There is currently a craze going on among the gestapo fringe of the small press regarding the use of adverbs. These grammatical Nazis are trying to ban them. I usually shrug this sort of thing off with some muttered invective to the effect that they might be more usefully employed searching for their errant brain cell. I was, however, curious to know how this strange state of affairs had come into being. And so I did a bit of digging.
I found a literary reviewer’s blog, in which he reviewed Stephen King’s latest short story. The review was a favourable one, but then he went on to remark upon the fact that King was the man responsible for the ‘current hysteria’ over the use of adverbs. He had written a book apparently, in which he said they should never be used. The reviewer’s purpose in mentioning the fact was that he had done an inventory of the short story in question - and found a hundred adverbs. Physician, heal thyself?
I do admit that the overuse of adverbs is clumsy. I even admit that I am sometimes prey to it myself, although I edit fairly rigorously and trim them down. But there is nothing inherently wrong with them. If I change ‘the bird rose swiftly into the air’ to ‘the bird’s ascent was swift,’ I am then guilty of using passive voice and another editor will complain about that. Besides, it changes the rhythm and nuance of expression. When all’s said and done, writers must be allowed their style.
I am a fan of Fowler’s Modern English Usage, and Fowler points out that English is not Latin and shouldn’t be judged as such. English is a language of usage, not rules, even though some of the usage is so universally accepted that it looks like rules. And there’s nothing wrong with generally following the conventions of usage, as long as we realise what we’re doing and why we’re doing it. But that’s as far as it goes.
So can I offer a word of advice to aspiring writers? When you come across a set of guidelines that carry a statement along the lines of ‘We will not accept any story that contains an adverb,’ as I have, move on. The ‘editor’ who wrote that knows no more about good writing than I do about the burial practices of the Sumerian second dynasty. If, indeed, there ever was a Sumerian second dynasty. Use your adverbs sparingly, but use them freely if you believe they have a purpose. Know when and why you are rebelling against convention – and rebel away.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
i'm generally not against adverbs, and outlawing them entirely seems silly, but i think it is good advice for writers to try not to rely on them. consciously avoiding adverbs shouldn't just mean editing them out, obviously, it should mean forcing yourself to use stronger verbs/adjectives/etc, which is a great thing to get in the habit of doing. a strong verb in place of a decent adverb and a wimpy verb is always a nice improvement, i think.
Oppositely, for me as a foreigner, I'd rather try to write proverb more often.
Generally I'd agree Em, but I have to add this. I think there is a tendency among writers to think they're being 'more literary' by using a strong verb, when what they sometimes produce actually sounds forced - consciously 'clever.' This is one of the effects of the ‘writers’ workshop’ mentality that I so dislike.
‘The animal moved swiftly across the ground’ has a totally different ring to it than ‘the animal raced across the ground.’ The whole nature of movement and intent is changed. The two animals are different.
If using the strong verb is genuinely better, fine; but there have been times when I've removed a strong verb and replaced it with a softer verb and adverb because it sounds simpler, more natural, and more pleasing to the ear. Surely, a good writer is someone who has a feel for the finer nuances of written/spoken expression, and they must be allowed to express that quality without being seen to fall foul of formulae imposed by a narrow-minded, self-important element of the literary establishment.
And what this also doesn’t take into account is the different ‘ear’ possessed by people in different parts of the English speaking world. That’s a whole subject in itself.
Wonderfully refreshing! Thanks, Jeff!
It's so funny you posted about this topic. There's a few blogs I read having to do with the "correct" way of writing a post or really anything for that matter....Nazi's yes! It's one thing to have proper grammar and spelling, but it's another to rip someone apart because they use their own "language" which brands them and draws fans. I had so many English teachers when I was a little girl in school mark up all my hard work with big red pen slash's marking how incorrect I was. We have enough of those stiff-as@@'s already inside of ourselves, we don't need people correcting us...Thanks for the great post as usual, Jeff.
Thanks back, Della. So you really do live in Berlin. I had the idea that you lived in America, and only the Fursts lived in Berlin. But my new little flaggy doo-dah says otherwise.
Hi Wendy. The 'correct' way to write a blog! What a strange idea. I think the trick with writing is to find the balance between convention and style. It should never be only about correctness. You learn correctness at school, and then you play with it. Have you ever read any Flann O'Brien? Very unconventional and quite brilliant. IN the final analysis, the first aim of language is to communicate.
I'll have to check out Flann O'Brien. I always could go for unconventional. I also think of Jack Kerouac, certainly not a writer who would be considered to have the perfect form for writing, but tell that to the millions of readers who were influenced and revered his writing. I believe Shakespeare was even considered quirky in his days. And yes, I had heard that the actual "Shakespeare" might not be THE Shakespeare. I believe he's like Robin Hood, more of an archetype/symbol and his/her writings set an example for all of us for inspiration and the way to connect and communicate from our heart and mind who really doesn't give a flying ....about grammar, etc...
Wendy: Oddly, I've never read Jack Kerouac. I remember his name cropping up in a 10cc/Godley and Creme track, and it always intrigued me. The only Flann O'Brien book I've read is The Third Policeman, which is best 'heard' in an Irish accent if the idiom is to make sense, although it was an American publisher who recommended it.
Post a Comment