I think i'm mixing past tense with present tense.

[BethS]

Originally Posted by KateM

I've noticed when I write that I tend to over think, and things that are supposed to be simple that I know I know confuse me. Take a step back, and breathe.

Tenses are active unless you use the "was verb" construction which is passive.

Sarah flirted is active and showing
Sarah was flirting is inactive, and telling.

No, no, no.

Sarah was flirting is the past progressive tense. It's not passive. And it's not inactive or telling. It shows an ongoing action, as opposed to one that starts and stops. It's sometimes a useful and necessary construction.

For instance:

I entered the bar. Jack was sitting on his favorite stool, flirting with the bartender.

In that context, was sitting indicates an ongoing (or progressive) state. I didn't see Jack sit down. He was already sitting when I entered the bar.

[blacbird]

Why, with all the alleged "grammar" we have allegedly been taught in school, does this misconception about "passive voice" persist so persistently?

caw

[Dancre]

MMM . . . Folks have also told me Was going is passive tense, so I always said Jack sat on his stool, flirting with the bartender. maybe it's just my hatred of the word was. i hate that word and I try to avoid it in my writing as much as I can. So couldn't you just say sat on the stool?

Originally Posted by BethS

No, no, no.

Sarah was flirting is the past progressive tense. It's not passive. And it's not inactive or telling. It shows an ongoing action, as opposed to one that starts and stops. It's sometimes a useful and necessary construction.

For instance:

I entered the bar. Jack was sitting on his favorite stool, flirting with the bartender.

In that context, was sitting indicates an ongoing (or progressive) state. I didn't see Jack sit down. He was already sitting when I entered the bar.

[blacbird]

Originally Posted by Dancre

MMM . . . Folks have also told me Was going is passive tense, so I always said Jack sat on his stool, flirting with the bartender. maybe it's just my hatred of the word was. i hate that word and I try to avoid it in my writing as much as I can. So couldn't you just say sat on the stool?

Whatever "folks" told you this are idiots. You can now safely ignore them.

There's a subtle, and somewhat overlapping difference between "Jack sat on the stool" and "Jack was sitting on the stool". The first can be read as an action (Jack went from standing to sitting); the second is an expression of condition (Jack was on the stool when X occurred).

Both are perfectly acceptable expressions in narrative, and you, the writer, need to know when to use the appropriate one. Go look at the work of any number of good, widely-published and successful writers, and you'll see plenty of examples of these constructions. This means you need to read more, and pay attention to what you read. Learn how and when to use these grammatical forms properly, in your writer's bone marrow, so they come naturally, and you don't need any longer to overanalyze the grammar. Then you'll be able to focus your writer-energy on what really matters: the story.

caw

[Dancre]

Ok, but I still hate was. Sorry, I just hate that word. i would probably just rewrite the sentence as She walked into the bar and there sat Jack on his stool, flirting with the pretty bartender. So she took she took out her gun and shot him. See?? No icky Was. I took Was outside and shot him.

Originally Posted by blacbird

Whatever "folks" told you this are idiots. You can now safely ignore them.

There's a subtle, and somewhat overlapping difference between "Jack sat on the stool" and "Jack was sitting on the stool". The first can be read as an action (Jack went from standing to sitting); the second is an expression of condition (Jack was on the stool when X occurred).

Both are perfectly acceptable expressions in narrative, and you, the writer, need to know when to use the appropriate one. Go look at the work of any number of good, widely-published and successful writers, and you'll see plenty of examples of these constructions. This means you need to read more, and pay attention to what you read. Learn how and when to use these grammatical forms properly, in your writer's bone marrow, so they come naturally, and you don't need any longer to overanalyze the grammar. Then you'll be able to focus your writer-energy on what really matters: the story.

caw

[blacbird]

You hate it . . . why?. Because somebody told you it was icky? Try to find an entire novel that doesn't use the word "was". I can't think of one.

"To be" is the most common infinitive in every language on the planet, and "was" is the simple past form of that verb. Trying to write without using it is like trying to plant a garden without using a shovel. You could probably do it, but what's the point?

If you write in present tense, are you going to eschew the words "is", or "am"?

caw

[Dancre]

I only use TO BE verbs if I can't find a way around it. It's just a very boring verb. Her hair was blond. Dullsville. I really only use it in dialogue. I like using fisty verbs. her blond hair shined like spun gold.

I try to stay away from was, were, am, is, are, been, be. I've noticed if I use a lot of BE verbs, it pulls my story down. I've discovered if I avoid them, then I can better mold my story and even change it into a different direction. Give more clarity to my characters. When I took out most of the TO BE verbs I used with my female MC's inner dialogue, I discovered she's a bit of a paraniod, drama queen, rambling teen. My story became an easier read and it shines now. So I rarely use it and only if I must. Try it, see what happens. Only use the TO BE verbs if you can't get around them. You'd be surprised how it umphs your story. Gives it a bite. Flavor.

Originally Posted by blacbird

You hate it . . . why?. Because somebody told you it was icky? Try to find an entire novel that doesn't use the word "was". I can't think of one.

"To be" is the most common infinitive in every language on the planet, and "was" is the simple past form of that verb. Trying to write without using it is like trying to plant a garden without using a shovel. You could probably do it, but what's the point?

If you write in present tense, are you going to eschew the words "is", or "am"?

caw

[blacbird]

Originally Posted by Dancre

Only use the TO BE verbs if you can't get around them. You'd be surprised how it umphs your story. Gives it a bite. Flavor.

Use the verb (and other constructions) appropriate to the moment, those which work best. If you're straining to substitute flowery phrases for every "to be" verb, you're in serious danger of overwriting.

Go find your absolute favorite fiction writer, and mark every occurrence of a "to be" verb form. I predict you'll be surprised at how often (and how well) they're used.

Five examples from the beginnings of novels I'd say are universally held in high regard serve as examples:

It was a pleasure to see.
It was a special pleasure to see things eaten, to see things blackened and changed.
-- Fahrenheit-451, Ray Bradbury

The island of Gont, a single mountain that lifts its peak a mile above the storm-racked Northeast Sea, is a land famous for wizards.
-- A Wizard of Earthsea, Ursula LeGuin

The last drops of the thundershower had hardly ceased falling when the Pedestrian stuffed his map into his pocket, settled his pack more comfortably on his tired shoulders, and stepped out from the shelter of a large chestnut tree into the middle of the road. A violent yellow sunset was pouring through a rift in the clouds to westward.
-- Out of the Silent Planet, C. S. Lewis

When he was nearly thirteen, my brother Jem got his arm badly broken at the elbow.
-- To Kill a Mockingbird, Harper Lee

All this happened, more or less. The war parts, anyway, are pretty much true. One guy I knew really was shot in Dresden for taking a teapot that wasn't his.
-- Slaughterhouse-Five, Kurt Vonnegut

caw

[Once!]

The passive voice is the starch in your food. The active voice is spice.

If you make a dish using only one it will taste horrible. Either too bland or too peppery. The trick is to know when to use each to best effect.

First know the rules, then understand the rules, then know when and how to break the rules.

[Arkblazer]

Originally Posted by blacbird

As aside reminder, relevant to this thread: Just because a given sentence is grammatically correct doesn't make it good writing.

caw

Why do i feel like you are referring to me, and my shitty writing.

[Fallen]

Originally Posted by Arkblazer

Why do i feel like you are referring to me, and my shitty writing.

It's a general comment, hon. Don't take it personally. It's more to do with participles (or any structure really) that looks good generally but has the potential to be 'flavourless' in the wrong hands.

[HoneyBadger]

Originally Posted by Once!

The passive voice is the starch in your food. The active voice is spice.

If you make a dish using only one it will taste horrible. Either too bland or too peppery. The trick is to know when to use each to best effect.

First know the rules, then understand the rules, then know when and how to break the rules.

Nope.

The chair was sat on by Fred.
Fred sat on the chair.
Fred was sitting on the chair.

One of those is passive and should be used, imo, only for effect. There's absolutely a place for passive voice, but if we're using food analogies, passive voice is to trans-fats as active voice is to all the other food groups put together.

[Fallen]

Originally Posted by Dancre

MMM . . . Folks have also told me Was going is passive tense

'Was' (copular 'be') serves two major functions:


a) as a main verb:

She was a great girl (characterising)
She was there (identifying)

b) An auxillary verb (this is the one where it is used to create passive voice and aspect):

The paper was delivered (passive)
The moonlight was fading (past 'was' progressive '-ing')

I agree with blac, whoever taught you that both mean passive weren't doing you any favours. Copular 'be' is a small part of telling:

The girl was dead. ('Was' relates subject to the experience: 'dead'). It's doing nothing but 'tell' you a state: which is good for pace if/when you need it etc.

[Once!]

Originally Posted by HoneyBadger

Nope.

The chair was sat on by Fred.
Fred sat on the chair.
Fred was sitting on the chair.

One of those is passive and should be used, imo, only for effect. There's absolutely a place for passive voice, but if we're using food analogies, passive voice is to trans-fats as active voice is to all the other food groups put together.

In other words, you're agreeing with me? That there is a place for the passive voice if it's used sparingly and at the right time?

That kind of nope?

[HoneyBadger]

Originally Posted by Once!

In other words, you're agreeing with me? That there is a place for the passive voice if it's used sparingly and at the right time?

That kind of nope?

I guess so.

99% of my diet is starch (thank Dawkins for a good metabolism), so probably I misunderstood.

[BethS]

Originally Posted by Dancre

So couldn't you just say sat on the stool?

Not unless you saw him do it.

Contrary to popular opinion, "was" is not a dirty word.

[BethS]

Originally Posted by Dancre

her blond hair shined like spun gold.

*cough* Shone. Her blond (redundant) hair shone like spun gold.

You would use "shined" in cases like:

He shined a light on the corpse.

In general, you use "shined" when you shine something on something else. Whereas "shone" is used to indicate a state of shininess.

As to "was"--it's entirely a style choice to avoid using it. But there's nothing actually wrong with using it, either, unless it's overdone. Then the writing will seem flat and dull.

[BethS]

Originally Posted by Once!

The passive voice is the starch in your food. The active voice is spice.

If you make a dish using only one it will taste horrible. Either too bland or too peppery. The trick is to know when to use each to best effect.

First know the rules, then understand the rules, then know when and how to break the rules.

Yeah, good advice...except that I think you may have the wrong idea about passive vs active voice.

First, passive voice is common in journalistic writing, but should be avoided in fiction except where necessary and appropriate. Most of fiction should be written in active voice.

Second, use of "was" does not mean passive voice is present. Rather, it has to do with whether the subject of the sentence is doing the acting, or is being acted upon.

Passive: A man was robbed [by someone] on Tuesday night.

Active: An intruder robbed a man on Tuesday night.

The presence or implied presence of "by something/someone" is usually a good indicator of passive voice.

[Once!]

Originally Posted by BethS

Yeah, good advice...except that I think you may have the wrong idea about passive vs active voice.

First, passive voice is common in journalistic writing, but should be avoided in fiction except where necessary and appropriate. Most of fiction should be written in active voice.

Second, use of "was" does not mean passive voice is present. Rather, it has to do with whether the subject of the sentence is doing the acting, or is being acted upon.

Passive: A man was robbed [by someone] on Tuesday night.

Active: An intruder robbed a man on Tuesday night.

The presence or implied presence of "by something/someone" is usually a good indicator of passive voice.

So, you're agreeing with me as well? We do seem to be on a roll!

[blacbird]

Originally Posted by Arkblazer

Why do i feel like you are referring to me, and my shitty writing.

Nope. General comment. We get a lot of threads here (and in the Grammar forum) involving nitpicky questions about grammar choices. Much of the time, the reason isn't actually a matter of grammatical correctness, but derives from a just plain bad sentence that needs to be rephrased, even if it is technically correct in grammar. More often than not, that means to simplify. One of the worst problems is a writer trying to cram too much stuff into a single clumsy sentence.

You don't always need to batter down the front door of the house in order to get to the back door. Probably easier just to walk around to it.

caw

[BethS]

Originally Posted by Once!

So, you're agreeing with me as well? We do seem to be on a roll!

This is the part I was agreeing with:

First know the rules, then understand the rules, then know when and how to break the rules.

The rest about passive voice, not to so much.

[Dancre]

I don't overwrite, so it's all good. I first saw this when I read Jill Williamson's book In Darkness Fled. It won her the Christy Award. And she keeps winning awards for her books. I noticed in In Darkness Fled, she rarely used the TO BE verb and the book just took my breath away. She gathers verbs that I never even thought to use. So I took out the nasty was, rewrote sentences using stronger verbs and my book shines now. She got lazy in the second book of her series and used the TO BE verb a lot and it took the air out of the tires so to speak. It just wasn't as good as the first one. So, I still refuse to use them unless I have no choice. I use them, but very sparingly. Shrugs. It works for me and that's all that matters.

Originally Posted by blacbird

Use the verb (and other constructions) appropriate to the moment, those which work best. If you're straining to substitute flowery phrases for every "to be" verb, you're in serious danger of overwriting.

Go find your absolute favorite fiction writer, and mark every occurrence of a "to be" verb form. I predict you'll be surprised at how often (and how well) they're used.

Five examples from the beginnings of novels I'd say are universally held in high regard serve as examples:

It was a pleasure to see.
It was a special pleasure to see things eaten, to see things blackened and changed.
-- Fahrenheit-451, Ray Bradbury

The island of Gont, a single mountain that lifts its peak a mile above the storm-racked Northeast Sea, is a land famous for wizards.
-- A Wizard of Earthsea, Ursula LeGuin

The last drops of the thundershower had hardly ceased falling when the Pedestrian stuffed his map into his pocket, settled his pack more comfortably on his tired shoulders, and stepped out from the shelter of a large chestnut tree into the middle of the road. A violent yellow sunset was pouring through a rift in the clouds to westward.
-- Out of the Silent Planet, C. S. Lewis

When he was nearly thirteen, my brother Jem got his arm badly broken at the elbow.
-- To Kill a Mockingbird, Harper Lee

All this happened, more or less. The war parts, anyway, are pretty much true. One guy I knew really was shot in Dresden for taking a teapot that wasn't his.
-- Slaughterhouse-Five, Kurt Vonnegut

caw

[HoneyBadger]

derp

[HoneyBadger]

Originally Posted by Dancre

I don't overwrite, so it's all good. I first saw this when I read Jill Williamson's book In Darkness Fled. It won her the Christy Award. And she keeps winning awards for her books. I noticed in In Darkness Fled, she rarely used the TO BE verb and the book just took my breath away. She gathers verbs that I never even thought to use. So I took out the nasty was, rewrote sentences using stronger verbs and my book shines now. She got lazy in the second book of her series and used the TO BE verb a lot and it took the air out of the tires so to speak. It just wasn't as good as the first one. So, I still refuse to use them unless I have no choice. I use them, but very sparingly. Shrugs. It works for me and that's all that matters.

The second sentence in To Darkness Fled, which appears to be the second book, so I have no idea which book you actually mean, is:

She'd been hoping to intrude upon this moment.

[ArchaWriter]

Discerning past tense and present tense is a chore.
We all mix the two.
We speak it everyday.
But in writing, we must be concise.
Once again, it's a chore.