The use of WAS!

It is a word, and as such, has every right to be used. There's a big difference between using it and overusing it. You just have to find a happy medium, and stop listening to rules.... unless they come from me.

It's not "passive." Just "weak."

But you can't have strong verbs all the time. When used correctly, they're perfectly good words to use.

Stop sweating the small things. Focus on the big thing: Are you telling a great story the best way you can?

Grr. There is nothing wrong with the verb "to be". You can't avoid it if you want to use a progressive tense (nothing weak about them), or even the passive voice, which is sometimes the absolutely best way of expressing a certain idea.

Having said that, I do go through my MS when at the final polishing stage, doing a search and challenge of all "to be" verbs. Sometimes they are flabby. Sometimes (like in the last sentence) they are the most direct, elegant way of expressing an idea.

Don't take a rule that is meant to make you think about the best way of expressing yourself, and turn it into some kind of insane Zero Tolerance policy.

Don't use it when you can think of a better verb, but don't try to avoid it completely either.

Also, verb tenses that contain "was" don't count. "was going" and "was expected" wouldn't count in the example above, for instance. The "was" form of "to be" is a bit weak, but that's the tense form of "was," not the "to be" form of was.

Basically, if you have "was" followed by a verb (including a verb with -ed or -ing added), it's completely fine. In fact, eliminating "was" would put your the verb in the wrong tense.

You can't get rid of "to be" entirely, so unless you use it in places where a better, more specific verb exists, you're fine. You shouldn't hate "was" for the same reason you shouldn't hate "he/she said". When used correctly and not over-used, these words are practically invisible.

Mara said:

The "was" form of "to be" is a bit weak, but that's the tense form of "was," not the "to be" form of was..

Click to expand...

??? This makes no sense whatever.

The past tense is not inherently weaker than any other.

Overusing the passive voice (to be + past participle) is indeed rather weak. Bureaucrats use it a lot to deflect responsibility, for instance. When your goal is to obscure who did what, it's the best tool available. But it should be used sparingly.

A classic example of when "to be" is weak is a sentence like "He was angry." It's usually much more effective to say something like "He slammed his fist on the table." Usually. It also depends on context and exactly what the writer is trying to accomplish with a particular sentence. Sometimes we WANT to back off from the immediacy and get more abstract. Not often, granted, but that's why we have to stop and think about the best way of expressing something.

Weak constructions:

- There was a man standing by the bench. ("A man stood by the bench" would be fine)

- It was two o'clock. ("The clock struck two" would be stronger)

- It was a dark and stormy night (show would be better than tell)

Otherwise, there's nothing inherently wrong with "to be" verbs.

It's the sentence structure, she yells. The sentence structure!!

If you have some wonderfully constructed sentences in your book, filled with active images, wases here and there aren't going to hurt. I read the first few pages of Wicked cursing Gergory Maguire for every was there was ... and transferring everything in my head: was walking to walked; was talking to talked, that kind of thing, until I realized, sometimes you need the WAS. You can't get away from WAS.

Leave the damn was in but remember not to allow it to take over and diminish exquisite sentences.

About a month ago, I came across a thread very similar to this one. The OP had said they were doing a "seek and destroy" on all their "to be" verbs. This is silly.

Of course, you want to write good sentences; that's easy. The challenge lies in building those sentences into paragraphs that progress the plot. I'd recommend not getting hung up on "to be" verbs, and focus on the big picture. After all, that's what the reader will focus on.

Judg said:

??? This makes no sense whatever.

The past tense is not inherently weaker than any other.

Click to expand...

That's not what I was trying to say. It's weak because it's a "to be" verb, not because it's past tense. I'll try again.
------------------------------------------
To Be has was as a past tense. To Be is often considered to be a weak verb, so all forms of it are weak. This version of was is a form of To Be and would be considered "weak" by the OP.

Past continuous tense uses was before a verb with -ing added.Examples are "was running," "was talking," etc. The OP incorrectly listed the past continuous verb "was going" in the example above as a "weak" verb.

The past continuous version of was is a completely different word from the to be version of was, and you can't eliminate it without eliminating the entire past continuous tense.

I mentioned this because the OP didn't know the difference between "a day was twenty-four hours long" (past tense of to be) and "was going" (past continuous tense of to go.)

EDIT: I think eliminating all versions of "to be" verbs is a bad idea. But even if you decide to do it, you should never eliminate "was" as used in the past continuous tense, because it's not a form of "to be," even though it looks like it is.

Often used in the grammaticly incorrect, but emotional true sentence

WE WAS ROBBED!

Esp. relating to sporting events

"Was" doesn't automatically make a sentence passive or weak. A verb is only weak if a strong verb does a better job, and this is seldom the case with "was."

Overuse of any word is a bad thing, but don't shy away from "was" because you're afraid of passive sentences. Learn what passive is, and eliminate only tose particular uses.

If I was the type to spew out silly rules, I'd never stop long enough to be a writer.

spikeman4444 said:

I hate the word 'was.' I can't seem to get away from it in my writing. I have been instructed from early on in my writing that I should not use 'was' because it is a passive verb. Obviously the verbs 'is', 'were' and 'has' all follow in the same suit.

Click to expand...

You have been misled. None of these are "passive" verbs. They can be used perfectly well in all kinds of straightforward ways. The problem arises when they are (over)used in passive sentence construction.

caw

maestrowork said:

But you can't have strong verbs all the time. When used correctly, they're perfectly good words to use.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Every word has its uses.

Stop sweating the small things. Focus on the big thing: Are you telling a great story the best way you can?

Click to expand...

Word up -- that's what you should worry about now.

There's a nuance that makes "the man was standing" an entirely different sense to "a man stood."

Maybe you have to study another language and get into that uncomfortable stage where you're having to really think about grammar and the sense you're conveying . . . but it sure is not as simple as one is more active than the other. Not at all.

Absolutely. And sometimes it's more than a nuance. Sometimes the use of one tense over the other is essential. In which case there's nothing weak about it.

I completely agree that it's about balance and how it's used. I often change "was" in my manuscript because I find there are better ways to say things that are more effective.

Having said that, can I chime in to say there are even cases when passive voice is perfectly acceptable. It's just a matter of making sure weak and passive verbs don't dominate and detract from the story.

I've found that writing in present tense helped me be able to spot passive and weak sentences more than anything else. Now when I switch back to past, I automatically spot them and avoid them.

The word was is one of the most common words used in the english dictionary, and if use correctly it can really help the flow of a sentence or paragraph so long as you're not being retarded with its use.

RG570 said:

There's a nuance that makes "the man was standing" an entirely different sense to "a man stood."

Maybe you have to study another language and get into that uncomfortable stage where you're having to really think about grammar and the sense you're conveying . . . but it sure is not as simple as one is more active than the other. Not at all.

Click to expand...

That's interesting; I like the nuances more than a lot of folks, and I do study several languages.

But I think for the purposes of the 'rule,' if you've thought about the nuance, you don't need to worry about the 'rule.' If you have a lot of 'was standing' and 'was considered' without having consciously decided to go that way, you might need the 'rule.'

I am SO glad I found this thread. "Was" has been driving me crazy, and I kept thinking I had to completely eliminate it from my work, and sometimes there just isn't a better alternative. Glad to find out I'm not going crazy (or any crazier than I already am ).

In the example given: "was standing" vs "stood", this is one of the times I think "was" works better, depending on the context used. For some reason, whenever I read a sentence like "The man stood", I always picture the man going into the "stance" instead of already being in it. Does that make sense? For example, I tend to use "stood" when someone had been sitting/kneeling/lying down and then "stood". I use "was standing" when the person is already standing. It just reads better to me, but I'm sure it all comes down to personal preference.

LostInWonderland said:

I am SO glad I found this thread. "Was" has been driving me crazy, and I kept thinking I had to completely eliminate it from my work, and sometimes there just isn't a better alternative. Glad to find out I'm not going crazy (or any crazier than I already am ).

In the example given: "was standing" vs "stood", this is one of the times I think "was" works better, depending on the context used. For some reason, whenever I read a sentence like "The man stood", I always picture the man going into the "stance" instead of already being in it. Does that make sense? For example, I tend to use "stood" when someone had been sitting/kneeling/lying down and then "stood". I use "was standing" when the person is already standing. It just reads better to me, but I'm sure it all comes down to personal preference.

Click to expand...

It makes perfect sense in some other languages, so it's not surprising that you think so Actually, I'm not exactly sure on the rules for this in English. If it's a continuing action in the past, is that how we choose this construction? Is that its only implication?

[edit] Past continuous
Or imperfect or past progressive.

Affirmative: He was writing
Negative: He was not writing
Interrogative: Was he writing?
Negative interrogative: Was he not writing?
This is typically used for two events in parallel:

While I was washing the dishes, my wife was walking the dog.
Or for an interrupted action (the past simple being used for the interruption):

While I was washing the dishes, I heard a loud noise.
Or when we are focusing on a point in the middle of a longer action:

At three o'clock yesterday, I was working in the garden. (Contrast: I worked in the garden all day yesterday.)

Click to expand...

Ah! I might be pirating more from other languages, then. Apparently just having an action continue in the past may not be enough to warrant this tense.

I do better with concrete examples, lol. And I do pirate from other languages, so keep that in mind if you ever listen to me

LostInWonderland said:

For some reason, whenever I read a sentence like "The man stood", I always picture the man going into the "stance" instead of already being in it. Does that make sense? For example, I tend to use "stood" when someone had been sitting/kneeling/lying down and then "stood". I use "was standing" when the person is already standing. It just reads better to me, but I'm sure it all comes down to personal preference.

Click to expand...

What you say makes sense, but it's more complicated.

"Was standing" is an action viewed as ongoing process, while "stood" is an action viewed as information. In that sense, both can refer to the same action, with different emphasis. In day-to-day life, you'd hardly ever hear, "Look, a man stands at the corner." This sounds overly dramatic, or just plain strange (depending on how you say it). Most of the time, you'd choose "Look, a man is standing at the corner." In fiction, however, simple tenses often replace continuous tenses, even though the action is now in process, maybe because it's viewed as a telling-sequence of action; or maybe it's more dramatic.

However, some words have two meanings, one stative ("stand" as in "be in an upright position"), and one dynamic ("stand" as in "take an upright position, take a stance..."). If that's the case, the action described usually doesn't take long enough to merit the progressive tenses (but it could, for example, if a very old man is taking his time standing up).

There's another type of word, "kick" for example, that - in the progressive - take on the meaning of repitition. "He kicked the dog," implies a single kick (maybe the dog annoyed him). "He was kicking the dog," implies many kicks (a very cruel person).

Next, the progressive tenses are used to frame shorter actions.

For example:

A) I looked out of the window. A chicken was crossing the road.

B) I was looking out of the window. A chicken crossed the road.

In (A) the person looked out of the window and perhaps saw a chicken in the middle of the road, moving towards the pavement. In (B) the person was looking out of window, perhaps bored. Nothing happened. Then a chicken crossed the road. And then, again, nothing. In these cases, where the progressive goes changes the meaning.

In fiction, therefore, progressive tenses are often used to give background information, while the action is foregrounded with the simple tenses. For example, an initial descriptive paragraph could be in both kinds of tenses:

"The sun was shining..." We immediately assume something more important is going to happen, because of the "was shining". If the focus was on the sun itself we'd get the simple aspect:

"The sun shone hot today. So hot that..." (Which is the information-use of the simple aspect).

There are many other uses (expressing habit ["You're always singing in the shower,"] development ["I'm improving day by day,"], annoyance [the singing-in-the-shower example, again]...). It's all very complicated. You could look up Geoffry Leech's book Meaning and the English Verb; it's a very detailed book with a linguistic bent, but aimed at students, so it shouldn't be too difficult.