All He Was Was

The Unseen Moon · Jul 29, 2011

This question is about using the word was twice in a row. I tend to use sentences like this sometimes:

All he was, was a simple fisherman and nothing more.

Is it acceptable to use was in this way? What are some ways of improving this kind of sentence?

Bufty · Jul 29, 2011

He was a simple fisherman. Nothing more.

There are more variations, too.

Your's isn't 'wrong' and may well work in context (if not overused) but experience will help remove unnecessary introductory phrases.

Jamesaritchie · Jul 29, 2011

There are too many other ways of writing it to use was twice in a row.

pegasus · Jul 29, 2011

The Unseen Moon said:
This question is about using the word was twice in a row. I tend to use sentences like this sometimes:

All he was, was a simple fisherman and nothing more.

Is it acceptable to use was in this way? What are some ways of improving this kind of sentence?

I'd use it in dialogue -- with certain characters -- but would tend to avoid it in narration.

He was a simple fisherman and nothing more.

He was nothing more than a simple fisherman.

Fallen · Jul 29, 2011

Bufty said:
He was a simple fisherman. Nothing more.

There are more variations, too.

Your's isn't 'wrong' and may well work in context (if not overused) but experience will help remove unnecessary introductory phrases.

This.

scarletpeaches · Jul 29, 2011

Jamesaritchie said:
There are too many other ways of writing it to use was twice in a row.

How about coming up with some solutions then, bigshot?

Bartholomew · Jul 29, 2011

All he was was a simple fisherman. If your narrator's voice supports this, it's a good sentence. Without knowing who is speaking, however, and in what context, there is no way to suggest alternatives.

And please keep in mind that other constructions are merely that: alternative. This is grammatically sound, and another construction is only an improvement if the context won't hold this sentence up.

milkymoon · Jul 29, 2011

I think it's fine. Actually, I'll go further than that and say I like it! It pleases me to see double words and realise they're in the right context. Like you're about to go "typo!!" but then realise it's completely fine.

But that's probably just me....

pegasus · Jul 29, 2011

milkymoon said:
It pleases me to see double words and realise they're in the right context. Like you're about to go "typo!!" but then realise it's completely fine.

I told him that that construction was fine but if he wants to change it it won't bother me. (Punctuation deleted for extra effect.)

Susan Coffin · Jul 29, 2011

The Unseen Moon said:
This question is about using the word was twice in a row. I tend to use sentences like this sometimes:

All he was, was a simple fisherman and nothing more.

Is it acceptable to use was in this way? What are some ways of improving this kind of sentence?

Why not: He was a simple fisherman. It's short, simple, straightforward.

Or, if you prefer,

He was a simple fisherman, nothing more.

or

He was nothing more than a simple fisherman.

Purple Rose · Jul 29, 2011

Bufty said:
He was a simple fisherman. Nothing more.

While just about all the alternatives presented here work, I feel this is the strongest. In my humble opinion, of course.

Also, I agree that yours isn't incorrect but it is unecessarily wordy and the "was, was" forces a double take with some readers.

Faith and Heresy · Jul 29, 2011

I sometimes find myself nearly being repetitive, and I always try to rewrite the sentence. It may seem fine when you're writing it, but to the reader it will be quite jarring and might pull them out of the narrative (oh no!).

Ketzel · Jul 29, 2011

Another alternative would be "he was only a simple fisherman."

While I have no quarrel with the grammatical structure of "was, was," I personally find the repetition a little jarring.

Just my 2 cents.

Rufus Coppertop · Jul 29, 2011

All it is, is an issue of voice.

KellyAssauer · Jul 29, 2011

I'm still scratching my head, wondering why you're using was at all?

Less tell, more show...

Raphee · Jul 29, 2011

To the OP: If its voice, go ahead.
If its a straightforward narrative, then think twice.
Here it is an isolated sentence, and I don't like it. In the context of your story, it may make perfect sense.

blacbird · Jul 29, 2011

Jamesaritchie said:
There are too many other ways of writing it to use was twice in a row.

This, exactly. And it goes for just about every other instance of similar grammar I've ever seen.

If you ask the question, you've already answered it: Yes, it's confusing to a reader, and there are better ways to say what you want to say.

caw

Bartholomew · Jul 29, 2011

blacbird said:
there are better ways to say what you want to say.

Maybe. Writing isn't math. A good sentence in one paragraph is a horrible sentence in the next.

KellyAssauer said:
I'm still scratching my head, wondering why you're using was at all?

Less tell, more show...

The show versus tell drum has been beaten too much. All show and no tell makes just as much of a problem as the inverse. There's a balance between exposition and sensory detail that everyone needs to strike.

Kenn · Jul 30, 2011

Susan Littlefield said:
Why not: He was a simple fisherman. It's short, simple, straightforward.

Or, if you prefer,

He was a simple fisherman, nothing more.

or

He was nothing more than a simple fisherman.

Does that mean he was a half-witted herring-catcher?

I think it was intended to mean 'simply a fisherman' (and in the original sentence also). Otherwise, it is the person who is simple and not his job. In which case, using 'all he was' and 'simply' is tautological.

Personally, I would say 'was was' on occasions, so I think it is fine in dialogue. However, I would never write it otherwise.

Jamesaritchie · Jul 30, 2011

scarletpeaches said:
How about coming up with some solutions then, bigshot?

That's all I've been doing for thrity-two years.

Better solutions range from those already used, such as, He was a simple fisherman. Nothing more, all the way to He knew only the fish and the sea. Nothing more.

You can, of course, leave the "nothing more" off any sentence and get the same meaning.

The problem is poor construction, which results in "was was".

Seriously, have you ever started a sentence with "all he was"?
Unless it's followed by a clause, I can't see such construction ever working.

Jamesaritchie · Jul 30, 2011

Kenn said:
Does that mean he was a half-witted herring-catcher?

I think it was intended to mean 'simply a fisherman' (and in the original sentence also). Otherwise, it is the person who is simple and not his job. In which case, using 'all he was' and 'simply' is tautological.

Personally, I would say 'was was' on occasions, so I think it is fine in dialogue. However, I would never write it otherwise.

When used in this way, "simple" means uncomplicated, not half-witted, and it's used properly. The person is simple, which is a good thing. The job of fisherman can be very, very complicated.

Dialogue or narrative doesn't matter.

mirandashell · Jul 30, 2011

Hmmm.... to me, a simple fisherman is a fisherman who is a bit daft.

I'd find another way to write it.

But then in context it might work.

Kenn · Jul 30, 2011

Jamesaritchie said:
When used in this way, "simple" means uncomplicated, not half-witted, and it's used properly. The person is simple, which is a good thing. The job of fisherman can be very, very complicated.

Dialogue or narrative doesn't matter.

So how do you think a simple person can do a complicated job? Or is he - literally - out of his depth?

Simple has more than one meaning. If you call somone simple, you are not complimenting them on their intellectual capacity. Take, for example, Simple Simon.

Simple Simon went a-fishing,
For to catch a whale.
All the water he had got,
Was in his mother's pail.

mscelina · Jul 30, 2011

*puts on editor hat*

I would red ink this sentence for multiple reasons. First off, what's that comma doing there? Second off, if "all he was" is the important part of the sentence, then I'd have no problems. BUT, the important part of the sentence is "(he) was a fisherman." Third off, unless in dialogue there is absolutely no reason to construct a sentence with a back to back was usage. Fourth and finally, if "was" is the strongest verb you can think of to use in this instance, you're not working hard enough on your sentence structure.

He only knew fishing and the sea.
His life revolved around nothing but fishing and the sea.
He dedicated his entire focus upon fishing.
He knew nothing but fishing.

et cetera et cetera et cetera.

The pronoun/form of to be construction is the weakest construction in the English language. Sometimes, 'he was' is unavoidable. But in this instance? Nope. There are literally thousands of ways to reword that sentences to match any narrative voice you might be employing.

blacbird · Jul 30, 2011

Bartholomew said:
Maybe. Writing isn't math. A good sentence in one paragraph is a horrible sentence in the next.

You conveniently left out the context of my statement that you quoted. Which was: If the question arises concerning whether a given sentence or phrase or word usage is a problem, the answer is almost certainly, Yes. And, purely because writing isn't mathematics, there are always other ways of saying what you mean.

That may involve rewriting more than just the single offending sentence, for reasons of context.

I use this principle when editing my own writing. It works.

caw

All He Was Was

Where have the last ten years gone?

practical experience, FTW

Stood at the coalface

Comic guy

practical experience, FTW

Tell it like it Is

practical experience, FTW

roughin' it

Leaving on the 2:19

The Anti-Magdalene

In debt to AW

Comic guy

New kid, be gentle!

New kid, be gentle!

Teh doommobile, drivin' rite by you