posted
I’m a member of another witting forum, and was reading some other peoples critique on a piece that I had also reviewed. One critiquer (who was better then I) was able to identify something in the piece that bothered me but I couldn’t put my finger on…the use of passive sentences. The first thought I had was to ask this group a couple of questions, but most of them were answered when I googgled “passive sentences”
1) in fiction (as apposed to technical writing) is the passive voice always the poorer choice? 2) Anyone have any tips on how they flag passive voice in their own (or others) work? Or is just something that one gets good at with practice?
2. I think you just have to get good at it. There are those who will say to watch out for being verbs but I strongly avise against this because the two aren't well related. I did a writing lesson on passive voice a while back (within the year but many months ago)...maybe it will help. (It's in the writing lessons part of the forum.
1. Passive voice should *almost* always be avoided in fiction. It is pretty bad. There are always exceptions and I'm sure we could go case by case. A couple of general times when I'd use passive voice:
A. You don't know who the subject is or the specific subject is unimportant: "John was arrested." (As long as this isn't a cop story, then we may not care about the cop who did the arresting.)
B. The whole paragraph uses a subject and you'd like to stick with that subject:
"Megan saw the puppies try to swim across the river. She wanted to help them, but she could not swim. Then she saw a strange, handsome man jump in. She was touched by his courage."
Ok, it's a bad paragraph, but you see that Megan was the subject throughout. In the last paragraph the thing that performs the action is "his courage" but since Megan did everything else in the paragraph it's sometimes advisable to stick with her.
P.S. Let me just add that in the first case, when a subject is unknown or unimportant, that you should try to know the subject...too many sentences for this reason makes for a very weak story.
[This message has been edited by Christine (edited February 28, 2006).]
posted
The "no-passive-voice" rule is actually a pet-peeve of mine. Passive voice is not bad writing. It's not always effewctive in a given situation, but it is not the devil of writing. It's a tool at your disposal, like any other. Sure, active voice tends to be more often the most effective choice, just like a philips-head screwdriver is a more effective screwdriver, but sometimes you have to use the flat-blade screwdriver or the passive voice because the philips won't fit.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll second that, and throw in the same comment about the use of "to be" (many crits have pointed out to me that using "to be" is evil). Sure, if you have too many of them. But the verb is still one of the basic tools of the language, and trying to get around it is about as useful and as sucessful as trying to write dialogue without "say".
Posts: 1075 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Very few finatics think anything is so bad that it should never be used, but frankly it's better for beginning writers to recognize, watch out for, and attempt to eliminate passive voice. It is a tool, but unlike a screwdriver or a hammer it shouldn't be in the toolbelt. Rather, it should be in the basement or attic in a large box that you sometimes tink you should organize but then realize that you only get into it once a year so you probably won't.
As for "to be"...that one can go in the toolbelt. Some people are weird about that verb.
Oh, and if you're writing something like a scientific paper you'd better pull passive voice out of that box.
[This message has been edited by Christine (edited March 01, 2006).]
posted
Christine hit the big points, but I did want to add on the general rule that it's passive voice when the subject receives the action of the verb.
"To be" constructions *can* indicate it, but as Christine rightly pointed out, it's not a given. I've often used it as a flag not to indicate I'm using passive voice, but to remind myself to take another look at a given sentence and make sure. However, I don't use that flag exclusively.
It's the other forms of passive that are tricky to spot.
posted
I'm reminded of my trial advocacy course in law school. The instructor gave us "The Ten Commandments of Cross-Examination." He prefaced the Commandments with this disclaimer, and I remember it so well that I can repeat it verbatim:
"A virtuouso can and will break every one of these commandments. But YOU must ALWAYS follow them!"
I liked that instructor.
Anyway, for my two cents, you should always avoid the passive tense unless you have a specific and compelling reason to use it. The only specific and compelling reason I can think to use it are if you don't know the subject, you don't want the reader to know the subject, or when you want to create emotional distance between the actor and the action.
[This message has been edited by J (edited March 01, 2006).]
posted
Personally I don't think there's anything wrong with passive voice if used in such a way that it doesn't bring attention to itself. To me it's a question of the sound, the cadence of your writing. For example, I think the sentence "She was caught by a snare of broken dreams" sounds more musical than "A snare of broken dreams caught her." I think the choice of which to use depends in part on how the sentence fits with all the others around it, and to make a good decision a writer must develop an ear for the sound of his or her writing.
Now I imagine there are probably cases in which passive voice is not appropriate. I wouldn't necessarily use this as a hard and fast rule, but I suspect that you will find more passive voice in a lyrically descriptive passage than in a technical one. I suppose I would suggest that you not use the passive voice unless you are convinced that it makes as much sense as the active voice and sounds better in the context of your paragraph.
posted
I don't think that's an example of the passive voice, just an opening that uses 'to be' verbs. 'Was' acts as a modifier? Did I get that right?
Posts: 1275 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Use of the word "was" does not mean "passive" voice, as I've said before.
Passive voice is the opposite of "active" because the actor in the sentence is not the subject of the sentence (so the word order is oppposite from an active sentence).
Using "was" is more often the opposite of "active" because it is used in sentences in which there is no action, only a state of being (since "was" is a form of "to be"). So "was" is "static" and not necessarily passive.
This confusion between "was" (static) and "passive" (sentence order changed) is very common, and clearing it up has become one of my cause celebres.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
