Grammar rules should certainly be descriptive, no argument there. But the proscription against adverbs is a stylistic rule, not a grammatical one. Arguing descr

Grammar rules should certainly be descriptive, no argument there. But the proscription against adverbs is a stylistic rule, not a grammatical one. Arguing descriptive vs prescriptive on a rule of style doesn't make much sense to me; isn't the point of style rules to be prescriptive? Other than that, I largely agree with your broader points. Even when used, this should be a 'soft' rule and not a hard one. It can be ignored or purposely broken depending on the audience and tone of the work. I think it's a good rule (or challenge or constraint) to give students who are starting to write, because mediocre authors can reach to adverbs as a cheap way to beef up their descriptions, and this becomes a crutch that prevents them from exercising other descriptive methods. I'm a fan of putting on other constraints as well (e.g. no 'internal' descriptions of emotions, only inferences from actions) in order to force them to develop other skills.