Hello. My name is Janet L. Cannon and I’m an addict. Yes, I wholeheartedly admit I’m thoroughly and completely addicted to those lovely and lively adverbs. Those beautifully artful words that modify verbs to more carefully describe what’s excitingly happening in my novel.
Umm. Yeah. Seriously. Seriously? Yeah.
Adverb addiction has been an issue with speculative fiction writers since time immemorial, so I don’t feel TOO bad (badly?) about inheriting the disease from all the books I read as a child. It was the pulp culture of the time. But now it’s not.
But why? Why discriminate against a single, beautiful part of speech when there are other, more terrible offenses to complain about like misplaced modifiers and the difference among “their,” “they’re,” and “there”?
1. Well, for one thing, a single candy bar is a treat. An entire bag of mixed minis can make you sicker than a pig on a rollercoaster. Adverbs, used sparingly and correctly, can make your work sparkle. But too much bling can blind the reader and make your piece unreadable.
Consider the following:
She spun around, her hair flowing freely like a waterfall down her back.
Okay, so is there any OTHER way to spin other than “around”? Do waterfalls flow “freely” or in more of a downward motion (i.e. gravity works). You could remove BOTH adverbs and this sentence would work just as well, and in fact, work BETTER.
2. Second, overusing adverbs (and adjectives, too), shows you are a weak writer. Yep. I said it. Flowery words are a subconscious way to try to hide the fact that your nouns and verbs--the foundation of your work--aren’t strong enough to support your piece.
How about this:
He talked softly.
She walked quickly.
Why not say, “He whispered,” and “She ran”? Use stronger nouns, ladies and gentlemen! Don’t hide behind adverbs to try to make your point!
3. Another horrible truth: often, adverbs either a. don’t tell you anything you didn’t know anyway or b. don’t describe what you mean. This means they are sometimes USELESS. POINTLESS.
For example:
She looked grimly at the murderer. (What does grimly look like?)
Anxiously pacing, the boy waited for his mother. (Umm, if he’s pacing, he’s anxious.)
Before you get your panties in a wad, don’t think I’m proclaiming a ban on all adverbs. That would be like telling women they could never eat chocolate again. Or football fans that buffalo wings can only be eaten during the off season.
Use them sparingly. Use them correctly.
With great power comes great responsibility. And sometimes that responsibility is to comfort the grammar nazis in your life. Do you know how to do it?
You say, “Their, they’re, there!”
End sermon.
If you'd like to read a more detailed version about adverbaholicism, try this article:
****************************************
Next week’s main course on Revision is a Dish Best Served Cold:
Quizzle Me This: Defining You in Five Questions. Really?
On the menu for the future: an interview with Margot Dill (Editor 911) about her new book
Caught Between Two Curses
and Why is Revising so hard?
Currrently: How Writing is Like a Marathon
I read a wonderful defense of the additional modifier "AROUND" when associated with spin or spun. I will not rehash ad infinitum but the writer pointed out that it can indicate a 180 degree move, rather a full turn or quarter-turn.
ReplyDeleteHere is what I really think (ha---"really") (should have been "actually"):
The profound changes that occur over time in literature (such as demonizing modifiers) have been primarily affected by two different powerful forces:
(1.) Mutual Admiration Syndrome:
A new style (let's say 1st person POV) is used by an established author or a celebrated up-and-comer.
Members of the academic community latch onto it and hail it.
Their disciples go out and become editors, agents, publishers
As gatekeepers, they will then "bless" those things that they were told were "gooder"
That type of prose (1st person POV) becomes the darling
Other types appear less and less, because less and less gatekeepers are blessing it
Therefore, the writers change in a slavish attempt to please their masters
And finally (ha), the readers are only exposed (in new literature) to this style.
Since that is about the only thing for sale, then the academics will cry "See, see, the market is reflecting what we have been saying!"
WRONG.
It's like REALITY TV---is it the best form of television?
NO NO NO
But it is about 80% of programming, and people watch it, therefore the market is telling us what it likes.
WRONG...it is the tail wagging the dog.
Self-fulfilled prophecy.
The gatekeepers (agents, publishers, "editors") are comfortable with the style of writing they were taught was "gooder".
I have always found it hilarious that writing gurus preach about writing "accurate dialog" which is true to life, but then propose a style of prose that is often only a distant relative of good verbal storytelling.
(part 2 is below)
(2.) Changes in literature are often a knee-jerk reaction against competitive media
DeleteWhen color TV came out in 1954, movie ticket sales went down. Why? People could get "on screen entertainment" at home.
You know what happened? The movie industry got together to fight TV and they came up with a way to give people what they COULDN'T get at home---Widescreen.
Most people are not aware that movie screens were roughly a square, just like good ole TV (4:3 aspect ratio). (Watch old movies, they are not widescreen)
So, movies began coming out in the new 16:9 or 2.40:1 or even wider aspect ratios. And guess what....movie ticket sales started going up again.
(So guess what TV did in the 1990s? It went widescreen and movie sales declined again)
What does this have to do with changes from popular to pulp to proper to purple?
The move away from a dominant style, such as 3rd Person Omniscient (almost all the "classics" we have to read in school with rare exception) occurred when?
Hmmmmmm....
In the middle of the 20th century. (around 1950)
Television.
The tube did it.
Publishing companies (and therefore everyone below...which means everyone) had to change to attract people to something new, fresh, diff'rnt.
And it did. Look it up.
TV changed the newspaper business as well, and now the internet is competely remodeling it.
I challenge you to look at "quality" literature prior to about the mid 1950s. Most of it wouldnt find an agent let alone a print house.(I am being hyperbolic to make a point)
It is much like art, impressionism, cubism, romanticism, realism, hyperrealism...you name it, are all along the artistic style spectrum, and there are appetites for it all. The problem is that, just like in school, we are TOLD what is good and not good, proper and not proper. Our tastes are not so much acquired, like in food, but our tastes are manipulated.
Now, to close this post that may actually (ha) be longer than the original article, let me say that I agree with the heart of what my treasured friend has shared. I am not raging against the article, but against the smuggishness (ha) of academics (and I am a teacher) who tell you what you should want, then only allow what they like, and then claim that the market validates their philosophy.
Here is an example of a more recent tome:
ReplyDelete1977--A Spell for Chameleon (Piers Anthony!)
(The book won the 1977 British Fantasy Society Award for the best novel of the year.)
181 words in this short section...guess how many adverbs (you will be shocked)
at least SIX obvious adverbs (most editors will cry if they see more than TWO adverbs per page (250 words)
2/250 That is a .008% adverb rate
Anthony here has .033% adverb rate
_________________________________
Fanchon looked about nervously. “Is the current carrying us into that?”
“Yes, miss. I wouldn't interfere, but if you don't turn this boat soon, we'll all be dead. I know that Shield works; I've seen animals try to go through it and get fried.”
“How can we tell where it is?” she asked.
“There's a glimmer. See?” He pointed with difficulty. Bink peered and saw it. They were drifting toward a curtain of faint luminescence, ghostly white. The Shield!
The ship progressed inexorably. “We can't stop it,” Fanchon cried. “We're going right through.”
“Throw down the anchor!” the sailor said.
What else was there to do? The Shield was certain death. Yet to stop meant capture by Trent's forces. Even bluffing them back by means of the vial of elixir would not suffice; the ship remained a kind of prison.
“We can use the lifeboat,” Fanchon said. “Give me the vial.”
Bink gave it to her, then threw over the anchor. The ship slowly turned as the anchor took hold. The Shield loomed uncomfortably close--but so did the pursuing ship.
Here is another section...interesting, play Count the Adverbs:
DeleteThey walked back down the path. The jokers, getting no further rise from their prey, went in search of other mischief. The landscape no longer seemed so lovely. Maybe he'd be better off away from here. Maybe he should take off now, not waiting to be officially exiled. If Sabrina really loved him, she'd come with him---even Outside, into Mundania.
No, he knew better than that. Sabrina loved him--but she loved Xanth, too. She had such a sweet shape, such kissable lips, that she could find another man much more easily than she could adjust to the rigors of life among the nonmagical. For that matter, he could find another gift more easily than … what he faced. So probably, objectively, he'd be better off going alone. So why didn't his heart agree?
I agree that "gatekeepers" and "authorities" have often imposed arbitrary restrictions on what is right and wrong on industry standards in media, but there's also the litmus test of the masses: does it sell? In the 1970s and 80s, Piers Anthony's pulp style of writing was what the readers wanted. Although his writing is still popular today, it isn't topping the charts because readers' tastes have changed. Also, if you look at the structure of his sentences, he has strong verbs and detailed nouns that support the structure of his sentences. They are SHOWing instead of TELLing. The adjectives and adverbs merely support the structure. They aren't THE structure. When the house of grammar is built on strong nouns and verbs, you can add pretty shutters, a new roof, and a gorgeous coat of adjectives and adverbs, and it won't collapse with misunderstanding or reader confusion. Thanks for your point of view!
ReplyDelete