The Evils of "was"?

[Mike Martyn]

Several of the threads I've followed on this forum have suggested that the word "was" should not be used prolificly in writing. If so why?

I've tied my self in liguistic knots trying to avoid the use of "was".

Is it a "showing" verses "telling" issue?

[Jamesaritchie]

Several of the threads I've followed on this forum have suggested that the word "was" should not be used prolificly in writing. If so why?

I've tied my self in liguistic knots trying to avoid the use of "was".

Is it a "showing" verses "telling" issue?

Was isn't evil, just misunderstood. It's a passive/active issue. "To be" verbs, and "was" in particular, tend to make sentences passive. "The gun was fired." "The river was crossed."

But there's nothing inherently wrong with "was." You just have to know when and how to use it.

[Torin]

What makes me crazy is when someone sees "was" in a sentence and pronounces that sentence as passive, even when it's NOT, as in "He was running down the street." There are times when "to be" in all its forms is needed, and times when a passive sentence is just what is needed. Heh.

Torin, turning rant off now

[James D. Macdonald]

"Was" is another tool in our tool box. Use it when necessary.

[azbikergirl]

One thing I struggle with as a learner, and perhaps others can relate, is that the advice to not go overboard with something (passive voice, prepositional phrases, Show don't Tell, using 'was,' etc.) translates to "don't ever do this." We go to our critique groups, filled with other learners who hear the same messages, and these lessons are stomped into our heads: "Show! DON'T TELL!! DAMNIT!!" So we (I) develop a paranoia and start frothing at the mouth if ever someone suggests that it's probably best to Tell right here rather than trying to Show, or that one instance of passive phrasing in a 100,000 word manuscript isn't going to ruin the story.

[gogoshire]

I understand what you're saying completely.

This is a constant frustration in my writing group.

Personally, I believe almost anything's ok in moderation, except maybe the really hard core, addictive stuff like crack, heroin, or intentional sentence fragments - you know, the kind of things we need 12 step programs to deal with.
(Oh - haven't you heard of the sentence fragment writer anonymous group?)


--Maureen

[Medievalist]

I've tied my self in liguistic knots trying to avoid the use of "was".

Don't let anything -- plot concerns, spelling, syntax, grammar, rules about what to do -- anything at all -- prevent you from BIC and writing.

Just get it down; you can go back and revise later. Let your hind brain work stuff out, and just write.

[Lenora Rose]

I had a new but pro-level published and well-reviewed writer go over an MS of mine, and he highlighted every instance of "Was/is" as passive, and every instance of passiveness as something to be rephrased or deleted. Including the phrase, "He was human." (yes, in that world, it had to be said and couldn't be assumed). You could tie yourself in knots trying to figure out how better to state that one quickly, efficiently, and above all, in a way that's *invisible to the reader*...

I knew I could and should switch the phrase "He was red-haired") to something that came out in the course of natural action or at least less-bland descriptor, but letting a reader imagine a character I know is a carrot top as a brunette doesn't change anything essential. But humanity? It wanted to be stated up front in the fewest words.

(That being said, all of his broad-view advice was superb, and most of his more pointers of "This scene drags at the opening" were equally excellent or at least correct.)

[gogoshire]

he highlighted every instance of "Was/is" as passive, and every instance of passiveness as something to be rephrased or deleted. Including the phrase, "He was human."

Just so you know, in this case, the sentence isn't passive (or active). "Was" is used as a linking verb, not a helping verb. I wouldn't worry about changing every instance, either. Flip through James Joyce. Toni Morrison. Jane Austen. Shakespeare.

They all use linking verbs now and again, and they all have some passive sentences, too.

[James D. Macdonald]

"He was human" may not be a sentence you need unless there's a chance that he might be a gerbil.

[Medievalist]

Just so you know, in this case, the sentence isn't passive (or active). "Was" is used as a linking verb, not a helping verb. I wouldn't worry about changing every instance, either. Flip through James Joyce. Toni Morrison. Jane Austen. Shakespeare.

They all use linking verbs now and again, and they all have some passive sentences, too.


There's an exceedingly long grammar-intensive thread on passive voice here (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11688).

Sometimes you, or your character, may deliberately choose to use passive voice, for good reason.

[reph]

It isn't always a show/tell issue. All "was" and no "did" makes ms. a dull read. You can often find a more interesting verb.

"The old church was on 24th Street."
"The old church stood on 24th Street."

It's a show/tell issue here:

"Sophronia was angry at Jules."
"Sophronia threw her shoe at Jules and stormed out."

[Lilybiz]

"Was" can also indicate the gerund thing--

"She was walking along the street"
has a different feeling, is less immediate in a way than
"She walked along the street."

That doesn't mean it's better or worse, but it does mean there's a choice to make. Screenwriters, who usually use present tense in description, are taught never to use gerund because it drains their sentences of crispness.

[Bufty]

Used deliberately, I don't see anything wrong with 'was' per se, but when used willy nilly and without thought I think it will suck the life out of most prose.
Bufty

[Medievalist]

It isn't always a show/tell issue. All "was" and no "did" makes ms. a dull read. You can often find a more interesting verb.

"The old church was on 24th Street."
"The old church stood on 24th Street."

It's a show/tell issue here:

"Sophronia was angry at Jules."
"Sophronia threw her shoe at Jules and stormed out."

And Reph, like Uncle Jim, has nailed the issue.

Was is a good serviceable tool; but as a verb it's a wimp, and tends to generate wimpy clauses and hence weak prose.

It's not that hammers are bad, but they can be used to break heads, and windows, as well as mend floors.

[Lenora Rose]

"He was human" may not be a sentence you need unless there's a chance that he might be a gerbil.

As per my comment in brackets immediately following. There are 4 sentient species within the story (Before taking into consideration within-species racial and cultural differences, which cause some to consider others of their own species as 'other').

Heck, neither protagonist counts as strictly homo sapiens (rather, homo Phocidae - not that they would use or understand themselves in those terms).

[azbikergirl]

When he walked in, she was humming a tune.

is not the same as

When he walked in, she hummed a tune.

[Lilybiz]

When he walked in, she was humming a tune.

is not the same as

When he walked in, she hummed a tune.


Exactly. It's what I'm sayin', only said better.

[azbikergirl]

Exactly. It's what I'm sayin', only said better.
Yeah, sometimes the was version is the correct one. :)

[maestrowork]

I like "was," just not in these cases if I can avoid them:

- "He was shocked by Jenny."
- "He was starting to cry when she yelled."
- "It was a dark and stormy night."

[Zane Curtis]

"It was a dark and stormy night."

I'm curious now. How would you rewrite "It was a dark and stormy night" to eliminate the "was" without changing the tense?

[Ace]

I'm curious now. How would you rewrite "It was a dark and stormy night" to eliminate the "was" without changing the tense?

-probably with a 'had' somewhere in there.

The night had a dark and stormy quality.

It's not exactly poetry, but it works.

'Could' might work, too.

[azbikergirl]

How about, "A chilly wind whipped across the plain as clouds gathered under a moonless sky..."

:D

[maestrowork]

"A storm shook the dark night."

:D

[jules]

There's an interesting page on wikipedia about "E prime", a variant of the English language that prohibits the use of "to be".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_Prime

The links at the bottom go into more detail about why you might want to write in this style, and why doing so might be a bad idea.

[jules]

"A storm shook the dark night."

:D

Nah.

A storm swept through the dark London night; rain fell in torrents, except for the intervals when violent gusts of wind checked it, sweeping up the streets, rattling along the housetops and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness.

Quite a bit shorter than the original, and conveys all the same information. :)

[ashlee111]

The wind howled,then the rain started pouring down, from that dark ,cloudy sky. The dark clouds added a mysteroius aura to the wind and rain, that was beating down on the shutters now.

[oswann]

The weather sucked.





Os.

[three seven]

The weather sucked.Much better.

It was a dark and stormy night.You know, it's not the 'was' here that's criminal. It's the fact that no one seems able to rewrite this sentence without describing the night as 'dark'. I mean... duh.

[ashlee111]

O.K. besides the weather sucking, it did rain a lot...so..how about "On this stormy night. The rain beat down upon the shutters, with a loud bang against the house. Joe was startled, and almost jumped out of his skin. Then he heard the howling of the fierce wind. The lights suddenly , went out and left Joe in complete darkness." OOPS, I tried to leave "dark" out. Just omit the last line. ashlee111

[aadams73]

The wind howled,then the rain started pouring down, from that dark ,cloudy sky. The dark clouds added a mysteroius aura to the wind and rain, that was beating down on the shutters now.

The wind howled as rain poured from black clouds. Shutters rattled in rusting hinges as the wind and rain hurled themselves against the slats, furious and unrelenting.

(if the shutters are new, substitute "brass hinges")

(Ok, so I took some poetic license :))

[Zane Curtis]

The weather sucked.

I think I'd agree with Three Seven here. That's probably the best version because it suggests the character of the narrator and the mood of the piece, where the others are mostly neutral.

Plus, you're not reading a story because you want to know what the weather's like, which gives the original Bullwer-Lytton version that added sense of pointlessness.

[pianoman5]

Personally, I've never seen what is so wrong with 'It was a dark and stormy night' other than the oeuvre it epitomises.

Sure, it's got a 'was' in it, the evil past continuous form of the most commonly used of all our verbs. But wait--most stories are told in past tense, so it's probably not a hanging offence.

Dark? Well, perhaps it's stating the bleeding obvious, but one could choose to interpret it as meaning that it was especially dark, the moon and stars obscured by clouds.

And? I think even the most rabid lexicographer would let that pass as 'mostly harmless'.

Stormy? That's an economical word that encompasses a whole raft of powerful images and sensations.

Night? Five letters establish the time and reinforce the mood.

Those seven little words capture a setting in a way that forty three more lyrical words do not necessarily improve upon given the minor importance of the sentence, unless the setting deserves elaboration for a good reason and you can rely on a patient and forbearing readership.

It ain't pretty, but it does the job. Leave it alone, I say!

[Zane Curtis]

"On this stormy night. The rain beat down upon the shutters, with a loud bang against the house. Joe was startled, and almost jumped out of his skin. Then he heard the howling of the fierce wind. The lights suddenly , went out and left Joe in complete darkness."

I guess it depends on how literary you're trying to be here. That passage might pass, but it wouldn't win you the Booker. I think I'd prefer to try and blend the info in with the action a bit more. But I'm damned if I can do it without a "was" somewhere. Let's see...

"The weather sucked. It had just gone three a.m. and Joe ducked from awning to awning all the way down Market Street. He was still half-drowned by the time he made it to Macey's casino. The wind set up such a howl that he had to shout at the doorman. But in the end the guy took pity on him, and a moment later Joe stood dazzled, like a rabbit in a spotlight, by the neon glare of the games room."

I think that just about covers all the points. Three a.m. is better than night because it's more specific. Half-drowned implies rain, but goes one better and says that Joe got wet, which is slightly more relevant than the shutters. It also keeps the colloquial tone we introduced with "The weather sucked." I've got the wind, which, once again, I describe as it effects Joe. Then the fact that the lights dazzle him reinforces the darkness outside, just in case 3 a.m. wasn't a big enough hint. But best of all, we've got all the characterization, setting description, and action all fused together in a seamless whole. It's even got a bit of foreshadowing, if you consider what is usually about to happen to a rabbit sitting dazzled in a spotlight.

That's how I would write it, anyway. I don't much care if there's a was in there.

[Jamesaritchie]

I'm curious now. How would you rewrite "It was a dark and stormy night" to eliminate the "was" without changing the tense?

I wouldn't rewrite it at all. I think Bulwar-Lytton gets a bum rap for much of his writing, and for this sentence in particular. What makes this sentence so laughable is that at least five hundred other writers copied it after Bulwar-Lytton first wrote it. It quickly became the ultimate cliche.

I wonder if Bulwar-Lytton would have left a different impression had he simply written:

The rain fell in torrents--except at occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind which swept up the streets, rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness.

[James D. Macdonald]

The full opening sentence from Paul Clifford (http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/7735) by Edward G. Bulwer-Lytton:

It was a dark and stormy night; the rain fell in torrents - except at occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind which swept up the streets (for it is in London that our scene lies), rattling along the housetops and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness.

Things to remember include that well over a hundred (and sneaking up on two hundred) years later, some of Buwler-Lytton's work is still in print. More than one movie has been made based on his work (The Last Days of Pompeii).

Here, for your enjoyment is "The House and the Brain (http://www.harvestfields.ca/horror/005/027.htm)" by Bulwer-Lytton.

[maestrowork]

I think the Last Days of Pompeii was one of the first English-language books I read... oy! :)

I believe "It was a dark and stormy night" became infamous because of this little guy: :snoopy:

The weather sucked.

I must say I prefer the original. This doesn't tell me anything except the narrator's (assuming 1st person) mindset. I don't know what kind of weather it was (rain, hail, snow, hurricane, acid rain?) or what time it was.

[James D. Macdonald]

The first sentence of Paul Clifford fits in wonderfully well with the rest of the novel. On that dark and stormy night a character is going from door to door in a low section of town, desperately hunting for something. What he's lookng for, unsuccessfully, turns out to be a Bible. But he does get a leather-bound book of plays that looks like a Bible, and so may serve....

[Zane Curtis]

A lot of wordiness comes from packing too much information into single sentences. That's why I prefer "The weather sucked." to "It was a dark and stormy night." Let your sentences breathe a bit. It's better to build a scene one little piece at a time, I think.

It's kind of like lighting a fire. You don't start by dumping a huge big log on it, because you'll smother it. You light your little bits of tinder first, then carefully introduce a few twigs, making sure the flame catches. Then you work up to sticks and logs.

[Jamesaritchie]

A lot of wordiness comes from packing too much information into single sentences. That's why I prefer "The weather sucked." to "It was a dark and stormy night." Let your sentences breathe a bit. It's better to build a scene one little piece at a time, I think.

It's kind of like lighting a fire. You don't start by dumping a huge big log on it, because you'll smother it. You light your little bits of tinder first, then carefully introduce a few twigs, making sure the flame catches. Then you work up to sticks and logs.

I think using a phrase such as "The weather sucked" is entirely character/narrator dependent. Outside of first person, I wouldn't use it at all, and with first person it would depend entirely, as everythng in first person does, on whether or not it fits the personality of the narrator.

Mood and tone, as well, are important. "The weather sucked" sets a mood and tone completely unlike "It was a dark and stormy night."

Follow up sentences have to reflect the same mood and tone as the first sentence, and "The weather sucked" should take you to a very different destination than "It was a dark and stormy night."

For me, at least, "The weather sucked" just doesn't fit the mood and tone of what follows "It was a dark and stormy night." The same character isn't going to say "The weather sucked," and then say:

The rain fell in torrents--except at occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind which swept up the streets, rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness.

[maestrowork]

I think the problem with the original is not "was" or "dark" or "stormy." It's that the opening sentence is redundant. It can be cut and nothing would be lost -- actually it would have been better. He could have started immediately with "The rain fell in torrents..." Everything after "It was a dark and stormy night" shows us how dark and stormy it was. ;)

[Wildeblood]

Personally, I've never seen what is so wrong with 'It was a dark and stormy night' other than the oeuvre it epitomises.
The sentence begins with an undefined pronoun - it. The rest of the sentence serves to define the undefined pronoun that should never have been there in the first place.

On a dark and stormy night...

[maestrowork]

On a dark and stormy night...

This is not needed.

But then, I'm glad he kept it. Otherwise, we wouldn't have had this lovely discussion. ;)

[oswann]

I think using a phrase such as "The weather sucked" is entirely character/narrator dependent. Outside of first person, I wouldn't use it at all, and with first person it would depend entirely, as everythng in first person does, on whether or not it fits the personality of the narrator.

Mood and tone, as well, are important. "The weather sucked" sets a mood and tone completely unlike "It was a dark and stormy night."

Follow up sentences have to reflect the same mood and tone as the first sentence, and "The weather sucked" should take you to a very different destination than "It was a dark and stormy night."

For me, at least, "The weather sucked" just doesn't fit the mood and tone of what follows "It was a dark and stormy night." The same character isn't going to say "The weather sucked," and then say:

The rain fell in torrents--except at occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind which swept up the streets, rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness.





Throwing Holden Caufield into the 19th century would do it.


Os.

[James D. Macdonald]

The "it" in descriptions of the weather is idiomatic in English. "It's raining" is a perfectly valid and universally understood sentence.

[Wildeblood]

"Was" can also indicate the gerund thing--

"She was walking along the street"
has a different feeling, is less immediate in a way than
"She walked along the street."
That "walking" ain't a gerund. This walking is a gerund:-

"Her walking took her along the street."

[Wildeblood]

The "it" in descriptions of the weather is idiomatic in English. "It's raining" is a perfectly valid and universally understood sentence.
"It was a dark and stormy night" is not a description of the weather, it is a description of the night.

"It was a dark and stormy night" is a perfectly valid and universally understood sentence. Just an ugly and clumsy one.

[James D. Macdonald]

One thing to remember about Lord Lytton was that Victorian prose was optimized for reading aloud. That was family entertainment in the pre-radio days. That also explains the fondness for dialect -- to tell the reader how to pronounce the words for maximum effect. (Later on in Paul Clifford, when we have characters speaking in Irish, German, and Cockney accents all in the same scene, the going can get quite thick indeed.)

[James D. Macdonald]

"It was night" is also idiomatic, and correct. There's no need to define the 'it.'

[Jamesaritchie]

"It was a dark and stormy night" is not a description of the weather, it is a description of the night.

"It was a dark and stormy night" is a perfectly valid and universally understood sentence. Just an ugly and clumsy one.

I don't even agree that it's ugly and clumsy. I think it's both pretty and graceful. Or was until it became a cliche. So pretty and graceful that it was used and used and used, and reused and reused and reused, until it did become a cliche.

A sentence becomes a cliche because so many writers like it that they decide to use it, even though it's been used a million times before. A sentence that isn't liked never becomes a cliche. It simply vanishes.

And for the first half of the 19th century, this writing was even better.

It should also be noted that there is a faux Faulkner and an imitation Hemingway contest each year that solicit entries as bad as those for Bulwar-Lytton. Given this, I'd say Bulwar-Lytton is in better company than most writers.

[Wildeblood]

"It was night" is also idiomatic, and correct. There's no need to define the 'it.'
But that's exactly what it does. "Was night" defines "it". Why begin with an unnecessary pronoun?

At night, she walked along the street.
The night was dark and stormy.
On a dark and stormy night, she walked along the street.

"It was a dark and stormy night when she walked along the street" is also grammatically correct, but why throw in the unnecessary noise?

[Fractured_Chaos]

You know, it's not the 'was' here that's criminal. It's the fact that no one seems able to rewrite this sentence without describing the night as 'dark'. I mean... duh.

I beg to differ.

After all, a night with no moon will be darker than a night with a full moon. And a cloudy, stormy night is going to be darker than a clear, starlit night.

So....NYAH! :wag:








*drgn dives under her couch, and hides in the darkest corner, where only the vorpal dust bunnies dared to go*

[stranger]

I don't even agree that it's ugly and clumsy. I think it's both pretty and graceful. Or was until it became a cliche. So pretty and graceful that it was used and used and used, and reused and reused and reused, until it did become a cliche.

I agree. This sentance sets the mood and tone of a story perfectly in a way that showing all those shutters blowing in the wind does not. And in only 7 words.

Unfortunately now it's too cliched to be used in anything except a parody.

[Wildeblood]

I don't even agree that it's ugly and clumsy. I think it's both pretty and graceful. Or was until it became a cliche. So pretty and graceful that it was used and used and used, and reused and reused and reused, until it did become a cliche.

A sentence becomes a cliche because so many writers like it that they decide to use it, even though it's been used a million times before. A sentence that isn't liked never becomes a cliche. It simply vanishes.
Quite true. It is ugly now because it is a cliche. It was not ugly when it was first created.

It is clumsy because it begins with a pronoun and nothing precedes it.

[Torin]

I agree. This sentance sets the mood and tone of a story perfectly in a way that showing all those shutters blowing in the wind does not. And in only 7 words.

Unfortunately now it's too cliched to be used in anything except a parody.

Actually, the original sentence is a lot more than seven words, and the opening 7 quickly become redundant:

"It was a dark and stormy night; the rain fell in torrents--except at occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind which swept up the streets (for it is in London that our scene lies), rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness."

:D

[maestrowork]

Actually, the original sentence is a lot more than seven words, and the opening 7 quickly become redundant:

"It was a dark and stormy night; the rain fell in torrents--except at occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind which swept up the streets (for it is in London that our scene lies), rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness."

:D


I said that in post #41. ;)

[Torin]

See what I get for not reading the whole thread. :) Should either of us be worried that we're on the same path, or thinking similar thoughts? :eek:

Torin, in the middle of a cloudy, rainy and almost dark, but still somewhat light out since it *is* the middle, rather than either end, of the day, yet not as light as it was yesterday when the sun's rays were not blocked by the clouds now in evidence. :)

[oswann]

Actually, the original sentence is a lot more than seven words, and the opening 7 quickly become redundant:

"It was a dark and stormy night; the rain fell in torrents--except at occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind which swept up the streets (for it is in London that our scene lies), rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness."

:D


Mine had only three words :Thumbs: Of course, I didn't bother with the rain, wind and scanty flame stuff.



Os.

[aadams73]

The weather sucked.



Which is brilliant unless the reader is my sister. She firmly believes that if the sun is shining and the temperature is above 15C, the weather sucks.

[reph]

"It was a dark and stormy night..." works like an establishing shot in a film. Bulwer-Lytton shows us the landscape before zooming in (medium shot) on the man who struggles along the street in uncomfortable conditions, looking for something. What's wrong with that? B-L's book isn't about disgruntled Joe who thinks the weather sucks. If you want to jump into Joe's perspective in your first sentence, you'll have to write a different book.

[Jamesaritchie]

It is clumsy because it begins with a pronoun and nothing precedes it.

If beginning with a pronoun makes writing clumsy, then I write some clumsy openings. The highest paying, most widely reprinted story I ever wrote begins with "I was 12, it was October, and it was squirrel season." The second most popular and widely reprinted begins with "It was." Each of these two stories has earned me several thousand dollars.

Now, I could have found other ways to write "I was 12, it was October, and it was squirrel season." I tried several other ways, in fact. But what I wanted to say, what I wanted to get across to the reader immediately, was that "I was 12, it was October, and it was squirrel season." When you have something in particular to say, I've found it's usually best to just say it. "State, then elaborate" is also a pretty decent style rule, and pronouns often make this easier.

I don't open a bunch of stories this way, but I've found that following rules is not always the best way to go. Sometimes it's better to go with what sounds right to your ear at the time, and more important, with what fits the particular story you're writing at the time. In both these cases, opening with a pronoun not only sounded better to me, but worked perfectly with the given stories. Or with the given narrators.

Rather than "It was a dark and stormy night," you could begin with an article and write "The night was dark and stormy." It works, but it doesn't have the same ring to my ears.

[PattiTheWicked]

I'm curious now. How would you rewrite "It was a dark and stormy night" to eliminate the "was" without changing the tense?

"The wind whipped violently through the trees, and torrents of rain clattered against my window."

I suppose that doesn't cover the "dark" part, but you could do that in the next sentence.

"I stared out into the moonless night, and shivered when I saw the black outline of the woods in the distance."

Now it's dark, stormy, and spooooooky.

[Ella]

except at occasional intervals,



I'm going to interject this phrase at random into my wip and see what happens.

[Sharon Mock]

I'm curious now. How would you rewrite "It was a dark and stormy night" to eliminate the "was" without changing the tense?

I huddled under the eaves, waiting for the storm to pass and the sun to rise.

(Not that there's anything wrong with "It was a dark and stormy night," IMO, except to use it these days you'd be competing with a beagle...)

[Jamesaritchie]

"The wind whipped violently through the trees, and torrents of rain clattered against my window."

I suppose that doesn't cover the "dark" part, but you could do that in the next sentence.

"I stared out into the moonless night, and shivered when I saw the black outline of the woods in the distance."

Now it's dark, stormy, and spooooooky.

The story is set in London. I'm not sure how many trees there were in London in 1830, but not enough, I think, to use them as a gauge of the wind. And could you really see the black outline of the woods in the distance, if there were a woods to be seen, when it's raining that hard, and there's no moon? I never could. I think you have to add a flash of lightning.

In truth, there are a million ways to begin this story, or any story. The real question is whether or not "It was a dark and stormy night" worked in 1830.

[maestrowork]

It might have worked in 1830. But this is 2005. As I mentioned in my tongue-in-cheek post that started off this whole "dark and stormy night craze"... I would AVOID writing something like that in 2005. ;)

[jules]

The only part of that sentence I have any problem with, really, is "(for it is in London that our scene lies)", which just sounds clunky to me. Skip this and use some other method to indicate the location of the scene (in my rewrite above I described the night as a "London night" and moved one of the other adjectives elsewhere) and I'd be happy with it. A little long, perhaps, but acceptable.

[Jamesaritchie]

The only part of that sentence I have any problem with, really, is "(for it is in London that our scene lies)", which just sounds clunky to me. Skip this and use some other method to indicate the location of the scene (in my rewrite above I described the night as a "London night" and moved one of the other adjectives elsewhere) and I'd be happy with it. A little long, perhaps, but acceptable.

I agree, but up until the 20th century, such-- authorial intrusion?-- was found in the majority of novels.

[LightShadow]

"was" is often necessary, but turns a sentence passive. I try not to use it too much, but sometimes you've got to.

[Jamesaritchie]

"was" is often necessary, but turns a sentence passive. I try not to use it too much, but sometimes you've got to.

I think part of the point of this thread is that "was" doesn't always turn a sentence passive. Passive really doesn't have anything to do with whether or not you use "was." Passive depends primarily on whether the subject performs the action, or has the action performed upon it.

"Was" is not only sometimes necessary, but properly written sentences that contain "was" are not passive.

[PattiTheWicked]

The story is set in London. I'm not sure how many trees there were in London in 1830, but not enough, I think, to use them as a gauge of the wind. And could you really see the black outline of the woods in the distance, if there were a woods to be seen, when it's raining that hard, and there's no moon? I never could. I think you have to add a flash of lightning.



In that case, let's scratch the woods, and see the black outline of Parliament in the distance whenever the lightning flashes :)

[PattiTheWicked]

I agree, but up until the 20th century, such-- authorial intrusion?-- was found in the majority of novels.

Gentle reader, I married him.

[Jamesaritchie]

In that case, let's scratch the woods, and see the black outline of Parliament in the distance whenever the lightning flashes :)

Now that'll work.

[oswann]

It might have worked in 1830. But this is 2005. As I mentioned in my tongue-in-cheek post that started off this whole "dark and stormy night craze"... I would AVOID writing something like that in 2005. ;)

If this sentence hadn't become the cliche it is I'd give it a go in 2005. I've known some dark and stormy nights in London and, despite the scanty flames in the lamps, the rest works. Was or not was.

Os.

[ashlee111]

Well, maybe it would sound better if " Joe stood there in the dark, stormy night. The wind blowing so fiercely, that it took Joe's breath away. Joe was soaked to his skin, from the rain, that fell down in torrents." One great thing about writing, is that, you can always change it, if you do not like it.

ashlee111;)

[Wildeblood]

Rather than "It was a dark and stormy night," you could begin with an article and write "The night was dark and stormy." It works, but it doesn't have the same ring to my ears.
Or, you could do what I said: "On a dark and stormy night, blah blah..." Avoids the pronoun, avoids the article, avoids the "was" that was the original subject of this thread, uses fewer words, and sounds better.

[Bufty]

In my opinion, 'was' kills prose most when repeatedly used as in 'was sitting' 'was watching' etc etc. Instead of giving the reader a clear picture, I find it causes drag and boredom insofar as one has no real idea of 'how' the ...ing action is being performed.
Bufty

[Jamesaritchie]

Or, you could do what I said: "On a dark and stormy night, blah blah..." Avoids the pronoun, avoids the article, avoids the "was" that was the original subject of this thread, uses fewer words, and sounds better.

Sure, you could. I like "On a dark and stormy night" even less. Sounds way too vanilla to my ear, but it is all up to the individual's ear. That's the great thing about writing. We each get to match our prose to what sounds right for us.

[Roger J Carlson]

You have to be careful with the whole concept of starting a story on a dark and story night, even if you don't use those words. The cliche extends to even the setting.

Four years ago, I started a story with this paragraph:

"A scream pierced the night. Darius Klocek flinched, but continued to stare out into the storm. Rain and hail pelted the window of the small clapboard house with a rhythmic regularity that reminded him of waves on the beach. He had grown up on the ocean and the serenity of those memories contrasted sharply with the turmoil now in his soul. The day, which began with so much promise, had turned to ashes before his eyes."

Now aside from the melodrama of the first sentence and the passivity of the rest of it, the main criticizm I got from beta readers was: "Get rid of the first paragraph. Basically is says: 'It was a dark and stormy night.'"

Now I'm NOT saying that you can't start a story on a dark night with a storm, but if it reminds your reader of "It's a dark and stormy night", you've already lost them.

BTW, I re-wrote it as follows:
"Darius Klocek stared into the storm. The day, which began with so much promise, had turned to ashes before his eyes."

[Roger J Carlson]

The weather sucked.Actually, I disagree that this is an acceptable alternative. "Sucked" is slang and will date the story quickly. It will be even harder to read a hundred years from now than "It was a dark and stormy night." Not too long ago, "sucked" was a vulgarity that that no proper person used. Now it's used for anything that is mildly unpleasant. The point is that in the future it may mean something else -- or worse, it may drop out of usage all together.

It may not even be universally understood today. I'll bet if my mother read it now she would be confused, thinking it meant actually sucking as from a tornado. (Yes, my mother is that naive.) So too, other English speaking countries have different slang and may not understand it.

[arrowqueen]

Sometime 'was' is only the past tense. I really don't see why it should be demonised.

[Jamesaritchie]

Actually, I disagree that this is an acceptable alternative. "Sucked" is slang and will date the story quickly. .

I think it will date quickly, but my big problem with it is that it simply isn't good narrative in third person, and as first person, it gives me an immediate picture of the protagonist that makes me want to stop reading right there.

[Jamesaritchie]

You have to be careful with the whole concept of starting a story on a dark and story night, even if you don't use those words. The cliche extends to even the setting.

Four years ago, I started a story with this paragraph:

"A scream pierced the night. Darius Klocek flinched, but continued to stare out into the storm. Rain and hail pelted the window of the small clapboard house with a rhythmic regularity that reminded him of waves on the beach. He had grown up on the ocean and the serenity of those memories contrasted sharply with the turmoil now in his soul. The day, which began with so much promise, had turned to ashes before his eyes."

."

My problem with this example isn't the fact that it begins with a storm, though there is something of a dark and stormy night quality to it, but that it begins with "A scream pierced the night."

If I never again read about a scream piercing anything, the night, the stillness, the air, etc., it'll be fine with me.

I don't think the storm part is over the top at all. Now you know why I don't use beta readers.

[three seven]

I just plugged my analretentomometer into this thread to check whether everyone was taking this 'was' business far too seriously, and the dial cracked and smoke came out. You guys owe me thirty quid.

One great thing about writing, is that, you can always change it, if you do not like it.Oh great, now you've broken my commamometer too!

[maestrowork]

I just realized Ashlee111 is..... William Shatner!

[Jamesaritchie]

I just plugged my analretentomometer into this thread to check whether everyone was taking this 'was' business far too seriously, and the dial cracked and smoke came out. You guys owe me thirty quid.

Oh great, now you've broken my commamometer too!

Hey, count yourself lucky. You could have had your analretentomometer plugged in somewhere else when it broke. You might have gotten a free hemorrhoidectomy out of the deal, but I think it would have hurt more than losing thirty quid. :)

[reph]

I just plugged my analretentomometer into this thread...
You did wash it first, didn't you?

[LightShadow]

Was that, or wasn't that, about was? Was witty, though, wasn't it? See, was is good, even when it's bad, unless you want active verbs, then was makes them passive!

[Medievalist]

Was that, or wasn't that, about was? Was witty, though, wasn't it? See, was is good, even when it's bad, unless you want active verbs, then was makes them passive!

At the risk of being cast out as a pedant, I want to clairfy:

1. The use of "was" does not, by itself, automatically confer passive voice on a sentence.

2. In a sentence that uses passive voice, you can't tell who or what specifically performed the action of the verb. You just know that it happened. The subject may be buried in a prepositional phrase (The ball was kicked by Mary.)

Passive voice: The ball was kicked.
• You can't tell who “did” the kicking.

Active voice: John kicked the ball.
• John “did” the “kicking.”
John is the grammatical subject of the sentence.

You can think of passive voice as an equation, or a recipe, if you like:

Passive voice = was, is, being, or has been + a verb in the past tense

• You always have a form of “be” in a sentence in passive voice (was, is, being, or has been).

• The be verb is always followed by a verb in the past tense.

• You can't tell from the sentence who “did” the action of the verb.

Passive voice, in and of itself, is not evil. It's often very useful, particularly in writing in the sciences or social sciences, where quite often the writer truly doesn't know who is responsible for an action.

• You might want to use passive voice to emphasize an action or the recipient of that action, rather than the “doer.”

Driving tests are given to all employees.

• Sometimes you want to “soften” bad news.

Your watch can not be repaired under warranty.

• Sometimes you want to avoid responsibility.

An error was made on your tax return.

But in other sorts of writing passive voice sounds like you are not sure of yourself, and thus weakens your argument. Unless you have a good reason to use passive voice, avoid it. Revise sentences in which you do not explicitly state who is doing what to whom so that you have strong declarative statements built around an active verb.

[Jamesaritchie]

Was that, or wasn't that, about was? Was witty, though, wasn't it? See, was is good, even when it's bad, unless you want active verbs, then was makes them passive!

"Was" is good, except when it isn't. "Was," of course, is a verb, and usually a weak one, but as a linking verb it gains great strength, and doesn't make the sentence passive.

Passive is who performs an action, not whether or not "was" is used. I suspect most writers avoid "was" only because they can't tell the difference between an active sentence, a passive sentence, and a sentence that is neither.

Many do appear to think that a sentence must be either active or passive, and if this were the case, avoiding "was" altogether would be a good idea. Many sentences, however, are neither active nor passive, and "was" is often the best and strongest verb to use when this is the case.

And as Medievalist says, sometimes passive is a good thing. There are many uses for passive voice, many times when passive is the best choice.

"Was" should not be avoid, it should be used properly. It does not automatically make a sentence passive, and even when it does, sometimes this is the best choice.

[Anatole Ghio]

Joining the thread a little late.

I agree, I would be proud to write "It was a dark and stormy night." The fact it is still being discussed means the writer managed to effect the reader, good or bad.

To say, "On a dark and stormy night" is to frame the sentence about the events of the night. To say, "It was a dark and stormy night" is to frame the sentence as a description of the night itself.

I also agree the opening is redundant given the rest of the paragraph and should be cut not because the use of "was" makes it weak, but because it weakens the paragraph by telling what later gets shown.

[Jamesaritchie]

I also agree the opening is redundant given the rest of the paragraph and should be cut not because the use of "was" makes it weak, but because it weakens the paragraph by telling what later gets shown.


To me, this is a good example of the "state, then elaborate" rule. This rule is now used more in nonfiction than in fiction, but I find it still has its uses.

[oswann]

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times...


Nah. That'll never work either. 'Was' twice in the opening sentence.
Os.

[maestrowork]

To me, this is a good example of the "state, then elaborate" rule. This rule is now used more in nonfiction than in fiction, but I find it still has its uses.

It's useful in some cases, especially in non-fiction. But in stories, I've been taught that "state, then elaborate" is ineffective. It's better to "elaborate, then state."

[Jamesaritchie]

It's useful in some cases, especially in non-fiction. But in stories, I've been taught that "state, then elaborate" is ineffective. It's better to "elaborate, then state."

Interesting. I was taught the opposite, especially in college crative writing. At any rate, I do use "state, then elaborate" in fiction. I like the rule, and it works for me. Like anything else, it works best in moderation.

[trumancoyote]

It's useful in some cases, especially in non-fiction. But in stories, I've been taught that "state, then elaborate" is ineffective. It's better to "elaborate, then state."

I think it's better to ****ing write and not worry yourself w/ all the pedantries that get in the way of art.

[Roger J Carlson]

I think it's better to ****ing write and not worry yourself w/ all the pedantries that get in the way of art.That's probably true if you can turn out stunning prose in your first draft. But for those of us who plod along with limp dialog and tepid description, a little pendantry can help us improve our writing to a publishable level. At least that's why I'm here.

[trumancoyote]

But the way this thread is going, people seem to be paying too much attention to rules, and not enough to art, to thought, to the roundness of characters -- to the wholeness and inherent power in every word, if used well.

Maybe it's because there's a focus placed on improving writing to a publishable level.

[Roger J Carlson]

But the way this thread is going, people seem to be paying too much attention to rules, and not enough to art, to thought, to the roundness of characters -- to the wholeness and inherent power in every word, if used well.

Maybe it's because there's a focus placed on improving writing to a publishable level.But even art has technique. Most artists spend years practicing scales or painting still-lifes or playing bit parts before they are truly artists. Why should writing be any different?

[trumancoyote]

Writing isn't any different. It requires constant practice and revision, as well as reading, reading, reading. I just think that pulling such wide rules out of nowhere, like the evils of using 'was,' is silly. It limits more than it helps.

[Jamesaritchie]

I think it's better to ****ing write and not worry yourself w/ all the pedantries that get in the way of art.

Art who? I didn't mean to get in his way. I didn't even know he was part of this thread.

[trumancoyote]

http://kroner-music.dk/webgrafik/trombone.gif ~Wah-waaaah

[Jamesaritchie]

Writing isn't any different. It requires constant practice and revision, as well as reading, reading, reading. I just think that pulling such wide rules out of nowhere, like the evils of using 'was,' is silly. It limits more than it helps.

Talking about such rules should help. It's true that "was" is a perfectly good word, and does not automatically make a sentence passive, as many think. It's also true that sometimes passive is good when, and if, it's used intentionally.

Art may be a fine thing, if done correctly, but you have to know the basic rules for good writing, just as you have to know the basic techniques for good painting.

"Was" is abused, and sentences that are passive because the writer doesn't know the difference between active and passive do cause poor writing and rejections.

Writers who avoid using "was" altogether because they can't tell active from passive, or who think all sentences are one or the other, also tend to read poorly.

If nothing else, threads such as this one should shed light on a subject many writers have much trouble with.

[trumancoyote]

Writers who avoid using "was" altogether because they can't tell active from passive, or who think all sentences are one or the other, also tend to read poorly.

I think that's the main problem. I think you guys are skipping over the basics, like strong and clean grammar, and are essentially creating a Learn to Write in 14 Easy Steps.

[Darkhaven80]

Sometime 'was' is only the past tense. I really don't see why it should be demonised.

I agree. Sometimes it just sounds better than any of the alternatives, or makes more sense. I'm all for avoiding passive sentences when I'm able, but a few here and there? Sometimes the story's a bit better sounding WITH them.

[oswann]

I think that's the main problem. I think you guys are skipping over the basics, like strong and clean grammar, and are essentially creating a Learn to Write in 14 Easy Steps.


Not creating, just repeating, and I thought we were talking about strong, clean grammar.

Discussing the most effective ways to express yourself through writing is one of the great advantages of these boards and the medium in general. Once this stops what you refer to as art, degenerates at light speed.

I have spent years with artistic rule breakers and none of them have contributed anything positive. The desire to create is equated to a desire to ignore or re-invent what has come before. This is inherently silly. If you refuse to learn from others in your field, you place needless limits on your abilities to create and not the other way around.

If you are self-taught, you are taught by someone who knows nothing.


Os.

[aruna]

Coming to this thread late, I have a question.
My novel begins: "It was Molly who found the baby."
Trying not to use the word Was and not begin with It, I've tried rewordsing it; but "Molly found the baby" simply does not bring across what I want to say; I want to emphasise that it was MOLLY doing the finding. And I don't want to use 20 words where seven would do.
Your thoughts on this?

[Jamesaritchie]

Coming to this thread late, I have a question.
My novel begins: "It was Molly who found the baby."
Trying not to use the word Was and not begin with It, I've tried rewordsing it; but "Molly found the baby" simply does not bring across what I want to say; I want to emphasise that it was MOLLY doing the finding. And I don't want to use 20 words where seven would do.
Your thoughts on this?

In this case, I think "Molly found the baby" emphasizes that Molly did the finding much more so than the alternative. If nothing else, it puts the word "Molly" up front, which is always a good idea for emphasise.

"It was Molly who found the baby" strikes me as something I'd use in dialogue, probably with a speaker was was less than literate. Though I believe I'd actually write "It was Molly found the baby," if I really wanted to put a backwoods, regional spin on it.

But your ear has to rule, at least until an editor says otherwise.

[Jamesaritchie]

I think that's the main problem. I think you guys are skipping over the basics, like strong and clean grammar, and are essentially creating a Learn to Write in 14 Easy Steps.

I don't know. Strong, clean grammar is important, and I think every new writer should learn the basics of grammar and punctuation before even attempting to write fiction. This should go without saying, though it rarely does.

On the other side of the page, however, knowing when to avoid strong, clean grammar is equally important.

"Learn to write" is, I think, the entire purpose of a forum such as this, but I sure don't see 14 easy steps being presented. More like 4,000 tough steps right up the side of a mountain. And watch your step. There's loose shale everywhere.

[maestrowork]

In this case, I think "Molly found the baby" emphasizes that Molly did the finding much more so than the alternative. If nothing else, it puts the word "Molly" up front, which is always a good idea for emphasise.

"It was Molly who found the baby" strikes me as something I'd use in dialogue, probably with a speaker was was less than literate. Though I believe I'd actually write "It was Molly found the baby," if I really wanted to put a backwoods, regional spin on it.

But your ear has to rule, at least until an editor says otherwise.

There are subtle differences. But I do think "Molly found the baby" is fine here: it's direct, active and to the point. "It was Molly who found the baby" just seems so passive and indirect, like the narrator wants to avoid something.

If you REALLY want to convey it WAS Molly, that poor girl, who found the baby, some alternatives:

1. That poor girl, Molly, found the baby.
2. Of all people, Molly found the baby.

[aruna]

Thanks to both of you. I'll sleep over it some more. I think I just prefer the rythm of It was Molly... to Molly found, which sounds a bit abrupt.

[katee]

What comes after it? I'm sure I've read on this board (possibly from Uncle Jim???) that it's not the sentence that's the basic unit in a novel, but the paragraph.

"It was Molly who found the baby" may be a perfect way to start your book, depending on what comes after it.

[Medievalist]

I'd go with "It was Molly who found the baby."

Or even:

"It was Molly that found the baby."

[reph]

"It was Molly who..." says something to me that "Molly..." doesn't. What's this extra bit? Let me think.

The "It was..." version implies that there's a community: someone else could have found the baby, but Molly did. So the reader knows there are other people around. The simple additional words start to introduce Molly's social setting.

"It was..." also brings in a sense of depth and mystery, but I'm hard put to say why. "Molly found the baby" could be a simple report of an event, finding the baby; "It was Molly..." reads more like an answer to a question, "Who found the baby?" – and this makes the baby seem more real.

[aruna]

"It was Molly who..." says something to me that "Molly..." doesn't. What's this extra bit? Let me think.

The "It was..." version implies that there's a community: someone else could have found the baby, but Molly did. So the reader knows there are other people around. The simple additional words start to introduce Molly's social setting.

"It was..." also brings in a sense of depth and mystery, but I'm hard put to say why. "Molly found the baby" could be a simple report of an event, finding the baby; "It was Molly..." reads more like an answer to a question, "Who found the baby?" – and this makes the baby seem more real.


Gosh, thank you reph! you put into words exactly how I feel!

[reph]

You're welcome.

If I could put into words how I feel, I could get to be a big hoo-ha famous writer.

[aruna]

What comes after it? I'm sure I've read on this board (possibly from Uncle Jim???) that it's not the sentence that's the basic unit in a novel, but the paragraph.

"It was Molly who found the baby" may be a perfect way to start your book, depending on what comes after it.

After this sentence, I tell where she finds the baby (abandoned on the bank of a canal), how Molly resuces it, and hint at how it got there (mother committed suicide). No mention is made of Molly's family, and I think this is it; the reader doesn't know whothe hell Molly is, but "It was... " hints, as Reph says, at a family behind her, out of which SHE was the one who finds the baby. (the baby goes on to be the protagoist of the story, adopted by Molly's family.)
This is the prologue.

Anyone who wants to read the whole thing plus first chapter can do so on this site:

http://www.writewords.org.uk/archive/9877.asp

I'm not sure if you have to join the forum to be able to read it; but it's a good writer's site and the first month's membership is free.

[Roger J Carlson]

Using "was" is not always wrong. Sometimes it's just the right word. But I do think that, just like adverbs, every instance of "was" should be held at gunpoint and made to justify its existence. That's the whole reason I wrote the PassiveWordHighlighter (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11653) for MSWord.

[Jamesaritchie]

"It was Molly who..." says something to me that "Molly..." doesn't. What's this extra bit? Let me think.

The "It was..." version implies that there's a community: someone else could have found the baby, but Molly did. So the reader knows there are other people around. The simple additional words start to introduce Molly's social setting.

"It was..." also brings in a sense of depth and mystery, but I'm hard put to say why. "Molly found the baby" could be a simple report of an event, finding the baby; "It was Molly..." reads more like an answer to a question, "Who found the baby?" – and this makes the baby seem more real.

To each his own ear, I guess. "It was" adds none of this to my ear, and, in fact, takes it all away. You either have a speaker or a narrator, and for me, they either add or leave out community. In this instance, "It was" strikes my ear as both unnecessary and somewhat illiterate. . .the speech pattern of someone from my own hill country.

I think saying "it was" adds community reads far too much into a pair of very generic words. For me, these are words that reveal character, not community.

I guess that's why we all write in different ways.

[maestrowork]

We have said in the past: point a gun at every "was/were," "passive voice," "adverb" and "adjective" and ask, "Do you have the reason to exist?"

Yes, starting a book or a chapter with "It was..." is generally considered weak. But it has been done before to great effect: "It was the best of times. It was the worst of times."

"Molly found the baby" -- is narrative, describing what is happening in the story...

"It was Molly that found the baby" -- is a statement. The emphasis is "Molly," not "found the baby."

Do what is right for your story, and stop worrying about it.