Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200, Do Not Insert "Had"

Only one of my novels has featured bona fide flashbacks. Most of them, however, have featured scenes set in the past that are recalled by one of the characters. The difference seems to be that flashbacks are allowed to unfold naturally, as if the reader were watching from a catbird seat, while scenes from the past tend to be liberally sprinkled with words like "had," "they'd," "he'd," "she'd."

I personally don't like this pattern and feel it's one of the rules of grammar that should be broken. Surely readers know the action they are reading about is in the past after they've read a few sentences with these words. I don't feel I have to constantly remind them, and I find excessive use of "had" and its variants distracting.

The copyeditors who have worked on my manuscripts never fail to insert "had" in these scenes . . . easily 30 or 40 times, which I think is just plain ridiculous. I inevitably end up writing a special note requesting that these insertions not be made. I'm tempted to include instructions with my next manuscript.

A past scene should be able to unfold in the reader's imagination the same way a flashback does. In my opinion, the use of "had" in practically every sentence only serves to make the action seem more distant, makes writing more passive and is more like telling rather than showing, none of which are desired effects in fiction writing.

But that's just my opinion. What's yours?