What's an Adverb?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mobama

By function, "bad" in "feel bad" is an adverb, even though it looks like the adjective "bad". Knowing how to figure out how words function syntactically, as distinguished from mere spelling, is a good skill to have.

But it’s not - that’s the point. The word “bad” in “I feel bad” is filling the same function as the word “dinner” in “I eat dinner”. It’s saying what you are feeling, not how you are feeling it. It is not an adverb in any way, shape or form.

[pdurrant]

HarryT and sjfan are right. 'Bad' in "I feel bad" is not an adverb because it is not modifying the verb.

I feel sad.
I feel happy.
I feel sick.
I feel well.

None of those are adverbs either.

[Nabeel]

That Stephen King statement: 'The road to hell is paved with adverbs':

Isn't he thinking of people who qualify 'said' with an adverb?

He said mysteriously
She said darkly

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Nabeel

That Stephen King statement: 'The road to hell is paved with adverbs':

Isn't he thinking of people who qualify 'said' with an adverb?

He said mysteriously
She said darkly

Well, those at least really are adverbs.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Nabeel

That Stephen King statement: 'The road to hell is paved with adverbs':

Isn't he thinking of people who qualify 'said' with an adverb?

He said mysteriously
She said darkly

In King's "On Writing" he says "The adverb is not your friend", and goes on to speak of much more than speech attributions. (And a later paragraph gives the "road to hell" quote.) One example is "He closed the door firmly." He admits this works but asks if "firmly" really has to be there.

And that is really the point: does it have it be there? When it comes to adverbs (and even suspected adverbs) that is all you have to know/ask.

Often there are better, clearer ways to say the same thing; or ways to show rather than tell. And often you already have made it clear, so the adverb is redundant. ... And sometimes you want the adverb, despite the thousands of versions of advice telling you otherwise. Even King admits to using them, and he admits to using verbs other than "said" (eg: pleaded and shouted) but insists that adverbs in speech attribution should be kept to "the rarest most special occasions" (but he still doesn't say "never").

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by gmw

In King's "On Writing" he says "The adverb is not your friend", and goes on to speak of much more than speech attributions. (And a later paragraph gives the "road to hell" quote.) One example is "He closed the door firmly." He admits this works but asks if "firmly" really has to be there.

I find this somewhat baffling. Why on Earth would one not want to qualify verbs? Does Mr King have a similar aversion to adjectives?

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I find this somewhat baffling. Why on Earth would one not want to qualify verbs? Does Mr King have a similar aversion to adjectives?

Because they can easily be overused. Some writers like to carefully qualify every verb they deliberately write. Because they want to convey precisely the meaning they really intend, and incorrectly think that adverbs are the best way to casually do that.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Because they can easily be overused. Some writers like to carefully qualify every verb they deliberately write. Because they want to convey precisely the meaning they really intend, and incorrectly think that adverbs are the best way to casually do that.

Surely, though, the same "abuse" could apply to adjectives, could it not?

[gmw]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I find this somewhat baffling. Why on Earth would one not want to qualify verbs? Does Mr King have a similar aversion to adjectives?

Like a lot of writing advice/rules, the origin lies on over-use/abuse. But, also, King's advice regarding adverbs is part of a wider discussion that included passive versus active verbs, and how this relates to whether the writing feels confident. New writers tend to be unsure of themselves and this may lead not only to passive phrasing, but also to over-explaining; saying things multiple times to be sure the reader gets it (get it? ).

An earlier example on this thread was "ran quickly" - since "ran" already indicates speed, does "quickly" add anything to the phrase?

It is not that such constructs should never be used, but that they should be used deliberately, and not just because you aren't sure if the reader has understood. It is not uncommon to find something like:

"Shut up!" he shouted loudly.

Here we have italics, exclamation mark, and an adverb to the speech attribution, and they are all saying the same thing: give this emphasis. The italics can go, but I'd probably keep the exclamation point - especially if I can drop the speech attribution all together (obviously that depends on the greater context). The point being that the "he shouted" maybe redundant too, given the words and exclamation.


And you're right, adverbs are not the only thing that can be overused, but...

* abuse has been common

* King (and some other famous people) have highlighted the abuse

so naturally every writer's advice column out there likes to harp on adverbs.

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by gmw

One example is "He closed the door firmly." He admits this works but asks if "firmly" really has to be there.

As you pointed out, it depends on context. If the door was known to be balky at closing, or if the character was hesitant about closing the door, but wanted to be decisive, then the adverb is fine. (now I can say it's an adverb, whereas before I just knew it was the word that went there.-)

[Catlady]

How can there be a thread on adverbs without anyone mentioning Tom Swifties?

[sjfan]

Originally Posted by mobama

That's how I have seen it justified before, as if "bad" in "feel bad" were not an adverb. In reality, there are good arguments for that it is.

Briefly, there is form on one side and function on the other. Any given word may be (at least) two things in the same sentence depending whether you are describing its form or its function. Occasionally, forms are spelled the same and then you realize you have to go by function to explain the word properly.

By function, "bad" in "feel bad" is an adverb, even though it looks like the adjective "bad". Knowing how to figure out how words function syntactically, as distinguished from mere spelling, is a good skill to have.

The highlighted is where this goes astray: “bad” is not modifying “feel” or performing any other function of an adverb in this construction.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by sjfan

The highlighted is where this goes astray: “bad” is not modifying “feel” or performing any other function of an adverb in this construction.

Precisely. Compare with "he ran bad" where, although horribly ungrammatical, "bad" is modifying the verb and hence is an adverb.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by gmw

Like a lot of writing advice/rules, the origin lies on over-use/abuse. But, also, King's advice regarding adverbs is part of a wider discussion that included passive versus active verbs, and how this relates to whether the writing feels confident. New writers tend to be unsure of themselves and this may lead not only to passive phrasing, but also to over-explaining; saying things multiple times to be sure the reader gets it (get it? ).

They get into these arguments all the time on a screenwriting forum where I go. I understand that new writers tend to overuse (so-called) "passive" verbs and adverbs, but the writing "gurus" tend to overuse "never" when advising their "groupies." And the groupies come to believe that it's a hard and fast rule to "never use -ing verbs or 'are' or 'is' because these are 'passive' verbs." (Which leads to some really stilted and hideous writing.) As the resident grammar stickler at the screenwriting forum points out, "he is walking" is not passive, it's active "present continuous." And there are reasons to use this present continuous tense just as there are reasons to use adverbs.

Present continuous active verbs are often used for description – to describe ongoing background action.

From the DejaVu screenplay ...

Doug moves along amid a swirl of activity: ringing phones, ANALYSTS and ASSISTANTS rushing between desks, the frenzy of a crime unit in the wake of a national disaster.

We're following Doug, the action in the background is descriptive. You could write "Doug moves ... phones ring ... ANALYSTS and ASSISTANTS rush ..." but then nothing really stands out. Doug's action is what matters, the rest of it is background.

As for adverbs ... how else would you write, "Joe slowly backs away?"

There's also the matter of pacing. If the whole story (or script) is written in simple present tense, you'll get shorter ("punchier") sentences throughout. And then, when the pace and action picks up (where sentences naturally become shorter), it won't stand out from the rest of the writing.

(Sorry to ramble.)

[gmw]

Originally Posted by rcentros

[...]
(Sorry to ramble.)

No problem at all. I quite agree about the tendency of advice columns to get carried away with their "don't do this" rules. Writing is all about the getting the balance right, and the balance keeps changing. It's one of the things that makes it interesting.