Part of my course has been helping kids identify "works of literary merit" and defining what that means. One of our ongoing discussions is around the idea that one trait of literary merit is playing with language (which Rowling does, but it's mostly in the naming of things, like Spell-o-tape etc).
I think they have decided that, generally speaking, books that are primarily plot-driven are wonderful but mostly don't qualify as having "literary merit." It's been interesting to see them reach that conclusion because most of them found it when trying to identify the differences between Jane Eyre, Picture of Dorian Gray and The Strange Tale of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
Rowling is plot so her adverbial tendencies don't really slow that down.
Adverbs should be used........sparingly.
You probably eat dry toast, too.
I thought today's writers were less slavishly devoted to Strunk and White? Haven't they sort of receded into the landscape of pretty opinionated grammar dominatri...what the hell is a gender neutral term for what I'm looking for, fuck?
I mean, I didn't think they were regarded as singularly right anymore...not hugely more right than many other voices (some of whom don't have a hate on for the adverb, for instance, to the same degree).
I think it's entirely possible to write lively descriptive prose without an abundance of adverbs. Framing it as a choice between adverb overload and stark minimalism is a strawman, surely.
Definitely. People need to stop dichotomizing falsely.
I think it's entirely possible to write lively descriptive prose without an abundance of adverbs. Framing it as a choice between adverb overload and stark minimalism is a strawman, surely.
This is where I am. Light on adverbs does not mean stark minimalism by any means.
Do people not get why there's an objection to reliance on adverbs? As Stephen King put it, its often a gesture on the writer's part that they're afraid the audience won't get it. That it needs to be pumped up to get across. It's a kind of anvilicious writing style that spells out the intended effect. It's the writing equivalent of a musical score that hits every emotional note for you.
I'm not as anti-adverb as my poetry teacher, but I do agree with the general principle that if you've taken a few minutes to construct the sentence and found the right verb then shouldn't need a lot of adverbs.
You probably eat dry toast, too.
What a slander to my butter intake!
Do people not get why there's an objection to reliance on adverbs?
I thought we all pretty much agreed that we do understand that, but that the occasional adverb (or event two!) isn't a sin.
I thought we all pretty much agreed that we do understand that, but that the occasional adverb (or event two!) isn't a sin.
I didn't think there was that much agreement, but I'm not advocating an adverb-free universe. I noted my Professor's indignant stance because - I don't know - I'm fond of his vehemence and caring on the matter. And while I don't endorse his stance, I agree with the principle.
I thought today's writers were less slavishly devoted to Strunk and White?
They're not the Last Word, but they're still upheld as an elegant exemplar. It is a kind of prose which will still get you published in the New Yorker (which despite its reputation for WASP-y, minimalist fiction did publish Flannery O'Connor and Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery" among other things).
