What is this called?

[WriteOn]

I'm trying to explain to a fellow writer to avoid this: the writer started to collect... And that they should instead do this: the writer collected...

What is this called? Avoiding to start, to begin, etc.

[Post-Doctorate D]

Your example has different meanings . . .

There's a difference between starting to collect something and collecting something.  If I buy a vintage fan, and it is the only vintage fan I own, am I collector of vintage fans?  Not necessarily.  If I bought it because I am starting to collect vintage fans, that's different than if I bought it because it was cheap.  And, if I already own five vintage fans, then I am probably buying it to add to my collection.  So there's a difference in meaning there in starting to collect versus collecting.

Disregarding your examples, perhaps you are trying to discourage the use of infinitives in favor of gerunds?

[elleoco]

Janice Hardy had a good discussion of this on her blog. I don't remember that it had a particular name, and I can't point you to the particular post. Recommending her blog couldn't do anyone any harm. She has a lot of good posts on improving word usage.

http://blog.janicehardy.com/

As I remember, she didn't use the kind of example you did where as Dan said, putting the "started to" in might be correct depending on circumstances. She used action examples such as "started to run," and her point was if someone started to run, they ran (unless tripped, etc.), so why throw in the extra words instead of using the more to the point and forceful structure?

[twicebitten]

Possibility of what it's called  1) Verb aspect "aspect conveys other temporal information, such as duration, completion, or frequency, as it relates to the time of action"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_aspect

Possibility 2) Auxiliary verb (but that's a bit of a cheat)

Possibility 3) It's some obscure modality I've never heard of

The advice is easier than the analysis. If the sentence works without the "started to" or "began to," then omit it.

[WriteOn]

I asked my editor and she said it's just plain wordiness. I thought it had an actual name, but apparently it doesn't.

[The Bass Bagwhan]

If you rephrase the question it makes more sense what you're getting at:

"The writer was someone who would collect..."

"The writer collected... "

You could possibly call the first example "verbose" which is a fancy way of say "wordy".

As an editor I would simply calling the solution "tightening up" the prose. And while both are kind of passive, one is worse than the other.

[idontknowyet]

My brain hurts reading this. Must learn!

[JRTomlin]

There is a hesitancy I've observed in some writers - perhaps a beginner writer thing - to say that something happened, full stop. I am not so sure it is wordiness as much as a lack of self-confidence that it is all right to be definite about what you are describing. (Okay, it is wordy but the reason behind it is sometimes that writing is just scary and we try to fudge a bit)

I think it might help to explain that if you say that "he began to run up the stairs..." there is at least an implication that he must have stopped halfway up. 

[PJ Post]

It depends on the big picture. Lots of editors use style guides to force the narrative into a traditional mold, which can often suck the life right out of it. For best results, you and your editor need to be on the same page about what the book is supposed to be.

This is even more crucial with first person present because the prose is characterization. Few people follow style guides when they're thinking. For first present to work well, it's really important for the prose to feel authentic.

[JRTomlin]

I wouldn't work with an editor who didn't use a style guide. If I don't agree with a CMOS on some point, I simply tell my editor so. Any good editor is capable of adjusting their style guide to individual requirements.

[The Bass Bagwhan]

I wouldn't work with an editor who didn't use a style guide. If I don't agree with a CMOS on some point, I simply tell my editor so. Any good editor is capable of adjusting their style guide to individual requirements.

Absolutely, as an editor we all need some kind of starting point and CMOS (in the US) fills that role, even though CMOS is still really a journalist's guide to provide consistency across the freelance industry and formal documentation rather than set-in-stone grammar rules for all writing.

When it comes to the finer points of editing a book manuscript the real focus is to interpret the writing and the writer's voice, not strictly apply "the rules". It's not like a legal document that can be analysed to an nth degree to ascertain the correct result. That's why it's called "style". 

[PJ Post]

Style guides don't have anything to do with it per se. Microsoft Word has a built-in style guide. My point is that when editors homogenize prose to conform with whatever the current group-think is, they plasticize the narrative. It's like modern pop music. It's not bad, just soulless.

Personally, I won't work with any editor that elevates dogmatic group-think above the goals of my book.

[idontknowyet]

Personally, I won't work with any editor that elevates dogmatic group-think above the goals of my book.

This!

[antares]

I'm trying to explain to a fellow writer to avoid this: the writer started to collect... And that they should instead do this: the writer collected...

What is this called? Avoiding to start, to begin, etc.

Bad writing.