Joe Bunting in Let’s Write a Short Story advises rooting out weak verbs such as: is, am, were, was, being, are, get, and got; and weak words such as very, really, stuff, thing, almost, I think, much, just, so, and people. Try this. Copy this line of words and paste it into your search window: is am was were being are get got very really stuff thing almost much just so people In Scrivener set the search parameters to text and whole word and turn off case sensitive. If your screen is a field of yellow rectangles--as mine usually is--some editing is definitely required. What is wrong with these words? Nothing at all in moderation. Non-specific nouns such as thing, stuff, and people can be replaced by specific nouns that are more interesting. Low imageability words such as get, got, very, almost, etc are unspecific first- draft words. They fly from your fingers without much thought. Filler words such as really, just, actually, etc contribute little to narration--but they are sometimes useful, especially in dialog. And now for the battle...
I feel that this sort of advice requires specific examples. IMO, the issue isn't so much a matter of "in moderation" as the specific use of the words. In particular, condemning basic building blocks like "is" and "am" and "were" requires plenty of explanation and examples.
Here are a few examples from my story. The characters are children. Elly was standing in front of him. Elly stood in front of him. Everyone else was busy teasing Donald, asking him how he was going to lose weight, making stupid jokes about lifting food for exercise. The others teased Donald, asking him how he would lose the weight that Elly demanded, making stupid jokes about lifting food for exercise. Donald was happier than he could ever remember. Instead of being a bummer, always bringing down the fun, now he was part of the fun. Donald felt happier than he could ever remember. Instead of playing the bummer, always bringing down the fun, now he was part of the fun. Later. Time to watch Jeopardy.
See, I prefer the first version of all three. It's hard to be sure without the surrounding context, of course, but I think that those instances of 'was' were fine. But it would probably be better for me to dig up some examples from authors that aren't here. Otherwise, things tend to get personal.
As @ChickenFreak says, context is king here. Elly was standing in front of him. ...has a totally different meaning to... Elly stood in front of him. Elly was standing...is a position that Elly is occupying. So, here you are describing the situation...e.g., the bed is against the far wall, the table is knocked over, and Elly is standing in front of him. Elly stood...is an action that Elly has taken. So, here you are describing the action...e.g., angry at his refusal to allow her to go out to play, Elly stood in front of him. There is a similar, although not so marked, change in focus in each of the pairs. In each case, the second example feels more "tell-y".
If you go to Gutenberg and download a few examples from great literature, you'll find that very few of these weak words are used--except for was, and even then, there will be only a smattering. As I was creating the examples above, I was asking myself, "Is this really any better?" Elly stood in front of him is definitely better than Elly was standing in front of him in this context as the situation is confrontational, not positional. Now, if you go to get/got: But they soon got back into their old kidding ways. or Roxanne had a lot of rooms to play in before they got renovated. Well, you can fill in the blanks.
1/ As I said, Elly stood...is an action that Elly has taken as part of her confrontation. 2/ I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. Yes, I could rewrite it as... But they soon reverted to their old kidding ways. The problem with this is that reverted seems a more high-falutin' voice than is implied by kidding ways. I much prefer Roxanne had a lot of rooms to play in before they were renovated., and I'm struggling to see which strong verb you'd substitute for either; unless you're suggesting that it should be rephrased to remove the weak verb. In both the examples, it feels as if you'd root out the weak verbs, and replace with purple prose. Incidentally, I'm not going to download and then analyse anything from Gutenberg...Lies, damned lies and statistics, and all that!.. 1/ Just because "Great literature" does or doesn't do it proves nothing. If it works in my context, that's good enough for me. 2/ You're the one making the argument, you're the one who needs to come up with the proof.
The examples I'm using are directly from my first draft, so they could be rephrased, for sure. As I said in the OP, get and got fly off my fingers without any thought. That's how the first draft goes. Write now, edit later. This technique quickly shows me where to go. When I see an overgrowth of yellow boxes (in Scrivener), I know that that area needs some tending. But they soon returned to their old kidding ways. Roxanne had a lot of rooms to play in before Mr. Marzano's crew renovated them. This novel is aimed at young teenagers. Purple prose is the last place I'd want to go.
But that, again, assumes that there's anything wrong with the words, which is what is being discussed. Based in these examples, it appears to me that you're letting this rule strip you of your voice. There's more engaging character in the originals.
Sounds to be that the beef here is between passive verb phrases and straight action verbs, which is not the word "was's" fault... the "was" is just along for the ride.
Chicken, I respect your opinions, and as I said, I was wondering if these revisions were any better than the originals. Fortunately, I haven't yet implemented this technique. Off to the bin with you! Homer, could you please explain with an example.
Yay! In a tiny semi-reversal, I do agree that 'get' and 'got' is a style and voice decision worth thinking about. Its use in your two examples: But they soon got back into their old kidding ways. Roxanne had a lot of rooms to play in before they got renovated. helps add, IMO, a more engaging voice. However while "got back into" is a fairly standard phrase that IMO wouldn't cause issues, "got renovated" has just a faintly slangy feel, at least in the parts of the US where I grew up. It's a pleasant childlike slangy feel that IMO, does a good job of communicating a child's-world voice. But it is possible that it would be regarded as an error or near-error, while "...before they were renovated" doesn't have that risk.
Sure. Passive verbs and passive phraseology using "was/were": Mommy was making breakfast while Daddy was reading the newspaper. Outside Miss Anna was trimming her hedges. Dogs were milling around her. Some were rolling through the grass while others were nipping at her heels. Nobody was watching the mushroom cloud on the horizon. vs. action verbs: Mommy made breakfast while Daddy read the newspaper. Outside, Miss Anna trimmed her hedges. Dogs ran around her, some rolling through the grass will others nipped at her heels. Nobody saw the mushroom cloud on the horizon. Not a great example, it's bit mundane, but long strings of passive verbs get boring pretty quickly. It makes the action sound as if its occurred already or as if its happening extemporaneously. And that's not to discount all "was" verb phrases, because like @Shadowfax said, there are instances where there is a technical difference in action between "stood" and "was standing" that might make one more important over another. But nearly every book about editing or story will have a chapter about action verbs and why they are almost always better. I was just wondering if that's what your example was getting it, because there's nothing wrong with the word "was" on a functional level. It's when you start attaching it to action that the weakness occurs. Here's a better example: Bobby was struggling to tie the artery off. Blood was spurting over his chest and arms. vs. Bobby struggled to tie the artery off. Blood spurted over his chest and arms. "Blood spurted" has a more immediate, visceral feel to it while "blood was spurting" sounds like it might have happened yesterday or ten years ago. Or like it's being explained to somebody else instead of dropping the reader inside the action. I always think of passive verb phrases as something they use in court to retell events that have long since transpired. "I was standing on the corner of Elm Street, your honor. The defendant was driving north with the body stuck in his windshield." Sounds like it already happened and the threat has passed.
I have to disagree here. It sounds like you're sort of discussing passive voice, except your examples don't actually include passive voice, and I don't think that "passive" has the meaning that you're giving to it. Your first example is all active voice. If I were going to make it passive voice, it would be: Breakfast was being made by Mommy, while the newspaper was being read by Daddy. Outside, the hedges were being trimmed by Miss Anna. She was being milled-around by dogs. The grass was being rolled on by some, while her heels were being nipped by others. The mushroom cloud on the horizon wasn't being watched by anyone. Edited to add: And the very unnatural way that that paragraph sounds supports my idea that there's really no need for people to be warned so vehemently about passive voice. Passive voice is just not natural; people aren't going to use it a lot when they don't actually need it. There's nothing wrong with your rewrite, but it's not about passive/active. Instead, you've changed the tense, from (I hope I have my terminology correct) past continuous to simple past. It can frequently be a good change--past continuous can (and this is purely my feeling from it) have a sort of stretched/strained feel when overused. In the specific example, it may be wanted, because that sense of simultaneous continuous action, in contrast with the mushroom cloud, could be the intent. (Of course, assuming you wrote it, you know what the intent is. ) Your second example is, again, a change between past continuous (was struggling) to simple past (struggled). Again, this isn't passive; it's past continuous.
I agree, Homer's example shifted verb tenses, and I agree, there's a time and place for just about everything in writing. Anytime you're using the same construction over and over, you need to be aware that it's going to set up a kind of rhythm that could either be tedious or lulling. But that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the construction itself. "Mommy was making breakfast when Daddy hit her in the back of the head" has a very different meaning from "Mommy made breakfast when Daddy hit her in the back of the head".
Anyway to the OP - don't take advice like that too much to heart. It's aimed at novices who really don't know the purpose of those words, nor much of a grasp of tone or voice. As a general rule, usually bringing the reader into the action, without filtering, is a good idea (eg. A bird flew by vs He saw a bird fly by). The problem isn't the words you listed - the problem is whether in using those words, you distance the reader from the character or event. However, there are times when distance can be a good thing, an effective thing, the very thing you want for the scene. It's silly to rule out a bunch of words just because they're a particular word. If you really did root out every "was" that there ever was in your manuscript, you'd end up with a million SPAG errors (I understand you're not saying we should do that) My point simply: you cannot just rule out words. It all depends on how and when and why you're using them.
Yep. If you said, for example, "I have a tendency to use past continuous tense when simple past would be both simpler and stronger. I've found that I can most easily find areas where I've done that by searching on the word 'was', because it's extremely likely to be used for past continuous tense," that would be different. You wouldn't in any way be condemning the word; you would be working on a specific writing issue of your own, and the word would just be a clue. I suspect that that's where all of these words came from. This one helps you to find past continuous that you might or might not want. This one helps you to find passive voice that you might or might not want. This one is sometimes used as a meaningless modifier, so you might or might not want it. But they all just got combined into a list, with all context lost.
True. The problem is a lot of people - esp native English speakers - haven't a strong enough grasp of grammar to make these distinctions, which is probably another reason why it's so tempting to just hone in on getting rid of specific words.
Back to was. Homer is correct. My examples of was were in continuous past or progressive past. I've been using ProWritingAid to examine my own and other's writing. The program finds passive verbs, which can be more concealed than the usual A was done by B. For example: She was married to a man of local stock. At least one person has claimed that he was physically attacked by a woman in a black lace dress. Any creeping thoughts of fear were forgotten as he charged the ghost only to be pulled back. Such experiences are magnified, objects are thrown, people too. These examples are from https://www.writingforums.org/threads/the-dark-spectre-a-danny-wagner-mystery.146956/
Just wanted to toss my two cents, even though I am a beginning writer A saw some similar things in the topic, but I do feel it has to do with action and pace. "weaker" words are on specifically bad and "stronger" wordds are not specifically good. To return to earlier sentences for the example's sake: -Elly was standing in front of him. -Elly stood in front of him. I feel like the first is a slower pace, with of course the action having already passed. Like, Tom walked around the corner and saw Elly standing there, she was already there. It could be a setup for maybe a sad scene. Maybe Elly is standing there with tears in her eyes, about to ask Tom why he cheated. The second, as mentioned, has more action to it. "Dung is about to go down", to not use profanity. Elly is not just standing in front of Tom. No, Tom is just minding his own business, walking through the school halls. Suddenly, BOOM!, Elly stands in front of him with her hands firmly resting on the sides of her hip, her fingers squeezing her more than a corset ever could. Instead of any form of greeting, her palm slaps his cheek so hard, those around will be thinking a car crashed through the walls. Her face is red and her teeth crack under the stress on her jaw, because not only did she hear that Tom cheated on her, he cheated with her best friend! or sister! or mom! Maybe a bit excessive, but that is my feel with those two sentences.
@Mayarra , that was fun to read. The point, though, is that the examples I provided were not correct examples of was's weak use, which is when it is part of a passive verb. In that case, editing the sentence might be advised.
