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!

Owwwwww.

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).

I'd argue that Bradbury is sparing with adjectives and downright frugal with adverbs. For example:

For some, autumn comes early, stays late, through life … with no winter, spring or revivifying summer. For these beings, fall is the only normal season, the only weather, there be no choice beyond. Where do they come from? The dust. Where do they go? The grave. Does blood stir their veins? No, the night wind. What ticks in their head? The worm. What speaks through their mouth? The toad. What sees from their eye? The snake. What hears with their ear? The abyss between the stars. They sift the human storm for souls, eat flesh of reason, fill tombs with sinners. They frenzy forth. In gusts they beetle-scurry, creep, thread, filter, motion, make all moons sullen, and surely cloud all clear-run waters. The spider-web hears them, trembles—breaks. Such are the autumn people. Beware of them.

its often a gesture on the writer's part that they're afraid the audience won't get it.

I think perhaps you don't need to explain that to *this* audience.