Should Writers Obey the Rule of "No Adverbs"? | Writer Questions #3

As I explore this new world of writing, I come across some “rules” that can be amusing, if one recognizes them for the holy mantras they are, or confusing, if one doesn’t. Recently, the “no adverbs” religious utterance came to my attention. Why should a writer exclude those incredibly beautiful words? (Please don’t start your answer with the words “Stephen King”.)

********

Dear Writer,

Two things on this.

First, on the concept of "rules" in writing. "Rules" are usually overcorrections. The fundamental principle of art is: "Do what is effective." Sometimes adverbs are "what is effective." Often, they are not.

Second, on what those who parrot such rules are getting at: Adverbs are often redundant. Certain verbs are neutral and will require an adverb to bring out nuance. "I walked to the store" implies something different than "I ran to the store." Both of those sentences are fine. It's also fine to write, "I walked quickly to the store," because "walk" by definition does not imply "quick." But it's redundant to write, "I ran quickly to the store," because "run" by definition implies haste.

Alternatively, there are a host of verbs that carry added nuance. "Sprinting" and "jogging" differ. "Trudging" and "sauntering" differ. Each of these four words refers to different types of locomotion, and this without a single adverb.

Certain verbs are already nuanced in and of themselves (see above), so learn not to beat dead horses. Learn through practice and revision the balance between seasoning a neutral word with nuance and employing intrinsically nuanced verbs.

Consider the word of W. Somerset Maugham for a poignant rephrasing of my point:
“If you can tell stories, create characters, devise incidents, and have sincerity and passion, it doesn’t matter a damn how you write.”

Over time, you will learn to determine the ways in which criticisms of your writing are accurate and the ways in which they are not.

Best,

DR-M