Passive form...why everybody hates it?

Welcome to AW, Cuthbert!

I doubt if your novel would be rejected because you used the passive voice to de-emphasize or hide the performer of an action. As you say, that's what it's for. That's the reason it exists.

I ranted about the passive in this thread:

http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3765722#post3765722

Other people said interesting stuff too. See if any of it makes sense to you.

The author of that article stated that passive voice has its place, such as in the example you mentioned (your manuscript wouldn't get rejected for that). What people like the author of the article are trying to eliminate are newbie manuscripts filled with things like:

"The table had David seated behind it. The food laid out across the table was devoured by David. The quality of the food was enjoyed."

"The ball was kicked by Johnny over the fence."

"The petels strewn across the ground were caused by a basket of roses which had toppled off its stand."

My 2c

Stephen King, in "on writing", has a similar position, saying that people who use the passive form are "shy people" and that you must not use it. Never. He was pretty specific about it.

Click to expand...

The difference between passive and active voice finally "sunk in" with me when I read Stephen King's On Writing years ago. I'm pretty sure he did not say "never" to use it, although I don't have my copy onhand to check.

I think you have the right idea, though, Cuthbert. Passive voice has a purpose (otherwise it wouldn't exist). It can be very useful, like in your first example, when your POV character doesn't know something or you want to increase suspense and mystery. But you want to have a justifiable reason for using it.

Passive voice can be a real problem when used often. Your writing becomes vague and unspecific because the subject is not apparent, like in Pepper's examples. As a writer tutor I killed a lot of passive constructions from academic papers because students weren't using it properly and their clarity suffered. A sentence here and there is fine, and can work very well, but too much too often makes for confusing prose.

I hope this falls under 'private educational use', but I took the liberty of quoting some of Stephen King's words from his book On Writing: A Memoir Of The Craft, just so y'all can see what he had to say on the subject. I found it to be an extraordinarily helpful book, and it was not only interesting but fun to read.

Here's some of the things he said about passive voice. The ....... signify snips in the text, so I don't have to rewrite the whole section. Important bit in red.

.....my other pet peeves have to do with this most basic level of writing, and I want to get them off my chest before we move along.

Verbs come in two types, active and passive. With an active verb, the subject of the sentence is doing something. With a passive verb, something is being done to the subject of the sentence. The subject is just letting it happen. You should avoid the passive tense.

...........

The timid fellow writes The meeting will be held at seven o'clock because that somehow says to him, 'Put it this way and people will believe you really know.' Purge this quisling thought! Don't be a muggle! Throw back your shoulders, stick out your chin, and put that meeting in charge! Write The meeting's at seven. There, by God! Don't you feel better?

I won't say there's no place for the passive tense. Suppose, for instance, a fellow dies in the kitchen but ends up somewhere else. The body was carried from the kitchen and placed on the parlor sofa is a fair way to put this, although 'was carried' and 'was placed' still irk the shit out of me. I accept them but I don't embrace them. What I would embrace is Freddie and Myra carried the body out of the kitchen and laid it on the parlor sofa. Why does the body have to be the subject of the sentence, anyway? It's dead, for Christ's sake! Fuhgeddaboudit!

............... How about this: My first kiss will always be recalled by me as how my romance with Shayna was begun........... A simpler way to express this idea- sweeter and more forceful, as well- might be this: My romance with Shayna began with our first kiss. I'll never forget it. I'm not in love with this because it uses with twice in four words, but at least we're out of that awful passive voice.

....everyone's entitled to his/her opinion, but I don't believe With a hammer he killed Frank will ever replace He killed Frank with a hammer.

Click to expand...

I don't see this as Mr King ordering to "never" use passive tense. He does express his serious dislike for it, but he never says never. I see this as him encouraging writers to pack more punch in their writing, instead of hiding behind vague and quiet sentence formation.

I do have The Elements of Style, which he mentions frequently throughout the book, but I can't find the blasted little thing at the moment to quote Strunk and White.

The absolutely worst use of passive is when describing the actions of a POV character.

She stood at the sink, humming while she washed dishes. The plates were rubbed thoroughly and the pots and pans were scrubbed. The dishcloth was wrung out and set aside before changing the water for the last round. The pan was refilled and more dishes were washed.

Click to expand...

So who washed the dishes?

That's why passive sucks.

Here's a comment I made about passive voice a few years go on another writing forum:

A note about passive voice - it's not always bad. For example if you want a character to seem like a bureaucrat or someone who is trying to be evasive, you can create this impression by putting some of their dialogue in passive voice.

Char 1: Gimmie some cookies!

Char 2: *shifty eyes* Oh I'm sorry, all the cookies were eaten. (<-passive sentence)

Char 1: *glare* Did you eat them?

Char 2 *fidget* Umm... maybe... look a bird! *runs away*

Click to expand...

At the risk of sounding dumb, the examples of passive voice always sound really stilted. They just don't sound right.

But, here's my question: passive voice examples always refer to "weak" verbs like was and were. Is it the weak verb that makes something passive? Is this a passive voice sentence:

The bowtie around his neck was already loose, despite the early hour.

If it is, I'm in trouble, because I can't think of a more "active" way to state that in my narrative without it suddenly sounding bad. That's my biggest gripe, that discussions about active/passive leave me thinking that verbs like "was" and "were" are anathema to good writing. They're not.

Cuthbert said:

That was the first book about writing I ever read, and to be honest, I was a little disappointed: one case is the passive form, another case is the "racism" against the adverbs, that are words that modify verbs. Adjectives are words that modify nouns...so why the former are bad and the latter good?

But probably the worst thing that he wrote is that plot is not important:"fuck the plot!"

Eh?I thought he was joking, then I realised how many good books he screwed up with stupid endings...and I understood he was serious! To me, a storyteller that doesn't care about his story should seriously think about findign another job.

Click to expand...

You mentioned earlier that english isn't your first language, and that passive form is perfectly acceptable in your native tongue, so I think some of this might be cultural differences in writing.

The reasons for the anti-adverb sentiment is that you can write "She ran quickly" or you can write "She sprinted", and sentence two would be considered the better one. It's more specific, and makes the author sound confident in their prose.

As for the plot thing, he said that because characters should come first in writing, and the plot should come from them. Too many writers make their characters conform to their plot, which can weaken a story. The plot needs to be molded to fit the characters.

And although the passive question has been answered a dozen times already in this thread, I'll take a go at that one and relate what my writing teachers have told me about it. It comes back to character, which should be the focus of the story. Using active voice adds a sense of action to the story (hence why it's called active) and brings the character into focus.
But as you say, and it is a valid point, passive voice has its place too. But what a lot of teachers see from beginning writers is overuse and misuse of the passive voice, places where it shows up when active voice would have made a much better sentence.

Writing rules are for beginning writers who need to learn the ropes. When you have a solid grasp of technique, then it's time to learn how and when to break all those rules.

But, here's my question: passive voice examples always refer to "weak" verbs like was and were. Is it the weak verb that makes something passive? Is this a passive voice sentence:

The bowtie around his neck was already loose, despite the early hour.

If it is, I'm in trouble, because I can't think of a more "active" way to state that in my narrative without it suddenly sounding bad. That's my biggest gripe, that discussions about active/passive leave me thinking that verbs like "was" and "were" are anathema to good writing. They're not.

Click to expand...

It's not passive. If the sentence read, "The bowtie around his neck was already loosend, despite the early hour," it suggests someone had to loosen it. Your sentence above suggests the tie simply came loose, no person involved. Here's a post of mine I frequently link to that explains passive vs. active.

The problem some people have with passive is that it takes attention away from the subject and places it onto the object:

The dishes were washed by Mary
Mary washed the dishes.

If the dishes are more important, then it's fine to use passive, although most people would probably still use active.
Passive isn't used much in dialogue.

There's nothing wrong with it. The examples people give to show why the passive is supposed to be bad are so moronic that no one would ever use them.

The only time I really think the passive is at issue is that some people tend to overuse it in academic papers and such in an attempt to avoid controversy.

The hideously ugly building was built in 1960 in response to classroom overcrowding.

It makes it sound like the building popped out of nowhere like a mushroom.

President Smith authorized the building of the hideously ugly building.

The first example is pretty bad, but the second example makes President Smith sound like an idiot. Given the overuse of this kind of evasion by a certain kind of freshman comp student, the passive gets more attention than it deserves.

Actually, academic papers are written in a "impersonal form", and the focus is the object of the paper, no the subjects who were responsible for that.

Other languages have verbs with impersonal tenses that suits well this need, unfortunately in english passive it's necessary to use the passive form.

"It has been stated that..."

Click to expand...

If you want to create a valid argument, you need to state where the information came from. Always. "It has been stated that" is a vague and unspecific start to an argument. Unfortunately it is used frequently enough that people, and students, think it is "okay." But a stronger argument is always the one that is specific. It is not necessary at all to use passive voice in this way. It's not preferable.

Scientific papers, however, are almost always preferably written in passive tense where the subject is always the science, and not the person who performed the experiment.

Cuthbert said:

Actually, academic papers are written in a "impersonal form", and the focus is the object of the paper, no the subjects who were responsible for that.

Click to expand...

I suspect you haven't read as many academic papers by undergrads written in English as I have--because passive voice is used all the time. It's more acceptable, and appropriate to use passive voice in writing for the social sciences and sciences, when the agent may not be known or apparent.

Sometimes, it's appropriate to use passive voice; sometimes it isn't. That's true of all forms of English writing.

I'd challenge anyone, anyone at all, to write an entire book without using passive voice once.

I don't want to read "See spot. See spot run. Run, Spot, run!" or "Jack and Jill went up the hill."

As you pointed out, there's a use for passive voice, there's a use for adverbs. I'm so sick of the anti-brigade. Let new authors try things, for Christ's sake.

Learn what the mommies and daddies have to say about adverbs, and ask questions. "Why? Why?" and most importantly, "WHY!"

Then take the why, not the rule, and apply it to everything. Learn it in your bones, so you can play chess with it.

Rules or so-called rules are usually a symptom not a diagnosis. The why is the diagnosis. How the rule came about, what its function is.

Yeah, you can write "He sprinted." Or you can write "He ran, quickly, quickly, quickly down the hall." Or you can write "The quickness of his running tip-tapped in echoes along the hall." Yeah, He Sprinted probably works best most often, but not always. "Don't use adverbs" is not the correct thing to teach someone. It's "write what you mean. Write exactly."

Just like "Don't use passive voice" is a stupid bullshit rule. What you want to learn or, conversely, teach someone, is the mechanics behind a methodology which usually results in the avoidance of passive voice for specific reasons.

There's a time and place for these methods--methods which are wrongly thought of by new writers as absolutes of some sort. That's where we get this vacuum editing which literally rips the voice right out of anything.

Study technical fiction writing? Sure. But read 100s more fiction books for every technical fiction writing book you pick up. Because you'll learn how fiction works by reading fiction, and writing it. Not by buying into these rules.

I would say that most of the people who cry out against passive voice do so simply because they've always been told it is wrong, not that they came to any understanding on their own.

Much ado about nothing.

Regard as rough rule of thumb, not hard rule set in concrete.

If something works, ignore rough rule of thumb.

-Derek

C.M.C. said:

I would say that most of the people who cry out against passive voice do so simply because they've always been told it is wrong, not that they came to any understanding on their own.

Click to expand...

Hell, I'd be happy if half the people proselytizing against the evils of passive voice even got the definition right.

If you're a writer, of any sort of prose at all, fiction, non fiction, it doesn't matter--read.

Read widely. Read everything.

Look at how the English sentence works, look at how incredibly varied and flexible English syntax is; discover the lush, fulsome vocabulary, and exploit it. English has a lexicon that is larger than any other known human language, ever. Use the right word at the right time, and in the right way.

Listen to the way real people, of all sorts, speak.

Apply those lessons and observations and experiences.

Read. Write. Revise. Repeat.

The Lonely One said:

There's a time and place for these methods--methods which are wrongly thought of by new writers as absolutes of some sort. That's where we get this vacuum editing which literally rips the voice right out of anything.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I agree with everything you said, actually. The "rules of writing" are guidelines, not absolutes--they should be used in the service of the story, the story should not be told in service to the rules.

I once heard a critter in SYW say something like, "I enjoyed this part, but technically it's an infodump so it has to be cut." (Not to me, to another writer.) And I wondered, well, why? The whole reason infodumps are considered bad is because they are allegedly boring to the reader. If an author can write an entertaining infodump, then by all means they should do it.

That's my whole problem with that hack-and-slash style of editing...and, on a larger level, my problem with modern writing in general. So many stories are written in the same brutally trimmed-down, snappy style, regardless of whether that style actually fits the story or the characters. As a result, the voice ends up feeling sterile.

IMO, the flow of writing should be natural, like a real person talking to the readers. Sometimes real people use passive voice. In some cases, forcing a sentence into active voice can actually make it sound MORE stilted and unnatural (as in the example the OP gave.) And many of my favorite novels are riddled with no-no's--passive voice, prologues (which are way out of style now), examples of "telling," et cetera.

The rules of writing can be a good thing to fall back on, but when adhered to strictly, they suck the life out of a story.

About King's examples (thanks Pepper):

1. The meeting will be held at seven o'clock. --> The meeting's at seven.

King says it's about the passive voice, but I think he's mistaken about his own judgement. He did get rid of the passive voice, but he didn't say:


which would have been the active voice version of the same sentence. Nor did he say:


which would have replaced the verb "will be held" with "is" (which, incidentally, is not Strunk's advice, who said we should use "a transitive in the active voice", which "is" isn't).

He made more changes: seven o'clock --> seven. meeting will be held --> meeting's.

What he did was simply change the tone from formal to informal. The verb's no more vigorous. The subject remains the same. He did get rid of the passive voice, but that's almost incidental. It's basically a shift from formal to informal.

2. The body was carried from the kitchen and placed on the parlor sofa. // Freddie and Myra carried the body out of the kitchen and laid it on the parlor sofa.

(Note that "from" turns into "out of" and "placed X on" turns into "laid X on". It's not as obvious as 1., but to me it sounds again like a slight shift from formal to informal.)

Whether the passive voice version or the active voice version is better depends entirely on contex. What did you talk about before that sentence? Does this sentence open a new paragraph? It's impossible to decide between the two out of context; doing so is either a statistical bet or betraying prejudice.

This section by King:


shows a theoretical bias that's hard to carry out in practice. All sort of inanimate things become the subject of sentences, with verbs in the active voice or with verbs in the passive voice. This sort of confusion is common. Whether the subject is animate or inanimate is completely irrelevant to the voice the verb takes. "The corpse rots on the parlour sofa," has a verb in the active voice.

3. My first kiss will always be recalled by me as how my romance with Shayna was begun. --> My romance with Shayna began with our first kiss. I'll never forget it.

Here we have, indeed, a terrible passive voice sentence. I have no idea why anyone would use it. Maybe they're writing in first person and are trying to avoid to say "I" too much? (Much bad writing arises from an attempt to follow an unrelated rule. Rules sometimes make writers single minded - seeing only a single target and missing the greater picture.)

4. With a hammer he killed Frank. --> He killed Frank with a hammer.

No, the former will never replace the latter. That's because the former is the marked version that replaces the latter unmarked version in specific situations (emphasis, most likely). What this has to do with passive voice I don't know. The basic sentence "he killed Frank" is the same in both cases - they're not only both active, they're the same. The only difference is where you put the prepositional phrase.

And a final, minor gripe: there's no such thing as a "passive tense". It's "passive voice". In grammar, tense =/= voice.