Getting to grips with passive sentences

[Handsome John]

Bob pressed against the lashing sleet as he trudged through the clouds mouth that swallowed the hills.

I like AJB's suggestion (or something like it), although I have changed the first "through" to "against" so as not to use through twice in the same sentence.

 

[Rufus Coppertop]

I just noticed a sentence I'm using can be written in two ways, but I'm not entirely sure if I'm using active sentences correctly:

1. Grey cloud swallowed the hills and sleet lashed against Bob
2. Grey cloud swallowed the hills and lashed sleet against Bob

The only difference is that the words "sleet" and "lashed" are reversed in the second example.

I had originally written the first, thinking I was making Bob more active, but now I think about it, Bob is the object and the clouds are active, which means Bob is passive regardless, but the second makes more sense.

I'm slightly troubled by the idea that Bob is passive, but if I write "Bob was lashed by sleet as grey clouds swalloed the hills" then Bob is still passive, right, but now the whole sentence is passive, not active?

No. Both clauses in each sentences are active.

1.a. 'grey cloud' is the subject. 'swallow' is the verb. 'hills' is the object of the verb. It's active because the subject is doing the verb.
1.b. 'sleet' is the subject. 'lashed' is the verb. 'Bob is the object and therefore is done to but he's not the subject. Again, this cause is active because the subject, 'sleet' is doing the verb.

In 2. 'grey cloud' is the subject, 'hills' is the direct object of 'swallowed' and 'sleet' is the direct object of 'lashed' while 'Bob' is the indirect object of 'lashed'. Again, he's a passive recipient of action BUT - he's not the subject.

A sentence is only in passive voice when the subject is the recipient of the verb's action.

'Bob was lashed by sleet as grey cloud swallowed the hills' is passive because now 'Bob' is the subject of the sentence and he's receiving the action.

 

[Piousflea84]

An active clause contains a subject, a verb, and an object.
In a passive clause, the object is verbed. (there is no subject)

Your first version is a compound sentence, a grammatical construct composed of two independent clauses:
Grey cloud swallowed the hills. (This is an active independent clause; it forms a complete sentence by itself)
and
Sleet lashed against Bob. (This is another active independent clause. It can also form a complete sentence by itself.)

The second version is a complex sentence, with one independent and one dependent clause:
Grey cloud swallowed the hills. (Active independent clause)
and
(grey cloud) lashed sleet against Bob. (Active dependent clause; the subject is dependent on the first clause)

A passive clause would look like this:
Bob was sleet-lashed.
The hills were clouded.

Passive clauses are wrong when they sound clunky, dishonest, or just plain ridiculous (like those two examples). However, they aren't always a bad thing. In some cases the passive clause is appropriate, such as the "naming passive":
The stray cat was named Ulysses.
She was known as the Green Reaper.

The naming passive lets the reader know what something is called without letting them know who gave that name. This gives a rather different impression from the active naming sentence:
Jackie named the stray cat Ulysses.
Her employees called her the Green Reaper.

 

[Piousflea84]

An easy way to tell the difference between passive and active clauses:

"Help," she cried, "The subject has stolen my object!"

The constable sat passively. "What happened?"

"My object was stolen by the subject," she repeated actively.

He picked up a pen and pad. A scribbled note formed. Subject was stolen. Object escaped.

 

[Rufus Coppertop]

An active clause contains a subject, a verb, and an object.
In a passive clause, the object is verbed. (there is no subject)

That's an interesting spin on the fact that the subject in a passive clause receives the action of the verb.

In doing so, the subject is objectified in a sense so I can see where you're coming from but still, descriptions of passive voice in English all describe it in terms of the subject being the recipient of an action by an agent. English is similar to Latin in this way where the recipient of an action in a passive voice construction is always in the nominative case and therefore can only be a subject and not an object although, obviously in English it's word order rather than case endings that determine the grammatical case of a particular noun.

https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/owlprint/539/

http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/passive-voice/

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

http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/activepassive.html

However, they aren't always a bad thing. In some cases the passive clause is appropriate, such as the "naming passive"

Passive voice is also handy when you want the emphasis to stay on the subject rather than on the agent. Maintaining tight POV for example.

 

[ctg]

I'm not sure I understand whether I'm on the right track or not - anyone care to comment?

It's a writer mind problem, as with more practice you start to doubt perfectly good sentences. You cannot help it and the solution to this problem is having confidence in your writing and knowing the rules. Rest is just plain old work. But for the note, sentences in the creative works has to be judged in the context, not individually, because there's a myriad number of ways to write the same thing.

 

[farntfar]

The hills were swallowed by grey cloud, and Bob was lashed by the sleet. (My coat is about to be got by me.)