In modern writing circles, adverbs have become the scapegoats of style. Feared. Dismissed. Denounced. Vilified. They are whispered about in workshops, marked up in red ink by editors, and condemned in the pithy soundbites of bestselling authors. “Kill your adverbs,” they say, as if precision and emotion were enemies of good prose.

But what are we really killing?

When words are summarily removed in deference to something stronger—more “actiony”—we sand away nuance. We flatten ambiguity. We erase the hesitations and half-formed thoughts that make language human. In our rush for speed and efficiency, we trade layered expression for polished minimalism. And somewhere along the line, we begin to mistake sleekness for depth.

Adverbs are not lazy. They are not weak. They are not a substitute for strong verbs—they are a lens through which we tilt the meaning of those verbs.
To move tentatively is not simply to walk. It is to step into uncertainty.
To speak quietly is not merely to say—nor is it the same as a whisper.
It is to weigh. To fear. To respect. To grieve.

These are not semantic luxuries.
They are emotional truths.

Yet we are told to excise them. Not consider, not weigh, not revise—but excise. Because someone once said they were signs of weakness, or clutter, or indecision. But indecision is part of being human. And language, at its best, reflects that.

Adverbs are not the enemy of strong writing. Flat writing is. Writing that tells us what happened without giving us a sense of how it felt, or how much it cost to do it. Sometimes, a character doesn’t charge. Sometimes they walk… slowly, carefully, painfully, reluctantly. And if you force that into a single strong verb, you may gain punch—but lose meaning.

There is a difference between writing cleanly and writing truthfully. One is smooth. The other is alive.

When I see tentatively on the page, I don’t assume the writer was lazy. I assume they were listening—to a character, to a moment, to a truth that didn’t want to be said boldly. And that restraint, that listening, is often more powerful than a decisive verb could ever be.

Of course, adverbs can be misused. Any tool can. But the solution to misuse is not prohibition. It’s craft. It’s intention. It’s knowing why you’re choosing slowly instead of crept, and standing by it because one evokes the physical action, while the other invites us into the internal state behind it.

We don’t write just to describe. We write to translate what it means to move, to hesitate, to fear, to long for something and not reach it. Sometimes that lives in the pauses. Sometimes in the margins. Sometimes in the quiet little modifiers we’re told to delete.

But I would rather write something that lingers awkwardly but truthfully than something that reads well and says nothing real.

That’s the risk we take when we fear adverbs: we kill not only the word, but the voice behind it.

The misuse of adverbs can be lazy writing—I don’t disagree. But when our editors begin to strip down every sentence, peeling away the outer layers and leaving only what’s absolutely necessary, something vital is lost.

We lose the wonder.

If I’m given instructions from one place to another and told this is all there is, then I miss the three-headed calf. I miss the largest ball of twine. I miss the detour that shows me what kind of world I’ve actually entered.

Those… those are my adverbs.

Those are what make the world worth reading.

I have the most diligent sander in the world editing my prose—and when I lean into the sander, we can strip away any vestiges of nuance I ever even thought about using.

Ask me about MY editor.