It's Hunting Season...and I'm Hunting Adverbs!

[T.Allen.Smith]

How to spot passive voice (the general idea):
1) Look for any "to be" verbs - was, were, would, had, etc. these can often (but not always) be an indicator of passivity.

2) Does the subject of the sentence receive, instead of perform, the verb's action? If so, it's passive

3) Is the sentence ended with "by INSERT NAME, PRONOUN, OR NOUN." The preposition "by" can also signal passive voice.

Simple examples:

Active - John mailed the letter.

Passive - The letter was mailed by John.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Passive - They ran towards the cells where the Duke's political prisoners were being held.

Active - The Duke held political prisoners in the lower dungeons. They ran off in that direction.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

*Forgive the hasty examples, they're off the cuff but I think you get the idea. The subject of the sentence should perform the action if you want it written in active voice.

 

[BWFoster78]

Regarding active versus passive: As T.Allen wrote, there's a technical definition, and there are times to use both.

In the post where I mentioned not being passive, however, I actually meant that I want you to use active verbs, not that you shouldn't use passive voice.

Example:

He was walking down the street.

That sentence is passive. He existed in a state of walking down the street. Other examples:

He started to walk...
He could walk...

It is my contention that having your character be more active is more compelling, in most cases to the reader:

He walked down the street.

Better:

He strode
He ran
He sprinted

Try this sometime: Pull out all your verbs and study them. If you have a bunch of was, could, started, looked, seemed, etc, your writing is pretty passive. If, for the most part, you have good, strong action verbs, I believe that is better.

 

[BWFoster78]

Another question, and I know it's hard to answer because everyone has their own preferance but should I try to hack down every single sentence to be as short and concise as possible?

The question isn't to be as short and concise as possible, it's to not use unnecessary words. The goal is to get rid of words that don't add anything to your work.

For example:

Eliminate all of the unnecessary words.

What does the "of" add?

Eliminate all the unnecessary words.

What does the "all" add?

Eliminate the unnecessary words.

That says the same thing as the first sentence but with fewer words.

In your example:

piereced through the canopy of the woods

By saying "canopy," you evoke the image of trees. Thus "of the woods" is redundant and should be cut.

I think "through" is just as egregiously bad as "of the woods," though.

I'm just worried that if I go to submit my work and an editor thinks that a sentence could have been written in six words instead of seven I'll get rejected. Sorry if this sounds like a silly question but I have no experience in submitting.

If your writing and story are otherwise strong enough, it probably won't make that much difference. I think, however, that strong technique is the result of the taking care of a lot of small things and that failing to do so can result in a poorer evaluation of your work.

The question is: in your quest to become a better writer, is learning the correct application of this technique the best use of your time? Probably not. I think it's an important lesson to learn, and you should try to incorporate it. If you want the best bang for your buck, though, focus on:

Showing the story through the eyes of a relatable character
Creating the proper level of tension
Creating the proper level of emotion

I think mastering those three objectives will bring you a lot closer to getting published than mastery of technique assuming your technique isn't completely unreadable.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Here's some more help in detecting passivity that another Scribe taught me on these forums.

If you use MS Word, you can set your spelling & grammar check to detect & mark passive voice. It's an awesome tool when learning how to write in active voice. Recognizing passivity quickly aids that process.

 

[Devor]

EDIT: Another question, and I know it's hard to answer because everyone has their own preferance but should I try to hack down every single sentence to be as short and concise as possible? I am trying to cut down on adverb usage because it actually gives you more options for description. But do you think it is "bad" for a writter to chop his/her sentences down to the minimum amount of words? For example, Devor posted, "Night neared. Beams of orange light pierced through the canopy, casting shadows across the underbrush." Would it be "bad" to add in, "...pierced though the canopy of the woods, casting shadows...

It's not about sentence length. Several of the sentences I offered are actually longer than the originals. It's about whether the added words add anything new. A canopy, for instance, is the top layer of a forest. Explaining, "Ohh, this is the canopy of the woods" is superfluous. It's wasted space. That information was already stated when you said canopy.

Sentence length and structure should vary within most paragraphs to maintain flow.

If "people" is as specific as you can get, then you should give their actions more description.

 

[Nebuchadnezzar]

I think BWFoster's advice is spot on. Good characters, good tension, good emotion (and I would add good plotting) buys a lot of forgiveness. Too many adverbs, show vs tell, unnecessary words...these are all things that a good editor can help a writer fix as long as the raw material is there. Plenty of books and stories get published that break these rules (and in many cases sell lots of copies).

I will say that in regards to "canopy", I would argue that in this case "of the woods" serves a purpose. Since this is the second sentence and it isn't yet established that we're in the woods, canopy on its own could be confusing as it might mean "of the outdoor restaurant" or "of the front door" or "of the jungle".

I try to cut words where possible but I also like to remind myself that no reader knows or follows the story as carefully as the writer. You can mention something about setting or character in one line and think you're done, but IMO there's no harm in repeating it or re-emphasizing it a few lines or paragraphs later to help remind the reader and make it easier for them to follow the story. So basically cut unnecessary words but be generous in deciding if something is necessary.

 

[wordwalker]

He was walking down the street.

That sentence is passive. He existed in a state of walking down the street.
...
Try this sometime: Pull out all your verbs and study them. If you have a bunch of was, could, started, looked, seemed, etc, your writing is pretty passive. If, for the most part, you have good, strong action verbs, I believe that is better.

Actually, there's one use I like to use the "was walking" forms for: when I want to emphasize the sense of the exact moment, that just now he's right in the middle of the action. Eg "He was walking away from his sister's when he remembered..." or "The guard spun around but, to his relief, his lord was walking away unharmed."

Although, like we've been saying about adverbs, there are always more involved ways to create the same effect as this-- and each time means its own decision on whether those ways are worth the further effort and space. And like adverbs, these passives do harm not when they pop up now and then but when they start lying thick on the ground.