Passive voice

[Madak Hill]

Hi all, I hope this is posted in the right place and hasn't been discussed to death before (I did a search and checked the threads in this sub-forum and didn't come up with anything).

I'm wondering what people think of the use of a passive voice in writing. Is it really the mark of the amateur, or does it have its place? Should it only be used sparingly, or is it a completely valid writing method/voice?

Some of my thoughts: I've become aware - and very wary - of the passive voice recently when editing some of my work. I know it can dilute the narration (as if events are not happening 'right now', but way off in the past - whatever tense is being used), but I also think the passive voice can work, even when used often. However, some sentences/phrases have been improved immensely by making them active, so I'm torn.

I have also pulled down a few popular books and checked to see if they use a passive voice, and almost all do, at least on occasion.

I haven't posted here in a while but am not a member of any writing forums, so I felt to come back here would be best! Thanks in advance for any responses. :)

[georgy]

....
I'm wondering what people think of the use of a passive voice in writing. Is it really the mark of the amateur, or does it have its place? Should it only be used sparingly, or is it a completely valid writing method/voice?

Hmmm Interesting question. I think you will find that most writing benefits from using so-called "active voice" eg "the vet injected the animals". In this sentence there is no ambiguity in terms of who carried out the action. It is clear, direct and easy to understand.
The passive voice on the other hand places the emphasis on the action rather than who is carrying out the action.The object is placed before the verb, and the subject, may not be mentioned. so then the example becomes something like : "The animals were vaccinated." but we don't know who by....

Interestingly this is a style often adopted in scientific journals (so its not simply a question of amateur versus professional!...)
viz: "Forty eight bullocks were vaccinated against foot and mouth disease. Blood samples were taken at hourly intervals and antibody levels.... etc etc" If you are writing this kind of stuff you are simply not interested in who was doing the injecting....it actually detracts from the scientific method to clutter it up with that kind of information....

However for novel writing etc I imagine the usual advice would be to use the active voice as it tends to be more direct and keep things moving but I am sure there are many many examples where passive voice can be very effective. WHy not post one or two examples of sentences you are concerned about so we can see how they look in both forms.....

[Madak Hill]

Hmmm Interesting question. I think you will find that most writing benefits from using so-called "active voice" eg "the vet injected the animals". In this sentence there is no ambiguity in terms of who carried out the action. It is clear, direct and easy to understand.
The passive voice on the other hand places the emphasis on the action rather than who is carrying out the action.The object is placed before the verb, and the subject, may not be mentioned. so then the example becomes something like : "The animals were vaccinated." but we don't know who by....

I find that I will write something like 'The animals were vaccinated by the vet.' This obviously makes things clumsy but it seems to be the natural way it comes out. Not always, I should add, but it's just finding a way to break this habit. I'm not confident with grammar, which I think is why I'm having difficulties with the active/passive voice distinction; where it works and where it doesn't.

However for novel writing etc I imagine the usual advice would be to use the active voice as it tends to be more direct and keep things moving but I am sure there are many many examples where passive voice can be very effective. WHy not post one or two examples of sentences you are concerned about so we can see how they look in both forms.....

I definitely agree regarding the active voice being more direct and, well, active! Although I know that both the active and passive voice have nothing to do with tense, it's very easy when using past tense to use 'was' 'were' etc. a lot. Here's an example for a story I discarded a while ago (won't post my current work as it's still very much my 'baby' at the moment! :D):

Original:

Henry wasn't keen on my new friends. He particularly didn't like Julia. Julia did love the sound of her own voice. She was over-confident, possessing the lack of humility that only comes from parents who over-indulge their children and tell them nothing but how fantastic they are. Subsequently Julia thought the world was hers for the taking.

With a bit of fiddling, it can read:

Henry found my new friends not to his liking. He particularly didn't like Julia, who admittedly did love the sound of her own voice. Over-confident, and possessing the lack of humility that only comes from parents who over-indulge their children, Julia believed the world hers for the taking.

Obviously this is very rough, but to me it doesn't sound all that different. I'm not even sure the amendment is strictly 'active', either, since the active voice involves more than just removing the 'was' words.

Thanks for your reply georgy. :)

[Minxminnie]

I'm a bit confused here. I don't know if you're using the term "passive voice" in the way I understand it. The phrase "wasn't keen on" isn't passive voice to me. But maybe it means something different in the writing fratenity? Sorry to butt in on a part of the forum I don't usually visit, and with a negative comment at that ... :(

[GERBAM]

IMHO I THINK GOING TO THE EXPERTS IS THE BEST WAY TO FIND OUT THE ANSWERS.
ENJOY
Passive and Active Voices
Verbs are also said to be either active (The executive committee approved the new policy) or passive (The new policy was approved by the executive committee) in voice. In the active voice, the subject and verb relationship is straightforward: the subject is a be-er or a do-er and the verb moves the sentence along. In the passive voice, the subject of the sentence is neither a do-er or a be-er, but is acted upon by some other agent or by something unnamed (The new policy was approved). Computerized grammar checkers can pick out a passive voice construction from miles away and ask you to revise it to a more active construction. There is [I] (IRONICALLY A PV ... LOL) nothing inherently wrong with the passive voice, but if you can say the same thing in the active mode, do so (see exceptions below). Your text will have more pizzazz as a result, since passive verb constructions tend to lie about in their pajamas and avoid actual work.

We find an overabundance of the passive voice in sentences created by self-protective business interests, magniloquent educators, and bombastic military writers (who must get weary of this accusation), who use the PV to avoid responsibility for actions taken. Thus "Cigarette ads were designed to appeal especially to children" places the burden on the ads — as opposed to "We designed the cigarette ads to appeal especially to children," in which "we" accepts responsibility. At a White House press briefing we might hear that "The President was advised that certain members of Congress were being audited" rather than "The Head of the Internal Revenue service advised the President that her agency was auditing certain members of Congress" because the passive construction avoids responsibility for advising and for auditing. One further caution about the passive voice: we should not mix active and passive constructions in the same sentence: "The executive committee approved the new policy, and the calendar for next year's meetings was revised" should be recast as "The executive committee approved the new policy and revised the calendar for next year's meeting."

THE BEST AND MOST USED BOOK FOR THESE KINDS OF QUESTIONS IS 'STRUNK AND WHITE' WHICH I AM SURE MOST OF YOU ALREADY KNOW.
IN CONCISE TERMS THE TWO OF THEM HAVE REFINED THE ART OF TEACHING

ENJOY AND ALWAYS KEEP WRITING, RE-WRITING AND READING :)

[ladyaemy]

I'm a bit confused here. I don't know if you're using the term "passive voice" in the way I understand it. The phrase "wasn't keen on" isn't passive voice to me. But maybe it means something different in the writing fratenity? Sorry to butt in on a part of the forum I don't usually visit, and with a negative comment at that ... :(

Did anyone get a chance to respond to your comment, Mm?

In my understanding of it, The sentence "Henry wasn't keen on my new friends." isn't in the passive voice- so we agree! If we re-phrase the sentence (just for clarity) to "Henry didn't like my new friends", "Henry" is still projecting an emotion toward "my new friends." He is the subject of the sentence and he's "acting" - which is one fundamental way of thinking about active voice. Passive would reverse the function of subject and object: "My new friends were disliked by Henry."

The awkwardness of the second (passive) version is one reason why writers have objected to the passive voice ...

The terminology around grammar is hard to explain because we're losing the meaning of the terms which define it, I think.

(GERBAM's Strunk and White is a long-time favourite, tho'.)

I'd try searching "passive voice" on line .. sample:

http:// www.unc.edu.depts/wcweb/handouts/passivevoice.html