• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

Was and Had Everywhere

Captain Loye

Dreamer
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

Forum Mom
Leadership
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

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

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. :D
 
C

Chessie

Guest
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

Staff
Moderator
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.
 
Last edited:

BWFoster78

Myth Weaver
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

Felis amatus
Moderator
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

Auror
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

Archmage
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

Staff
Moderator
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?
 
Last edited:

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
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

Staff
Moderator
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

Felis amatus
Moderator
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

Auror
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

Felis amatus
Moderator
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

Staff
Moderator
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

Staff
Article Team
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

Myth Weaver
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

Felis amatus
Moderator
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

Staff
Article Team
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.
 
Last edited:
Top