# Passive voice



## Lisselle (May 15, 2017)

Passive voice is my nemesis. I have no true innate understanding of it, regardless of the research I do.
Is it ok to use passive voice when characters are talking, for example, if they are talking/ thinking of past experiences?

I bought an editing program and it shows I use passive voice where I shouldn't, yet I'm more confused than ever!

/cry.


----------



## La Volpe (May 15, 2017)

The passive voice is really just an inversion of the regular sentence order.

So normally, a sentence is:
<Subject> <verb> <object>  (E.g. John kicks the ball.)
In passive voice, it's:
<object> <verb> <subject> (E.g. The ball is kicked by John.)

So whether people are talking, and whether or not you're referring to the past, present or future, won't affect the use of passive voice (e.g. you could say "the ball was kicked by John" or "John kicked the ball").

You'll note that passive voice is generally more wordy and often flows less nicely. It is, however, useful when the object of the sentence is the important part, or if you don't want to mention the subject (or it is implicit).
E.g. John was audited. <object> <verb>
You could rewrite that as: John was audited by the IRS. <object> <verb> <subject> But in many cases, this is unnecessary.

So, generally people warn against using passive voice because it can tend to lend to weaker writing etc. You can generally recognise passive voice by the use of the "to be" verb combined with another verb that takes an object (or looking for the "by" + object at the end of a sentence).

I can expand some more on this, but it might be helpful to hear what parts are tripping you up. E.g. recognising passive voice, writing in passive voice, subject/object identification, etc.


----------



## Lisselle (May 15, 2017)

I bought 'Pro Writing Aid', and it shows a lot of instances of passive voice in my writing. I copied and pasted an extract of The Lord of the Rings, and while the program picked up many issues, (ha!) there were NO instances of passive voice.

For example, in a story I just submitted in the Challenge forum, this line...

"The Wall had not always been there, and the City _was once known_ by another name."

 "_was once known-_" is being highlighted as passive voice, and I truly do not understand. It is my big writers block. I don't naturally SEE passive voice. I'm worried it will be a major issue in the development of my writing.


----------



## La Volpe (May 15, 2017)

I don't think you need to worry about that particular instance.

So, we could rewrite that (the second part of the sentence) into active voice by introducing a subject.
So, e.g. "they once knew the City by another name." But that kind of sentence flows better with an implicit subject, so I'd leave it in passive voice.

Really, the "no passive voice" rule is the same as the "no adverb" rule. Apply as needed. A lot of times, you'll use passive voice because it works better. So I'm guessing that you don't have a problem with passive voice unless you're seeing a lot of it being marked out.

So as an additional example, here's a bit of text:
The sword was picked up by John. It was heavy in his hand. The burglar was attacked with a grunt.
The two of them fought for a couple of minutes before the clouds were swept out of the moon's way by the wind, and the warriors were revealed to each other by the light.

So, we can rewrite that into active voice:
John picked up the sword. It was heavy in his hand. He attacked the burglar with a grunt.
The two of them fought for a couple of minutes before the wind swept the clouds out of the moon's way, and the light revealed  the two warriors to each other.

Personally, I find the passive voice (i.e. the top one) harder to read (and write, really).

So, in short, I think you're fine. I hope this at least partly answers your questions?


----------



## FifthView (May 15, 2017)

Sometimes people will use the passive voice when trying to prevaricate through omission: "In the confusion of the melee, Count Drisi was struck down" could mean the speaker did the dirty deed but doesn't want his conversation partner to know that. 

Alternatively, when the facts are not known, such an omission might reflect that fact. "Highness, the villages of Brugal and Semiton have been destroyed!"  Who did the destruction? The speaker may not have a clue; i.e., it's a mystery.

But perhaps the speaker knows who destroyed those villages because the kingdom's already been at war with a known party. Naming that enemy may be entirely unimportant (it's a given), and what's more important is the object + verb, i.e., the effect or changed set of circumstances.

Basically, any time the subject needs to be deemphasized, whether to prevaricate or naturally because it is unknown or relatively unimportant, passive voice in dialogue might be quite natural for the speaker.

If you are using a first person narrator, that narrator may also slip into passive voice for one reason or another. Similarly, an omniscient 3rd person storyteller type of narrator might do the same. Heck, probably any narrative voice could do so; it's fine outside dialogue if used conscientiously. I think that maybe the problem is that passive voice used at the wrong time and haphazardly can lead to an unintentional weakening of some passages and, if used too much, confuses the reader's experience of cause and effect in narrative.


----------



## La Volpe (May 15, 2017)

If I might add to my previous post:
The sentence it marked out is "and the City was once known by another name". You can tell that this is in passive voice by looking closely at how it's constructed.

So, the verb in the sentence is "was known". Ask yourself, who is doing the knowing? It's not the City. The "by another name" seems (probably to a computer) to be the subject, but you know that it isn't. So, since there are no other nouns left, it means that the subject is implied. And passive voice is the only proper sentence type where you can do that. Ergo, the sentence is in passive voice.

And if you look at "The ball is kicked by John", you can follow the same formula. Kick is the verb. Who is doing the kicking? Not the ball, so it has to be John. Ergo, John is the subject. And if the subject is after a verb in a sentence, it means that the sentence is in passive voice.

Edit: Also, ditto everything Fifth said.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (May 15, 2017)

This is a website I direct people to:

http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/passive-voice/


----------



## FifthView (May 15, 2017)

The use of passive voice for prevarication is one of the most interesting for me personally. Throw the listener off the track of the cause; blame some other unnamed entity.

Perhaps the most common use: _I was taught...._

"I was taught to respect my elders."

"I was taught 'eye for eye.' "

"I was taught to never give up, never give in."

"I was taught to fight against bullies."

"I was taught to turn the other cheek."

–Sometimes, this also includes an appeal to authority, with a vague, unnamed, or commonly accepted authority being cloaked as cause. Even so, any of these statements when used can be taken as an attempt to throw the listener off the trail of primary cause of any action. (E.g., a man gets horribly beaten, almost dies, and the perpetrator says, "I was always taught to stand up to bullies," heh. As if, it's not all _his_ fault; _he_ wasn't the primary cause of this beating–no matter the obvious facts on the ground.)

The prevarication may be so natural or instinctive, the prevaricator may not realize he's prevaricating. The things we hide from ourselves.

_____________

On another note...



Lisselle said:


> "The Wall had not always been there, and the City _was once known_ by another name."
> 
> "_was once known-_" is being highlighted as passive voice, and I truly do not understand.



Someone in an older thread mentioned that if you can add something like "by ogres" after the verb, that's a sign it's in passive voice.  The City was once known by another name _by ogres_. 

This idea of cause and effect as it relates to passive voice also interests me. 

Not too long ago, I started a thread looking at Mary Kowal's idea of The Four Principles of Puppetry. The first principle was focus:

*1. Focus.* "Focus indicates thought. As a writer, you can only show the audience one thing at a time. Show them what you want them to think about."

Sometimes, leaving off the "by..." phrase leads to a lack of focus. I haven't looked at the original context for the "City was once known by another name" phrase. But reading it, my mind might naturally wander to and wonder about _who_, known by whom, rather than staying focused on whatever is the main point of that section of the story. This sort of thing might be one of the reasons passive voice is thought (by ogres?) to weaken writing. 

In a way, every cause-effect is a story. If you give an effect, some reader might start wondering at the cause and might even wonder about the relationship of cause to effect, i.e., the _how and why_ of it. Why was the City once known by another name. Who knew it by that other name. What caused the change of names. –very interesting chains of events might be involved in this transition. Some great story might lie behind that City's name.

So, a more mundane example. "Darvis had been taught to always avoid attention, never stand out as anyone special." Ok, so maybe his teacher, a master thief or assassin, taught him this. Or maybe his crazy, abusive parents taught him this. Maybe he learned this from bullies at school. There's a story behind it, and a reader's mind might leap there even if you are in the process of showing something else _here_ and _now_.


----------



## FifthView (May 15, 2017)

La Volpe said:


> So as an additional example, here's a bit of text:
> The sword was picked up by John. It was heavy in his hand. The burglar was attacked with a grunt.
> The two of them fought for a couple of minutes before the clouds were swept out of the moon's way by the wind, and the warriors were revealed to each other by the light.
> 
> ...



I think this is a great example, of a different sort, of how passive voice can ruin a reader's experience of cause-effect and by so doing, ruin focus.

This reminds me of a previous discussion about MRUs, motivation-reaction units.

Maybe being "in the moment" means experiencing causes first, effects next. We experience unfolding circumstances. This is like seeing an active agent that will be a cause for an effect. (The sword is in a picked-up state after the agent, John, acts. He's created that effect.) So...

"The sword was picked up" is the effect, "by John" names the cause of that sword's state after the fact. Using the passive voice is like forcing the reader's focus to jump back and forth in time, seeing the effects first then leaping back to find the active agent that is the cause of those effects. Doing this multiple times within a short time frame is a lot of leaping back and forth, and the reader's fluid experience of cause-effect is broken, he's knocked out of the moment. By ogres, presumably.


----------



## pmmg (May 15, 2017)

Lisselle said:


> Passive voice is my nemesis. I have no true innate understanding of it, regardless of the research I do.
> Is it ok to use passive voice when characters are talking, for example, if they are talking/ thinking of past experiences?
> 
> I bought an editing program and it shows I use passive voice where I shouldn't, yet I'm more confused than ever!
> ...




I just read your story and I saw nothing wrong with your voice. I would suggest trusting yourself more and this program less. You write very well already.

Which BTW, is not to discount all the posts above. The lessons above are still worth following.


----------



## Lisselle (May 15, 2017)

Thank you!  I have felt so demoralized about this for a while now.

Today I'm going to take notes on everything all of you have said, and see if I can start to make some sense of this issue. 

In Australia when I was young the Aus Government and board of Ed took Grammar OUT of the curriculum, so as a very young child I wasn't taught verbs, adverbs etc. It's been an adult endeavor, but for a long time none of it came naturally. 

It's great to have passive voice explained by writers.


----------



## elemtilas (May 15, 2017)

Lisselle said:


> were NO instances of passive voice.
> 
> For example, in a story I just submitted in the Challenge forum, this line...
> 
> ...



The passive voice, along with the active and the middle, is one of three distinct voices that an English verb can form. Grammatically speaking, it all comes down the roles of the Agent (the doer of the deed) and the Patient (the one that got done the deed).

In the active voice, the Agent is the doer of the action and will be in the nominative case; the Patient is the experiencer of the action and will be in the oblique case; the Recipient is the one for whose benefit the Agent does the action upon the Patient:

Liselle wrote a story involving a city for the Mythic Scribes. Normal word order in English declarative sentences is AVPR --- Agent-Verb-Patient-Recipient. We don't mark case (apart from possessive), so you can't tell apart from word order who is doing what. If we use pronouns, all things become more clear:

SHE wrote IT for THEM.

"She" is the third person singular feminine nominative personal pronoun; "it" is third person singular inanimate oblique personal pronoun; "them" is third person plural animate oblique/dative personal pronoun.

If I had written "Her wrote him for they" you'd probably wonder at which grade I dropped out of school!

In the middle voice, the Agent and Recipient are identical:

Liselle wrote her(self) a story involving a city.
SHE wrote HER(self) a story.

With the passive voice, the roles remain the same, but the Agent becomes _demoted_ to object status while the Patient (what was the object before) is now _Promoted_ to subject status. The word order now is SVO --- Subject-Verb-Object, but the subject of the verb is not the Agent and the object of the verb is not the Patient. That word order remains PVA:

A story about a city was written by Liselle for the Mythic Scribes.
IT was written by HER for THEM.

The best way to _see_ the passive voice is to look at the verb. Whenever you see a form of BE in conjunction with a present participle (WRITING) or past participle (WRITTEN); you can be pretty certain that the passive voice is lurking in the shadows. Also, be on the lookout for sentences that begin with what appears to be the logical Patient of a verb (the thing the action is done to). Stories don't write people (usually). People write stories. That inversion of Agent and Patient is another very strong clue.

So that sentence you wrote, "The Wall had not always been there, and the City was once known by another name." Yeah, the first clause is active voice: it is Subject-Verb by word order and the BE + ___ing / ___ed isn't there. The second clause is definitely passive voice: it is SVO, but also PV(A) --- "the city" can not be the Agent of the verb know. The Agent is left undisclosed, but the structure is classic passive voice:

The City was known by another name by those undisclosed people. "The City" is the subject of the verb and also the Patient; "was known" is the third person preterite singular passive voice; "by another name" is an instrumental construct (call it instrumental of manner --- it's the manner in which the City was known); "by those undisclosed people" is the object of the verb and also the Agent.

Use pronouns to clear things up:

IT was known by another name by THEM.

Put it in active voice:

Those undisclosed people knew the city by another name. "Those undisclosed people" now clearly become both Agent & subject of the verb; the City becomes Patent and object. Here, you're repromoting the Agent to subject status and redemoting the Patient to object status; change their places in the sentence & change the case and hey presto! Passive becomes Active!




			
				Lisselle said:
			
		

> Thank you!  I have felt so demoralized about this for a while now.
> 
> Today I'm going to take notes on everything all of you have said, and see if I can start to make some sense of this issue.
> 
> ...




I hope you won't continue feeling demoralised! It is important to know and understand how to work in all these voices to write well!

 !!?? They took Grammar OUT of the curriculum? (No wonder it's so hard to understand an Aussie when he talks!!! )) )

Sigh. And I thought the American education system had gone off the hook...

Hope the above helps!


----------



## Lisselle (May 15, 2017)

Thank you. I have to work so hard to really 'see' the passive voice. 

Grammar has been reinstated in our schools, thankfully! However I am sure there are a generation or two who are still hindered by the absence of it. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Rkcapps (May 15, 2017)

I too use Prowritingaid but there comes a point where you do need to trust your voice and ignore a computer program. Great advice above!


----------



## Mythopoet (May 16, 2017)

Let me just say that you need to throw out the idea that passive voice is bad. As FifthView said above, the passive voice can be used as a way to hide information or give a false impression. This would be considered bad in RL (by most people) but is a positive boon in fiction. Other than that, there is literally nothing objectively wrong with passive voice. 

Someone else above said that using passive voice is considered "weaker" writing. But the truth is that this is entirely a matter of taste and education. We are taught in school (and by "experts" on the internet) that passive voice = weak writing and so we start to believe it. We might develop a taste for "active" writing over "passive" writing as a result. But it's still, in most circumstances, an aesthetic choice. 

Consider that one of the most famous sentences ever written in the English language is written in passive voice. "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times...." Do you hear that sentence and think "ew passive writing"? If you I suppose you may want to avoid passive voice because it is not personally pleasing to your ear. However if you hear that sentence and are moved by its beauty, as I am, then you should bring passive voice back into your writing toolbox.

Like literally every single element of writing and storytelling it can be used well or used badly. But you don't blame the language structure for bad writing, you blame the writer who didn't use it well!


----------



## Russ (May 16, 2017)

There is some great stuff above, so I will try not to repeat any of it, just add a little to it.

It is nearly impossible to write an entire novel without using the passive voice.  The question for you, for your work, is how much of it i is necessary to achieve what you want to accomplish with   your work.  I would suggest that you don't try to avoid all uses of it, but rather to minimize its appearance.

As with almost all advice here, a lot of it turn on what your writing goals are.  If your goal is to be bought by a traditional publisher, most acquiring editors frown  upon much use of the passive voice.  It you  use it much it can reduce your chances of selling.  While it is interesting to look at historical examples, tastes and styles of fiction are changing.  In current commercial usage, passive voice is considered a weakness if not used sparingly and carefully.  

I also urge caution when  using software to tell you when you are using too much passive voice, or other stylistic choices in your writing.  You  need to learn these rules for yourself and apply them with your own discretion.  I think one needs to be very cautious to avoid software becoming a bit of a crutch.  Of the professional writers who are friends of mine, none of them use this kind of software.


----------



## elemtilas (May 16, 2017)

Mythopoet said:


> Consider that one of the most famous sentences ever written in the English language is written in passive voice. "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times...." Do you hear that sentence and think "ew passive writing"? If you I suppose you may want to avoid passive voice because it is not personally pleasing to your ear. However if you hear that sentence and are moved by its beauty, as I am, then you should bring passive voice back into your writing toolbox.



Just to pick the weeest of gnits here, the verb BE can't really be active or passive (or middle). It's a verb of state. The above would be called "active" voice, though, since it's not passive in form. Usagewise, the above is a straight appositive, meaning that "it" is equivalent to and formally identified as "the best of times". And "the worst of times". Apposition is where one person or thing is said to be equal to or the same as something or someone else.

There are plenty examples of great sentences in passive voice, though! "Rome _was_ not _built_ in a day" - "The road to hell _is paved_ with good intentions" - "What _is done_ can not _be undone_".




> Like literally every single element of writing and storytelling it can be used well or used badly. But you don't blame the language structure for bad writing, you blame the writer who didn't use it well!



Agreed.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (May 16, 2017)

Mythopoet said:


> Someone else above said that using passive voice is considered "weaker" writing. But the truth is that this is entirely a matter of taste and education. We are taught in school (and by "experts" on the internet) that passive voice = weak writing and so we start to believe it. We might develop a taste for "active" writing over "passive" writing as a result. But it's still, in most circumstances, an aesthetic choice.



that's because passive voice is weaker writing. It is generlly confusing and unclear as to who is doing what. I work in a profession where passive voice abounds. Reading the documents I need to read is a nightmare some days because of it. It is boring, dull, and confusing. I generally subscribe to the belief that passive voice should be eschewed unless necessary for either style or story reasons. This is a fairly strong presumption. I still pass into passive from time to time but I find my writing is stronger and has more punch when I write with active voice. The actors and actions are far more clear. 

So, OP, I suggest you take the advice as a presumption against passive voice that should be followed unless there is a compelling reason to use passive voice.


----------



## FifthView (May 16, 2017)

I think that a modern preference for immediacy, being in the moment, drawn into the story naturally leads to a preference for active voice in narrative. _[Edit: Also, intimacy, or experiencing the world as the POV character experiences it.]_

You hear this sort of thing all the time: 

"I was driving down Highway 35 when an oncoming car swerved into my lane." 

Cars don't have agency, at least not of the human sort; but in the heat of the moment, they sure seem to have agency of their own. Some more moments will pass before we think of the cause, the real human agent behind the wheel, and curse him or her. 

If you are traversing through a forest jovially conversing with your mates, you might have occasion to think, "At that moment, an arrow hissed past my ear and embedded itself into a tree not three steps before me."  The arrow seems to have agency of its own; in the next moment, you are turning around to find the _true_ agent or lunging for cover to hide from the true agent, heh. 

Writing "At that moment, an arrow was fired past my ear" or some variation would be weird, weak, and sap the immediacy of the situation for a reader.


----------



## goldhawk (May 16, 2017)

Lisselle said:


> I bought 'Pro Writing Aid', and it shows a lot of instances of passive voice in my writing. I copied and pasted an extract of The Lord of the Rings, and while the program picked up many issues, (ha!) there were NO instances of passive voice.
> 
> For example, in a story I just submitted in the Challenge forum, this line...
> 
> ...



In this case, the computer was wrong. Grammar correcting software often thinks all cases of "to be" are in the passive voice. They have a long, long way to go to match a good editor.


----------



## Lisselle (May 16, 2017)

goldhawk said:


> In this case, the computer was wrong. Grammar correcting software often thinks all cases of "to be" are in the passive voice. They have a long, long way to go to match a good editor.



My confidence in my writing took a big hit after buying the program. (It was suggested here, and I can never afford to seek out a professional editor [single mum] so I thought it might be a good idea, and it has been great in many ways.)

I read everyone's posts here, and you all have an innate knowledge of Passive Voice, yet many of the examples you have all given do not cry out to me at all. I understand about clunky, long-winded writing, and I know the active voice, yet the passive voice often eludes me.

What I need to do is hit the books, and I've taken notes from here.


----------



## Malik (May 16, 2017)

When I teach this in the military, I use the "by zombies" rule.

If you can add the words "by zombies," and it makes sense, then it's passive voice.

_Jerry kicked Johnny's ass._ Active voice.

_Johnny got his ass kicked . . . by zombies. _Passive voice.

_The phone was red._ Active voice use of _was_.

_The phone was answered . . . by zombies._ Passive voice use of _was._


----------



## Aryth (May 16, 2017)

I'd never learned about or even considered passive voice before (newbie alert) and you all did a great job explaining it. I can see how a story would drag if passive voice were to be used a lot. I'll have to watch out for it in my own writing!


----------



## bdcharles (May 17, 2017)

Lisselle said:


> Passive voice is my nemesis. I have no true innate understanding of it, regardless of the research I do.
> Is it ok to use passive voice when characters are talking, for example, if they are talking/ thinking of past experiences?
> 
> I bought an editing program and it shows I use passive voice where I shouldn't, yet I'm more confused than ever!
> ...



I have a creeping suspicion that there are two understandings of what passive voice is. One is the traditional, gramatically correct one where rather than a subject doing a verb to an object, a subject has verb done to it by an object. So the subject is the thing acted upon, not the thing acting. (John kicked the ball vs. the ball was kicked by John)

The other interpretation of passive voice seems to be in the sense where _passive _means a lack of activity. I mention this because I suspect it is where more writers come a cropper; it's certainly more common, in my experience. It's where people use lots of "was" and "had" and verbs that convey the fact of something existing or possessing some properties, rather than that thing, or its properties, doing some action.

Eg: "The ball sported tesselated geodesic forms. John swung his foot at it."

There, we're basically saying "the ball was a ball. John kicked it."

More preferable to say:

"John kicked the ball, spinning its tesselated geodesic forms in the sun"

There, we have vivid motion as well as the opportinity to shuffle actors around actively, rather than just having "be" and exist - passively. Any word that is a synonym, no matter how fancy, for "to be" or "to have" should be reviewed (eg: sported, possessed, contained, filled, sat, etc.) just to make sure they're earning their keep.


----------



## bdcharles (May 17, 2017)

Malik said:


> When I teach this in the military, I use the "by zombies" rule.
> 
> If you can add the words "by zombies," and it makes sense, then it's passive voice.
> 
> ...



Is there much use for this stuff in the armed fores? :O Maybe for a rousing after-dinner speech in the officers' mess.


----------



## bdcharles (May 17, 2017)

Lisselle said:


> "The Wall had not always been there, and the City _was once known_ by another name."



I do think that there is a bit of an argument for using such a passive construct as this. It's about what is being centre-staged. What's the main thing here - the city, or those who knew it by another name? If it is the city, it might throw readers off by then invoking some other group whose sole purpose, narratively, is to hang the city's old name on. Then suddenly we readers are out of the city and over with this other group. Now if your story focuses on that group shortly thereafter then ok, but if not, then I would say that this passivity is ok. It's not that obtrusive. Of course if your whole story was written like that, that would be an issue - but I have personally never seen that happen!


----------



## Lisselle (May 17, 2017)

bdcharles said:


> The other interpretation of passive voice seems to be in the sense where _passive _means a lack of activity. I mention this because I suspect it is where more writers come a cropper; it's certainly more common, in my experience. It's where people use lots of "was" and "had" and verbs that convey the fact of something existing or possessing some properties, rather than that thing, or its properties, doing some action.


 
I feel this is what I do. I know I use the word 'had' way too much.  I just have to re-write prettier sentences. 

It's a funny word, " the dinner he had had, had had no impact on his hunger."  Ha!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Svrtnsse (May 17, 2017)

An almost completely unrelated piece of advice on the topic of figuring things out: I've found that one of the best way of increasing my understanding of something is to try and explain it as if to someone who knows even less. It forces me to approach the topic from a different angle, which helps me increase my own understanding of it.

As for active vs passive...
I try and think of it as if active is when something is doing something itself, and passive is when something is having something done to it. As explained in several comments above, it's a bit more complicated than that, but I like to simplify things for the general case and then just assume there are exceptions.

Another piece of advice I heard on the usage of _was_ is to think of it as translating into _existed in the state of_. If what you're trying to say still makes sense in that context then it's fine, but if it's not, then maybe there's a better way of saying it.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (May 17, 2017)

There is some good advice in many of the posts, but let's understand one thing...

Just because you write a sentence with _was_, or _were_, or _had_, that doesn't make passive voice.  As several members correctly pointed out, there is only one definition of passive voice, and that is *when the subject of the sentence is acted on by the verb*.

That's it. No other. 

If you're using was, or were, or had, you're simply writing "to be" verbs. An abundance of "to be" verbs can be a problem where your work is telling too much, rather than showing, and skewing the necessary balance between the two, but that is a matter wholly separate from passive voice.

Generally, it is true that writing in the active voice makes for more engaging reading. You should train yourself to write in the active voice by default, but understand there are perfectly fine reasons for writing in passive voice. In my opinion, passive voice is a tool you should _consciously_ use for an effect. 

Some examples of when to use passive voice:

*1 - To deflect responsibility.* 

Mistakes were made. (Commonly seen in legal writing)

*2 - To emphasize an object.*

Fifty-one votes are required to pass a bill in the Senate. (This passive sentence emphasizes the number of votes required.)

*3 - To remove emphasis from an unknown actor.*

Baby Sophia was delivered at 3:30 a.m.(Passive)

Dr. Susan Jones delivered baby Sophia at 3:30 a.m.(Active)

In the example above, family and friends aren't likely to know, or care much about, Dr. Jones. They are much more interested in the “object”(the baby) than in the actor (the doctor). 

I hope that helps.


----------



## Malik (May 17, 2017)

bdcharles said:


> Is there much use for this stuff in the armed fores? :O Maybe for a rousing after-dinner speech in the officers' mess.



All of our paperwork must be written in active voice. (See what I did there?)


----------



## elemtilas (May 17, 2017)

bdcharles said:


> I have a creeping suspicion that there are two understandings of what passive voice is. One is the traditional, gramatically correct one where rather than a subject doing a verb to an object, a subject has verb done to it by an object. So the subject is the thing acted upon, not the thing acting. (John kicked the ball vs. the ball was kicked by John)
> 
> The other interpretation of passive voice seems to be in the sense where _passive _means a lack of activity. I mention this because I suspect it is where more writers come a cropper; it's certainly more common, in my experience. It's where people use lots of "was" and "had" and verbs that convey the fact of something existing or possessing some properties, rather than that thing, or its properties, doing some action.



Right.

"Passive voice" is simply and clearly a description of verbal grammar.

Passivity of description, what you're getting at below, is more a matter of writing style. (Or, I guess, lack of style!) It's kind of lackluster to constantly say things like "the ball was like this and like that".




> Eg: "The ball sported tesselated geodesic forms. John swung his foot at it."
> 
> There, we're basically saying "the ball was a ball. John kicked it."
> 
> ...



Good points all!


----------



## Michael K. Eidson (May 17, 2017)

goldhawk said:


> In this case, the computer was wrong. Grammar correcting software often thinks all cases of "to be" are in the passive voice. They have a long, long way to go to match a good editor.



Technically, the computer wasn't wrong. "The City was once known by another name" could be rewritten in the active voice as "People once knew the City by another name,"  or "The residents once knew the City by another name," or "Outsiders once knew the City by another name," or "The Martians once knew the City by another name." The original way it's written doesn't explicitly say who knew the City by another name, and so runs the risk of being misinterpreted by readers, if you ignore context. The computer is doing its job by flagging the sentence. It's the writer's job to decide whether the context is sufficient to make the meaning of the sentence clear, or if perhaps the sentence is to remain ambiguous.


----------



## Michael K. Eidson (May 17, 2017)

Malik said:


> All of our paperwork must be written in active voice. (See what I did there?)



All of our paperwork must be written in active voice _by zombies_.


----------



## La Volpe (May 17, 2017)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> There is some good advice in many of the posts, but let's understand one thing...
> 
> Just because you write a sentence with _was_, or _were_, or _had_, that doesn't make passive voice.  As several members correctly pointed out, there is only one definition of passive voice, and that is *when the subject of the sentence is acted on by the verb*.
> 
> ...



I agree with 99% of this. But one bit doesn't seem right:
"when the subject of the sentence is acted on by the verb"

The subject of a sentence is never acted upon by the verb (at least, as I understand that sentence). The subject, by definition, is the thing doing the verb.
E.g. John kicked the ball. - John in the subject.
The ball was kicked by John. - John is still the subject, the word order has just shifted around.

At least, that's how I've always understood it.


----------



## FifthView (May 17, 2017)

La Volpe said:


> I agree with 99% of this. But one bit doesn't seem right:
> "when the subject of the sentence is acted on by the verb"
> 
> The subject of a sentence is never acted upon by the verb (at least, as I understand that sentence). The subject, by definition, is the thing doing the verb.
> ...



I almost posted a comment earlier today apologizing for my use of "subject" earlier in this thread, because of the way my use of that word might create confusion, heh.*

I think Elemtilas used terminology that, though less familiar, clarifies things:



elemtilas said:


> With the passive voice, the roles remain the same, but the Agent becomes _demoted_ to object status while the Patient (what was the object before) is now _Promoted_ to subject status.



The Agent is the doer, the Patient is the done-to.

Subject and Object are more grammatical in nature, quite regardless of the roles of the parts.

The only reason I didn't post that apology after all was that I didn't want to confuse more by splitting these hairs.

Plus, earlier I was looking at these things the way I might look at SchrÃ¶dinger's cat:  Before the sentence is written, the Agent and Patient are both subject and object, heh, or can be either; but I was privileging Agent in a way, and the active voice. In other words, before the sentence is written, Agent should be Subject — if you are thinking in terms of active voice being the standard. But they are not the same.

I've probably now confused people even more.

*Edit: I mean when earlier I wrote that



> Basically, any time the subject needs to be deemphasized, whether to prevaricate or naturally because it is unknown or relatively unimportant, passive voice in dialogue might be quite natural for the speaker.



I probably should have written "Basically, any time the _Agent_ needs to be deemphasized...."

Edit #2: Agent (grammar) - Wikipedia


----------



## Malik (May 17, 2017)

Michael K. Eidson said:


> All of our paperwork must be written in active voice _by zombies_.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (May 17, 2017)

La Volpe said:


> The subject of a sentence is never acted upon by the verb (at least, as I understand that sentence). The subject, by definition, is the thing doing the verb.
> E.g. John kicked the ball. - John in the subject.
> The ball was kicked by John. - *John is still the subject*, the word order has just shifted around.
> 
> At least, that's how I've always understood it.



I understand what you're saying, & it begs clarification. 

In your second (passive) sentence, _"The ball was kicked by John"_, *John is actually no longer the subject*. The ball is the subject, and it is being acted upon in the manner _described_ by the verb.

ACTIVE:
John kicked the ball.
Subject (John) --> performed action (kicked) --> the ball.

PASSIVE:
The ball (Subject emphasis switched to ball) --> was kicked (The subject was acted upon. The subject was not the actor.) --> by John.


----------



## Lisselle (May 17, 2017)

Michael K. Eidson said:


> Technically, the computer wasn't wrong. "The City was once known by another name" could be rewritten in the active voice as "People once knew the City by another name,"  or "The residents once knew the City by another name," or "Outsiders once knew the City by another name," or "The Martians once knew the City by another name." The original way it's written doesn't explicitly say who knew the City by another name, and so runs the risk of being misinterpreted by readers, if you ignore context. The computer is doing its job by flagging the sentence. It's the writer's job to decide whether the context is sufficient to make the meaning of the sentence clear, or if perhaps the sentence is to remain ambiguous.



The sentence was thought by a child running through the city streets, does that make a difference?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## pmmg (May 17, 2017)

"The Wall had not always been there, and she once knew the city by another name."

Okay, I just wrote that to be funny.

I does not make a difference that a child was running through the city streets, what makes a difference is how it fits into the story. If you went into that story and changed all of its passive voice sentences into active once, it would lessen the quality of your story. There are no always do, and always don't in an art form. You need to give each sentence what it needs and sometimes that is passive voice.

Why beat yourself up over this? Are people telling you the writing is too passive? or is it just the grammar checker?


----------



## Lisselle (May 17, 2017)

pmmg said:


> Why beat yourself up over this? Are people telling you the writing is too passive? or is it just the grammar checker?



There is wonderful knowledge amongst the people of this forum, I'm so thankful for everyone's input. I think if there is an area of writing I can improve on I should do so, for writing is my true love, and I need to do it justice.  

Until I started my Master of Creative Writing course I hadn't even heard of passive voice, and although it was drummed into us I couldn't see it clearly. Everyone here has explained it better than my lecturer did at Uni. 

Does Yoda speak in passive voice?

Thank you. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## elemtilas (May 17, 2017)

Lisselle said:


> Does Yoda speak in passive voice?
> 
> Thank you.





No, not usually. What Yoda does do, however, is reasonably consistently "front the object". We do this all the time in normal convo, and when we do it, it is usually done for emphasis. You just put the Patient or object in front of the Agent or subject.

You might hear someone in an office say something like "Many things I've done for you over the course of my years here, but that I will not do for you!" The word order here is now OSV.

The usual, non-emphatic SVO word order would simply be "I've done many things for you..." and "I will not do that for you".

Yoda, possibly because of influence from his native language, tends to place the Patient before the Agent.

Keep in mind that passive voice is about flipping the _roles_ that the Agent and Patient play. Here in Yodaspeak, the roles remain unchanged.


----------



## La Volpe (May 18, 2017)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> I understand what you're saying, & it begs clarification.
> 
> In your second (passive) sentence, _"The ball was kicked by John"_, *John is actually no longer the subject*. The ball is the subject, and it is being acted upon in the manner _described_ by the verb.
> 
> ...



Upon further googling, I concede your point. It seems I was confusing subject with actor/agent.

Interestingly, everywhere I looked, the subject of a sentence is defined as something along the lines of "the person, place, thing, or idea that is doing or being something", but the moment passive voice comes into play, this definition no longer applies.
It doesn't seem like a terribly good definition if it is not consistent.


----------



## elemtilas (May 18, 2017)

La Volpe said:


> Upon further googling, I concede your point. It seems I was confusing subject with actor/agent.
> 
> Interestingly, everywhere I looked, the subject of a sentence is defined as something along the lines of "the person, place, thing, or idea that is doing or being something", but the moment passive voice comes into play, this definition no longer applies.
> It doesn't seem like a terribly good definition if it is not consistent.



I think this is because that's not really what a "subject" is; rather this is what the "agent" is. Agency is a relationship between the one who is doing (the Agent) and the action being done (the Verb). Subject is a relationship between things (the subject of the verb and the objects) and is more a matter of word order, case inflection and so forth. 

When the verb is active or middle, the subject and agent are identical.

When the verb is passive, the subject and agent are not the same.

I guess the key point is that no matter where it comes in the sentence, the agent is the one that's doing the action, whether it's the subject or object of the verb.


----------



## Malik (May 18, 2017)

elemtilas said:


> You might hear someone in an office say something like "Many things I've done for you over the course of my years here, but that I will not do for you!" The word order here is now OSV.
> 
> The usual, non-emphatic SVO word order would simply be "I've done many things for you..." and "I will not do that for you".
> 
> ...



This is why I grabbed my forehead when in one of the prequels Yoda said, "Begun, the War of the Clones has." (Not that i wasn't grabbing my forehead through all of them anyway.)

JUST NO. 

* "War of the Clones; begun, it has."*

Hire a freakin' conlanger to keep your dialects straight, George. I'm available.


----------



## FifthView (May 18, 2017)

La Volpe said:


> Interestingly, everywhere I looked, the subject of a sentence is defined as something along the lines of "the person, place, thing, or idea that is doing or being something", but the moment passive voice comes into play, this definition no longer applies.



I don't know; how much splitting of hairs do we want, heh?

_The sky was ... dark.

The sky was ... darkened by low-hanging storm clouds ready to burst._

It's that "being something" part that trips people up. Being in a state of "being dark" or "being darkened"...This is probably why so many confuse the mere use of a verb of being with passive voice.

Then there are the mild cases like

_The door was made of wood._

The door was made...by zombies? Yes, it's passive voice. But readers might not instantly wonder who made the door; they read it like, "The door was wooden."

_The pool was filled with clear spring water._

The pool was filled...by zombies? Again, yes, it's passive, but another mild case.

Both of the last two describe a state of being. The door and the pool are the subjects of those sentences. The agents are unknowns:  Who made the door?  Who/what filled the pool? (Maybe the spring filled it, or natural forces. But on the other hand, someone may have built a channel or other device to direct the water to this pool.)

This sort is the easiest to overlook. On the one hand, this is less problematic; but on the other hand, they may be more of a problem, insofar as an author might do this a lot without realizing she's slipped into passive voice.


----------



## pmmg (May 18, 2017)

Lisselle said:


> I think if there is an area of writing I can improve on I should do so, for writing is my true love, and I need to do it justice.



Why would I try to steer you from something that might improve your writing? By all means learn all the rules, all the in's and out's, and all the ways to dissect a sentence. But don't go carrying the weight of, my writing is passive and therefore must be improved. It could be that passive is the right voice for the right scene for the right place in the story. And there are many reasons to use it, such as mood setting, tone, voice and story flow. If the sentence is doing its job, don't think it needs to be fixed just because it might be passive. I fear you have let these grammar tools tell you something that may not be true. You have to learn to trust your own judgment on these things. The confidence to write is more valuable than a software package. You are writing well. I did not read your story with the intent to dissect it, so maybe I could dissect it a bit,  but I also did not see any glaring areas where the writing was poor. Believe in yourself.


----------



## pmmg (May 18, 2017)

Malik said:


> Hire a freakin' conlanger to keep your dialects straight, George. I'm available.



Would you really want Lucas to go back and re-edit his films again?


----------



## Steerpike (May 18, 2017)

Malik said:


> This is why I grabbed my forehead when in one of the prequels Yoda said, "Begun, the War of the Clones has." (Not that i wasn't grabbing my forehead through all of them anyway.)
> 
> JUST NO.
> 
> ...



Or postulate that a 900 year old intelligent being would be able to piece together sentences in the proper order for a given language


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity (May 18, 2017)

^^These are not the prequels you're looking for. --Move along.


----------



## Michael K. Eidson (May 19, 2017)

Lisselle said:


> The sentence was thought by a child running through the city streets, does that make a difference?



That's your context. In that context, if I were the writer, I might have done the same thing you did. In a different context, I might have done the same thing still, or I might have made the sentence active to reveal the actor. It's reasonable that the running child would not take the time to think about who exactly knew the city by another name. So the passive voice is a good choice for expressing that thought, if indeed the running child is to have the thought at all.

I am still compelled to defend the computer program. Like I said before, it is the job of the program to point out potential issues. But don't rely on the program 100%, as others have said. If the program tells you something questionable, then do like you did here, and ask others. If you get lots of opinions, it can help you form your own. Ultimately, you have to do what you think best, regardless of what others say or what the program says.

In the end, _one_ sentence isn't likely to make or break your story. The _pervasive_ use of passive voice is more likely to break your story. When readers read for enjoyment, they typically aren't worrying about whether you wrote in the passive voice or active voice. They just want an entertaining experience. They will fly by that one sentence in less time than it took you to write it. As long as it does nothing to interrupt the flow of their reading, then you're good.

One more thing: sometimes a computer program will flag something as an issue, and tell you what it thinks the issue is, but there could be something else going on there too....

To be thinking about the city's naming history while running says something about the child and the situation the child is in, and you have to consider that. Readers will build a different image of that child versus one who is only focused on the running (e.g., the motivation for running, the destination, how to elude those in pursuit). Every bit of text you write can contribute to the underlying subtext, i.e., the words you don't write but are implied by the ones you do. Readers such as myself enjoy a story with a well-crafted, supportive subtext. The decisions you make as to what sentences to include where, and whether a given sentence is written in the passive or active voice, all impact your story's subtext, and that to me is a huge if not the prime consideration when making these kinds of decisions.


----------



## FifthView (May 19, 2017)

So I cracked open F. Herbert's Dune last night to see what I could see, and this was the third paragraph:

The old woman was let in by the side door down the vaulted passage by Paul's room and she was allowed a moment to peer in at him where he lay in his bed.​
Had this been a different type of book, maybe that old woman really would have been let in by zombies and allowed by zombies to peer in at Paul.

The interesting thing for me is that this use gives me the impression that there are "people," unnamed, numberless, and faceless who take care of such things. It could have been written differently: _The house guard let the old woman in...and allowed her a moment to peer in at him._ But this might raise the question of why the house guard (or whoever) feel the need to allow her such freedom or whether they are being a little lax. I.e., the reader's attention or focus would shift to an agent that's not particularly important to the scene. We find out shortly that Paul's mother is with the old woman; maybe she's the agent who allowed the old woman to peer in? But by this time, the focus has moved on.

I cracked open the first Mistborn novel and didn't find any use of the passive voice in the first few pages. (May have missed something, because I skimmed fast.)

Re: using software to catch passive voice.  Sure, why not? You can decide what to do or whether to do anything about cases that are "found" (true or false positives.) I ran a text search on my browser for the Challenges page that has the story in question, for all instances of "was," and most of them were not passive voice, but I did find more instances than the single case mentioned in this thread. Not a lot, and nothing that seemed incredibly problematic in that story. 

However, I think we can sometimes wonder or ask ourselves whether an "unproblematic" or "ok" passage can be made better, or a good passage be made a great passage. I suspect that changing a line of passive voice into active voice can actually make something a little worse (depending on the change that we make.) But sometimes just trying to rework a passage into active voice might make an ok bit of narrative even better. You might not know until you try.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (May 19, 2017)

In case anyone would find this useful, you can set MS Word to detect passive voice. It'll put a green squiggly line beneath, and for the most part it's accurate. On occasion though, it'll flag something that's simply a _state of being_ because you used a word like _was_ or _were_.

I used this proofing tool, training myself to write actively. Now it's second nature & I choose when to use passive voice to attempt an effect.


----------



## Lisselle (May 19, 2017)

Michael K. Eidson said:


> That's your context. In that context, if I were the writer, I might have done the same thing you did. In a different context, I might have done the same thing still, or I might have made the sentence active to reveal the actor. It's reasonable that the running child would not take the time to think about who exactly knew the city by another name. So the passive voice is a good choice for expressing that thought, if indeed the running child is to have the thought at all.
> 
> I am still compelled to defend the computer program. Like I said before, it is the job of the program to point out potential issues. But don't rely on the program 100%, as others have said. If the program tells you something questionable, then do like you did here, and ask others. If you get lots of opinions, it can help you form your own. Ultimately, you have to do what you think best, regardless of what others say or what the program says.
> 
> ...



Thank you so much. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Demesnedenoir (May 20, 2017)

Like every -ly adverb, passives are little markers asking to be looked at for improvement. There are piles of these markers.

Personally I wouldn't leave the passives like Herbert did... but you are correct in them lending a different feel to the context of the statements. One could say, the servants who "let" and "allow" are anonymous, faceless, beneath note culturally even, not to mention unimportant to the story. Of course, Herbert might have just written it passive without a care for passive, I've no idea.



FifthView said:


> So I cracked open F. Herbert's Dune last night to see what I could see, and this was the third paragraph:
> 
> The old woman was let in by the side door down the vaulted passage by Paul's room and she was allowed a moment to peer in at him where he lay in his bed.​
> Had this been a different type of book, maybe that old woman really would have been let in by zombies and allowed by zombies to peer in at Paul.
> ...


----------



## bdcharles (May 22, 2017)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> There is some good advice in many of the posts, but let's understand one thing...
> 
> Just because you write a sentence with _was_, or _were_, or _had_, that doesn't make passive voice.  As several members correctly pointed out, there is only one definition of passive voice, and that is *when the subject of the sentence is acted on by the verb*.
> 
> That's it. No other.



I agree. However I wonder sometimes if when people suggest that some writing is "too passive" they mean the below. I think that because I see far more of the below than passive voice.



T.Allen.Smith said:


> If you're using was, or were, or had, you're simply writing "to be" verbs. An abundance of "to be" verbs can be a problem where your work is telling too much, rather than showing, and skewing the necessary balance between the two, but that is a matter wholly separate from passive voice.
> 
> Generally, it is true that writing in the active voice makes for more engaging reading. You should train yourself to write in the active voice by default, but understand there are perfectly fine reasons for writing in passive voice. In my opinion, passive voice is a tool you should _consciously_ use for an effect.



Again I agree. I think writing in the passive voice can actually lend a certain gravitas to the prose. But what bogs writing down, to me, is when I get a large block of text telling me what something _was_, rather than what something _did_, and as I say, that to me seems a far more common and pressing concern. Just a thought to help clarify any confusion really


----------



## Demesnedenoir (May 22, 2017)

Was, were, and had are often overused even when not passive, but passive is over diagnosed even by writing instructors. Passive lending gravitas? I don't know about that. Unless you consider a "narrative voice" to have gravitas. 

There are many things worse than passive, that's for sure. Huge blocks of "photograph" description, for instance.

It should also be noted that some high end instructors will use the term passive for things other than the strict definition of passive voice. They know the difference, but still hammer with the passive term.


----------



## FifthView (May 22, 2017)

Because of this thread, I've had _agency, agency, agency_ on the brain. Perhaps the issue can be reduced to how we handle agency, the wherefore of it. 

Also, how we create focus for the reader. I've been wondering if readers are a little like the fictional T-Rex from _Jurassic Park_:  as long as you didn't move, he couldn't see you. I wonder if our attention gravitates toward the agent and agency.


----------



## FifthView (May 22, 2017)

Demesnedenoir said:


> Of course, Herbert might have just written it passive without a care for passive, I've no idea.



It may have been writer's instinct or the result of lots of practice, voice.

There's more happening in those first few paragraphs. He's withholding information, creating a little mystery to hook the reader, also.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (May 22, 2017)

It's a bit like when Stephen King uses an -ly adverb, does he consciously say "I'm going to be lazy here?" heh heh. Always fun to get in a King jab.


----------



## elemtilas (May 22, 2017)

Demesnedenoir said:


> There are many things worse than passive, that's for sure. Huge blocks of "photograph" description, for instance.



De gustibus. Writing that's all action is like reading a bullet point outline. Not much going on, really. Just give me the Cliff Notes already!

I like good meaty chunks of "photographic description". Nothing better! I like to be able to see what the storyteller is seeing in his own mind & imagination, whether it's places or internal struggles / thought process or history of a place or digressions into some interesting tidbit that's not necessarily related to the plot.


----------



## FifthView (May 22, 2017)

If Herbert had been the sort of writer who was triggered whenever he caught an instance of passive voice in his first draft, how would he have revised it?  Heh. What would have been the result, to/for the story?

This is a more general question, probably relates to agency and focus, tone, pacing, whatever.

_A young Atreides House Guardsman let the old woman in...._

_The old woman entered through....._

(Or, as is more common today, with such incredible focus on showing interior thoughts and feelings ....)

_The old woman waited impatiently for the young Atreides guard to open the door, then brushed past him before he could utter his "Reverend Mother." _

(Yes, I used an -ly, heh.)

Well, it's an interesting what-if, and for anyone wanting to weed their garden, multiple revisions are possible.

This thought first occurred to me earlier when I gave the example, "The door was made of wood."  

One could write "The door was wooden," although that seems weak unless every other door is metal, heh, or unless one is trying to start a fire maybe. 

So working in wood as an adjective or noun might be better while giving something else agency. Or maybe not even mentioning the fact that the door is made of wood.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (May 22, 2017)

Of course it's an opinion, just as passive is bad is an opinion, LOL. But, the leap made to all action is a non sequitur.

Give me a movie any time. You can pile on as much description as you like, but if it's motionless and 2D, I'm not hanging around long.



elemtilas said:


> De gustibus. Writing that's all action is like reading a bullet point outline. Not much going on, really. Just give me the Cliff Notes already!
> 
> I like good meaty chunks of "photographic description". Nothing better! I like to be able to see what the storyteller is seeing in his own mind & imagination, whether it's places or internal struggles / thought process or history of a place or digressions into some interesting tidbit that's not necessarily related to the plot.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (May 22, 2017)

This brings one to different types of passive. Sticking to the bland description: The door was made of wood. Who cares about that passive? Assuming the line fits into an interesting bit and works being so blah, does anyone care? Not really. Switch the instance to: The door was slammed by gale winds. Now, you have an action that is passive and my editor brain will trigger if it's turned on. A passive state of being "made of wood" or perhaps a tower in ruins "the tower was destroyed" aren't going to bug me much. It's only when something that is naturally active is passive that red lights go off... Roy was blocked from firing his harpoon and the tower was destroyed by the dragon. That's the sort of passive of legend that makes a person wince, LOL.

And passive in dialogue, I naturally don't use it too much, but I don't have issue with that either.



FifthView said:


> If Herbert had been the sort of writer who was triggered whenever he caught an instance of passive voice in his first draft, how would he have revised it?  Heh. What would have been the result, to/for the story?
> 
> This is a more general question, probably relates to agency and focus, tone, pacing, whatever.
> 
> ...


----------



## FifthView (May 22, 2017)

Ah, I'd been thinking of an opportunity for improvement via the use of some new agency: Blood stains had seeped into the wood of the prison's door; engravings showing dragons and imps covered every inch of the oaken door.

So even when giving description, a switch to active voice might improve the description, but this might require finding a new agent. A statue of Captain Picard had been erected in the center of the park; or, in the center of the park, birds had left their own memorials upon a statue of Captain Picard.*

*Edit: Not that one couldn't simply supply the missing agent, i.e., The former city council had erected a statue of Captain Picard in the center of the park. Depends on context, what's important.. But sometimes removing passive voice, or revising to active voice, might not be as simple as supplying that missing agent.



Demesnedenoir said:


> This brings one to different types of passive. Sticking to the bland description: The door was made of wood. Who cares about that passive? Assuming the line fits into an interesting bit and works being so blah, does anyone care? Not really. Switch the instance to: The door was slammed by gale winds. Now, you have an action that is passive and my editor brain will trigger if it's turned on. A passive state of being "made of wood" or perhaps a tower in ruins "the tower was destroyed" aren't going to bug me much. It's only when something that is naturally active is passive that red lights go off... Roy was blocked from firing his harpoon and the tower was destroyed by the dragon. That's the sort of passive of legend that makes a person wince, LOL.
> 
> And passive in dialogue, I naturally don't use it too much, but I don't have issue with that either.


----------



## Aurora (May 25, 2017)

Passive voice is necessary sometimes. Adverbs, too. Strange grammar in dialogue as well if you're revealing character. All of these tools make us better storytellers. Don't discount it because software says to, or because critique partners tell you to nix it out. If your editor says it then listen, since you're paying them money. Not everything is bad though. Just tell the story and focus on your character development.


----------



## Lisselle (May 26, 2017)

Aurora said:


> Passive voice is necessary sometimes. Adverbs, too. Strange grammar in dialogue as well if you're revealing character. All of these tools make us better storytellers. Don't discount it because software says to, or because critique partners tell you to nix it out. If your editor says it then listen, since you're paying them money. Not everything is bad though. Just tell the story and focus on your character development.



Thank you. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------

