Look at your last book and count the number of times you used is, are, was, and were. Thoughts? Lessons learned?
I must confess, the first time I saw today's question, I was very confused - what was wrong with using 'is, are, was and were'? Then I read some more. Many contemporary writing coaches and editors suggest that this entire set of words - all variants of the verb 'to be' - should be, if not deleted from one's writing vocabulary (which is clearly an impossible task), at least minimized.
But why? Experts argue that these words are 'passive' (some even insist that these words belong to constructions written in the passive voice - which is not always true). Many argue for the use of stronger word choices, which could vastly improve the construction of their sentences, making their writing more powerful.
I did what several of my fellow Minds did this week, like James Ziskin - who found thirteen uses of 'was' and 'were' in the opening paragraph of A Tale of Two Cities. I love the book too, it's one of my all time favorites.
I looked at another of the writers I love best - albeit one who writes in a very different style from Dickens - A.A. Milne.
“Well," said Pooh, "what I like best," and then he had to stop and think. Because although Eating Honey was a very good thing to do, there was a moment just before you began to eat it which was better than when you were, but he didn't know what it was called.
How could you rewrite this beauty of a paragraph without the 'was' and 'were' and improve on it? I defy you to. It would remove the very Pooh-ness of Winnie The's character if you edited his speech.
Ah, but that's dialogue, you might argue. What about narrative?
Here's another of my favorite writers - Lewis Carroll, writing Alice in Wonderland, in a descriptive paragraph without any dialogue.
Either the well was very deep, or she fell very slowly, for she had plenty of time as she went down to look about her, and to wonder what was going to happen next. First, she tried to look down and make out what she was coming to, but it was too dark to see anything: then she looked at the sides of the well, and noticed that they were filled with cupboards and book-shelves: here and there she saw maps and pictures hung upon pegs. She took down a jar from one of the shelves as she passed: it was labeled "ORANGE MARMALADE," but to her great disappointment it was empty: she did not like to drop the jar, for fear of killing somebody underneath, so managed to put it into one of the cupboards as she fell past it.
This is writing packed with action - a descriptive paragraph that no one (in their right mind) would term passive.
Phew. Such a relief to see this. Despite my explorations, it was with some trepidation that I decided to follow the rules of the assignment, which was to look at my own writing and see how much I used the various variations of to-be.
In my non-fiction? 2-3%. Sample size - 4 books.
In my fiction? 2-2.4%. Sample size - 4 books.
That seems about right. Non-fiction, especially about ecology, is descriptive and I tend to use more of the 'to-be' words - but looking back at my fiction books, there are certainly sentences which I feel I could rewrite, replacing these verbs to create alternate versions that would make them punchier. And of course, equally, there are sections where I've used these words, but wouldn't want to edit to delete them.
It's been a fun exercise responding to this question, and a very educative experience too. If you'd like to read an interesting exchange of views on Reddit on this theme (with some hilarious comments) - here's this one
What is your opinion about "was" : r/writing
Until next fortnight!
-Harini