"Most adverbs are unnecessary. You will clutter your sentence and annoy the reader if you choose a verb that has a specific meaning and then add an adverb that carries the same meaning. Don't write that someone clenched his teeth tightly; there's no other way to clench teeth."
"The adjective that exists solely as decoration is a self-indulgence for the writer and a burden for the reader."
- William Zinsser, On Writing Well: Chapter 10 Bits & Pieces
I am a writer who excessively uses adverbs and adjectives. I love writing that has some fluff to it. I think it helps my imagination picture exactly what the writer is seeing themselves. This may be because I doodle out my writings or that I design my work before ever thinking about what content will go in it. I think pictures speak louder than words, so when you have to describe a picture using words, adverbs and adjectives are exactly what are used. Many hate the dreadful "ly" terms just as much as they hate people who answer questions in circles. Me, on the other hand, love them.
Now I completely understand the idea of over using adverbs and adjectives, but is it really that annoying? Does everyone really like to just get straight to the point all the time, anytime? I think putting some fluff, some imagination into your writing is great. It allows the writer to visually see the story come to life. Zinsser always talks about simplifying, about reducing clutter, and getting straight to the point, but many famous writers use adverbs and adjectives to fluff their story up, make it come to life. They may reduce some, but not a lot. They get to the point but in a imaginative way. In a way that their readers feel sucked into the story, that their readers are living in the story. In fact, in some cases, I think that movies that are based off of books, wouldn't be as successful if the writer of the book didn't use as many adjective and adverbs to describe things.
For instance, Twilight. Yes, I know some people don't like Twilight, but look at it this way. The first movie was AWFUL! Yes, but why? Because the whole book was adverbs and adjectives describing how a young girl fell in love with a vampire. The book was almost 400 pages long of describing feelings of love, lust, and ever flowing emotions from both sides. However, the movie was straight to the point. It was like showing exactly how a person would describe the book: two people, from two different worlds, fell in love. Very exact with no feelings added. So in the movie, there was all this starring into each other's eyes. But in the book, all of that was described in adjectives and adverbs galore. It was all the fluff of the book, that can't be put into a movie because the director wasn't able to see how important the adverbs and adjectives were. I'm sure the director of that movie was one of William Zinsser's friends. (haha)
This is a critique of Stephanie Meyers' writing in the first book of Twilight. This person completely goes against everything I was saying and agrees with Zinsser. But then, she tries to re-write a passage from Twilight taking out the adverbs. I'm not a fan at all. I do agree with her "actions speak louder than adverbs", but I'm still saying Stephanie Meyers' is famous because of her use with adverbs. They suck you in and paint a picture. And that's why she's a millionaire.
On another note: this is just something funny I found on another blog about adverbs.
I also happen to be a fan of the fluff -- without descriptive adjectives and adverbs, our stories wouldn't be quite as interesting!
ReplyDeleteThe A. Watkins blog was an interesting tidbit. Thanks for sharing. I typically let the adverbs flow then go back and construct the sentence to live without them. I agree with your Twilight comment. I think adverbs provide an abstract picture for the audience that works well with the content of each story. As Becky said, the "fluff" makes all it interesting.
ReplyDeleteHaha. Oh, Twilight. I'm not sure the awkward gazing was there to visually explain the feelings expressed in the novel. I think it was just really bad acting.
ReplyDeleteI'm an anti-fluff person. The less I have to write, the better.
I have to agree. Zinnser does talk a lot in his book about simplifying ones writing. I do believe a little fluff is good and gets my imagination going. At the same time I think you have to know when not to "over fluff"...as that can make writing long winded.
ReplyDeleteOn a personal level, I wish I could learn to add a bit more fluff to my writing.
For me, my pleasure or annoyance with the "fluff" depends on the purpose of the writing. In a fictional novel, using plenty of adjectives and adverbs is great, and indeed, the story wouldn't be as interesting without it. Not so with non-fiction, which is what Zinnser is teaching how to write. So I do agree with him, but not if he believes elimination of fluff should be applied to creative writing as well.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your love of adverbs and adjectives, but I'd like to offer my opinion. You argue that adverbs paint a picture for the reader, but what they really do is force the reader to see the scene the way the author thinks they should see it. This is a very presumptuous notion in and of itself. Excessive use of adverbs makes the reader have to pause and ponder what the author is trying to say. Suddenly, there's a need for them to stop and think about the scene rather than allowing them to just feel it. Strong, effective verbs don't need to be modified. They give the reader the ability to feel the story and live through the author's words. In turn, they are able to paint their own picture. After all, isn't that the greatest gift of reading a book?
ReplyDelete