Eliminating all forms of "to be": Active Voice

[Sonomi]

I read that avoiding is, are, has, had, etc, or constraining the appearance of "to be", establishes a stronger active voice in narration.

With a personal attempt at this, I found myself searching tirelessly for ways to reword a good portion of the things I've written. Usually by checking a thesaurus...or the web for an appropriate verb to get the main idea across. It's truly amazing how many oddly specific words exist in the English language, and even more interesting how few of them I regularly put to use.

How often is this philosophy applied to your writing? If you don't feel it should altogether disappear, when would employing "to be" provide more positive gains over an alternative verb? The concept is mildly revolutionary for me.

[Mammon]

I feel no need to restain myself to such things. If I feel that a synonym or different phrasing I know would benefit a sentence better than a 'to be', I'll use it. But I see no reason to prevent those words entirely and possibly make a less comprehensible story because of it. (That's something I've got to be wary of already.) Though I won't say it's a bad idea either, I just feel that it may make things unintentionally harder for the reader to decrypt at times (especially non-native English speakers).

One thing that I did do while rewriting (and I think that if you're going to do it, do it in a rewrite rather than a first draft. Write with the flow and improve later.) is that I went through the entire text looking for 'that' specifically. That is the kind of word that can really creep into your text with ease where it's not necessary and which you'll read over unless you don't look for it specifically. I also looked for unnecessary additions like 'very' or 'actually' in places where their presence didn't add much, but 'that' alone can be enough to dedicate a whole rewrite to.

[Zelan]

I feel no need to restain myself to such things. If I feel that a synonym or different phrasing I know would benefit a sentence better than a 'to be', I'll use it. But I see no reason to prevent those words entirely and possibly make a less comprehensible story because of it. (That's something I've got to be wary of already.) Though I won't say it's a bad idea either, I just feel that it may make things unintentionally harder for the reader to decrypt at times (especially non-native English speakers).

One thing that I did do while rewriting (and I think that if you're going to do it, do it in a rewrite rather than a first draft. Write with the flow and improve later.) is that I went through the entire text looking for 'that' specifically. That is the kind of word that can really creep into your text with ease where it's not necessary and which you'll read over unless you don't look for it specifically. I also looked for unnecessary additions like 'very' or 'actually' in places where their presence didn't add much, but 'that' alone can be enough to dedicate a whole rewrite to.

Pretty much this. It's good to make sure your writing doesn't get repetitive and use the same phrases over and over, but you don't necessarily need to cut a word out of your vocabulary entirely. That could make it seem forced or unnatural instead of improved.

[fleet]

I'd suggest maximizing active voice, but not trying to eliminate passive voice. If a sentence sounds awkward when you change from passive to active voice, leave it alone.

[Kuiper]

If I want to convey a scene or image to the reader, then I try to avoid forms of "to be" (passive voice).

But not every line of the story is trying to convey a scene. Sometimes, you just want to convey raw information. Saying "Kim had been a middle school teacher for 10 years" is not an active sentence, but it's simple and to-the-point. It's the most efficient way to get that information across. Trying to find some more "creative" way to convey that information will usually result in dialog where Kim brings up in a conversation that she's been in a middle school teacher for 10 years, and there are ways this can work, but if you try to do this for every biographical detail about a character, it can come across as stilted, and it can take way more time and space than it needs to.

[Sonomi]

Okay, I understand. Thank you for the clarification, everyone. I'm trying to learn how to write in active voice because I found many of my sentences dull or too long, but I think I went a little overboard by assuming that I shouldn't use passive sentence structures.

[Larry Jones]

I think the opposite, "to be" adds a directness to it and is very powerful verb

[Sonomi]

I think the opposite, "to be" adds a directness to it and is very powerful verb

Could you perhaps give an example of good "to be" sentences?

(Passive) She was taken in for questioning.
(Active) The police took her in for questioning.

[Parataxis]

Consider "She felt distressed" vs "She was distressed"

I think there is a point to be made that not all uses of "to be" are passive voice. However, there are also sentences where passive voice is the stronger choice. Consider the following pairing:

Some one murdered her
She was murdered.

Both are fine sentences but have distinctly different emphasis and therefore meaning in dialogue. You would not say the first of you meant the second. As with all writing rules, only the inexperienced sees them as absolutes.

[Sonomi]

Consider "She felt distressed" vs "She was distressed"

I think there is a point to be made that not all uses of "to be" are passive voice. However, there are also sentences where passive voice is the stronger choice. Consider the following pairing:

Some one murdered her
She was murdered.

Both are fine sentences but have distinctly different emphasis and therefore meaning in dialogue. You would not say the first of you meant the second. As with all writing rules, only the inexperienced sees them as absolutes.

Ah. I'm terribly sorry if I come across that way. Truth be told, I am not experienced despite taking a Creative Writing course. Naturally I'm looking for fairy dust to sprinkle over my writing style to make it easier to read. Terrible analogy...

In seriousness, I just felt like something went wrong when I compared my own writing to what I've read in other visual novels on LSF. Maybe posting an excerpt would pin down exactly what I mean. It's hard to describe. My writing is not beautiful, compelling, or humorous like theirs. And I want to make it so.

The common denominator for me was this particular verb I tend to overuse...and my story is in the present tense. So I thought, maybe I should consider rewording some of this without considering all the implications beforehand.

Based upon your example, you mean that the connotation of the sentence can change if it's worded without "to be" in the equation. I can certainly see that. ^ ^;

Here is an impromptu attempt:

"Jack wasn't paying attention when he tossed the 6-count package of noodles over his shoulder, so it knocked me unconscious on impact."

"Jack carelessly flung the 6-count package of noodles over his shoulder, and it knocked me unconscious on impact."

Overlooking the hyperbole and comma splice, both are equally valid?

[Larry Jones]

I think the opposite, "to be" adds a directness to it and is very powerful verb

Could you perhaps give an example of good "to be" sentences?

(Passive) She was taken in for questioning.
(Active) The police took her in for questioning.

The difference here for me is the focus. In your first sentence it's about her, she's the subject of the sentence. In the second it's about the police, because they're the subject, and she is also mentioned.

"He is mowing the lawn" is describing what he is doing right now. "He mows the lawn" sounds like he does this activity sometime or other, and sounds less immediate to me.

Personally I wouldn't focus on this technical stuff at all, and I certainly wouldn't obsess about it like crazy. I would simply focus on telling the story in an engaging way.