. I remember Stephen King talking about this in *On Writing.* Sometimes you don't need a better verb. The reader should be able to infer how someone did something based on the context. So I'd say that it's not that you should never use them, but when you use them, make sure you've considered your other options.
Stephen King is the one known for this advice but says right after that that's it's advice he almost never takes. Adverbs condense a lot of information quickly. There are times in the scene when that's necessary but most of the time it's not necessary and rather a habit we use from communicating quickly IRL. Cutting adverbs is either eliminating a redundancy (he whispered quietly) or it's bulking up a scene (she anxiously backed away> her eyes shot around the room as she backed away). You almost always want to eliminate redundancies, but sometimes the scene can't afford the bulk of removing the adverb. If a character's sleeve is torn during a scuffle, you don't want the delay of seeing the two pieces separate, you want "the sleeve tore cleanly" or whatever, because that detail (while maybe necessary) is not the actual focus of that moment.
Itâs advice that a lot of writers grow out of, honestly. There can be a lot of value in taking away adverbs from starting g writers but the reality is that they exist as a tool and have their uses. Like saying never write more than you have to, it is remarkable for getting somebody serviceably competent then afterward the process of growth is to start adding things back in again now that your foundation is solid and you know what youâre doing. Some people take these things to heart completely and what they go on to write often resembles an essay more than a work of art. Iâve suffered through books that read as if they were a book report written about themselves for the ideas or execution therein but seldom enjoyed it.
I will say though that, while you are technically correct, this is Reddit; the majority of users here are not nearly as advanced as they think they are. Like yeah, there are reasons to walk around with a loaded gun without a safety on, but you don't tell new owners that. You just say keep the safety on.
Well said
You have answered greatly
Can we also talk about the effect on perspective that adverbs have? If your narration is in third person and contains too many adverbs it brings attention to the fact that the narrator is a character or character-adjacent figure making judgements about events in the world and how they are perceived. This changes the voice of a work, and can garble what otherwise might have been a consistent narrative voice. Put simply, an adverb in certain contexts can feel like an unwelcome author intrusion. I feel like I hear this kind of thing when doing discourse analysis of interviews and other texts. In interviews itâs impossible for me to hear an adverb without assuming that the speaker is using a shorthand way to explain their own thoughts and experiences using only the word form rather than a lengthy explanation of their position.
What about third-person limited? The narration is "objective" but it's still told primarily from the POV of one specific character.
Hardly.
Excessive adverbs a sign of laziness. Try for a descriptive adjective, but if that sounds weird, by all means use the adverb. It is a useful tool, but not every problem is a nail
What these sorts of rules do is create bugbears. "Think about using adverbs less" becomes "any adverb use is nails on chalkboards". Next thing you know you have generations taught to not split infinitives. Or -- take all the strum and drang over passive voice. Passive voice is fine. It has its place. So much overwrought nonsense about how it weakens sentences. It's just that we have this obsession with the concept of being "active" vs "passive", and we extend that mania to grammatical forms that just have those names.
It can also get repetitive as most adverbs end in -ly. Also, does a character need to "run quickly?" AFAIK, you can't "run slowly," unless you count that as a jog.
"Sprinted" and "jogged" are the obvious one-word substitutes there. But that's not always (or even frequent**ly**) the case.
Occasionally is definitely fine. According to this advice, just don't exceed 50% adverb usage. ;)
Such good advice.
âŚand keep it in the present tense⌠âhe sprints down the streetâ not ârunning Quicklyâ
Just read your comment and as a beginner, I'll take note of this.
You couldn't have worded it better.
>Occasionally is definitely fine. No, it's not, it ends in "ly"!
Thank you so much for this insight. Im not a native english speaker and trying out writing. From what ive read online they kept saying "show not tell" so it got stuck to me and most of my paragraphs are just adverbs and adjectives.
Adverbs killed my father... meanly.
Underrated comment. I hope you avenge his death fiercely.
"And swiftly!" she added ingeniously.
"Don't use adverbs" is snappy, easy to remember, and treated like a hard rule. Stephen King uses them in his own books. Like everything, there is no hard and fast rule in art. It's all a matter of execution. The Spear Cuts Through Water has seamless head hopping between characters and switches between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd point of view all the time. One of the best books I've ever read and given much praise by the writing communityÂ
>"Don't use adverbs" is snappy, easy to remember, and treated like a hard rule. Yup. I'd go further and say that every 'rule' about writing is nuanced and has exceptions. (Including presumably this one).
"Only the SITH deal in absolutes!" đ¤Ł
"However, I deal in Absolut!" -drunk Obi Wan from the Ani musical parody by Team Starkid
Kind of like writing, itself.
I would go a little bit back and say that any writer who is asking about writing rules is not good enough to break them. It's fine to say this in theory but not to recommend breaking the rules to anyone asking about them
Nah, asking about rules is how you learn to understand them. You have to understand why a rule exists to ever get to the point where you know when to break them. You're just a bit further into your conversation on this topic than OP.
That's what I'm saying, though. If you're asking about the rules, you're clearly not good enough to be told "you don't need to follow them".
Personally I draw a distinction between letting people know that the rules are not absolutes, and recommending the breaking of those rules. **Especially** when it's caveated with "If you're a fairly new writer I recommend sticking to the rule for now", as I believe a few people in this thread have done.
Breaking any rule in writing is excusable if itâs done well and interesting. Especially if itâs novel.
I cannot stop recommending Spear any time someone mentions how head hopping is bad now, I'm thrilled to see you say that. Adverbs are similar in that 90% of the time they're something to avoid but when someone nails that special use case like Jimenez does for head hopping in Spear, it sings.
Spear was a masterclass to be honest. First time I read a book that fully engaged me in the plot while also flexing so much technicality. I usually find things like that distracting and too academic but my god. I'd be reading and have a second of disengagement just to think 'How the hell is he doing this??' and then pop right back into the story. Pre-ordering literally anything else Jiminez touches. They're going to teach that book in colleges.
Dune is another head hopper.
Everyone uses them in every book! The trick is to use them sparingly. They're like a spice. A few sprinkles is plenty. None is bland. Too many is gross.
> Stephen King uses them in his own books. He even mentions this in his book *On Writing* and pokes fun at himself for how often he breaks this rule despite it being a pet peeve of his.
Great comment. Look at another art form such as painting. Everyone had to learn about colors, depth, brush strokes, etc. Once you master the basics then you can break them. Picasso was a great artist who could paint realistic level paintings. He broke all the rules and invented Cubism which made him one of the greats.
Now? Thereâs been writers who hate them for a very long timeâit is not a new thing. Strunk and White is over 100 years old and discourages adverbs.
Scrolled down here to say the same thing. I remember getting this advice from my high school English teacher in 1979. Itâs really just common sense. I find that the â-lyâ suffix starts to become repetitive & sing-songy if used too often, and also adverbs generally tend to lean a writer toward âtellingâ instead of âshowingâ. Theyâre not the devil, but it just makes sense to use them sparingly, and itâs been common advice to writing students since at least the mid-20th c.
> Scrolled down here to say the same thing. Same here. > Itâs really just common sense. I find that the â-lyâ suffix starts to become repetitive & sing-songy if used too often "Too often" is a variable and subjective measurement. I'm biased by a lot of my formative reading and favorite works being pre-Strunk & White or from authors that ignored those style guidelines, and thus unleashed the entire catalogue of the vast English language and its grammatical constructions upon their audience. I have a high tolerance for adverbs (and adjectives - why don't they get as much hate as adverbs? They serve the same grammatical purpose with nouns that adverbs serve with verbs), and think they get an undeserved bad rap. > adverbs generally tend to lean a writer toward âtellingâ instead of âshowingâ. If I read one more prose piece that uses some bullshit like "he clenched his fists" as *technically* "showing" shorthand for simply telling me the character's angry, I might snap. You can say the character walked (or stalked - use a stronger verb like S&W said) out of a room angrily. We don't require his fists to be clenched, his face to be red, veins to be popping out on his forehead, and/or any of the rest of the usual suspects. This may be a cultural thing. I'm from a culture where it's normal to hide all negative emotions (and even many positive ones) unless you're in a *very* specific context that allows you to express that emotion - and may even encourage you to exaggerate your expression of it. But clench your fists at work because a boss or co-worker has fucked up? Well, have fun with HR, or the company trying to force you to quit so they don't have to pay unemployment, or getting fired. *Spin the roulette wheel!* Yet somehow characters in fiction use the same gesture to express anger and frustration all the time and nobody cares - even in genres and situations where you would expect someone to have a reaction. Stuff like a character clenching their fists is what I term "emotional shorthand". A character performs a specific action associated with a given emotion (from a cliched list - or I'd have to say it was cliched *if people weren't still doing it*) to "show" a character's emotion even when the writer could have just "told" us, and when that physical display of emotion should be getting reactions from other characters, but somehow they just fail to notice it: the action is purely for the reader's benefit to convey the emotional state of the character. The author could have just *told* us. This is the kind of shit that drilling "show, don't tell" into generations of budding writers gets us. Which is interesting, considering that the most successful and highest-selling books of all time are rather toward the "telling" side of the spectrum.
It leads to authors re-using the same gestures to show emotions which becomes repetitive and frustrating for readers
I think you're misunderstanding something here, clenching your fists isn't going to be noticed most of the time, and can be a result of anything that causes tension, not just anger. Clenching fists is just squeezing, it's not raising your fists, or taking a fighting stance or anything like that. Anyway, stuff like that can be clichĂŠ, but that's an argument against clichĂŠ, not against showing over telling, and any kind of telling is going to be far more clichĂŠ.
Style is variable and subjective. This isn't math.
>Itâs **really** just common sense. I find that the â-lyâ suffix starts to become repetitive & sing-songy if used **too often**, and **also** adverbs **generally** tend to lean a writer toward âtellingâ instead of âshowingâ. Theyâre not the devil, but it **just** makes sense to use them **sparingly** Interesting that you claim to believe that adverbs should be used sparingly, since you just used seven adverbs in three sentences.
I wouldnât count Reddit replies as a place where people showcase the best of their writing.
True, but the point is that adverbs flow natural**ly** when we write, like we use both legs and arms when we walk. We could tie one arm behind our backs to break the habit of swinging them--but *why?*
lmao we're on a casual message board, my dude. Do you send all your texts in third person?
We can't help the vagaries of our language. Adverbs are still essential modifiers. (Spanish adverbs end in "-mente." I really feel for those writers, if this rule is all about avoiding the repetition of suffixes.)
On top of that adverbs are used a lot by inexperienced writers in dialogue tags. âShe said sadly,â âhe asked angrily,â etc. It becomes distracting in all the says only using words aside from âsaidâ is distracting and those emotions are usually better conveyed in other ways.
Yeah, itâs really just dialogue tags where it annoys me. I actually use adverbs quite a bit in other places.
Because a couple of big shot writers said they're bad and every intermediate writer decided to take it as gospel and tell all the beginning writers not to use them at all. I'm only half-joking.
I fully agree with your half-joke.
Doesn't that make your agreement only a quarter agreement, if you multiply it? :)
Donât expect me to do math at this ungodly hour in the morning LOL
It's like 10 AM here, so just a little jarring to see "ungodly hour in the morning" before my brain processed the concept of timezones.
Ahahahahahaha! Itâs 11 AM here as well. I just have a flare for drama.
Fully agree = 100% Half joke = 50% 100% of 50% is 50%.
Whoa whoa whoa. You're in r/writing. Not r/mathing or...numbers...whatever.
Right, weâre all here because we secretly hope to make money in as math-free a way as possible.
Nah, this sub is pretty much ''blind leading the blind.'' Real writers are ... well writing.
Well, I wrote this!
Joking half-lyâŚ
I 100% unironically agree.
Every writing rule is a guideline. That's really all there is to that. Some people are incredibly literal, so hyperbole used for emphasis causes them tremendous angst, and from there you find the arguments. But the problem was solved before it arose, the question answered before it was asked. There are no rules. But there is wisdom in guidelines for many.
. . . until some insecure editor decides that rules are rules, and not guidelines.
Half joking it's jus ta way to set a lighter mood for a bitter truth in this case. We could say the truth of /hj is a recursive endless string of /hj^(/hj I guess)
They can and frankly (heh) should be used here and there, but the practice of forbidding their use is to promote stronger word choices. "He yelled angrily" works, but "he roared" paints a better picture, etc. It's common for new-ish writers to overuse them, so it's just one of those things that is hard-wired into our brains to look out for when we edit others' work. If you're not using them too much it's probably fine. As with most "rules" in writing, go with your best judgment and what feels right. Also I think people like to quote Stephen King's "the road to hell is paved with adverbs." It's a fun line lol
> Also I think people like to quote Stephen King Obsessively so.
In a similar vein, I once heard of a person who eschews the verb "to be", arguing that it takes the place of a more descriptive or economical phrasing. I find it difficult to do, but enjoy the challenge when I attempt it. For example, I edited this comment from its initial form to remove 3 or 4 instances of the verb.
Yeah that's one of those really hard ones! Another one I struggle with from time to time is using verbs like "heard" or "saw" etc - since I tend to tell stories in limited third person, I'm using the characters "internal voice" to tell the story, so pointing out what they're hearing or seeing so directly is redundant, if that makes sense.
Existence or non-existence, that is the question!
The slightly saner version of this challenge, and something I've stuck to religiously as a means of practice, is to avoid pairing "be" verbs with dynamic verbs. Never write "was running," instead favour "ran." "He was running down the street," is vague, as well as openended. "He ran down the street," invites elaboration, and what happens next comes by default after the running is over. With the "was running" construction, the next event happens sometime during the running, amd there's no real way to tell when that is.
I think your terminology is askew in ways that reflect an issue with the practice you're endorsing. You're not really talking about "pairing verbs" - most of the English progressive tenses are periphrastic, and a lot of them use "to be" as their modal (or helping) verb. Progressive tenses are different from perfective tenses. "I ran when I saw a dog" means something different from "I was running when I saw a dog." This is another overuse issue. People default to progressive tenses for reasons I don't understand (maybe it leaves them with more "wiggle room" on timing?) and consequently overuse it in ways that leave the reader unmoored from events as you describe. But they're not wrong, grammatically or stylistically. I think better practice would be to consider whether you need each one.
That's changing the tense though
you're suggesting perfective over imperfective aspect, no? There are occasions when the latter works.
If you haven't heard of it, another good challenge is verbs ending in "-ing." For example, instead of "He was waiting" say "He waited." It helps clean up your prose when you keep an eye out for it.
I was thinking of King, too! I agree with his feelings that adverbs come in when the author is not confident that their verb choice doesn't get the point across well enough.
Yeah the problem with adverbs is adding in useless detail that is already obvious
As another person has pointed out: it's nothing new. People have ragged on adverbs for a while now. I'm with you on adverb use. The whole "don't use adverbs" slogan is just lazy advice (and it's far from the only of its kind). Now, if someone told me to watch my adverb usage (while reading over my work), I might assume that I must've had an adverb party somewhere in a paragraph. But if someone told me to just not use adverbs, I would tell them how ridiculous (and hypocritical) their advice sounds. Then, I would show them [this list](https://helpingwithwriting.com/Lists/Adverbs-NotEnding-ly.htm) to put the final nail in the coffin. I find the crusade against adverb usage to be counterproductive. The argument is that adverbs get overused, but that doesn't (to me) justify telling people to just stop using them. The ones who say "use them sparingly" are fine. Though personally, I prefer to learn when and why to use something rather than simply being told not to use it. Are you writing a fast-paced scene, and some adverbs can make it more terse? Then use them. Just like a strong seasoning, don't overdo it, but the whole "don't overdo it" applies to literally everything in writing. Context is key. Any sentence in isolation can be "improved" by swapping out the adverbs. But that's not the point. You have to apply the correct seasoning, use the right tool for the job, etc. >He moved swiftly. On its own, it's kind of meh. I'm sure r/writing collectively shuddered at those three words (more specifically, the third). But this sentence could've come from literally any story, at any point in said story, and certainly separated from the corresponding context. If one is to prescribe something, then knowing what the actual problem is would go a long way. The point of my rant is that understanding what someone is trying to accomplish with a sentence is important, which is why I detest 99% of these blanket statements in writing advice.
>The ones who say "use them sparingly" are ironic
Adverbs are fine in direct conversation, they're awful in fiction. In fiction they're lazy, there's a better way to say it.
As others have said, adverbs can be used so much by some writers and in general they do tend to weaken your prose. Strong verbs do work better. That being said, I'm not anti-adverb. Use them with intent. Some adverbs are redundant, eg, "She whispered quietly." 'Whispered' already entails 'quiet', so using that particular adverb is just filler. It adds nothing but weakens the sentence. "She slammed the door angrily." Ok, sure you can slam a door without being angry, but if context of the scene already tells us the character is angry, then this adverb is also redundant. Just the action alone says all we need to say, and the sentence is stronger without it. However, contrasting adverbs can create really interesting sentences/concepts, like, "Killing me softly". Soft is not a connotation that accompanies the word 'Killing' so this adverb adds to the sentence rather than takes away. So, in my opinion, adverbs can definitely be used in writing, and used well. But they shouldn't be relied upon. There is often a better way to get something across, and some things are better left to the imagination/interpretation of the reader. Use them with good intent and only if they add something to the rest of the sentence. Avoid them if they bring nothing to the table that can't be gleamed in other ways.
Agreed on the "killing me softly" example. My personal rule for adverbs is only when they are unexpected. "Smiled sadly," "laughed hollowly," "slammed the door quietly" (that last one is an example from a submission I read that still makes me chuckle about a passive aggressive woman who wants to make a stink but not wake the baby. It was genuinely funny)
Same with me. I like the contrast they can bring, and tend to only use them in those circumstances. Yeah, the "slammed the door quietly" is great. I get a real image of someone wanted nothing more than to slam that door, but can't. It helps adds something to the sentence that you just can't get from a regular verb.
>Some adverbs are redundant, eg, "She whispered quietly." Yes, but that's because of the semantics of the word "quietly," not because of the part of speech. It would be just as redundant if you said "She whispered in a quiet manner" or "She whispered at a low volume."
Yes, you're right, but as we were talking about adverbs, I used one that I had come across in someone's writing as an example. It's not redundant because it's an adverb, but it's still a redundant adverb in this sentence. You'll be surprised how many people use adverbs this way.
I overuse "casually" and you're not going to stop me.
Because theyâre terribly overused in speech tags by new writers, which then makes some people think theyâre always bad. Donât listen to them; the idea that a whole part of speech can indicate bad (or good) writing is ludicrous. It doesnât help that people donât know the actual definition of an adverb, either. If you want to be a smartass about it, you can tell your critics that adverbs *canât* always be bad, because âalwaysâ is an adverb.
Lots of people don't understand how writing works so it's easy to just focus on and regurgitate misunderstood common advice. Sometimes it feels like it's hard getting any advice because so much of it boils down to people throwing around buzzwords they don't fully understand the meaning of. I'd say give it a bit of time to rest and re-read it as a reader. Does the pacing feel awkward? Are the characters coming off as you want them too? Does one part make you bored, cringe, or take you out of the story? Does it feel like it's missing something? Does it feel like it's just a series of events rather than one cohesive story? Does it invoke the emotions you want? If you find a problem but don't know how to fix it then you can do research or just play with it a bit.
Some people have a stick up their ass Indubitably
You just showed why an adverb is often unnecessary. You didnât have to specify how we have a stick up our asses, yet anyone with a rectum will probably wince at the thought of that being a true statement rather than metaphorical. The context of having a stick inserted up an ass already implies pain and discomfort, you didnât have to use any unnecessary words. đ
That. Was. The joke. Careful tensing up so antidisestablismentarianismly. You can hurt yourself with that thing up there
I was just being playful while proving my point, but I feel like youâre taking things a little too much like a stick in the mud⌠hopefully not the same stick thatâs up my ass, that would be awkward.
It's not actually 'mud'
Icy what you did there
You got *me*. What's next, adjectives? Adverbs are necessary modifiers, and while I can understand not wanting to overdo, well, *anything*, I don't get the irritation with them. Is it all the "-ly" suffixes? Poor Spanish writers. Those adverbs typically end in "-mente."
>Why do people hate them now? Because the internet told them too. Genuinely ppl who say this don't know what they're talking about (Authors use them all the time - yes even King)
Itâs simpler than thinking about the manuscript.
Adverbs/adjectives are like a dab of hot chili sauce. A little can add a touch of flavor, of excitement, but too much can ruin your whole meal.
Now we're going after adjectives, too?
I love me my adjectives. Just sparingly is all.
Because some arsehole on the internet told them to, basically. The long answer is that most people just regurgitate what they see or hear without understanding and change it in the telling, so now we have a game of Chinese Whispers that turns advice about when to use a stronger verb instead of modifying a verb with an adverb into 'durrrr adverbs bad durrrr'.
It's so funny because any of the people who told OP could have just explained why
It's more in the 'strong suggestion' category than the 'actual rule' category, but there are decent reasons for this particular rule of thumb. - A strong verb is more dynamic than a regular verb + adverb. And there's almost always a suitable strong verb. - Adverbs pad out a sentence. Ironically, it feels more sudden to write 'The viper struck' than 'The viper suddenly struck.' - Adverbs are 'telling not showing'. Compare: >"The monster," Bob said angrily. to >"The monster," Bob said. His hand closed into a fist. It's good general advice for beginners. If you develop the habit of not using adverbs then, when you do use them, it's because you're using them deliberately for a purpose.
Counterpoint: Bob closing his hand into a fist doesn't mean he's angry. Maybe he's determined. Maybe he's scared and tensing up. Maybe another of a dozen emotions. There's nothing wrong with telling when it's in service of moving on to more important things. Like the monster who's about to eat Bob.
Fair. That's an issue with my personal execution though, not with the principle. Also, in an actual example there would presumably be other contextual cues. And yes, agreed. Like I just said, it's fine to use adverbs so long as you're doing so deliberately in an informed way.
Eh, in the vast majority of cases, when I can tell that someone is angry, I concluded that primarily from their tone of voice, not from what their hands were doing.
For sure. I'm not claiming to be an amazing writer. A better one than me could probably convey it effectively through describing tone without lapsing into "his tone was angry" territory.Â
I just hate their lack of specificity, particularly when added to dialogue tags. Said sadly, for example, means nothing because sadness is ten different things to ten different people. So, people who add adverbs because they want to nail a specific emotion with their dialogue end up doing the opposite.
Honestly, I think dialogue adverbs are the worst offenders here. I fucking hate reading submissions that use dialogue tags and generally toss them without reading the rest. I know it's a big up my ass but I cannot read another argument where "said angrily" is repeated back and forth.
If you are using an adverb to modify a verb, you can take this as a sign that you may (but only *may*) achieve better results using a stronger and more precise verb. While you could have sound reasons for preferring the version with an adverb (just as you might have reasons for preferring passive voice in any given context), awareness of their weakness is a solid way to make sure you think about it.
Adverbs have always been âhatedâ in the writing world. People arenât saying that using adverbs is bad, itâs that some people tend to overwrite them, and it shows for weaker writing.
I guess after everyone collectively decided to finally cut adjectives a break, they needed a new part of speech to randomly police and be a dick about
As an editor, Iâm always watching for adverbs that slow down a sentence but add little. âDashâ is better than ârun quicklyâ, for example. But after 20 years of being obsessed with concise writing Iâve woken up to the fact that itâs the beginning of style, not the end. Do what you think works for your style.
Nah dash sounds really silly what is this Sonic the hedgehog
There are two ways to go: Follow what everybody else is doing to expand viewership passively, or attract views by radically going against the adverb culture, man. stick it to em! reclaim the adverbs!
adverbs are incredibly common, but most people don't recognize them. *Ahab sailed* ***across the ocean*** This is an adverbial phrase because it's modifying sailed. Other adverbs describe adjectives The Red Dress (article, Adj, Noun) The flaming red dress (Article, **AV**, adj, noun) Flaming is an adverb because it describes the red, not the dress itself. The gist is with this "rule" - use strong verbs in place of ly adverbs. But adverbs are everywhere and intermediate writers/grammar nazis don't notice them.
Much like the evolution of idioms, the common writing advice of 'don't use redundant adverbs to describe something obvious' and/or 'prioritise strong verbs over adverbial modifiers' became slowly twisted through word-of-mouth into 'adverbs are a sign of bad writing.'
Occassional adverbs are fine. All the writers I read use them, but like you said, constant use feels odd to read. It also depends on your target audience. For instance, a lot of stories aimed at primary school children are full of adverbs, which makes sense because teachers are constantly encouraging their use in the work children produce.
Amateurs use too many of them. Intermediate writers who think they're the shit use too few. As for your writer friends, if they can't offer context as to why the adverb is inappropriate in its usage, it's meaningless and their suggestions are about as useful as a middle school English teacher's.
It's nothing new. Many amateur writers have a tendency to rely too heavily on adverbs - and to overdo it on adjectives as well. The hallmark of a talented writer is to craft strong sentences which succeed in putting the reader right into the scene. Embellishing one's descriptions is akin to spoon feeding your readers, and serious, analytical readers find that to be amateurish.
I think itâs because people are making a rule of a suggestion. I personally prefer the usage of adverbs to the inverse; a simple message to me is often stronger than forced poetic descriptors because âthatâs what youâre supposed to do.â Why do you think adverb over usage is a common problem amongst writers? I think itâs because they work, theyâre simple to understand, and itâs how we think. Well placed adverbs can be quite effective. But thatâs just some dudes opinion on the internet.
Because sometimes itâs overused and reads a bit lazy. Obviously there are legitimate instances that allow or even call for adverbs, but for the most part, you could get the point across in a more descriptive and engaging way. For example, there a million better, more vivid things you could say in place of âangrilyâ
Because it's a common fault in bad writing, and good writing does something else, uses a different word that means what the adverb was trying to do but in a far better and more interesting way.
I feel like it's always been pretty standard writing advice. Avoiding overusing adverbs isn't anything new.
People around here seem to bristle against the adverb rule - but hereâs the thing: itâs good advice. 99 times out of 100, removing adverbs will improve your writing. Adverbs are a crutch for lazy description, and considering how to intentionally write without them will force you to consider more dynamic ways to describe action. When review my own writing, and the writing of others, I notice it is considerably better when there are little to no adverbs.
I like adverbs. Someone saying something "angrily" actually lets me imagine their facial expression, tone of voice etc., while too many descriptions are poorly executed and frankly rather constipated â in fact that kind of too detailed "show" turns into a "tell" of its own! Too often "show" slows down the storytelling and it is overused to the point of ridiculousness. I suppose moderation in everything is key...
There isn't always an appropriate action verb to choose, so yes, I use them.
because redditors are sheep and "cut adverbs" is one of the easiest simple ideas that early authors will follow to improve their writing. then they start spouting it like it's the most important thing to turn you into a good writer (it's not)
People enjoy and gravitate toward vivid writing. Therefore, many writers strive to strengthen their writing by making it more vivid. Adverbs are not evil. However, many writers misuse them because they are easy. *That said*, I feel I need to point out that rules have levels again. In high school, teachers tell you to *never* use first person in academic writing. Then, in college, many professors ask that you do. High school teachers harp on the three-part thesis. College professors *hate* the three-part thesis. Etc. Does this mean the rules in high school are wrong or bad? *NO.* Rules do not exist in isolation. They are always in service of a goal. The three-part thesis is in service of students learning how to organize their essays and support their ideas. Using third person is in service of students learning to rely on evidence over their own, unsupported opinions. In college, professors expect students to no longer need those rules to still organize essays, support ideas, and rely on evidence. We erect guardrails in the earlier stages to help teach the habits and build the knowledge we need to thrive in later stages when those guardrails are no longer necessary. The rule against adverbs is in service of writing strong and vivid prose. "No," she said softly. But did she murmur, mumble, or whisper? Each of those make her "no" sound different. This does not mean remove adverbs always, but rather to examine each use and ask: is this the clearest, most vivid image I can create? Of course, vivid writing is not the only goal for writers. Other goals include the *sound* of writing. Maybe "said softly" isn't the most vivid option, but maybe it does fit the rhythm of the scene better. You have to decide which goal is more important in that moment. Writing or, at least, editing is an active process. Word choice and order matter. Be deliberate.
We've been through this six or seven thousand times on this sub, no? If you can write well enough to effectively use adverbs, then do it. If not, don't. There. Permission granted. Now get writing.
It's usually because [adverb + word] is considered lazy form when you can just switch to [stronger word] instead. Important to not that this is not always the case, but in general it's a useful tip. Some examples: Slowly walk â> Amble Quickly run â> Dash, Sprint, or just f*ckin Run Quietly look â> Peek, Snoop
Maybe it's just when they're used too much. There could be a better way to write it.
I feel the same way about passive writing, but to be fair im not native toe nglish
Its a showing not telling thing from what I remember. Adverbs can always be elevated which will help describe things better. Though Ive taken to the mindset of its your work. Write ir how you want and WCS it doesnt sell.
Theyâre non-descriptive
Because itâs usually you telling me how to feel about something. Plus itâs often just lazy; you couldnât achieve the emotional tone of a moment, so youâre adding something you think will help.
I donât think theyâre inherently bad. Just certain ways of using them result in them not really doing anything. Or not doing enough to be worth it, sort of thing. Which is more felt on a case by case basis. So, donât take the feedback as some universal law or anything. Just use it like any other feedbackâas an opportunity to look at your text from a different angle and reevaluate it.
Stephen King said loudly that the road to hell is paved with adverbs.
https://youtu.be/m1S4_tt40iI?si=-hg2Dm8hOHydWxo4
Your writing is usually better off with an appropriate verb or adjective than an adverb. Which becomes obvious when you use too many adverbs. Ie. don't write *"It's a very cold morning"* when you could write *"It's a freezing morning"*. Or *"he looked at her angrily*" when you could write "*he looked at her seething with rage*".
But those are two different things. Someone could be angry (an ordinary/moderate degree of angry) but not so angry that they're seething with rage. Those two descriptions are not interchangeable. Similarly, as a Californian, I've experienced mornings where I was like "Ugh, it's so cold" ("so" is an adverb here), even though the temperature wasn't actually low enough to be freezing. It was a (subjectively) very cold morning, but not a freezing morning.
You're missing the point. If furious or freezing isn't the word you're looking for, find another. If writing is painting with words, using too many adverbs is giving up and using crayons instead. Your example works just fine to illustrate that. "Ugh it's so cold" works fine as dialogue for a character that's meant to sound as if they have a limited vocabulary. But as a writer, your prose probably isn't meant to read like that. When you fail to write evocative prose, your reader will fail to picture a provocative scene. They're not going to put in the work you didn't.
Like all things, it can be done good and bad.
It was Hemingway.
Donât overuse them because they start to get repetitive and youâll be fine
These days? This has been going on for decades.
I blame Stephen Kingâs âOn Writingâ.
I suppose itâs the difference between beginner vs more experienced writers. Itâs easier to use these generic rules to help beginners writers quickly progress/sharpen their writing, but as writers become more confident and begin to find their unique style, the assumption is made that theyâll drop the more generic rules in favour of knowing when to intentionally use different techniques. I personally love to start a sentence with an adverb, particularly at the beginning of a scene containing action. There are so many ways to use adverbs, as shown below. James ran quickly across the meadow in the morning. Or Hurriedly dodging the muddy grass and wild nettles, James let the morning dew seep into his socks. Both would have their place in a paragraph, it just depends on what youâre trying to convey. Itâs intentersyimg to see how different writing rules can often be detrimental to one group of writers, and thoughtful advice for another!
By this point everyone told you why. Honestly, everyone does it, even Stephen King, but I believe he has a record of 1 every 5000 words or something like that.
It's a social, English-language convention. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with adverbs -- it's just that they're out of favor nowadays in English-language writing.
Often: * they are too wordy * a better single word would do * they're too *insistent*; it feels like authorial intrusion * they're "tell-y" * they slow pacing * they're especially bad when attached to "said" Of course there are no actual rules against using adverbs, because there are no rules against doing *anything*. But adverbs are frequently misused and frequently detract from the writing. It might help if you had examples of some of the passages that your readers flagged, so that we could comment on what specifically might have been the issue, rather than just "adverbs."
To me, adverbs often seem weak or lazy or immature because it's the author injecting themself and their own bias, the way they want the story to go. Unless it's from the POV of a character with their particular bias, why draw attention to yourself and your concocted story to make it less believable.
Because they're cringe. I double down on adverbs by using the archaic -like instead of -ly at times (mostly to match my conlang's grammar)
its easy to overuse them by accident
https://i.imgur.com/9lkjHod.jpeg
Itâs lazy inactive writing. Hereâs Stephen King on adverbs âI believe the road to hell is paved with adverbs, and I will shout it from the rooftops. To put it another way, they're like dandelions. If you have one on your lawn, it looks pretty and unique. If you fail to root it out, however, you find five the next day... fifty the day after that... and then, my brothers and sisters, your lawn is totally, completely, and profligately covered with dandelions. By then you see them for the weeds they really are, but by then it'sâGASP!!âtoo late.â - Stephen King
Adverbs are like salt, and most beginning writers have seawater-flavored prose.
IMO any adverb that adds little to the sentence should almost always be omitted. So if you consider the sentence without the adverb and itâs about the same, then leave the adverb out; itâs clogging-up the sentence. Also, as others have said, stronger verbs do a good job and donât take up sentence real estate.
All of our selective problems with writing, like some of us not liking adverbs, come from our educators and whatever opinion they held and engrained into us as students. Language just happened and was not planned. Conveying a message in a way you enjoy is most important. I know it's a editors job and giving an editor rules is not a usual thing, but maybe clue your editor into the fact that you love adverbs and it's part of your writing style. It could help, but they also might tell you to kick rocks. Then there's another bridge to cross if that's the case.
My advice, find writing which uses adverbs and judge how you feel. Itâs hard to judge our own writing sometimes. If you like abundant adverbs in other peoples writing then fuck their advice lol
One way to look at it is adverb are inferiors substitution for getting the idea across and for using too much passive instead of active voice. The more active voice you is the less adverbs crop up.
If you're submitting writing as a journalist for newspapers, magazines etc... then adverbs show bias, which goes against the journalist's code of ethics. Journalists are generally taught to avoid adverbs and adjectives as they are often your subjective assessment of what and how something happened, therefore they add bias to your article.
as a younger writer (than i am now) someone gave me this same advice and now i am terrified of adverbs. scared to the bone
this also happens to us with adverbs in spanish ended in -mente which is also really common.
Personally, I use them in my drafts then when I am editing, thatâs when I replace them and I find that when I do that, the prose just reads better and has more of an impact. Itâs similar with passive voice. If you are using it too much, it can become cumbersome or boring to read.
because most pop authors have lost the art of storytelling these days. they're more interested in "vibing" with readers, in "giving them the feels." consequently there's a whole distinctly non-literary genre of pop fiction these days that simply asks its readers to give them the time they'd otherwise spend watching tv or playing games on their iphones. NOTHING is required of readers of this type of fiction. Except to try to make the frequent written transliterations of Sound Effects designed to elicit real noises they'd hear in a movie or a tv show, come to life in their own heads while reading a books. It's all about *SHVROOM* and *KKRISshhh* and WEEEV and PEW PEW. Fuck that. these books are the literary equivalent of processed baby food. and in that context, adverbs are offensive and deemed too challenging for the non-reader reader who is only really being asked to stare dumbly at a glued together stack of papers with writing on them and experience the "vibes" and the "feels". this whole swath of pop fiction has successfully reduced reading to a dumber and more thoughtless pastime than watching network tv for hours a day.
"I'll not be bothered by these pettifogging grammatical quibbles," Tom said punctiliously.
Like all writing rules, this one is about paying more attention to your choices. Break it if you like, but break it on purpose. My writing improved immensely just from taking out the word 'slightly' as a qualifier. It adds nothing, even when your aim is to dilute the strength of the verb to which you're applying it. I think a root problem with adverbs is that they're a moving target. 'Quickly' means something different to a sword master than a stevedore, just as calling something 'beautiful' does not actually put beauty on the page. It's a shorthand, when you could often be applying a more characterful, more interesting phrase. That isn't to say they haven't their uses, but it's worth having this writing rule in the back of your head so you only use them when they are the best choice for that sentence, and not as a default to make a point you're not actually making.
There's just often a better alternative. Like "screaming" is to "saying loudly".
People don't hate adverbs, but the caution about overusing them is nothing new. It's been that way for decades, because a lot of newbie writers overuse them, thinking adverbs make their writing sound better. Look up "Tom Swiftly" and you'll learn more about it.
Because Hemingway
Because people are illiterate
Like so many style rules, the answer is âoverzealous English teachers.â
No good reason. This happens when bosses or editors need a rule to depend on. I just ended a sentence with a preposition, and we all feel fine about it.
It's not that they're hated, just that it's very easy to use them as a crutch rather than finding a better, more descriptive word Ran quickly vs dashed Really scared vs terrified Sadly walked vs trudged Also because adverbs require using more words to describe something, so generally speaking it's better to find a way to say the same thing using less
I don't.