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

Was and Had Everywhere

GeekDavid

Auror
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

Archmage
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

Myth Weaver
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

Staff
Moderator
...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

Staff
Article Team
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

Staff
Article Team
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

Staff
Article Team
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.

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

Staff
Article Team
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

Myth Weaver
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

Staff
Article Team
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

Myth Weaver
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.
 

GeekDavid

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

Leaving Out “Thatâ€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

Staff
Article Team
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.



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.

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

Myth Weaver
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

Staff
Article Team
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:

Don̢۪t Use Adverbs and Adjectives to Prettify Your Prose | WritersDigest.com

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

» Why “LYâ€Â Adverbs Suckâ€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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Guy

GeekDavid

Auror
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

Myth Weaver
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

Staff
Moderator
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.
 
Last edited:

T.Allen.Smith

Staff
Moderator
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.

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.
 
Last edited:
Top