[Shop] Helping Verbs
Robert McClelland
before that new writers tend to over-use the words WAS and HAD, but I've
never heard anything about the other words on this list. Does anyone
agree with the following excerpt and/or have any other words to add to
this list?
"locate the following to be helping verbs in your text: WAS, WERE, HAD,
HAVE, WOULD, COULD, BEING, and BEEN. As each word is located on the
monitor, circle it with colored pencil on your printout (I like using
red at this stage)."
"Revise your second printout to eliminate the helping verbs from the
text as much as possible. This is often possible by simply deleting the
word; at other times you must rework the entire sentence; sometimes even
the whole paragraph. In any event, try to limit these helping verbs to
no more than two per page."
Aris TGD Merquoni
Robert McClelland wrote:
>
> I ran across this bit of advice about editing a manuscript. I've heard
> before that new writers tend to over-use the words WAS and HAD, but I've
> never heard anything about the other words on this list. Does anyone
> agree with the following excerpt and/or have any other words to add to
> this list?
>
> "locate the following to be helping verbs in your text: WAS, WERE, HAD,
> HAVE, WOULD, COULD, BEING, and BEEN. As each word is located on the
> monitor, circle it with colored pencil on your printout (I like using
> red at this stage)."
Well, the full list as I learned it is(chant it with me, now:)
Has, have, had
Would, should, could,
May, might, must, can, do.
... and all the assorted tenses.
--
Aris Merquoni
"Typos are gifts from you're unconsciousness." -- Big Poppa E.
http://shadowtouched.sandwich.net/
Jane MacDonald
Just remember, though, that like all "rules," this one should
only tell you to pay attention to what you're writing. All those
words are good words; if they were useless, they'd have
dropped out of the language centuries ago.
I reached over to the bookcase I can get to without getting out
of my computer chair, where I keep my recent reads and some
favorite novels, and pulled out a book at random--Joanna
Trollope's "The Best of Friends." I opened it at random: page
56. Here's the first sentence that starts on that page, and two
that follow:
>"Home," Sophy had said almost savagely as she turned the
>key again on High Place. "Home! That's just a *house*!"
>George had wanted her to come back with him but she had
>refused.
Now, I might not write it that way, but then again I might. The
point is, however, that Trollope published about twenty novels
before the one quoted, she is a popular but still respected
author, and her books sell well.
Don't throw away 'would' or 'had' or any other word, and
don't throw away adverbs, or the passive voice, or any of the
other things self-appointed gurus tell you to throw away.
They're all pieces of material that may come in handy. Just
read your stuff over and make sure it sounds right--that's what
counts.
None of those rules is in the Constitution or the Book of
Common Prayer--not a single one.
Jane
Jane MacDonald
jane...@excite.com
Allegory60
>don't throw away adverbs, or the passive voice, or any of the
>other things self-appointed gurus tell you to throw away.
>They're all pieces of material that may come in handy. Just
>read your stuff over and make sure it sounds right--that's what
>counts.
>
>None of those rules is in the Constitution or the Book of
>Common Prayer--not a single one.
>
>Jane
>
>Jane MacDonald
>
Forgive Jane. She often overreacts to mention of guidelines, rules, tips,
instruction, academics, books, etc.
Of course we know as writers that what "sounds right" to us often isn't our
best work--we discover this later. If we could simply "sound right" to
ourselves, then writing fiction would be easy. I'm sure Jane didn't mean to be
so simplistic.
I do not disagree with Jane, but only offer this proviso: Know WHEN to use such
things as passive voice, adverbs, and such words as you refer to. Most
teachers of writing would simply say that these things are so often misused
that it is a great step of improvement to avoid them. Beyond that however,
there is the need to understand when they can be effective. The same thing
might be said for exclamation points and italics. Jane says never to use
parentheses in fiction, yet, my reach from my computer chair to several short
story collections is just the same as Jane's and these include stories by
masters who did use parentheses in their fiction. What does it prove? Nothing.
One of my style guides say it is all right to use a ?! or a !? together for
exclaimed questions. Others say no. We cannot prove the validity of an idea
by examples that are published, unpublished or endorsed. Jane is right in that
it must feel good to use it--well, at first maybe not, because we are learning?
At first, any writing felt awkward, any feelings we had were not trustworthy;
but now of course we can fully trust our feelings. (Or can we?)
The thing is Jane, you need to focus more on the validity of what the idea is,
rather than mindless bashing the idea as not being in the Constitution or the
Book of Common Prayer, or from some hated professor, because one might get the
sense that you are for a rather free for all type of writing, when, in fact,
judging from your own work and your crits, you are a rather rule-oriented
person. One might get the idea that you are the sole repository of truth about
this craft, and that by sweeping the table clean of all such authorities you
are placing your "sound good" approach above these. Of course, you are not
doing that. I take up my pen to clarify and defend your position, lest anyone
thing you be anti-intellectual or some sort of literary nihilist or whatever.
Seriously, writing isn't an exact science. Hell, it isn't even a science but an
art, a craft an individual expression. If it wasn't for them darned readers,
everything we write would be great if it simply "sounded right" to us.
DH Henry
Bart Hopson
> >Don't throw away 'would' or 'had' or any other word, and
> >don't throw away adverbs, or the passive voice, or any of the
> >other things self-appointed gurus tell you to throw away.
> >They're all pieces of material that may come in handy. Just
> >read your stuff over and make sure it sounds right--that's what
> >counts.
> >
> >None of those rules is in the Constitution or the Book of
> >Common Prayer--not a single one.
> >
Hank followed up:
>
> Forgive Jane. She often overreacts to mention of guidelines, rules, tips,
> instruction, academics, books, etc.
>
> Of course we know as writers that what "sounds right" to us often isn't our
> best work--we discover this later. If we could simply "sound right" to
> ourselves, then writing fiction would be easy. I'm sure Jane didn't mean to be
> so simplistic.
<snip>
> The thing is Jane, you need to focus more on the validity of what the idea is,
> rather than mindless bashing the idea as not being in the Constitution or the
> Book of Common Prayer, or from some hated professor, because one might get the
> sense that you are for a rather free for all type of writing, when, in fact,
> judging from your own work and your crits, you are a rather rule-oriented
> person. One might get the idea that you are the sole repository of truth about
> this craft, and that by sweeping the table clean of all such authorities you
> are placing your "sound good" approach above these. Of course, you are not
> doing that. I take up my pen to clarify and defend your position, lest anyone
> thing you be anti-intellectual or some sort of literary nihilist or whatever.
>
> Seriously, writing isn't an exact science. Hell, it isn't even a science but an
> art, a craft an individual expression. If it wasn't for them darned readers,
> everything we write would be great if it simply "sounded right" to us.
>
This last quote I believe is the real middle ground. Art cannot
become science. Rules work well in one, and are often rejected in the
other.
That said what makes the difference between good writing and bad, or
good art and bad art?
Perspective mostly, I'd say. I've seen paintings by 4 year olds that
I think rivalled some of the art promoted by self-proclaimed
authorities. To each his own, I suppose, but I like what I like, and
don't try to cut down other people's choices of what they like. I
just won't buy the same things they do.
Of course there are rules or guidelines in writing. Punctuation,
capitalization, spelling. All things easily pointed out as mistakes
when those mistakes come up. We've all seen even these basic rules
broken on purpose with some degree of success. When you stray from
these basic guidelines and start pointing out supposed rules in other
areas of the writing you start tramping around on the artist's voice
and choice. You limit yourself unnecessarily.
Adverbs, helping verbs, sentence fragments, italics, speech patterns,
imagery, etc. etc. ad infinitum, are all things that have pointed out
here as something to use sparingly, and some have said to avoid at all
cost. I disagree with the latter and agree, to some degree, with the
former. Too much is simply too much in many cases. Know the
guidelines, but play with them. Bend those rules and see if it works.
Experiment and screw around. Find your own version of the art and
reject those that reject you because you have bent a rule or two. If
they point out why it doesn't work in the context of the art you have
created, consider it for yourself and see if the bending of the rules
actually get in the way of getting the art out to the audience, and
you feel it does, change it, but never be afraid to work outside the
envelope.
This is art not science. Rules are necessary in science to avoid
catastrophe, while in art, blind adherence to those rules might bring
about its own little catastrophe.
Of course, to each his own. I just refuse to limit my own art based
on some rule handed down from on high but some self-proclaimed
authority. I also refuse to limit myself by rejecting any of these
guidelines out of hand. I'll try 'em on for size and see if I can fit
them into my own style. Once I've considered them, if I find they
work, they'll become part of my writing, if they don't, well, they
don't.
Bart