Variations of to be...

[2ndchance]

Hello all,

I have a question that I am sure Teresa or someone else will move from the critiques forum. To be honest, I am not sure where it should go, hey-ho.

So, my question is about variations of to be, i.e. was, were and so on. I have removed all from my MS except during dialogue. What is the view, should I also remove inert, passive sentences from dialogue? For example, Elizabeth says, ‘I was thinking I will have to be more assertive.’ I have to say that would prove difficult, after all, it is how people speak/talk...

I might add there are no out-and-out passive sentences during dialogue such as; she said, ‘the cake was baked by the chef.’ (the chef baked the cake) active...

Steve

 

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

Sounds like this belongs in Workshop rather than Critiques.


And dialogue should be as natural as possible. Next time you have a conversation with someone, pay attention to how you both speak, and incorporate that kind of style into your writing, allowing the proper variations of story time periods.

 

[Sapheron]

You'll find that just about any form of grammar (or non-grammar) is used in speech every so often by people. Generally our internal spelling and grammar checks have much more difficulty keeping up with a conversation than the do with a piece of prose that we're redrafting.

"I was thinking I will have to be more assertive." Is how you wrote it.

"I was thinking I'll have to be more assertive." Is how I'd say that sentence out loud.

"I should be more assertive." Is what I would probably say in reality to get across that meaning.

You also claim there are no out and out passive setences. Generally I'd agree. Being the incompetent creatures that we are though, humans often start saying something without really knowing what the end of it will be like.

"Who baked the cake?" asks I.

"Err, the cake... was baked by the chef." says the slightly confused person who wonders why he was asked such a question.

Just add in a little hesitation and the passive sentence turns from something you'd really prefer not to be heard saying into a passable recovery from a sentence that wasn't really going to get anywhere.

As Manarion so rightly points out, listen to people speak. Aside from learning how to better write as if your characters had half a brain, you'll probably be amazed and amused by just how silly some of the things people say are.

 

[Ursa major]

The problem of excising "to be" completely is that you will have difficulty with the continuous tenses.

"I walked..." is not the same as "I was walking...".

"Shut up, I'm talking!" is simply not the same as "Shut up, I talk!"

(which could be used for some crude indication on a non-native speaker, but for little else).


Now it may be possible to manoeuvre around this sort of thing in the narrative, because in most cases the reader expects this to be unlike spoken language, unless a character tends to use formal speech.

"This is the house I used to live in as a child."

as opposed to:

He approached the house in which he had spent his chidhood.

(I'm not suggesting that these are direct alternatives, by the way.)

The narrative is usually composed of considered language whereas most dialogue is immediate**; the latter is far less easily manipulated to make it meet rules (whether of grammar or the creative writing class).



** - To be fair, in my own work I use different degrees of formality depending on who is my POV character; but the point stands, I think.



EDIT: Thank heavens I deleted my thoughts based solely on a list of alternatives for Elizabeth's sentence: Sapheron got there before me.

 

[2ndchance]

This is so interesting and exactly what I thought. The ideas on how Liz could make her point, is, in itself, the difference in how we use English language. A lot, I would suggest, will depend on where we live, for example:

I ain't gonna 'appen, is it pal?

I would suggest a different approach, do you agree?

Excuse me, I am simply not prepared to venture in that direction, do you understand?

I find it exciting not having to follow any set rules when speaking, do you follow?

Personally, I enjoy breaking the rules during periods of dialogue and am pleased to know it is kinda okay...

That said, narrative should follow some rules, after all, it is what is expected, he-he.

Steve

 

[ventanamist]

What's so bad about 'to be', that it needs to be eliminated completely. I must admit that it was a revelation to discover that you could turn a dull piece of writing into something special simply by attempting to eliminate all forms of 'to be', but I would never eradicate it. The verb that ascribes existence and qualities of existence is very powerful, more so when it has been pruned down to a minimum.
'To be or not to be...' 'In the beginning was the word.' Need I say more.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I think that those who believe you need to excise all instances of the verb to be are missing the point -- or taking it much too far.

You must think about how you use it and when you use it, but very often it is entirely appropriate. Personally, I question it every time I use it in my own work, but much of the time I decide to leave it because it's the right verb in that particular situation.

Yes, you can change a dull scene into a more dynamic scene by switching out the verb "to be" for more active verbs, but it seldom happens that you can switch all of them without creating an artificial effect.

The eye tends to glide easily over common words without really noticing them much. They serve to connect things without calling attention to themselves. That's why you can say "said" over and over without resorting to "saidisms." "Is, was, am, were ..." they have that sort of invisibility, too, unless you are writing or editing. And that can be either a good thing or a bad thing. A bad thing, because it can make a sentence weak where you want it to be strong, or long and convoluted when it could be brief and to the point. A good thing when it's working as that invisible connection between a noun and the words that describe it. The whole world isn't busy and throbbing with motion; sometimes things rest; sometimes things just are.

Choose your words mindfully, but don't work so hard at finding a substitute that readers can feel you straining as they read.

And frankly, I wouldn't worry at all about the verb "to be" in dialogue. You need your characters to speak naturally, and if you read through this message, you will see that in ordinary conversation, written or spoken, the verb "to be" is ubiquitous.


You can also become too sensitive to certain words that appear over and over in your writing. The word that used to be my particular torment was "with." I've stopping noticing that one only because I currently obsess over other words.

Maybe we should have a thread on the words we all think we personally use too much.

 

[2ndchance]

Wonderful response Teresa, again. My problem, I read a guide too written by a lecturer, ouch. I then tried removing as many variations of to-be (not in dialogue, I might add).

To begin with, it seemed a simple test of my writing technique, I soon began to realise the errors of my way. I got as far as chapter seven and stuck on one sentence then thought sod it this is ridiculous and stopped.

I could go on but in essence, Teresa, you have said it all so perfectly.

Steve

 

[Izmir Mike]

I thought the basic idea was only that "to be" is a rather weak verb- not that it was unnecessary. Eradication of that defenseless little verb whose only purpose is to exist seems heavy-handed. Strong writing generally means strong verbs and a minimum of passive structures.

Passives tend to make weak sentences because the active "doer" is placed in a lesser position in comparison to the object. For example, "Samson broke the window" is, in most cases, preferable to "The window was broken by Samson." Normally speaking, objects are less important than people and things that receive actions are not as important as the actors.

Having said that, passive voice has its place when, for instance, the person who did the action is unknown. "The window has been opened." or when it is obvious who did the action, "He was arrested for killing his wife." (Do we really need to explain that the police arrested him?) or, finally, and this is the trickiest one, when the object is much more important that the actor.

Forgive me if I sound overbearing but I was taught that to avoid the overuse of "to be"- in favor of verbs with more "punch"- is the aim. Therefore reduction- not elimination- of "to be" and legitimate usage of passive voice is the target.

 

[LukeW]

I have a question regarding the use of passive verbs.

How common are they in mainstream literature?

On every writer's board I've been on I've always met writers who turn themselves inside out trying to make their prose as active as possible. It seems to be the bane of all writing forums.

Does the general reading population actually care (or notice) if author X wrote something in the passive voice when clearly the active could have been used?

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Does the general reading population actually care (or notice) if author X wrote something in the passive voice when clearly the active could have been used?

Notice? Absolutely not. React? If the writing isn't as strong as it should be, very likely they will react by not liking it. The same goes, of course, if the author ties him or herself into knots trying to avoid the verb "to be" and the passive voice and ends up with an awkward, artificial style.

Of course the more discerning reader may notice these things. But with the general reading population, your problem as a writer is not what they notice, but the things they dislike without quite knowing why.