As a linguistics major, I have developed a nervous tic from seeing far too many pieces of writing advice that are just plain wrong. It irks me to no end because people read it and parrot it and it spreads faster than a 4chan meme.
I want to talk to you today about passive voice. Passive voice happens when the subject and the object are reversed so that the object comes first.
Active: John (subject) hit (verb) the ball (object).
Passive: The ball(object) was hit(verb) by John (subject).
Active: John robbed the bank.
Active: John was robbing the bank.
Passive: The bank was being robbed by John.
Now, in the second example, the second active sentence has the verb 'To Be' followed by an -ing, which a lot of people will tell you is passive. When they do, tell them that they're talking out of the wrong hole. It is NOT passive because the subject (John) is performing an action (robbing) to the object (the bank).
Of course, the first active sentence uses only an action verb (robbed), and so seems more dynamic. This is where the confusion arises. Yes, if possible it is better to avoid the verb 'To Be' in favour of an action verb. But its use does not necessarily signify passive voice. By all means seek and destroy as many incidences of the verb 'To Be' as you can, but do it because using an action verb leads to more dynamic writing, not because someone told you it's 'passive voice'.
This public service announcement was brought to you by the verb 'To Be' and the letters P, M and S. Thank you.
10 comments:
Garn. That is one hell of a horrible sentence, passive or not.
Thanks for the clarification! My face is a little red because I've been doing this very thing to my poor betas. However, because my grammar sucks, I didn't present it as a grammar thing, more of a "this needs to be more active" in an adjective way. Because the first way IS more active, even if it's not necessarily an active construct grammar-wise.
Thanks for helping me learn a thing!
Hear, hear! It riles me too. I have enough trouble teaching my students that non-dynamic does not equal passive voice. Seeing this inaccuracy all over the internet is not helpful!
Hear, hear! It riles me too. I have enough trouble teaching my students that non-dynamic does not equal passive voice. Seeing this inaccuracy all over the internet is not helpful!
@Stewart - you're right, it's a bloody horrible sentence. Must fix.
@Annalise - no problem. And I actually have no problem with the way you explained it. An action verb does make it more active/dynamic. The problem arises when people claim that 'to be' means passive voice. And the people they tell that to put that in their critiques, and so on.
@Beth. Seeing it all over the internet is what prompted my little tantrum :)
Cheryl,
This is such an important suggestion and one that I think a lot of writers forget about in the wake of wanting to be artsy and creative. One of my teachers just recently drilled this into our heads too. Now it's become one of those things that sticks out whenever I read something. I didn't know you majored in linguistics -- what an intensely useful line of education!
Thank you as always for your insight!
ROFL About that PMS! My critique group taught me the difference between passive voice and inactive/passive verb but I sometimes fail to explain in a critique unless I know the piece is from a beginner. I decided you deserve 2nd place in my query critique contest, so you can send me 5 pages double space MS or a 1 page single space synopsis or query.
I like this distinction - if you don't know who robbed the bank or if it's not important WHO robbed the bank then it should be perfectly fine to say "The bank was robbed yesterday" as equal to "Someone robbed the bank yesterday."
As in, George the security guard stayed home sick yesterday when the bank was robbed.
Great advice. Puts things in perspective. Thanks for sharing. :))
Oh this did make me laugh at the end. Sometimes you just have to let it all out, don't you?
Post a Comment