Passive Voice

Sleeping Cat Books

Booking design projects for fall
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
72
Reaction score
5
Website
sleepingcatbooks.com
Actually, there is one instance of passive voice in this sentence: "being burned".

Well, no. The subject of that clause is "he" and the verb is "was wary." The "being burned" phrase is part of the prepositional phrase "of being burned." It is not acting as a verb in this sentence, so there's no passive voice there.
 

Keithy

Just keep swimming
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 23, 2017
Messages
1,547
Reaction score
76
Location
Ireland
My writing feels like Lassie: "woof woof woof" - I think he's trying to tell us something.

So, does dog have passive mode?
 

Dawnstorm

punny user title, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,752
Reaction score
449
Location
Austria
Well, no. The subject of that clause is "he" and the verb is "was wary." The "being burned" phrase is part of the prepositional phrase "of being burned." It is not acting as a verb in this sentence, so there's no passive voice there.

The object of the preposition in the prepositional phrase is a verb phrase. "of burning" = active voice; "of being burned" = passive voice. There's even such a thing as a passive infinitive: "to be burned". It's definitely passive voice.
 

blacbird

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
36,987
Reaction score
6,158
Location
The right earlobe of North America
The object of the preposition in the prepositional phrase is a verb phrase. "of burning" = active voice; "of being burned" = passive voice. There's even such a thing as a passive infinitive: "to be burned". It's definitely passive voice.

Isn't "of burning" a prepostional phrase employing a gerund as the object? In which case it doesn't function as a verb, but as a noun.

caw
 

Dawnstorm

punny user title, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,752
Reaction score
449
Location
Austria
Isn't "of burning" a prepostional phrase employing a gerund as the object? In which case it doesn't function as a verb, but as a noun.

caw

That's a valid interpretation under traditional grammar, but the question remains that you'd have to explain the difference (in terms of grammar) between "of burning" and "of being burned". Are both of those gerunds? Only "of burning"? If only the latter, what's the difference?

It's questions like these that have led linguists to largly abandon traditional grammar in favour of other approaches. Plenty still use the term gerund, but a gerund is still a verb in those theories, albeit a nominal verb. The details are fairly complex. There are even adjectival constructions that contain traces of voice:

Take the verb "to eat". It's participles are "eating" and "eaten", and both those participles can be combined with nouns to create a compound adjective: "the man-eating lion", the "moth-eaten coat". You'll see that the structure here still supposts active-passive analyses, in the sense that the "X-[participle] Y" tends to behave in the following way:

If it's the present pariticple X is the object of the verb the participle is derived from, while Y the subject of the verb the participle is derived from. For the past participle the relationship is reversed - just as it would be for passive voice. But how do we describe this theoretically? Because "man-eating" and "moth-eaten" are compound adjectives, not verbs. [One can apply similar arguments to gerunds, I suppose.]

None of these theoretical question matter much to writers (unless they're interested in linguistics, and find they can learn to write well through such analyses), so I didn't really want to go into detail here. If I say:

"Of burning" relates to "of being burned" in the same way as "he burns/is burning" relates to "he is burned/is being burned", would you agree?
 
Last edited:

Sleeping Cat Books

Booking design projects for fall
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
72
Reaction score
5
Website
sleepingcatbooks.com
The object of the preposition in the prepositional phrase is a verb phrase. "of burning" = active voice; "of being burned" = passive voice. There's even such a thing as a passive infinitive: "to be burned". It's definitely passive voice.

So how would you diagram that sentence? It has one verb: "was wary". The sentence is in active voice, regardless of what appears in any prepositional phrases.
 

blacbird

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
36,987
Reaction score
6,158
Location
The right earlobe of North America
So how would you diagram that sentence? It has one verb: "was wary". The sentence is in active voice, regardless of what appears in any prepositional phrases.

Yup. Better expressed than I could. We should never confuse "passive voice" with "weak" or "inactive" prose. The first has a specific grammatic structure meaning. The latter things are style considerations, which are of equal importance, but separate matters.

caw
 

AW Admin

Administrator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 19, 2008
Messages
18,772
Reaction score
6,285
Really? In all my technical writing training and experience (more than 18 years), I've had passive voice drilled out of me (for actual tech writing - my freelance work can be a different story). Passive voice makes for poor technical writing in *most cases*, because it's not clear who or what is doing the action. The subject should always be clear (even if it's an implied "you"), and always be performing the action.

This is my experience, as someone writing docs since 1990, at least. It's also my experience as a tech editor and author for Addison-Wesley, O'Reilly and Peachpit that passive voice is not, usually the preferred option, unless the subject performing the action of the verb is "unknown."

The solution is to master control of the subject and the verb, so that you can pick the best option for whatever kind of text you're producing; there are places in fiction where you want to masque the subject/person responsible for the the action of the verb, including constructing unreliable narrators.
 
Last edited:

LucidCrux

Write like there's no tommorowe.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 24, 2013
Messages
552
Reaction score
190
Location
Colorado
I think part of the problem is simply that people confuse "was," "were," and "is" with automatically being passive, when they are really just "weak" in a lot of cases. I confess that I was absolutely guilty of thinking that way for quite a while (and I lapse sometimes). It is really easy to mix up the construction with the words themselves since they are linked to the passive form.

Sometimes a verb needs to be weak. In one of the examples above I noticed a change that turned "was wary" into "feared" which are not the same sort of feeling at all. There isn't really an active way to be wary that I can think of right now, but maybe someone else can. Worried is the closest I can think of, and even that seems a bit much.

Maybe it would be useful to point out to people just starting to comprehend the passive vs active thing, that you can go and grab a random chapter of a well known book and you will probably find "was," "were," or "is." Some might be passive, some weak, but even respected authors use both sometimes.

Someone said active should be used when you're concerned with the actor and passive when concerned with the subject. I would add that active can also be about the act itself, while passive is about the effect of the action.

For example, if someone is walking along a road, you might write, "Trash was dumped along the road." Not only does that keep the focus from whoever dumped the trash if you actively showed it happening, but it keeps the trash from drawing too much attention itself. The trash is not really the important part; you don't describe its details or dwell on it or anything. What is important is that this is the kind of place people dump trash. There isn't always time or need to be active and turn it into, "He batted at the swirling papers scraps and kicked a few old, discarded bottles." Maybe the guy is busy doing something else.

One day, I will learn to make small posts. I'm going to make a great, rambling old man.
 
Last edited:

BethS

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 21, 2005
Messages
11,708
Reaction score
1,763
"Trash was dumped along the road." Not only does that keep the focus from whoever dumped the trash if you actively showed it happening, but it keeps the trash from drawing too much attention itself.

I get your overall point; "to be" verbs are like mortar--performing an important function but generally invisible to the reader unless the author slathers them around too freely. And certainly there's a time and place for passive voice.

However, in the above example, it could also be written something like -- "Trash littered the roadside in random heaps and dribbling trails of debris" -- which still makes the trash nothing more than a passing visual, but it does help bring the whole picture more sharply into focus.
 
Last edited:

LucidCrux

Write like there's no tommorowe.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 24, 2013
Messages
552
Reaction score
190
Location
Colorado
However, in the above example, it could also be written something like -- "Trash littered the roadside in random heaps and dribbling trails of debris" -- which still makes the trash nothing more than a passing visual, but it does help bring the whole picture more sharply into focus.

Yes, that is a better alternative, but you used exactly the word I did: focus. I said passive can be used when you don't want something in focus.

Even so, imagine that as only one of several descriptors. It would get tedious and wordy at some point, describing everything in so much detail. I find Stephen King tedious for the most part, for example, but others love him. I prefer short, tight works in general, but monster books seem to be coming back in style.

What if it's a heavily introverted scene but you still want to ground the reader with minimal setting? You could just use "Trash littered the roadside," but is that really so much different than "Trash was dumped along the road" if you're cruising through a book? Which makes the trash sound heavier and more of a burden? Something like "Dumped trash lined the road," would keep the heavy "ump" sound but that arrangement is unnatural. IMO, if you're scrutinizing a line about trash or a dog bite that much, though, there are probably bigger problems (like whole paragraphs packed with passive voice), you're writing a poem, or you've got OCD.

At any rate, yes, I agree. There are times to be passive and times to be active. It's better to train yourself to be active, but passive writing alone, unless it is quite excessive, shouldn't be enough to kill a great book. I can't imagine someone who has written an otherwise captivating book but who can't manage a passive vs. active editing pass and at least catch enough to make the book readable. Maybe I give people (and myself) too much credit though. Man, I hope my stuff isn't jammed full of passive I've failed to notice.
 

BethS

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 21, 2005
Messages
11,708
Reaction score
1,763
"Trash littered the roadside," but is that really so much different than "Trash was dumped along the road"

Well, technically, it should be "Trash had been dumped along the road" because the dumping had already occurred by the time the character passed by.

But to answer your question, I think the passive voice version actually calls more attention to itself in that scenario, because it guides the reader's thoughts, even if only subliminally, toward the question of who dumped it. And it's boring to read, frankly.

imagine that as only one of several descriptors. It would get tedious and wordy at some point, describing everything in so much detail

The solution to that is not to have so many descriptors. If you're trying to show an environment, pick two or three of the most interesting or relevant or unusual ones, and leave it at that. If your character is busy navel-gazing and not noticing his surroundings, then clearly a different approach is needed. Although you could still sneak in some references, such as having him trip over a pile of empty beer cans.
 
Last edited:

LucidCrux

Write like there's no tommorowe.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 24, 2013
Messages
552
Reaction score
190
Location
Colorado
I think the passive voice version actually calls more attention to itself ... because it guides the reader's thoughts ... toward the question of who dumped it.

That's interesting. The active one is more distracting for me because it is, well, active. :p My mind wants to focus on it, while I wouldn't wonder about who dumped it myself. It's like an adjective, like "the grass was green". "dumped along the road" is more its state than a thing that happened, it's like a cheat way to avoid a bunch of hyphenation. With "had been" where it does become a thing that happened.

It is technically incorrect yes, but style frequently trumps technical stuff.

Everything you wrote is right, I'm just musing to myself.
 

Tsu Dho Nimh

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 2, 2006
Messages
1,534
Reaction score
248
Location
West Enchilada, NM
I've had this described as "passive":

Willen lay attempting to relax on a sun lounger, his feet rubbing against the fabric. With his pale skin, he was wary of being burned in the late afternoon sunshine, so he had positioned a striped awning overhead.

I'm not sure whether that means "passive voice" or just "passive" in the sense of being a bit boring.

I suppose I could change it to

Willen was attempting to relax on a sun lounger; he was wary of being burned in the late afternoon sunshine, so had positioned a striped awning overhead.

I don't think I need to worry about him rubbing his feet on the fabric or his pale skin. But the new version doesn't seem much more exciting.

It's quite boring ...

Willen lay warily on a sun lounger, constantly checking the shade of the awning to ensure the afternoon sun was not endangering his pallid skin.
 

Tsu Dho Nimh

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 2, 2006
Messages
1,534
Reaction score
248
Location
West Enchilada, NM
I spent years as a technical writer and although it damaged my ability to tell what POV I am using, I was never accused of using too much passive voice.

To make sure you are using passive voice appropriately, use this fast test: Put the true subject (the person/place/thing/idea you are discussing or explaining) at the beginning of the sentence and write. If the sentence has to be written in passive voice, keep the passive voice. If the move made you change to active voice, you didn't need the passive voice.

Example:

If you are discussing how the unloader arm handles the widgets, active voice is necessary: The unloader's mechanical arm removes each widget from the cassette and places it on the conveyer.

If you are discussing widgets and what happens to them at the unloader, the passive voice is necessary: Each widget is removed from the cassette by the unloader's mechanical arm and is placed on the conveyer.

Passive voice can cause problems when it hides the meaning of the sentence. A common flaw in work instructions is using passive voice where imperative (command form) is more appropriate.

Example:
BAD: The widget is placed into the smasher cavity at the top of the widget-smasher by the operator.
(This would be an acceptable sentence in a general discussion of how widgets are processed, but it fails as an instruction. The chain of phrases between the object and the person who performs the action is confusing, and the instructions never clearly instructed anyone to do anything.)

BETTER: [you] Place the widget into the smasher cavity at the top the widget-smasher.
(the subject "you" is implied, as a direct command to the operator.)




 

shakeysix

blue eyed floozy
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
10,839
Reaction score
2,426
Location
St. John, Kansas
Website
shakey6wordsmith.webs.com
The scent of his tender, freckled buttocks frying in sun screen alerted Willem to his danger.

A dangerous sunburn was avoided by pink and peely but quick thinking Willem.
 
Last edited: