Actively Defending the Passive Voice
By Keith Cronin | August 9, 2016 |
As writers, we are told about many rules we’re supposed to follow. Avoid adverbs. Don’t start with a prologue. Eschew the passive voice. Don’t use words like “eschew.” On the off chance that someone does say “eschew,” say “gesundheit!”
Okay, maybe not all of those are well-established rules, but the first few definitely are. And I have a problem with rules like these (to be fair, I have a lot of problems, as some of you likely have guessed). But today I’m going to write about the problem I have with one rule in particular: the one that says we should eschew (gesundheit!) the passive voice.
What it is (and what it ain’t)
First of all, what is the passive voice? It’s a way of constructing sentences where the subject has the action done to it, rather than performing the action. For example:
The treaty was signed by the two generals.
The most awesome post ever was written by Keith.
The egret was eaten by the alligator.
In each case, the action happened TO the subject of the sentence (treaty, post, egret).
By contrast, here are the same three sentences cast in the active voice:
The two generals signed the treaty.
Keith wrote the most awesome post ever.
The alligator ate the egret (and then sang, “Egrets? I’ve had a few,” in a surprisingly good Sinatra impression).
In each of these active-voice examples, the subject of the sentence (the generals, Keith, the alligator) is performing the action. Both sets of sentences say the same thing, but conventional wisdom maintains that the ones written in the active voice are stronger and more vigorous. If that increased strength and vigor is not immediately apparent, let’s find some better examples.
The boy closed the door.
The door was closed by the boy.
or, even worse:
I think most of us would agree the second sentence is pretty weak in both of those examples. If nothing else, the first sentences are definitely cleaner. So these are situations where the passive voice probably is the weaker choice. Similarly, there are plenty of instances where too much use of the passive voice can really de-energize – and often de-personalize – your writing.
So why am I opposed to the no-passive rule? First and foremost, because many people mistakenly tag sentences as passive that actually are not. Over the years that I’ve spent interacting with writers both online and in person, I’ve seen a lot of misunderstanding of what the passive voice is – and what it isn’t. So let’s take a quick quiz to see how well we understand this passive thing.
Mark each sentence below either “A” for “Active,” or “P” for “Passive.” Then count up how many P’s you have.
- He was driving home shortly after midnight.
- She was driven home shortly after midnight.
- Can you drive me home?
- You have driven me crazy.
- There was a bad accident on I-95 last night.
- A bad accident happened on I-95 last night.
- I was in a bad accident on I-95 last night.
- My car was totaled on I-95 last night.
- There is a common misconception that the passive voice is bad.
- People have a common misconception that the passive voice is bad.
- People have been led to believe that the passive voice is bad.
- Writing passively is something we should avoid.
So, how many passives did you find? By my count, there are only three (numbers 2, 8 and 11).
If you found more than three, you’re not alone. Many people mistakenly believe that any verb containing a form of “to be” (like is, was, were, etc.) indicates the passive voice. In particular, the past progressive tense often gets mistaken for passive voice. But as the Gershwin brothers so eloquently observed, it ain’t necessarily so – something I hope my little quiz demonstrates.
The reason I’m making a fuss about this is that I’ve seen way too many writers proclaim that they’re on a warpath to eliminate all those “to be” verbs, thinking that in doing so, they are purging their work of The Dreaded Passive Voice. That’s why “rules” scare me. Practiced in ignorance, they can do more harm than good. But that’s not my only problem with the anti-passive stance…
An opportunity to direct your reader’s focus
Sometimes the passive voice really is the most effective – and conversationally accurate – way to convey your point. Let’s examine these two sentences:
The king was buried at dawn.
A guy named Fred buried the king at dawn.
Okay, that’s a silly-sounding example. Let’s maintain a more consistent tone in that second one:
The royal gravedigger buried the king at dawn.
I’ll admit, that’s a decent sentence. But who is being emphasized in it? The gravedigger. And this is fine, if that’s where you want to focus the reader’s attention.
The royal gravedigger buried the king at dawn. This wasn’t the first king he’d buried, and he doubted it would be the last.
This could lead somewhere intriguing, and gives us an insider’s view on the frequency of royal mortality in that particular kingdom. But if the only point you wanted to make was that a king died and was buried, the passive sentence conveyed the fact more simply and effectively.
In situations like this, the passive voice gives you an opportunity to direct the focus of your sentence, which can come in pretty handy, as shown next:
The sword was passed down from one generation to the next for more than 400 years.
The royal family passed the sword down from one generation to the next for more than 400 years.
The sentences are similar, but the emphasis shifts in the second one. That’s fine, but only if that’s your desired result. If not, the passive one (the first sentence) reads cleaner, at least to me. This kind of thing is an opportunity to fine-tune your writing, exploring the nuances of how each construct affects and directs the reader’s focus.
Doing what comes naturally
This also leads to another reality of the passive voice: sometimes it just sounds right. Consider these lines:
I was born a poor black child. (from Steve Martin’s classic film The Jerk)
I was born on a Tuesday morning. (from a novel I’m rather fond of)
I was born in the USA. (from Bruce Springsteen’s classic anti-war anthem)
Those are all solid sentences. What you may not have noticed is that they’re all written in the passive voice. To put sentences like these into the active voice, we’d need to write something like:
Adele Springsteen gave birth to me in the USA.
or maybe:
My mother bore me in the USA.
Hmmm, not exactly rolling off the tongue, are they? That’s because the passive voice is firmly entrenched in conversational English. In other words, sometimes it’s just the way we say something, and to say it another way would sound wrong. Here’s an example that is probably one of the most aggressive things you can say in the passive voice:
You’re fired.
Think about it. Would saying this in the active voice pack any more punch – or sound any better?
I fire you.
That’s just clunky as hell – nobody talks like that, other than maybe Boris Badenov. So maybe we could try something more like this:
I am firing you.
Better than the previous, but I still can’t picture Donald Trump saying it with the same gusto. However, context is everything. Maybe you’ve got a scene where a boss is having a conversation with an employee whom he’s trying to fire, but he’s tiptoeing around the point, and the employee doesn’t realize what’s happening.
“Ted, do you understand what we’re talking about here? I mean, I’m firing you. Don’t you get it?”
In that situation, I could see using the active voice. But I suspect that 99% of the time, “you’re fired” is the phrase that will work the best.
Bottom line, there are plenty of situations where the passive voice is not only acceptable; it is downright preferable. So I hope you’ll think twice before blindly obeying some arbitrary “rule” telling you otherwise. If this has piqued your curiosity and you want to delve deeper, here’s a page that breaks down numerous scenarios in which the passive voice may be your better choice.
How about you?
Have I persuaded you that the passive voice is not always your enemy? Or were you already onboard with my Passivity Tolerance Agenda (or, PTA)? Or are you still deeply entrenched in the camp of those who eschew (gesundheit!) the passive voice? Please chime in, and as always, thanks for reading!
Or to put it more passively, you’re thanked!
Image licensed from 123RF.com
[coffee]
Author of the novels Me Again (originally published by Five Star/Gale), and Tony Partly Cloudy (published under his pen name Nick Rollins), Keith Cronin (he/him) is a corporate speechwriter and professional rock drummer who has performed and recorded with artists including Bruce Springsteen, Clarence Clemons, and Pat Travers. Keith’s fiction has appeared in Carve Magazine, Amarillo Bay, The Scruffy Dog Review, Zinos, and a University of Phoenix management course. A native of South Florida, Keith spends his free time serenading local ducks and alligators with his ukulele.
Great and humorous way to begin my AM. After failing the quiz realized I’m using passive voice a lot more than I thought. And my story will survive.
Thanks for posting. I’ve been preaching this for years.
The passive voice was not previously well understood by me. Its power to focus our attention is now made clear. I am grateful.
I was sadly ignorant of the past perfect tense, as well, until your explanation opened my eyes. Your instruction will not have been in vain if later on you also illuminate the future perfect progressive tense.
Seriously, Keith, while on the road drumming were you running grammar strings in your head? What an amazing post. The passive voice has been redeemed! Awesome.
LOL – I see what you did there.
Or should I say, what you did there is being seen by me.
I have never eschewed the passive. As Keith said, it comes down to where you want the emphasis: on the king or on the klunk who buries the king.
That is why, although I often quote the guidelines, I never treat them as rules.
* future perfect progressive tense * ?
By this time next week this eschewing of rigid rules will have been becoming my habit……..?
Aarrrgh
Gesundheit! Gesundheit!
Hi Keith, I found the exercises on your link to be very helpful. Thanks for a great post today. Most of the time, I try to remember Rhett Butler’s line as my guide for active voice structure: “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.”
Keith,
You’ve touched on one of my pet peeves.
Rules.
When they work, they work, but when they don’t they’re TO BE broken. Ask Picasso. I’m going to go off on a tangent here, from your passive/aggressive discussion, but bear with me, I’m going to arrive at the same point. (Eventually).
In my experience of basic English classes, there is always some elitist-minded teacher who proclaims that they can place you above the unwashed masses with one simple answer to one simple question. When someone asks how you are, if your respond “I’m doing good.” rather than “I’m well thank you”. That is proof you are an ignorant, uneducated dolt. This gags me with a spoon. Because it’s so wrong, for so many reasons.
And I did an experiment.
When certain people (especially educated management at my job) ask me how I’m doing, I either respond, “I’m well, thank you.” “Or I’m good today, you?” to watch their reaction. You’d be surprised how many times the second response got a little supercilious smile.
The problem with these kind of rules other than the obvious one-that they breed blind elitists who follow the rules educated society insists must be played by, rather than thinking each situation through individually for one’s self—is that most people, especially in the America I live in, don’t respond to the question on their well-being, with “well”. They respond “good” or “not so good.” Not because they’re unintelligent dolts, but because they’ve absorbed the culture of the society around them. Hence, if I have a character based in the current climate of Southern California, responding with an “I’m well, thank you.” They best be an English teacher, or have a stick up their ass, because it doesn’t ring true, to the environment around them.
The same facts bear in passive or active sentences. SOMETIMES in order to make a sentence active one has to use more words (I believe the less words to get a point across the better) or as you pointed out above you must obfuscate the meaning of the sentence altogether.
I’m on a rant now. But rules especially when it comes to writing novels, are a pet peeve for me.
Do you remember when Stephen King came out with his own rant about adverbs? Everybody and his dog cut the adverbs out of their writing. And that is my point. Rules, even Steven King RULES of writing, are not factually, set in stone. Ask Somerset Maugham what it takes to write a great novel. Rules are more like what the Pirates in the Pirates of the Caribbean described their code as, GUIDELINES. Guidelines that can be followed, tailored, or cut out altogether depending on the individual situation. One has to THINK not just blindly follow to use a guideline.
There, I’ve had my say. And maybe I won’t have that fifth cup of coffee this morning, I’m typing so fast I don’t need it.
Entering the coffee shop, Keith walks up to the barista, points at Bernadette, and says, “I’ll have what she’s having.”
Thanks for the wonderful rant! Sounds like we are kindreds when it comes to “rules.”
But what I really like is your good-vs-well sociological experiment. I gotta try something like that.
I actually had a lengthy discussion with my son (the mischievous one, the one who’s always hoping to catch the former English teacher out and, like Keith, bust a few rules in the process) re good/well.
He maintained that there are appropriate responses using either the adjective or adverb. He agreed that “I’m doing __” called for an adverb, unless you are volunteering at a soup kitchen. What made the discussion lengthy was his example of “I’m feeling __.” If you go by the rule that you’re answering the question “How are you feeling?” then you can justify using an adverb, but if you consider the blank an adjective describing the subject (I), then you can use good. He likes to argue both sides at once and leave my head spinning. But at least he’s never sung Sinatra to illustrate a point. Yet. ;-)
I think that if someone asks, “How are you doing?” he is asking your state of being. Answering with “well”, which is an adverb, is incorrect (unless he is asking how you are doing a job.) “I am good” or “I am doing good” is proper English. It just doesn’t sound as elegant. Other words that have a bad reputation are objective pronouns: i.e. me and him. Example: They gave it to him and me. but many people trying to sound more proper say, They gave it to he and I.
I guess rules get us all off on a tangent.
Hi Keith,
Thanks for the advice and the giggle. I may eschew the passive voice, but I will never eschew egrets again.
Thanks, Stephanie. Eschewed egrets are the worst, I agree.
… (and then sang, “Egrets? I’ve had a few,” in a surprisingly good Sinatra impression).
You killed with that one, Keith.
Excellent non-eschewal of the passive voice (though I will continue chewing on Mark Twain’s “eschew surplusage”). For the record, the passive voice was always liked by me.
One of my biggest pet peeves–assuming any use of the “to be” verb indicates passive voice. Thanks for explaining it so well. Now I’m off to share this with my well-meaning friends.
A cup of joe was bought for you by me. (I couldn’t resist.)
Loved this one, Keith, especially that crocodile’s appetite.
Normandie, you are thanked most heartily by me for that thoughtful cup o’ Joe!
You made my day, Keith. Damn, I used eschew on the first page of a version of my novel–well that version has to go. I do hate rules and this post made me laugh and realize that rule-makers always have to answer to the rule itself. Not a great way to live or to write. Thanks!!
Fabulous. Thank you, Keith. I’ve been picked up for using -ing words, the picker-upper saying they are passive. Yet, to me, the use has been intentional, to show a situation that continues. I’ve done the changes, but wondered – so is it a rule that showing a continuous action when writing in present tense makes the writing seem passive?
I’m going to share your post!
Keithareno!
My favorite use of the passive voice accords with the Weasel Doctrine–i.e., whenever possible, deny responsibility:
Mistakes were made.
Corollary: Rules were broken.
Eschew? Kleenex are needed.
Over & Out.
I’ve read so many recent books that have been ruined by the author’s (or editor’s? Say it isn’t so) fear of the word “was” and over-eschewing in general. The same authors, I’ve noticed, have generally never met a dangling modifier they didn’t like–which says to me that their fear of the passive stems from an insufficient knowledge of how the English language really works.
The result is a narrative that’s stilted at best. I find these books (often received for review, alas!) hard to read, artificial, devoid of any real personality. But certain author circles (egged on, I suspect, by inexperienced editors and agents) are so convinced that this is the right way to write that you cannot tell them where they’re going wrong. There’s generally one in every writing group (there is in mine!) and it takes a strong-minded newbie to stand up against them and not let the poison infect them.
So thanks for the advice, and I hope it gets through to a few people. But I fear we’re going to spend another couple of decades lamenting this particular trend.
My greatest regret is that grammar is not thoroughly taught in school. School is where the difference between participle and gerund, and the difference between the verb ‘to be’ and the passive voice, should be beaten in.
School is where the ‘rules’ must be laid down so that the creative writer is then equipped to break them.
Great examples, thanks!
Thanks for touching upon this subject! As a content writer using different tools to improve my writing and productivity, I always get ticked off when the tools spot passive voices as “errors,” which is not always the case. I think it’s all about readability (which you also mentioned) and balancing passive and active voices that really dictate how good a paper or book really is.
Also, hope you don’t mind that I linked the post on my blog: https://christopherjanb.com/blog/write-wednesday-vol-4 I curate the best content marketing, blogging, and freelance writing posts for the week, and I included yours!
Keep up the great work and have a good day!
I found the same three on the quiz, so good on me. Thanks for saying passive isn’t necessarily bad. I tend to use the active voice more in dialogue and save the passive for the narrative.
Thank you for this!!!
That was humorous yet educational. Passive and active voices have their places in every piece of writing. We as writers must use our instincts to discern what works and what doesn’t. I find that reading out loud catches false start, clunky sentences, awkward dialogue, punctuation stops… Let’s use our ears as another beta reader. It actually works. Thanks, Keith.
Keith–
To illustrate how rules were made to be broken, someone mentioned Picasso in a comment. It’s my understanding that Picasso said artists should know the rules before breaking them. The same holds true for writers. Not to put too fine a point on it, those who publish work loaded with grammar and punctuation mistakes can be dismissed as boobies. I would say the same holds true for use of the passive voice.
I’m with ya. Gotta write what sounds right and trust your inner ear. Especially when you’re in the character’s head. Or for effect. Or style. Or to break up monotony. And even though I often love passive voice, I’ve used it with occasional qualms due to all those silly writer rules, so I really appreciate how your article grants permission!
Love this post! Many times I’ve turned to the passive voice because it sounded better, but I felt a little guilty doing so. Thanks for showing so clearly how the passive voice has a place in great writing!
Thanks so much! When ice skaters are in training, ropes and cables lift them through the jumps they cannot yet perform. Once they learn, they leap through the air themselves without cables. When we writers are in training, the rules are like cables, which we need to master before we can write/leap on our own. Every profession requires training wheels at the start, as a foundation. Good writing means being a decision-maker, and deciding on grammar usage is a constant, rooted in foundation.
As a copy editor at a daily news site I had to argue for readability with rule-befuddled copy chiefs almost daily. Newspaper readers are not PhDs. They are ordinary people seeking clarity and ease of understanding. Readability is king. And that goes for other types of content creation as well.
Oliver Wendell Holmes once wrote: “A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanging; it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and time in which it is used.” Seems like this applies here.
You have copy chiefs? And editors? I thought those were now as common as Unicorns!
I always thought that if you are challenged on something and cannot explain why you are doing it that way, you either need to figure out your reason and defend it, or perhaps perhaps you need to change it.
I am buying you a Cup of Joe for this article. ;)
Seriously, thank you. I’ve been beaten up by other authors when I tried to say we sometimes need passive voice. It’s a balance, right? We just need to know when to be passive and when to be active.