Editor's Desk #1: Passing on the Passive Voice

We now begin with the first ever installment of "Notes From the Editor's Desk," a place where we can confess our literary sins and receive appropriately scathing remarks for them. And today we're going to come out swinging, starting with the passive voice.

For those that aren't entirely sure what the passive voice is (there's a disturbing number of people that think they're novelists who did terribly in English class), it's when your subject is being acted upon, rather than doing the acting. For a concrete example, examine the following phrase.

"The whining writer was punched in the face by his editor."

That is passive. Your subject (the writer) is being acted upon. A better way to do this would be to say;

"The editor sunk a fist in the writer's guts, silencing his complaints."

Different style, sure, but the point is the same. All you have to do to avoid the passive voice is to make sure that your subject is always active. It is better to do, than to be done onto.

But what makes the passive voice so bad? Well for starters it's boring. It lacks punch, verve and it has a tendency to go wandering afield if you don't keep it on a very short and very tight leash. But worst of all the passive voice is like a middle aged prostitute; easy to slip into, and as soon as you do you're going to regret it.

Passive voice is, in short, the mark of either a bad writer or an unconfident one. It's like the phrase "this writer" or "some say," something empty that you can hide behind to duck responsibility for your own work. Active voice requires you to stand up and do, passive voice is sitting back and having done unto you. No one became a main character by sitting back and letting the world have its way... at least not in any stories worth reading.