Wow. I read some books today that made my brain want to pull the curtains, pop a few Percocet, and sleep for a fortnight. Bad. Not grammatically so, yet so littered with clichés (to use my own) and streaming so much weak, passive writing that, well, it made me want to blog about it.
Each of us has experienced at least one teacher, professor, editor, or critter who has preached the fire and brimstone of passive writing. I met a woman (online) who’s entire existence seemed tied to the eradication of not most passive writing but, rather, ALL OF IT.
Had and Was be DAMNED.
Or at least burned at the stake.
Now this critter had flown far over the cuckoo’s nest, but she did help me to see the forest, if not the trees. As with any style, good or bad, a small amount probably won’t kill you (or your work). Like salt. No one gets a coronary from the occasional pinch. But when you’ve got 4-5 “hads” in one sentence and more than twenty on a single page?
Your writing sucks. I’d rather read the obituaries (they are much better written).
Here are two examples to help you see:
Ruthie had gone down to the store because she had wanted an ice cream.
Ruthie went to the store for an ice cream.
There is really no argument that the second sentence is far better than the first, though it doesn’t stand out nearly as much here, with two simple sentences in comparison, as it does when Ruthie is having her way with had, that, which and was for three hundred pages.
And if you are one of those who are reading this thinking “I don’t do that”, just turn on the Microsoft Word passive voice cop in your grammar checker.
I dare you.
Now on to clichés. I think decent writers abuse clichés much more than they write in the passive voice. Poor writers expound clichés, AND they use the worst ones. Decent writers don’t always use the obvious clichés—they tend to overuse terms that haven’t quite made it to clichéd status (but really should).
Here are a few (obvious and less obvious) to look out for—not even close to a comprehensive list, but a start:
Furrowed eyebrows, throbbing temples, breaching the silence, tearing yourself free, heart stuck in your throat (or swelling in your chest, or bursting, or beating out of same chest), half a mind, half-expecting, mowing them down, fumbling with anything (shoelaces, keys, papers), twisting of fate, one foot in the grave/coffin, forcing yourself to accept, wrinkling your nose, crawling into bed, guilt creeping in, biting your tongue (or your bottom lip), trying to be optimistic, every now and then/again, challenging authority, if you were a gambling type, unheard of, dashing hope, peeling off clothing, skidding to a stop, coursing through body or veins, cracking like a whip, growing fond, shrugging off, smiles crawling/creeping/flashing/
If you want to check your work, my advice is this: read a particular turn of phrase. Ask yourself the following questions:
- Has anyone (including you) heard this expression before?
- How many times?
Assuming the first answer is affirmative:
If the answer to #2 is 1-5 times, you may be at risk.
If the answer to #2 is 10-15, you are using a cliché.
If the answer to #2 is 15+, you ARE a cliché.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The blank page is dead…long live the blank page.
Brutal, but useful. Which of course is way better than brutal and not useful.
True enough. I tell you, I have been in a lot of writing workshops, and I’ve had my early work brutalized. I will tell you this: introspection into the criticisms of our work is one of the only ways to get better. Otherwise old bad writing technique goes beyond habit and becomes ingrained in our style. Hey, thanks for signing in and commenting, Ron! It’s good to have you on board! ツ
So when I’m writing about something someone did in the past, how would I go about it without using had or he’d? For example, in the book I’m currently writing I explain how my character got to his current situation and what led up to this scene. Is it okay to use Had and He’d in this case?
I’m not being flippant, I just don’t want to make glaring mistakes that will deter people from reading my new work.
Great question…I didn’t take it as flippant at all. In fact, I had the same questions (still do; I think it’s inherent in the words that “define” or rather “indicate” passive writing). I know I used the examples of “was” and “had”, but let’s face it: those are legitimate words! They must be used. I think the key is, don’t overuse them when there’s no need (like showing things that happened in the past. However, LOOK for the passive voice indicators and ask yourself if a stronger verb might work just as well (and be, therefore, stronger).
Here is when I know it’s gone terribly wrong: when someone has written themselves into the dreaded “had had” corner. “Tom had had enough of her insolence.” Now tell me, why wouldn’t “Tom had enough of her insolence.” One “had” still makes it past tense. How far back do we have to go? And, for that matter, isn’t “Tom reached his limit for her insolent behavior.” an even stronger alternative?
Another big rule of thumb is to look for “hads” in front of verbs.
“Tom had run away.”
“Tom ran away.”
Which is stronger? They’re both adequately past tense, right? But the latter example is nice, clean, and active. The first is passive.
Once you get an eye for it, I think it becomes almost second nature. It’s one of the hardest things to flesh out of a manuscript…just look at it from the perspective that you are just trying not to abuse it. Remember that once you’ve denoted that you are talking about a past event—if it is a long passage, you may be better off writing it in present tense anyway. By nature talking in the past tense is not as active as present tense.
Hope this helps!
RE: cliches, your article definitely makes me more vigilant!
Thanks, K.B.! We all can (and should) be more vigilant! 😉
Cheers, and thanks for the read and comment!
Libby, our editor-in-chief, has two major criteria in judging a book: Do you want to find out what happens and do you want to hear this author tell the story. Sounds simple but it’s not. Too many writers get wrapped up in their “style” or “point of view” or “message” and forget that the best way to convey these things is with a good story, well written. That’s what we edit for when a manuscript comes in. The English language is wonderful – use it well.
Matthew Sternberg
President
Istoria Publishing LLC
I read the criteria on your press’s website, and I couldn’t agree more. There are many levels on which to love a great book: the compelling storyline, characters who draw you into their existences, or writing that is transcendental (and a combination of the three is a well-earned trifecta)! The one key, as you mentioned, is well written. Amen! Thanks for the read and the comment, Matthew! Cheers