We've all heard them. The "hallowed" rules of writing.
Passive = evil
Adverbs = evil
Telling vs Showing = evil
And yet, I'm here to tell you, they're not *always* evil. When used sparingly, the above sins can be forgiven in a well-written manuscript. I can hear you collectively gasping. It's true.
Let's start with passive voice, probably one of the hardest rules to master. Pretty much if they "were" doing it or it "has" been done, then you're writing passively. "Were" or "was" followed by an "ING" verb is most likely passive.
Johnny was playing with the ball. ~~Passive
Johnny played with the ball. ~~Active
Jack has been feeling under the weather. ~~Passive
Jack feels under the weather. ~~Active
It's hard to spot sometimes, and this isn't even the only examples of it. Whenever someone "begins" to do something, you're in passive voice.
Joe began to walk to the door. ~~Passive
Joe walked to the door. ~~Active
However, you can use the "began" if he gets interrupted. "Joe began to walk to the door, but at that moment, the phone rang." Otherwise, he either does it, or he doesn't.
But writing passively isn't quite the Cardinal Sin we've all come to believe. Passive voice is accepted in most backstory within a novel. If your hero or heroine is thinking on something that once happened to them, or remembering an event that happened a few days ago, passive tense helps bring the reader into the past. Active voice is what you want to use for actions they are doing now, in the present.
Let's move on to adverbs. You've heard the whispers.
"Avoid all things L-Y!!"
Obviously, using too many adverbs can be tedious and pull a reader out of the story. However, they aren't to be completely avoided at all costs. Don't wrack your brain trying to think of another way to say "quietly" when "quietly" will do nicely. Believe me, an editor will not literally bean you over the head if you use the occasional "L-Y" word. Just don't be liberal with them.
Why? Because adverbs are usually a sign of telling verses showing, which leads me into my next point.
Telling vs. showing is another one of those "biggies" we hear about as writers. We're always worried if our descriptions are "good" enough. Unfortunately, I've seen this dilemma unfold into 10 pages of description of a mere room. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. You definately DO NOT want to bore the reader. If you go on and on about Aunt Agatha's porcelain pigeon collection, your book will be thrown against the wall. Believe me.
Let me give you an example of telling.
Patty peeled the orange and ate it. She always did love being reminded of Florida, of home.
Now showing:
Patty peeled the orange, and the tangy aroma of citrus filled the air. She breathed it in for a moment, shocked that it had been so long since she'd had one of Aunt Agatha's oranges picked right off the tree. As she took a bite, the juice squirted everywhere, making her laugh while it dribbled down her chin. With a satisfied grin, Patty popped another piece of the fruit in her mouth. She always did love being reminded of Florida, of home.
Did you notice the passive sentence in the backstory? "She breathed it in for a moment, shocked that it had been so long since she'd had one of Aunt Agatha's oranges picked right off the tree." That is acceptable. Why? Because Patty is remembering how long it was since her last orange.
But showing isn't necessarily "more description". You want to make the reader experience what you're describing. We've all smelled that tangy citrus scent. We've all had an orange squirt everywhere when we bite it. And smells and tastes are some of our strongest triggers of memory. So the second example gets more of a point across to the reader, and pulls them into Patty's world for a moment, moreso than the first example.
But sometimes, showing isn't always needed. Why go on for three paragraphs about the creepy squeaking door when there's a murderer behind it waiting to pounce? The poor guy has to wait until YOUR long-winded explanation before he can corner his prey. Just let the poor guy loose. :P
April's skin crawled as the door creaked open, wailing like a banchee. But before she could think much on it, someone tackled her in the darkness.
In this short scene, the more important thing is the murderer pouncing on poor April, not the door screaching her impending doom. So you have to pick your telling vs. showing battles.
But believe me, these three things, passive voice, adverbs, and telling vs. showing, CAN be used in a manuscript, albeit "sparingly". No one is going to keelhaul you if you write how Max had whispered into Betty's ear tenderly.
Except, perhaps, your crit partners.
:P
~~Becka
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 15
"Clarissa had noticed that Sue had gone, but didn't do anything about it, at that time.."
In the example you give, I think it is permissible to say, either "Joe began to walk to the door...." or, "Joe had walked to the door..." the first example you give is much better than using "had" in this instance.
Simple past or simple present is best, in writing. That said, using sentence structure properly (whether a compound-complex, an Oxford periodic sentence, or any other type of compound sentence) is very important.
People should review the rules of grammar (and the rules of punctuation, too) before doing final edits.
Better yet, people should review the rules of grammar before they set pen to paper.
The author who believes their manuscript is perfect and will not be edited is fooling themselves. However, I believe this is why a lot of authors choose self-publishing, so they don't have an editor making changes to their words.
Kathryn, I've used "began to" in some of my books as well. As a general rule, an editor might change it to be active. Did he or didn't he walk to the door? What's this "began to"? However, if it works in the scene, the editor just might leave it in.
~~Becka
~~Becka
Working with an editor is a great way to learn tricks of the trade. Editors are not "evil" as some authors think. I have become a better writer because of what I've learned with my editor. Over time, you get to learn how words should be put together, kind of like learning different techniques in painting. Except you're painting a picture with words.
So while you may not always have a full grasp of every single grammar rule, a publisher can see past that to the heart of the story, assuming it's not a total grammatical snafu. LOL
~~Becka
I was fortunate enough to have a college creative writing professor who pointed out that rules are useless if they "drown" the writer's voice. I used to be very good at following the rules, as a result of which my typical feedback went along the lines of "rather wooden and pedantic." He also liked to say that most of us are never going to be in the business of writing "literature," so we're better off focusing on offering a clear message, as opposed to constructing "great prose."
Backstory is the term authors use for what happened "before" the story began. So when you begin writing about memories your heroine had of high school, that's her backstory. Backstory could also be explaining to the reader why Isabel never got any dates--because her sister, Janeane, was the "pretty" one, and stole every good-looking guy from her.
I do not have any specific adverb articles, no. But I do know they should be peppered throughout your manuscript sparingly. If you re-read your chapters and specifically pay attention to the adverbs, you'll be surprised at how many you can find. If you have too many, try to find a different way to say what you want to say.
~~Becka