How-to

How to Avoid Adverbs (and When to Keep Them)

2026-09-28 · 6 min read

Plan, draft, edit and pitch the same book in one project.

"The road to hell is paved with adverbs," wrote Stephen King, and the advice to cut adverbs is some of the most repeated in writing craft. But the advice is also widely misunderstood. Adverbs aren't evil, and eliminating every one is neither possible nor desirable. The real issue is overreliance on a particular kind of adverb — the "-ly" adverb propping up a weak verb — which signals imprecise prose. Understanding which adverbs to cut, why, and when to keep them turns a blunt rule into a useful line-craft skill.

This guide covers how to handle adverbs well.

What the rule is really about

The anti-adverb advice targets a specific pattern: the "-ly" adverb modifying a verb to specify how an action was done — "ran quickly," "said angrily," "walked slowly." The objection is that this pattern usually indicates a weak verb being propped up by an adverb, when a single strong, precise verb would convey the same thing more vividly and concisely. "Ran quickly" → "sprinted"; "said angrily" → "snapped"; "walked slowly" → "trudged." The adverb is a symptom of an imprecise verb. So the rule isn't really "adverbs are bad"; it's "don't prop up weak verbs with adverbs when a strong verb would do better." Understanding this target is key to applying the advice intelligently rather than mechanically.

Replace the verb, don't just cut the adverb

The best fix for a weak-verb-plus-adverb combo is usually not just deleting the adverb (which can lose meaning) but replacing the pair with a strong verb that contains the adverb's meaning. "She closed the door quietly" doesn't improve to "She closed the door" (the quietness mattered); it improves to "She eased the door shut." The strong verb absorbs the how the adverb was specifying, conveying it more vividly in one word. So when you find an "-ly" adverb modifying a verb, ask: is there a single precise verb that captures both the action and its manner? Often there is, and it's the superior choice. This verb-upgrade — not mere adverb-deletion — is the real craft behind the anti-adverb rule.

Cut redundant adverbs

A whole category of adverbs is simply redundant — they restate what the verb already conveys, adding nothing. "Whispered quietly" (whispering is quiet), "shouted loudly" (shouting is loud), "ran quickly" (running is fast-ish), "gently caressed" (caressing is gentle). These adverbs are pure filler and should be cut, since the verb already contains the meaning. Hunt for adverbs that merely echo their verb and delete them — the sentence loses nothing and gains concision. This is the easiest adverb fix: removing the ones that are redundant by definition. Watch especially for adverbs attached to verbs that already imply the manner; they're a common, deletable form of clutter.

Watch adverbs in dialogue tags

Adverbs are especially problematic in dialogue tags — "he said angrily," "she replied sadly," "he asked curiously." These adverbs often tell the emotion that the dialogue and action should show. If the line "I never want to see you again!" needs "she said angrily" to convey anger, the line or action isn't doing its job. Strong dialogue conveys its own emotional tone through what's said and the surrounding action/beats, making the adverb redundant. So cut adverbs from dialogue tags where the dialogue itself carries the emotion (usually), and let the words and action show the feeling. This is a frequent and worthwhile adverb cut — the "-ly told emotion" in dialogue tags is a classic mark of telling over showing.

When to keep adverbs

Crucially, adverbs are not always wrong, and the rule shouldn't become a phobia. Keep adverbs when they: convey something the verb doesn't already imply and that no single verb captures cleanly; add genuinely needed information ("She spoke French fluently" — the adverb carries real meaning); serve voice, rhythm, or dialogue naturally; or simply read better than the alternative. Many adverbs (not just "-ly" ones — "very," "then," "here," "almost") are perfectly fine and necessary. The goal is cutting the unnecessary, weak-verb-propping, redundant, and telling adverbs — not achieving zero adverbs. Overcorrecting into adverb-phobia produces contorted prose. Keep the adverbs that earn their place; cut the ones that signal imprecision. Judgment, not zero tolerance.

Make it an editing pass

Like other line-craft, adverbs are best addressed in revision, not drafting — don't agonize over adverbs while getting words down. In editing, do a pass (often via search for "-ly") reviewing your adverbs: cut the redundant ones, upgrade weak-verb-plus-adverb combos to strong verbs, remove telling adverbs from dialogue tags, and keep the ones that genuinely earn their place. Searching for "-ly" surfaces the adverbs efficiently for review. This focused pass tightens and strengthens prose by addressing adverb overuse systematically, without the paralysis of trying to write adverb-free in the first place. WriteLoom's Line Editor can flag adverb-heavy passages to make this pass faster.

The bottom line

Avoid adverbs intelligently by understanding the rule's real target: the "-ly" adverb propping up a weak verb, which usually signals imprecise prose. Fix these not by mere deletion but by replacing the verb-plus-adverb with a single strong verb that captures the manner ("walked slowly" → "trudged"). Cut redundant adverbs that echo their verb ("whispered quietly"), and remove telling adverbs from dialogue tags where the dialogue should carry the emotion. But keep the adverbs that earn their place — those conveying real, needed information no single verb captures, or serving voice and rhythm — since the goal is cutting unnecessary adverbs, not eliminating them all. Handle it as a focused editing pass via search. Applied with judgment, this turns the blunt "cut adverbs" rule into a precise tool for sharper, stronger prose.

Frequently asked questions

Are adverbs bad in writing?

Not inherently. The anti-adverb advice targets a specific pattern — the "-ly" adverb propping up a weak verb ("ran quickly," "said angrily") — which usually signals an imprecise verb that a single strong verb would convey better. Adverbs that carry real, needed meaning or serve voice and rhythm are fine. The goal is cutting unnecessary adverbs, not eliminating them all.

How do I replace an adverb?

Usually by replacing the weak-verb-plus-adverb pair with a single strong verb that contains the adverb's meaning, rather than just deleting the adverb (which can lose meaning). "She closed the door quietly" → "She eased the door shut"; "ran quickly" → "sprinted." The strong verb absorbs the how the adverb specified, conveying it more vividly in one word.

Which adverbs should I definitely cut?

Redundant adverbs that restate what the verb already conveys ("whispered quietly," "shouted loudly") and telling adverbs in dialogue tags ("she said angrily") where the dialogue and action should show the emotion. These add nothing — the verb or the line already carries the meaning — so cutting them tightens prose without losing anything.

When should I keep an adverb?

Keep adverbs that convey something the verb doesn't already imply and no single verb captures cleanly, that add genuinely needed information ("She spoke French fluently"), or that serve voice, rhythm, or natural dialogue. Many adverbs are perfectly fine and necessary. Overcorrecting into adverb-phobia produces contorted prose — keep the ones that earn their place.