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.

Fair point, Gris. Audience is important.

I have developed a dislike for the use of "through" and "through out" as seen in the tuition waiver essays I've been reading this week.

I think it's clunky and very possibly wrong.

All this "adverb" talk has earwormed me with Schoolhouse Rock.

Lolly lolly lolly...

I write for the government, primarily, and we aren't allowed to use adverbs. Or adjectives. Or metaphors or similes. EVERYTHING is contained in the verb choice.

I don't know, maybe this is part of the increasing government austerity? Do adverbs cost more?

Raq, just a matter of government policy being behind the times. Adverbs used to be expensive, but they are now made in bulk in Indonesia and cost almost nothing.

Darn cheap outsourced adverbs. They're keeping writers here at home from having the adverbs we want!