____________ or Not ______________

Every summer-and, in less-budgetarily fraught times, every fall and spring semester--the Solipsist teaches a class called "Writing Workshop: Grammar and Style." The other day, we discussed the desirability of avoiding the verb "to be" as much as possible: The verb certainly has its charms and has proven itself handy throughout the development of the English language. Problems arise, though, when one depends too much upon it. Boredom, for one. After all, when used as the main verb in a sentence, "to be" simply asserts that something exists, not that something happens. Even in an active sentence, the verb creates a feeling of passivity; not coincidentally, "to be" figures prominently in passive voice constructions, so, if one eschews its use, one necessarily avoids the pedantic passive as well.

The desire to avoid "to be" led to the development of "E-prime" (or "English prime") by the semanticist Alfred Korzybski, who sought to eliminate what he saw as the imprecision inherent in the common verb. Certainly, when one forces oneself to construct sentences without this familiar crutch, one finds it necessary to think carefully about words. One strives to identify the precise word to articulate the precise idea. One must resist thoughtless simplification.

We find ourselves unwilling to state unequivocally that the verb "to be" has no place in the world of letters. Think about the state of literature without it:

"Parisians thought it the best of times and the worst of times."

"Everyone acknowledges that a single man in possession of a good fortune must want a wife."

"'To live or not to live': A vexing question."

Still, any technique that forces students--or writers in general--to focus carefully on the words they use has a certain appeal. Want to challenge yourself? Try not "to be."