Because nobody had voiced any alliance with the notion that there was a good reason to rein in adverbs.

Do they need to?

I don't get why you're getting huffy.

Because being lectured as though I'm a 12-year-old learning how to write descriptively -- or being lectured on How To Appreciate Great Writing -- irritates me just a skosh, seeing as how I'm neither 12 nor an idiot.

I don't know which of these arguments you're supporting.

You misunderstand me.

Of course you know why too many adverbs is a sign of weak construction. It's presumptuous of me to say so when it's understood by this audience.

Actually, I know why others may hold the belief that too many adverbs are bad. And it is presumptuous of you to say so when it's understood by this audience, none of whom are 12.

It's not a necessary or useful standard.

Very true.

Your advocacy is debatable.

You advocate whatever you like. It's not going to change my opinion.

Because nobody had voiced any alliance with the notion that there was a good reason to rein in adverbs

You're new here, right? And you don't keep OCD records on mustard-stained napkins, right?

Jesus, Tep, you've got a hard opinion on every aspect of grammar, including the Oxford Comma, so I don't get why my stance on adverb use pings you in the least.

Your opinions on grammatical matters are not mediated, but bossy and intransigent.

As are most Buffistas.

Dude, why do you care so much if we like adverbs? Did an adverb bite your sister?

I like adverbs. Passionately. Immoderately. Vociferously. Ill-advisedly.

You standing on some sort of pure, unadorned writing soapbox like this only makes me think you're in this argument for the fun of it.

And most of us -- I thought -- said that we know overuse of them is lazy and bad writing, but that we're okay with using them occasionally

For what it's worth, I read the tone of the conversation the same as Hec did, I think, and I didn't hear anyone saying this. I was pretty confused at how vehemently people seemed to be defending adverbs, and if the above is true, then I'm incredibly confused now as to what this argument is even about. Apparently we're all snapping at each other because we agree that adverbs are easy to overuse?

No, I think people are snapping at Hec because they never said every third word should be an adverb, and that no said they were going to out and out adverb Rowling, but he still used small patient words to explain what bad bad things they are.

No one wants to popper their prose in them, but Hec is admonishing....someone here, and various someone stood up and said "Not I! And don't use that tone, young man!"

I was pretty confused at how vehemently people seemed to be defending adverbs, and if the above is true, then I'm incredibly confused now as to what this argument is even about.

Well, I said this early on:

But that's not true for a hell of a lot of writers out there, who could definitely benefit from a few less adverbs

So I'm stating that a lot of writers could benefit from fewer adverbs.

I also think no one here, whether it's been articulated precisely or not, is supporting grossly overusing adverbs. Overusing any one technique or preference is a bad idea, no matter what it is.

Or what ita said. Honestly? It's just sort of a dumb discussion. This isn't really a controversial writing topic.

Darned whipper snapper that he is.

I find that in my writing (usually work-related), I'll use an adjective or an adverb instead of taking the time to think of the appropriate noun or verb. To take Hec's example above, "'Ha, Ha!' she cried triumphantly." works as "'Ha, Ha!' she crowed."

When I was a litigator, I tried to cultivate a "Mr. Spock" basic writing style. Very straightforward and logical (one supervisor complimented it as "spare"), throwing in the occasional adjective or adverb for effect. For example, "Curiously, plaintiff does not explain...."

But that's me in a certain context. When I read for pleasure, I enjoy a certain amount of "overwriting."

I prefer '"Ha, Ha!" she cried triumphantly' to "'Ha, Ha!' she crowed", for Harry Potter, because it is aimed at a juvenile audience, who may or may not understand that "crowed" implies a triumphant nature. Sure, it's educational to include words in YA books that encourage vocabulary building, but I think it's important to include such words in a context that can be easily understood. The problem I see with this example is that for many readers, especially younger ones, the phrase "Ha, Ha!" will immediately imply not triumph, but mirth. When I read it, the comma is enough to tell me this isn't actually a laugh, but more of a whoop, but that won't be enough for many young readers. I think, in this case, that an easy-to-understand adverb (rather than a less-obvious verb, or a use of "cried" alone) clarifies that this is not a laugh. At least, not exactly.

Kids read things with their own hard-to-break filters. When I was in 3rd grade, I was in The Best Christmas Pageant Ever. One of the other actors kept reading the line "Yeah! Right!" (affirmative) as "Yeah right." (sarcastic disagreement) because the sarcastic "Yeah right." was a very common phrase at the time and the words, as written, with no direction, confused him. It took the director about 10 minutes of saying "No, you should say it like this..." to finally lock down that he thought the character was disagreeing, not agreeing, at which point he clarified and the line reading immediately made sense. Now, the author, who was writing many years earlier, could not have predicted this confusion, but I think it's fair to try to prevent confusion around a phrase like "Ha, Ha!" being used in the less common fashion by including an explanatory adverb.