The use of WAS!

^^^ awesome Thanks

there is nothing wrong with using was. The only time it is a problem is when it makes a sentence passive that should be active.

Also, sometimes was can change the difference in setting. Consider this:

a woman walks into a mans office.

She walked into the room. He sat at his desk.
She walked into the room. He was sitting at his desk.

this all depends on the SCENE you are righting. Waiting for someone to enter before sitting down is a sign of respect. Who is this woman? Who is this man? Does this man have reason to respect her and if so does he care? If he is like, some crime boss leader and she's just some informant, he probably IS SITTING at his desk when she walks in. He probably wont stop whatever he is doing on her behalf either. He will finish up what he is doing while she stands there, then offer her a seat before turning his attention to her. meanwhile, if this is some low rung political figure and the president is walking into the room, he is probably standing. The active "He took a seat" (after the president walked into the room) is the better choice.

Keep it active when you can. Don't take away from the meaning of your words just to avoid "was" though. HTH.

spikeman4444 said:

I have been instructed from early on in my writing that I should not use 'was' because it is a passive verb.

Click to expand...

Forget that "instruction". It is toxic nonsense.

What you shouldn't do is use passive constructions where active constructions would be stronger:

The hotel room was trashed by the rock band is not as good, in most contexts, as The rock band trashed the hotel room.

But He served as the night manager at Denny's is not as good, in most contexts, as He was the night manager at Denny's.


And context and connotation make a big difference: in the first case, for instance, the passive construction might work better in a police procedural, a la Detective Smith looked at the disarray, wondering if it was the work of the murderer. No, she concluded: the hotel room was trashed by the rock band that had stayed there the previous night.

spikeman4444 said:

However, what if a sentence were to read: They walked into the room which was littered with decorations and assorted items.

Click to expand...

They walked into the room littered with decorations...

Problem solved.

But He served as the night manager at Denny's is not as good, in most contexts, as He was the night manager at Denny's.

Click to expand...

There are always other ways:

He worked at Denny's as the night manager.



My point? While there's nothing wrong with to-be verbs, per se, we shouldn't settle for the first impulse either. Always examine your sentences and see if you can do it better, and often you find that "was" may not be the best choice.

What's wrong with 'was'?

He was late.

Lady Ice said:

What's wrong with 'was'?

He was late.

Click to expand...

He arrived late.

He was running late?

Lady Ice said:

He was running late?

Click to expand...

That's not the same as using to-be verbs. It's part of the continuous tense -- the verb is "run," not "is." If you're going to use continuous tense, you can't avoid the "was/were/is/are/am."

The only alternative is:

He would arrive late.

Lady Ice said:

What's wrong with 'was'?

He was late.

Click to expand...

maestrowork said:

He arrived late.

Click to expand...

If someone is late, it doesn't follow that he eventually arrived. That's why "He was late" is perfectly good as a sentence.

Twenty minutes past the appointment, he still hadn't arrived yet.

Folks, you are MISSING the point of the thread by arguing about "was/is." I already said there's nothing wrong with to-be verbs, but you're missing the most important point: Make your work shine and don't settle for the first thing that comes to your mind. If you find yourself using "was" all the time, you may want to examine alternatives or different ways to write; they may not be the best choice.

maestrowork said:

They walked into the room littered with decorations...

Problem solved.




There are always other ways:

He worked at Denny's as the night manager.



My point? While there's nothing wrong with to-be verbs, per se, we shouldn't settle for the first impulse either. Always examine your sentences and see if you can do it better, and often you find that "was" may not be the best choice.

Click to expand...

I understand and agree, generally, with what you're saying. But my point has always been not to edit in a vacuum.

For instance you could write a bunch of strong sentences one after the other:

He walked into the room. Suzy punched him, then ran. The fridge broke. He walked to the bathroom to pee.

But there's no rhythm to that kind of writing, it's authoritative, and it's not really relatable because no one talks that way. It's stilted and bookish. And while we aren't writing to imitate speech directly, I think writing that's attractive tricks you into thinking it is like speech via balance and technique and intuitive style. That's because it gives the reader the impression s/he is having a conversation with the text.

I'm sure there are several sentence rhythm issues that can be fixed by making a "He worked at Denny's as the night manager" into "He was the night manager at Denny's." If anything you've become more economical by losing an unneeded word (as).

Sometimes I think we feel guilty about sacrificing direct action for readability, but sometimes I really think our first instinct is the right one and that we should work to make our writing voice solid and steadfast rather than altering our writing voice in favor of things that are pre-constructed for strength.

Anyway I'm ranting and probably wrong, so, I'll shut up

EDIT: but I also agree with you, question everything. Was may very well not be the best choice. Always question.

Just to bring that back to the original post, I don't like the idea of going through a ms looking specifically for "to be" verbs.

This can come from the idea of writing the first draft with blind abandon, throwing sentence structure to the dogs for the sake of getting the words down to the page. 'Get the words down first' has its merit but, as with most things, can be taken to the extreme. I'm not saying sit and ponder every sentence while writing the first draft, but why not work on writing while you're writing? If a sentence feels wrong (a feeling that develops when you practice writing well) then take the time to fix it, rather then rush on to the next sentence; that's my thought anyway, and it's what works for me.

Using 'was' in the context of a passive sentence (where an active sentence would serve better) is one of the things that can come from this rush to get the words down the first time through. Then, later as the editor, you are in the position of looking for all these passive sentences that shouldn't have been written in the first place and every 'was' might as well be bolded to your editorial eye. Then you find yourself in the position of doing literary gymnastics to try and remove every 'was'; this can choke your voice and break the narrative flow, all because of this notion of Follow The Rules: 'was' = Satan.

Why remove every passive use of 'was' just because somebody said passive voice is wrong? That structure has its uses and to know if a passive sentence works better than an active sentence you should consider the context, the character's emotions, and the narrative flow. Passive voice isn't evil, it has its uses, just know when you're using it and why. I don't think it's a good idea to carpet bomb passive voice just because somebody said it's weak.

The Lonely One said:

For instance you could write a bunch of strong sentences one after the other:

He walked into the room. Suzy punched him, then ran. The fridge broke. He walked to the bathroom to pee.

But there's no rhythm to that kind of writing, it's authoritative

Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with strong verb vs. weak verb. It has to do with pacing, sentence structures, etc. If walk, punch, break, and pee are the right words, why would you use anything else? What does it have to do with "was"? If "was" is the right word, then use it. If "walk" is the right word, then use it. But I fail to see why using "strong verbs" would be different than "weak verbs" when it comes to packing and rhythm.

Look at the following. No to-be verbs or "-ly" adverbs, but there is rhythm in the writing, I think:

He only waited long enough to visit the barber shop and find a pair of well-polished wingtip shoes. After Dai-Ma left for the factory, he put on his best shirt and slacks, pressed to crisp sophistication. He folded two ten-dollar bills, an advance he had wrestled out of Mr. Nam, in his new leather wallet. He even bought a hat, a gray fedora that reminded him of Humphrey Bogart.

Click to expand...

He only waited long enough to visit the barber shop and find a pair of well-polished wingtip shoes. After Dai-Ma had left for the factory, he put on his best shirt and slacks, pressed to crisp sophistication. He folded two ten-dollar bills, an advance he had wrestled out of Mr. Nam, in his new leather wallet. He even bought a hat, a gray fedora that reminded him of Humphrey Bogart.

Click to expand...

There definitely is rhythm to this. The difference between TLO's example and yours is elaboration. After each action in the quote, there is further description of the object, even an emotional response to the hat. This is where the rhythm comes from.

EyeSeaAll said:

There definitely is rhythm to this. The difference between TLO's example and yours is elaboration. After each action in the quote, there is further description of the object, even an emotional response to the hat. This is where the rhythm comes from.

Click to expand...

Yup, the point is, you can have rhythm depending on how you write it, but it's not inherently an issue with "strong verb vs. weak verb." You can have poor rhythm no matter what:

"He was fat. He was at the theater. He was late. She was livid."

I do understand that sometimes you may want to choose the to-be verb, or strong verb, because it provides a better rhythm... "There once was a man in Nantucket" sounds better than "a man lived in Nantucket." It doesn't negate what I said. Just that I think rhythm is a different topic all together, whether you use strong verbs or weak.

"There once lived a man in Nantucket" has the same rhythm as "there once was a man in Nantucket."

I wish I knew what that "thing" is that separates good rhythm from bad. There's no formula for good flow, it seems to be something wholly intangible; I can't say how much passive/active affects it.

But, like I said upstream, focusing on switching every usage of passive voice to active, regardless of how it fits within context (always context, it seems), can detract from focusing on the importance of a cohesive story with good flow.

EyeSeaAll said:

But, like I said upstream, focusing on switching every usage of passive voice to active, regardless of how it fits within context (always context, it seems), can detract from focusing on the importance of a cohesive story with good flow.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Look at the big picture and don't sweat the small stuff.

I don't quite get doing a search for problematic terms anyway. Seems like it would be easier to leave them alone until you're rereading and revising, then just mark them with a red pen. That way, you can get an idea of the sentence flow and whether they're appropriate or a bit weak. If you're just jumping from "was" to "was" instantly without reading the lines in between, it's hard to see how well they fit into the flow.

maestrowork said:

"There once lived a man in Nantucket" has the same rhythm as "there once was a man in Nantucket."

Click to expand...

It wouldn't work as well in context, though.

There once was a man from Nantucket
Who kept all his cash in a bucket...

Although "there once lived a man from X who did Y" is grammatically sound, it's much less idiomatic than "there once was a man from X who did Y."

maestrowork said:

This has nothing to do with strong verb vs. weak verb. It has to do with pacing, sentence structures, etc. If walk, punch, break, and pee are the right words, why would you use anything else? What does it have to do with "was"? If "was" is the right word, then use it. If "walk" is the right word, then use it. But I fail to see why using "strong verbs" would be different than "weak verbs" when it comes to packing and rhythm.

Look at the following. No to-be verbs or "-ly" adverbs, but there is rhythm in the writing, I think:

Click to expand...

Well, maybe rhythm was the wrong sort of word to use all-encompassingly. I more meant the voice or whatever you want to call the melody of how words are portrayed. I don't mean only rhythm and pacing but word choice, too. In your example, what you wrote works fine and is totally readable. I guess the point is we aren't disagreeing about "if 'was' works, use it," so there isn't really a point to my rambling, lol.

I do think a convincing style and voice are more important (IMO) than strong v. weak verbs, if you know how to bend the rule to fit what you're writing. Of course this might not be the kind of advice new writers would follow, as they don't yet have an established voice and stylistic gusto (I don't mean flamboyant prose, I just mean language choice that's exciting and catching--it can be sparse and still do that).

If you're aware of the strong verb rule and you have it in your tool box like second nature, along with the others, it's easier to follow your instinct from first draft through the various edits. If you're convincing you can do anything, right? I dunno let's just agree to disagree. I'm not even entirely sure we're arguing or why I started talking in the first place. I'm tired...

maestrowork said:

Agreed. Look at the big picture and don't sweat the small stuff.

Click to expand...

Yeppers. Big picture=context=you're aiming to make the book better as a whole. Seems wise to me.

Mara said:

I don't quite get doing a search for problematic terms anyway. Seems like it would be easier to leave them alone until you're rereading and revising, then just mark them with a red pen. That way, you can get an idea of the sentence flow and whether they're appropriate or a bit weak. If you're just jumping from "was" to "was" instantly without reading the lines in between, it's hard to see how well they fit into the flow.

Click to expand...

Not at all. When I do a search in my word processor, the found term turns up in the centre of the screen. I read at least the entire paragraph, sometimes the entire screen, before deciding if it needs fixing. Doing a search and challenge does not preclude taking context into result. At the same time, I often find other things that could be improved.

I found it very useful, myself. But I did not try to systematically eliminate all examples I found, I just challenged them. And I ended up with tighter, better prose.

Now when I write, I find myself catching a lot of these things before they make it onto paper/screen. So much the better. Next polishing session will go that much faster.

The problem for me with the red pen method is that I get distracted, and it takes much, much longer. So I don't see the value of it, at least not for me.

'Was' is only weak when it changes the subject and object around unecessarily:

Billy washed the plate.
The plate was washed by Billy.

And most people elaborate on the 'was' sentence:

Billy looked down at his watch- 2:00. Grunting, he began striding towards the house. He was late at the one time when he definitely wasn't supposed to be late.

I always think back to Silence of the lambs here and how Hannibal Lectar said:

I simply was.

Lectar was getting across the old nature / nurture debate (i.e. are we born evil or does society make us evil?) and the rest of the conversation (I might be a touch out here) went something like:

'I wasn't raped, I wasn't abused, society didn't make me, Clarice, I simply... was.'

It summoend up the inbred meachinicalness of his character really beautifully, most importantly it summoed up the power of 'was'. So is someone tells you not to use, just give 'em a kiss to bring them back to reality.