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

Was and Had Everywhere

Guy

Inkling
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.

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

Staff
Article Team
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.

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.
 
Last edited:

Philip Overby

Staff
Article Team
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

Staff
Moderator
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.

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.

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.
 
Last edited:

GeekDavid

Auror
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

Felis amatus
Moderator
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

Staff
Moderator
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

Auror
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

Staff
Article Team
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.
 
Top