Post History
Well to start with, "Adverbs are the devil" is not a rule. It is not even correct. Adverbs are a perfectly peaceable law abiding part of speech like any other. That many people use adverbs poorly...
Answer
#4: Attribution notice removed
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/47809 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#3: Attribution notice added
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/47809 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#2: Initial revision
Well to start with, "Adverbs are the devil" is not a rule. It is not even correct. Adverbs are a perfectly peaceable law abiding part of speech like any other. That many people use adverbs poorly is a valid observation (thought not a rule). A reasonable rule would be, if you want to write well, learn to use adverbs appropriately. As to your two examples, there really isn't much of a difference between them. But notice how the emphasis changes between them. > He smiled patronisingly at them This describes an action: smiling. It is a verb. There is motion in it. > He had a patronising smile on his face This describes a thing: a smile. It is a noun. It is static. This difference between static and active matters a lot. There are time when you want static and times when you want active, but as a general rule, where you have the choice, the active is to be preferred unless the static produces a particular effect that you want. And this is something that we can say in favor of the much maligned adverb. Verbs are often considered more powerful than nouns (though we can certainly take that idea too far). But verbs may need to be modified from time to time in order to describe an action precisely, and that is the job of an adverb. If trying to avoid an adverb leads to replacing a verb/adverb combination with a noun/adjective combination, chances are it has made your writing weaker.