Passive Word Highlighter

[Roger J Carlson]

Encouraged by the response to the Word Frequency Finder (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=169695&postcount=1), I've written another program to help writers.

The Passive Word Highlighter contains a program to highlight passive, misused, or over-used words and phrases in a document.

It is often difficult for a writer to see words that are misused or used too frequently. Many of us use "was" or "that" with so little thought that the words become almost invisible and nearly impossible to edit.

Consider the following words: is, isn't, am, are, aren't, was, wasn't, were, will, would, won't, has, had, have, be, been, do, don't, did, didn't, does, doesn't, seem, seems, exist, exists, appears, make, makes, show, shows, occur, occurs, get, got, went, put, some, many, most, that, very, extremely, totally, completely, wholly, utterly, quite, rather, slightly, fairly, somewhat, and suddenly.

These words either indicate passive sentences or are just plain boring. Often, they are necessary, but more often, they can be replaced with something more evocative.

So how can this program help? You give it a list of words you want to check, and it replaces each instance in your document with the same word but formatted in a color of your choice (red, blue, or green). For instance, you can find every instance of "was" and replace it with "was" (formatted in red). Suddenly, your manuscript is a forest of red, blue and green, making these boring words and phrases instantly obvious. Then you can decide which instances should be replaced with a more appropriate word and which to keep.

You can find this program on my website here:
http://www.rogerjcarlson.com/WritingHelp/TechTips.html

I would appreciate any comment, suggestion, and especially problem reports.

Thanks.

[maestrowork]

Great! Just remember to keep a back-up before you run this tool. :)

[tjwriter]

This is off topic, but I noticed it from your site. The section titled "The Craft" has the old link for AW on. It's still set to the ezboard site.

[BlueTexas]

Ohhh...cool! I think this will be useful for my own use as well as my current dilhemma. Thanks!!

[Roger J Carlson]

This is off topic, but I noticed it from your site. The section titled "The Craft" has the old link for AW on. It's still set to the ezboard site.Whups! I'll fix it right away. Thanks.

[Jamesaritchie]

No time to test this one tonight, but I have it downloaded. I'll give it a go tomorrow. Sounds like a good idea, to me. Might even be a good idea to use your word list as a base, and add other words from there.

[Roger J Carlson]

Great! Just remember to keep a back-up before you run this tool. :)You know, I could probably save the document to a different name before modifying it. That way it would automatically be creating a backup. In fact, the program would run against the backup rather than the original.

Hmmmm....I'll look into it.

Good idea! Thanks.

[Roger J Carlson]

You know, I could probably save the document to a different name before modifying it. That way it would automatically be creating a backup. In fact, the program would run against the backup rather than the original.

Hmmmm....I'll look into it.

Good idea! Thanks.Well, I did it. The Passive Word Highlighter now allows you to choose to make the highlighting to the original OR to a copy of the original.

I've also reduced the filesize for both this and the Word Frequency Counter.

[DeadlyAccurate]

Terrific program! I'd give you a rep point, but I already did recently.

[pandora9]

Hi

I guess these macros don't work on a mac? Shame, they look really useful.

[Sage]

Roger, I'm just wondering, 'cuz I've never used macros..., what makes this different from using find/replace to highlight those words?

[Fahim]

Roger, I'm just wondering, 'cuz I've never used macros..., what makes this different from using find/replace to highlight those words?

One of the uses that macros are often put to is to make repetitive tasks easy. For instance, if you have a whole bunch of passive words/phrases that you want to highlight, you would have to click Find/Replace, type the word in and then click Replace All and then repeat the same action for ten or twenty or a hundred other words in the list. With the macro, you simply set up the word list, click a button and it does all the work for you :) So much more easier - at least for lazy people like me :p

[Edited to add the following]
There's a thread (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26020) in Tech Help with a macro that I wrote which highlights a few other words besides passive ones. Heck Roger's got a couple of other macros over there that are really nifty as well :) In fact, I used Roger's word lists for my macro :)

[Roger J Carlson]

Hi

I guess these macros don't work on a mac? Shame, they look really useful.Unfortunately, the utilities will not, as they make use of some programming that it built into Windows itself. However, if you use Word for Mac, you may be able to create your own.

On my website, http://www.rogerjcarlson.com/WritingHelp/TechTips.html, there is an article called "Using Word Macros to Improve Your Writing", which shows how to create your own macro. I don't know if it will work with Word for Mac, but it's worth a try.

If you use some other word processor, you may also be able to use a similar technique if that word processor has a macro recorder.

[Roger J Carlson]

Roger, I'm just wondering, 'cuz I've never used macros..., what makes this different from using find/replace to highlight those words?At its very basic, a macro simply records keystokes that you can play back at the push of a button (or keystroke combination). This can be useful for many different repetitive actions. In fact, you can create your own macro to highlight passive words (or any other kind of words you want) as I describe in the article on my website as posted above (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=572012&postcount=13). Many word processing programs have similar capabilities.

However, Microsoft took a bold step and upgraded their Macro Recorder into a full-bloodded programming language (Visual Basic for Applications or VBA). If you know how to program, you can create some extremely complex add-on applications and build them into Word itself. It is a much under-utilized but extremely useful functionality that, as far as I know, no other word processing program has.

While my utilities are beyond the "keystoke-recorder" stage, they still aren't built to the sophistication that I would like. Someday I'm going to bundle all of them into an "Add-in" that can be installed into Word. Now that would be useful.

[pandora9]

On my website, http://www.rogerjcarlson.com/WritingHelp/TechTips.html, there is an article called "Using Word Macros to Improve Your Writing", which shows how to create your own macro. I don't know if it will work with Word for Mac, but it's worth a try.



I tried it. It works! Big thanks.

[Maryn]

Just a heads-up for the technically inept. I'm one of you, and I got this working without help. Not first try, mind you, but I did it, and that means you don't have to be a 'computer person' to copy it and make it work for you.

Maryn, knowing some people need that reassurance

[icerose]

Dang it! All the good macros are for microsoft and not corel :(

[Fahim]

Dang it! All the good macros are for microsoft and not corel :(

I can't believe I'm saying this, but maybe it's time to switch? :p Actually, OpenOffice (http://www.openoffice.org/) seems to have a pretty good macro language as well and there are quite a few macros for it out there. And it is free. So you might want to give that a try if you want to try something different :) Of course, given that I haven't actually coded any macros for OpenOffice and given that I hated the UI for OpenOffice, you might want to take what I say with a pinch of salt ... ;p

[KarlaErikaCal]

Darn... it doesn't work for Office 2007... Is there a way around this?

[Roger J Carlson]

Darn... it doesn't work for Office 2007... Is there a way around this?I haven't tested it in 2007 yet. It's on my to do list. I've got a feeling I'm going to have to re-write it from scratch. But you could write your own macro to do the same thing by using the macro recorder and modifying the recorded macro. I've got instructions for doing that on the webpage too in an article called Using Word Macros to Improve Your Writing (http://www.rogerjcarlson.com/WritingHelp/TechTips.html). The instructions are for Office 2000-2007, but the general process should still work the same.

[Straka]

Great! I can't wait to try this out when get back in town.

[Dustry Joe]

That is absolutely insane. The idea that a WORD can be "passive" and in some way inferior to other words is something no writer should even give a second's credence to.

The list of words is REALLY crazy. "Suddenly" is passive????? And "invisible"?

Don't use "get" or "got"...probably the most powerful word in the English language? GET is passive????????????????????

There are a lot of junk programs out there preying on writers who think they can buy something to make them better. They can't.

[Fahim]

That is absolutely insane. The idea that a WORD can be "passive" and in some way inferior to other words is something no writer should even give a second's credence to.

Joe, your preferences are your own. Nobody is forcing you to try this macro or any other program. The list of words in the macro can be customized by the user and it doesn't have to be passive words - it can be often used words that sometimes writers tend to use too often. And nobody is "preying" on writers here since the program is absolutely FREE. If you don't like it, don't use it - it's as simple as that.

[Dustry Joe]

Joe, your preferences are your own.

Of course they are. Whose else would the be?
It was supposed to be a "passive" word filter and a list of words were given. That qualifies it as stupid. I don't know why you would take my saying so as anything else other than my saying it's stupid.

There are a lot of junk programs out there preying on writers who think they can buy something to make them better. They can't.

This statement stands and is very true. If the program you describe is free, then it doesn't prey on people's pocketbook, just their time and unrealistic aims. Wonderful. Use it if you like.

[Fahim]

Of course they are. Whose else would the be?
It was supposed to be a "passive" word filter and a list of words were given. That qualifies it as stupid. I don't know why you would take my saying so as anything else other than my saying it's stupid.


Because you saying something doesn't necessarily make it fact - it's just your opinion and while it might be your own opinion, you also might be deluded enough to believe whatever some other stupid schmuck told you. Not knowing you personally, I can't make a definite statement either way. I was simply pointing out the fact that there are always two (or more) sides to anything and you saying it's stupid and ridiculous and whatnot doesn't necessarily make it so. I just don't want somebody to read your opinion and make it their own and spread the word :p


This statement stands and is very true. If the program you describe is free, then it doesn't prey on people's pocketbook, just their time and unrealistic aims. Wonderful. Use it if you like.

Everybody doesn't have to have the same goals and aims as yourself. Somebody else might find it useful even if you don't, there is no need to deride something without even checking the full facts since you obviously did not know that the macro is free and is available here just because the author found it personally useful. If it's not for you, then move on :)

[blacbird]

Cool tool, Roger. I'll fool with the cool tool to see if it rules.


Consider the following words: is, isn't, am, are, aren't, was, wasn't, were, will, would, won't, has, had, have, be, been, do, don't, did, didn't, does, doesn't, seem, seems, exist, exists, appears, make, makes, show, shows, occur, occurs, get, got, went, put, some, many, most, that, very, extremely, totally, completely, wholly, utterly, quite, rather, slightly, fairly, somewhat, and suddenly.

But, a caveat: The basic verbs (e.g., is, are, was, do, did, get, went, etc.) are both common parlance and common tools used commonly by some of the finest narrative writers ever (Elmore Leonard, John D. MacDonald, Flannery O'Connor, James M. Cain, Philip Roth, Ernest Hemingway, John Steinbeck, Carson McCullers, Graham Greene . . .). Their identification as "passive" seems a bit flawed, to me. They can contribute to the construction of passive phrases, but in and of themselves, they don't offend. The adverbs (completely, wholly, utterly, quite, rather, somewhat, etc.) are bigger offenders.

Myself, I have long kept a list, which continues to grow, of first-draft weaknesses in such word or phrase choices ("somewhat" is one of my biggies), which I search manuscripts for in the early stages of editing, and try to drive stakes through the hearts of as many as I can.

caw

[L M Ashton]

Here's the thing about the passive word highlighter, or the macro that highlights frequently used words, or the macro that highlights adverbs, or whatever other macros that either Roger or Fahim created that highlight words...

They only highlight the words. They can't different between (for example) was as used in a passive context or was used in a non-passive context. And that's fine - these macros do not change the document at all - it doesn't rewrite anything. It just highlights possible trouble areas to make it potentially easier for a writer to see what may or may not need changing.

The writer still needs to make his/her own decision whether to make any changes or not. If, for example, a word was used several times in a paragraph for effect, if the effect works, then the writer would most likely not want to change that. But, if a word was unknowingly used too frequently - I can think of a few of my problem words - then it would probably work better to change it.

It's just a tool, and it's up to the writer to decide how to use it to his/her best advantage. :)

[Dustry Joe]

If it's not for you, then move on

No, you are the only one who seems to think what I say is "facts" and feel an urge to defend stupid schmucks from them.

You have your opinion, I have mine. Why not take your own advice from the quote above and get off my back?

[Will Lavender]

Cool tool, Roger. I'll fool with the cool tool to see if it rules.



But, a caveat: The basic verbs (e.g., is, are, was, do, did, get, went, etc.) are both common parlance and common tools used commonly by some of the finest narrative writers ever (Elmore Leonard, John D. MacDonald, Flannery O'Connor, James M. Cain, Philip Roth, Ernest Hemingway, John Steinbeck, Carson McCullers, Graham Greene . . .). Their identification as "passive" seems a bit flawed, to me. They can contribute to the construction of passive phrases, but in and of themselves, they don't offend. The adverbs (completely, wholly, utterly, quite, rather, somewhat, etc.) are bigger offenders.

Myself, I have long kept a list, which continues to grow, of first-draft weaknesses in such word or phrase choices ("somewhat" is one of my biggies), which I search manuscripts for in the early stages of editing, and try to drive stakes through the hearts of as many as I can.

caw

Absolutely.

And I'm not even sure it's just "flawed." It's wrong, isn't it? I've never heard some of these words described as passive.

[Roger J Carlson]

That is absolutely insane. The idea that a WORD can be "passive" and in some way inferior to other words is something no writer should even give a second's credence to.

The list of words is REALLY crazy. "Suddenly" is passive????? And "invisible"?

Don't use "get" or "got"...probably the most powerful word in the English language? GET is passive????????????????????

There are a lot of junk programs out there preying on writers who think they can buy something to make them better. They can't.

But, a caveat: The basic verbs (e.g., is, are, was, do, did, get, went, etc.) are both common parlance and common tools used commonly by some of the finest narrative writers ever (Elmore Leonard, John D. MacDonald, Flannery O'Connor, James M. Cain, Philip Roth, Ernest Hemingway, John Steinbeck, Carson McCullers, Graham Greene . . .). Their identification as "passive" seems a bit flawed, to me. They can contribute to the construction of passive phrases, but in and of themselves, they don't offend. The adverbs (completely, wholly, utterly, quite, rather, somewhat, etc.) are bigger offenders.
The name of the program, PassiveWordHighlighter, is something of a misnomer, I admit. The original idea was to highlight a list of words that can indicate sentences written in the passive voice. "Was" is such a word. For instance "I taught." is active, whereas "I was taught." is passive. Highlighting the all of the "was-es" in your manuscript can help you identify such passive sentences. At the very least, you'll see just how often you use the word! (Which for me is quite a lot.)

The idea is not to delete or change every single instance of each highlighted word, but to consider each and decide if it is the best word. Much of the time, I can find a better one.

So I expanded the list to include a lot of other words that are not very descriptive or evocative. I also included words that I find I over-use. "Suddenly" (to my mind) is a very offensive word to a fiction writer. It's a way to manufacture tension on the cheap. If you don't think so, remove it from your list.

Or don't use it at all. No one's forcing anybody. I just wrote this program for my own benefit and thought others might find it useful as well.

[Will Lavender]

The name of the program, PassiveWordHighlighter, is something of a misnomer, I admit. The original idea was to highlight a list of words that can indicate sentences written in the passive voice. "Was" is such a word. For instance "I taught." is active, whereas "I was taught." is passive. Highlighting the all of the "was-es" in your manuscript can help you identify such passive sentences. At the very least, you'll see just how often you use the word! (Which for me is quite a lot.)

The idea is not to delete or change every single instance of each highlighted word, but to consider each and decide if it is the best word. Much of the time, I can find a better one.

So I expanded the list to include a lot of other words that are not very descriptive or evocative. I also included words that I find I over-use. "Suddenly" (to my mind) is a very offensive word to a fiction writer. It's a way to manufacture tension on the cheap. If you don't think so, remove it from your list.

Or don't use it at all. No one's forcing anybody. I just wrote this program for my own benefit and thought others might find it useful as well.

Ah, that makes sense, Roger.