Should avoid the passive voice in an undergraduate history thesis?

January 25, 2005 3:47 AM

Grammar/ Style Filter:
I'm writing an undergraduate history thesis. Should I do all I can to avoid the passive voice? [More has been placed inside]

American Heritage is inconclusive and little bit confusing.

I once had a history GSI (like a TA) tell me to never use the passive voice. I see his point, but Wikipedia says it is often found in academic writing, in which I like to flatter myself and think I'm engaging.
I'll certainly bring this up with my advisor, but after learning so much here about split infinitives, I thought it would be useful to ask.
Thanks!

posted by PhatLobley to writing & language (54 comments total)

Yeah, you should. The passive voice sucks. Really. Just imagine if every sentance in a book, or in a news paper was written like that. No-one would ever bother to pick them up. It really does cause unnecessary mental hurdles, and it's best to put as few hurdles infront of your examiners as possible, for all concerned.

I see his point, but Wikipedia says it is often found in academic writing, in which I like to flatter myself and think I'm engaging.

This says more about some academics than grammar ;)
posted by Jimbob at 4:30 AM on January 25, 2005

My profs have generally come down on the side against passive sentences. I think the reason it occurs so frequently in academic writing is the avoidance at all costs of the word "I"--which, according to my profs, you really can use.

(In high school I was told to not use "I" at all--I think perhaps so that we would focus more on the subject at hand than on ourselves).
posted by Jeanne at 4:34 AM on January 25, 2005

I am a history professor, and I strongly advise students to avoid the passive voice. See William Strunk's The Elements of Style (1918), scroll down to section 11.
posted by LarryC at 4:48 AM on January 25, 2005

It is in bad form to contort a sentence into not using passive voice if it is the natural choice. So don't avoid it at each and every cost just because you can't use the passive voice. Same thing with "I". But I had an English teacher who said that when examining things or writing papers "we" was totally fine as it both includes the author and the reader. No one else has backed this up and simply put "we" in to "first person no-no".
posted by geoff. at 5:21 AM on January 25, 2005

The passive voice doesn't put up "mental hurdles." Unless you're a bad writer -- and even then, the mental hurdles come from the bad writing, not the passive voice. Sometimes the passive voice is the most elegant way to express a thought.

But, I am not a Prescriptivist. Your thesis advisor may be. Find out about his or her writing peeves (everyone has their own collection of them) and make them your own, if only temporarily.
posted by kmel at 5:29 AM on January 25, 2005

What LarryC said:

Use the active voice.

The active voice is usually more direct and vigorous than the passive:

I shall always remember my first visit to Boston.

This is much better than

My first visit to Boston will always be remembered by me.

The latter sentence is less direct, less bold, and less concise. If the writer tries to make it more concise by omitting "by me,"

My first visit to Boston will always be remembered,

it becomes indefinite: is it the writer, or some person undisclosed, or the world at large, that will always remember this visit?

Everybody, please read Strunk-n-White. It's even all online now.

It is in bad form to contort a sentence into not using passive voice if it is the natural choice.

S&W goes into that too. Best. Style guide. EVAR.
posted by Shane at 5:31 AM on January 25, 2005

You don't need to contort a sentence to avoid the passive voice. You need to rewrite the sentence so that it's active. Passive-voice writing suggests that the writer hasn't thought deeply about his subject. He doesn't know WHO is doing WHAT to WHOM. History tells a great, long story, full of action. You should be able to write about it actively.

And I don't see what "I" has to do with it. Many writers use third-person narration and have no trouble avoiding the passive voice.

Hopefully, we write (whether we're academics or graffiti artists) to communicate. We should excise anything from our prose that hinders communication. We should promote anything that furthers communication. Passive writing damages communication, because our minds can't grasp onto an image of a motivating force.
posted by grumblebee at 5:33 AM on January 25, 2005

I personally wouldn't go out of my way to avoid it, but my academic writing is pretty flip and conversational. I used to get little comments like "Decorum, sir!" in the margins of my papers.

You can use the passive voice to excellent rhetorical effect. "Mistakes were made" is a brilliant sentence. However, a paper with too much passive voice is obscurantist and difficult to read, so I think the taboo is mainly in place to encourage bad writers to shake their habits. If you're a good writer, just be aware of what you're saying and conscious of how your paper reads, and let stylistic norms fall out the window.
posted by painquale at 5:53 AM on January 25, 2005

Yeah, especially in an academic piece of writing, active voice is good because it communicates responsibility and makes you avoid vagueness. A sentence that would initially read, "It is often asserted that x and y and z," now has to read "Mr. A, Ms. B. and Mrs. C have asserted that x and y and z." In general it pushes you into a more aggressive and forceful posture. It highlights nouns instead of verbs.

I don't think it's a 'peeve' in the sense that it doesn't matter; it does matter very much, in that it completely changes the tone of your writing. My rule of thumb is only to use the passive voice when I explicitly want to communicate a passive action, e.g., "He was hit by the baseball." So, if it helps, think (actively) about whether a sentence should be passive whenever you find yourself writing a passive sentence. Most of the time you'll want to push for a more active sense in the sentence.
posted by josh at 6:00 AM on January 25, 2005

Hmmm. To back up my claim, I tried to search online for some famous quotes in the passive voice. I found some pages that gave a defense and some instances where the passive voice is preferable to the active voice, but none gave any lines by Shakespeare or Kurt Cobain. Does anyone know of any literary excerpts or song lyrics that show the passive voice being put to good use?

(I mean, they've gotta be out there... right?)
posted by painquale at 6:01 AM on January 25, 2005

Incidentally, I hate when people try to demonstrate the superiority of the active voice by giving examples that are obviously loaded. Here's one ridiculous example I found online:

Etan went to the arcade (correct)
The room of games was occupied by Etan (feh)
posted by painquale at 6:05 AM on January 25, 2005

Don't use S&W.
posted by sbutler at 6:11 AM on January 25, 2005

PhatLobley,

Well, writing as a GSI at your University, the passive voice should be avoided in the sense that most people here describe (active voice makes communication clearer). However, I would agree as well that mangling a sentence that has a natural passive voice is unnecessary and that an active voice does not solve all ills. Rather than worrying about active / passive, I would just think about verb choice in general (think about choosing a variety of good verbs, which can be hard if you are writing about relatively abstract subjects like culture or art).

As a funny aside, I have had professors here at UM who insisted on the "i" voice as they found the use of "we" to be contrived... Different departments here vary quite a bit as to style and writing cultures...
posted by Slothrop at 6:26 AM on January 25, 2005

From sbutler's "use" link: "The interesting thing is about when it was that White took that course." That guy might not be the best source of advice on clear writing.
posted by dmo at 7:10 AM on January 25, 2005

Yes, use of the passive voice should be avoided by you.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 7:18 AM on January 25, 2005

Too much passive voice makes a paper sound like your only source was the Ubiquitous They. "They say that X happened, they say..." Well, good for they- who are they? Why should I care what "they" have to say?

The only time you should deliberately use the passive voice is when the subject is genuinely unknown, ie, Ann Marie was murdered on January 14th rather than the emphasis-shifting "Someone murdered Ann Marie on January 14th." (Unless, of course, the "someone" is more important than Ann Marie, in which case, active voice away!)
posted by headspace at 7:26 AM on January 25, 2005

Give William Zinsser's "On Writing Well" a quick read. He provides much good advice on how to avoid the passive tense without sounding forced. Most word processors highlight passive voice while checking grammar which can really help during your editing.
posted by caddis at 7:36 AM on January 25, 2005

Passive-voice writing suggests that the writer hasn't thought deeply about his subject. He doesn't know WHO is doing WHAT to WHOM

Thank you, grumblebee. I had never thought of this before and can now see a lot of this in my writing. Guess I'm going to have to go back and actually think about it...

(Thanks to everybody else too!)
posted by PhatLobley at 7:39 AM on January 25, 2005

As a practical matter, you should have a quick discussion about this with the professor or professors who will be grading your thesis. Find out what they think is important to observe, which at-least-nominal faults they don't particularly care about, and what they want to see you do both in content and style.

Then do what they say, and concentrate on what they say to concentrate on.

It's an undergraduate thesis, and the odds are that nobody but you, the graders, and maybe someone in your family will ever read it in that form, though it may well serve as the germ of a larger, less formal project. So I'd suggest simply trying to please your graders.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:54 AM on January 25, 2005

Sin Boldly is a guide that helped me a lot with questions like this. I'm an editor, and I think that yes, you should avoid the passive voice when you can, but there are times when using it is unavoidable. Don't go into all kinds of crazy verbal gymnastics to avoid use of the passive voice when it is the simplest way to write something.
posted by jennyjenny at 8:01 AM on January 25, 2005

I think the reason it occurs so frequently in academic writing is the avoidance at all costs of the word "I"--which, according to my profs, you really can use.

Not in my class! "I" "this paper" "the reader" "you" etc., are all out of place in a history paper because they distract from the historical topic, which isn't you, or me, or the paper you are writing. But then, I am a jack-booted prescriptivist.

Sbutler's anti-Strunk & White links are great fun--check them out--but misguided. A great writer may safely bend or ignore all of S&W's solemn laws. But until you reach that great writer level, they are damned good advice.
posted by LarryC at 8:14 AM on January 25, 2005

Ho and well met, fellow history major.

Use the active voice whenever possible. I'm not sure where you are in your academic career, but by the time I reached my senior year, I knew my professors and their writing "wants" pretty well. They would also nearly always look over drafts (or my Medieval Lit professor would). Take advantage of the drafting system if you can - it will help you see your repetitive mistakes and also will familliarize you with what your professors view as the best writing. Eventually, you will get your own style, and that may mean using the passive voice every now and again. That's okay, as long as it's spice, and it's not overdone. The trick is learning how to season your composition. :)
posted by Medieval Maven at 8:15 AM on January 25, 2005

I would say "yes." As an undergraduate, it probably won't be nearly as much of an issue. When I wrote mine, I didn't care a whit for passive vs. active (but I was at a liberal arts history department, not a research one). When I went for my master's, I got *slammed* for my use. All of the professors I dealt with raged against it to an (IMHO) obsessive degree. I'd say it can't hurt.

Ideally, passive should be used only when you want to stress the passivity or ineffectualness of something - which is rarely. Example: Poland was invaded by Germany vs. Germany invaded Poland. The first highlights Poland's poor defense, whereas the second stressed Germany's aggressiveness.

Mostly, though, remember: History is *done* by people, it's not something that just *happens*
posted by absalom at 8:34 AM on January 25, 2005

I would say yes, avoid the passive voice. There are very few sentences which are naturally passive. What Wikipedia is likely refering to is writing (particularly lab reports) in the natural sciences which do tend to use the passive voice constantly, in an attempt to pretend that experiments are not performed by people. There is no reason to use this in a history thesis.
posted by dagnyscott at 9:32 AM on January 25, 2005

What geoff said as regards principle, and what ROU_Xenophobe said as regards playing to your audience. In general, pronouncements of the form "Don't use passives/adverbs/long words" are absurd and betray a simple-minded approach to good writing. On this issue, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage (which I can't recommend highly enough) quotes Orwell's dictum on avoiding the passive, then points out that the essay in which he said it has over 20% passive constructions, an extremely high percentage -- "Clearly he found the construction useful in spite of his advice to avoid it as much as possible." After much discussion of instances in which it's preferable to a tortured alternative ("Kennedy was elected president"), they conclude that "sentences cast in the passive voice have their uses and are an important tool for the writer," though "you should not lean too heavily on passive sentences" and "should especially avoid awkwardly constructed passives."

And enough with the Strunk&White worship. It's a charming little book, but useless as a guide to style.
posted by languagehat at 9:39 AM on January 25, 2005

Yeah, the active voice is superior in 95% of cases. However, sometimes I think you could put together a kick-ass passive voice sentence using parallelism.
posted by inksyndicate at 9:41 AM on January 25, 2005

The main place I find myself using the passive voice is in situations rather like a lab report. Places where the sentence would go "Statement of fact, thus it can be inferred that extrapolation"
I do it in order to avoid using "I", or "we" or "one", as in "thus we can infer". I guess I'm attempting to pretend that the thought exercise was not performed by people, namely me.
I will have to ask my advisor how he feels about "I" or "we" popping up in my writing. This thread has, however, prompted me to come up with a few clever ways to say neither of the above, which might be the best way to go about it.
posted by PhatLobley at 9:43 AM on January 25, 2005

the passive voice can imply distance or objectivity in certain cases ... it's not altogether useless, even in literature ... generally, you'll want to use active voice most of the time
posted by pyramid termite at 9:46 AM on January 25, 2005

"Statement of fact, thus it can be inferred that extrapolation"

Statement of fact, which implies extrapolation.

Statement of fact. This implies extrapolation.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:55 AM on January 25, 2005

There's nothing wrong with the passive voice per se. Your goal should be to express yourself clearly and simply, without excess words.

Yes, it's a mistake to contort "I shall always remember my first visit to Boston" into "My first visit to Boston will always be remembered by me." But it's also a mistake to contort "I was born under a bad sign" into "My mother bore me under a bad sign" or "Clinton was elected in '92" into "The electorate elected Clinton in '92."

There are some people with no sense of style who put everything in the passive voice, either to boost their word count or to show off. If you're one of those people, then yeah, avoiding the passive altogether will cure you. If you're not one of those people, then forget about it -- just say what you mean as straightforwardly as possible.
posted by nebulawindphone at 10:07 AM on January 25, 2005

Alright, I mostly posted the S&W links to derail the lovefest that was going on. I think people read it in HS or a Freshman Rhet class and then take it as dogma for the rest of their life. Fact is, although it has some nice ideas at times, it is far from being The One and Only Way To Do Things. [hat tip to languagehat]

Moving along, I completely agree with absalom:

Ideally, passive should be used only when you want to stress the passivity or ineffectualness of something - which is rarely. Example: Poland was invaded by Germany vs. Germany invaded Poland. The first highlights Poland's poor defense, whereas the second stressed Germany's aggressiveness.

Yes, yes, yes! Decide what you want to convey, and then choose the proper grammar. Don't let some arbitrary grammar rule dictate how you think. That being said, I find that the majority of the time the active voice is the proper fit.

But the most important thing is to find out what your professor will look for. If they are a huge S&W fan, then sleep with the book under your pillow every night. Unless you really want to make a stand, it's not worth agitating them over some stupid grammar rules.

IANA(linguist) -- I just like to play one on the internet
posted by sbutler at 10:10 AM on January 25, 2005

Each discipline has a style manual. Almost all writers in the humanities like the active voice. We like to know who did what, who said what, etc. Long verbal phrases-- the book that was being read, The murder that was committed by John... sound ugly and vague.

If you are in the hard sciences, you absolutely need to use the passive voice in lab reports and abstracts. I think it may have something to do with the hypothetical nature of writing in the sciences. So that accounts for the ambivalence in Wikpedia.

About the only time the passive voice is charming, is when you are consciously avoiding naming the agent of an action. ' Mistakes were made. A gun went off. The price was paid by my wife...' 'My pay-check seems to have been spent'

I think things are more complex in the Social Sciences, but I know that many writers still prefer the active voice.



(I wasn't sure if you were asking how to avoid it. The best way to proof read for the passive voice is to look for the verb --actually copula-- 'to be' and and a past tense verb, or a variant of "have" with a ppp, like has been done.) Another flag is the preposition 'by'. It's worth checking your thesis using the find function on your computer. )
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 10:42 AM on January 25, 2005

I love this question.
posted by orange clock at 10:55 AM on January 25, 2005

Don’t be fooled by an adverb

This is 'street smarts' for grammarians.
posted by orange clock at 10:58 AM on January 25, 2005

"There is/there are" are also often flags for passiveness, since they allow the writer to omit the subject entirely. Another easy use of the Find function on your word processor.

E.g. "There are good reasons for preferring the active voice." vs. "Writers prefer the active voice for good reasons."

While you're using your Find function, you might as well do a which-hunt too. Search for "which," and if "which" can be changed to "that" without changing the meaning of the sentence, do so. (This has nothing to do with passive voice; it's just another easy fix you can do with modern technology.)
posted by kindall at 11:16 AM on January 25, 2005

You should try to avoid the passive voice as much as possible. Note that this is not the same as past tense, which is probably fairly essential for a history paper. :)
posted by synecdoche at 11:24 AM on January 25, 2005

...it's ... a mistake to contort ... "Clinton was elected in '92" into "The electorate elected Clinton in '92."

People keep arguing one should use the passive voice when tweaking the sentence to make it more active would make it sound unnatural.

While I AM against unnatural language, I think it's the "tweak" idea that's usually at fault. You don't tweak or alter a passive sentence to make it active, you rethink your idea and completely rewrite it to make it active.

So, for instance, I would rewrite the Clinton sentence as follows:

Clinton won the election in 92.

Who is the sentence really about? Clinton, not the electorate, so it's not a matter of making the electorate a passive or active force; it's about rethinking the idea and centering a new sentence around the real subject, making it/him active.

Of course, one shouldn't be dogmatic about anything in writing. So I'm not suggesting that the passive voice is NEVER useful (in fact, my example here might not be appropriate, and I can't know for sure without knowing more about the subject.)

But I don't think an excuse for passive-voice writing should EVER be it's less awkward. If you think this is the case, at least spend a few minutes seeing if you can rethink the sentence.
posted by grumblebee at 11:31 AM on January 25, 2005

kindall, can you explain a little more about the evils of "which"? (The wicked which...?) Why is it bad?
posted by grumblebee at 11:33 AM on January 25, 2005

As far as the use of the passive voice in the natural sciences, my take on it is that it's not trying to pretend that no one is doing the experiment; it's recognition of the fact that it doesn't (or at least, shouldn't) matter who is doing the experiment. "Peripheral blood mononuclear cells were incubated for 24h at 37°C in a 5% CO₂ atmosphere" is appropriate. "I incubated peripheral blood mononuclear cells for 24h at 37°C in a 5% CO₂ atmosphere" improperly shifts the focus of the sentence. (So what? Are you implying that things would have turned out differently if someone else had incubated the cells?)
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 12:47 PM on January 25, 2005

I may be talking out of my ass, because I'm not a scientist, but that doesn't make sense to me. I suspect that the real reasons that people in the sciences use the passive voice are (a) because most of them aren't very experienced writers and (b) it's just the custom and no one questions it.

Your rewrite was -- again -- a tweak. Of course "I incubated..." seems wrong, because the real subject (on the idea level) isn't "I", it's "cells." I don't know enough about the science to rewrite, but I bet there's a non-clunky way (which keeps the science intact) to rewrite the sentence (or other sentences like this -- maybe this one is an exception) so that it's an active-voice sentence with cells as the subject.
posted by grumblebee at 1:03 PM on January 25, 2005

When the object of the verb is the most important thing - make it the subject of your sentance. In other words, use the passive. This is why the passive tense exists.

So, for instance, I would rewrite the Clinton sentence as follows:

Clinton won the election in 92.

This is not the same meaning as the other sentance. The other sentance was about Clinton being elected - this is about Clinton winning the election. If you are talking about how Clinton won the election through his profoundly impressive presentation of his hair, sure, use this one. But if you want to say that he was elected because his opponent was a kitten eating lizard monster from outer space, use the passive. There is a meaning difference.

But, as a history TA (and TAs are generally more anal than profs, since they don't feel as confident about their marking) - my number one piece of advice for writing would be to READ YOUR WORK ALOUD. You will hear any the convoluted phrasing as unnatural, and be panting on any run-on sentances. It's also a good trick for catching mistakes the spell checker doesn't.
posted by jb at 2:25 PM on January 25, 2005

How about:
For 24 hours, peripheral blood mononuclear cells incubated at 37°C in a 5% CO2 atmosphere.
posted by verysleeping at 2:47 PM on January 25, 2005

I suspect that the real reasons that people in the sciences use the passive voice are (a) because most of them aren't very experienced writers and (b) it's just the custom and no one questions it.

(a) seems unlikely, since even experienced researchers do it. (b), perhaps to some extent, but I still maintain it makes more sense in passive voice.

I don't know enough about the science to rewrite, but I bet there's a non-clunky way (which keeps the science intact) to rewrite the sentence

I thought about this a bit. My first attempt was "Cells grew for 24h at 37°C..." but that's not quite right. The purpose of incubating cells may be to grow them, but incubating them is not a guarantee of the cells growing, so it's overstating it to say that cells grew. "Cells lived..." is similarly overstating things. "Cells existed for 24h at 37°C..." might preserve the meaning, but it's just awkward, certainly more so than the use of the passive voice.

I didn't mean to obscure things with the technical jargon here--all I'm really saying is that I have these cells, and for 24 hours I kept them in a chamber which held them at a given temperature, and the chamber also was filled with a mixture of gases which is a bit different than the atmosphere we commonly breathe.

maybe this one is an exception

Nope. A lot of science is doing stuff to things, and the emphasis, at least in the "methods" section of a paper, is what is done, and what it is done to, and not who is doing it, which is very often awkward to express without using the passive voice.

Part of the cause, I think, is the strict division in much scientific writing between "methods" and "results and conclusions." I can see that a scientist could mostly avoid the passive voice in the results and conclusions section of a paper, but the methods section generally works better when written largely in the passive voice.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 2:56 PM on January 25, 2005

For 24 hours, peripheral blood mononuclear cells incubated at 37°C in a 5% CO2 atmosphere.

You know, I didn't think that "incubate" could be used intransitively, but looking it up it turns out I was wrong about that. I'll concede this particular example but stick to my general point.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 2:59 PM on January 25, 2005

The Astrophysical Journal allows "I" and "we" in their articles, and most articles have "I" or "we" sprinkled liberally throughout. I assume they view this as a lesser evil than lots of passive text.

For my thesis I was forbidden from using first person pronouns, so I changed them all to second person.
posted by dirigibleman at 3:00 PM on January 25, 2005

...all I'm really saying is that I have these cells, and for 24 hours I kept them in a chamber which held them at a given temperature

Well, I'm not a scientist, and I appreciate that there may be some special needs in this field. But from a "clear writing" point of view, your thought process, above, suggests that there IS an active subject -- the dreaded "I". YOU did a bunch of stuff to the cells which caused other stuff to happen. YOU were the motive force. To me, it seems like avoiding this truth leads to a world of awkwardness.
posted by grumblebee at 3:09 PM on January 25, 2005

This is not the same meaning as the other sentence. The other sentence was about Clinton being elected - this is about Clinton winning the election. If you are talking about how Clinton won the election through his profoundly impressive presentation of his hair, sure, use this one. But if you want to say that he was elected because his opponent was a kitten eating lizard monster from outer space, use the passive. There is a meaning difference.

Look, I'm not saying one should NEVER use the passive. I'm saying that the active voice is almost always better, because it is more evocative and direct. Of course you shouldn't sacrifice meaning (I think we were both reading what we wanted into the Clinton sentence). Use the passive voice if it's the only way to preserve meaning. If you can preserve meaning AND use the active voice AND use un-awkward construction, use it. If you think you can't do this, try harder, and then use the passive voice when you fair.

How about:

When voters saw Dole's green skin and scales, they voted for Clinton.

This isn't perfect. It's a first attempt off the top of my head. But if I was invested in the project, I'd spend a while trying different approaches before going with the passive voice. The truth is, Clinton wasn't just elected as in he woke up from a dream and somehow found himself in office. Specific PEOPLE elected him for a specific REASON. Why hide from that? If you don't know why, SAY you don't know why. I think even "For some reason, voters chose Clinton" is more vivid and honest than the original.
posted by grumblebee at 3:18 PM on January 25, 2005

YOU did a bunch of stuff to the cells which caused other stuff to happen. YOU were the motive force.

And one of the major foundations of science is that experiments are reproducible. Exactly the same things would (at least, should) have happened if it had been Sharon or Dr. Chandra or quonsar who did the stuff to the cells instead of me. I may be the motive force, but the fact that I was the motive force is entirely irrelevant to the experiment.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 3:27 PM on January 25, 2005

I think even "For some reason, voters chose Clinton" is more vivid and honest than the original.

I'm seeing a lot of suggestions here that the passive voice is dishonest. It can be dishonest, of course -- "Mistakes were made" is a perfect example. But it isn't necessarily.

First off, we know that the voters are the ones who elected Clinton. (Who else would have elected him? Non-voters?) We don't need to see the voters included in the sentence, any more than we need it pointed out that Clinton is an air-breathing humanoid.

But more to the point, any sentence leaves out lots of details. "Clinton was elected in '92" leaves out the subject of the action, sure, but it also leaves out the day and time, the reasons he was elected, the means by which the voters elected him, the speaker's attitude towards his election, etc. etc. etc. Why is omitting the subject a stylistic sin, when all those other omissions are okay?

(Of course, there's nothing wrong with "Voters chose Clinton." I'm just not convinced there's anything wrong with "Clinton was elected" either. It seems like a perfectly natural, meaningful, honest thing to say.)
posted by nebulawindphone at 4:20 PM on January 25, 2005

Devil, I agree with you that reproducibility is vital. In a way, I think we're talking about apples and oranges. Surely DOING science isn't the same as WRITING up a science experiment. A scientific article either describes what happened during an experiment or describes the findings of an experiment -- or both.

DURING the experiment, a specific person or persons manipulated substances. That's exactly what happened. And that fact is neutral in regards to reproducibility. To somehow avoid "I" (which isn't a specific description of a specific person) and to claim that makes the writing more objective is a kind of sham. It's a rhetorical trick -- and a poor one -- to try to hide the fact that there was an experimenter involved. We all know that the experimenter was involved, so why hide it.

In fact, when a scientist reports his findings, he can't make any claim about reproducibility. All he CAN say is "I did X and Y was the result (for ME)." Then OTHER scientists can repeat the experiment to see if, in fact, it is reproducible. A third party can write yet another article, summing up the results of many different attempts at the experiment, but then he also has a motivator: the many scientists who have tried the experiment.

To say, "I want to remove the subjectivity, so I'll remove the word I" is like saying, I'm writing about something really complex, so I'm going to use the words "automotive vehicle" instead of "car." It's a confusion between subject and style.

Here's a subjective sentence using "I":

I poured the acid into the beaker and thought I smelled ammonia.

Here's an objective sentence using "I":

I poured the acid into the beaker and looked at a sample of the result under the microscope. I saw the following two molecules...

How does this describe reality better than:

the acid was poured into the beaker and a microscopic sample showed...

?
posted by grumblebee at 4:27 PM on January 25, 2005

I'm just not convinced there's anything wrong with "Clinton was elected" either.

I won't say what's wrong with it. I'll say why I dislike it: it's not evocative. When I write, I'm trying to move an image or concept from my brain into yours. My only tools to do this are words. Words can be put together so that they evoke concrete images, and concrete images are more memorable than vague ones.

If I say, "Clinton was elected," what do you see in your mind's eye? I know that you understand it, but do you see anything clear? I don't really see anything. I get a sense of some kind of amorphous process that involved Clinton. Which means I probably won't remember the sentence. Which means I that the writer may lose me.

On the other hand, "the voters" calls up a concrete image. I might see a bunch of people lined up in town hall, whereas you might see a row of voting machines. Point is, we both SEE images that we can grasp. Hence the writing is stronger, more memorable, and more communicative.

I think another possibility with a sentence like "Clinton was elected" is that it shouldn't be a sentence at all. We might be uneasy about "the voters chose Clinton," because it focuses too much on the voters. Fine. So what exactly are we interested in? Why do we even bring up the fact that Clinton was elected?

Of course, I'm just speculating here, but maybe we MUST bring up the fact that he was elected, because that explains the cause of our REAL point, which is that when he became president, he appointed a baboon to Supreme Court.

So we could rewrite as follows:

After Clinton won the election, he appointed a baboon to Supreme Court.

I could even accept (though it's weaker)...

After Clinton was elected, he appointed a baboon to Supreme Court.

True, the opening clause is (ick) passive, but the main point of the sentence is active.
posted by grumblebee at 4:40 PM on January 25, 2005

It all depends on your professor. My wife is finishing up a history degree herself, and is addicted to personal tenses; she just has to say, "you can see from the evidence..." and stuff like that. She generally gets all A's on her papers. She also has a good rappor with her professors, though, so I think they may let her slide. The scholarly thing to do is to use passive voice, but not all professors are into scholarly.
posted by Doohickie at 7:32 PM on January 25, 2005

As both a history grad and a former creative writing major, I just think you should feel free to use the passive when it is the more evocative/effective way to express yourself. It helps to break up the patterns of your writing.

Though from the 47 essays I marked a few weeks ago, I would say that undergraduate history students suffer more from having too many short, active tense, staccato sentences, with nothing to break up the rhythm, than from the errors they are suposed to be making (passive tense, run on sentences, kind of like this one). It felt like they were taking some generally good, but not to be taken like the word of God style advice much too far.
posted by jb at 8:21 PM on January 26, 2005

kindall, can you explain a little more about the evils of "which"? (The wicked which...?) Why is it bad?

Well, take this example:

"Bob hit me with the baseball bat which he kept under his bed."

If you changed "which" to "that," the sentence would still make sense, so you should use "that." (Or you could even omit the word entirely, which is often better.) On the other hand:

"The common European swallow, which has an unladen airspeed of 6 knots, lacks sufficient lift to carry a coconut."

In this sentence, if you changed "which" to "that," it wouldn't even make sense, so you know "which" is right.

There is a grammatical rule about which/that that you can try to memorize (has to do with dependent vs. independent clauses), but it's easier to just always use "that" unless you can't, which has the same results. If you often mess this up initially, do the which-hunt later.
posted by kindall at 4:28 PM on January 31, 2005