what does "avoid passive voice" mean?

[kitt]

Ok, I realize I am overflowing this forum with my threads. Please forgive me I'm thirsty for knowledge. I'm sure this is a really novice question but what exactly does "avoid passive voice" mean exactly?

[whistlelock]

It means don't use passive voice in your writing.

example passive:
The ham was sliced by Emily.


example active:
Emily hacked the ham to pieces.

[Medievalist]

It means don't use passive voice in your writing.

example passive:
The ham was sliced by Emily.


example active:
Emily hacked the ham to pieces.

Emily sliced the ham is an example of active voice; the verb "slice" is not accompanied by a helping verb or auxillary verb, like a form of "be."

In an active voice construction, it's very clear who is performing the action of the verb; Emily is. Emily is the subject of the verb "slice" since she is performing the action.

Sometimes you want passive voice because you either don't know who performed the action (one reason scientists like passive) or because, in fiction, you're creating an unreliable or untrustworthy character.

[kitt]

got it..thanks. I knew that, I just didn't realize that was the term for it.

[Lucizzz]

I'm not sure if it is "correct" terminology, but people also talk about active tense and passive tense in terms of whether your writing style is weak or strong.

People often say that "ing" words are passive, because they usually weaken the sentence structure. For example, consider these two sentences:

Max is striding across the road.

Max strides across the road.

[Julie Worth]

Passive voice was used and rejections were had. A question was posed by the writer, and advice was given. It was said that passive voice was used by scientists and other criminals, and thus responsibility was avoided. An example was given. It was said that ham was sliced by Emily, and her boyfriend was also sliced. Blood was shed copiously. Tears were shed in buckets. Police were called, but no subject could be found.

[Medievalist]

People often say that "ing" words are passive, because they usually weaken the sentence structure. For example, consider these two sentences:

Max is striding across the road.

Max strides across the road.

That's not a passive voice construction. It's not always a bad idea you use the -ing or present participle, either because it indicates simultaneous action.

Max is striding across the road when a black helicopter filled with federal narcotics agents lands directly in front of him.

The thing about these "rules" is that they aren't rules; they are more like guiding principles. You want to know how to use these constructions, and why.

Plus of course there's the whole variety is good thing; don't over use anything.

[Lindo]

It's not the "ing" that passifies that sentence... it's what"is" is.

That's the big tag on this sort of construction--using two verbs where one will do.

It's much more doctrinaire in scripts because of their immediate nature.
Even ongoing actions, can usually be expressed more directly and economically--like "Sally chops onions in the background"

[kitt]

What about adverbs? words ending in"ly" quietly, loudly, happily, angrily, suspiciously. I read these were frowned opon.

[Medievalist]

People tend to use adverbs excessively in fiction, especially in dialog tags. Don't use 'em in tags, and make sure you really really need them elsewhere -- mostly, you don't. They slow down the pace and make things stodgy.

[dpaterso]

Adverbs tend to show up as parentheticals in newbie scripts, e.g.

BOB
(angrily)
If I see you again, I'll kill you!

Hard to say that line any other way, so the parenthetical is kinda redundant.

My SF/F writing group does a fun "best story openings" exercise/contest each month, a while back the excessively cruel admin decided on a "no adverbs!" rule, each adverb earned a 1-point penalty. I dared use 2, and argued till my typing finger hurt, but to no avail. But consciously being aware of those pesky little pace-killers makes you realize how boring they can be. "Bob quickly ran to the door." Poor example, but how superfluous is that modifier?

OK that's my brain woken up now, time to get some writing done...

-Derek

[nganok]

I use this as a tool so I dont have to remember all the 11th grade English jargon... If you can't see it RIGHT NOW - dont right it as action. Ev erything else your asking becomes second nature with time - READ SCRIPTS

[scripter1]

has NOTHING to do with verbs and all that.

It has EVERYTHING to do with screenwriting happening in R E A L time.
AND the actual writing having intensity. Each word packs a punch, gives us as much information as possible.

NOTHING in a film EVER happens in the past. Emily could not have all ready sliced the ham. There is NO WAY to film the past. Even if you do a flashback the events are happening in the NOW.

Active and passive in screenwriting have to do with the PUNCH of the sentence. It is a writing style. A word choice issue. And there are all kinds of qualifying words that can totally change the scene.

Lets say one scene ago Emily had a fight with her husband. In the next scene Emily is one on one with the ham.

"Emily slowly cuts the ham, each slice perfect."
This tells us that she is controlled, detailed, methodical. Maybe at the end of the scene we will know that her husband is abusive, that perfect ham slices are a way to survive.

"Emily hacks at the ham." Okay, she's pissed. I'll bet hubby isn't going to come near her till she puts that knife down.

"Emily leisurely cuts the ham." Hmm, the fight hasn't seemed to affect her. Or maybe she is quietly plotting some revenge? We won't know until the next scene.

"Emily stabs the ham." Wow. She wants to hurt something. Anything could happen here. She may just be upset and taking out her frustrations. Maybe she'll slide to the floor and sob. Maybe her eyes will narrow and she'll yank that knife from the ham and slink towards the bedroom.

Each of those action words creates a distinct picture, giving us some kind of insight into Emily's feelings. Change the words and you change the scene.

You have to really sit back and think about the words you are choosing and how they affect the FEEL of the sentence, how they relate to the overall tone and impact of the scene.
Sometimes an -ly word adds to it, sometimes it detracts.
Most of the time an -ing word lowers the impact of the sentence.

Just drop them and you'll be surprised by the difference.

As a bonus removing them can prevent TONS of widows, hanging chads or orphans.

[kitt]

"Emily leisurely cuts the ham." Hmm, the fight hasn't seemed to affect her. Or maybe she is quietly plotting some revenge? We won't know until the next scene.




There's the adverb again. That's what I'm talking about is writing leisurely a no-no. How else can you easily express the fight hasn't seemed to affect her? Wouldn't adding alot more description ,trying to write it without an adverb, distract a reader more?

[dpaterso]

One or two adverbs per page won't kill ya, if you're conscious of overuse.

Little fun variants could as easily emphasize Emily's unexpressed feelings, e.g.

Emily cuts the ham, showing no emotion. She nicks her thumb -- stares at the welling blood -- and continues cutting the ham. Bright red blood runs onto the plate, flows around the ham slices.

...Hubby's in for a treat.

-Derek

[scripter1]

using adverbs, the -ly ending, is NOT a no-no, only a "use with thought and planning" guidline.

It is the OVER use of them that is the problem and using them when it is redundant or when a more interesting verb would be better.

Writing "Joe SNEAKS up on -" tells us loads more then "Joe slowly walks up -" .

BUT there are moments that just scream out for those qualifying adverbs.
If someone is dismantling the holding case for a nuclear weapon you aren't going to create the correct tension by writing "Joe twists loose the holding cap." NO, he's going to do it slowly, or carefully, or nervously......depending on his character.

You WANT the reader to linger just a bit on that action.

And yes to your second question. Why use five words when one will suffice?

The trick is to devleop an eye/ear for how those words actually play out in the script.

It isn't a cut and dried, black and white issue. There are moments where these things SHOULD be, MUST be avoided. There are other script moments where these types of things actually ADD power to the writing and SHOULD be, MUST be used.
The more you read and the more you write the better you will get at it.

[Lindo]

The more I read scriptwriting advice, the more I tell people to beware of people saying never to do ANYTHING. So many shibboleths, so little product, is my impression. We have adverbs for a reason. we have VO and flashbacks and all that stuff for a reason. Use them like any tool...as well as you can.

One problem I see in the post above is the idea that we are writing for a
"reader"...who should linger. A script is written to an audience, for a director. The reader is a sort of artifact.

Of course there are the readers at the agencies and prodcos and contests, but is that what we are doing? Writing to please employees who have never sold a script?

It's one of the peculiar problems with scripts and plays -- the only writing not designed to be read by the audience -- and a complex question, but I think you have to at least THINK to what you're showing the audience, not what some kid in a cubicle might think of the script. If it's a killer script, his lingering is not going to make any difference.

[scripter1]

A couple of things.

1) The audience doesn't get the script. So, uh, we AREN'T really writing for them. We ARE writing for what they will SEE on screen.

2) Novice writers HAVE to get past that reader. That means writing the best script they can. Every element needs to be in place. The writer's style will make or break that writer's career. They may sell thier scripts but all they will be is an idea man. They may not even get rewrite offers because the studio will just be buying the CONCEPT and not the writer.
That may be fine for some writers. If it's not fine for you then you'll need to hone your style skills.
You want to be the writer that has BOTH the awesome concept and the awesome writing. Those scripts will move ahead of a cool concept blandly written.

The writer creates the blue print for the movie. It is thier chance to really create and work thier craft. That means making EACH and EVERY moment in the story as strong as it can be. These little moments can add up over time to creating a total involvement in the story.
We can get the opposite effect as well. "Gee, that scene just didn't feel as suspenseful or have as much tension as it needed."
A few well chosen words can turn a bland scene into a firecracker.

AND that could very well be what moves a script from the pass bin into the consider or recommend pile.

3) You are writing for the actor and the director. You are subtly telling the actor and the director that "Here is a moment to slow down. To let the pace linger on a tense moment." This is one way a writer can try to have some control over the film.
Whether they do it your way or not is another matter but one can always try.
If these little things didn't matter then actors and directors would be writing thier own scripts instead of paying us to create these moments for them.
The words we use and the way we put them together make us what we are, writers.

4) How different characters perform various actions define who they really are and tell us how they are coping with the situation.
Thus, a rookie bomb handler will do things nervously while a veteran will handle it confidently, or easily. Or we may see one rookie moving too fast and know that they will fail because of it.
Depending on the needs of the story the skilled writer may turn this on it's head and have the character do something quickly that really aught to be done slowly and THAT could twist the entire thing. In such a case that one word is crucial.
If someone does the exact same action in the beginning of the film but then does it again at the END then the writer will want to show a progression of skill. We will move from slowly to quickly.
One word will tell us all we need to know.

5) Studios aren't always just looking for concepts. They are looking for WRITERS( every once in a great while). A studio may pass on a concept from a writer but like the writing sample enough to hire the WRITER.

So, don't just sell your ideas, sell yourself.

[Lindo]

The actors and directors absolutely do not give a damn when you want them to slow down. The reading rate of the reader is such an unpredictable and irrelevant artifact to the entire process that it would be a good idea not to ever think about it again.

[Goodwriterguy]

A couple of things.

1) The audience doesn't get the script. So, uh, we AREN'T really writing for them. We ARE writing for what they will SEE on screen.

2) Novice writers HAVE to get past that reader. That means writing the best script they can. Every element needs to be in place. The writer's style will make or break that writer's career. They may sell thier scripts but all they will be is an idea man. They may not even get rewrite offers because the studio will just be buying the CONCEPT and not the writer.
That may be fine for some writers. If it's not fine for you then you'll need to hone your style skills.
You want to be the writer that has BOTH the awesome concept and the awesome writing. Those scripts will move ahead of a cool concept blandly written.

The writer creates the blue print for the movie. It is thier chance to really create and work thier craft. That means making EACH and EVERY moment in the story as strong as it can be. These little moments can add up over time to creating a total involvement in the story.
We can get the opposite effect as well. "Gee, that scene just didn't feel as suspenseful or have as much tension as it needed."
A few well chosen words can turn a bland scene into a firecracker.

AND that could very well be what moves a script from the pass bin into the consider or recommend pile.

3) You are writing for the actor and the director. You are subtly telling the actor and the director that "Here is a moment to slow down. To let the pace linger on a tense moment." This is one way a writer can try to have some control over the film.
Whether they do it your way or not is another matter but one can always try.
If these little things didn't matter then actors and directors would be writing thier own scripts instead of paying us to create these moments for them.
The words we use and the way we put them together make us what we are, writers.

4) How different characters perform various actions define who they really are and tell us how they are coping with the situation.
Thus, a rookie bomb handler will do things nervously while a veteran will handle it confidently, or easily. Or we may see one rookie moving too fast and know that they will fail because of it.
Depending on the needs of the story the skilled writer may turn this on it's head and have the character do something quickly that really aught to be done slowly and THAT could twist the entire thing. In such a case that one word is crucial.
If someone does the exact same action in the beginning of the film but then does it again at the END then the writer will want to show a progression of skill. We will move from slowly to quickly.
One word will tell us all we need to know.

5) Studios aren't always just looking for concepts. They are looking for WRITERS( every once in a great while). A studio may pass on a concept from a writer but like the writing sample enough to hire the WRITER.

So, don't just sell your ideas, sell yourself.
Indeed, sell yourself as a WRITER, not some podunk wanna be who thinks a script is its format.

You say a lot of good things here, Scripter1, things that comport well with my own experience and perceptions and thus ring true to me. And this is what you get in response:


The actors and directors absolutely do not give a damn when you want them to slow down. The reading rate of the reader is such an unpredictable and irrelevant artifact to the entire process that it would be a good idea not to ever think about it again.

But "reading rate" isn't really the point, I don't think.

Readers read fast, they have to, given the number of pieces they're assigned to read in their daily routines. I don't know a reader who doesn't take three scripts (or more) home with them every night to read. They don't read scripts the way directors or actors read them, or a producer or d-person for that matter.

Readers are the first line of defense to separate the potential wheat from the chaff, that's about it. They are schooled to look for the things that reveal the amateur hand at work and to see the things that indicate they might have a good storyteller and screenwriter in their hands. Most readers can reach this conclusion in ten pages, twenty at worst, and they won't finish reading something they don't feel good about by those points; instead, they chuck them and go on to the next.

A reader once told me, about a script of mine, "I felt like I was in good hands ..." and they kept reading. They felt like they were reading something that had been written by a learned pen, a competent craftsperson, and at least a half decent storyteller. Voice and good form alone often conveys this.

Solid execution gets you past this hurdle. If your work looks, feels, tastes, and reads like a competent work and brings something new to the table, you're gonna get a "consider" at worst and a "recommend" at best. And that's all you need.

From there, people who read the work do so with a completely different eye. They know that what they have has passed muster, it isn't some piece of amateur crap with no redeeming features. They know it has something going for it. They look for that something. The higher up the food chain a piece moves, the more studied the reads it gets become. Until, finally (and hopefully) it reaches the hands of a director and some actors, who really do studied reads and do look for the subtleties of pacing, tempo, and rhythm that good movies exhibit.

A good friend of mine who has credits on about 50 films and was executive producer on "Touched by an Angel" for its whole run, told me, "It takes two weeks to absorb a feature." And he was referring to reading. He said he read stuff three or four times in the course of deciding whether it ought to be greenlighted or not. I don't think this is all so uncommon. Someone's gonna invest $millions, they simply have to get very intimate with the material. The risks are too great to do otherwise.

Screenplays are weird in that they are written to be read by a very select group of folks who are stratified in levels, each with their own agenda, their own purpose, their own function in the grander scheme of things. As writers we don't write for these individuals per se, we write something that portrays a picture we hope will entertain an audience. Readers read to the end of either agreeing we have accomplished this, or we haven't.

They read our movie and in so doing they see our movie on their mental movie screens, and decide whether they think it satisfies all the myriad criteria by which they judge.

All we can do is write our movie.

I don't think we should ever think about trying to satisfy any of these multiple readers per se; I don't ever see myself as trying to create something that'l make a first tier reader have a positive reaction (that guy in the cubicle who's "never sold a script"). The orientation of my focus is quite different, it is on my movie, it is on making my movie as entertaining as it can possibly be made, as well executed in its form as it can possibly be. I never ever think about who is gonna read it. I'm gonna read it, and it had better satisfy me, or I'm going back to the drawing board with it.

One big error in judgement that seems to raise its ugly head when you get a bunch of screenwriters and wanna be screenwriters gathered together to chat is the time it takes to write a decent screenplay. We hear people say things like, "Oh yeah, I finished my script last night, the tenth one I've written this year!" Or, "I wrote a script in ten days, what do I do with it now?"

As if producers pay six figures for work someone knocked out in two or three weeks or even five or six weeks.

I don't think so, at least not generally. I think it takes a lot longer than that to create work that's gonna grab people by the throat and not let go. Six to nine months ... is what I think it takes, longer for the less experienced, shorter for the more. Go to Triggerstreet and you can look at hundreds of 30-day wonders, 60-day wonders, and they're all crap, none would get past the first reader at Podunk Productions. Some of this is driven by the all too common need of instant gratification we see among many youth today. Some of it is driven by a lack of depth in knowledge and experience. But the net result is the same, mountains of crappy scripts.

Write your movie, focus on your movie, think about your movie, and let the chips fall where they may. In nearly all cases, the first person to read your work is gonna be that guy in the cubicle who's never sold a script (but odds are he or she is a student at USC Film School and they aren't stupid) and they're going to be judging what you've done against a thousand other scripts they've read and the experience they've gained from it; most of them can tell when they are "in good hands" and when they're not. If you have learned the craft and executed your work competently and have a dynamite story, chances are you're gonna impress them to a "consider," and that's all you want.

and keep doing it! :D

[maestrowork]

In screenwriting, it's tremendously important to keep an active voice because characters are always DOING something. Rarely does something is "done" to the character on screen without the audience knowing who the doer is; unless, of course, it's a suspense and someone is being pushed over the ledge without us knowing whodunit.

But in screenwriting, action is the key, and there's always an actor or two doing something. Scripts are short, punchy, and to the point. He strolls, he walks, he smokes a cigarette. Everything else (he is strolling; he is pushed; he is being pushed) weakens the narrative and also adds unnecessary words to the script. When you read a script, you want to see crisp actions, and not lingering, imprecise weak prose.

[scarletpeaches]

Say who's doing something, what they're doing, and who to.

DON'T say that someone had something done to them.

That probably made no sense.

[anavicenteferreira]

Okay, let me the voice of dissent here. (well, slight dissent, anyway)

On what was said before, I completely agree that you shouldn't use passive voice at all in the blackstuff; if you're describing action, it only makes sense to use the active voice. After all, here, you're striving for clarity and "punch", and the passive just ruins that.

Dialogue, on the other hand, is a different matter all together. Because of subtext. If a character says "Mary was robbed by two men", she's not saying the same as in "Two men robbed Mary"; the difference is subtle, I'll grant it, but it's there. As an effective story teller you should take hold of all linguistic tools at your disposal. That includes passive voice.

If you feel that what you need to say is better conveyed to the audience by using the passive, by all means use it. Just make sure it is necessary, and don't fall in the trapping of believing that the passive makes for better writing just because it's a slightly more complex structure.

[scripter1]

do give a HELL OF A DAMN that a writer has created a script with power and feeling. A script that ebbs and flows a little. There ARE moments in a script where you want to feel the suspense build. Where you hold your breath.
Yeah, even are afraid to go on to the next words. Like the hero pausing before opening that last door, or cutting the red wire, or closing their eyes the instant before a kiss, the reader MUST feel that moment.

They know that if THEY feel it then the audience will feel it.

This is what I think GWG means when he talks about a reader feeling like they are in good hands.

And we have to do it all, ALL OF IT with just words.

We bend, shift, twist, roll, turn, flip, shorten, lengthen, leave out, and sometimes even make up those words so that they convey the story in it's most powerful form.

Most of the time we take off the -ly and -ings BUT sometimes we leave them on.

I say to you Lindo, the spec script writer BETTER consider the reader.
The spec writer WANTS to make that script reader slow down and REALLY read their script.
The WORST thing you want a reader to do is scream through your pages and jump right to the next.
You want to make them stop, go back a paragraph or two and have em go "Oh MY GOD! That was frickin AWESOME."
"I really DID just read that he shot his best friend. WHAT A TWIST!"

What if that consider or recommend came with a note that said "I read this thing three times. It was THAT good."

This isn't something you can read in a book, or learn from a forum.
It's part instinct and it's part learned skill.
You have to read scripts and write, and write, and write, and read, and read, and write, and then you'll get a sense of how all the elements come together to make a script.

[Celia Cyanide]

The actors and directors absolutely do not give a damn when you want them to slow down.

Yes, I do. It gives me information about how to perform it.

I may not have sold a screenplay, and I don't intend to. But screenwriters, even the ones who direct their own movies, should be aware that the script is how they represent themselves to the actors.

[Goodwriterguy]

Yes, I do. It gives me information about how to perform it.

I may not have sold a screenplay, and I don't intend to. But screenwriters, even the ones who direct their own movies, should be aware that the script is how they represent themselves to the actors.
Indeed and actors adore great dialogue writers and those who create marvelous roles.