Too many adjectives and adverbs?

[Fishbowl Helmet]

Okay, so I was reading a Hugo-nominated author last night when I came across a paragraph than almost hurt, physically, due to the number of adjectives and adverbs in such a short span.

This is kind of a game, as I don't want it to turn into a "well X writer sold Y copies" or "X writer has been nominated Y times for the Hugo, Nebula, etc" kind of thread. If you recognize the passage, please just play along anyway and comment on the writing rather than the writer.

I know the so-called rules of use for adjectives and adverbs are one of those canards which plagues writers, but I thought it would be interesting to break down a paragraph here.

So, here goes...

"[Character] jumped up while the echoes were still cracking back from the altar. He leapt into the doorway at the far end of the balcony, putting out one hand and grabbing the soft corner of the wall as he went past, spinning himself round as he fell to his knees. He reached out and grabbed the dead monk's gun from the corpse's slack grip, just as the balcony started to come away from the wall with a glassy, grinding noise. [Character] shoved himself back into the corridor behind him. The balcony tipped bodily away into the empty space of the hall in a dully glittering cloud of fragments and fell with a great, shattering crash onto the floor below, taking the shadowy form of the dead monk fluttering with it."

That's a lot of adjectives and adverbs in a short space. Fourteen by my count. This stuck out to me as the writing surrounding this passage wasn't as laden with ads as this bit.

I'm not commenting on the quality of writing at all. Simply pointing out the sheer abundance of adjectives and adverbs present. Some people shriek at the mere presence of *gasp* two adjectives or adverbs on a page, others are happy to never see them in a novel. The above passage would cause real harm to either.

What does Chrons think of the above? Is this good writing or is this an overuse of adjectives and adverbs? And please, if you know the work and the author, don't spoil it. This isn't about fame or sales, but strictly about the writing.

 

[allmywires]

I think that reads fine, to be honest. My go-to example for adverb overuse is dear J.K. Rowling. For what skills she has in plotting and aptly naming her characters, she sure abuses the hell out of them (especially in dialogue tags).

I like a good adjective and adverb, so y'know, I am a bit biased.

 

[The Judge]

I liked that. I wouldn't have written it in quite that way myself but the plethora of descriptors doesn't worry me at all. And though the "soft" corner puzzled me, the only one I'd get rid of would be "bodily" -- I use it a good bit, but only in conjunction with things that actually have bodies! But if he'd used a different word that, to me, made a bit more sense, I'd have accepted it.

 

[Boneman]

Think about the target audience for that piece and you'll see they couldn't give a monkey's about adjectives and probably welcome them, so they don't have to use their own imagination...

A few less would have been better, I reckon...'great, shattering crash' stands out

 

[Warren_Paul]

It's maybe a tiny bit bloated. Very dramatic, yes, but not bad writing. "Bodily" is the only one that really stood out as excessive to me - because it didn't quite make sense. And "Dully" because it didn't sound quite right as a description - I'd want to cut the y off it's end and just say "dull glittering." - which doesn't cut down on adjectives, just sounds better.

 

[Bowler1]

I wondered about the soft corner as well, but otherwise enjoyed the little section. It is almost a movie scene with added feeling. I think the author did well to get the difficult series of actions flowing well together. I would have held back some myself, but it works.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

Ah, the soft corner. That's confusing because of context. The location is moss-covered, hence the soft corner of wall. Sorry about that.

Think about the target audience for that piece and you'll see they couldn't give a monkey's about adjectives and probably welcome them, so they don't have to use their own imagination...

A few less would have been better, I reckon...'great, shattering crash' stands out

I am curious how you mean your shot at the target audience. It's not a book marketed to the kids lit or YA crowd. That it's a space opera is the only thing I can think you might be trying to attack here. Please explain.

 

[Boneman]

I am curious how you mean your shot at the target audience. It's not a book marketed to the kids lit or YA crowd. That it's a space opera is the only thing I can think you might be trying to attack here. Please explain.

An overuse of adjectives/adverbs (as already shown) turns some people off, because it leaves no room for the imagination - it's holding their noses to the page saying: 'this is the type of crash it was', rather than giving a small clue that allows the writing to speed on, while the reader assimilates the information within their own experience.

If I say: "A woman screamed" we may all interpret it differently, but if I say "A woman screamed loudly" some readers will already have interpreted the scream as loud, without the adverb. If I say "A woman screamed very loudly" it's becoming unnecessary - can you have a quiet scream? Possibly: "she stifled a quiet scream...' Is that better than 'she stifled a scream'? If it's stifled, it must be quiet, so it becomes repetitious.

Here's the piece without the adverbs/adjectives. (I'm more concerned about his 'putting' 'grabbing' and 'spinning' all in one sentence, now I see it!)

"[Character] jumped up while the echoes were still cracking from the altar. He leapt into the doorway at the far end of the balcony, putting out one hand and grabbing the corner of the wall as he went past, spinning round as he fell to his knees. He reached out and grabbed the gun from the corpse, just as the balcony started to come away from the wall. [Character] shoved himself back into the corridor behind him. The balcony tipped away into the hall in a cloud of fragments and fell with a crash onto the floor below, taking the monk with it." [I left in 'cloud of fragments']

The balance is something between the two pieces. What I meant was, that the reader who really enjoyed this book would not see over-description as excessive, because they prefer the author to tell them everything, so they don't have to fill in any spaces that must (by necessity) be left, or we'd all spend page after page in descriptive prose, doing it for them. The Wheel of Time springs to mind here, as an example of excessive exposition, and there are loads who love that kind of writing, but excessive use of adjectives/adverbs becomes telling. A 'glassy, grinding noise' makes no real sense, even though (I assume) the writer's trying to get the idea of grinding glass (as a powder, or fragments) over to the reader.

Is it better to say 'with a great, shattering crash' than 'with a shattering crash' or 'with a crash'? Or even: 'with a great crash' Personally I prefer the last one, because it allows me to construct in my own mind, what sort of crash the balcony's going to make.

This piece reminded me of Dan Brown, to be honest, who's sold millions, but to the type of reader who prefers it laid out for him: for example:

As he anticipated, a thundering iron gate fell nearby, barricading the entrance to the suite. The parquet floor shook. Far off, an alarm began to ring.
The curator lay a moment, gasping for breath, taking stock. I am still alive. He crawled out from under the canvas and scanned the cavernous space for someplace to hide.
Only fifteen feet away, outside the sealed gate, the mountainous silhouette of his attacker stared through the iron bars. He was broad and tall, with ghost-pale skin and thinning white hair. His irises were pink with dark red pupils.

Thundering iron gate?? Cavernous space?? Fifteen feet?? (he had time to measure it?) Mountainous silhouette? (How can a mountainous silhopuette stare??) etc etc.

In its way, using so many adverbs/adjectives in this way is lazy writing. And it's sold millions...

 

[Beef]

First thing to bear in mind is that the Hugo award doesn't necesarily go to the best writing, but to the best book. If that makes sense. If you come up with an utterly brilliant science fiction concept, like Asimov's three laws of robotics or whatever, and the writing is a little bit flaky, you are going to win the Hugo regardless. There's more to a book than just writing well, as nonsensical as that probably sounds. There's story and world and what-have-you.

Another thing to bear in mind is age, I don't know how old the book you're quoting is, but this lean approach to adjectives and adverbs seems to be a more recent thing. Take the following:

"Call me Ishmael. Some years ago- never mind how long precisely- having little or no money in my purse, and nothing particular to interest me on shore, I thought I would sail about a little and see the watery part of the world. It is a way I have of driving off the spleen and regulating the circulation. Whenever I find myself growing grim about the mouth; whenever it is a damp, drizzly November in my soul; whenever I find myself involuntarily pausing before coffin warehouses, and bringing up the rear of every funeral I meet; and especially whenever my hypos get such an upper hand of me, that it requires a strong moral principle to prevent me from deliberately stepping into the street, and methodically knocking people's hats off- then, I account it high time to get to sea as soon as I can."

Now, there are a lot of adjectives and adverbs there. Fourteen, in fact. But it's also erm - amazing. Now, you might say the difference lies in the book's age, or the fact that the examples already given are more fast-paced action scenes, and are slowed down by needless modifiers. Or maybe it's that Herman Melville was better at writing than Dan Brown is.

My point is that adjectives and adverbs in themselves aren't bad per se, it's the way that they are used.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

It is actually very reminiscent of Robert Neil's style (1950s author that wrote tales of witchcraft) and he is by far my favourite author. Yes I can be a very lazy reader but really I go for a character I like and great story.

 

[Bowler1]

I could never get into Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code, I did wonder why so many people liked it and now I know why, thank you very much, Boneman.

Leaving space for the reader is why Shakespeare has lasted the test of time, I don’t rate Dan’s chances, but I could be wrong. Well said as well, Beef (excuse me, this fence is right up my ****), and dipping into a little bit description/prose/purple etc. is the difference between a good story and great writing. Tip the balance too far and sink into over used adverbs/objectives and you’ll kill your story with crap writing. The “only fifteen feet away” or similar always bug me, did he have a measuring tape with him – please. But modern writing is expected to compete against the Xbox, the internet and of course TV, so readers are demanding immediate satisfaction because that’s modern life. I think that means we have to be very tight in our writing, but there is always a little scope for style and flare, but don’t overdo it.

Right, I’m off to extract some splinters from places splinters were never meant to be, ohhhh, that fence….

 

[Venusian Broon]

I could never get into Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code, I did wonder why so many people liked it and now I know why, thank you very much, Boneman. ...The “only fifteen feet away” or similar always bug me, did he have a measuring tape with him – please

The prologue I remember had an extra line:

"A voice spoke, chillingly close. "Do not move."
On his hands and knees, the curator froze, turning his head slowly.
Only fifteen feet away, outside the sealed gate, the mountainous silhouette of his attacker stared through the iron bars"

Which jars instantly with me - I mean 5 metres is 'chillingly close'?!?

Leaving space for the reader is why Shakespeare has lasted the test of time, I don’t rate Dan’s chances, but I could be wrong.

errmm, to be fair to Dan (oh my god I'm going to support Dan Brown, in a strange way) Shakespeare wrote plays not novels, and plays don't go much for descriptive prose.

But modern writing is expected to compete against the Xbox, the internet and of course TV, so readers are demanding immediate satisfaction because that’s modern life. I think that means we have to be very tight in our writing, but there is always a little scope for style and flare, but don’t overdo it.

Perhaps, I see it more like a rule of thumb that is useful. 'Tight' writing is more liking to succeed and be easier to edit/police. Florid, adjective/adverb-heavy writing is just harder to pull off well.

And novice and developing writers, like myself, are more likely to produce a turgid stiff mass of incomprehensibility if they go the florid route and hence fail.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

I loved Angels and Demons, and the DaVinci Code but could not get on with any of his other novels for me they were dull. I think the story for Angels and Demons carried his writing enough.

 

[Boneman]

I loved Angels and Demons, and the DaVinci Code but could not get on with any of his other novels for me they were dull. I think the story for Angels and Demons carried his writing enough.

Which is an excellent point - Shogun has incredible head-hopping pov changes throughout the whole book, but the story is so good, you hardly notice... it's just that since I've been coming here, I notice them!! I accept them for the beauty of the story and the characterisations - it's my all-time favourite book. But if it was submitted today, it would get thrown out by 99.9% of agents/publishers...

 

[prizzley]

"[Character] jumped up while the echoes were still cracking back from the altar. He leapt into the doorway at the far end of the balcony, putting out one hand and grabbing the soft corner of the wall as he went past, spinning himself round as he fell to his knees. He reached out and grabbed the dead monk's gun from the corpse's slack grip, just as the balcony started to come away from the wall with a glassy, grinding noise. [Character] shoved himself back into the corridor behind him. The balcony tipped bodily away into the empty space of the hall in a dully glittering cloud of fragments and fell with a great, shattering crash onto the floor below, taking the shadowy form of the dead monk fluttering with it."

This section really caught my interest for great use of strong verbs AND adjectives/adverbs. The usual criticism is that writers rely on adjectives/adverbs when they use weak verbs and stronger verbs would remove the need. This writer demonstrates it ain't necessarily so. I love it!

 

[AnyaKimlin]

Which is an excellent point - Shogun has incredible head-hopping pov changes throughout the whole book, but the story is so good, you hardly notice... it's just that since I've been coming here, I notice them!! I accept them for the beauty of the story and the characterisations - it's my all-time favourite book. But if it was submitted today, it would get thrown out by 99.9% of agents/publishers...

It is the same with my favourite book. Robert Neill's Mist Over Pendle. Whenever I have a few moments I will reread it. The story is gripping, the style warm and visuals his writing creates are colourful. The main character is a tad 2D but she is likeable enough to pull it off.

Today it would be thrown out thanks largely to Stephen King's On Writing (at least it feels like) whom I actually do not enjoy reading.

The story begins with a backstory infodump but that infodump is entertaining and gripping.

He has the most inventive usage of -ly adverbs I have ever seen (up to seven on a page some of which I have never seen anywhere else) and it is stuffed full of adjectives. The writing style is not unlike the paragraph in the OP.

An interesting development has been a recent re-release with fewer adverbs etc and some of his "mistakes" removed. It does not read as well and someone else who had read the original copy has said the same on Amazon.

 

[Warren_Paul]

Adverbs and adjectives have their place, just like any other word. We need to use all words to make our manuscripts read like a finished product. Sometimes words can be cut for tightening bloated sections, but just because you can tighten a sentence, doesn't mean you should. Sometimes it's better to leave the sentence as it is for the sake of voice, style, rhythm and feeling. Tighten a sentence too much and you lose the emotion of the scene.

 

[Tyler Danann]

I thought the adjectives and adverbs were ok, it allows your mind to see what is going on in the story.

Also learned a new word 'dully'

 

[kromanjon]

I myself like adjectives and adverbs but in the quoted paragraph I would still remove all doubles. Glassy, grinding would become grinding, dully glittering would be just glittering and the great, shattering crash would prabably just be a shattering crash or a great crash.

Otherwise the pragraph seems fine if a little bit meh.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I like glassy grinding. It sounds like it would be different from the grinding of rocks or the grinding of gears or ... actually, the grinding of anything else I can think of ... so I think it carries its weight in that sentence.

I don't like dully glittering because of the way the words sound together, but I don't think the dull part is extraneous, because the word glitter all by itself suggests something brighter. I'd use different words, but I like the way each one adds something quite distinct to the other. I enjoy descriptions where each word or phrase builds on what came before. The entire passage works for me. In fact, I wouldn't consider it particularly heavy on the adjectives.

So count me as one who is fine with adjectives and adverbs. I only have a problem with them when they're misused by writers who choose words they don't entirely understand, words that are a little off, in imitation of a style they wouldn't choose for their own reading.

As for readers who want to be free to imagine things on their own, I'm not one of them. I employ my imagination in my own writing. I read to see things through another writer's eyes, to see what they see, hear what they hear. To enter their world.

If we were to whittle our writing down to the most basic basics to let readers imagine everything for themselves, we might as well be selling them outlines instead of novels and let them do the rest for themselves. It would certainly be quicker and easier!