How to Kill the Passive Voice

[Mouse]

The site Mouse linked is good, but can be confusing. That "(noun) (verb) (noun)" thing could easily throw more than a few people for a loop.

Yeah, I find explanations which talk about nouns/verbs etc. confusing, but the examples on that site worked for me.

 

[Ursa major]

But that's probably the only time(s) it can be justified.

But you can still have something active.

Again and again, Thortir was hit, until he was forced to the ground.

can be replaced by

Though outnumbered, Thortir fought bravely until, under a flurry of blows, he collapsed to the ground.

Okay, it's a simplistic example, but the writer can do more than just switch the subject and object and change the verb to get the desired result.

 

[Hex]

But the emphasis there is very different -- in the first, he's far more of a [passive!] victim and the emphasis is on his helpless defeat; in the second, the emphasis is on his fighting (because that's what he is actively doing).

Not saying I like the first one better (although...) but it certainly gives a very different feeling, and one you might want sometimes.

 

[Ursa major]

True, but I didn't want to provide an example showing how one could maintain the same level of boringness as found in the original version.

 

[TitaniumTi]

I learnt about passive voice by deliberately writing that way. When I started writing about science (and I won't say how long ago that was), passive voice was seen as a sign of objectivity in science.

I was taught to write, "the variables were selected", "the subjects were observed", "the output was weighed" et cetera.

Thank goodness, common sense (and the active voice) is winning. Despite grammatical convention, human choices always drive science, and bad science is still bad science, even when it is described in the passive voice. Conversely, active voice doesn't change good science into bad science.

 

[tinkerdan]

You have an excellent point here but the problem is not merely pointing out passive sentences.

The point was more that not everything that people call passive IS passive, and that instead it is often used to say something is weak, even when the weak sentence is grammatically active.

The alternative word choices were to get away from incorrectly saying passive if you don't want to say weak.

It isn't my strong suit, so I was wanting to know what people thought in regards to the whole "not really passive voice" thing.

The point is as Teresa puts it that you point out weakness, which might not even involve passivity. You also explain yourself or you shouldn't mention it.

As an example I'll use drywalling, which I've done and admit I do not know well.

When someone comes along and suggests, "You're not doing that right."

I step back and hand them all the tools and nod toward the work and say, "Show me." Because 'You're not doing that right.' is worthless.

 

[tinkerdan]

This part of a different animal and you might be fighting upstream.

I learnt about passive voice by deliberately writing that way. When I started writing about science (and I won't say how long ago that was), passive voice was seen as a sign of objectivity in science.

I was taught to write, "the variables were selected", "the subjects were observed", "the output was weighed" et cetera.

Thank goodness, common sense (and the active voice) is winning. Despite grammatical convention, human choices always drive science, and bad science is still bad science, even when it is described in the passive voice. Conversely, active voice doesn't change good science into bad science.

Both user manuals or instructions and scientific articles thrive on passive voice for very conventional reasons passive voice does not make good science bad...just boring.

 

[ZombieWife]

This part of a different animal and you might be fighting upstream.



Both user manuals or instructions and scientific articles thrive on passive voice for very conventional reasons passive voice does not make good science bad...just boring.

I agree with this. And passive voice can be a good tool every now and then, even in fiction. Kind of like adverbs.

 

[JoanDrake]

Mouse, thanks very much for not becoming righteously angry at me for mistaking Springs for you. It's just that I've seen so much good stuff by both of you that I get you mixed up.


Thanks to all the others and their help. I am getting a handle on it now, I think, though any more advice is always welcome

 

[tinkerdan]

Yes adverbs can be good.

I agree with this. And passive voice can be a good tool every now and then, even in fiction. Kind of like adverbs.

But a favorite phrase of a friend usually accompanied by a waving of hands is."Too many adverbs."

So in moderations do we merrily go about adverb-erating.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Really, we shouldn't be looking to "kill" anything (except bad writing -- and what that is can be subjective).

It shouldn't be about stamping out adverbs, adjectives, passive voice, etc. It's about taking care how and when we use them.

 

[ZombieWife]

Yes adverbs can be good.



But a favorite phrase of a friend usually accompanied by a waving of hands is."Too many adverbs."

So in moderations do we merrily go about adverb-erating.

Kind of like the Emperor in Amadeus. "Too many notes."

(Maybe I'm dating myself too much on that one.)

 

[TitaniumTi]

passive voice does not make good science bad...

I certainly can't argue with this. I was criticizing the use of passive voice to make research seem more rigorous than it is.

The url below links to a discussion on the pros and cons of passive voice in scientific writing.

https://cgi.duke.edu/web/sciwriting/index.php?action=passive_voice

IMO this quote from the article applies to all writing:

"I think the most important thing is that you've thought about it and you make the decision consciously.'

 

[Mouse]

Mouse, thanks very much for not becoming righteously angry at me for mistaking Springs for you. It's just that I've seen so much good stuff by both of you that I get you mixed up.

No worries! Me and springs seem to get mixed up a fair bit. We're like writing twins. I'm flattered.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

No worries! Me and springs seem to get mixed up a fair bit. We're like writing twins. I'm flattered.

Heh. Me too.

 

[tinkerdan]

mouse-springs aren't those the most hazardous part of the mouse-trap.