In highschool, I had an english teacher who would NOT let us use ANY "to be" verbs EVER! It was extremely difficult, and I don't think it improved our writing.

Do you write with "to be verbs"? What is you opinion on never using them?

(Am, are, is was, were, be, been, ect.)

HuggsX3 (06:59pm Wed, Apr 10, 2013)

In highschool, I had an english teacher who would NOT let us use ANY "to be" verbs EVER! It was extremely difficult, and I don't think it improved our writing.

Do you write with "to be verbs"? What is you opinion on never using them?

(Am, are, is was, were, be, been, ect.)

Seems to me that your teacher was not imparting knowledge but using power simply because he or she had power.
I really see no reason for the  prohibition, other than to make things difficult for student writers or English students.
Ryder13

It depends on what kind of topics does your teach ask you to write. I haven't never heard teachers don't allow students to use "to be" verbs, which is kind of difficult. However, I can see that when people write political papers or something relates to politics. Most political writers don't use "to be" verbs that much because it doesn't talk in first, second, or third person.

Actually, the goal is to challenge you to be more "active" with your language. "to be" words are considered "passive."

I am...we were...there are....

These could be changed to way more active phrases like "I wondered quietly why...", "We skipped along the bank with joy," etc. Instead of "There are six clocks on the mantle," it could become "The clocks ticked in unison until one day, the red one on the far right, was a split second slower..."

I found that exercise helpful, because I could see what it was doing to my writing style. This also meant that I knew when that "rule" could be defenestrated. Doing away with those verb forms (and adjectives or adverbs) does make a scene more vivid, but sometimes a vague or telling scene is more appropriate, or your style could be vivid enough that a reader will stay with you and your to be verbs, adjectives, and adverbs.

Chuck Palahniuk wrote an essay about doing away with "thought" verbs, because it means that nothing is happening. It's worth checking out, here: http://litreactor.com/essays/chuck-palahniuk/nuts-and-bolts-%E2%80%9Cthought%E2%80%9D-verbs

I'd like to contrast that with Gail Carson Levine's essay in her book Writing Magic, where she demonstrated with excerpts from her own books that "show, don't tell" is too proscriptive.

"Show, don't tell" is a good rule for television and films, visual media. That, I believe, has influenced writing conventions. Writing conventions are just that, conventions--and they can be bent or broken. (As an aside, one of my favorite shows right now have all of the characters speaking in exposition for most of an episode. The actors are so excellent that I don't usually mind.)

If you don't even really know why those conventions or suggestions exist, or your mentor who's making you write like that can't explain why they're suggesting it, then I certainly wouldn't recommend following them.

I didn't understand until Jessi explained it, and now it makes sense....but still...

Couldn't that be taught as "tense" rather than "verbs"?!