What is passive voice, and why is it so bad?
January 5, 2018 5:15 PM Subscribe
For years I have been told that I write with a lot of passive voice, but I have never really understood what this is and why it is so bad. Is this just a bunch of baloney, or is there something really wrong with using the passive voice that I do not appreciate? Assuming that I really should stop using the passive voice, how do I learn to avoid it? What worked for you?
Passive voice is a stylistic choice, and whether or not you should keep using it depends wildly on your field. For example, in consulting we use passive voice quite often for vague legal / handwavy reasons but it is quite common. We like to say things like, “six wells were tested” (passive) instead of “Firefountain tested six wells” (active). A lot of people don’t like passive voice because it can create ambiguity and confusion.
To avoid using it, just make sure your subject is performing the action in your sentences. Passive voice is basically when the subject of the sentence is acted upon instead of the whoever or whatever doing something.
posted by FireFountain at 5:22 PM on January 5, 2018 [9 favorites]
To avoid using it, just make sure your subject is performing the action in your sentences. Passive voice is basically when the subject of the sentence is acted upon instead of the whoever or whatever doing something.
posted by FireFountain at 5:22 PM on January 5, 2018 [9 favorites]
Best answer: Read this link about the usage of the term "passive voice". When people say "passive voice" in the 21st century they are often referring to a "construction that is vague as to agency".
posted by dilaudid at 5:26 PM on January 5, 2018 [9 favorites]
posted by dilaudid at 5:26 PM on January 5, 2018 [9 favorites]
Best answer: Is this just a bunch of baloney
Yes. The constant ranting about "passive voice" (which most of the ranters don't even understand) is one of the more depressing aspects of current language peevery. Here's a good brief summary of the truth of the matter, and the links at the bottom will give you a lot more if you want to delve into it. My advice: if the people telling you to avoid it are bosses/teachers, smile and thank them (while mentally putting them in the "peever" box). If they're not, and if you don't mind the possibility of an argument, you can tell them they don't know what they're talking about.
Here's a longer piece, "Fear and Loathing of the English Passive," by Geoffrey K. Pullum. And on preview, I see dilaudid has already linked to a Language Log post!
posted by languagehat at 5:30 PM on January 5, 2018 [35 favorites]
Yes. The constant ranting about "passive voice" (which most of the ranters don't even understand) is one of the more depressing aspects of current language peevery. Here's a good brief summary of the truth of the matter, and the links at the bottom will give you a lot more if you want to delve into it. My advice: if the people telling you to avoid it are bosses/teachers, smile and thank them (while mentally putting them in the "peever" box). If they're not, and if you don't mind the possibility of an argument, you can tell them they don't know what they're talking about.
Here's a longer piece, "Fear and Loathing of the English Passive," by Geoffrey K. Pullum. And on preview, I see dilaudid has already linked to a Language Log post!
posted by languagehat at 5:30 PM on January 5, 2018 [35 favorites]
In an active voice sentence, the subject of the sentence performs the action of the verb.
- Mike told a story.
In passive voice, the subject of the sentence is acted-upon:
- A story was told by Mike.
(If any variation of the verb "is" turns up in a sentence, that's generally a big clue it's in passive voice.)
Active voice sentences are generally perceived as clearer and more direct --- it's a matter of sequence. When the reader is imagining the meaning of the sentence, starting off with the subject places them on firmer ground, helps them understand context more quickly --- in passive voice, you often have a whole bunch of words before you get to the subject, and the reader has to sort of hold a blank space in their mind, an abstraction, until they get to the end and can fill it in. It makes responsibility and cause less clear --- active vs passive voice is the difference between "Mistakes were made," and "I fucked up."
Of course, sometimes you want to talk of abstract concepts, general terms, ideas, and in that case passive voice can be ideally suited to the purpose.
People often suggest using active voice in any context where clarity is to be prized, or where you're trying to quickly grab the reader's attention, or to persuade, because the directness of active voice is helpful in those circimstances. (And usually pithier, to boot.)
posted by Diablevert at 5:38 PM on January 5, 2018 [15 favorites]
- Mike told a story.
In passive voice, the subject of the sentence is acted-upon:
- A story was told by Mike.
(If any variation of the verb "is" turns up in a sentence, that's generally a big clue it's in passive voice.)
Active voice sentences are generally perceived as clearer and more direct --- it's a matter of sequence. When the reader is imagining the meaning of the sentence, starting off with the subject places them on firmer ground, helps them understand context more quickly --- in passive voice, you often have a whole bunch of words before you get to the subject, and the reader has to sort of hold a blank space in their mind, an abstraction, until they get to the end and can fill it in. It makes responsibility and cause less clear --- active vs passive voice is the difference between "Mistakes were made," and "I fucked up."
Of course, sometimes you want to talk of abstract concepts, general terms, ideas, and in that case passive voice can be ideally suited to the purpose.
People often suggest using active voice in any context where clarity is to be prized, or where you're trying to quickly grab the reader's attention, or to persuade, because the directness of active voice is helpful in those circimstances. (And usually pithier, to boot.)
posted by Diablevert at 5:38 PM on January 5, 2018 [15 favorites]
This is a hard question to answer without knowing what kind of writing you’re doing and why. If you aspire to writing professionally as a novelist or journalist, that is completely different from writing scientific research papers. In the latter case, passive voice is often used and is generally not a problem. You can say “experiments were performed” instead of “we performed experiments.” It doesn’t matter. In the former, active might be better.
If you are really interested in writing, then I’d suggest experimenting. Take a paragraph and change passive constructions to active. See what that sounds like. See how it changes what you wrote. There is no one size fits all rule here.
posted by FencingGal at 5:45 PM on January 5, 2018 [3 favorites]
If you are really interested in writing, then I’d suggest experimenting. Take a paragraph and change passive constructions to active. See what that sounds like. See how it changes what you wrote. There is no one size fits all rule here.
posted by FencingGal at 5:45 PM on January 5, 2018 [3 favorites]
I would note that, if this question is anything to go by (and obviously, this is a super small sample!), your writing is maybe a little bit stilted. It's not necessarily solely a passive voice issue -- sometimes, you need the passive -- but perhaps there is a general problem with your technique that people are pinning to the passive voice issue because that's an easy, obvious fix.
Compare and contrast:
"For years I have been told that I write with a lot of passive voice, but I have never really understood what this is and why it is so bad. Is this just a bunch of baloney, or is there something really wrong with using the passive voice that I do not appreciate?"
Versus:
"I've been told that that my writing relies too much on the passive voice, but I don't understand what that is, or why it's so bad. Is there something really wrong with the passive voice, or is that just a bunch of baloney?"
The latter feels more direct; your version has a sense of remove -- those blank spaces that Diablevert references. The way you're doing it has its place, but if multiple people have mentioned it for years, you may not be deploying it effectively.
My concrete advice: When you proof a piece, do a pass specifically designed to focus on passive v. active voice. You don't want something to be ALL active (because then you sound crazy; every piece needs to take a breath, and sometimes the passive is the most direct option), but too much passive and you lose any feeling of movement. You'll get better at it the more you do this, and everyone has a tic they need to work on (I use too many parenthetical statements).
posted by Countess Sandwich at 5:51 PM on January 5, 2018 [6 favorites]
Compare and contrast:
"For years I have been told that I write with a lot of passive voice, but I have never really understood what this is and why it is so bad. Is this just a bunch of baloney, or is there something really wrong with using the passive voice that I do not appreciate?"
Versus:
"I've been told that that my writing relies too much on the passive voice, but I don't understand what that is, or why it's so bad. Is there something really wrong with the passive voice, or is that just a bunch of baloney?"
The latter feels more direct; your version has a sense of remove -- those blank spaces that Diablevert references. The way you're doing it has its place, but if multiple people have mentioned it for years, you may not be deploying it effectively.
My concrete advice: When you proof a piece, do a pass specifically designed to focus on passive v. active voice. You don't want something to be ALL active (because then you sound crazy; every piece needs to take a breath, and sometimes the passive is the most direct option), but too much passive and you lose any feeling of movement. You'll get better at it the more you do this, and everyone has a tic they need to work on (I use too many parenthetical statements).
posted by Countess Sandwich at 5:51 PM on January 5, 2018 [6 favorites]
Many people perceive the passive voice as insincere when used in apologies, so if what you're writing includes apologies (say, if you work in PR), then you'd probably do well to avoid using the passive voice. I guess the easiest way to do that is to re-read what you write and keep asking "who?"
So you might write, "Mistakes were made",
then you'd ask by who?,
and you'd amend the sentence to, "I made mistakes".
posted by pseudostrabismus at 5:51 PM on January 5, 2018 [5 favorites]
So you might write, "Mistakes were made",
then you'd ask by who?,
and you'd amend the sentence to, "I made mistakes".
posted by pseudostrabismus at 5:51 PM on January 5, 2018 [5 favorites]
yeah, don't use the passive voice to say a thing was done when the reader will instinctively ask "by whom?" and also will imagine that you phrased it that way to avoid having to say. At least, only do this when you feel you have a firm command of the passive voice and are using it on purpose, to get away with something. It's good for that, but only when you're subtle about it.
but clarity requires using more than one kind of construction. the question to ask yourself as you write is: Who or what is this sentence about? this is different from who the active party is. and: From whose perspective should this sentence be read? supposing you want to force or at least encourage a particular perspective. it's about focus. like for clear communication, there are reasons to prefer "JFK just got shot" over "Lee Harvey Oswald just killed somebody."
& crime is a good example of why it's more about selecting and presenting information than about following rules. because there are times you want to discuss the victim and times you want to discuss the perpetrator, and there are good and bad motives for doing either. sometimes you obscure the agent because you don't know who they are yet or how many of them there were; all you know is that a thing was done.
In general, use the passive voice when you don't know or it doesn't matter who did a thing, but don't use it to hide that you don't know or in place of explaining why it doesn't matter. it's cheating to use the passive voice to avoid making a real argument, if you need to make one.
posted by queenofbithynia at 5:53 PM on January 5, 2018 [2 favorites]
but clarity requires using more than one kind of construction. the question to ask yourself as you write is: Who or what is this sentence about? this is different from who the active party is. and: From whose perspective should this sentence be read? supposing you want to force or at least encourage a particular perspective. it's about focus. like for clear communication, there are reasons to prefer "JFK just got shot" over "Lee Harvey Oswald just killed somebody."
& crime is a good example of why it's more about selecting and presenting information than about following rules. because there are times you want to discuss the victim and times you want to discuss the perpetrator, and there are good and bad motives for doing either. sometimes you obscure the agent because you don't know who they are yet or how many of them there were; all you know is that a thing was done.
In general, use the passive voice when you don't know or it doesn't matter who did a thing, but don't use it to hide that you don't know or in place of explaining why it doesn't matter. it's cheating to use the passive voice to avoid making a real argument, if you need to make one.
posted by queenofbithynia at 5:53 PM on January 5, 2018 [2 favorites]
Best answer: Passive voice also creates emotional distance. Sometimes that's useful, and sometimes it's a problem.
posted by amtho at 6:17 PM on January 5, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by amtho at 6:17 PM on January 5, 2018 [2 favorites]
Coming in here to say what a lot of other people have said - passive voice isn't necessarily bad, but it can lead to unclarity or caginess, especially in the apology context as pseudostrabismus points out (my favorite example of this is, "Bless me, Father, for sins have been committed").
posted by coppermoss at 6:25 PM on January 5, 2018 [8 favorites]
posted by coppermoss at 6:25 PM on January 5, 2018 [8 favorites]
Best answer: I don't think of myself as a prescriptivist but when I read writing with a lot of passive voice I tend to assume the author doesn't do a lot of writing, or maybe isn't a native English speaker.
I understand that many native English speakers who do lots of writing use passive voice on purpose -- academics, lawyers, etc. But because native English speakers rarely use passive voice in spoken English unless they're trying to obfuscate something, it can seem overly formal in a misguided way in writing.
So for example, it would be unusual for a native English speaker to say in conversation "A safety video must be watched by the staff every year." They'd say "The staff must watch a safety video every year."
But I can easily imagine a "A safety video must be watched by the staff every year" in some kind of written documentation -- and it might come off as try-hard, a construction that someone who isn't comfortable writing would use.
I'm not saying this is correct or fair, I'm just noting that one effect of using passive voice is that it could affect how you're perceived by people who don't know you.
posted by mrmurbles at 7:06 PM on January 5, 2018 [3 favorites]
I understand that many native English speakers who do lots of writing use passive voice on purpose -- academics, lawyers, etc. But because native English speakers rarely use passive voice in spoken English unless they're trying to obfuscate something, it can seem overly formal in a misguided way in writing.
So for example, it would be unusual for a native English speaker to say in conversation "A safety video must be watched by the staff every year." They'd say "The staff must watch a safety video every year."
But I can easily imagine a "A safety video must be watched by the staff every year" in some kind of written documentation -- and it might come off as try-hard, a construction that someone who isn't comfortable writing would use.
I'm not saying this is correct or fair, I'm just noting that one effect of using passive voice is that it could affect how you're perceived by people who don't know you.
posted by mrmurbles at 7:06 PM on January 5, 2018 [3 favorites]
Passive voice is common and even encouraged in some fields of peer-reviewed scientific research.
So it doesn’t read as ESL or inexperienced writer to me.
If you don’t know what it is or why you’re doing it, prefer active voice for clarity. But there’s nothing wrong with passive voice, and sometimes it’s the best tool for the job.
posted by SaltySalticid at 7:09 PM on January 5, 2018 [5 favorites]
So it doesn’t read as ESL or inexperienced writer to me.
If you don’t know what it is or why you’re doing it, prefer active voice for clarity. But there’s nothing wrong with passive voice, and sometimes it’s the best tool for the job.
posted by SaltySalticid at 7:09 PM on January 5, 2018 [5 favorites]
"Is this just a bunch of baloney...?"
The existence of the passive voice? No. It's well-attested, both in English and in other languages.
That you use it often? Also not baloney. As others have pointed out, the very first clause of your question is in the passive voice. A quick perusal of your posting history shows several other instances as well.
"is there something really wrong with using the passive voice"
As others have said, "wrong" isn't the best term to use here. Descriptively speaking, it's a valid grammatical construction that has its uses (e.g. by me in this comment). Its bad reputation rests on a correlational guilt-by-association issue. The people who use the passive voice tend to be terrible writers and unclear thinkers, and so if you use it, there's a perception that you're also a bad writer and unclear thinker. But it's quite possible to be a good writer who uses the passive voice as well. The key, of course, is intent. If you write in the passive voice on purpose, it can sound fine.
"how do I learn to avoid it?"
Well, not calling constructive criticism "baloney" might be a start.
The rule of thumb is the "by whom" test. If you read a sentence and you can ask "by whom?", that sentence is likely in the passive voice. E.g., this comment was written. By whom? Me. You can usually then rephrase the sentence to recast the answer to "by whom?" as the subject of the sentence. E.g., I wrote this comment. Like the "-ly" adverb test, this isn't a law of nature, but it's a quick way to get you thinking about the concept.
In general, the best way to improve at any aspect of writing is to write often and then have someone else critique it, rewriting to address the criticism.
I would also suggest something like Toastmasters. For non-professional writers, sloppy or unclear writing is often a sign of sloppy or unclear thinking. Speaking extemporaneously will force you to think on your proverbial feet. Your thoughts will become clearer, and your writing will follow.
And of course, once you've learned to identify the passive voice, you can then determine if you'd like to continue using it. The passive voice, after all, can be used to great effect.
posted by kevinbelt at 7:19 PM on January 5, 2018 [10 favorites]
The existence of the passive voice? No. It's well-attested, both in English and in other languages.
That you use it often? Also not baloney. As others have pointed out, the very first clause of your question is in the passive voice. A quick perusal of your posting history shows several other instances as well.
"is there something really wrong with using the passive voice"
As others have said, "wrong" isn't the best term to use here. Descriptively speaking, it's a valid grammatical construction that has its uses (e.g. by me in this comment). Its bad reputation rests on a correlational guilt-by-association issue. The people who use the passive voice tend to be terrible writers and unclear thinkers, and so if you use it, there's a perception that you're also a bad writer and unclear thinker. But it's quite possible to be a good writer who uses the passive voice as well. The key, of course, is intent. If you write in the passive voice on purpose, it can sound fine.
"how do I learn to avoid it?"
Well, not calling constructive criticism "baloney" might be a start.
The rule of thumb is the "by whom" test. If you read a sentence and you can ask "by whom?", that sentence is likely in the passive voice. E.g., this comment was written. By whom? Me. You can usually then rephrase the sentence to recast the answer to "by whom?" as the subject of the sentence. E.g., I wrote this comment. Like the "-ly" adverb test, this isn't a law of nature, but it's a quick way to get you thinking about the concept.
In general, the best way to improve at any aspect of writing is to write often and then have someone else critique it, rewriting to address the criticism.
I would also suggest something like Toastmasters. For non-professional writers, sloppy or unclear writing is often a sign of sloppy or unclear thinking. Speaking extemporaneously will force you to think on your proverbial feet. Your thoughts will become clearer, and your writing will follow.
And of course, once you've learned to identify the passive voice, you can then determine if you'd like to continue using it. The passive voice, after all, can be used to great effect.
posted by kevinbelt at 7:19 PM on January 5, 2018 [10 favorites]
Best answer: Another way of testing for passive voice is to append the words "by zombies" at the end. If it makes sense, the sentence is in the passive voice.
posted by lhauser at 7:32 PM on January 5, 2018 [13 favorites]
posted by lhauser at 7:32 PM on January 5, 2018 [13 favorites]
Best answer: FWIW, the best writing instructor I've ever had emphasized that passive voice is just a tool that shifts emphasis.
Look at the differences between these sentences:
I released five hundred gallons of toxic sludge into the national park. (Well, that sounds pretty bad; I sound like a terrible human being ...)
Five hundred gallons of toxic sludge were released into the national park by me. (Not as bad, the emphasis is on the toxic sludge release ...)
Five hundred gallons of toxic sludge were released into the national park. (Oh look, I'm magically not involved at all).
posted by Comrade_robot at 7:54 PM on January 5, 2018 [11 favorites]
Look at the differences between these sentences:
I released five hundred gallons of toxic sludge into the national park. (Well, that sounds pretty bad; I sound like a terrible human being ...)
Five hundred gallons of toxic sludge were released into the national park by me. (Not as bad, the emphasis is on the toxic sludge release ...)
Five hundred gallons of toxic sludge were released into the national park. (Oh look, I'm magically not involved at all).
posted by Comrade_robot at 7:54 PM on January 5, 2018 [11 favorites]
Stephen King doesn't care for it much, but that's not a reason to do or not do something.
Personally, I often find myself rewriting passive voice to active and making the sentence a little better. Sometimes the sentence remains in passive, though, and no harm is done.
Sometimes passive voice is best -- "the day is saved!" (We just vanquished the super-villain, is now really the time to be handing out credit to the MVP?)
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 8:00 PM on January 5, 2018
Personally, I often find myself rewriting passive voice to active and making the sentence a little better. Sometimes the sentence remains in passive, though, and no harm is done.
Sometimes passive voice is best -- "the day is saved!" (We just vanquished the super-villain, is now really the time to be handing out credit to the MVP?)
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 8:00 PM on January 5, 2018
Best answer: Following up on comrade robot's point, for maximum clarity (assuming that's the goal) it's usually best to start a sentence with old info before introducing the new info. If the object of the action is the old info and the subject is new, passive voice puts the old info where it belongs.
Previous sentence is about the subject: I own a sludge factory. I released hundred gallons of toxic sludge into the national park.
Previous sentence is about the object: Toxic sludge is bad. Five hundred gallons of toxic sludge were released into the national park.
A significant part of my job consists of teaching science majors to write review papers. Too many of them have been taught that scientific literature always uses passive voice, which produces some very convoluted writing. Having them revise their writing to put the old info first goes a long way toward making their writing comprehensible.
Of course, in the real world maximum clarity is not always the goal.
posted by wps98 at 8:30 PM on January 5, 2018 [4 favorites]
Previous sentence is about the subject: I own a sludge factory. I released hundred gallons of toxic sludge into the national park.
Previous sentence is about the object: Toxic sludge is bad. Five hundred gallons of toxic sludge were released into the national park.
A significant part of my job consists of teaching science majors to write review papers. Too many of them have been taught that scientific literature always uses passive voice, which produces some very convoluted writing. Having them revise their writing to put the old info first goes a long way toward making their writing comprehensible.
Of course, in the real world maximum clarity is not always the goal.
posted by wps98 at 8:30 PM on January 5, 2018 [4 favorites]
Sometimes passive voice is best -- "the day is saved!" (We just vanquished the super-villain, is now really the time to be handing out credit to the MVP?)
On the other hand, "We saved the day!" gives all the contributions of the Avengers equal weight.
posted by Celsius1414 at 8:31 PM on January 5, 2018 [1 favorite]
On the other hand, "We saved the day!" gives all the contributions of the Avengers equal weight.
posted by Celsius1414 at 8:31 PM on January 5, 2018 [1 favorite]
Passive voice is exactly what you want when it doesn't matter who did the thing, only that the thing got done.
Your first sentence is an excellent use of the passive voice. "For years I have been told that I write with a lot of passive voice...." If you put that in active voice ("People for years have told me"), that would be weird.
posted by mono blanco at 8:59 PM on January 5, 2018 [2 favorites]
Your first sentence is an excellent use of the passive voice. "For years I have been told that I write with a lot of passive voice...." If you put that in active voice ("People for years have told me"), that would be weird.
posted by mono blanco at 8:59 PM on January 5, 2018 [2 favorites]
This comes up a lot in science writing. UofT has a concise resource I like to put in front of people that covers most of the cases when you might want to use passive voice, and when you might want to avoid it.
Blanket prescriptions on voice are as silly as telling artists not to use the colour green or cooks to avoid garlic. Passive voice certainly can be overused, used poorly and used awkwardly. Used appropriately though, it can make prose clear and effortless (see the example at the bottom).
posted by bonehead at 9:06 PM on January 5, 2018 [2 favorites]
Blanket prescriptions on voice are as silly as telling artists not to use the colour green or cooks to avoid garlic. Passive voice certainly can be overused, used poorly and used awkwardly. Used appropriately though, it can make prose clear and effortless (see the example at the bottom).
posted by bonehead at 9:06 PM on January 5, 2018 [2 favorites]
I think using the passive voice is kind of like driving a car. It's often necessary to get around, and if there's a lot of ground to cover I'm going to have to do it eventually, unless I'm trying to make some showy point. Some people are unbelievably good at it.
But nine out of ten of us unthinking commuters do it too much, rather than not enough. Nobody has to tell themselves to drive more; sometimes you need to remind yourself to get up and walk around.
posted by Polycarp at 10:19 PM on January 5, 2018 [1 favorite]
But nine out of ten of us unthinking commuters do it too much, rather than not enough. Nobody has to tell themselves to drive more; sometimes you need to remind yourself to get up and walk around.
posted by Polycarp at 10:19 PM on January 5, 2018 [1 favorite]
Your first sentence is an excellent use of the passive voice. "For years I have been told that I write with a lot of passive voice...." If you put that in active voice ("People for years have told me"), that would be weird
mono blanco, the only reason it would be weird is because of where you placed "for years." "People for years" makes no sense, but "For years, people..." is normal. Changing the placement of "for years" has no effect on whether something is active or passive, so there's nothing weird about it if you say, "For years, people have told me..." using the active voice.
posted by The Wrong Kind of Cheese at 10:50 PM on January 5, 2018 [7 favorites]
mono blanco, the only reason it would be weird is because of where you placed "for years." "People for years" makes no sense, but "For years, people..." is normal. Changing the placement of "for years" has no effect on whether something is active or passive, so there's nothing weird about it if you say, "For years, people have told me..." using the active voice.
posted by The Wrong Kind of Cheese at 10:50 PM on January 5, 2018 [7 favorites]
Best answer: In many cases, the use of the passive voice is downright bowdlerizing, as this viral quote demonstrates:
"We talk about how many women were raped last year, not about how many men raped women.
We talk about how many girls in a school district were harassed last year, not about how many boys harassed girls. We talk about how many teenager girls in the state of Vermont got pregnant last year, rather than how many men and boys impregnated teenage girls.
So you can see how the use of the passive voice has a political effect.
It shifts the focus off of men and boys and onto girls and women. Even the term ‘violence against women’ is problematic.
It’s a passive construction; there’s no active agent in the sentence.
It’s a bad thing that happens to women, but when you look at that term ’violence against women,’ nobody is doing it to them.
It just happens to them.
Men aren’t even a part of it."
posted by Violet Hour at 11:07 PM on January 5, 2018 [43 favorites]
"We talk about how many women were raped last year, not about how many men raped women.
We talk about how many girls in a school district were harassed last year, not about how many boys harassed girls. We talk about how many teenager girls in the state of Vermont got pregnant last year, rather than how many men and boys impregnated teenage girls.
So you can see how the use of the passive voice has a political effect.
It shifts the focus off of men and boys and onto girls and women. Even the term ‘violence against women’ is problematic.
It’s a passive construction; there’s no active agent in the sentence.
It’s a bad thing that happens to women, but when you look at that term ’violence against women,’ nobody is doing it to them.
It just happens to them.
Men aren’t even a part of it."
posted by Violet Hour at 11:07 PM on January 5, 2018 [43 favorites]
Best answer: A technical suggestion. You can tell Microsoft Word to flag all instances of passive voice. Doing so would allow you to see your writing as others do.
posted by postel's law at 11:33 PM on January 5, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by postel's law at 11:33 PM on January 5, 2018 [2 favorites]
The language profs at the Language Log blog have covered this extensively. They would say that most people don't have an accurate understanding of the active and passive voices.
To me it's a question of putting the important thing, the things you are talking about, in the part of the sentence where the reader is paying the most attention.
posted by SemiSalt at 4:51 AM on January 6, 2018 [1 favorite]
To me it's a question of putting the important thing, the things you are talking about, in the part of the sentence where the reader is paying the most attention.
posted by SemiSalt at 4:51 AM on January 6, 2018 [1 favorite]
What’s the context here?
If multiple bosses or instructors have said this, I think they may mean you overuse passive voice, which can render writing stilted and imprecise, adding words but not meaning. And it’s worth it to understand and correct it in that context.
Did you intend to provide an example in your first sentence? See how it removes important context that might help us understand the issue? “For years I have been told...” vs “My bosses at ten of my news reporting jobs have told me to eliminate my use of passive voice...” vs “Two internet trolls were mocking my writing five years ago...”
If the context is general debate over casual writing, people might be seizing on the idea that it’s bad and enforcing it too zealously. You can decide for yourself whether you agree.
Style rules are made to be broken imo, but to break them you must first understand them. So in either context, please do look up examples of passive voice and at least consider whether alternative phrasing might serve you and your readers better.
posted by kapers at 7:17 AM on January 6, 2018 [2 favorites]
If multiple bosses or instructors have said this, I think they may mean you overuse passive voice, which can render writing stilted and imprecise, adding words but not meaning. And it’s worth it to understand and correct it in that context.
Did you intend to provide an example in your first sentence? See how it removes important context that might help us understand the issue? “For years I have been told...” vs “My bosses at ten of my news reporting jobs have told me to eliminate my use of passive voice...” vs “Two internet trolls were mocking my writing five years ago...”
If the context is general debate over casual writing, people might be seizing on the idea that it’s bad and enforcing it too zealously. You can decide for yourself whether you agree.
Style rules are made to be broken imo, but to break them you must first understand them. So in either context, please do look up examples of passive voice and at least consider whether alternative phrasing might serve you and your readers better.
posted by kapers at 7:17 AM on January 6, 2018 [2 favorites]
My 8th grade English teacher would take points off anytime we used passive voice, whether for a short story or for a research piece. Ever since, I debate whether or not to use it, even in comments such as this. (For example, I wanted to write, "Ever since, I have debated whether or not to use passive voice when writing.") Usually, it's clearer and more direct to switch the sentence to active voice, but that is not always neccessary, and in some circumstances, silly. I don't think Mrs. English teacher was right to demand we abolish it from our writing altogether, but she was right to make us very aware of it. It's got its place, but is usually better off avoided. Usually.
The main way I identify passive voice, is as two verbs strung together. (I may not be completely right, but in general, this works.)
I have been swimming.
She was using the soap.
He was caught red-handed.
vs
I swam.
She used the soap.
The empoyees caught him red-handed.
posted by Crystal Fox at 10:14 AM on January 6, 2018
The main way I identify passive voice, is as two verbs strung together. (I may not be completely right, but in general, this works.)
I have been swimming.
She was using the soap.
He was caught red-handed.
vs
I swam.
She used the soap.
The empoyees caught him red-handed.
posted by Crystal Fox at 10:14 AM on January 6, 2018
The main way I identify passive voice, is as two verbs strung together. (I may not be completely right, but in general, this works.)
I have been swimming.
She was using the soap.
He was caught red-handed.
Only the last of these is an example of the kind of thing the OP is asking about. You can tell because it's the only one where it's not possible to tell who the actor was.
"I have been swimming." I did it.
"She was using the soap." She did it.
"He was caught red-handed." …wait, who did it? Who caught him?
The first two are examples of present perfect progressive tense, which is perfectly fine.
posted by Lexica at 10:54 AM on January 6, 2018 [7 favorites]
I have been swimming.
She was using the soap.
He was caught red-handed.
Only the last of these is an example of the kind of thing the OP is asking about. You can tell because it's the only one where it's not possible to tell who the actor was.
"I have been swimming." I did it.
"She was using the soap." She did it.
"He was caught red-handed." …wait, who did it? Who caught him?
The first two are examples of present perfect progressive tense, which is perfectly fine.
posted by Lexica at 10:54 AM on January 6, 2018 [7 favorites]
Your question largely depends on context.
For instance:
When at work, or planning an event, or organizing some other setting that requires you to directly instruct people on the next actions to take, that is not the time to use a passive voice with written communications.
If you are examining your use of passive voice in these kinds of potential situations, cool, if you are not, then start.
(Says a senior manager who really struggles with her lead engineers using passive voice when I need direct action from them)
posted by Annika Cicada at 11:14 AM on January 6, 2018
For instance:
When at work, or planning an event, or organizing some other setting that requires you to directly instruct people on the next actions to take, that is not the time to use a passive voice with written communications.
If you are examining your use of passive voice in these kinds of potential situations, cool, if you are not, then start.
(Says a senior manager who really struggles with her lead engineers using passive voice when I need direct action from them)
posted by Annika Cicada at 11:14 AM on January 6, 2018
I've been told that that my writing relies too much on the passive voice, but I don't understand what that is, or why it's so bad. Is there something really wrong with the passive voice, or is that just a bunch of baloney?
WHAT? I do not like this edit. Why would you nuke "for years" when it is important?
The latter feels more direct; your version has a sense of remove --
Well, yeah! Because the sufferer has been hectored for years about saying "I was born" instead of "I sprang from my mother's womb," or "The specimens were maintained at a constant temperature of 73 degrees F for three months" instead of "We kept 'em tepid, all!"
OP, there may be a problem, but nobody can tell because your sample is tiny and totally inoffensive. Post something somebody whined about.
posted by Don Pepino at 12:12 PM on January 6, 2018
WHAT? I do not like this edit. Why would you nuke "for years" when it is important?
The latter feels more direct; your version has a sense of remove --
Well, yeah! Because the sufferer has been hectored for years about saying "I was born" instead of "I sprang from my mother's womb," or "The specimens were maintained at a constant temperature of 73 degrees F for three months" instead of "We kept 'em tepid, all!"
OP, there may be a problem, but nobody can tell because your sample is tiny and totally inoffensive. Post something somebody whined about.
posted by Don Pepino at 12:12 PM on January 6, 2018
My grad school adviser recommended Revising Prose, and it helped immensely in eliminating the passive voice and cleaning up my writing. I re-read it every few years. It's expensive for a relatively slim book, but worth it. You may be able to find the gist of the Paramedic Method in another source cheaper or for free.
posted by Fuego at 12:18 PM on January 6, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by Fuego at 12:18 PM on January 6, 2018 [1 favorite]
There is a past and a future, and no action happens in either of them. There are thoughts, there are speculations, Ernest Hemingway is dead, we don't all have to write action pieces. The passive tense is a part of language. However, if you are making money by the word, passive voice uses a lot more words. If you are trying to organize a mob, active verbs work better. The passive voice issue distressed me in grad school, especially since the writing program we used flagged for it, and my professors ran our stuff through a paper pogrom that flagged for it while grading. If I have to write official prose, I use less words. Then I read it and take away even more words, until I have just the essence, so as not to waste others' time. People are only gonna read so much official prose before the rage sets in.
posted by Oyéah at 1:01 PM on January 6, 2018
posted by Oyéah at 1:01 PM on January 6, 2018
Passive voice is easy to identify if it doesn't start by explaining who is doing the action. If you have to ask "by who" or the sentence actually has to state "by ___" then it's passive. For instance: "For years I have been told that I write with a lot of passive voice..." But by who? That's a passive sentence.
Sometimes passive voice is necessary. For instance, if you're writing an article about a Trump staffer being sentenced to prison, you'll do it in passive voice. "Jared Kushner has been sentenced to 25 years in prison..." and you'd write it that way because the judge isn't the focus of the story. To write that in an active voice, it'd have to say "Judge Bob Newhart sentenced Jared Kushner to 25 years in prison," which leads with a person who isn't important to the story. In your first sentence, it's a fine use of passive voice.
But otherwise, passive voice can be less "punchy" and less direct. You'll do a better job grabbing readers if you can be direct and active, and you'll end up being clearer when trying to communicate to others. Without knowing why people are mentioning this to you or where you're using it, it's hard to get much more specific than that.
posted by AppleTurnover at 6:30 PM on January 6, 2018
Sometimes passive voice is necessary. For instance, if you're writing an article about a Trump staffer being sentenced to prison, you'll do it in passive voice. "Jared Kushner has been sentenced to 25 years in prison..." and you'd write it that way because the judge isn't the focus of the story. To write that in an active voice, it'd have to say "Judge Bob Newhart sentenced Jared Kushner to 25 years in prison," which leads with a person who isn't important to the story. In your first sentence, it's a fine use of passive voice.
But otherwise, passive voice can be less "punchy" and less direct. You'll do a better job grabbing readers if you can be direct and active, and you'll end up being clearer when trying to communicate to others. Without knowing why people are mentioning this to you or where you're using it, it's hard to get much more specific than that.
posted by AppleTurnover at 6:30 PM on January 6, 2018
I stand corrected. Thank you, Lexica. This was a wonderful thread. Thank you op for posting.
posted by Crystal Fox at 12:52 AM on January 9, 2018
posted by Crystal Fox at 12:52 AM on January 9, 2018
« Older Lost everything in a fire, Part III | Should we mix a wedding registry and a charity... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by restless_nomad at 5:21 PM on January 5, 2018 [45 favorites]