I have been told, and I believe, that when writing it is best to avoid the verb "to be" and all its conjugates, as well as adverbs such as very, really, and just.
As I go through my writing I now spend an entire edit cycle weeding out those words if possible, but there are always some occassions of these words that I feel should be there. So I wanted to talk about this guideline. When is it ok to use adverbs and to be verbs?
Posted by srhowen (Member # 462) on :
the current trend does seem to be to get rid of them.
LOL
When is it best to leave them?
When there is no other way to say what you want without changing the meaning of what you have to say. Not all passive voice is bad, not all uses of "to be" are bad.
If you try to reword to make the writing stronger and it changes meaning or actually makes the writing unclear or weaker--then by all means leave it.
Shawn
Posted by Christine (Member # 1646) on :
LOL...nope, and I saw that as I typed but to be honest I have not trained myself to censor these words as I type, which is why I need an edit cycle to catch them. Posted by EricJamesStone (Member # 1681) on :
To exist, or not to exist, that equals the question: Whether it evaluates nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing, end them. Fortunately, the passage lacked adverbs, so it necessitated no other corrections. (A mixed metaphor remains, but such extends beyond the scope of this conversation.)
Posted by Christine (Member # 1646) on :
Thanks for reminding me about that one, Eric.
Ever since hearing that advice I have been so obnoxiously aware of any time someone uses the word "was" that I can hardly see the story for the words. (Not just my own story either...) I just wish I knew where the balance lies.
Posted by srhowen (Member # 462) on :
I go back to this--I do a search for the the words, was and had--I am also way to aware of them.
I say way to aware because a person can become obsessive about them.
Look at when you use them--is there a way to say the same thing without the word in question? If not leave it and go on.
Shawn
Posted by mogservant (Member # 1739) on :
I had a teacher that (was) passionate about us removing all traces of "to be" from our papers. It really helped me to take my descriptions further and add detail and ascetic touches where I might normally have written the same old boring phrases. When I write, though, I don't usually even take the "to be" issue into consideration. The thing is, I was lacking in my ability to use anything besides "to be". Now that I feel I'm more balanced I use both about equally. I don't think there's a right or wrong way as much as it really makes you think about what you are specifically trying to say and saying it in the best way possible. That's my take anyway.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 1512) on :
quote: When is it ok to use adverbs and to be verbs?
When they work better than leaving them out or using something else. I think everyone's got their own crutch words that don't add anything. I tend to use "actually" and "suddenly" a lot. Unfortunately, I don't think there's any way of saying "this is when you should use them and this is when you shouldn't."
Posted by teddyrux (Member # 1595) on :
As with all rules of writing (except Heinlein's first two), ignore them at your own risk. Every writing book that I've read says the same thing. Ignore the rules when it improves the story. Even Mr. King uses -ly's and to be's in his stories, however sparingly.
Rux
Posted by Survivor (Member # 213) on :
Eternal vigilance being the price of freedom and all that, eh?
Posted by Jules (Member # 1658) on :
Somehow 'To buy freedom one must pay the price of vigilence' doesn't have quite the same ring to it.
And I can't figure out how to get 'eternal' into there with neither an adjective or adverb, either.
Posted by Kolona (Member # 1438) on :
Like some things, 'to be' use and misuse may be epiphanal. Maybe there's a defining moment when a writer finally 'gets it.' I've seen writers judge two passages differing only in passivity, and claim both were equally good, and I know it took me awhile to see the difference active voice meant in my writing. Not that I don't slip into passive -- far from it, especially in early drafts, but I'm more attuned to spot it and weed it out.
The trick is to keep in mind that while some passive voice may be appropriate, more than likely there's a better way to say something.
Same with adverbs (and adjectives). The weakest, most boring way to describe something is to lavish on the adjectives and adverbs. The best writing seems to get the least amount of words to do the most work possible.
Posted by James Maxey (Member # 1335) on :
I do a "forbidden words" scan on my manuscripts. Two words that creep into my writing are "very" and "just." Sentences that contain these words are seldom wrong, they're just not very tight. (Actually, that last sentence is one where I would probably leave both in.) But very often the words are just filler. (Both words would go from the last sentence.) Other danger words are "seem" and "feel." My scans for these always seem to take a very long time. Or maybe it just feels that way.
--James
Posted by Kolona (Member # 1438) on :
Speaking of 'actually,' Jon Boy, one of my pet peeves is how often news reporters use the word in broadcasts. I think it's the news version of 'um' and 'er.' Or maybe 'like.'
[This message has been edited by Kolona (edited April 14, 2004).]
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 1512) on :
Maybe it's a good thing I don't watch the news. I don't need that sort of negative reinforcement.
