I think people, like Roger, who write these articles are writing the article because they've had it up to here *points above head* with shitty writing. They know those writers have potential if only they were pointed in the right direction. Logic would say that if you do the opposite to what made your manuscript hopeless drivel, it might actually be good.
I thought that this was a given. Am I missing something? Keep this thread going, I want to see some points of view on writing articles like this one.
Well, since you ask...
It's things like "the right direction" and "opposite to what made your manuscript hopeless drivel" which I'm suspicious of. Both contain implied value judgements that, I think, should be left to writer. If you do the "opposite" of what someone else thought makes your manuscript hopeless drivel you shoot like a rocket into unfamiliar territory. You're going to make more "mistakes". In the end, you come undone.
There are many ways to do something; and they don't divide into shitty and great. Generally, when people make those "mistakes" they try to do something with this. Good critique tries to pinpoint the intended style (as if this was easy) and work from there, rather than give cliché blanket advice.
Clearly, such articles have nothing to go on, so they can't do that. But what they can do is refrain from evaluation before they finish explaining how the elements in question work. Once your finished, you can then give your opinion on what's good or bad style, but be sure to call it your opinion.
The problem is that there's so much cliché advice out there that has the ring of truth simply because you hear it so often. It's words without much meaning behind them, and most of the time they include their own disclaimers, so they have the "guideline" way out when someone corners them. The stuff that should be discussed is left to intuition, and since seasoned authors have better intuition than new authors, in the end this leads to some sort of elitism where confidence in your own writing - that is confidence that you know what you're doing - is the magic key. The rule becomes a rite of passage.
Let me demonstrate with the passive voice, since this is my pet subject (see here[/url), for example):
Article said:
Step 1. Passive voice is an error of style.
This is where I say to myself, "No, it isn't, but try to convince me."
An assertion, designed to make you anxious. You really need to be vigilant, lest you use the evil passive voice.
Now we demonstrate the passive voice. Where is this going?
Facepalm.
Groan.
This is nonsense. Of course, somebody makes the mistake. The very fact that you're using the passive voice tells you somebody makes the mistake. It's just that we're not, by default, told (<-- hah!) who does.
What? The reading does not produce words. If you don't produce words, you don't produce the passive voice. This makes no sense whatsoever. If I'm reading in the papers that a thief was arrested, I don't wonder whether the thief arrested himself.
Not only is this poorly phrased, it's probably also a poor example.
What happens to people in "The food was eaten."? I'm under the impression that the same thing happens; Irving does the eating. It's Irving's fault in both cases, though we don't know that in the second. If we need to know, we can add a "The food was eaten by Irving." Irving's fault. Want to make it more evident? "The food was eaten by Irving, not me."
Yes. And that's probably because I didn't want to talk about Irving. So what's the problem?
Exactly. That's the point of the passive voice. I repeat, what's the problem?
At this point I should probably do a random check of a few SYW pieces to test that assertion, but I'm lazy. I really doubt that's true, though. Any of you can go there and see for yourself. Does a passive voice verb avoid attributing bad actions to a character? If so, is this the point of the usage, or a side effect? (Are the bad effects later made clear?)
On the whole, this just goes on stigmatising the passive voice. Writers who use this are (often) weak-willed and unsure of themselves.
Joe killed Bill. Bill was killed. --> Bill is dead either way. Joe did it either way, too, although the passive version doesn't say so. I'd be curious, though, how you go through a story with Joe as a character and the killing of Bill as an important action without ever making a connection between the two. What on earth does this have to do with the passive voice. If you have Joe kill Bill then it's in the story. And, yes, you can take it out.
And here's the disclaimer. Since a lot of passive voice is appropriate you need one of these while you're merrily stigmatising it. Otherwise you'd lose your credibility.
Is the author wrong?
Not really. There are points in there that merit discussion. But the arguments don't show those up. There is really no opportunity to dive into the mechanics. There are assumptions at the bottom of advice of this sort, and the most prominent here is:
The subject of a verb should be the "doer" of the verb.
Which is confused with:
A sentence should attribute responsibility for the actions it expresses.
I don't think I've often seen people address this while they're condemning the passive voice.
An example: In Politics & Current events there is a thread about a gruesome article whose headline reads:
Puppy is kicked to death in park
According to the writing-article, I'd have to assume that the headline authors are scared to attribute responsibility. This is possible, but it doesn't make for a very interesting analysis of the sentence. Also, I think it's wrong; blame is an important part of headline, even if it's secondary.
I'd argue that what we have here is a two-pronged attack at the readers emotions.
First, we're supposed to sympathise with the puppy. So we have the puppy in the subject position. We read puppy and before we read on there is this awwww-moment.
Then we hit the "kicked to death". A shock. But since the puppy is "kicked to death", there is also a "kicker". This is implied in the verb. Compare this to:
Puppy dies violently in park
No kickers. Nobody at fault. We're left to mourn the puppy.
The choice of the verb-phrase "kicked to death", prepares for anger. At the point in the text when we do get to the culprits, how do you think we'll respond to them. This is strategic postponing of blame, while at the same time implying it already.
If you want to dodge responsibility, you're better off deflecting it by innocuous verb choices: studies show... bombs land... etc. All in the active voice, I might add.
Implied agency is an important aspect of the passive voice. You're saying that somebody/something is responsible, but you don't, by default, say who (although there is always the by-phrase available).
When and where and why to use the passive voice is a complex topic. It's interesting. But this article just brushes it aside as an error of style. Passive voice:grammar atrocity. It's sometimes necessary, like a mercy killing maybe?
As you can see with the puppy example, you can use the passive voice to align sympathies with the victims rather than the perpetrator.
Again, this does not mean that the article is wrong. I've recently come across an article that shows that people who buy into rape myths are more likely to use the passive voice when re-telling the rape than others (although they grouped passive voice together with nominalisations ["rape occurred"], so that's not quite about passive voice in the end, plus it was about German not English - but I don't think that makes much of a difference). This is fascinating, especially since English has the "get" passive, which does shift causation towards the subject:
The thief was arrested. --> The thief got arrested. --> The thief got himself arrested.
The article isn't wrong, but it's one-sided, and its most likely effect is to instill anxiety about the passive voice in new writers. It's stigmatising an important (but not essential) part of the English language.
You're not a good writer if you know to avoid the passive voice; you're a good writer when you know how to use it. I don't really like articles who do little but peeve about their pet dislikes in an unsystematic manner. This article is one of those.
And here's the rub: my post - this one - peeves about my pet dislikes in articles. Go figure. On the one hand, I feel moved to make posts like this one, to dispel what I consider harmful writing myths. On the other hand I end up disliking my own posts, because I feel they're engaging in the same sins as the articles I'm disliking - on a different level: I'm basically saying "Don't read articles like this one." Again and again. A dont. When according to my line of argument I should be telling you how to make the most of these articles.
For a couple of years now, I've been aware of that pattern, but it's so damn hard to break. I'm working at it. Meanwhile you get the occasional post like this one (though less than you'd have got a couple of years ago).
