The other day I got into a discussion with one of my fellow
group members for the critique group I’m a part of. We spoke of the dreaded…
Passive voice… “to be” verbs. DUN DUN DUN.
Personally (and yes, I mean PERSONALLY, for my own writing
and reading) I think using any form of "to be" verbs in anything
other than speech is usually useless. USUALLY... not always.
(I should mention, as an aside, "to be" verbs in
speech is almost always acceptable because that's generally how we speak
naturally. Unless your character is giving a well prepared speech, he or she is
bound to use a lot of "to be" verbs.)
For the most part, "to be" verbs are overused. We
tend to gloss over them as English speakers, which automatically makes us
passive readers, even if the "to be" verb isn't being used in passive
voice.
Also, there's almost always a way to avoid them and replace the
verb with something stronger and more concrete. "Was" (or
"is" or "are" or "were" or any other "to
be" verb) indicates a state of being - not an action. For example, "This
is a book." This will always be a book. It's a permanent existence until something
physically changes it. But "He was running." is far more temporary. His
"running state" isn't a permanent "state of being" like the
book.
I don't mean you can always avoid "he was
running." But there's lots of other ways to avoid it. Use a different verb
in general. You don't even need to use the verb. Here's an example:
"Matt turned. The horse was running right at him!"
can turn into...
"Matt turned. Crap! He dashed out of the way just in
time to avoid the charging horse."
This avoids the verb issue completely.
There is almost always a way to avoid "to be"
verbs, even in simple description.
For example:
"The bowl was red."
There's two ways to go about this. If it's not significant
that the bowl is red you can simply say
"The red bowl."
But if it is significant, (like, if it's red from blood or
paint or something) you can change the verb completely.
"The bowl gleamed red and sparkled in the light."
This not only avoids the "was" but it also gives
us a much more powerful description and verb in general.
As I said, you can't always avoid "was" or
"to be" verbs. But you can a LOT and it usually makes for a better
read.
My discussion partner also cited a link to a website that
explains “past progressive” voice, which is considered okay for novel writing.
Being a writing Nazi, I tackled that too.
The link cited these examples as past progressive:
"Narrative in past tense.
It was raining. The water was pouring down in sheets and the passersby were getting wetter with every step, despite their umbrellas.
When one action is happening at the time of another particular time.
It was raining at noon.
It was raining during lunch.
When one action is happening at the same time as another.
It was raining while I was out walking."
Almost all of these can be changed to a more active voice and therefore made better.
"It was raining. The water was pouring down in sheets and the passersby were getting wetter with every step, despite their umbrellas."
Becomes...
"Rain fell from the sky. The water dropped in sheets and passersby soaked up every drop, despite their umbrellas."
As you can see, this even makes the whole thing shorter, yet more vivid, and even uses some metaphor to make the writing stronger.
"It was raining at noon.
It was raining during lunch.
When one action is happening at the same time as another.
It was raining while I was out walking."
Becomes...
"It rained at noon"
- Writers rarely need to indicate that "noon" and "raining" happened at the same time. "It rained at noon" and "It was raining at noon" portray, in most cases, the same action.
"It rained all through lunch."
- Again, no need for that passive voice. We still get the sense that "raining" and "lunch" happened all at the same time.
"Rain poured down while I walked that morning."
- We're still seeing some passage of time. We're also seeing "walking" and "raining" happening at the same time. All without those "to be" verbs.
"Narrative in past tense.
It was raining. The water was pouring down in sheets and the passersby were getting wetter with every step, despite their umbrellas.
When one action is happening at the time of another particular time.
It was raining at noon.
It was raining during lunch.
When one action is happening at the same time as another.
It was raining while I was out walking."
Almost all of these can be changed to a more active voice and therefore made better.
"It was raining. The water was pouring down in sheets and the passersby were getting wetter with every step, despite their umbrellas."
Becomes...
"Rain fell from the sky. The water dropped in sheets and passersby soaked up every drop, despite their umbrellas."
As you can see, this even makes the whole thing shorter, yet more vivid, and even uses some metaphor to make the writing stronger.
"It was raining at noon.
It was raining during lunch.
When one action is happening at the same time as another.
It was raining while I was out walking."
Becomes...
"It rained at noon"
- Writers rarely need to indicate that "noon" and "raining" happened at the same time. "It rained at noon" and "It was raining at noon" portray, in most cases, the same action.
"It rained all through lunch."
- Again, no need for that passive voice. We still get the sense that "raining" and "lunch" happened all at the same time.
"Rain poured down while I walked that morning."
- We're still seeing some passage of time. We're also seeing "walking" and "raining" happening at the same time. All without those "to be" verbs.
For those “TL;DR” folks… “To be” verbs are almost always
avoidable, and make for better literature. The end.
YES. Nuff said.
ReplyDeleteSome of these things you're saying seem a bit short-sighted. We do read over forms of the verb 'to be' because they're function words, because we need them to create tenses and express qualities. We also use passive voice to make paragraphs more coherent. When you say we shouldn't use descriptions of states, we shouldn't use the progressive tense, we shouldn't use passives, you've denuded our language of a lot of its expressive power. Certainly there are ways to get around using them, but that doesn't always mean it's best to avoid them.
ReplyDeleteWhat you really want to avoid is repetition of the same structures over and over again. Also, when you use certain types of sentences, you want to know what they really mean - what do they do for the reader. But saying that you should write without the verb 'to be' is about as sensible a writing requirement as saying you should write without the letter 'k'. Sure, this is a good way to think about alternatives, to catch repetition, but sometimes using 'to be' is the right answer. Assuming it's never the right answer is pedantic.
It might be more balanced to consider the contexts of use, and figure out when it's annoying to the reader and when it's actually helpful. I think there might actually be a difference at the beginning of scenes and the ends of scenes. States can be a great way to end a scene, because it leaves the reader with a steady impression rather than trailing off or ending abruptly in the middle of action.
Totally agree. 'To exist, or not to exist' just doesn't have the same flow. Ms. Blackmon definitely has some good points--we should try to choose active verbs, but I believe, like Cara, there is a place for 'to be'.
DeleteTo be fair, I did say that this was more of a personal preference. There certainly are places to use "to be." For example, as I mentioned, dialogue. We use "to be" in every day speech a LOT. It's naturally how we speak. If you avoid "to be" too much in speech, it begins to feel too... proper if you will. Unnatural. Also, if you're in really deep POV and you're in the heat of the moment, "to be" verbs are a little more acceptable.
DeleteBut overall, "to be" is just naturally passive and when we read them we become passive readers. Usually active verbs make for better, more immediate reading, and draws the reader in more.
But yes, I agree. There are places for it. It's just generally better to avoid it if possible. But if you use something besides a "to be" verb and it comes out sounding funny, then it's likely you need the "to be" in that particular situation. The whole thing is very situational. We just tend to write in passive voice because it's how we speak, but with practice, writing can be more active and therefore, more interesting.
This is great. When I tackle my fast and messy drafts I'm constantly on the lookout for passive voice. Out, I say, out, out, out:)
ReplyDeleteThanks for the post!
No worries! Glad it could help. =D
DeleteInteresting post. I do feel as though there'd be a risk of writing very purple prose if you followed this advice throughout your novel/story.
ReplyDeleteBut still some good advice here, and certainly something to think about when editing.
Hi there! I am actually very interested in one thing, of course if I'm not asking too much could you be so kind and please tell us where you grew up?
ReplyDeleteI grew up in Southern California. =D
Delete