The Toolbox -- Free For All

[ScrambleEggHead]

Passive Voice


To identify the passive voice, the first trick is to look at the verb in the sentence. If the object of the sentence is having the verb done to it, you are in the active:-

"The policeman waved his truncheon".

The policeman is the subject of this sentence - it is about him and what he is up to. "Waved" is your verb. The truncheon is the object. The truncheon is being waved, so this sentence is in the active.

If, however, what would be the subject of the sentence in the active (the policeman) ends up having the verb done to it, you are in the passive.

"The truncheon was waved by the policeman".

See how this sentence has become about the truncheon, rather than the policeman. What was the subject in the active (the policeman) has now become the object in the passive.

A slightly more complex (but slightly more accurate) explanation is to say that a sentence will only be in the passive voice if the main verb in that sentence is expressed as a past participle and if your subject is linked to the main verb by an auxiliary verb (basically, some manifestation of "to be").

This works with our passive policeman above. By way of a further example:-

"Beer is drunk by Peter."

Beer = subject, is = our auxiliary verb and drunk = past participle of "drink".

To make this sentence active, we would write:-

"Peter drinks beer."

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with using the passive voice. It actually has a big part to play - especially when the object in any given sentence needs to be given prominence. But like so many of the other "avoids" (head-hopping, p.ov. shifts and so on) it is all too often done badly, or done inadvertently as a side effect of poor sentence structure.

Regards,

Peter

"Peter hops down to the bar nightly." Could be shortened to: "Peter loves his hops and barley."

 

[ScrambleEggHead]

She refused to agree to his going abroad

Wait a minute Mr. Judge...

You said just a few posts earlier that:

...on sentence construction I noted that the phrase "despite him wearing boots" should properly be "despite his wearing boots" if it were to be grammatically correct, though I didn't know the reason why.

To me, in this case the first sentence would sound better if it read, "She refused to agree to him going abroad." Although I don't know why either. It seems to somehow personalize the relationship between whomever "She" is, and whomever "He" is. Whereas I agree with you on the earlier post that "...despite him wearing boots..." is more awkward than "despite his wearing boots". Is it because the object in one sentence is another person, and the object in the other is an inanimate object? (speaking objectively, of course. )

 

[The Judge]

Hello, there, Scrambleetc. Welcome to the Chronicles. If you haven't done so already, pop over to Introductions and be welcomed officially.

Meanwhile, while it might sound better, and undoubtedly that's what almost all of us would say, I'm pretty sure that grammatically "She refused to agree to him going abroad" is incorrect, because "going" is a gerund and therefore has to be preceded by the possessive "his". It's an interesting idea that it might depend on whether it's followed by an animate or inanimate object, but the little I've read (and the even less I've understood) doesn't seem to accord with that. We await a gerund expert!

And meanwhile, meanwhile, it's Ms Judge (though Your Honour, My Lady and Your Majesty are all acceptable...)

 

[chrispenycate]

The trouble is that both "She refused to agree to him going abroad." and "She refused to agree to his going abroad." are both correct constructions, with subtle differences in meaning. In the former, the "going" is a verb, something he is (or since she is not in agreement, isn't) doing, and 'him going abroad' is the action to which she is opposed; in the latter, "going" is a noun, something he could possess. In neither case is he leaving the country, so I'd say the difference in 'feel' between the two is probably sufficiently minor that the one which sounds more natural in context is the best.

 

[ScrambleEggHead]

Hello, there, Scrambleetc. Welcome to the Chronicles. If you haven't done so already, pop over to Introductions and be welcomed officially.

And meanwhile, meanwhile, it's Ms Judge (though Your Honour, My Lady and Your Majesty are all acceptable...)

Oops! Terribly sorry your Honor-ess, I mistakenly assumed I could see you from waaaay over here in the Jury box. Is that a wig you're wearing? Your regular, yet smashingly sumptuous hair? Or, am I once again horribly mistaken, and should crawl away like an indomitable slug? In any case - pleasure to make your acquaintance M'Lady. I'll correct my intrusive allegory by schlepping over to the "Hello" section. Hope to continue good company with you in the future.

 

[ctg]

I would like to bring in your attention the great article from how to write yourself out from the dead end. How to write yourself out of a dead end

The author of this article is right. You sometimes as a story crafter get in a corrider where you think it's all boll**cks. Therefore, you must not from my own experience just delete the stuff, but read it objectively and find a way out from the direction. Although the author of the article says that you have to sometimes delete these corridors, I would say that you can use them later on when you rewrite the whole thing. Think about it as another layer on a onion, where the onion presents your story. If over the time, these little passages stay in your story, but in a refined way, you have created a texture that will show to the readers eyes in positive way.

Anyway, my time in the Library is over in 50 seconds. So have a happy reading times and I look forward to see your comments on this.

Love you all loads.

ctg

 

[Toby Frost]

I don't know whether this is the right place for it, but here goes. Grumpy old man hat engaged.

There are a few threads at the moment in which grammar comes up as something that needs to be thought about and improved. I don't want to have a go at anyone in particular, since this is really just a general thought. However I can't put it any stronger than this: To be a proper writer, you have to write properly.

There really isn't any way out of this. If you want to see work in print - and/or want people to read it - the grammar and technical stuff has to be as good as possible, by which I mean very good at least. Publishers won't be happy to copy-edit a work which is full of mistakes, but the issue probably won't arise since they won't take it on to begin with. If you want people to buy a story professionally - for money - it has to be professional.

Writing is fun, and writing well is both fun and hard work. Obviously, if everything was perfect there would be no point in discussing it here. But I feel that beyond a really rough stage it is important to get the technical stuff right. Not only does it make the story look more professional and more pleasant to read, but I think that getting it right from as early as possible is a good habit to get into.

So that's why this thread is a Good Thing.

Right, rant hat off. No doubt this post is full of errors too - just don't tell me.

 

[The Judge]

Hear, hear.

 

[chopper]

spot on, Mr Frost.

 

[ctg]

There are a few threads at the moment in which grammar comes up as something that needs to be thought about and improved. I don't want to have a go at anyone in particular, since this is really just a general thought. However I can't put it any stronger than this: To be a proper writer, you have to write properly.

Well, I don't know if this was aimed at me, but since last September I have been writing in Finnish as it's my mother language, and I want to say that after that switch I have understood the problems I've created to myself by writing in another language. It was never as good as what you guys can come up with, but then again, it has thought me a lot. I would have never made it this far without being a stubborn old git.

What I have gathered in these pages are sort of things that I have found useful over these years. They are meant to be useful, not only to me, but to everyone. And Mister Frost is very right. To get published you have to write properly, professionally (as if your life would depend on it). But not all can do it as well as others, so to lend Mika Waltari's words: "A writer has to write the best he can. No more and nothing less. Just the best."

I you write less then you can, you are not writing the best, and if you try to be better than you can, you simplistically over do it.

 

[The Judge]

Well, I don't know if this was aimed at me

I have no doubt at all, ctg, that Toby's post was not in any way directed at you. As he said, there had been a couple of new threads where the point had arisen, but Toby being the gentleman he is, he brought the issue here as a general point rather than make it appear he was criticisng specific people.

Interesting article, by the way. Touch wood, that complete wrong alley has never happened to me. I agree whole-heartedly about the never deleting things entirely bit, though. Just in the last couple of days I've resurrected several lengthy paragraphs which I had removed as slowing up the action, but in a new place they are on their way to becoming a major plot point (she hopes).

 

[Toby Frost]

Not in the slightest - it really wasn't directed at anyone in particular. I did consider mentioning the non-first-language thing but then thought that I'd end up leaving someone out for another reason. (Thank you, Judge, by the way. You see, we lawyers are friendly to one another. It's just the entire non-lawyer world we loathe in our twisted hearts).

My point is really that I think getting the basic grammar stuff right shouldn't be something to superimpose on the story at the end unless you're in a very early draft. I've occasionally come across the idea - not here - that it doesn't matter much about the actual writing so long as the concept is really strong. I don't think this is right at all, and I actually doubt how many books are either sold or work on concept alone. I think CTG's quote sums it up pretty well.

 

[Ursa major]

If you have a hit-and-miss memory like mine, getting things down on paper with adequate grammar is important: you'll want to know what it is you were writing about when you return to it.


The use of grammar is not a fad or a hanging-on to some mythical golden age of wonderful prose. We use grammar because we need it to remove unnecessary** ambiguity, so that the reader has a chance of working out what we have written.

The alternatives don't bear thinking about: a world where no-one's sure what anyone means and will never find out; or a world where authors spend their time explaining (in sentences still devoid of any certainty) what they meant by what they wrote the first time around.



** - Ambiguity is fine provided you mean to use it.

 

[alchemist]

What about scenes where only one character speaks, interspersed with actions? I have an issue where two characters meet regularly, but one is mute. No. 2 speaks, and no. 1 gestures. As an example, is this okay as one paragraph...

Gerry turned his back on her while he made the tea. “I know,” he said, “that you were responsible for my brother’s death.” While pouring the steaming water, he checked that the gun’s safety catch was off. “You were the only one close enough to do it.” He made sure the gun was covered by his shirt, and finished the tea. “Nobody else would have wanted him dead, except you.” He turned to face her, holding the tray. “And that, my dear, is why I asked you to come today.”

And how long can this go on for before you're better to use another paragraph? Is it just a matter of how it looks?

Secondly, if I shift the focus on to the other character, should I start another paragraph or not e.g.

Gerry turned his back on her while he made the tea. “I know,” he said, “that you were responsible for my brother’s death.” While pouring the steaming water, he checked that the gun’s safety catch was off. “You were the only one close enough to do it.” He made sure the gun was covered by his shirt, and finished the tea. “Nobody else would have wanted him dead, except you.” He turned to face her, holding the tray. *She looked very uncomfortable on the couch, fidgeting with her watch.* “And that, my dear, is why I asked you to come today.”

 

[The Judge]

As a matter of grammar both are correct. As a matter of making your prose as smooth as possible I think I'd amend them so that it wasn't so starkly one sentence dialogue, one sentence action, one sentence dialogue etc. I'd also put a para break in for emphasis. So I'd have written it:

Gerry turned his back on her. “I know,” he said, “that you were responsible for my brother’s death. You were the only one close enough to do it.” While waiting for the water to boil, he checked the gun’s safety catch was off and made sure the gun was covered by his shirt. “Nobody else would have wanted him dead, except you.” He finished making the tea and turned to face her.

“And that, my dear, is why I asked you to come here today.”

(Just to confirm -- what you've written isn't wrong -- it's just to my ear it sounds better this way. Others might disagree.)

With the other character's action, if she is communicating with him then I might treat this as a separate line of "dialogue", but I can't see a problem with leaving it where you have it -- provided that you separate the sentence about her from any dialogue. ie if you'd written:

“You were the only one close enough to do it.” She looked uncomfortable on the couch, fiddling with her watch. “Nobody else would have wanted him dead, except you.”

I'd probably put that in three separate lines to avoid any ambiguity about who might be speaking.

 

[alchemist]

Thanks Judge. Good to know I have some flexibility with this. I noticed on your first amendment..

Gerry turned his back on her. “I know,” he said, “that you were responsible for my brother’s death. You were the only one close enough to do it.” While waiting for the water to boil, he checked the gun’s safety catch was off and made sure the gun was covered by his shirt. “Nobody else would have wanted him dead, except you.” He finished making the tea and turned to face her.

“And that, my dear, is why I asked you to come here today.”

...you didn't use any dialogue attribution for the last line. I suppose it has to be pretty clear from the context that this is the original speaker.

 

[The Judge]

Well, if one of them is mute, I don't think there is likely to be any confusion!

Even if both of them could speak, I might have left the attribution off simply because it is so much punchier without it, and I think it is self-evident he's still speaking. That kind of thing does depend on exactly what is said, though -- if the wording had been more ambiguous, then an attribution might have been needed, but then I probably wouldn't have separated it out from the rest, since it wouldn't have had the same impact as a line.

 

[anthorn]

Question. Anthorn was running to her, he had a crystal in his hand and she recognised it as (Vena'S) Venas crystal?

The Lycrot's/Lycrots were coming? The Lycrots/Lycrot's were almost upon him.

Jarahs feelings on the matter. Jarah's feelings on the matter?

 

[Toby Frost]

Is the name Vena? If so then Vena's crystal. If the name is Venas I'd write it Venas', although some might do Venas's.

Lycrots is presumably a straight plural so there's no need to put in the possessive '. If one lycrot owned a hat, it would be the lycrot's hat.

Jarah's, since the feelings are hers and hence she effectively owns them.

Oh, and "Anthorn was running to her, he had a crystal in his hand" should be two sentences or separated with a colon or semi-colon. The comma after "her" isn't strong enough to separate the two parts of the sentence. There's a proper way of describing this, but I can't remember what it is.

 

[anthorn]

Her name is Vena, thanks. I know I was just writing examples.

So when someone is talking about the Lycrots it should be. The Lycrots were horrible creatures. Without a '. The Lycrots lunged at her. NO '? Yes.

Anthorn held Venas (person) crystal should be Anthorn held Vena's cystal.