Adverbs not allowed???

[Beanbag]

Okay, I HAVE to grouse about this:

I write screenplays on the side. Haven't sold one yet, but I have five feature-length screenplays done and another three going. For grins, I attend a screenwriting group every other week, where we pass around our latest ten-twenty pages, and everybody scribbles comments on them. Some are useful; some are hogwash.

The latest hogwash is the theory that it's BAD TO USE ADVERBS in a screenplay. For example, take the sentence: Jack rolls out of bed and dresses furiously. Seems plain enough, doesn't it? Or the phrase: Jane staggered drunkenly down the road. Simple, plain, and concise.

Well, the critiquing nazis have jumped all over words ending in "ly". Adverbs are "bad." They are considered "directing from the page." Apparently, writers are NOT supposed to "direct from the page."

Okay. Let me get this straight. I'm putting words in characters' mouths, placing them in imagined situations, moving them hither, thither, and yon, yet I'm not "directing" them? So, I'm supposed to rewrite the first example as "Jack rolls out of bed and puts his clothes on in a hurried manner"? Or maybe the second example should read "Jane tottered along the road, moving in such a fashion as appearing to have consumed too much alcohol."

Really, folks, this is taking the picking of nits way too far. I understand trying to avoid "wrylies" in dialog lines:
JACK (wryly)
You really should try harder to be soft.

I wonder where these memes come from? I suspect somebody misunderstood the move away from "wrylies" and decided to apply it to ALL adverbs. The funny thing is, the most vocal "non-adverbers" haven't sold anything, either.

Thanks for allowing me to vent. I should write this off as the "writers' meme dejure."

Beanbag

 

[Howie Felterbush]

Great.

I am currently writing a screenplay (it's a zombie movie...yes, I know...) and it's riddled with adverbs. Now it's going to appear even more substandard.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Gosh, what if you wrote a screenplay about Tom Swift?

 

[NotJesus]

I should write this off as the "writers' meme dejure."

That's "writer's meme du jour."

 

[Ysidro]

Maybe you're supposed to do less than that.

"Jack gets out of bed. Puts on clothes."

Then next year you can be berated for putting the order of his actions on the page. How dare you!

Also, dialogue should be written thusly:

"Jack says something."
"Jill replies."
"Jack counters."
"Jill guffaws."

 

[Lolly]

Hmmm. I've no idea what they are on about as I have nothing to do with screenwriting.

The only feedback I can give you as someone outside your field is that I didn't understand what was meant by the first example - I wondered why he'd be angry about getting dressed (this could be an Australian/American difference of meaning or understanding). In the second example, to me, "staggered drunkenly" could be anything from swaying and tripping over a little bit to weaving all over the footpath banging into shop windows. I'd be inclined to just say "staggered" or "weaved" or something and leave it to the director to decide how much swaying around the actor should do. What I'm trying to say is that what you think is written clearly and unambiguously may still be capable of various interpretations by a reader so it may be better not to try to qualify it in the first place. Maybe that's what they are getting at?

 

[Alan]

Gosh, what if you wrote a screenplay about Tom Swift?

I assume nouns are fine, at least at this point in time.

 

[theprestige]

I wonder how many adverbs Ibsen used in his plays. Or Mamet. Are there any adverbs in Glengarry, Glen Ross? I don't recall any, the last time I read the script...

I've always enjoyed seeing the same script acted by different companies, with different directors. The idea of one person giving the "what", and another providing the "how", with all the possible combinations giving the audience a wide array of "whys" to experience.

How many different ways can the essential story be told? How many ways of telling the story are cut off because the writer decided that Jack must only ever dress furiously? Never sadly, never joyfully, never apathetically.

Two things strike me: One is, that in this "no adverbs" paradigm, it is clearly the part of direction to provide the "how". Providing the "what" is, in this paradigm, the writer's province, so saying what Jack does is not at all "directing from the page", for all the writer believes he is imposing his will on the story. Of course he is imposing his will. He is imposing his will by writing what happens.

And the director, in turn, imposes his will by determining how it happens. Why should he tolerate being told the how, any more than the writer accepts being told the what?

Indeed, if the writer desires to sell his script, any unnecessary constraints he places on his intended customers will only reduce his chance of selling. In that sense, a script is like a contract. Why include clauses that burden the other party?

Indeed, why include any words at all that burden the story? Why should Jack dress furiously, except that the writer believes the audience must know how Jack dresses, and the story told up to that point does not already make it clear?

For adverbs, write a novel. And even then...

 

[Cavemonster]

I wouldn't say adverbs are verboten, but in writing in general, and especially screen writing, it's often a good idea to look at each one and ask yourself why it's there.

A verb in screenwriting is telling an actor to do something, that's great, that's what a script does. An adverb could be making that action more specific, but it can also easily be superfluous (yells loudly) or it can be vague, or cliched, or it could be something that is better and more efficiently, and specifically expressed with a verb.

For instance, in your example of staggering drunkenly, either you've already established she's drunk from the rest of the scene, or you haven't. If she's leaving a bar, you don't need to say she staggers drunkenly, we get it. If we're just learning that she's drunk from watching her stagger, or if you want to be more specific, then-

Jane tottered along the road, moving in such a fashion as appearing to have consumed too much alcohol."

Doesn't fix the any of the problems with adverbs, it's not more concise, it's not more specific, it's not more action oriented.

Jane staggers down the street giggling and hicupping.

Jane teeters down the street almost falling over every few steps

"Drunkenly" is exposition. "moving in such a fashion as appearing to have consumed too much alcohol." is exposition too. They tell your actor what to do in a broad way, but they're really expository ways of telling the story. The extreme example would be-

Jane walked down the street as though she'd just been through a breakup

An adverbial phrase instead of an adverb, but the effect is the same, you're getting away from action into the reason for the action, ie being drunk. That's the reason that this can be called directing from the page, not that you're telling the actors too much what to do, but that you're telling them why they're doing it. Your job is to tell them what to do. the actor and director figure out why they're doing it.

 

[elgarak]

Consider that I have not much experience with script in general, and never attempted to write one:

If you want to get the script sold, you should follow the rules. You don't know who might end up reading it, and you have to stroke your reader's ego. If they get pissed off by getting directions from the page, don't do it.

For the second example, I would put it very boldly and simply: Jane staggers along the road. She is very much drunk.

That way, you get your point in the scene: She's drunk. But you leave it to the director and actress how to depict the drunkenness.

 

[technoextreme]

"Jane tottered along the road, moving in such a fashion as appearing to have consumed too much alcohol."

Congratulations. You have managed to substitute your adverb with another adverb. I feel really bizarre that as an engineering major I actually know what you are confused about. Cavemonster eloquently described what is going on. You are starting to do the work of the director by trying to add adverbs.

An adverbial phrase instead of an adverb, but the effect is the same, you're getting away from action into the reason for the action, ie being drunk. That's the reason that this can be called directing from the page, not that you're telling the actors too much what to do, but that you're telling them why they're doing it. Your job is to tell them what to do. the actor and director figure out why they're doing it.

When all else fails keep it nondescript and vague. You don't need to narrate every single action that a character does. And once again I feel really strange knowing this but there is a scene in Henry V where Mistress Quickly talks about someone dying. The text alone sounded like a double entendre but you really couldn't be sure because there was no stage direction. Either interpretation was in fact correct. In the Kenneth Branagh adaptation he adds in an action to purposely make it into a double entendre. In fact watching both Henry V movies and reading the play should provide you with enough information as to what mistake you are making.
Egads.... My two semesters of theatre and movie classes are somehow paying off.....

 

[Alareth]

 

[Fnord]

Gosh, what if you wrote a screenplay about Tom Swift?

Mary Sue might have to get involved.

 

[thesyntaxera]

Okay, I HAVE to grouse about this:

I write screenplays on the side. Haven't sold one yet, but I have five feature-length screenplays done and another three going. For grins, I attend a screenwriting group every other week, where we pass around our latest ten-twenty pages, and everybody scribbles comments on them. Some are useful; some are hogwash.

The latest hogwash is the theory that it's BAD TO USE ADVERBS in a screenplay. For example, take the sentence: Jack rolls out of bed and dresses furiously. Seems plain enough, doesn't it? Or the phrase: Jane staggered drunkenly down the road. Simple, plain, and concise.

Well, the critiquing nazis have jumped all over words ending in "ly". Adverbs are "bad." They are considered "directing from the page." Apparently, writers are NOT supposed to "direct from the page."

Okay. Let me get this straight. I'm putting words in characters' mouths, placing them in imagined situations, moving them hither, thither, and yon, yet I'm not "directing" them? So, I'm supposed to rewrite the first example as "Jack rolls out of bed and puts his clothes on in a hurried manner"? Or maybe the second example should read "Jane tottered along the road, moving in such a fashion as appearing to have consumed too much alcohol."

Really, folks, this is taking the picking of nits way too far. I understand trying to avoid "wrylies" in dialog lines:
JACK (wryly)
You really should try harder to be soft.

I wonder where these memes come from? I suspect somebody misunderstood the move away from "wrylies" and decided to apply it to ALL adverbs. The funny thing is, the most vocal "non-adverbers" haven't sold anything, either.

Thanks for allowing me to vent. I should write this off as the "writers' meme dejure."

Beanbag

I hear ya! I have read in more than one book about writing that adverbs are a no-no.

In defense of the critique nazi's... The idea behind not using adverbs stems from the fact that the actor and director are going to interpret the meaning of the lines in your screenply and may not take it in a wry direction. Same as in a novel. The reader will interpret the meaning instead of having it told to them.

Show don't tell.

I am not sure how many scripts you have read, but I would suggest scooting over to Drew's Script-o-rama online and read some. Adverbs are distinctly lacking in many of them except when it is needed to convey a very specific idea.

All defense of nazi's aside... Some aspiring writers really latch onto those formula rules as if it will some how make what they are writing better. It is also a way for them to feel better about their own writing if they can think they are percieving flaws in some one elses.

 

[patchbunny]

I hear ya! I have read in more than one book about writing that adverbs are a no-no.

But... but... it's such a cachy tune!

 

[Alareth]

But... but... it's such a cachy tune!

Too slow!

Or should I say, you posted to slowly?

 

[Puppycow]

I'll play devil's advocate:

Jack rolls out of bed and dresses furiously.

Is the adverb essential here? Why not leave that to the director? If he's late for something, of course he's going to get dressed "furiously."

Jane staggered drunkenly down the road.

Again, can't they figure out why she's staggering?

Of course, people shouldn't take rules as absolute, like "no adverbs at all." But it's generally a good idea to cut out unnecessary words.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

Well when I was in film school they told us exactly that. Part of the reason was your basic human relation BS. Directors often don't like to think they are being told what to do even though WE are the ones who actually decide what's going on.

So the critiques often go for the caution side and prefer the "PC" version of it.
However, talk to enough writers and directors, you'll find plenty of them who really don't care about it.

It reallly depends on the people you're working with.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Great.

I am currently writing a screenplay (it's a zombie movie...yes, I know...) and it's riddled with adverbs. Now it's going to appear even more substandard.

Genuises don't do what a website tells them to do or not do. Maybe some experts who hate competition write bad advice for the upstarts. Think for yourself, think of what's useful, don't useadverbs stupidly. Not that I'm a genius or ever wrote a screenplay. But Zombie movies are fun. What kind is yours? Serious or camp? Fast or slow zombies? Gore or ambience or what?

ETA: It is good however to see the reasons behind that advice. It sounds like all-in-all holding back the adverbs is a good idea and good form.

 

[technoextreme]

Well when I was in film school they told us exactly that. Part of the reason was your basic human relation BS. Directors often don't like to think they are being told what to do even though WE are the ones who actually decide what's going on.

No. You only decide to a certain extent what is going on.