What's Wrong With Being Passive?
Whether you write fiction or nonfiction, there are rules good writers are expected to follow. One of the most commonly accepted rules, by editors of books and newspapers, is that good writing is always in active voice. Recently a good friend and excellent writer raised the obvious question. Why?
Put simply, a sentence in active voice presents the subject before the object, as in “Bill hit the ball.” In a passive sentence, the object appears first: “The ball was hit by Bill.” Passive voice often adds some form of the verb “to be” to a sentence, but one wonders why that is considered evil. After all, people talk this way all the time. No one will tell you that passive voice is grammatically wrong, and sometimes it just makes sense to emphasize the object of the sentence “The entire city was destroyed by that fire” makes it clear that this story is about the city, not the fire.
The fact that passive voice is very popular in governmental writing might be a clue to why the rest of the world hates it. It’s common to read that “Taxes were raised for the third straight year,” or that “the toxic waste dump was undetected for years.” What you may notice is that in the passive construction, it is very easy to leave the subject off completely. It is consequently rather convenient to not name the person, group or entity that actually took the action. Passive sentences make it easy to obscure the blame. You probably want your writing to be clear. Passive writing helps a sentence be more vague.
Journalist Sydney J. Harris said, “We have not passed that subtle line between childhood and adulthood until we move from the passive voice to the active voice - that is, until we have stopped saying 'It got lost,' and say, 'I lost it.'”
So, while a writing instructor might tell you that active sentences have more pizazz, help a story to have a stronger pace and promotes clarity in your writing, I’m comfortable with the idea that writing in active voice is just the grown-up way to write.
Put simply, a sentence in active voice presents the subject before the object, as in “Bill hit the ball.” In a passive sentence, the object appears first: “The ball was hit by Bill.” Passive voice often adds some form of the verb “to be” to a sentence, but one wonders why that is considered evil. After all, people talk this way all the time. No one will tell you that passive voice is grammatically wrong, and sometimes it just makes sense to emphasize the object of the sentence “The entire city was destroyed by that fire” makes it clear that this story is about the city, not the fire.
The fact that passive voice is very popular in governmental writing might be a clue to why the rest of the world hates it. It’s common to read that “Taxes were raised for the third straight year,” or that “the toxic waste dump was undetected for years.” What you may notice is that in the passive construction, it is very easy to leave the subject off completely. It is consequently rather convenient to not name the person, group or entity that actually took the action. Passive sentences make it easy to obscure the blame. You probably want your writing to be clear. Passive writing helps a sentence be more vague.
Journalist Sydney J. Harris said, “We have not passed that subtle line between childhood and adulthood until we move from the passive voice to the active voice - that is, until we have stopped saying 'It got lost,' and say, 'I lost it.'”
So, while a writing instructor might tell you that active sentences have more pizazz, help a story to have a stronger pace and promotes clarity in your writing, I’m comfortable with the idea that writing in active voice is just the grown-up way to write.
No comments have been added yet.
