I.
Okay, this topic is a swamp. No wonder it's confusing. There are - loosely speaking - two types of concepts involved: "passive diction" (a stylistic-judgemental category) and "passive voice" (a grammatically neutral category). When people hear the word "passive", either of the two concepts is invoked - possibly both are.
The term "passive voice" is problematic: it has a very specific meaning to grammarians and linguists (the "grammatically neutral category"), but if a new writer doesn't know about this they'll latch onto associations of the component words: (a) passive (~ boring) and (b) voice (~ the way your writing "sounds"). Combine this with a "don't use" attitude, and you have the seeds of a non-grammatical, stylistic concept. "Don't use the passive voice," translates to "Don't use boring language." And such things as "the passive voice" (grammar) become examples of "a passive voice" (style), which contains any use of "was" (as a non-evocative function word). The stylistic concept is infinitely expandable to include whatever anyone might consider boring.
The problem is that not being aware of the differing concepts involved leads to a variety of non-productive talk, as much is based on misunderstandings.
For example:
Gemnyc: I note that you're never using the term "passive voice". You're referring to "how to change something passive to active". I suspect, since you're primarily concerned with writing well and not grammar, that you're worried more about the excitement value of your text than you are about the overuse of a particular grammatical structure. I suspect that you read "passive" and think in terms of "listless, boring, immobile..." In other words, I suspect that you're trying to avoid text that doesn't move the reader. I suspect this is what this post is about.
Now you say you've read countless threads about this and are still confused. No wonder. The texts themselves are confused. Take a simple question:
"I was getting suspicious of the kind of research he was conducting."
Is this passive?
The answers vary: (1) Are you asking whether the verbs "get" or "conduct" are in the passive voice, or (2) are you asking whether the sentence reads dull? These are two different questions.
And here's the problem: Very few threads ever distinguish clearly between the two questions. Anit-passive-voice threads usually imply that a positive answer to the first question implies a positive answer to the second question. This can be very confusing, in the first place. But here the first question is clearly negative. Neither "was getting", nor "was conducting" are in the passive voice. But this does not necessarily mean that the answer to the second question is negative.
See?
What's important here: Whether or not a verb is in the passive voice is not a matter of opinion; whether a sentence sounds dull is. We have a descriptive category, and a subjective judgment originally about the descriptive category with the related name, but consequently about a wider, yet never clearly defined range of categories. (Passive Writing: "Was": passive voice, continuous aspect, linking verbs; possibly more.)
So Gemnyc, don't worry, confusing is the natural reaction to that supposed "rule". Either that or a retreat to grammatical nit-pickery (my own preferred reaction, I admit). Both are really off-target, but the task of draining that particular swamp is just so daunting.
Here's a suggestion:
1. If you want to learn about the "passive voice" (grammatical category) forget the don't-negativity. Instead look at the construction, see what it does, and then use it the way you see fit.
2. If you want to learn about vigorous language, make sure not to acquire a prejudice against words or grammatical structures. You're writing's not going to improve if you go into a fright whenever you see "was". Writing well
without "was" is harder than writing well with "was".
3. People will tell you "overuse" is bad. That's circular. Of course,
overuse is bad; if it wasn't, it would be just "use", wouldn't it?
So, now to your particular example:
II.
I was getting suspicious of the type of research he was conducting.
Like many in here, I don't much like the sentence. But fixing it is trickier than it appears. Let me look at it in detail:
1. First, you have a repetitive structure: "was getting" -- "was conducting" = "was X-ing". Your using the past continuous tense. The continuous aspect is usually there to indicate duration: there's a point of reference, and the action you're talking about stretches beyond it. You emphasise that. This becomes convoluted quickly, as there are many manners in which an action might stretch beyond the point of reference, as well as many different types of reference. Don't worry about that for now.
1. a) "was getting suspicious": The continuous aspect usually stresses duration. Consider the difference:
- I got suspicious. (= I was now suspicious.)
Not suspicious----->Suspicious
- I was getting suspicious. (= The process of getting suspicious in not yet complete.)
Not suspicious------>A little Suspicious---->Suspicious---->Very Suspicious--->...
I quite like Cassiopeia's suggestion of "I grew suspicious," but it's not quite there yet. It does wrap the gradual development into the verb "grow", but it also still has the sense of "I am suspicious, and I don't expect to grow
more suspicious." Clearly, you could say "I was growing suspicious," but you're trying to get rid of the "was". There is the possibility of adding an adverb: "I was growing increasingly suspicious." This works because the adjective phrase "increasingly suspicious" does not so much reference a state as a process. In other words: you're now expressing with an adverb what you expressed with a verb before.
2. "was conducting". At this point I should maybe say that usage of the continuous aspect depends on how you look at the action rather than on the action itself. "the research tha he conducted" is fine. You use "conduct" as information that helps define "the research"; there is no need to stress that it was going on. Clearly you
can do this. It's not wrong in any way. In context, it might express an impatience with the research (in the context of suspicion probably "wariness", or maybe annoyance). You have to weigh if the emphasis on duration has a positive effect you want.
So perhaps you could write:
I grew increasingly suspicious about the research he conducted.
Or, if you're not afraid of "was Xing":
I was growing suspicious about the research he conducted.
Note that you could even - for extra-emphasis - write:
I was growing increasingly suspicious about the research he conducted.
Of course, if you wanted to emphasise the duration of the research, you might go with:
I grew increasingly suspicious about the research he was conducting.
(This has the added advantage that the duration now "envelopes" the "growing suspicious".)
Of course, you might find that the "result-vs.process" bout the suspicion isn't all that important:
I grew suspicious about the research he was conducting.
Note that this version, though, falls flat (at least I think so):
I grew suspicious about the research he conducted.
To me this reads like dry information.
The trouble is that there are many permutations of this sentence, and they all have different effects, and different readers read differently, so the same sentence could be boring to me but vivid to someone else.
Ultimately, you have to judge yourself. As an exercise, play around with as many versions as you can and compare the effects they have on you. I suggest you do this away from your writing, with sentences you make up. This has the advantage, that you do not know what you want to express with the sentence, and that different versions may trigger different situations.
For example:
What's the difference between:
I looked out of the window. A chicken was crossing the road.
and
I was looking out of the window. A chicken crossed the road.
It's better to build an awareness of what language does than to acquire an irrational fear of certain grammatical structures. If a sentence is boring, and it contains "was", it's not necessarily the "was's" fault.
