"Could see..." "Could hear..."

[UrsusMinor]

Something that is beginning to drive me a little daffy in manuscripts I am asked to critique is the use of "could" attached to "see" or "hear" (or any other sense verb. As in:

He felt the sun on his face, and could hear the roar of a lawnmower in the neighboring yard.

(Or, if we were to carry it to its logical conclusion, perhaps: He could feel the sun on his face, and could hear the roar of a lawnmower in the neighboring yard.)

After I see this more than a few times, I want to scream, "He could, could he? Well, why didn't he?" Why "...he could hear the roar of a lawnmower..." rather than "...he heard the roar of a lawnmower..."? Why this hypothetical, quasi-subjunctive 'could-ing'?

Now, there's some perfectly good reasons to use these constructions to sharpen a specific point: "From the rooftop, he could see all the way to the beach," or "Once the jackhammering stopped, he could hear the sound of the radio drifting from the kitchen window..."

Or even a moment of intense awareness or disorientation: "He could hear the rush of cars on the freeway above, and could feel the rumble of an approaching train, but he couldn't see anything but blackness around him."

But why all the "could feels" and "could sees" and "could hears" in contexts where people ought to be feeling and seeing and hearing? I ask the writers this question; they blink at me a few times, and then move on to another topic.

Is it just me? I wish I 'could see' what they are trying to do with all these extra 'coulds'.

[PeeDee]

It's passive writing, just like "was." "The body was placed on the couch by Frank."

[Christine N.]

This, I think, is called a 'filter'. Actions are filtered through the POV character's senses before being passed on to the reader.

I try to get rid of as many as I can - "He heard", "He saw", etc...

They drive me crazy too, if an author uses too many of them. One or two I can let slide.

The only place I actually use them, come to think of it, is if some other sense is incapacitated. Like if the character is blindfolded; I had a blindfolded character being carried through the woods, and what she could hear was important. But I guess I don't even need it then, do I?

IMO, most of the time it comes off sounding like weak writing.

[Akuma]

Your situation reminds me of "he thought to himself"...

Which, unless you're writing a book about telepathic mind reading, seems a bit redundant to me.

[PeeDee]

Your situation reminds me of "he thought to himself"...

Which, unless you're writing a book about telepathic mind reading, seems a bit redundant to me.

"And so I says to myself, I says, "Self...."

[Pisarz]

"And so I says to myself, I says, "Self...."

Closely related to the following, which is found in spoken (as opposed to written) English:

"She said to me, she said, . . . [insert, well, what she said] . . ."

[PeeDee]

Closely related to the following, which is found in spoken (as opposed to written) English:

"She said to me, she said, . . . [insert, well, what she said] . . ."

Although used properly in a first person story, that can be music... :)

[maestrowork]

He felt the sun on his face, and could hear the roar of a lawnmower in the neighboring yard.

I would even go further and say take out all the "see" and "hear" type of filtering. Why not just:

The sun's heat burned his face and the roar of a lawnmower rumbled in the neighbor's yard.

[PeeDee]

I would even go further and say take out all the "see" and "hear" type of filtering. Why not just:

The sun's heat burned his face and the roar of a lawnmower rumbled in the neighbor's yard.

And now you have an active sentence which is earning its keep, and can be allowed to live.

[Bufty]

And therein perhaps lies the explanation to the original post. Maybe that's how a phrase develops from its beginner stage through intermediate to professional.

The sun's heat burned his face and the roar of a lawnmower rumbled in the neighbor's yard.

[Scarlett_156]

Narrative should not sound like speech-- narrative should be active. People use these passive words a lot in speech, and if you use them judiciously in dialog it will make the dialog seem more true-to-life. To use them in narrative, however, is the mark of an immature writer.

[PeeDee]

Narrative should not sound like speech-- narrative should be active. People use these passive words a lot in speech, and if you use them judiciously in dialog it will make the dialog seem more true-to-life. To use them in narrative, however, is the mark of an immature writer.

The other day, I said "I don't know. The sheet of paper was placed on the.....my god, that was a passive sentence. What the hell's wrong with me?"

My wife gave me a subtle look to indicate that I am a raving lunatic.

[farfromfearless]

I try to avoid that particular trap and focus on describing the sensory information using similes if appropriate. "He felt the sun on his face, and the lawnmower in the neighboring yard sounded like...<insert similes here>". There is a point where narrative has to step away from describing each and every action of the character and paint the setting for the reader to visualize and fill in the blanks.

[WildScribe]

I've gotten those looks for similar comments.

[Jamesaritchie]

Narrative should not sound like speech-- narrative should be active. People use these passive words a lot in speech, and if you use them judiciously in dialog it will make the dialog seem more true-to-life. To use them in narrative, however, is the mark of an immature writer.

I don't believe dialogue should be passive very often, either. It may sound more realistic to some, but dialogue isn't about realism, it's about saying what needs to be said in the best, and most interesting, manner. Passive dialogue should only come from a passive character.

And, of course, if you're writing first person, everything, including narrative, is dialogue.

[farfromfearless]

Dialog should reflect the personality of the character; passive or active, I feel that it is a matter of finding a balance that (though may not be realistic when reading - most fantasy dialog is drivel) is enjoyable and works to further the scene/plot/story.

[maestrowork]

I try to avoid that particular trap and focus on describing the sensory information using similes if appropriate. "He felt the sun on his face, and the lawnmower in the neighboring yard sounded like...<insert similes here>".

I don't know how to put it.... but "is like" or "sounds like" is a poor construction. It's weak prose. If you must use a simile, you need to put it in context and also use an active verb other than "be" or "sound" (which is a filter):

The lawnmower roared like a farting T. rex...

[farfromfearless]

Point taken ;)

[ChunkyC]

Or tighten it up even more: "The lawnmower next door farted across the lawn." ;)

[UrsusMinor]

The farting mower may or may not be great, depending on context, but I'm not worried about moving the sentences I see in these manuscripts from good to great. I'm trying to figure out how to tell people that they need to move them from bad to not-bad.

And I don't seem to be able to get people to understand why "could see" is usually bad.

Some of these people are otherwise quite good writers. Clearly something is wrong with the way I explain myself. (Perhaps "because this sucks" isn't specific enough?)

(I've tried, "You've converted a perfectly fine active verb into a passive construction," but that only catches the attention of a certain kind of person.)

So, if any of you have suggestions for how to explain this in an inrrefutable, attention-grabbng fashion...

[Christine N.]

This is weak writing. Filtering pushes the reader from the action instead of keeping them close, where you want them. It smacks of amateruism (ok, be blunt)
Not only that, but it's telling instead of showing. You writing "He felt", TELLS me, writing "The sun's heat warmed his face" SHOWS me.

THIS is stronger writing. (Give example)

Then throw a copy of "Self-Editing for Fiction Writers" at them and see if it sticks.

[ChunkyC]

Sorry Ursa, just farting around, nyuk nyuk. ;)

Christine sums it up pretty well. I have to agree there's distance created when using "He could hear...." constructs. The narrator becomes stand-offish, and as a result, a bit obtrusive. You start to notice the narrator, which might not be what you're after. To use a movie analogy, it's akin to a voice-over. It might work at the opening of a scene, before you've drawn the reader in close, but if it's done after you have the reader in close, you risk breaking the spell you just worked so hard to cast.

[badducky]

"To be" verbs are not necessarily bad, however. Just remember that they are loners. They do not combine well with other verbs. Don't grant "to be" verbs a series of sentences in a row. Breaking them up is best.

;)

[rugcat]

Narrative should not sound like speech-- narrative should be active. People use these passive words a lot in speech, and if you use them judiciously in dialog it will make the dialog seem more true-to-life. To use them in narrative, however, is the mark of an immature writer. I don't think good dialogue is about active and passive. It’s about having a good ear, about using the proper words, about where to place tags, about where to add a descriptive sentence. Above all. it’s about finding the proper rhythm and flow, much like music.

And it’s not only how it sounds, but how it looks on the page. Good dialogue is certainly not about replicating how people really speak; if you transcribed an actual conversation word for word it would be dreadful on the page. It’s about creating the illusion of realistic speech.

Like the rest of writing, at heart it’s a creative endeavor. If you follow a set of rules, your dialogue may come off as competent, but it may well also come off as flat and uninspired. We all believe we have talent - trust that belief. Read your dialogue over and over and work on it until it sounds right to you. Don't worry about things like the proportion between active and passive.

[anodyne]

So as someone who is always afraid of being a weak writer, is it alright to use it sparingly, or is it something that should be avoided at all costs. Does it ever help to strengthen an idea of uncertainty, like say, if someone is trying to look past another character, or under their arm.

Is "could feel" kosher if it's a disorienting situation? Ever? Is this a YMMV thing?

[Christine N.]

We're not talking about dialogue. It's about narrative. Passive narrative just reads weak. One of the reasons that The DaVinci code drives me crazy. Decent story, writing that couldn't hold water in a glass.

Strong narrative should paint a vivid image in the reader's mind. It should show, not tell. It should bring the reader into the story. I would say that yes, you can use these things occasionally, but a manuscript full of them will put a reader off. Or possibly cause one to throw the book across the room from frustration. I've read books like that. I can live with certain styles of writing using -ly words. JK Rowling does it quite a bit, but it doesn't come across to me as too much. Eoin Colfer's last Artemis Fowl book made me want to throw it, because the -ly words were so abundant as to make me insane.

Dialogue is a whole 'nother thing.

[TrainofThought]

Fine, I admit it, I’m one of the ‘could’ or ‘can’ people, but I’m taking them out in revisions. Writing is a learning process and I didn’t realize I was ‘telling’ more than ‘showing’. I guess my writing is amateurish. In the current revision of my WIP, I try to create active sentences - show and I learned it on AW. Stop knocking the novice. :)

[Christine N.]

LOL. I had a beta point it out to me in a manuscript too. It was a lesson I learned quickly.

[Oliveman]

Another point about "could" is that it is a cheap way to bring the reader into the shoes of the person. By this I mean that they are implying that the character engaged in an experience that you also could do, if you were there. I like the alternative of taking out as many of those indefinite words as possible. Anecdote, however, is a great place for these, if the situation and character permits it.

"You could just smell the daisies covering those fields that seemed to strech on for miles and miles, Billy."

[zenofeller]

But why all the "could feels" and "could sees" and "could hears" in contexts where people ought to be feeling and seeing and hearing? I ask the writers this question; they blink at me a few times, and then move on to another topic.

the explanation could be found in the lack of the proverbial balls. couldn't it ? well then, why isn't it ?

[Gillhoughly]

:editor hat on:

I wanted to take a brick to the head of a multi print published writer who wrote this:

"He turned and looked and saw...."

I blue-penciled every one of them--as apparently that's part of his "style." The other editor let them pass.

D'OH!

and

*sigh* :Shrug:

[PeeDee]

He turned and looked and saw and laughed and walked and went forward and spoke and said.....

Wow. You could keep it going forever.

[UrsusMinor]

:editor hat on:

I wanted to take a brick to the head of a multi print published writer who wrote this:

"He turned and looked and saw...."

I blue-penciled every one of them--as apparently that's part of his "style." The other editor let them pass.

Yeah, that deliberately awkward style is one that some people think is literary. (At the risk of being labeled a Philistine, or even a Pithecanthropus, sometimes Cormac McCarthy's more stylized passages read about like that to me, too.)

So, how about "He turned and looked and could see..."? Redundant AND passive. Now we're getting somewhere!

[Bufty]

I may be wrong but I think the use of 'could this and that' is just a phase one goes through when trying to find one's feet.

Initially, a beginning writer - myself included - feels as though they are indeed 'telling' a story. It isn't until one realises as one learns more of the craft of novel writing, that part of the craft is that of becoming an invisible narrator and not 'telling' a story, that the weak use of 'could' etc., becomes clear.

(With apologies for that rather convoluted sentence!)

[anodyne]

Y'all are making me feel bad. Inquiring minds and all. :) Oh well, I think at this point I'll finish the current WIP and then hold a gun to all of my "could this," and "could that's" and see if they add anything to the story. <nods>

[ChunkyC]

I may be wrong but I think the use of 'could this and that' is just a phase one goes through when trying to find one's feet.
Indeed. I believe we have to go through a whole whack of these phases before we reach the point of publishability. When I started out, I was terrible for expository dialogue tags:

"The shields are failing, Captain," said Scotty, chief engineer and resident miracle worker for the Enterprise, flagship of the fleet.

Until I got past that, my writing made Swifties look like highbrow literature.

I think at this point I'll finish the current WIP and then hold a gun to all of my "could this," and "could that's" and see if they add anything to the story.
That shows you are headed in the right direction as a writer. :)

[Gillhoughly]

He turned and looked and saw and laughed and walked and went forward and spoke and said.... Wow. You could keep it going forever.

Sadly and frustratingly, he did just that.

Hence my yen to crack his skull with a brick and scoop out the green Jell-o inside. I'm sure his brain box would make a striking planter since it's clear he's not using it.

How the bleep he ever got published is beyond me, but it proves Sturgeon's Law yet again.

[PeeDee]

Is this Theodore Sturgeon we're talking about? WHat's his law?

[Christine N.]

Hemingway needed a Gillhoughly. Seriously.

He turned and looked and walked and drank and ate and drank and then turned and threw up.

[Gillhoughly]

Hemingway needed a Gillhoughly. Seriously.
No! NO!!! NOOOOOO!!!!!!!

PLEEEEEAAASSEE DON'T MAKE ME READ HIM AGAIN!!!

:running away:

Is this Theodore Sturgeon we're talking about? WHat's his law?

According to Wikipedia it is Sturgeon's Revelation:"The current phrasing of the Revelation is often taken as the second clause of a longer saying (derived from the aforementioned telling of the saying's origin): "Ninety percent of science fiction is crud, but that's because ninety percent of everything is crud."

See also: http://jargon.net/jargonfile/s/SturgeonsLaw.html
Sturgeon's Law /prov./ "Ninety percent of everything is crap". Derived from a quote by science fiction author Theodore Sturgeon, who once said, "Sure, 90% of science fiction is crud. That's because 90% of everything is crud." Oddly, when Sturgeon's Law is cited, the final word is almost invariably changed to `crap'. Compare Hanlon's Razor, Ninety-Ninety Rule. Though this maxim originated in SF fandom, most hackers recognize it and are all too aware of its truth.

[rugcat]

Is this Theodore Sturgeon we're talking about? WHat's his law?
When challenged that 90% of science fiction (or 95% or 98% depending on your source) is crap, he is supposed to have said, "90% of everything is crap."

Still true, after all these years.

[badducky]

I'd love to see his hard data on that little survey.

[rugcat]

I'd love to see his hard data on that little survey. This can be independently verified by the ICC. (International Council of Cynics)

[J.S Greer]

When challenged that 90% of science fiction (or 95% or 98% depending on your source) is crap, he is supposed to have said, "90% of everything is crap."

Still true, after all these years.

Thats a great quote. :ROFL:

[scarletpeaches]

The other day, I said "I don't know. The sheet of paper was placed on the.....my god, that was a passive sentence. What the hell's wrong with me?"

My wife gave me a subtle look to indicate that I am a raving lunatic.

No, no, no..."I could see the subtle look on my wife's face which was used by her to indicate I was a raving lunatic," I thought to myself.

See? That's how it's done. :D

[Ken Schneider]

He could smell the smoke, and see through the broken slat in the fence, the noisy lawnmower next door.

Smelling smoke, and looking through the broken slat in the fence toward the neighbors's yard, he could see the old lawnmower that woke him from his dream.

Black smoke, that drifted into the air just above the privacy fence, and across the hammock, accompanied by the roar of the mower next door, ruined his quiet afternoon of reading.

That smoke belching, stinking, noisy mower next door, ruined his quiet afternoon in the back yard.

A lawnmower hummed in the distance, making John think about the work waiting for him at home. As the noise from the mower increased in volume, and John turned the corner to see an old man sweating in an effort to push it up a hill, he decided to return to the bar and wait for dark.

Oh, and Hemmingway. He owes his beginnings to a few stolen manuscripts from his dear drunken friend, F. Scott Fitzgerald.

[PeeDee]

No, no, no..."I could see the subtle look on my wife's face which was used by her to indicate I was a raving lunatic," I thought to myself.

See? That's how it's done. :D

*Has a heart attack and a brain anuerysm at the same time, which is dead impressive, literally.*

[PeeDee]

or, the Ernest Hemingway version:

The lawn mower made black smoke. It was there. I saw it.

[Ken Schneider]

or, the Ernest Hemingway version:

The lawn mower made black smoke. It was there. I saw it.

And seeing it, that black smoke rising toward the mid-day sun, so bright in the summer sky though now shrouded by that noisy mower's by product of burnt petroleum, I wondered to myself, would anyone see, or for that matter hear it, should it be in the wood next to the tree that makes no sound if one isn't within ear shot of its falling?

[UrsusMinor]

He could smell the smoke, and see through the broken slat in the fence, the noisy lawnmower next door.

Smelling smoke, and looking through the broken slat in the fence toward the neighbors's yard, he could see the old lawnmower that woke him from his dream.

Black smoke, that drifted into the air just above the privacy fence, and across the hammock, accompanied by the roar of the mower next door, ruined his quiet afternoon of reading.

That smoke belching, stinking, noisy mower next door, ruined his quiet afternoon in the back yard.

A lawnmower hummed in the distance, making John think about the work waiting for him at home. As the noise from the mower increased in volume, and John turned the corner to see an old man sweating in an effort to push it up a hill, he decided to return to the bar and wait for dark.

Ouch. Just reading that detached both my retinas.

If they ever do a sequel to "Atlanta Nights," you need to write a chapter.

[Andre_Laurent]

Well, insert expletive here, I went through my WIP of about 10,000 words with my trusty find function and found... several (okay, more than several) "could...". Now I just can't wait to open up the WIP the betas are reading and see how many are lurking in there. :rant:

I think I'll go beat my head against the wall for writing crap.

[spacejock2]

Indeed. I believe we have to go through a whole whack of these phases before we reach the point of publishability.

Absolutely. And the fun bit is that people offering critiques of a piece of work often mention the first couple of levels, either because that's the stage they've reached, or because they don't want to bog the writer down with the more advanced stuff. (Walk before you can run, that kind of thing.)

Also, if we got all the bad news in one hit we'd probably give up.

[anodyne]

<ctrl+f's her manuscript>

<counts the could _____ phrases>

Hmm... nope, don't think I over-do it. But I'm the writer, I doubt they ever do. What are the rules for submission to the "share your work" forum?

[PeeDee]

<ctrl+f's her manuscript>

<counts the could _____ phrases>

Hmm... nope, don't think I over-do it. But I'm the writer, I doubt they ever do. What are the rules for submission to the "share your work" forum?

Don't submit your whole novel.

Don't get angry when people have opinions.

......er, that's probably about it, really. :)

[Saanen]

Hmm, one of my pet peeves too--but I'm not convinced "could see" or "could hear" etc. is always a passive construction. To me it denotes using senses over a distance. But maybe that's just me. Anyway, I don't use "could" much.

At least, I don't think so.... *opens Word*

Edit: Checked the ms. I've just begun to shop, and I use the "could" construction 8 times in 100k words--not bad. In every case I use it to indicate the character was seeing or hearing things that were happening in the distance, except for once when I used it for a character hearing something in the dark.

[Ken Schneider]

Ouch. Just reading that detached both my retinas.

If they ever do a sequel to "Atlanta Nights," you need to write a chapter.

I was making point about could see, he saw, seen, viewed, observed heard, could hear....

[FennelGiraffe]

Hmm, one of my pet peeves too--but I'm not convinced "could see" or "could hear" etc. is always a passive construction. To me it denotes using senses over a distance. But maybe that's just me. Anyway, I don't use "could" much. I agree it isn't always wrong--but then, none of the things commonly warned against in writing are always wrong. They're constructions often misused or overused. I really like the line about holding a gun to their heads during revision.

I'm a bit bemused, though, about your suggestion of "senses over a distance". I don't see any difference between "could <sense>" and "could <act>". To me, the appropriate use is to contrast ability in one case with inability in another, or to emphasize an ability that is unusual or surprising. "After the fog lifted, they could see the King's army waiting across the valley." (While it was foggy, they couldn't see anything; now they can.) "His powerful legs could jump high enough to let him grab the parapet." (No one else can jump that high.) Even there, however, it's best used sparingly.

BTW, I'm not convinced that "passive" is the correct term for "could <verb>", but that's somewhat irrelevant because I agree it is usually a weak construction.

[Dave.C.Robinson]

I know it's one of the things I rip out when I go through on a revision pass. I don't want my writing to be weak.

[Christine N.]

Yes, but your fog lifted sentence... well, once the fog lifts, and you tell us that they could see something... we don't need the could at all, it's obvious they could see it if you say they saw it. If the fog was still there, they wouldn't be able to see it.

"Once the fog lifted, they saw the King's army, waiting across the valley."

Isn't that better? BUT if they could see even though the fog was still there, you MIGHT use...

"Despite the fog, they could see the King's army, waiting for them across the valley."

See the difference? You could even get rid of the could in that second example, but I might leave it in because it's a weaker construction and their view might not be strong as it is on a clear day, thereby implying the weak view with a weaker sentence.

[FennelGiraffe]

Yes, but your fog lifted sentence... well, once the fog lifts, and you tell us that they could see something... we don't need the could at all, it's obvious they could see it if you say they saw it. If the fog was still there, they wouldn't be able to see it. Well, I didn't spend a whole lot of time polishing those examples, so I don't doubt they have considerable room for improvement.

My main point was that prohibitions like "Don't use 'could <verb>'" often get overstated. Sure, they're weak constructions. Sure, they should be eliminated most of the time. But once in a while, very rarely, they're the right word for the job.

(I also confess to my imagination having immediately constructed a scenario in which finally being able to see and what they saw are crucial plot points, although I realize no one else is going to know that from one sentence. :D )

[Christine N.]

Well, sure there are no absolutes. Rules can be broken. You just have to know them before you break them. :)

[Saanen]

BTW, I'm not convinced that "passive" is the correct term for "could <verb>", but that's somewhat irrelevant because I agree it is usually a weak construction.

I agree, and I wonder if this might be one of the few shreds of the subjunctive left in English. I'm not sure, though.

[UrsusMinor]

I was making point about could see, he saw, seen, viewed, observed heard, could hear....

I know. I was praising you.

Writing badly to make a point is a fine art.

[Willowmound]

He could smell the smoke, and see through the broken slat in the fence, the noisy lawnmower next door.

Smelling smoke, and looking through the broken slat in the fence toward the neighbors's yard, he could see the old lawnmower that woke him from his dream.

Black smoke, that drifted into the air just above the privacy fence, and across the hammock, accompanied by the roar of the mower next door, ruined his quiet afternoon of reading.

That smoke belching, stinking, noisy mower next door, ruined his quiet afternoon in the back yard.

A lawnmower hummed in the distance, making John think about the work waiting for him at home. As the noise from the mower increased in volume, and John turned the corner to see an old man sweating in an effort to push it up a hill, he decided to return to the bar and wait for dark.

I think the above could be considered a form of poetry.