| Author | Message | ||
| bob rojas
New member Username: bob_rojas Post Number: 41 Registered: 06-2008 |
i was told on one of my critiques that the less i use adverbs, the better and i'm just curious to know why. i'm not crying about a tough critique, but i think it'd help me to know why. so, uhh, what's bad about adverbs? | ||
| Ron. Lavalette
Advanced Member Username: dellfarmer Post Number: 1092 Registered: 05-2007 |
I'm not one to rule them out without just cause, bob, as adverbs--cunningly chosen and judiciously placed--are marvelous tools. In many, possibly most cases, though, poetry is better served by choosing very powerful verbs, thus obviating the need for the modifier. For example, consider: The spectators cheered loudly when the team scored a touchdown. This is not only redundant (as it's unlikely they would cheer quietly) but it's not as strong as almost anything containing a stronger verb that does the work of both words, like The spectators' cheers exploded... Many poets, myself included, have a strong affinity for work that is distilled, compact, and muscular. Verbs are more likely to fit the bill most of the time. But I repeat: there's nothing inherently wrong with adverbs. Hope that helps. --Ron. Eggs Over Tokyo | ||
| Hephaestes
Intermediate Member Username: hephaestes Post Number: 701 Registered: 12-2006 |
Adverbs aren’t prohibited from verse. When wielded cogently, they more than modify -- they extend or fully change the meaning of the verb. Yes they can modify more than mere verbs. But let’s face it. A good critique doesn’t involve parsing. It involves reading deeply. What parts of speech the poet chooses to convey a message can affect tone, style, voice and so on. The critic should explain the poem he sees, as each reader sees a slightly different poem. The language should be pointed out as language. “This word, not this adverb, impeded my read.” Adverbs are sometimes the most special. They pepper language into something meaningful. | ||
| LJ Cohen
Moderator Username: ljc Post Number: 10056 Registered: 07-2002 |
What Ron said. LOL. The stronger you can make the verb, the less you will need anything to modify that verb. Once in a Blue Muse Blog LJCohen | ||
| bob rojas
New member Username: bob_rojas Post Number: 42 Registered: 06-2008 |
thanks | ||
| Fred Longworth
Senior Member Username: sandiegopoet Post Number: 4434 Registered: 05-2006 |
There are two schools of thought on this that I'm familiar with. First, there are those who advocate using stronger verbs and nouns, thus obviating the need for lots of adverbs and adjectives. I support this point of view. The second "school" argues that nouns and verbs should be stripped of modifiers in order to avoid nuance. Write a poem with a "dusty road" in it, and post it somewhere, and they will want to kill the word "dusty," not because "dusty road" is cliche but because to them "road" is all you need. In support of their viewpoint, this clique will say that: (1) qualifiers are elitist and bourgeois; (2) reality actually IS unnuanced, so modifiers are basically lies; (3) modifiers should be excised because it isn't fashionable to use them -- and hey, fashion rules; (4) poems, like Karen Carpenter, should be anorexic. Far as I'm concerned, those second-school folks should be boiled alive, but -- shhhhhhh! -- don't tell anyone. Fred | ||
| Gary Blankenship
Moderator Username: garydawg Post Number: 25539 Registered: 07-2001 |
Hi, there are three reasons in my mind. Fred's first is the first. Second, sometimes the failure to use a more active voice is lazy writing. Not always but at times. Third, we should make the best use of each word and if a form where meter/count matters, an adverb might take up valuable space. Finally, sometimes a crit suggestion is not a suggestion to not do something, but a suggestion to look at an alternative. "Fewer adverbs" might lead to a tighter better poem or the poet might decide to keep it as is. Smiles. Gary Celebrate Walt with Gary: http://www.poetrykit.org/pkl/tw10/tw4conte.htm |
