Passive Voice?

[Horserider]

What is passive voice and is it bad? I wrote my first story in Word 2007 and it keeps telling me that parts of my sentences are passive voice. I have no idea what that means.

[Mr. Chuckletrousers]

Not to be snarky or anything, but Google can provide the information you seek more efficiently than we:

First link from Google search (http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/passivevoice.html).
Second link from Google search (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_passive_voice).
Third link from Google search (http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_actpass.html).

If you still have questions after reading those links, or need something clarified or further explained, then feel free to ask.

[Horserider]

Thanks I think I get it now. Now I just have to figure out if I should leave those sentences passive or if I should try to change them.

[blacbird]

Thanks I think I get it now. Now I just have to figure out if I should leave those sentences passive or if I should try to change them.

Without having specific examples, judgment is difficult to be made by us.

But, as a general principle, passive sentence constructions should be avoided by you.

caw

[Don]

Without having specific examples, judgment is difficult to be made by us.

But, as a general principle, passive sentence constructions should be avoided by you.

caw
Or in active voice, for example:

It's difficult for us to judge without specific examples.

But, as a general principle, you should avoid passive sentence constructions.

or should that be:

You should avoid passive sentence constructions as a general principle.

Anybody else want to take a pass at those two sentences?

[Teleute]

Thanks I think I get it now. Now I just have to figure out if I should leave those sentences passive or if I should try to change them.

A lot of people will tell you to alwaysalwaysalways use active voice, and they will do this because 1) active voice is better at least 95% of the time (and I'm probably being conservative), and 2) most people use the passive voice so often that it's simply easier to tell people NEVER TO DO IT so that they will prune their writing styles. However, because it's sometimes easier to define in terms of opposition, there are two situations that I can think of where one should use passive voice:

1) You're writing bad news. In the interest of tact and kindness, you should soften the blow. For example, if you're telling someone that their project proposal (or whatever) has a major flaw, you should not write

"Your project proposal contains numerous errors."

Rather, you should write:

"Errors were discovered in the project proposal."

One sounds obnoxious and mean, and the other doesn't.

2) The object of the sentence deserves (way) more emphasis than the subject. This typically applies to inanimate or abstract nouns. It's often the case for science or business writing, in which someone is reading for information and not for entertainment:

"The researcher mixed x chemical and y chemical and z happened."

Nope. This is actually better:

"X and Y chemical were mixed, which caused z to occur."

Same with:

"Claire Hodgkins, C.P.A., reviewed the financial statements, and found that they contained no material misstatements.

Replace with:

"The financial papers were reviewed and contained no material misstatements."

When active voice makes a sentence MUCH WORDIER, it should probably be avoided. This occurs in sentences with subjects that are immaterial, like the researcher and the CPA. People aren't reading to learn about the researcher or the CPA, they're reading to learn about the research results and the financial statements.

If the sentence does not belong in one of those two categories, you need to use active verbs pretty much always. You should at least have a 5-10 minute conversation justifying the passive voice to yourself:

"The horse was ridden." (understood "by Tim")

Why would you do that if Tim is who you're writing about? If you want to write from the horse's perspective, you can construct the sentence so that the horse is the subject and not Tim:

"The horse careened down the hill."

There are TONS of ways to turn passive verbs into active ones.

[Daedalus (Mk. II)]

There’s a common misconception that passive writing is a grammatical error. It isn’t. Simply, it’s to do with style. Using active voice brings your writing to life and engages the reader.

What is passive voice? Basically, it’s all to do with sentence structure and word use. When you make the object of an action into the subject of the sentence, that’s a passive construction. For example:

The road was crossed by John.

This is passive. John is doing the action in this sentence, but the road is the grammatical subject. The road (object) is being crossed by John (the actor). By putting the actor in the subject position:

John crossed the road.

Now we have an active sentence. John (the actor) crosses the road (the object).

An easy way to spot passive sentences is to look for a form of the verb “to be” (are, am, is, was, were, have been, had been, will be, will have been, being) followed by a past participle. Past participles usually are verbs that end in -ed. Again, there are exceptions. “Paid,” instead of “payed”. “Driven,” instead of “drived”. Once you know to look for these, passive constructions are easily spotted.

Here’s another example of passive and active construction:

The ball was hit by John.

Who’s the actor here? John. But where is he in the sentence? He’s after the verb (“hit”) isn’t he? He’s at the object position at the end of the sentence. Put the actor in front of the verb:

John hit the ball.

Now we have an active construction. The sentence is more engaging.

Is it, therefore, wrong to use passive writing at all? No. Sometimes passive actually works better than active. Lab reports, scientific essays, and historical writings all read better with passive writing. Sometimes, to emphasise a sentence in a particular way, you need to use passive construction. For example:

100 dollars are needed to book a table at Righby’s.

In this case, the passive sentence emphasises the fact that one-hundred dollars are needed. To say:

It costs £100 to book a table at Righby’s.

This would put the emphasis on the table and not the money.

To summarise: Many writers who have used telling and passive voice have been published in the past. It’s not wrong, by any means. But why use the lacklustre when you can use the brilliant? Why settle for telling when you can so vividly show and let the reader become a part of your novel? It’s a stylistic choice. If your writing is good, this could be the missing link that makes it brilliant. In other words: Why settle for second place when first is within your grasp?

[Mr. Chuckletrousers]

100 dollars are needed to book a table at Righby’s.

In this case, the passive sentence emphasises the fact that one-hundred dollars are needed. To say:

It costs £100 to book a table at Righby’s.

This would put the emphasis on the table and not the money.

Just to clarify Daedalus's excellent post to make sure no one is confused; the second sentence up there --"It costs £100 to book a table at Righby’s"-- is in active voice (though the sentence has a cleft construction), while the first sentence --"100 dollars are needed to book a table at Righby’s"-- is in passive voice.

[stc]

"Thanks I think I get it now. Now I just have to figure out if I should leave those sentences passive or if I should try to change them."

Yes, you get it. You should examine sentences as if you're a writer.

[Horserider]

Okay here's one example that I can't figure out. Can anyone help me with it?

. His destiny as well as many others on this ship is securely woven with your own

[Mr. Chuckletrousers]

Okay here's one example that I can't figure out. Can anyone help me with it?

His destiny as well as many others on this ship is securely woven with your own.

I think that's an "adjectival passive", which isn't actually a true passive, but happens to look very much like one. "Woven" here looks more like a participle that is being used as a predicate. The program probably just sees "your destiny is woven" and thinks, "woven by whom? So it must be passive". But English is tricky sometimes.

That sentence is perfectly fine as it is, IMO.

[scarletpeaches]

My brain is hurt by Mr Gigglebloomers.

[IceCreamEmpress]

His destiny as well as many others on this ship is securely woven with your own.

That's pretty convoluted.

First of all, you need some commas:

His destiny, as well as many others on this ship, is securely woven with your own.

And I still don't like it: I don't think you mean "many other destinies on this ship" at all; I think you mean "the destinies of many others on this ship." And more than one destiny is plural, so "is" is the wrong verb.

So a clearer rewrite would be:

His destiny, and the destinies of many others on this ship, are securely woven with your own.

As for the passive voice: this is exactly where you need it. When the actor in something is unknown or obscure (who weaves destinies? The Fates, one assumes, or fate, or something), the passive voice is appropriate.

[Mr. Chuckletrousers]

That's pretty convoluted.

First of all, you need some commas:

His destiny, as well as many others on this ship, is securely woven with your own.

And I still don't like it: I don't think you mean "many other destinies on this ship" at all; I think you mean "the destinies of many others on this ship." And more than one destiny is plural, so "is" is the wrong verb.

So a clearer rewrite would be:

His destiny, and the destinies of many others on this ship, are securely woven with your own.
Well, you're using a coordinating conjunction there instead of a preposition, which changes the subject agreement thingy.

You make a good point about 'the destinies of many other people' issue. Another way of rephrasing it is: "His destiny, as well as (or "along with" or "in addition to", etc) the destinies of many others, is securely woven with your own."

The proper conjugation here is the singular rather than the plural, because the head of the noun phrase, "His destiny, as well as the destinies of many others", is the singular "destiny".

As for the passive voice: this is exactly where you need it. When the actor in something is unknown or obscure (who weaves destinies? The Fates, one assumes, or fate, or something), the passive voice is appropriate.Though that sentence is not a true passive*. It just plays one on TV.

*IMO

[FennelGiraffe]

I think that's an "adjectival passive", which isn't actually a true passive, but happens to look very much like one. "Woven" here looks more like a participle that is being used as a predicate. The program probably just sees "your destiny is woven" and thinks, "woven by whom? So it must be passive". But English is tricky sometimes.

I'm somewhat in agreement that this may not be passive. I think this is the same distinction I have talked about regarding
The door was closed (suddenly). Describes an action; passive voice
The door was closed (all day). Describes a condition; linking verb

As for the passive voice: this is exactly where you need it. When the actor in something is unknown or obscure (who weaves destinies? The Fates, one assumes, or fate, or something), the passive voice is appropriate.

On the other hand, I agree this is exactly the kind of situation where passive would be quite appropriate.

Either way, I see no need to change "is woven".

First of all, you need some commas:

His destiny, as well as many others on this ship, is securely woven with your own.

I agree with the commas. "As well as many others on this ship" is a parenthetical expression. It must be set off with commas.

And I still don't like it: I don't think you mean "many other destinies on this ship" at all; I think you mean "the destinies of many others on this ship."

Exactly.

And more than one destiny is plural, so "is" is the wrong verb.

Here I disagree. I think a parenthetical expression doesn't affect the number of the verb. I think the subject is just "His destiny" which is singular.

So a clearer rewrite would be:

His destiny, and the destinies of many others on this ship, are securely woven with your own.

Ah! Now you changed "as well as" to "and". That takes it out of being a parenthetical expression and makes it a compound subject. In that case it is plural, and "is" should be changed to "are". However, then the commas also need to be removed.

My first rewrite would be:
His destiny, as well as those of many others on this ship, is securely woven with your own.

I'm still not happy, though. I'm leaning toward a more drastic change:
His destiny is securely woven with your own, as are the destinies of many others on this ship.
or
The destinies of many on this ship are securely woven with your own, his above all.

[Mr. Chuckletrousers]

I'm somewhat in agreement that this may not be passive. I think this is the same distinction I have talked about regarding

The door was closed (suddenly). Describes an action; passive voice

The door was closed (all day). Describes a condition; linking verb

That's an excellent way of thinking about it -- are you describing an event, activity or process that is occurring (the window was broken - passive), or a state of affairs (the window was broken - adjectival 'passive')?

I'm still not happy, though. I'm leaning toward a more drastic change:His destiny is securely woven with your own, as are the destinies of many others on this ship. orThe destinies of many on this ship are securely woven with your own, his above all.Those work nicely.

[IceCreamEmpress]

Fennel Giraffe, you make a good point! I hate "as well" so much that I just automatically edit it out. Of course you're correct that if he keeps "as well" the singular verb is the right choice.

I like your last sentence best of all.