In Defense of "Was"

Fiorella is tired of hearing people say the use of was makes a sentence passive.

"Fiorella WAS charming, as usual" is not in passive voice.

Passive voice occurs when the actor is expressed in a prepositional phrase beginning with "by," e.g., "This blog was written by Fiorella Plum." It is still considered passive voice if the actor is unknown and thus the prepositional phrase is omitted, e.g., "I was framed!" (In linguistic terms, be-en is inserted before the main verb, the tense of the be is determined by what precedes it, and en signals that the main verb should become a past participle.)

Passive voice has gotten a bad rap. There is nothing wrong with using it. Stylistically, active voice ("Somebody framed me!) is preferred, but that depends on the situation.

I think what people are trying to say when they complain about overuse of was is that they are looking for more action verbs. But it's hard to avoid using was-- "to be" in all of its forms (be, am, is, are, WAS, were, been) is the most prevalent verb in the English language. Because it joins nominals to other nominals or to adjectives, it is called the "copula." Too many copulas in a row can make for dull reading and should be avoided: "She was at the party. Everyone's mood was high. The moon was big and yellow. Her heart was in her throat." But it's virtually impossible to communicate effectively in English without using a form of "to be." It gives a definitive viewpoint. In other languages, the construction is called an equational sentence.

What else can I say? I can't believe I've spent half an hour writing about was. Oh well, as what's-his-name said, "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times . . . ."