# Was and Had Everywhere



## Philip Overby (Oct 20, 2013)

Recently I've been looking over my work and thinking, "Boy, I sure do use 'was' and 'had' a lot." I chalk it up to first draft blues and think about how I'm going to cut all these instances out later. I'm thinking of adverbs to cut (curiously, seriously, slowly) and making sure I don't use 'then' too often.

I read parts of four different books last night. I flipped to random pages and found multiple instances of using adverbs, was, had, and other common "don't do this" advice I read.

These writers amongst them have sold millions of books, have won multiple awards, and have been lauded for their stories throughout the world.

I found out why this advice doesn't matter anymore. These writers are good storytellers, have engaging characters, and inventive worlds. That's why they can do this and no one cries foul. 

I get that using "was" over and over again is usually what people suggest not to do. Find a more active verb when you can. But, yeah, 'was' is all over the place in a lot of books that I greatly admire. And to me, it hasn't changed my enjoyment of any of these stories whatsoever. 

So my question is, does it really matter if you have these so-called "no no"s in your writing if you are telling a compelling story?

I'll go ahead and answer my own question for myself: no. Does this mean I'm going to leave every single was and had in my work from here on out? No, again. However, I do think some people belabor these points too much when the real goal is to create an immersive story.


----------



## GeekDavid (Oct 20, 2013)

If it sells, it worked.


----------



## Steerpike (Oct 20, 2013)

Yeah, this comes down to writers sometimes being hyperfocused on these technical details and not focused enough on engaging story-telling. As you said, you can find a number of very good books on the shelves that use adverbs, and use was and had, and so on. Writing an engaging story should be the focus. If you can find places where you can help the engagement by eliminating these words, do so, but there are also plenty of times where removing such a word has no net effect, or may even render a sentence awkward. Don't apply an absolute rule that says you have to eliminate these words.


----------



## Nihal (Oct 20, 2013)

They should be removed if they're getting in the way of the story, if they're breaking the flow and turning the reading into a boring, tiresome task. But if it's working, why on earth should you remove them? For the sake of following "rules"? I'm with you, the answer is "no".

I believe these advices exist to help writers to see common mistakes that are otherwise invisible to us. They should be followed as long they make sense and help to improve the text; once they make no difference or even harm the mood you wished to give to a certain passage they should be disregarded.

P.s: ^Ninja'd. Hah!


----------



## Jabrosky (Oct 20, 2013)

Honestly, I feel some sentences read awkwardly if you remove "had". If I were to turn "She had shot him" to "She shot him", for example, you would not realize that the shooting took place _before _the scene in question. "Had" works great if you're writing in past tense and want to communicate something happening further into the past.


----------



## Guru Coyote (Oct 20, 2013)

One thing I learned about all those advices: It can be a fun  exercise to try and follow them. I recently took up the habit of avoiding words ending in -ing. (hehehe)
The fact that I tend to start out writing sentences that way, and then try to find a version to write it without the -ing makes me think very hard about what I really want to say.
Also great fun is the effort to reduce sentences to their minimum. Avoid redundancies and the lot.

My Iron Pen X entry though... is a showcase in taking it too far. Some of those sentences feel broken now that I re-read it, and many would have been more concise had I left in the offending parts.

Which, in a way, is my point here. Following those rules/advice to their end and seeing what comes of it is a good experience. It broadens my understanding of the written language.
And, at times it can hurt my appreciation of the works of others.... I've had moments reading best-selling books when I actually cringed at the repetition of a minor word in two consecutive sentences. One can take awareness too far.


----------



## Guru Coyote (Oct 20, 2013)

"I had a feeling that I had been using too many words ending on 'ing' and that it was weakening my writing. Maybe it was true. So here I am, wishing I had been listening to my feeling."


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Oct 20, 2013)

Story trumps all. However, superfluous use of "was, had,-ly" can weaken prose. I'm a believer in the idea of using the best possible word, or way of phrasing. Sometimes this means using those "was, had,-ly" words.  Making the proper choices can, at times, make the difference between engaging a reader or causing disinterest. The application of this thinking however, swings both ways. 

I'm not a fan of adverbs & weak verbs. But, that's the style I've adopted for my own writing. It works for me. Still, I've read many stories, written in manners different from my own, that are exceptional. Like the OP, I was so immersed by the storytelling skill, the words choices flew by, unnoticed.    

After story & clarity, the most important consideration is making sure the reader doesn't notice your writing. If you can pull those three elements off, how you do so doesn't matter.


----------



## Philip Overby (Oct 20, 2013)

That's what I was trying to get across in the OP, T. Allen. That while I'll still strive to use the best possible words I can, I'm not going to go through my manuscript sniping every single time I used was or had just so those words don't exist anymore. If they work for the flow, then I'm happy with them. I'm recently become really interested in the Scene-Sequel technique to storytelling. While I'm not following the format in a rigid manner, I'm still focusing on each scene meaning something (providing characterization, advancing the plot, establishing the world, hopefully all at once) instead of worrying with how many times I've used was or were. 

I'm still not a huge fan of adverbs either, but I find myself using them now and again without them hurting my soul like they formerly did. They're still very rare (the "-ly" variety anyway) for me though.


----------



## Guy (Oct 20, 2013)

Phil the Drill said:


> I read parts of four different books last night. I flipped to random pages and found multiple instances of using adverbs, was, had, and other common "don't do this" advice I read.   So my question is, does it really matter if you have these so-called "no no"s in your writing if you are telling a compelling story?


 No. Writing advice forbidding the use of a part of speech is some of the dumbest advice I've ever seen. All I can figure is what they mean is don't overuse certain things, but if that's their intent their wording is horrible, especially considering this advice is supposedly coming from writers. You don't want to overuse anything. You don't want to overuse exclamation points, but they have their purpose and there are times when they're needed. Like you, I've noticed that published authors all violate the rules, openly, flagrantly and repeatedly (dear God, look at all them adverbs!). So I've come to the conclusion that the people dispensing the advice don't know what they're talking about. Like a lot of things in life, the conventional wisdom and the reality are two different things.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Oct 20, 2013)

I think it's part of the learning experience. 

When I started out I had no idea about the was/had thing or the thing with the adverbs. I'm still not entirely sure what weak and strong verbs are, but I'm getting there. Same with the whole "show, don't tell" business. The theories behind these rules are sound - at least to my mind.

I think getting these advice thrown at you from every angle is part of learning the ropes here. The important thing isn't to follow these rules but to understand them and know what their purpose is. That way you will know when to follow them and when to go your own way. Breaking these rules just because world-famous best-selling authors do isn't the same thing as breaking them because it makes your story better.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Oct 20, 2013)

Svrtnsse said:


> I think getting these advice thrown at you from every angle is part of learning the ropes here. The important thing isn't to follow these rules but to understand them and know what their purpose is. That way you will know when to follow them and when to go your own way.



It's a step in developing your own style. I see no point in telling someone how they must write. I also see little value in discounting a method without experimenting. I'd rather try an approach, like limiting "had & that" for instance, and then decide if it works for my writing or not. I personally have found hundreds of unnecessary words, and cut them, by scouring my prose for useless jottings of the word "that".     

A friend of mine once received a critique that he should never use the word "was" because it is passive. Of course this is ludicrous advice. I can't imagine writing a novel length work without using "was"...ever. Now, it can be an indication of passive writing, that is true. But, it isn't always passive. This is the same for "that, had, adverbs, to be verbs", & a number of other elements. They can be problems in some writings. In others, they disappear or even enhance storytelling.  

A further example & a question...dialogue. When people speak normally, they use modifiers because they're succinct & efficient. Does writing dialogue without adverbs sound realistic?


----------



## GeekDavid (Oct 20, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> A further example & a question...dialogue. When people speak normally, they use modifiers because they're succinct & efficient. Does writing dialogue without adverbs sound realistic?



Depends on the character. I will sometimes deliberately drop contractions if I want to make a character sound formal or learned.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Oct 20, 2013)

GeekDavid said:


> Depends on the character. I will sometimes deliberately drop contractions if I want to make a character sound formal or learned.



Yes. I'm specifically referring to adverb use though. Primarily because I avoid them in normal prose but don't restrict their use in dialogue. My reasoning... It's the way people talk. Dialogue is different than narrative.


----------



## GeekDavid (Oct 20, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> Yes. I'm specifically referring to adverb use though. Primarily because I avoid them in normal prose but don't restrict their use in dialogue. My reasoning... It's the way people talk. Dialogue is different than narrative.



True. One of the marks (in my mind) of sloppy writing is when the characters sound as though they're writing to each other instead of talking.


----------



## Penpilot (Oct 20, 2013)

I had the same experience a while ago. I notice "rules" being broking left and right in every book I read. GOT has lots of "was" but it doesn't matter. I'll echo it's all about the story telling. One of my favorite authors Neil Gaiman did a kind of head hop at the end of a chapter. He had a series of one sentence paragraphs that were from a different character's POV. I stopped when I read that and said, "Hey that's not good form," but it didn't matter. I was engaged.

I treat all words that you are supposed to avoid like adverbs, avoid when possible, but sometimes necessary. To not use a word, ever, is like throwing a tool out of your toolbox. I have a program that flags words that may be problematic, and I go through and make sure each use is deliberate and exactly what I need.


----------



## Steerpike (Oct 20, 2013)

Yes, it makes sense to use all of the tool at your disposal. Things like head-hopping and tense shifts and the like don't bother me when handled skillfully. I'm not sure why so many writers (aspiring writers in particular) get hung up on that sort of thing. I think part of it is that writers are inherently insecure about their own work, and if you can pretend there is a right or wrong way to do things, and moreover that you know the right way, then it must provide a certain level of comfort.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Oct 20, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> Yes, it makes sense to use all of the tool at your disposal. Things like head-hopping and tense shifts and the like don't bother me when handled skillfully. I'm not sure why so many writers (aspiring writers in particular) get hung up on that sort of thing. I think part of it is that writers are inherently insecure about their own work, and if you can pretend there is a right or wrong way to do things, and moreover that you know the right way, then it must provide a certain level of comfort.



Yes. I think that's probably true in general. I also believe it takes a certain level of experience to not only know when to employ facets of craft (like intentional head hopping) but also how...which brings us to your point on handling it skillfully. Just like anything, knowing the fundamentals is necessary for breaking them for effect. 

It makes sense, as people are developing style and learning fundamentals to steer clear of common pitfalls though. That being said, conscious experimentation should be encouraged.


----------



## Guy (Oct 20, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> I'm not sure why so many writers (aspiring writers in particular) get hung up on that sort of thing. I think part of it is that writers are inherently insecure about their own work, and if you can pretend there is a right or wrong way to do things, and moreover that you know the right way, then it must provide a certain level of comfort.


I think another possibility is they don't understand that creative activities are not the same as other activities. In many other areas you can follow step-by-step instructions and reach a finished product, but in creative areas that approach just doesn't work. Trying to write a good story by adhering to rules and procedures results in the literary equivalent of a paint-by-numbers.


----------



## Ireth (Oct 20, 2013)

I love that metaphor, Guy.  You're right on, IMO.


----------



## Captain Loye (Oct 20, 2013)

Just took a gander through my WIP, didn't realise how many times 'was' and 'had' slipped in there. I'd known about avoiding passive voice, but I think I slip into it from the formal writing style I read during the day, which is full of passive voice. This is something to keep in mind when I'm editing - thanks everyone!


----------



## A. E. Lowan (Oct 21, 2013)

Guy said:


> I think another possibility is they don't understand that creative activities are not the same as other activities. In many other areas you can follow step-by-step instructions and reach a finished product, but in creative areas that approach just doesn't work. *Trying to write a good story by adhering to rules and procedures results in the literary equivalent of a paint-by-numbers*.



Just as a curious side-note, that's how category romance is written, I kid you not.  Thou shalt have this many love scenes, this many pages, this much action, and exactly this level of graphicness, so say we submission guidelines.  

I've been writing for over 20 years, and this is the first I've even heard of a was/had thing.  This is really an issue?  What does it even mean?  I've been known to whip out a dreaded "had had" if the tense called for it, and it doesn't slow me down.  It's a combination of grammatical correctness (which I don't sweat too much) and timeline accuracy (which I do).

To me, it's all a matter of execution.  The "rules" are training wheels - those babies are meant to be kicked off eventually, when you can ride steady without crashing without them.


----------



## Alexandra (Oct 21, 2013)

If you feel the need to weed out the 'hads' it can be done.



Jabrosky said:


> Honestly, I feel some sentences read awkwardly if you remove "had". If I were to turn "She had shot him" to "She shot him", for example, you would not realize that the shooting took place _before _the scene in question.



Or, 'Where's Mary's old man?'
'That asshole, she shot him.'

Context is everything.


----------



## Chessie (Oct 21, 2013)

I've been reading Brandon Sanderson's novella "The Emperor's Soul" and he has a lot of -ly, had, was in there. Its still a great story. The excuse could be made that he's an established writer...but he has the same thing in his other works. Just saying.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Oct 21, 2013)

Just to be clear on the word "had".  

My understanding of the common advice on using "had" doesn't suggest you shouldn't use the word to denote an action or possession from the past. It mainly refers to instances where "had" is unnecessary and could be cut from the sentence without changing the meaning or feel. It's essentially the same for "that", where writers often use the word but it adds nothing to the sentence. Their use is not always superfluous.  

"Was", on the other hand is a bit different. The common advice here warns against passivity & recommends the use of more precise, or stronger, descriptors/verbs instead of "to be" verbs. Further, it can be an indicator of a spot where we may instead choose to show a state of being over just blurting it out with "She was <insert adjective>."  

In my view, it's good to examine our use of "to be" verbs and ensure they are the best choice. Sometimes, like when simplicity or efficiency in writing is the primary goal they are the best option. Other times, their use can be a bit lazy, or passive, and usually an unconscious decision.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 21, 2013)

Several thoughts on this topic:

1. You should never follow a rule blindly.  Instead, you should seek to understand the reason for the rule.  As T.Allen points out, both "had" and "was" negatively impact your writing in certain situations.  If you want to maximize the impact of your writing, it's your responsibility as a writer to understand what those situations are and avoid them.

2. Creating a story that people will find interesting is a difficult endeavor.  Making simple stylistic changes tend to provide minor enhancements to your writing.  I feel that the sum of a lot of tiny changes can help you out a lot.  In the long run, understanding tension and other major storytelling and character issues is going to help you more, but, when you're starting out, following rules is an easy way to take your prose from unreadable to halfway interesting.  The rules exist not as someone saying, "You have to do this!"  Rather, it's "generations of writers find this to be more effective."  I don't understand why writers are so relunctant to accept the advice?

3. If you have an audience, all you have to do to be successful is the minimum required to keep that audience happy.  I think that gaining an audience in today's publishing landscape is harder than ever considering the sheer numbers of people writing books.  You need any advantage that you can get.


----------



## Steerpike (Oct 21, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> The rules exist not as someone saying, "You have to do this!"  Rather, it's "generations of writers find this to be more effective."  I don't understand why writers are so relunctant to accept the advice?



I don't think that is necessarily true. These rules usually assume a certain style, and not everyone adopts that style when approaching their writing. If someone isn't writing in the standard, modern, commercial style from which these rules have sprung, it is easy to see why they would chafe and being told constantly that they have to change things. This is why people have to review things critically, and not just dispense advice in a vacuum, in my opinion. If I see someone is writing a story in the pulp style of the 30s, for example (which is something that has made a bit of a resurgence in recent years), comments about passive voice and a lot of other things we view as "rules" of modern writing would be silly.

Similarly, if you were reviewing, say, _House of Leaves_, prior to its publication, virtually any comment relating to accepted rules of writing would be meaningless and merely show that the reviewer failed to understand what the author was doing. The book violates just about every rule you can think of.

The problem with so many of these "rules" in terms of critiques, which I've noted before, is that people just hand them down automatically, whenever they see issue x or y, without giving thought to the greater work or whether the implementation of the rule would improve the writing or not, or whether it would further the author's vision in writing the story.


----------



## GeekDavid (Oct 21, 2013)

> Write your story as it needs to be written. Write it honestly, and tell it as best you can. I'm not sure that there are any other rules. Not ones that matter.


Neil Gaiman

But then what does Neil Gaiman know?


----------



## Guru Coyote (Oct 21, 2013)

Chesterama said:


> I've been reading Brandon Sanderson's novella "The Emperor's Soul" and he has a lot of -ly, had, was in there. Its still a great story. The excuse could be made that he's an established writer...but he has the same thing in his other works. Just saying.



Uhm. How does being and established writer 'excuse' anything? If these were 'rules for good writing,' wouldn't they apply to any writer? Doesn't established writer need to be 'writing good?'

No, I think, like others have said, it is not at all about a set of 'the rules' at all. It is about knowing what you are doing, and doing it to the best of your ability. And that does not mean connecting dots or painting by numbers


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Oct 21, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> If someone isn't writing in the standard, modern, commercial style from which these rules have sprung, it is easy to see why they would chafe and being told constantly that they have to change things. This is why people have to review things critically, and not just dispense advice in a vacuum...



I think this is right.     

The same thinking should also apply to the person listening to advice. In matters of style, one person's approach will likely not mirror another's. There are also conscious choices at play where one may be intentionally "breaking rules" for effect.     

When one writer dispenses advice, they're usually doing so from their own understanding, or perspective of style. What other perspective should they give? Yes, they should understand that not every author should, or need to, conform to their vision. Yes, good critique partners should always consider elements of style and strive to understand what the author is trying to accomplish. That's a valid complaint against people tightly adhering to a rule set.     

Does that mean I shouldn't offer the set of guidelines I've developed myself, for my writing? No, I don't think so. The person receiving the critique has an equal responsibility to ignore advice that doesn't apply. Similarly, each critique should strive to look beyond their own vision of craft. That, however, can be easier said than done.    

In the case of unnecessary uses of the word "had", where cutting the word doesn't change the sentence meaning, I fail to see how style is a consideration. Can someone make a case for useless words ever being a matter of style? Or is this sound advice regardless?


----------



## Steerpike (Oct 21, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> In the case of unnecessary uses of the word "had", where cutting the word doesn't change the sentence meaning, I fail to see how style is a consideration. Can someone make a case for useless words ever being a matter of style? Or is this sound advice regardless?



Look at something by Dickens, Conrad, Lovecraft, Melville, Peake, and so on. You could certainly go through those works and cut all kinds of "extraneous" words if you were only interested in lean prose, and you could hack a lot of it down without changing the meaning of the underlying sentences. But you wouldn't have nearly the same work left when you were finished. 

So if the words could be cut without changing the meaning, but in doing so you change the writing style, I suppose the words really aren't useless.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Oct 21, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> Look at something by Dickens, Conrad, Lovecraft, Melville, Peake, and so on. You could certainly go through those works and cut all kinds of "extraneous" words if you were only interested in lean prose, and you could hack a lot of it down without changing the meaning of the underlying sentences. But you wouldn't have nearly the same work left when you were finished.  So if the words could be cut without changing the meaning, but in doing so you change the writing style, I suppose the words really aren't useless.



Right. I accept that cutting to lean prose changes style, and is a style choice on its own. That's why I specifically focused on the word "had", which is often written unconsciously and, when that is the case, adds nothing to the meaning or feel.


----------



## Steerpike (Oct 21, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> Right. I accept that cutting to lean prose changes style, and is a style choice on its own. That's why I specifically focused on the word "had", which is often written unconsciously and, when that is the case, adds nothing to the meaning or feel.



Yeah, if you're looking only at one word I think that is often true, and if it is written unconsciously, then it is more likely to be problematic (with most of the 'rules' it is more a matter of awareness and not doing things unconsciously that make your writing poorer). 

Another potentially simple change is "could see" to "saw." For example, instead of writing "John could see dark forms moving among the trees," one could argue it would be better to say "John saw dark forms moving among the trees." But if you look at popular writing that sells very well, you'll see things like "could see" showing up all the time. And so I have to wonder whether the change from "could see" to "saw" really provides the benefit we might think it does, and whether it will really have an ounce of impact on the popularity of your novel.

Similarly with "had," I wonder whether going in and cutting out a few "hads" is going to make a bit of difference to your success with readers. Of course, if an author has overdone it to the point that it stands out, and combines that with any number of other bad decisions in writing, it is going to have an impact. But at some point, going through a work and looking for these issues leads to a rapidly diminishing return on the investment of time, where you'd be better served by getting on to the next story.


----------



## GeekDavid (Oct 21, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> Another potentially simple change is "could see" to "saw." For example, instead of writing "John could see dark forms moving among the trees," one could argue it would be better to say "John saw dark forms moving among the trees." But if you look at popular writing that sells very well, you'll see things like "could see" showing up all the time. And so I have to wonder whether the change from "could see" to "saw" really provides the benefit we might think it does, and whether it will really have an ounce of impact on the popularity of your novel.



Speaking as a reader, I couldn't tell you which books on my shelf have "could see" and which have "saw."

If those words have any effect on my enjoyment of the book, it's completely subconscious. I submit that even if there is an effect, it is so slight as to be negligible.


----------



## Steerpike (Oct 21, 2013)

GeekDavid said:


> Speaking as a reader, I couldn't tell you which books on my shelf have "could see" and which have "saw."
> 
> If those words have any effect on my enjoyment of the book, it's completely subconscious. I submit that even if there is an effect, it is so slight as to be negligible.



Same here, as a general rule. But at one point I set out to look specifically for the "could see" versus "saw" distinction in books I was reading, because someone in a writing forum (not this one) made the point that "could see" shouldn't ever be used. The results of my reading showed that "could see" was rampant among any number of published and successful books. So I think it is largely a non-issue.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Oct 21, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> Another potentially simple change is "could see" to "saw." For example, instead of writing "John could see dark forms moving among the trees," one could argue it would be better to say "John saw dark forms moving among the trees." But if you look at popular writing that sells very well, you'll see things like "could see" showing up all the time. And so I have to wonder whether the change from "could see" to "saw" really provides the benefit we might think it does, and whether it will really have an ounce of impact on the popularity of your novel.


For me this would be a choice between creating a feeling of greater immediacy with "saw", as if it's happening that instance, or "could see", as if the event is occurring over an undisclosed period of time. The urgency in the latter, potentially being slightly diminished (perhaps that is what the author intends).

I'm not sure if the difference would make any significant alterations in reader experience over the course of an entire novel. In the scene though, it may. There could also be a cumulative affect. It's so different from story to story, and the variables are too many to be precise. Yet, the possibility exists for either which is why I prefer to pay attention to these details. 

I agree though, at some point, editing out these small issues has limited value.


----------



## Philip Overby (Oct 21, 2013)

The whole reason I brought up this topic is because I sometimes found myself writing and saying, "What's another way I can write this without using was or had?" Then I realized, "Who cares, it's a first draft." When I started looking through some books on my Kindle, I kept seeing this things crop up. And it honestly didn't jerk me out of the story or bother me in any way. I'm not sure these things even really bother readers that much. 

I agree that cutting out several "hads" won't make a difference if your story in not engaging. All the flowery, awesome language or lean, economic prose won't do any good if you have flat characters and nothing is happening. There's always the risk of losing elements of your style as well if your prose is too lean. Some writers did awesome with lean writing (Elmore Leonard) while some have done better with more descriptive styles (J.R.R. Tolkien). Stylistic choices are going to effect uses of words more than anything. 

If every writer followed the same exact guidelines, then I imagine the fantasy genre specifically would be pretty boring. We'd have a lot of stories like, "Walton stabbed the dragon. It fell over. The crowd rejoiced" instead of "Walton soaked in the cheers of raucous crowd as he thrust his blade into the great wyrm's white belly. It thrashed its wings and rolled about in the dirt before lying still like a salted slug. Walton wiped a bit of blood away from his cheek with his pinkie. 'Thank you, you've been a beautiful audience.'"


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 21, 2013)

> And so I have to wonder whether the change from "could see" to "saw" really provides the benefit we might think it does, and whether it will really have an ounce of impact on the popularity of your novel.



I think that active writing, overall, is more interesting for the reader.

If a writer lets a couple of errant words through, is it likely to derail his success?  Probably not.  I think it's a mistake, however, to tell new writers that it doesn't matter at all.

To me, it absolutely does.  If I read a scene that's active and uses good verbs, I'm going to react better to that than the same scene that's written passively.


----------



## Steerpike (Oct 21, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> To me, it absolutely does.  If I read a scene that's active and uses good verbs, I'm going to react better to that than the same scene that's written passively.



Maybe. But as a writer who actively thinks about this, you probably have a much greater sensitivity to this than the average reader. The books I looked at with the "saw" versus "could see" distinction weren't just letter a few errant words through. A lot of them regularly used "could see." I can't say that any of them really impacted my reaction to the scene (though to be perfectly honest, I use "saw" because I like the way it reads better). I think this may come down more to personal preference, and increased sensitivity on the part of writers, than something that is going to impact the average reader in any significant way.


----------



## Philip Overby (Oct 21, 2013)

Ninja'd

@BW: I think you may react that way because you're a writer. So you'll be looking for those things more than an average reader would. As a general rule, yes, active writing is going to engage readers more, but the point I think many people are trying to make is that if a story is great, readers are not going to be paying attention to those kind of things anyway. It's when the writing is weak throughout the whole story is when it becomes a distraction. I don't know, for me it's like looking for boom mics while you're watching a movie in some ways. If I'm watching a movie or reading a book, I want to be entertained, I don't want to nitpick stylistic choices or technical things (unless it's just outrageously bad). I would say if a lot of modern writers/readers looked at Robert E. Howard's work today they'd blow a gasket. This doesn't change the fact that he had a style all his own and engaging stories that sold to a mass audience.


----------



## GeekDavid (Oct 21, 2013)

Phil the Drill said:


> If every writer followed the same exact guidelines, then I imagine the fantasy genre specifically would be pretty boring. We'd have a lot of stories like, "Walton stabbed the dragon. It fell over. The crowd rejoiced" instead of "Walton soaked in the cheers of raucous crowd as he thrust his blade into the great wyrm's white belly. It thrashed its wings and rolled about in the dirt before lying still like a salted slug. Walton wiped a bit of blood away from his cheek with his pinkie. 'Thank you, you've been a beautiful audience.'"



Very true. That's why I don't follow guidelines blindly, and react negatively whenever someone insists that it absolutely *must* be done a certain way.

I think some people, likely because of their pre-writing career, are overly enamored of rules. The problem is, writing is far more art than science.

What would have happened if someone had told Dali that he couldn't paint clocks melting, for example?


----------



## Guru Coyote (Oct 21, 2013)

I've learned something about giving advice (or suggestions) in a very different field than crituque of writing... I was involved in dream work for some time. Basically, interpreting dreams in a small group, where members would retell their dream and others would offer suggestins about possible meaning and significance etc.
Now, as you can imagine, dreams are an even more personal and touchy subject than (fiction) writing!

There was ONE rule in this community: Whenever you gave any kind of interpretaation or suggestion about meaning for another's dream, you should prefix it with: "If this were my dream, I'd..."

Maybe that rule could  be one very suitable for critique of writing also. If this were my writing, I'd do XYZ.

Just a thought.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 21, 2013)

> As a general rule, yes, active writing is going to engage readers more, but the point I think many people are trying to make is that if a story is great, readers are not going to be paying attention to those kind of things anyway. It's when the writing is weak throughout the whole story is when it becomes a distraction.



Phil,

I can agree with this.

If you start with this as a baseline, you can go two directions:

1. Using "was" etc doesn't matter all that much so don't worry about it.
2. Though there are more important elements to writing, eliminating "was" is a simple fix that improves your writing, however small that impact may or may not be.

I choose to go with option 2.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Oct 21, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> ...as a writer who actively thinks about this, you probably have a much greater sensitivity to this than the average reader.... I think this may come down more to personal preference, and increased sensitivity on the part of writers, than something that is going to impact the average reader in any significant way.



I can only speak for myself, but I'd admit this is true. The exception lies where I'm so engrossed & immersed within the story, my writing prejudices no longer matter because I'm not noticing the writing at all. Sometimes, not noticing the writing is due solely to story. Others, it may be the author's skill in craft which enhance that immersion. Either way, storytelling is always at the root. Therefore, effective storytelling is the only "rule" I'd consider an axiom, or requirement. The rest is merely preference as writers & those bits of craft we espouse as we develop our own unique style & voice.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Oct 21, 2013)

I still think there's some value to these rules - at least to me. I don't think that I'm becoming a better writer by following them, but I do believe my writing has improved as a consequence of being aware of them.
I don't feel that it's as much about rules for a writer to follow as it is about principles for what makes a text easily accessible to a reader. I have no doubt that there are tons of ways to make a text read easily, some of them probably even conflicting with each other. 
The point is that if there is a set of easily understood principles explaining what makes a text easily accessible to a reader, then I'd like to be familiar with those principles.

If you've got a knack for writing and can enchant readers with your prose, then sure, throw the rules out the window. You don't need them because you're achieving your desired result anyway. 
If you're a beginning writer with more enthusiasm than experience you'll want to throw the rules out the window as well, because they're getting in the way of your art - yes, I've been there.
Going back and re-reading some of the things I've written in the past I do feel that my writing has become a lot better since people started throwing these rules at me.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Oct 21, 2013)

Guru Coyote said:


> There was ONE rule in this community: Whenever you gave any kind of interpretaation or suggestion about meaning for another's dream, you should prefix it with: "If this were my dream, I'd..."
> 
> Maybe that rule could  be one very suitable for critique of writing also. If this were my writing, I'd do XYZ.



This is a really good principle. I try to employ it when I'm commenting on someone else's work. Partly, because I'm coming from my own perspective, and partly because in many cases where I give feedback I'm doing it as much to help myself learn as to help out the person I'm reading. - That's also something I try to point out.


----------



## Penpilot (Oct 21, 2013)

Phil the Drill said:


> Ninja'd
> As a general rule, yes, active writing is going to engage readers more, but the point I think many people are trying to make is that if a story is great, readers are not going to be paying attention to those kind of things anyway. It's when the writing is weak throughout the whole story is when it becomes a distraction. I don't know, for me it's like looking for boom mics while you're watching a movie in some ways. If I'm watching a movie or reading a book, I want to be entertained, I don't want to nitpick stylistic choices or technical things (unless it's just outrageously bad).



For me, I find that if I'm engaged in the story, I'm very forgiving of "mistakes" or I don't even notice them. But if I'm not engaged, my focus tends to drift toward noticing the "mistakes" and nitpicking on them. Some very good movies have big plot holes that people don't tend to notice, until someone points it out, because they're engaged. 



Svrtnsse said:


> I still think there's some value to these rules - at least to me. I don't think that I'm becoming a better writer by following them, but I do believe my writing has improved as a consequence of being aware of them.



There's definitely value to the "rules", but blindly following them without understanding can stunt your development. Think of the rules as a guide to getting from one side of a minefield to the other. The path may be inefficient and difficult to traverse, but if you follow the rules laid out, you'll always get to the other side safely. Understanding and knowing when to break the rules is like being able to make a straight line across the minefield because if you happen to step on a mine, you know how to easily disarm it. Playing around with breaking the "rules" is like learning to disarm mines.


----------



## Philip Overby (Oct 21, 2013)

I agree that eliminating certain instances may make the writing better...in some instances. Cutting "was" just because it's "was" doesn't always make the most sense. 

At the end of the day, your writing has to engage. Plain and simple. You can follow all the rules in the world, but it's not going to matter if you story just doesn't work. The whole reason I started this post is that I read three or four very good writers back to back and found "was," "had," and multiple instances of the dreaded "-ly" adverbs. I even saw a couple of "then"s. I don't necessarily think what we should be learning from best-selling, award winning authors is how to write, but how to tell engaging stories. Changing a couple of words around, as others have mentioned, isn't going to change the fact that a story doesn't work. It may help with clarity sometimes, but clarity is only one piece of the puzzle.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 22, 2013)

> Cutting "was" just because it's "was" doesn't always make the most sense.



Who says that you should cut "was" just because it's "was?"

I don't think that anyone who knows what they're talking about would advise you to do so.  I'm extremely anti-"was" and there are places in my writing where I've used it.

Old argument here, but I still feel that it's okay to use shorthand when referring to a rule.  Let's say I'm commenting on someone's writing, and I feel they've used "was" when they could have used a better verb.  Depending on the situation, I may just write, "Was is passive.  Get rid of it, and use a better verb."

I don't mean that you should get rid of "was" everywhere.  Frankly, commenting takes a lot of time, and I don't feel that I should have to explain every nuance of every rule.  The writer has to take some responsibility for learning.  When someone tells me I should do something, I don't just accept it blindly; I research it until I feel I understand what they're telling me before making a decision on whether to incorporate it.


----------



## Philip Overby (Oct 22, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> Who says that you should cut "was" just because it's "was?"



No one said that, so maybe that's a bad example. There are just some instances of people saying eliminate certain things without fail. For example, "-ly" adverbs. I was just reading Joe Abercrombie today, one of my favorite authors, and he had plenty of those in his writing. It didn't bother me when he used them because it sounded natural.



> I don't think that anyone who knows what they're talking about would advise you to do so.  I'm extremely anti-"was" and there are places in my writing where I've used it.
> 
> Old argument here, but I still feel that it's okay to use shorthand when referring to a rule.  Let's say I'm commenting on someone's writing, and I feel they've used "was" when they could have used a better verb.  Depending on the situation, I may just write, "Was is passive.  Get rid of it, and use a better verb."



If it's an instance like "She was pretty" then it makes sense. That's one of those show don't tell situations. But if it's something like "The blade was sharp enough to cut hairs" then I don't see a big problem with that. If it conveys an image, that's all that matters.



> I don't mean that you should get rid of "was" everywhere.  Frankly, commenting takes a lot of time, and I don't feel that I should have to explain every nuance of every rule.  The writer has to take some responsibility for learning.  When someone tells me I should do something, I don't just accept it blindly; I research it until I feel I understand what they're telling me before making a decision on whether to incorporate it.



That's a good approach. It's important to find things that work for your specific style of writing. Sometimes we may find things that work best with our own styles and then try to suggest that way for everyone else. It's up to each writer to decide what methods they want to use. We can share things with each other, but it's always good to keep an open mind about how others do things.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 22, 2013)

> There are just some instances of people saying eliminate certain things without fail. For example, "-ly" adverbs.



That may be another bad example.

The main proponent of eliminating adverbs that I've read on this site is T.Allen, and he is extremely consistent in saying that adverbs are typically a missed opportunity for writing something better and that sometimes they work.



> If it's an instance like "She was pretty" then it makes sense. That's one of those show don't tell situations. But if it's something like "The blade was sharp enough to cut hairs" then I don't see a big problem with that. If it conveys an image, that's all that matters.



I wasn't really trying to argue specific instances as much as trying to point out that it shouldn't be incumbent upon the commenter to explain every nuance.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Oct 22, 2013)

An interesting article that advocates for inclusion of the word "that" in certain situations, even if it could be omitted.

http://www.dailywritingtips.com/leaving-out-that/


----------



## GeekDavid (Oct 22, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> An interesting article that advocates for inclusion of the word "that" in certain situations, even if it could be omitted.
> 
> Leaving Out Ã¢â‚¬Å“ThatÃ¢â‚¬Â



Several things jumped at me from that article (emphasis mine):



> The modern mantra of “leave out needless words” is one to observe in a general way, but *it shouldn’t lead a writer to slash mindlessly at every word that can be left out just because it can be.*



This one is straight out of the _AP Style Guide_



> When in doubt, include that. *Omission can hurt. Inclusion never does.*



And finally:



> When it comes to using that as a conjunction, the best advice is to be aware of the “rules,” but *don’t be afraid to deviate from them if the sentence doesn’t sound right to your writerly ear.*



Food for thought for anyone that thinks the rules of writing are as immutable as the law of gravity.


----------



## Philip Overby (Oct 22, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> That may be another bad example.
> 
> The main proponent of eliminating adverbs that I've read on this site is T.Allen, and he is extremely consistent in saying that adverbs are typically a missed opportunity for writing something better and that sometimes they work.
> 
> ...



No, I don't think it's a bad example, because I see that a lot. Not just here, but in other writing communities. I agree that using adverbs all the time is probably not the best idea, but I'm seeing lots of pros doing it. I used to be adamantly anti-adverb, but I'm starting to see some value in them time and again. 

I also think you're talking about critiquing or giving advice to an amateur or new writer and not about what actually exists in print by professional authors. These things I've mentioned exist and they're being done by successful writers. For me, they don't detract from my reading unless it's incessant. If a writer is good at story-telling, rules schmules. That's one reason Cormac McCarthy can say, "Yeah, I'm not using punctuation if I don't feel like it." He can do that. He's in Oprah's Book Club! And he's a damn good storyteller.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 22, 2013)

> No, I don't think it's a bad example, because I see that a lot. Not just here, but in other writing communities.



It's hard to discuss advice that was posted somewhere on the internet.  We have no idea if you have completely taken it out of context, who the advice was directed to, or if the souce was credible.  

Perhaps a link with a reference to a specific instance would be fruitful?

I think that, by and large, you have agreement on this board that adverbs are sometimes useful, sometimes completely superfluous, and sometimes indicative of ineffectual writing.



> I also think you're talking about critiquing or giving advice to an amateur or new writer and not about what actually exists in print by professional authors.



The main audience for the posts on this board are new writers, or at least those who are not making a living publishing fiction.  For me, this debate is about the best way to teach those new writers, and I think that the rules are a darn good place to start.

If you're a new writer, your adverb usage often is poorly done.  Was often indicates that you're being too passive.  You're probably telling in a lot of places where you should show.  Learning to show and to avoid adverbs and was is only going to help you.

I agree wholeheartedly that these are not nearly the most important aspects to a story.  They are, however, much easier to teach, important on their own, and advance you quickly from producing unreadable dreck to something that is at least palatable.


----------



## Philip Overby (Oct 22, 2013)

Elmore Leonard mentioned not to use them (and he has them in his first book I'm reading now). Here's some other links if you care to peruse them:

DonÃ¢€™t Use Adverbs and Adjectives to Prettify Your Prose | WritersDigest.com

Those Darn 'ly' Adverbs: Adverb Use in Fiction - Yahoo Voices - voices.yahoo.com

Ã‚Â» Why Ã¢€œLYÃ¢€Â Adverbs SuckÃ¢€Â¦by M-E

The Adverb Is Not Your Friend: Stephen King on Simplicity of Style | Brain Pickings

I could keep going. But yeah, getting advice from people and seeing it in actual practice in the marketplace are two different things. You can give advice until you're blue in the face, but writers are going to chose the direction that best suits their style. I get that you're trying to prevent others from going do some perceived "dark path" that's going to make their writing suck, but the only convincing I need is to see writers I admire doing the same things others decry. 

Does this mean I'm going to litter my prose with all these things? No. I just means I'm aware that pro writers use these things that we're often told as newer writers not to do or to avoid. 

The best source you can learn from are successful books, honestly. 

Seriously, go look at some of these books you admire and you'll see lots of writers do perfectly fine doing what they want. They don't abuse any perceived rules, but they make them work to their advantage.


----------



## GeekDavid (Oct 22, 2013)

Phil the Drill said:


> I get that you're trying to prevent others from going do some perceived "dark path" that's going to make their writing suck, but the only convincing I need is to see writers I admire doing the same things others decry.



We learn to walk by falling. Not once, but over and over and over again.

We learn to write by failing. _Librarian_ was not my first manuscript, it was the second, though no one but me has ever seen the first. I tried, I failed, I learned.

I didn't need some guru from above who's probably never written a bestseller themselves (Phil's example of Steven King above is an exception to that, most of these people proclaiming the rules I've never heard of) telling me How To Do It. If they really knew all the rules, they'd be cranking out bestsellers by the cargo pallet.

I think it all comes down to this: writers _write_. They don't have time to try to convince others of the rules. I blog every weekday and the majority of my posts are under 300 words... really just short snippets. And if I'm actively writing I generally don't even consider the blog till I've written 8 hours or 2,000 words, whichever comes first.

So all these people writing what they want people to believe is Received Wisdom are spending all their time writing those articles, and not the bestsellers they're supposed to know all the rules about writing.

In other words, those that can, do. Those that can't try to teach those that can how to do it.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 22, 2013)

Phil,

Looking at your first example:



> Clearly, Carver would cast a suspicious eye on these forms of speech because many times they add little to what is already on the page. Frequently, they are not important, and in a short story, that means they have no business there.



How is that different than what I said above?

I didn't go past this example, but, again, the first one you listed seems remarkably in line, by the use of the words "frequently" and "many times," with what we all agree.  



> I get that you're trying to prevent others from going do some perceived "dark path" that's going to make their writing suck, but the only convincing I need is to see writers I admire doing the same things others decry.



Do what you will.  I can only say that the rules have improved my writing immensely.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Oct 22, 2013)

Over the years, I've thought about adverb use a lot. As Brian stated before, I'm probably the most outspoken critic of adverb use on this forum. Yet, I too see their use in popular works of fiction, all the time.     

That being so, what does the advice really mean? If pros are using adverbs, they can't be all that bad right? Of course not. However, it's important to understand why the advice exists...I'll give my take.     

Most people in the world, present company excluded, rely on the oral telling of stories. Verbally people tend to focus on efficiency of language because we have other non-verbal communication tools acting simultaneously (body language, facial expressions, voice inflections, etc.). Therefore, when describing something, say an action, people modify verbs. It gets a basic point across quickly, without the need for greater description.  It's a learned behavior, one we tend to gravitate towards in all forms of communication.

Ex. "She danced gracefully."    

On the other end of that orally communicated description, does the person listening need to know more? Maybe, if they're really into dance, but likely not. As a writer, however, we have only the words on a page. The words we choose need to perform the function we intend. We don't have visual or auditory cues to enhance the experience. There are two reasons, within this idea, which have led me to embrace caution when using adverbs.    

First, if it is a natural, learned behavior that comes from an activity with differences from writing (oral communication), then I want to be aware that I need special focus on how to communicate with the utmost clarity. Often, adverbs are the enemy of clarity. Modified verbs have a greater tendency to be read differently by different people. The more precise your description, the greater clarity, the lesser the possibility of differing interpretations.     

Secondly, I've found this is an area to examine with the "show don't tell" principle in mind. If I use an adverbial modifier, I'm basically telling the reader what is taking place.    

Ex. "I love you," she said tenderly."    

In contrast, if I instead employ precise description of the girls face, motions, or words, the reader will come to understand that she is loving in a more visceral way. It makes the reader part of the story because it involves them in feeling through the character, not me telling them it's so.    

Ex. "I love you," she said, her hands tracing the outline of his face.     

The actions speak for her in conjunction with her dialogue. The reader interprets the spoken word, in conjunction with her actions (body language), as loving tenderness. That is more powerful.

 Admittedly, I chose to use a modifier on the word "said" which is an extreme example. I did so only to illustrate the point. The first example is very open to interpretation...there are myriad ways to say something tenderly. The second description is far more concrete. The possibilities for differing interpretations are there, but it is less likely. The images conjured in the reader's mind should be similar to that of another reader. My intent is getting across with clarity.

Now, that being said, there are times when an author wants to depict something without elaborating on the action with greater description. I get that. Adverbs are a good choice for this, as they are efficient. For myself though, if my intention is to gloss over an action and not draw attention to it, I'd question whether it should be written at all.  I've always maintained that adverbs have their uses. They are a word tool like any other. We just need to be conscious & aware of their uses, as well as the pitfalls of relying on them too heavily.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Oct 22, 2013)

GeekDavid said:


> We learn to walk by falling. Not once, but over and over and over again.  We learn to write by failing. Librarian was not my first manuscript, it was the second, though no one but me has ever seen the first. I tried, I failed, I learned.
> 
> I didn't need some guru from above who's probably never written a bestseller themselves (Phil's example of Steven King above is an exception to that, most of these people proclaiming the rules I've never heard of) telling me How To Do It. If they really knew all the rules, they'd be cranking out bestsellers by the cargo pallet.
> 
> ...



I don't disagree. 

Although, one of the purposes of this forum is the sharing of ideas & opinions regarding craft. Naturally, people's opinions on how to write well come into play.


----------



## Guy (Oct 22, 2013)

Aside from spelling, grammar, and punctuation, the rules are:

Write the type of story you like, regardless of what's fashionable or selling.

Tell your story honestly. If that means graphic scenes or broaching controversial topics, so be it. You'll never write anything of any significance without offending someone.



Phil the Drill said:


> The best source you can learn from are successful books, honestly.
> 
> Seriously, go look at some of these books you admire and you'll see lots of writers do perfectly fine doing what they want. They don't abuse any perceived rules, but they make them work to their advantage.


And this. Want to know how to write? See how successful writers have done it.


----------



## Philip Overby (Oct 22, 2013)

To address BW one more time, I'm also not advocating people pepper adverbs or was or doing any of these other things. I'm saying writers need to figure out what works best for their particular writing style. Just because you think your writing has gotten better keeping these rules in mind, doesn't mean everyone else is going to. You can only dispense what you think is good, solid advice and hope maybe some others learn from it. I'm not saying your way is wrong, but it's just good to consider the other side of the fence sometime. I know from reading your posts that you like Patrick Rothfuss. I guarantee his books have instances of these things I've mentioned in this post. Is his writing littered with it? No, but it's all there. 

https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/108424.Patrick_Rothfuss

While all fine writing, there are instances of "is" "are" and "had" and "have." Because the writing is so good, I don't notice unless I'm looking for them. I'm sure these sections could be broken down and critiqued to make better, but what's the point? It's already excellent the way it is here.



Guy said:


> Tell your story honestly. If that means graphic scenes or broaching controversial topics, so be it. You'll never write anything of any significance without offending someone..



I like this. I think there is a lot of safe betting in fantasy a lot of the time, so when I see someone like Mark Lawrence or Richard K. Morgan pushing the comfort level of the fantasy audience, I really admire that. Even if I didn't like their books, I would still admire that.


----------



## Philip Overby (Oct 23, 2013)

Thanks TAllen for elaborating your stance. I may have missed some of your other posts about adverbs before. 



> Over the years, I've thought about adverb use a lot. As Brian stated before, I'm probably the most outspoken critic of adverb use on this forum. Yet, I too see their use in popular works of fiction, all the time.



I was, too. I would tell people to take them out whenever I saw them. My position has lightened up, but I do still think they need to be weeded out in my own fiction. If others use them, fine, but I have to do me and let others do them. If I have an adverb in my writing now, I'm not going to go about sniping it like I used to if I think it works.



> That being so, what does the advice really mean? If pros are using adverbs, they can't be all that bad right? Of course not. However, it's important to understand why the advice exists...I'll give my take.
> 
> Most people in the world, present company excluded, rely on the oral telling of stories. Verbally people tend to focus on efficiency of language because we have other non-verbal communication tools acting simultaneously (body language, facial expressions, voice inflections, etc.). Therefore, when describing something, say an action, people modify verbs. It gets a basic point across quickly, without the need for greater description. It's a learned behavior, one we tend to gravitate towards in all forms of communication.



This is a good point. I most definitely use adverbs in my speech all the time. 



> First, if it is a natural, learned behavior that comes from an activity with differences from writing (oral communication), then I want to be aware that I need special focus on how to communicate with the utmost clarity. Often, adverbs are the enemy of clarity. Modified verbs have a greater tendency to be read differently by different people. The more precise your description, the greater clarity, the lesser the possibility of differing interpretations.



I do feel like clarity is important, but if writers are maintaining that clarity even with adverbs, then that's when I don't oppose them. If someone says "The girl moved quickly" then that is pretty vague. If you say "The girl darted into the alleyway" we get a better idea of the scene. However, if someone writes, "She usually wore a floppy gray hat" the adverb "usually" tells us something about the character. If I just say "She wore a gray hat" it is clear, but adding "usually" lets us know that she has some attachment to the hat in some way or has to wear it for work. In this case, I think it makes it the sentence better.



> Secondly, I've found this is an area to examine with the "show don't tell" principle in mind. If I use an adverbial modifier, I'm basically telling the reader what is taking place.
> 
> Ex. "I love you," she said tenderly."



This the example I try to avoid: adding adverbs to dialogue tags. I do usually think there is a much better way of conveying something than just tacking a "-ly" adverb on the end of "said." 



> In contrast, if I instead employ precise description of the girls face, motions, or words, the reader will come to understand that she is loving in a more visceral way. It makes the reader part of the story because it involves them in feeling through the character, not me telling them it's so.
> 
> Ex. "I love you," she said, her hands tracing the outline of his face.
> 
> The actions speak for her in conjunction with her dialogue. The reader interprets the spoken word, in conjunction with her actions (body language), as loving tenderness. That is more powerful.



Yes, I agree with this point. Although it's most certainly a modern convention. Robert E. Howard, one of my favorites, used this all the time. And there are others successful authors that still do as well. However, I try to not do this in my own writing. This one rule I think is valuable for me. 



> Admittedly, I chose to use a modifier on the word "said" which is an extreme example. I did so only to illustrate the point. The first example is very open to interpretation...there are myriad ways to say something tenderly. The second description is far more concrete. The possibilities for differing interpretations are there, but it is less likely. The images conjured in the reader's mind should be similar to that of another reader. My intent is getting across with clarity.
> 
> Now, that being said, there are times when an author wants to depict something without elaborating on the action with greater description. I get that. Adverbs are a good choice for this, as they are efficient. For myself though, if my intention is to gloss over an action and not draw attention to it, I'd question whether it should be written at all. I've always maintained that adverbs have their uses. They are a word tool like any other. We just need to be conscious & aware of their uses, as well as the pitfalls of relying on them too heavily.



Perhaps I'm trying to argue a point I didn't really want to argue in this thread, but I think that's what I was getting at with my OP. That was, had, and -ly adverbs can all be tools we can use now and again with success. Or at least they can be used without people noticing them so much. I think I keep getting painted as some kind of "DON'T FOLLOW THE RULES" kind of guy, but I do think there are values to them. Just some writers need to take the tools that work for them and not let others tell them don't do it just because they think it's the right way. If I read advice from Stephen King and he says "don't use adverbs ever" then I see writers doing it with success, then I have to analyze my own choices as a writer and weigh my options when I edit.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Oct 23, 2013)

Phil the Drill said:


> I do feel like clarity is important, but if writers are maintaining that clarity even with adverbs, then that's when I don't oppose them. If someone says "The girl moved quickly" then that is pretty vague. If you say "The girl darted into the alleyway" we get a better idea of the scene. However, if someone writes, "She usually wore a floppy gray hat" the adverb "usually" tells us something about the character. If I just say "She wore a gray hat" it is clear, but adding "usually" lets us know that she has some attachment to the hat in some way or has to wear it for work. In this case, I think it makes it the sentence better.



I agree completely Phil. This is a great example of using a tool well.  



Phil the Drill said:


> This example I try to avoid: adding adverbs to dialogue tags. I do usually think there is a much better way of conveying something than just tacking a "-ly" adverb on the end of "said."  Yes, I agree with this point. Although it's most certainly a modern convention. Robert E. Howard, one of my favorites, used this all the time. And there are others successful authors that still do as well. However, I try to not do this in my own writing. This one rule I think is valuable for me.



Not modifying the verb said is one of the only self-imposed rules I don't bend on. That's a rule I adhere to & I'd caution others strongly against it. However, others may have a different view on the subject. They're entitled to it. It's their writing not mine.  



Phil the Drill said:


> Perhaps I'm trying to argue a point I didn't really want to argue in this thread, but I think that's what I was getting at with my OP. That was, had, and -ly adverbs can all be tools we can use now and again with success. Or at least they can be used without people noticing them so much. I think I keep getting painted as some kind of "DON'T FOLLOW THE RULES" kind of guy, but I do think there are values to them. Just some writers need to take the tools that work for them and not let others tell them don't do it just because they think it's the right way. If I read advice from Stephen King and he says "don't use adverbs ever" then I see writers doing it with success, then I have to analyze my own choices as a writer and weigh my options when I edit.



I don't think you're arguing at all. I certainly wouldn't paint you as a rebel to rules. Your views are supported by examining writers you admire. There's few considerations with greater value. I see the "Rules vs There are no Rules" argument a lot here. It's understandable for some people to cling to their opinions on craft while others feel they're being boxed in by those opinions, or that their own methods lack value. Both are wrong. As artists, as writers, we should each grow to understand how individual & unique the writing process is. I think few would argue that point. So, considering this, why do we argue over another's advice? It's theirs. They own it & no other. If something strikes the learner as valuable that's wonderful. If advice doesn't fit a particular style, it can be easily ignored.   

I'm not trying to squash debate on the topic. Quite the contrary. It is healthy for us all to discuss matters of craft. I do think though, if we each can remember the solitary, individual nature of our art, we will be more tolerant of advice & accepting of opinion because we recognize advice for all that it is.


----------



## GeekDavid (Oct 23, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> I don't think you're arguing at all. I certainly wouldn't paint you as a rebel to rules. Your views are supported by examining writers you admire. There's few considerations with greater value. I see the "Rules vs There are no Rules" argument a lot here. It's understandable for some people to cling to their opinions on craft while others feel they're being boxed in by those opinions, or that their own methods lack value. Both are wrong. As artists, as writers, we should each grow to understand how individual & unique the writing process is. I think few would argue that point. So, considering this, why do we argue over another's advice? It's theirs. They own it & no other. If something strikes the learner as valuable that's wonderful. If advice doesn't fit a particular style, it can be easily ignored.
> 
> I'm not trying to squash debate on the topic. Quite the contrary. It is healthy for us all to discuss matters of craft. I do think though, if we each can remember the solitary, individual nature of our art, we will be more tolerant of advice & accepting of opinion because we recognize advice for all that it is.



I argue when I become convinced -- usually by tone, which is to say word choice in the posts -- that the person advocating the rules is advocating that everyone *must* follow them, not that it's their choice whether or not to follow them.


----------



## Steerpike (Oct 23, 2013)

It doesn't take too much looking at published work to see that spelling, grammar, and punctuation aren't hard and fast rules either. See Cormac McCarthy on punctuation in dialogue, or Joyce on just about anything.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Oct 23, 2013)

GeekDavid said:


> I argue when I become convinced -- usually by tone, which is to say word choice in the posts -- that the person advocating the rules is advocating that everyone must follow them, not that it's their choice whether or not to follow them.



Understandable. I'm merely suggesting, that if we all understand the solitary approach to writing, and the unique methods we each come to as a result of learning in isolation, there would be less desire to push and less reason for offense.

When I say "learning in isolation" I'm referring to the act of sitting down to write. It's the only true way to improve & we do it alone.


----------



## GeekDavid (Oct 23, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> Understandable. I'm merely suggesting, that if we all understand the solitary approach to writing, and the unique methods we each come to as a result of learning in isolation, there would be less desire to push and less reason for offense.
> 
> When I say "learning in isolation" I'm referring to the act of sitting down to write. It's the only true way to improve & we do it alone.



I don't disagree.

The problem is that as long as there are people who push, there will be people who take offense at being pushed.


----------



## Philip Overby (Oct 23, 2013)

I think depending on the audience you're writing for, you can get away with certain things more. I'd say there's a lot more forgiveness in romance fiction for any sort of technical issues. Not to say all romance is poorly written, it just tends to focus on evoking emotions rather than any other concerns. 

I'd say if you're writing for literary journals, you're going to be judged a lot harsher as a writer. However, you can get away with more experimentation in some circles if you're good at what you do. 

I often have the opinion, "I know what I like." When I see something, I just know I like it. It almost always has to do with vivid description, interesting characters, and a unique perspective on an old idea. These are things that hook me. I don't go, "Wow, this guy is really good at technique." I shouldn't even be noticing that. That's like noticing cinematography while watching a movie. So for me, I don't let technical things bother me when I read unless they're glaring and distracting. Which in my experience reading for enjoyment, doesn't happen often.


----------

