Caveat lector: the 10% miswording

Matera the Mad · Mar 23, 2009

Because it was cheap, I got an e-book edition of Ken Rand's The 10% Solution: Self-Editing for the Modern Writer.

On the whole, I think it can be very helpful. While I disagree with all right-brain/left-brain blather, the basic editing techniques and tips are solid gold.

However, it may have been released with undue haste. Although there are few typos, it has at least one terrible, glaring error. Here is a fine example of how writers and editors can slip up. It is good advice gone bad for lack of careful editing -- ironic in a book about editing.

Excerpts are from the "Micro" section, under "was".

...I had an “I knew that!" revelation when I found past tense slows text, makes it harder to read, and distances readers. I'll bet those Ugly books that put you to sleep used past tense a lot.

Two instances of "past tense" that should have been "passive voice"!

That is dangerously misleading. This part is about is passive voice, NOT past tense. Note that the "good" version of the example below is in past tense.

The Good Books got to the point. It's not a matter of accuracy: “She was running from the room" is as accurate as “She ran from the room." The second is clearer and briefer. It's brief, yes, but why is it clearer?

Because it reads faster so readers have less time for their minds to lollygag and drift. Active voice involves readers` senses more directly, pulls a reader in until they get lost in the story. Passive voice distances their senses, pushes them away until they can't find the story.

The rest of the advice is excellent, and passive voice gets properly whipped in succeeding paragraphs. But how many writers may end up believing that past tense is bad? Too many do already, and I wonder where they pick up the mental virus. First impressions are important. Getting pounded with the wrong words twice at the outset can't help but confuse and misdirect. Not everyone reads carefully and evaluates things in context.

It goes to show you should never rely on one source (IMO especially if that source is popular). It is a matter of accuracy.

SPMiller · Mar 23, 2009

Few people understand passive voice. Your post suggests you don't understand it, either. "She was running from the room" is not passive. It's continuous verbal aspect, and it's a bad sentence, but it's not passive.

Matera the Mad · Mar 23, 2009

Huh? I was pointing out an error in a book. Later parts that I did not quote have more to do with passive. I am not trying to explain to anyone what passive voice is, so let's not go there, OK?

SPMiller · Mar 23, 2009

Um, I'm totally going there.

The miswording is one issue, but the fact that the example presented in the second excerpt isn't passive seemingly escaped your notice. That goes straight to the root of the problem. The misunderstanding goes much deeper than misused terminology.

nevada · Mar 23, 2009

SP did you write the book? what's eating your shorts? I don't see the point to your rudeness. I've always understood "She was running" as being more passive than "she ran".

either way it's not about what is passive is or isn't. It's about a book making a grievous error between past tense and passive voice.

SPMiller · Mar 23, 2009

I don't see what's so rude about suggesting there's a near-universal misunderstanding of passive voice.

Allow me to rephrase my objection. The example sentence given in the excerpt is not just mislabeled as past tense; it is wrong, and I feel that's the bigger issue.

Matera the Mad · Mar 23, 2009

I know perfectly well what passive voice is. I merely pointed out the example because it shows that Mr. Rand is obviously not attacking past tense. That some people choose to misread everything illustrates my point that the error will easily mislead others.

I expect rudeness from some people and prefer to ignore it.

nevada · Mar 23, 2009

your first post, without the later-edited bit is extremely rude. and since it's so universally misunderstood perhaps you would care to explain what it really is? easy enough to say that's not passive and then not bothering to explain what you think passive is. because, yes in my book, accusing someone of ignorance without explaining why you think the person is ignorant is really rude.

SPMiller · Mar 23, 2009

Passive voice is usually a construction following the syntax "to be + past participle". In contrast, the given example is "to be + present participle". It's a distinction between aspect (continuous) and voice (passive), and I'm surprised Matera, when calling out one of the writer's mistakes, didn't catch the other one. To me, that suggests the writer never went on to properly define passive voice, which calls into question the authority of any advice given thereafter. From that, I concluded she likely doesn't know what passive voice actually is, hence my post.

Soccer Mom · Mar 23, 2009

Good grief.

SP, your tone is quite aggressive and I think you missed the point of the OP. She was pointing out an error in an editing book

And finally, you are wrong on what is "passive voice." It has nothing to do with the "to be" construction or infinitives. It refers to flipping a sentence around so that the direct object becomes the subject.

Joe caught the racoon.
The raccoon was caught by Joe.
The raccoon was caught.

The first sentence is active. The second two flip it around and put the object being acted upon in the spotlight. That is what makes it passive.

SPMiller · Mar 23, 2009

Soccer Mom said:
And finally, you are wrong on what is "passive voice." It has nothing to do with the "to be" construction or infinitives. It refers to flipping a sentence around so that the direct object becomes the subject.

Joe caught the racoon.
The raccoon was caught by Joe.
The raccoon was caught.

The first sentence is active. The second two flip it around and put the object being acted upon in the spotlight. That is what makes it passive.

I'm wrong? I'm afraid I must disagree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_passive_voice

In English, as in many other languages, the subject of a verb in the passive voice corresponds to the object of the same verb in the active voice. English's passive voice is periphrastic; that is, it does not have a one-word form. Rather, it is formed using a form of the auxiliary verb be together with a verb's past participle.

Your definition is also correct, Soccer Mom, but to claim I'm wrong is, well, wrong.

I feel that this thread is living evidence of the popular misunderstanding of formal English grammar. I'm tired of seeing inaccurate information bandied about as truth. Prescriptivist language demagoguery can do terrible damage when misguided.

Prozyan · Mar 23, 2009

SP, you are right concerning what makes a passive construct, but must you really be so snide about?

If you are so tired with the lack of proper english gammar skills among the populace, perhaps you would be interested in making a thread to educate?

Edited to add:

And does this really have anything to do with Matera's original point?

Bartholomew · Mar 23, 2009

Matera the Mad said:
Because it was cheap, I got an e-book edition of Ken Rand's The 10% Solution: Self-Editing for the Modern Writer.

On the whole, I think it can be very helpful. While I disagree with all right-brain/left-brain blather, the basic editing techniques and tips are solid gold.

However, it may have been released with undue haste. Although there are few typos, it has at least one terrible, glaring error. Here is a fine example of how writers and editors can slip up. It is good advice gone bad for lack of careful editing -- ironic in a book about editing.

Excerpts are from the "Micro" section, under "was".

Two instances of "past tense" that should have been "passive voice"!

That is dangerously misleading. This part is about is passive voice, NOT past tense. Note that the "good" version of the example below is in past tense.

The rest of the advice is excellent, and passive voice gets properly whipped in succeeding paragraphs. But how many writers may end up believing that past tense is bad? Too many do already, and I wonder where they pick up the mental virus. First impressions are important. Getting pounded with the wrong words twice at the outset can't help but confuse and misdirect. Not everyone reads carefully and evaluates things in context.

It goes to show you should never rely on one source (IMO especially if that source is popular). It is a matter of accuracy.

Nice catch. Did you let the editors know? They'll want to revise it for the 2nd edition.

Ms Hollands · Mar 24, 2009

SPMiller said:
Passive voice is usually a construction following the syntax "to be + past participle". In contrast, the given example is "to be + present participle". It's a distinction between aspect (continuous) and voice (passive).......

Very good. It's clear that Metera understands this also.

SPMiller said:
I'm surprised Matera, when calling out one of the writer's mistakes, didn't catch the other one. To me, that suggests the writer never went on to properly define passive voice, which calls into question the authority of any advice given thereafter. From that, I concluded she likely doesn't know what passive voice actually is, hence my post.

If you had read the original post thoroughly, you would see that the error is indeed in the original text because the book has placed that past tense sentence in the Passive Text section of the book.

So, can we all get over this misunderstanding? It's clear we're all singing from the same hymn sheet of "we hate it when people get the passive voice/past tense distinction wrong.

Phaeal · Mar 24, 2009

This book boggles my mind. Alas, the poor innocent verb to be and all the abuse that is heaped on it head when it dares to appear in any guise these days, due to the demonization of the passive voice (yes, it too has its uses). I've seen to be castigated as passive when used as a simple verb of identification (I am Sheila) and, of course, when used in the progressive tenses (I am running).

To be, I love you. Not to be, forget about it.

benbradley · Mar 24, 2009

Soccer Mom said:
Good grief.

SP, your tone is quite aggressive

I hope I'm not "piling on" if I agree with this....

Soccer Mom said:
and I think you missed the point of the OP. She was pointing out an error in an editing book

And I read SPMiller's post as pointing out ANOTHER error. I had to read through the first couple of posts several times myself to see what went on.

Soccer Mom said:
And finally, you are wrong on what is "passive voice." It has nothing to do with the "to be" construction or infinitives. It refers to flipping a sentence around so that the direct object becomes the subject.

Joe caught the racoon.
The raccoon was caught by Joe.
The raccoon was caught.

The first sentence is active. The second two flip it around and put the object being acted upon in the spotlight. That is what makes it passive.

Soccer Mom, your examples in themselves are correct, but they don't address SP's claim. As much as I'm reluctant to agree with him with as blunt as he was, I think he also has good point.

In the example from the OP, "she was running from the room" is active voice, but the way I learned English that's' called past progressive tense" vs. "she ran from the room" which is (plain old) past tense. They're both active voice.

A sentence in passive voice is "She was run over." If you want to directly convert "she was running from the room" to passive, you can get the very clunky "the room was being run from by her." **

I hope this helps. Have a nice day. TTFN.

* FWIW, I've never heard of "continuous verbal aspect" that SP used in post #2.

** Now I wonder if there's some rule against using two consecutive prepositions. But I think that makes it obvious why passive voice has a well-earned bad reputation.

tehuti88 · Mar 24, 2009

To reply to the original post--yeeghs. That really could be dangerous in the hands of a new writer. This is why I always get leery when people quote famous advice as if it can never be wrong--some people really aren't aware that just because somebody famous said something doesn't necessarily mean it's true. Everything should really be thought out before it's followed through on. Er, that's bad phrasing, but you get my drift.

I don't tend to rely on writing books of any sort, honestly (though I find ones about characterization to be fascinating), but you make a good point. Somebody needs a better editor.

dawinsor · Mar 24, 2009

I'm feeling faint at the idea that a book on editing is so ignorant about English grammar. I have to go breathe in a paper bag now.

FennelGiraffe · Mar 24, 2009

benbradley said:
I hope I'm not "piling on" if I agree with this....

And I read SPMiller's post as pointing out ANOTHER error.

That's how I read it too. That second error was the first thing that jumped out at me when I read the original post.

benbradley said:
* FWIW, I've never heard of "continuous verbal aspect" that SP used in post #2.

That one I can interpret. The grammar most of us learned in school--those of us who were actually taught grammar--conflates the concepts of tense and aspect. You described "she was running" as past progressive tense, which is indeed the common way of saying it. Properly speaking, however, there are only two tenses: past and present. Simple, perfect, and progressive (aka continuous) are aspects.

Matera the Mad · Mar 24, 2009

dawinsor said:
I'm feeling faint at the idea that a book on editing is so ignorant about English grammar. I have to go breathe in a paper bag now.

Try some calming herbal tea.

It really isn't a case of ignorance, but, as I tried to point out, lack of good editing. The error should have been caught. I was upset to find such a thing in an otherwise very good book.

As for any "second errors", the main one was mine, in not realizing that anyone might misinterpret the quoted excerpts. The example given by Mr. Rand in the second quote is not intended to show passive voice, it was part of an ongoing demonstration of the tightening process.

It is too bad that some people can't simply point out a minor flaw and help to clarify an issue, rather than making an issue out of it.

Lauri B · Mar 24, 2009

Oh, for dog's sake, stop picking at each other, people.
Did anyone else notice the two other errors in the examples mentioned in the OP?

Matera the Mad · Mar 24, 2009

One was enough for me, I'm tipsy already

Wayne K · Mar 24, 2009

I like turtles.

wrinkles · Mar 25, 2009

Well, since the thread has already been somewhat sidetracked into another active vs. passive discussion, let me completely derail it by saying that I'm one that thinks passive sentences are often just fine. As a writer of fiction, the reason I construct sentences is not to get them in their most grammatically correct, or even preferred form. I strive, but certainly don't always succeed, to write sentences that have the greatest impact on the reader. And I believe a passive sentence sometimes achieves that result more effectively.

A more vivid image and, therefore a more emotional reaction on the part of the reader, can be achieved by showing the effect on an object of an action by a subject, than by describing a subject performing an action on an object. As in:

The man repeatedly kicked the trembling animal.

The trembling animal was repeatedly kicked by the man.

CaroGirl · Mar 25, 2009

wrinkles said:
Well, since the thread has already been somewhat sidetracked into another active vs. passive discussion, let me completely derail it by saying that I'm one that thinks passive sentences are often just fine. As a writer of fiction, the reason I construct sentences is not to get them in their most grammatically correct, or even preferred form. I strive, but certainly don't always succeed, to write sentences that have the greatest impact on the reader. And I believe a passive sentence sometimes achieves that result more effectively.

A more vivid image and, therefore a more emotional reaction on the part of the reader, can be achieved by showing the effect on an object of an action by a subject, than by describing a subject performing an action on an object. As in:

The man repeatedly kicked the trembling animal.

The trembling animal was repeatedly kicked by the man.

I think the first sentence is much better. There's no reason to use passive voice here because the actor is known. Unless you need to vary sentence structure, and there are myriad better ways to vary sentence structure than using passive voice, the only real need for it, imo, is if the actor is unknown.

As in:
The dogs had been kicked to death. Every one. No one understood who could do such a thing.

Caveat lector: the 10% miswording

Bartender, gimme a Linux Mint

Prodigiously Hanged

Bartender, gimme a Linux Mint

Prodigiously Hanged

Prodigiously Hanged

Bartender, gimme a Linux Mint

Prodigiously Hanged

Crypto-fascist

Prodigiously Hanged

Are you one, Herbert?

Comic guy

Cow lover

Whatever I did, I didn't do it.

It's a doggy dog world

Mackinac Island Fanatic

Dorothy A. Winsor

It's green they say

Bartender, gimme a Linux Mint

I Heart Mac

Bartender, gimme a Linux Mint

Living the dream