Overuse of "Had"

"Had" in that case is indicating a specific tense. There's nothing wrong with it, and it can't be removed without changing the meaning of the sentences. It'd probably turn the story into incoherent gibberish if that tense were removed.

Eh, none of the "hads" should be thrown out.

What you want to look out for is the overuse of one particular sentence structure. If you have a block of text that goes "he had.... She had.... She then had.... He had...." then it could get monotonous. But the guideline can be applied to the overuse of ANY single sentence structure at the expense of others.

ETA: there is a trick, though. If you're describing something that had happened in the past as one big chunk, for example, you can omit the "had" most of the time. In fact, all you need to trigger a flashback is one sentence with "had", and end the flashback with another sentence with "had". Everything in between you can just use the simple past tense, although if it's a very long block of text you can also sprinkle it with the occasional "had".

Had is just a word. Nothing wrong with it as long as it's used well. But a lot of them can often signal backstory or telling, since you're explaining, not showing. Many of these examples have that feel--detached, outside looking in, not dramatized.

Well, then "had" is probably the symptom in that case, not the cause. And the reason is simple -- you use past participle to refer to events in the past. Having a lot of "had"s mean you have a lot of backstory and flashbacks.

SoloArtist said:

I think in general when you use "had" frequently, the writing will feel more boring and passive. Everything will seem to have happened further back in the past and less immediately. It tends to feel less vibrant and alive.

Click to expand...

That's because the parts of the story that are in past perfect tense take place before the 'present' of the story, which is past tense. If you wrote a whole book that way, it would get old fast, but it's perfectly appropriate in such sentences as,

"He drove to the lighthouse he had seen from the restaurant."

"She grabbed up the kitten that had licked her. 'He's mine!' she said."

"He had always loved her, he realized."

Here is a what I was told to be the most efficient use of "had" in these kinds of "drop-back" bits of backstory or description of past stuff. Use the "had" form when dropping into the passage but then abandon it, using standard past tense (if that was the original form). Then, to let the reader know when to climb back out of that "flashback" use the "had" form again to signal the end of the backwards dive. So, in the example given, use the "had" form in the first sentence, and omit it from all but the last sentence, which brings the reader back out of the backstory tidbit. It would require some rewriting of the sentences and phrases in that example, but it would also allow significant tightening of the writing and elimination of the "had" echoes.

Clever way.

And in 'who had so many things' - you could change 'had' into 'owned.'

Ask the author if he's using 'had' deliberately, and why - it could simply be a bad habit he's fallen into through inexperience and without realising he's doing it.

SoloArtist said:

Is it correct to say that overusing had with past perfect tense is "passive writing?" I read one article that suggested that, but only one.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't call that correct at all. It's not in the passive mood; it doesn't indicate a character acting in a passive manner; there's nothing "passive" about it in any technical sense that I can see. It's just the pluperfect. ("I walk to school. I walked to school yesterday. I had walked to school the day it caught on fire.")

What it can mean is, as mentioned above, a lot of backstory/infodump, because it's specifically detailing things that happened before the current action. In some circumstances, that can seem dull, or like the focus is in the wrong place--why so much time spent on something not happening right now?--but there's nothing particularly wrong with using the pluperfect tense.

Is it correct to say that overusing had with past perfect tense is passive writing?

Without the had it would not be past perfect. Verb aspects are not "advanced writing" or anything. While it is good to practice editing, you should not give advice until you know the rules of grammer-- I mean, you can, but you will make yourself look bad. I suggest you lock yourself up with some grammar books. This stuff is pretty basic.

Take a look:

Verb Aspects:

auxiliaries have (with -en) and be (with -en) indicate the verb aspect which is whether the action has been completed or is still in progress. (Future tense adds shall or will). Have + en are called perfect, and be-ing are called progressive.


I am working, or John is taking are present activities of limited duration and is called the present progressive. PRES+-BE+-ING

I moved to Chicago, or Tom ate dinner refers to a specific point in time, and is called the simple past. PAST+MV

A baby was crying, I was trying, is a past action of limited duration and is called past progressive. PAST+-BE+-ING+MV

The leaves have turned yellow, I have memorized my math problems, is a completed action extending from a point in the past to either the present or the near present, or occuring at an unspecified past time is the Present Perfect. PRES+HAVE+-EN+MV

The hikers have used up all their water, the students had only written part of their assignment by the time class was over, is a past action completed before another action in the past and is called the Past Perfect. PAST+HAVE+-EN+MV

The police have been looking for the hit and run suspect since yesterday, is a past action continuing into the present and is called the Present Perfect Progressive. PRES+HAVE+-EN+BE+-ING+MV

The police had been looking for the bank robbers before this rencent robbery, is the continuing of a past action that is completed before another action in the past and is called the past perfect progressive. PAST+HAVE+-EN+BE+ING+MV


A specific verb transformation rule states that if an -en main verb is followed by a form of had, it is active. That answers your specific question. The person who wrote the article probably can't stand anything but basic S-V-O type sentances. I'd always suspect finding only one article on something, because it is probably a minority opinion.



Passive writing is useful, and is not a "sin." Writers can write in passive when they want, in fact, varying sentances types and lengths is important. Passive is simply a "type" of sentence.

I do not know if this author is "overusing" anything because you cut random sentences out of contex. I'd say, if these were all on the same page, he might vary the sentances more. If these were scattered throughout a larger manuscript, then they are probably not overused. What is the over-use of a verb modifier anyway? That's like saying he is overusing "the." Overuse comes into play when someone uses some word like "splendiferous" fifty times a page.

Grammer is not there to force everyone into a boring little box. The rules are for clarity and understanding, not necessarily "utter conformity." I took a college grammar class, and was told that basically, if you can justify it based on rules and precedent, you can use it. The people giving absolute, restrictavist rules are the ones who have the issues.

Using 'had' too much can indicate too much telling and blandness. The annoying thing about those sentences is that they basically all start 'He had...'

Also, 'had' is rather formal. People rarely say 'he had put on some weight'- you say 'he'd put on a bit of weight' or 'he was looking fatter'

Basically you can use 'had' quite frequently if you do wish, as long as the sentence is interesting enough to disguise it.

My high school English teacher hated the word "that," and felt that in 90% of use, it could be elminated. Such as in the sentence I just wrote ... "and felt in 90%..." would work just as well. i find "had" is, in many cases the same way. You can take out the word and it doesn't change any meaning, but speeds up the pacing. Maybe some of the below wouldn't work in context, but many would:

[FONT=&quot]He forgot about blah and blah and the blah and all the things he did[/FONT].

[FONT=&quot]... always after there was the terrible feeling that he lost something[/FONT] ...

[FONT=&quot]a worn old boathouse he purchased four years ago. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]... the wide red veins in his nose swelled from drinking too much. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]He watched it turn gray too, as it grew longer, until the last of his original brown vanished. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]He tipped the chair back and swung his feet up ...

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]The pens and papers, credit card slips and receipt books he kept neatly ordered inside lay in heaps ...[/FONT]

Agreed. I find it jarring when the author misuses past tense. If the story is already in past tense, there should be some pluperfect unless the character has serious amnesia

I'm not a grammarian, but when I read your examples the "he had" pattern sets up a disturbing mental tick (can't think of a better word) in the reading.

The best I can explain it is the difference between driving on a newly paved smooth .
road and a road that's been put together in concrete sections (like done on bridges and some areas of the US). The concrete section joins create an almost staccato rhythm (thump, thump, thump) that is annoying.

Perhaps the author wants that pattern? I have a paragraph in my current WIP that specifically uses a repetive sentence structure. The paragrpah is describing a long drawn out experience and (my hope is) the sentence structure adds to that feeling. But it is only one paragraph, not 1000+ words.

If it doesn't server the plot, then challenge them to get rid of at least half of the 'he had's.

SoloArtist said:

Excellent comments, thanks everyone.

Is it correct to say that overusing had with past perfect tense is "passive writing?" I read one article that suggested that, but only one.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. It could be passive writing in the sense that too many infodumps compromise the narrative flow and slow down the action but pluperfect / past perfect is not necessarily passive writing in a grammatical sense. I'm not even sure how you would express the pluperfect in English without using had.

He had received a slap to the face.

Click to expand...

To some this might appear passive, but grammatically speaking, it is actually active because to receive is an active verb taking slap as its object.

The tense is pluperfect / past perfect. An example of how pluperfect can be used is he had received a slap to the face before he lost his temper and retaliated.

The first clause is pluperfect and explains the reason for the action described in the second clause which is in perfect tense. Perfect tense describes an action that was completed at the time described and pluperfect describes one that occurred before that.

This is an example of passive pluperfect.

He had been slapped in the face.

Click to expand...

Passive perfect.

He was slapped in the face.

Click to expand...

These are grammatically passive because he is the recipient of the action.

I have

7 in @ 3,800 word chapter = 1/550 words
8 in @ 3700 word chapter (that includes two flash backs) = 1/460
32 in @ 4600 word 'plot point' (This is still rough so some will likely come out on edit), = 1/140 words

So I'm maybe averaging @ 1/380 words

It's not about passive voice, really. Rather, if someone uses that tense a whole lot, it may indicate that a huge chunk of their story is backstory/infodumping rather than actual story.

If every other paragraph is explaining something that happened before the story, there's a problem.

Good lord. Are we calibrating assembly lines or writing novels?