My question is, can you give me some examples of writing in the passive voice and the alternative. I have a major problem with this and having attended a a writers conference recently (I'm sure that is passive)I have been advised to have a more active and positive voice.

Okay that was a long question, but I hope you can help.

Doc Brown is the subject of the sentence, and Doc Brown is carrying out the action of the sentence.

Passive voice: "This post was written by Doc Brown."

In this version of the sentence, this post is the subject, even though Doc Brown is still carrying out the primary action.

Passive voice is used (see?) but only in certain circumstances. When I read or write technical papers, PV is basically the only voice people use. ("Samples were heated to 1400 degress for 3 hours, then quenched in water."). It irritates me, but it's standard.

Thank You!

http://www.sfwa.org/writing/mistakes_allen.htm

http://www.sfwa.org/writing/chadvce.htm

The book -- nay, the BOOK -- by Strunk and White is a great way for gammar-hopeless people (like me, an engineer!) to get the important parts.

Also dailygrammar.com they send you a daily grammar lesson or you can go to the archives for specific places you may need help with.

Passive voice---- a lot of whoopla is going on about it right now. It has gotten to the point that I know editors who reject based on seeing one instance of was or had. There are times when was, is simply a form of the verb to be.

I caution anyone who uses MSWord to fix their grammar. Its grammar checker is seriously impaired. I have actually gotten critiques where the person used MSWord to do it in a different style than I had the thing set to. I have also gotten submissions where the person obviously used MSWord as their only source of checking. Nothing can beat good lessons in grammar.

My suggestions, buy English Grammar for Dummies, and do the Daily Grammar lessons. Both contain examples in plain easy to understand terms with examples that can’t be beat. Also, remember that while the trend right now is against the use of passive voice—it does have its place and you need to consider individual style as well. Some people will tell you every use of the word that is bad, someone else will tell you that all words ending in ing and ly should be gotten rid of---any over use should be looked at. But style is a matter of preference---of reader and author choice. A good editor or agent keeps author style in mind along with the marketing side of the issue.

I believe the the strict edict against passive voice is an over reaction. Some characters speak in passive voice . . . Shakespeare used it for crying out loud!

I just took a quick glance at Shakespeare, and found passive voice on the first page I read. Here is Hermia in "A Midsummer Night's Dream" Act 1, Scene 1:

And by that fire which burn'd the Carthage queen
When the false Troyan under sail was seen,
By all the vows that ever men have broke,
In number more than ever women spoke,
In that same place thou hast appointed me,
To-morrow truly will I meet with thee.

Passive voice is not really a grammatical error as such. Sentences structured with passive voice are perfectly legitimate and can be read or spoken smoothly. Did you even notice the passive voice phrase in the sentence before this one? Probably not.

The problem with passive voice is not awkwardness, like dangling prepositions or other grammatical boo-boos. The problem with passive voice is that it makes the primary actor of its sentence feel weak to your audience.

I absolutely agree that you should never use PV in a formal, serious paper, essay, or report. You should almost never use it in a fictional narrative. But sometimes you may want characters to speak in passive voice becuase of the subtlte subtext it conveys.

Now, before anyone gets upset... I can certainly agree that too many passive sentences would be a very bad thing, but altogether I dont get it.

Although, needless to say I will have to explore this passive thing a lot more in depth!

Mainly because there are two separate things that are often referred to as "passive." One actually belongs to that term, the other doesn't.

Passive voice is when the subject of a sentence is moved to the other side of the predicate (the part that requires a verb) and becomes the object (usually in a prepositional phrase with "by" as the preposition) of the sentence.

Example:

Active sentence: The dog bit the man.

Passive form of that sentence: The man was bitten by the dog.

Bureaucratese passive form of the sentence: The man was bitten.

(I call the third sentence bureaucratese because that's how bureaucrats and politicians talk about things so no one is made responsible for what happens. Scientists do something similar, but they claim their reason for it is so that they don't sound like they're bragging.)

The other thing that is often called "passive" is more properly referred to as "static." Some people think that whenever you use a form of the "to be" verb (most commonly "was"), you are using "passive voice."

Wrong. That is "static" voice because nothing is happening. The subject is just sitting there, being. Static is the opposite of active, but only because there are no actions described. Static is not passive in the sense of "passive voice."

So, if you have problems with true passive voice, those can be fixed very easily. Just put the subject of the sentence where it belongs.