Was and Had Everywhere

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.