There is a group of useful, but overused verbs. I categorize them as Extra Verbs, those that are non-active. They are "to be" verbs (TBV) and passive verbs. Both should be used like salt with chocolate, just enough to set off the luscious active verbs so they can fully express their flavor.
TBV are those verbs formed in English from that most general of verbs, "to be." It changes depending on the tense. Was, were, had, and has are all TBV. When a TBV is used in conjunction with an active verb, you create a more complicated verb tense, such as "was writing." In fictional narrative, it is better to keep your verbs simple. Use "writing" instead of "was writing."
The change can usually be accomplished with little or no variation in structure. You simply change the verb to a simple tense, past, present, or future. Sometimes, however, the sentence must be broken apart and reworked. This usually produces a more "active" sentence, because you are removing the narrative TBV from the sentence, leaving only the character to do something.
Example:
Mary was reading The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis. (TBV)
Mary read The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis. (Simple)
You may have considered the obvious place where TBV cannot, for the sake of realism, be removed. Dialogue. People speak with TBV (unless they're like me and start to change their speech patterns, but I'm an odd person.) They must exist in dialogue, otherwise it sounds fake and wordy. Give freedom to your dialogue, because everyone talks differently.
In narrative however, TBV are largely obsolete. Even a narrator can be "active" and it should be. It's more interesting. It also removes an unnecessary word. "The writer who breeds more words than he needs makes a chore for the reader who reads." –Dr. Seuss. This change may seem more like a preference, but you'll be surprised how often you use TBV just because of habit and how good the narrative sounds without them. It forces a writer to simply their verbs, and if needed, get a better one.
Of course, just like any other part of language, they have their place. Sometimes you just cannot get around them, such as in an internal monologue. Even when the monologue isn't in quotation marks, the rule still applies. People speak with TBV.
The other one are passive verbs. They are characterized by the word "by." Something was done by something. This is a bad habit because it can confuse who actually does something and in what order. In an action scene, this can kill you.
I was reading a book recently and one thing the main character says is, "Are you saying we should let us be killed by you?" This is an extreme example, but still, that just sounds weird. No one talks like that (or they shouldn't anyway.) Simplifying the structure would make it read much better. Use a good active verb and forsake passivity. Readers don't like passive aggressive writers just like people don't like passive aggressive friends. It would read better as "Are you saying we should let you kill us?"
There. Now it sounds not only realistic, but concise and free of confusion. There is no debate who is doing or about to do what. Passive verbs are the one type of verb I would say to lock up in a steel box and drop at the bottom of a deep lake. If you need them, make sure you work for them, otherwise, leave them to rot. They're even worse than adverbs, though people tend to use them less, so I don't hate them as much.
The more you read my articles the more you realize I am a violent little person. :3
Anyway, passive verbs have almost no place in fiction. Don't mess up your structure. English almost always reads subject-verb-direct object. Don't needlessly change it into direct object-verb-subject. English is not a Romance language. It's Germanic. Keep the structure simple.
Some things should not see the light of day.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Do you have a bad habit of using passive verbs? What about TBV? Try writing without either. See what happens.
TBV are those verbs formed in English from that most general of verbs, "to be." It changes depending on the tense. Was, were, had, and has are all TBV. When a TBV is used in conjunction with an active verb, you create a more complicated verb tense, such as "was writing." In fictional narrative, it is better to keep your verbs simple. Use "writing" instead of "was writing."
The change can usually be accomplished with little or no variation in structure. You simply change the verb to a simple tense, past, present, or future. Sometimes, however, the sentence must be broken apart and reworked. This usually produces a more "active" sentence, because you are removing the narrative TBV from the sentence, leaving only the character to do something.
Example:
Mary was reading The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis. (TBV)
Mary read The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis. (Simple)
You may have considered the obvious place where TBV cannot, for the sake of realism, be removed. Dialogue. People speak with TBV (unless they're like me and start to change their speech patterns, but I'm an odd person.) They must exist in dialogue, otherwise it sounds fake and wordy. Give freedom to your dialogue, because everyone talks differently.
In narrative however, TBV are largely obsolete. Even a narrator can be "active" and it should be. It's more interesting. It also removes an unnecessary word. "The writer who breeds more words than he needs makes a chore for the reader who reads." –Dr. Seuss. This change may seem more like a preference, but you'll be surprised how often you use TBV just because of habit and how good the narrative sounds without them. It forces a writer to simply their verbs, and if needed, get a better one.
Of course, just like any other part of language, they have their place. Sometimes you just cannot get around them, such as in an internal monologue. Even when the monologue isn't in quotation marks, the rule still applies. People speak with TBV.
The other one are passive verbs. They are characterized by the word "by." Something was done by something. This is a bad habit because it can confuse who actually does something and in what order. In an action scene, this can kill you.
I was reading a book recently and one thing the main character says is, "Are you saying we should let us be killed by you?" This is an extreme example, but still, that just sounds weird. No one talks like that (or they shouldn't anyway.) Simplifying the structure would make it read much better. Use a good active verb and forsake passivity. Readers don't like passive aggressive writers just like people don't like passive aggressive friends. It would read better as "Are you saying we should let you kill us?"
There. Now it sounds not only realistic, but concise and free of confusion. There is no debate who is doing or about to do what. Passive verbs are the one type of verb I would say to lock up in a steel box and drop at the bottom of a deep lake. If you need them, make sure you work for them, otherwise, leave them to rot. They're even worse than adverbs, though people tend to use them less, so I don't hate them as much.
The more you read my articles the more you realize I am a violent little person. :3
Anyway, passive verbs have almost no place in fiction. Don't mess up your structure. English almost always reads subject-verb-direct object. Don't needlessly change it into direct object-verb-subject. English is not a Romance language. It's Germanic. Keep the structure simple.
Some things should not see the light of day.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Do you have a bad habit of using passive verbs? What about TBV? Try writing without either. See what happens.