Journalists should not waste words. Their writing should be concise and tight. Adjectives and adverbs clutter up news stories and should be avoided wherever possible.
When it comes to writing – not just news writing but any kind of writing – adjectives and adverbs have a bad reputation.
Mark Twain said: “When you catch an adjective, kill it.” Stephen King said: “The road to hell is paved with adverbs”.
For many decades, the conventional wisdom in journalism has been that you do not, usually, need adjectives and adverbs. Your sentences will be better if you cut them out.
But wait! I just used “usually”, an adverb, and “better”, an adjective. If I cut them out, the first sentence will no longer be accurate, since I am trying to say that there will, occasionally, be a need. And the second sentence does not work at all if I remove “better”.
So you cannot ban the use of adjectives and adverbs.
But you should keep them to a minimum. Mark Twain, in fact, modified his advice:
“I don’t mean utterly, but kill most of them (adjectives) – then the rest will be valuable. They weaken when they are close together. They give strength when they are wide apart.
“An adjective habit, or a wordy, diffuse, flowery habit, once fastened upon a person, is as hard to get rid of as any other vice.”
Instead, make a virtue of economy: use as few words as possible. The newspaper guru, Leslie Sellers, in his 1968 guide, “The simple subs book”, put it this way: “fewer words, better sense”. Apply this across the board, but especially (a permissible use of the adverb in this case) with adjectives and adverbs.
Adjectives and adverbs are words that modify. Adjectives change the meaning of nouns. Adverbs change the meaning of verbs, phrases, clauses or sentences. You should always test whether the modification is necessary.
Here are a few examples of commonly-used but unnecessary modifiers, in which the first word can always be cut:
- completely untrue
- strictly necessary
- broad daylight
- considerable difficulty
- firm decision
- together with
- along with
- grateful thanks
- high-speed car chase
Adjectives to do with size are often too broad to add any useful meaning, like “big”, “huge”, “massive”, “astonishing” . They can be cut or replaced with something that adds to the understanding of the story.
Adjectives like “tragic”, “improved” “sad”, “incredible” “unfortunate” are especially dangerous since they include value judgements. Leave it to your readers or listeners to make their own judgements.
Two of the most objectionable words are “really” and “very”. They seldom add any meaning. Mark Twain suggested that every time you are tempted to write the word “very” in your story, substitute the word “damn” – then, as he put it, “your editor will delete it and the writing will be just as it should be”.
Mark Twain was also down on adverbs. He said they were the tool of the “lazy writer”. In their most common form they end in “ly” and are attached to verbs. Here are some sentences which would be better without their adverbs:
“She tiptoed silently into the room.”
“He glared aggressively at the traffic warden.”
“She knew perfectly well he was lying.”
“He completely rejected the allegation.”
In all these cases, the adverb states the obvious. The verb does the job without needing modification. Always try to let the verb stand alone – if it needs strengthening with an adverb, it is the wrong choice of verb.
Journalists choosing their words are the same as carpenters choosing a piece of wood or tailors choosing a length of cloth. We are all craftspeople and our success depends on using the right raw materials – in our case, words.
So be sparing in your use of adjectives and adverbs. It is one of the qualities that marks a professional.
Journalists, like any craftsperson, wield words as their tools. Just as a sculptor chisels away excess stone to reveal the form within, journalists must prune unnecessary words to expose the core of their story.
This principle of concision isn’t merely about brevity; it’s about clarity, impact, and respect for the reader’s time.
While the conventional wisdom in journalism cautions against the overuse of adjectives and adverbs, the issue is more nuanced than a blanket ban.
Using adjectives and adverb properly requires an understanding of their function, and then careful and precise usage.
A single, well-chosen adjective can illuminate a noun, while a cluster of them obscures it.
The same holds true for adverbs. They can add subtle shades of meaning to verbs, but often they merely state the obvious or, worse, mask a weak verb choice.
The problem with excessive modifiers isn’t just wordiness; it’s that they often introduce subjectivity and weaken the writer’s authority.
Words such as “tragic,” “incredible,” or “astonishing” tell the reader how to feel, rather than letting the facts speak for themselves.
Similarly, adverbs such as “really” and “very” rarely add substantive meaning; they are intensifiers that often intensify nothing.
The real skill lies in choosing strong verbs and nouns that carry their own weight.
This isn’t to say that adjectives and adverbs are inherently evil. They have a legitimate role to play in adding detail and nuance.
The job for the journalist is to understand their purpose.
A well-placed adjective can sharpen an image, while a carefully chosen adverb can clarify an action.
The key is to ask: Does this modifier add essential information, or is it merely decorative? Does it enhance the reader’s understanding, or does it simply clutter the sentence?
The journalist’s craft is to choose each word with care, considering its weight, texture, and purpose.
A journalist shouldn’t rely on a weak verb propped up by an adverb when a stronger verb would do the job better.
The pursuit of concision isn’t about stripping language bare; it’s about using it with precision and power, allowing the story to resonate with clarity and impact.
It’s about showing, not telling, and trusting the reader to draw their own conclusions.
By mastering the art of economy, journalists can elevate their writing from mere reporting to compelling storytelling.
Questions
-
What is the main argument presented in the text regarding the use of adjectives and adverbs in writing?
-
How do Mark Twain and Stephen King view the use of adjectives and adverbs, according to the text?
-
Identify two examples from the text where adjectives or adverbs are deemed unnecessary. Explain why they are considered unnecessary.
-
What is the role of adjectives and adverbs in modifying language, as described in the text?
-
Discuss the potential impact of using adjectives that include value judgments, such as “tragic” or “incredible,” in journalism.
-
How does the text suggest journalists should approach the use of adjectives and adverbs in their writing?
-
Analyse the metaphor comparing journalists to carpenters and tailors. What does this metaphor suggest about the craft of writing?
-
What criteria does the text provide for determining whether an adjective or adverb is necessary in a sentence?
-
Evaluate the effectiveness of Mark Twain’s suggestion to replace “very” with “damn” in writing. What is the intended outcome of this advice?
-
Synthesise the text’s recommendations into a set of guidelines for writing concisely and effectively without overusing adjectives and adverbs.
Answers
-
The main argument is that journalists should write concisely and avoid unnecessary adjectives and adverbs, as they often clutter writing.
-
Mark Twain and Stephen King view adjectives and adverbs negatively. Twain suggests eliminating adjectives, while King warns against adverbs, implying they lead to poor writing.
-
Examples include “completely untrue” and “high-speed car chase.” They are unnecessary because the first word does not add meaningful information to the sentence.
-
Adjectives modify nouns, and adverbs modify verbs, phrases, clauses, or sentences. They change the meaning of the words they modify.
-
Using adjectives that contain value judgements may unduly influence the reader towards the journalist’s view, instead of simply presenting the facts and letting the reader form their own opinions.
-
Journalists should be sparing in their use of adjectives and adverbs, ensuring that each one adds necessary meaning to the sentence.
-
The metaphor suggests that writing, like carpentry or tailoring, requires careful selection of materials (words) to create a quality product.
-
The text suggests testing whether the modification is necessary by seeing if the sentence retains its meaning without the adjective or adverb.
-
Twain’s suggestion aims to highlight the redundancy of “very” by replacing it with “damn,” which would be removed by an editor, thus simplifying the writing.
-
Guidelines include: use adjectives and adverbs sparingly, ensure they add necessary meaning, avoid value judgments, and let verbs stand alone when possible.
Lesson plan for trainers
If you are a trainer of journalists we have a free lesson plan: ‘Adjectives and adverbs in journalism‘ which you are welcome to download and adapted for your own purposes.
For further reading on this subject, you might want to read the excellent “A journalist’s guide to the use of English”, by Ted Bottomley and Anthony Loftus. It was written in 1971 and has been updated for this website by Ted’s son John.
