posted
Every so often I feel the need to bring up passive voice again because it seems to be a difficult concept for many writers. To be perfectly honest, I have critiqued a great number of amateur works at this time and as a whole, passive voice does not tend to be a huge problem. That's strange, given the number of warnings against the use of passive voice. I'm not saying its never a problem, but if I had to pick the single biggest problem for amateur writers as a whole it would be knowing when to start and stop a story,a ctually.
Passive voice, though. Passive voice is a bit unnatural. Not much of fiction is written in passive voice and so I think for that reason, even amateur writers (if they read much) are not naturally inclined to word sentences that way. Honestly, my biggest problem with passive voice is that peopl hear it, don't know exactly what it means, and start flagging sentences as passive in the feedback they give. So, let's go over it one more time for the benefit of all.
A sentence is written in passive voice when the subject of the sentence does not perform the action. A sentence is written in active voice when the subject of the sentence does perform the action.
To put this another way:
If the action of a sentence is performed by something other than the subject it is passive voice. (Yes, that sentence was passive voice. The subject of this sentence is "the action of a sentence" and the action "performed" is done by "something other than the subject")
If the subject performs the action it is active voice. (yes, this is writteni n active voice. The subject, "the subject" performs "performs")
Just because a sentence has a "to be" verb in it does not mean it is passive. A great many passive voice sentences are written with "to be" verbs bur the reverse is not true...that a great many "to be" verbs are found in passive sentences.
Not does the word "had" make a sentence psasive. This is the one I've come across a few times lately (at least three, and I'm not naming names but some hatrackers were guilty...hope you don't mind me starting this topic. )I think this is confusing because the word "passive" kind of goes with something that "had" happened in the past. But this is not what people mean when they same that something is written in passive voice. Overused "had"s is a topic for another thread, one which I will start shortly.
So, discuss if you wish, fire around the questions you were afraid to ask (maybe someone else was confused too and you can help out). This isn't really a question, as most threads start with, it's just an FYI...but we can still discuss.
posted
One of the things I actually like about MS Word is that when you do a spell/grammar check, you can also check the readability stats. The readability statistics can automatically calculate the percentage of passive sentences in the document.
I was first introduced to the issue of passive sentences in college when I took a technical writing course. Because technical writing needs to be clear and direct, the instructor told us we should avoid using passive sentences.
i.e.
Billy threw the ball.
The ball was thrown by Billy.
The first sentence is active voice, the second is passive. Both mean the same the thing, but the active voice is more direct.
In fiction, I think there is more leeway with passive sentences than in non-fiction. Sometimes things need to be written with a passive voice, but it is important not to overuse it.
posted
> Billy threw the ball. > > The ball was thrown by Billy.
Yes, the second sentence is passive, but as Christine points out, many people contrast two sentences like that and think that the verb "was" identifies the sentence as being passive.
Billy was throwing the ball.
That sentence is not passive, even though it contains the word "was."
posted
Oh, how I do love Latin. I think I have a much better grasp of passive sentences than the majority of other high school students because of Latin. I love passive sentences. They have no place in technical writing though (well almost not place, I sure can't think of an example).
What's great about passive sentences is that they change the subject of the sentence. Yeah yeah I know that's obvious but if you think about it that's precisely the point of using passive sentences. It is essentially communicating that the recipient of the action is the most important part of the sentence. In our example the passive sentence is making the ball more important than billy(or whatever his name is) and that gives it some sort of mystical, significant quality. Or maybe I'm reading way too far into this, as I am prone to do.
Latin is neat because just changing one letter is often the difference between passive and active, none of this fifty million helping verbs crap.
laudamus - we are praising laudamur - we are being praised
posted
Passive is also used to disguise the actor in a sentence.
Billy threw a ball. (active)
A ball was thrown by Billy. (passive form #1)
A ball was thrown and hit Susie in the face. (passive form #2)
In passive form #2, no "blame" or "credit" is assigned to the action.
Passive form #2 is used a lot in political writing, as well as in certain kinds of crime reporting (when the other choice might be along the lines of "Billy was alleged to have thrown a ball that hit Susie in the face"--which is also passive form #2 because it doesn't say who alleged that Billy threw a ball).
Passive form #2 is also common in scientific papers, as Bladeofwords indicated, because it isn't important to say who did the experiment. The experiment and its results are what are important.
Passive form #1 is not as bad in fiction as passive form #2 because fiction needs to be clear and specific. Passive form #2, by leaving out the actor entirely, becomes unclear and vague. It can still be used (another example of passive form #2, by the way), but be very careful with it (this part of the sentence is not passive, but imperative, with "you" understood to be the subject).
posted
Actually, whenever I do use passivee voice in fiction it is almost always form #2...it usually reads something like.
Billy was arrested five years ago.
In this case it is likely that Billy is the main player in my story and the police who arrested him are nameless, faceless, and implicit in the fact that an arrest was made.
quote:One of the things I actually like about MS Word is that when you do a spell/grammar check, you can also check the readability stats. The readability statistics can automatically calculate the percentage of passive sentences in the document.
Be cautious with this: the last time I used Word's grammar checker (which was, admittedly, about 10 years ago!) it sometimes mistook some forms of past tense for passive. Probably not in examples as simple as EJS's example of "Billy was throwing the ball," but that kind of construction in a more complicated sentence definitely confused it.
posted
MS Word's grammar check is not perfect...but it does work fairly well, IMO. I keep msot of it on all the time. (There are some parts I ask it to shut off.) It has been particularly helpful when it comes to comma usage, subject/verb agreement, and passive voice. In fact, I'd say passive voice is the most useful current feature. It must have improved in the last ten years. I've only been using it for about one year.
Posts: 3567 | Registered: May 2003
|
posted
True enough. As with any computer tool, there are going to be things that it will inevitably screw-up. That is the nature of computers (it means we have to buy upgrades as they improve ).
However, the passive sentence percentage can give you a ball-park idea of what you are writing.
How much does it matter? Who knows. Like just about everything, it is relative to what you are writing and the tone or emphasis you want.
On a whim I checked out what Strunk and White had to say about active/passive voice.
posted
I would think that a vast majority of new writers might not truly understand grammar. I'll admit that before I became interested in writing I knew subject, verb, and prepositional phrase. I've learned a bit more since then, but I still have a ways to go.
It took me a good month to get the whole passive voice concept down. That was after I saw it mentioned here. I would bet I still have some in my writing, but I can get most out with the second revision.
I wonder if it is harder for the new writer to understand, or for the more experienced to deal with while critiquing?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
).
