Don't get me started

A common locution I see in manuscripts (and published novels) is "started to." Also, "began to." While there are times when those expressions are appropriate, they aren't nearly as frequent as some writers seem to feel.

When/if you use "started to" and "began to" in your narrative, spend a moment and really think about what the words mean. Another usage that tangles meaning is "with." I'll get to that later.

Here are some examples of "started to" drawn from a number of submissions to me. I've changed wording to protect the innocent.

When we started to get repeat responses to stimuli, we changed the system.

This implied that the two things happened simultaneously, for one thing. And they didn't change the system until after the repeat responses occurred. Rewrite:

After we got repeat responses to the stimuli, we changed the system.

She turned away and started to laugh.

What is the start of a laugh? "H…" and then silence? No, in this narrative, the character laughed. Rewrite:

She turned away and laughed.

Her tears started to flow.

So they appeared in the corners of her eyes and then just sat there? Nope, they rolled on down her cheeks. Rewrite:

Her tears flowed.

Larry slid from his stool and started to follow the beggar.

So did Larry get his feet on the floor, lift a foot, and then stop? Take a step or two and stop? No, he followed the beggar. See how much crisper it is to say:

Larry slid from his stool and followed the beggar.

He started to laugh but stopped short when he saw how angry she was.

Another "H. . ." here? Also, the sequence of events is out of order Wouldn't the following create a better picture of what might really happen:

He laughed, but then he saw her anger and stopped.

His mind started to whirl with crazy ideas.

So what's the idea here? His mind starts, like a song beginning, and then, "r-r-r-r," dies out? Not likely.

His mind whirled with crazy ideas.

She started to sob and Steve held the weeping child in his arms.

Okay, if she only starts (which implies that she stops), then how come she's weeping when she gets into Steve's embrace? Rewrite:

She sobbed, and Steve held the weeping child in his arms.

Actually, written this way, "weeping" isn't needed, i.e.

She sobbed and Steve held her in his arms.

She began to back away when a faint movement in the yard stopped her.

A really confusing set of words, for me. She was backing and a movement stopped her? Doesn't seem possible. Rewrite:

She backed away, but then stopped at the sight of movement in the yard.

She stopped him when he started to rise to his feet.

This one is okay because the action was interrupted.

Do without the with

Another common usage is combining actions and things by using the word "with." But, when you think about what the words really mean, there are times when "with" is the wrong world.

He watched her with a satisfied smile.

So his teeth are capable of vision? Maybe, in a sci-fi adventure, but most of us use our eyes for this sort of thing. Also, what does a "satisfied smile" look like? Rewrite:

He watched her and smiled, satisfied.

The dog started to chase the sheep with a snarl.

A double whammy: first the "started to, and then. . .how did the dog hold the snarl with which he chased the sheep? In his teeth? How does one use a snarl in a chase, anyway? Rewrite:

The dog snarled and chased the sheep.

With a roar of encouragement, the watchers pushed him back into the fight.

So how did they get a grip on the roar in order to push with it? Aren't those things slippery? Rewrite:

Roaring encouragement, the watchers  pushed him back into the fight.

She ran into his arms with a strangled sob.

Where did she get the strangled sob? Who strangled it, the poor thing?

Gloria watched her sister with a queer smile on her face.

Gloria must be related to the guy with the talented satisfied smile above. A note on the use of adjectives: what is a "queer" smile, anyway? That doesn't evoke a picture in my mind.

Margaret straightened her back with a groan.

Wow, where do you get one of those? I never thought to use a groan to straighten my back. Rewrite:

Margaret groaned when she straightened her back.

He touched it with a worried expression.

So did he place his face against it? Rewrite:

He touched it, his expression worried.

I searched a number of samples and many did not have these constructions, but it's common enough to point out. Do a search for "started to" and "began to" and "with" in your WIP and see if you find any of these potential befuddlements lurking in your narrative. I plan to with mine.

For what it's worth.

Ray

Free edit in exchange for posting permission. You send a sample that you have questions about and of which you'd like an edit. I won't post it without your permission. Please attach samples as documents to your email.

ARCHIVES .

© 2006 Ray Rhamey

Comments

[bloomingyou]

Reading this reminded me of the exercises I had to do in Grad school using William Zinsser's On Writing Well."

[Jeri]

Thanks for the reminders. These are things I tend to vacuum up during the second or third draft, along with unnecessary usage of the words "still" and "now."

I've noticed that every ms has certain unique overkill words. My current WIP's is "scoff."

[Lisa]

Very helpful! I don't have the problem with started or begun to, but the odd 'with' construction. Didn't realize how many of them there were until I did a search.

Thank you!

lisa

[The Moviequill]

with screenplays it is a different sort of monster as the prose all has to be in present tense

[th]

Ray

Thanks for the useful pointers. I definitely found a few instances of 'began to' in my WIP that didn't need it. I still like using it when the character is engaging on something substantial e.g.

Mary began the long climb up the mountain.