Hi, Nina
I am sorry to have bothered you with that comment. What an excellent idea to raise it for discussion here.
I think we have two issues: one specific (adverbs) and one general (poetry leading not following).
In regard to the second, I quite agree. Hence, if adverbs are seen as less than cutting edge they may be removed (what a circular argument, lol - sorry).
Adverbs themselves describe a verb (I hope I got that right?); they are all those 'LY'-ending words like meanacingly, quickly, brightly, carefully, slowly.
If you say someone 'walked quickly' it is more descriptive to say s/he 'strode' or 'scampered' or 'jogged' - it gives an idea of the kind of movement - the gait as well as speed. Even if we just say s/he 'sped' we still loose a word (making the writing 'tighter' as beloved of poets especially).
So my main reasoning is that a) they rarely add to a description and b) they clutter the text, which would be tighter without them.
(A final point (which will not apply to any MM writers, of course) is that they are often taken as a sign of careless writing: if the verb was chosen well, an adverb would not be needed. I know that my first draft novel MS was horribly peppered with adverbs ... still some to be honed)
An interesting excercise is to take a passage of prose and remove all the adverbs. Read it out loud and compare it to the original version. Some of the adverbs may carry their weight, but many may be written out by careful initial choice of verb.
Does that clarify my heartless cruelty to adverbs?
Fran
|