Frenzied Daddy

There are currently 5 responses to “Passive Voice”

Why not let us know what you think by adding your own comment! Your opinion is as valid as anyone elses, so come on... let us know what you think.

1. 1 On April 5th, 2005, shane said:

   You lost me…on many levels.

   First off, what is wrong with the passive voice? “It was a dark and stormy night” is a very descriptive line. What should be written instead?

   #2…English (the subject, not the spoken language) has never been my strongsuit, much less my college major, so what did you just say. I have no idea what you said except “don’t speak with a passive voice…cut to the chase.” Why? Why can’t we use more words and talk eloquently to get out point across?

   Unless you are talking about JRR Tolkien. I never finished the LORD OF THE RINGS series because he would spend 10 pages describing the elven grass and trees, or 5 chapters describing the landscape that Aragorn and the others traversed thru in their pursuit of the Orcs holding the Hobbits hostage. I mean really…

   (OK…how passive was my voice?)

2. 2 On April 5th, 2005, shane said:

   OK…so instead of “It was a dark and stormy night” Snoopy should type “It is raining and dark?” What is an example of what he should say instead?

3. 3 On April 5th, 2005, Russ said:

   Of course rules are made to be broken. Here’s someone else’s musings on the subject. I’d probably rewrite “It was a dark and stormy night” to be “The ran, shoved mercilessly by the wind, ran in rivulets down the dark house.” Sure, I’m using more words, but I’m a word nerd.

   Essentially it comes down to: “is” isn’t very active. Let the subject of the sentence actually “do” something.

4. 4 On April 6th, 2005, Georgia Jones said:

   Hey man, I kept trying to leave comments on your blog and getting aced out. Normally I would let it go, but because I’m an ex-professional editor and I used to live and die by the Chicago Manual, I have to tell you: that post you wrote about passive voice?

   That ain’t passive voice.

   It’s telling rather than showing, and it’s using a weak verb instead of a strong one — both insidious uses of the English language. But passive voice is about who does what to whom, verb-wise — it has nothing to do with using strong verbs or the tell v. show thing.

   To read about passive voice, see this page: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_actpass.html. Quickly, though, here are a couple examples:

   Passive: “The book was opened to page 3 by the girl.”
   Active: “The girl opened the book to page 3.”

   Passive: The dog was run over by the car.
   Active: The car ran over the dog.

   Passive voice (PV) is not always bad — and neither is using the verb “to be.” PV has its uses. Many cultures use it to be seen as less aggressive. Surprisingly, the French adore the passive form. It’s also an excellent technique for expressing character without having to say “This person has as much gumption as a fucking tree snail,” which is not subtle and would o-ffend any number of gentle readers.

   You also have to consider clarity and brevity. I’m all for strong verbs — strong verbs, though, not a string of adjectives or nouns. And definitely not adverbs.

   Here’s the deal: While “it was a dark and stormy night” may be bland, it’s better than firehosing your readers with adjectives, adverbs (pernicious little fuckers!) or strings of nouns.

   More examples: “Rain lashed the house” is good; lashed is a great verb. “The sky spun mischief around the eaves” is woowoo but it sets a tone.

   But the rivulets and the dark house and the rain being shoved mercilessly… well, there’s a lot in there that you don’t need. Here’s your sentence:

   The ran, shoved mercilessly by the wind, ran in rivulets down the dark house.

   That’s a bit wordy. It’s also got some passive voice in it (shoved mercilessly by…) and strategically speaking, you’re not getting a lot of bang for your buck. You’re loading up your sentence with unnecessary words.

   If you tightened it up, made every word work for you, you’d keep your reader in that vivid and continuous dream we’re all striving for:

   The wind shoved the rain down the house.
   The wind hammered the rain against the house.

   And if you have to have rivulets:
   The wind slammed the rain against the house, forcing rivulets across the slate tiles.

   Or possibly:
   The wind wove around the house, rain snaking across the windows.

   None of those are great, but they’re direct and not goofily Gothic. It won’t make your readers roll their eyes — it won’t distract them from the vivid and continuous dream you’re trying to create for them.

   Slate tiles adds to the already dark picture; carving, forcing, and shoved are nice and strong. And the length of the latter sentences lend themselves to a meandering, snake-like tone, which is good if you’re looking to build suspense.

   Read Strunk and White for the specifics — but basically? Shorter and punchier is more effective than verbose, because — especially in this day and age — we none of us have the time, patience or attention span to dig through 18 words when 8 would do.
   I’m sorry; I just had to say. Again: good for you for trying to wipe out bad writing! Fight on, brother! Sorry about the diatribe. Perhaps my next job will be Merciless English Teacher.

   Oops, adverb.

   - GJ (http://odiouswoman.blogspot.com/ )

5. 5 On April 19th, 2005, Carina said:

   Aptly said. Everyone should follow suit.