This where is the "No Adverbs Allowed" policy fails. This is a typical example of what I fear about general rules and tips: some people fail to understand what the rule/tip is about, and apply it without consideration. Using an adverb that means the same as the verb it qualifies creates redundancy and weakens said verb, yes, but in this case, it does not mean the same at all! "His voice, nearly inaudible," does not at all mean "his voice, inaudible"! Between "nearly inaudible" and "inaudible", there's a huge difference! Between "He smiled happily." and "He smiled." the difference is redundancy, that's the case in which you take out the adverb. "Nearly inaudible" is not that case. Besides, the adverb here does not qualify a verb, it qualifies an adjective, which makes it that less likely to be redundant with the verb. Hemingway used adverbs too, not often, but still. What he would do was to place the adverb in such a way that it would sound like a thing in itself, and not an add-on you place after verbs, which is exactly what Meyer did here. You can't take a general rule and not understand what it's all about. Our critic refuses any and all adverbs! This is just ridiculous. You can't do away with adverbs entirely, you just have to know when and how to use them. Proof that you can't get rid of adverbs? Our critic, who would kill them all, uses five of them in his first paragraph! And I don't blame him, adverbs aren't lepers and they serve their purpose; if they didn't, they would not exist. Plain and simple.