WAS is a Four Letter Word
|
It was a cold and moonlit night. |
Discussions around editing and passive voice prompted the following balanced article listing pros and cons for using the word "was." Diana volunteered to write this article in the series on Writing Stronger - five proven areas for editing. Thanks, Diana, for these insights.
According
to Michael Hauge, the job of the filmmaker is to elicit emotion in the audience. That responsibility
holds equally true for the fiction writer. Our readers want to share in our
characters' journeys, experiencing in a visceral way their joy and despair,
fear and courage, trust and betrayal etc.
As writers,
we’re told the most effective way to do this is to ‘show’ our stories rather
than ‘tell’ them. A simple technique to 'show' is to use active, rather than,
passive voice.
Passive
voice – telling - holds the reader at arm’s length, and merely informs.
Active
voice – showing - engages the reader, eliciting emotion in both reader
and character.
One of the
biggest culprits of passive voice? ‘Was’. It might only be a three
letter word, but the writer must treat it with the same respect as its
four-letter cousin. Rely on was too frequently and your writing
will lose its power.
The Argument AGAINST 'was':
Take this
simple phrase: He was walking. ‘Was’ plus an
----ing verb is about as passive as it gets, and is on the 'No, no, no, no,
no!' self-editing checklist for many publishing companies. It’s
boring and rarely suggests - or elicits - emotion in either character or
reader.
He walked – is a little better, but it still
doesn't tell the reader much.
Now try
these for size. He strode. He strolled. He sauntered. He paced. He
plodded. He shuffled. He waddled. He marched. He meandered. He slogged.
As a
reader, can’t you see a picture in your head of how - exactly – the character 'was
walking’? Doesn't that image evoke the emotion the character is
feeling? And now don’t you want to use that other three-letter-word ‘Why?’
to ask why the character is feeling that way?
Get your
reader to ask ‘Why?’ and you've engaged him. You've now elicited an emotion –
at the very least, one of curiosity - in him.
The Argument FOR 'was':
It’s often
suggested that during our final edit, we plug ‘was’ into our search option and
eliminate its every use. Maybe that’s taking things a bit too far because
'was' does have a place in our stories.
Where?
In
character dialogue. " You know, she was telling me the other day..."
"I heard she was going into the army." "There was a sale
at the shops today."
There is an
argument to be made that too much showing can adversely affect the pace of a
story. Think about the phasing or pacing of a song. If the singer sings
each word, each phrase, at the same volume and with the same intensity, it's
boring and turns the listener off. You need the quiet moments, the loud
moments, the fast and the slow. That's one of the roles of 'was'
in your book. Sometimes you just need that moment where you want to slip in a
fact or piece of incidental information without making a big deal of it.
As always,
whenever there's a rule, it can be broken. But it's not something I suggest you
try to emulate. Dickens' effectiveness has everything to do with the poetic
nature of his introduction and the fact that he was a genius. That's not the
case for most of us.
So what's
the perfect balance? Is there one? Check out the following links below
and see how these best-selling authors from different eras deal with 'was'.