The dreaded "was"

'Was' is not taboo. Like any word, it shouldn't be overused, but with 9 instances in a 3000-word piece you can hardly be accused of that. It's great if you feel avoiding 'was' has made your work stronger--just make sure you aren't struggling to come up with a work-around when it is the right word.

No.

There is no way to say many things in English without using "was."

If you don't believe me, pick up a novel written in the last 30 years that you really like.

Start looking for "was" and "were."

Was can be overdone, but nine times in 3,000 words sounds like pretty sparse usage. Don't hamstring yourself trying to avoid was. There is nothing inherently wrong with it.

Overuse of was is usually related to too many passive sentences (The book was read by Mary) or too many was/ing constructions. But the occasional passive sentence or was/ing construction is fine. A plethora of them is a sign of weak writing, but avoiding was altogether is unnecessary and even detrimental to good prose.

The verb to be, in its various forms including was, is an essential part of the English language. Trying to completely avoid using it produces convoluted and awkward phrasing. However, it's often abused, so it's a good idea to double-check each occurrence to be sure that particular sentence can't be reworded more effectively.

Was followed by <verb>ed = passive voice. While there are a few legitimate reasons for choosing passive voice, it's almost always better rewritten as active voice.

Was followed by <verb>ing = past progressive tense. Useful for simultaneous action, where one action occurs while another ongoing action is in progress. Frequent use should be avoided, but there's nothing wrong with occasional use where appropriate.

Was followed by <noun> or <adjective> = linking verb. Describes an identity, a state, or a condition. It's a weak construction because there's no action, no movement. Still, it can't be eliminated altogether. Sometimes nothing else will do as well.

"Was" is a wonderful and perfectly appropriate word to use, as are all other forms of 'be'. I find it more awkward to not have it in the writing. It is often maligned as passive, but its presence doesn't make the writing passive, the writing does. (And passive isn't always a bad thing either.)

You're fine and don't' angst on it.

Wow, I've sold a lot of short stories and I am very sure 'was' was in most of them.

Probably a major verb player, in fact.

Most of the rules are stupid.

They'd be fine if they were presented as "suggestions," or "guidance" or "good practice."

English is infinitely flexible. It has an extraordinary range, and its multiplicity in terms of vocabulary and syntax are phenomenal.

The best advice I can offer is to ask yourself "Is there a better way for me to write this?"

jaksen said:

Wow, I've sold a lot of short stories and I am very sure 'was' was in most of them.

Click to expand...

William Faulkner wrote a short story titled "Was". He done purty good in his writing career, two Pulitzers and a Nobel, among other things.

Medievalist said:

The best advice I can offer is to ask yourself "Is there a better way for me to write this?"

Click to expand...

Exactly.

The issue here isn't "was" or whatever. It's "is this the best way to write it?" Often "was" isn't the best way, or the best word choice. It's a crutch for many writers. But there's nothing inherently wrong with "was." The challenge is to ask: "Is there a better way to write this?"

- There was a cat in my house.
- A cat hid in my house and scared the heck out of me when I got home.

- Mary was eating an ice cream.
- Mary ate an ice cream. Mary devoured her ice cream.

- John was pushed down the stairs by William.
- William pushed John down the stairs.

HistorySleuth said:

I know. I know. I'm being silly. There seems so many "rules" of don't have too many of these words or that word, etc, etc. and I know the rules aren't set in stone of course, just trying to make sure I'm not being sloppy. Thanks for the input jaksen.

Click to expand...

And now that's settled, will we be addressing the usage of the evil adverb?

Stan

Stanmiller said:

And now that's settled, will we be addressing the usage of the evil adverb?

Stan

Click to expand...

Don't start.

Sincerely,

Stanmiller said:

And now that's settled, will we be addressing the usage of the evil adverb?

Stan

Click to expand...

We really should intensely and seriously consider doing this quickly.