auxiliary verbs

[marycatelli]

I've read all the warnings about the passive voice (mostly wise), but serious sentence level work has led me to conclude that the warnings do not go far enough.  What a writer really needs to keep an eye on is auxiliary verbs of all types.  They are useful for introducing shades of meaning, but the writer should stop and think whether that particular shade really works better than a simpler verb structure.

Especially because the simpler form often conveys the same meaning with fewer words.  Denser meaning tends to strengthen the prose.  Most auxiliaries will only add one word (not all), but those single words add up.

Progressive voice is among the commonest.  Useful when you want to distinguish between

She laughed when he came into the room.

and

She was laughing when he came into the room.

and other situations where you want to make it clear that an action was on-going -- and where it wouldn't be clear without it.  But I see it again and again when the situation is clear without it.

Conditionals are a bit trickier.  What I mostly notice is doubling up:  including a conditional adverb and a conditional auxiliary.  "Possibly they might have come through here."  Useful -- occasionally -- to double up the doubt.  But usually one can go flying.

Or "could" used to mean "does".

Thod the Barbarian lifted the magical sword and plunged into battle.  The blade could cut through armor like through butter.

Well, if it could, why isn't it?  And that's one of the lucky ones.  I have read passages where it appeared that the character intuited what the new magical object could do, and only later did it become clear that the character was actually doing the things he "could" do.

On the other hand, there are writers who use "would be able to".  Err -- is that somehow different from "could"?

And "managed".  This can hint that there was some difficulty in doing something, very shortly, but also very vaguely.  If it's important, perhaps it's worth the details.  If not, why suggest it?

He managed to open the door.

Was there actually a problem?

The door stuck, but he put his shoulder to it, and it opened.

If not,

He opened to the door.

Well, usually.  Sometimes you want that shade, but I mistrust it.

And I think I will stop complaining now before I come up with dozens more.  0:)

Comments

would be able

[notr.livejournal.com]

Rarely, this one does make a useful distinction, between becoming able to do something one wants and gaining an ability irrespective of intention.

Once he had the amulet, he could open the door.

--His foe needs to prevent him from getting the amulet.

Once he had the amulet, he would be able to open the door.

--His foe needs to prevent him from realizing he should go through it.

Re: would be able

[marycatelli]

Humm. A possibility, but I'm not sure I would see the distinction on the auxiliaries alone.

Re: would be able

[notr.livejournal.com]

As I said, it's rare, but in those rare cases it can spare the reader some confusion. Suppose we already know he has no intention of going through that door. "He could" would leave me wondering why he suddenly wanted to.

[jongibbs.livejournal.com]

Interesting. I try to avoid the 'to be' verb whenever possible, not least because it cuts down the wordcount, leaving more room for actual story-type stuff.

Thanks for sharing :)

[marycatelli]

Well, that will whack both the progressive and the passive right there.

[jongibbs.livejournal.com]

Now, if I could just do something about that pesky 'write something worth reading' problem of mine, I'd be set :)

[marycatelli]

Have you ever heard the rule that you have a million bad words in you and until you get them all out -- by writing them -- you can't get at the good words?

[jongibbs.livejournal.com]

Oh, I have plenty of bad words in me. I learned most of them from my old gran ;)

[marycatelli]

Then you're all set.

progressives

[notr.livejournal.com]

I think what happens with progressives is that people mistakenly think that ongoing action means more action. They say the dwarf was swinging his axe to mean that he had swung it before, he was in midswing now, and he would swing it some more, but all the reader hears is "was" and the dwarf winds up frozen in a blurry state of swinging.

Re: progressives

[marycatelli]

Besides, he's a dwarf. Is he really going to stop swinging the ax?

Re: progressives

[notr.livejournal.com]

The hammer might take two hands.

Re: progressives

[marycatelli]

Then why did he fool around with the ax first? Go straight for the hammer. . . .

0:)

[scbutler.livejournal.com]

I am trying, er, I try, to weed myself of the progressive all the time.

[marycatelli]

0:)

Isn't revision a wonderful thing?