Fuzzy-Wuzzy Was A Bear: Killing 'Was' Brings Prose To Life

Every time our writer's group gets a new writer, I give a certain speech: Was is a dead-word.  Kill it.  It is the low-hanging-fruit of better writing, an alarm that jumps off the page and demands, "Make me more interesting!"

Was is clearly a verb, but doesn't move.  It offers no description or action.  It notifies us that a thing exists, but tells nothing about how it exists or what it is doing.  The nouns and adverbs that follow it will surely describe more, but that is no excuse.  Replacing a was is an easy opportunity to make prose more colorful and active - and possibly a chance to trim extra words. 

Was (and his sister were) is also a warning that something may be amiss.  Many was's indicate that the passive voice was used.  (See what I did there?)  It can also indicate that the writer was using an extra verb that can simply be cut.  (See what I did there again?)

So what do we do with those was's?  Some of them are extremely easy to cut if you know the tricks.  Some are troublesome -- you know it needs to go, but how?  And some are impossible to remove.  Moreover, not all was's are bad.  Fuzzy Wuzzy really was a bear, and I can't think of any better way to say it.  And there are other factors to consider -- like voice, rhythm, and pacing -- and it we don't want to sacrifice those, do we?  Sometimes not.

So let's start with the easy was fixes, and move up to the more complex.

Replace with a more active verb.

The soldier was on the hill.

Snore.  There he was.  On a hill.  Boring.  I want to know more about that soldier; I want to see him.  Here, the was indicates the author is telling, not showing.

The simplest fix: Find another verb.   

The soldier stood on the hill.

It's still kind of boring, but maybe the soldier is boring, and he'll be doing something exciting in a moment.  Maybe we don't want to distract the reader with what that soldier is doing, because all we need say is that he's there, and the real action is coming up from a different direction.  But maybe the soldier is doing something else while he's standing there, and it is I, the author, who is being boring.  Here are a few better examples:

The soldier waited on the hill.
The soldier paused on the hill.
The soldier hid on the hill.
The soldier gripped the side of the hill.
The soldier watched from the hill.
The soldier shivered on the hill.

All of these examples give more depth, more information about the emotional state or intentions of the character.

The last one is my favorite.  He's still just standing on the hill, but with just one word-change, he is now feeling something and we know
it's cold or scary up there.  Even if he's just a side character, a cardboard cutout, our story feels more real.

The first two examples required very little work.  But the others?  I had to make an extra effort to think and visualize, until I came up with some idea of what that guy was actually doing up there.  In many cases it is worth the extra effort, because if we can't see it, our readers surely can't.

Replace with the verb that is already there.

Frank was asking about the party.

Was is superfluous here.  It adds nothing.  Simply cross it out and change the tense of ask:  Frank asked about the party.

Very rarely, the was adds a subtle connotation of additional information.  For example: I was hoping we could go out tonight.  This indicates that maybe it's too late, that some doubt has crept in about the verb, or that the status has changed.  Was is then sometimes a substitute for the dreaded had which we also want to reduce, i.e. as an alternative to, I had hoped...  In this case, keep the was, or go with the had.  They are equals.

Sometimes with this method, we need to change the verb for it to make sense.  And that's good, too.  See how this sentence transforms:

Pie filling was stuck all over her face.

vs:

Pie filling covered her face.

Passive voice.

Passive voice rarely belongs in fiction prose.  It takes a lot of practice to get good at finding passive voice in your prose.  Was is an easy warning sign.  (Bearing in mind that these are not mutually exclusive: you can write active voice with a was, and can write passive voice without it.)

Much has been written on passive voice, what it is, and why it is bad, so I won't go deeply into it here.  In summary, it is a sentence structure where something is acted upon, rather than an actor acting on that thing.  The reader never knows who the actor is, only that an action was done.

Here is an example with a was:

The old man was killed in cold blood.

So what?  The old man may be murdered, but so is any sense of shock over the crime.  We almost have an exciting sentence there, but it sounds a little stilted and stifled.  Let's change it to active voice, and watch that was disappear:

Someone had killed the old man in cold blood.

Even with a had in there, this act of murder is now a surprise -- as it should be.  We still don't know who the killer is -- that is still a mystery -- but now I feel more interested in finding out who dun it.

The sentence would be better rearranged.

Sometimes the was indicates an awkward or weak sentence.  A rearrangement of the ideas, the order in which they are presented, will remove the was and also make it a better-written sentence.

Simple example:

Billy wanted to say something nice, but all that came out was, "You're not very fat."

This is clumsy, and the was lets us know.  Not a lot of rearranging here:

Billy wanted to say something nice, but he could only manage, "You're not very fat."

Let's try another one:

Of all the things the witch loved, the wand was her favorite.

This sentence is okay.  It loads the concepts of action in the prepositional phrase, and all that's left is to note the wands existence (and then modify that with favorite).  There is a certain voice to that, but it's a little awkward. 

We could logically rearrange the sentence, putting the concept of the wand first:

The witch loved her wand most, out of all her favorite things.

That method works better the more complex the sentence is.  I've seen a lot of unweildy paragraphs smooth right out after rearranging the order of the concepts and dropping the was's.

Or we can keep the logical order, but break it up:

The witch favored a lot of things.  But mostly, she loved the wand.

New example:

Walking all the way to Mordor was out of the question.

Try:

No, they couldn't walk all the way to Mordor.

Show, don't tell.

That squirrelly was: it shows you that you may be telling.

I know I said this already.  But in my soldier example, I took the easy way out.  I simply replaced the verb.  But the was may indicate a drastic lack of detail you should fill in.  So allow me to elaborate.

She was old.

Holy crap, so much telling!  I heard we're not supposed to do that!  But if it is true that she really is old, how do we say it?  Describe the things that make her old:

She walked with bent back, her hair coarse and gray.  Her voice rasped like the last breath of a dying animal.  And she smelled like orange juice.

That's better.  And not a single was anywhere.  The change hurt my word count, but at least it's not boring.

That being said...

Don't kill every was.  Sometimes they are stubborn things that are not worth the trouble.  Sometimes simplicity is best.  Sometimes you are just describing a scene, and don't need your objects doing anything, just lying there being red or dirty or strong or soggy.  As with all writing rules, this one is meant to be broken.

But generally, this tip will clarify your prose, give your characters and settings depth, and add pep to your action scenes.

Exporting Outlook Express Files to .eml

I know this isn't a tech help blog, but I searched the web for how to do this, and couldn't find it.  Turns out it's really easy, so it needs to be recorded.

Problem:

I have an old laptop gathering dust that I want to decommission.  I want to save five years of old emails stored in Outlook Express 6.  I now exclusively use Gmail, so I want them in a format I can refer to, even decades from now when no one's ever heard of Outlook.  The most standard format I've ever run across is .eml, which is not only recognized by a number of email clients, but worst-case it is text-based, so neatly viewable in Notepad.

However, Outlook Express doesn't let you do a mass-export of everything into .eml.  When I tried clicking and dragging 4000 messages into a Windows Explorer folder (which works for small groups of messages), it would pop up the message, "Error copying file or folder.  Cannot create or replace email: There is already a folder with the same name as the file name you updated.  Specify a different name."

Since this method names the .eml files after the subject line, I presume duplicate subject names were giving it fits.

There are third-party, for-pay exporters, but I didn't feel the need to pay for these.  Turns out I didn't need 'em.

Solution:

I located the Outlook Express database files, inbox.dbx, etc.  To find them, in Outlook Express simply click Tools > Options > Maintenance > Store Folder.  Copy and paste that into the address bar of a Windows Explorer window.

Then I copied those files straight over to my desktop computer, where I'm running Windows 7.

Then I went to Microsoft's website and installed the newest version of "Outlook Express", now known as Windows Live Mail.  I was careful not to install all the other Windows Live items, because I don't need all that junk.

Once installed, I opened it, and canceled the dialog box which wanted me to setup an email account.  Instead, I went to File > Import Messages.  I chose Outlook Express 6, and pointed it at the folder containing all the .dbx files.

This went really well.  All my old messages were located in Storage Folders > Imported Folders > Inbox and so on.

This is all fine and good if I want to be strapped to Windows Live for forever, and have to go through the same confusion and trouble ten years from now when Windows 9 is out, and they call their mail program "Windows Mail Explorer" or whatever their focus groups come up with.  So on to exporting to .eml.

I had been hoping Microsoft would have gotten a clue and made a .eml exporter by now, but no.  So I tried what I did before in Outlook Express, only this time, it worked beautifully. 

Make a folder on one of your hard drivers or in My Documents where you'd like all these to go.  I'd recommend something like OldEmail\Inbox, and so on, to keep your former organization structure.

Then, with both windows in easy view, simply select all messages in Live Mail (CTRL-A), then click and drag them into the folder on your hard drive.  Give it some time.  It won't look like much is happening, and a simple refresh will show you an empty folder, so just wait a few minutes, then click out of that folder and back in.  You should see all your messages.

Just double check it got them all by comparing the total number of messages to the total number of files in the folder.  Then you're done!

There are a couple of minor problems with this method.  For one, all the message names are named after the email subject line.  No sender data, etc.  Also the message date is missing, replaced with today's date.  (Though some files randomly retained their sent date... not sure why.)  For that, I'd recommend retaining the .dbx files, and the .eml files as a backup, and then when you need to look up a message, just use Windows Live.  If it's not around in ten years, well at least you have the source files and the raws.

The Role of Agents in the Post-Publishing World

This subject has come up a couple of times this week in various blogs.  Scott Nicholson calls agents Unnecessary Evils in Self-Publishing Agents: Unnecessary Evils, and Debbi Mack says she can do everything any e-stributor might do in The 15 Percent Solution.

In some ways, I agree with both.  Services provided by traditional agents are now something of a rip-off, especially if you're a well-rounded person with an eye for design and the ability to make contacts and do business.  Agents have an upper-hand, and this gives the profession a reputation of haughtiness.  They're not any kind of solution because they're part of the problem that we're fleeing, right?  So who needs 'em?

But I do see a role for something.  Let's face it -- not all writers are comfortable with certain aspects of the business-side of writing.  Moreover, even those of us who are comfortable with it, may eventually find some of those detailed tasks distracting... in other words, it may end up being more profitable to shell out 15% so we can focus on doing what we do better -- writing.

We may not call them agents -- though I think there's nothing wrong with using this term.  (As Debbi points out, an agent is “one who is authorized to act for or in place of another; a representative.”)  In this sense, agent is the perfect word.  He may not be trying to sell your book to an editor any longer, and instead may himself be editing your book, hiring a proof-reader, lining up a cover artist, and writing marketing blurbs for Amazon and Smashwords, but these are still representational activities.  To help eliminate confusion, let's call this new breed "indie agents".

Whatever it's called, there is a niche -- something writers will be willing to pay for, and people willing to do the work -- so it will be filled by someone. 

As a self-publishing indie author, I've made a list of activities I might personally find valuable enough to pay 10-20% of my earnings for.  This list is not all-inclusive.  There are many activities I haven't thought of, that other authors need help with, and those would be added to such a list of services.

• Career guidance - Keep a general eye on the markets and offer advice on things like trends in genres, which books to push and which to let go for a while, movements in pricing, trends in marketing, etc.
• Help with marketing, or at least marketing advice - For example, she could submit things to review blogs, or even just tell me which review blogs are worth the time. An agent may even have connections that could accelerate marketing efforts or lend me credibility.
• Editing and proofing. That's right. I've read that many agents are doing editing now instead of editors anyway. If they don't do it themselves, they could farm it out.
• Lining up cover artists, designers, formatters, copywriters for the blurbs, etc.  Negotiating the contracts.
• Handling the business and legal side. Someone to fill the role of "Talk to my agent".  Looking over any miscellaneous contracts to make sure they're legit.
• Eventually some of us indies are going to reach the level of Neil Gaiman, and have speaking engagements all over the world. You're going to need an agent for that. Likewise for film deals, etc.
• Support - Some agents fill the role of emotional support and encouragement. Given the drastic ups and downs of this job, this is helpful for some of us. Where are you going to find an on-demand therapist or life coach (besides in a spouse)? But some agents fill this role for authors.

In a way, you're getting two services for cheaper than the price of one: Editor and Agent.  Instead of costing you 80%+15%, it costs you 30% (Amazon's cut)+15%+misc direct fees for outside services.  Let's do a little thought experiment with some rough math, and see where it leads.

It's common knowledge that the more novels you have available, the more you sell.  (That's the topic of another blog post.)  If you spend all your time marketing your one book, and never write books two, three, and four, you're not spending your time efficiently.  The same would go for the other distracting activities I've listed above.

Let's say I currently have three books for sale on Amazon for $2.99 each.  I sell 100 copies a month, and spend 40% of my time on the "business" side: marketing, studying the markets, lining up services, formatting my own work, and so on.  Let's say I also spend more time editing my own work than I should, when after a while I just can't see past my own mistakes.  And I have a bad eye for art, so I pick a poor cover designer, and can't explain to them what I want.  I'm making about $200/month, and am making slow progress on my next novel.

Now let's say I get an indie agent and agree to pay 15% for them to do the distracting things.  For now, I pay them $30/month, but the more money I make the higher that number will go.  But that's a good thing, right?  Because if the indie agent is helping me make more, then it's a fair deal, right?

Now I still have to spend some time doing the business side.  I need to approve cover art, integrate the suggested edits and proofs, make decisions about any movie deals (ha!), and so on.  But now I have an adviser, who is keeping up on the industry, who is doing the most boring aspects, and giving good advice about what I should do.  Now I only spend 10% of my hours on the tedium, and have twelve extra hours per week to write.  Not only that, but the quality of that time is improved -- I don't know about you, but for me, the little distractions get my mind off my story and depleate my energy beyond just the house consumed.

That means my next novel comes out sooner.  Not only that, but my agent, who can focus on this kind of thing, is doing a great job writing blurbs, which is helping my existing three novels to sell faster.  And she got me a couple of interviews on blogs, and a few extra reviews, and now momentum is starting to pick up.  Not only that, but she knows a really great editor who fits my style of writing, who has suggested lots of great changes on my new novel, which makes me a better writer.

Now it's a year later, novel four is released, and I'm selling 500 copies a month.  That's $1000 -- $800 more than I made before.  The agent gets $150, but so what?  Even then, it's $650 more than I made, plus I'm that much father ahead for when book five comes out.

I'm not completely sure I'd make this wager.  But it is compelling.  And I happen to have a good eye for art and can make business deals when I need to.  I know how to do the marketing, and know where to look for trends in the industry, etc.  I can do it, I just don't want to.

But I do know for sure there are a lot of great writers who want nothing to do with the business side.  Ever.  They're not good at it, and they never will be.  They couldn't tell a good cover from a stain on the floor, and can't read the first line of a Terms of Service contract without bursting into tears. 

For that reason alone, I am confident that this role is going to exist, and plenty of writers will be willing to pay for it.