Forum: Author Hangout

And why is that bad?

You can easily end up with something like:

See Spot. See Spot run. See Spot run fast.

I honestly have no idea what you're suggesting I am suggesting.

I was suggesting one of the more frequent uses (at least in my case) where one would have multiple subjects in a single paragraph, and exploring what would happen if we followed your 'single subject (person, not topic)' per paragraph.

As a general guideline, your suggestion makes sense, but obviously, it's easier to implement in simple stories, and increasingly difficult in more complex, multiple character stories. That said, I'd still try to eliminate the use of passive phrases. While it is allowable, often those passive phrases remain in stories merely because the author never considering eliminating the confusing sentence fragments. Cutting passive phrases is one of my common objectives during my revision of my stories (though it's harder to do when you don't revise an existing chapter).

I think the passive voice there is being caused by a writer seeking to being unclear about who did the action.

Therein lies the problem. Use of the passive voice, almost by definition, includes more information than is needed, and is frequently used to obscure meaning. If an author unintentionally slips into the passive voice, then they'll likely make their own meaning more difficult to follow.

As for how easy it is to write that kind of sentence, the reason I review my own work is because I often add unnecessary passive phrases which make the language harder to understand.

I feel sure that is so (I'm about as confident as I was Clinton would win the election) but I can't quite figure out what those right questions are.

Uh, who's voting and what are they willing to overlook to change things in politics? Maybe they were after more direct (active) language from Washington?

@D.S.

Sorry, using more words that absolutely necessary does not necessarily make something more confusing.

Nor does saying something in the fewest possible words necessarily make it clearer.

No, but often, an excess of words is a clear marker that a given passage isn't well formulated. Again, it's not a forbidden 'law', rather it's a red flag to alert you to reexamine something to determine whether it was truly what you wanted to say in the first place. (Whew! Talk about passive phrasing!)

After having spent the last year making my writing more concise, I'm not reversing course, trying to find the right balance between verbose and concise. Often, that difference isn't in how many words you use, but allowing your characters the chance to express their doubts and conflicts, which often involves passive language rather than merely passive verbs).

'Jill was carried home by Jack' (passive voice) instead of 'Jack carried Jill home' (active voice)?

In fiction, you typically want your characters doing things (Jack carried Jill home).

But if the emphasis is on the character Jill, the passive is probably better (Jill was carried home by Jack).

Think about a scene about Jill where she's partying, drinking, and passes out. Now if Jack carried her home and undressed her and had sex with her, it could very well be about Jack and the active version would be better. But if it's all about Jill and all Jack did was carry her home, then what's important is someone carried her home (passive version).

If I was confident I had the right subject I would probably use an active 'buy' rather than a passive 'was sold', but an active 'sold' rather than a passive 'was bought'.

The Ass was sold unto Mary, who was forced to bundle it home to their abode. Translation: Mary bought a donkey and took it home. It might just be me, but unless I'm going for something, I'll typically take the latter.

sometimes the passive is better.

Another reason for using passive in fiction is to keep something from the reader. For example, "Jill was carried out of the nightclub." Who carried her? The reader will have to wait to find out if he's ever told.

Who carried her?

The tsunami did it when it wiped out the night club.

You seem to be assuming passive phrases are confusing. I cannot see how.

By 'confusing', I meant 'using more words than is necessary. In your example sentence, the passive sentence is a full third larger than the active sentence. While that's not wrong, it's generally better to remove that bloat if it isn't necessary.

By the same light, passive sentences tend to hide the real objective of the sentence by burying the primary thought in meandering prose. While there's a time and place for that type of language, when it filters into your everyday speech, all it does is to make basic text harder to read.

I'm not arguing against passive language, just that authors need to be aware of when they're using it, and to recognize when they unintentionally interject it into their writing. It's an easy trap to fall in.

For me, it's just one of many things I review before I release any story, checking to ensure I'm not tripping over my own tongue. I'll be the first to admit that much of my writing is passive, but I'll also work to eliminate it whenever it isn't necessary.

My argument conflating multiple subjects (characters) with topics (one topic per paragraph) was simply highlighting potential issues with your approach, but that was purely argumentative. I wasn't suggesting one shouldn't use your approach, just that, in certain cases, it might become problematic.

However, I'm beginning to suspect my suggestion to focus on the correct subject is not right either. As I look at examples (sometimes incorrectly) attributed to the inappropriate use of the passive I am leaning towards focusing on the correct verb and then attempting to use that with the "preferred" subject for the paragraph ... but still not bothering to look at whether the result is active or passive.

I believe you're over analyzing it. I wouldn't concentrate on the verb. "Jill was carried by Jack" and "Jack carried Jill" both use the same verb. It's not the verb.

"Was" is a red flag for me when I'm editing. Usually it's when I write "was running" when I mean "ran," but sometimes it's passive (although for me that's rare). When I see "was" I look at the sentence to make sure it's what I meant. I don't look for a formula.

Sure, because that's the best way of learning just about everything!

Except you're creating rules that aren't applicable. Passive isn't the verb. It's all about the subject. In active, the subject in the sentence performs the verb. In passive, the subject receives the action of the verb.

So IT IS the verb which is active/passive when the action is done/received by the subject.

No, it's whether the subject does the action defined by the verb (active) or the action is done to the subject (passive).

Is the subject doing it (active) or is it being done to the subject (passive)?

IT IS the tense of verbs that is either active or passive.

It's the sentence structure that determines active or passive. Depending on the sentence structure there may be another form of the verb. I guess it's the chicken and egg. I see the subject driving it and then grammar rules determine the correct verb.

Whereas tense is driven by the verb.

CMOS 5.115 'Active and passive voice' begins with:
Voice shows whether the subject acts (active voice) or is acted on (passive voice)—that is, whether the subject performs or receives the action of the verb. Only transitive verbs are said to have voice.

Maybe I said it wrong, but the quote from CMoS is what I meant. Active/passive begins with the subject. Does the subject do the action (verb) or does the subject receive the action (verb).

Passive isn't the verb. It's all about the subject. In active, the subject in the sentence performs the verb. In passive, the subject receives the action of the verb.

I'd argue for a less precise definition of passive. It's neither the subject nor the verb, instead it's a way of speaking designed to introduce doubt. Sometimes you want uncertainty, but many times, you want to eliminate doubt in the reader's mind. That's where it gets tricky. How many details do you dump into the readers' laps until they start getting confused?

I'd argue for you to go away and find the correct definition for what you're on about.

You're going to cause confusion here by calling what you wrote "passive phrasing". Perhaps "infinitive-ridden atrocity" is a more apt description of that example.

You're absolutely right. I wasn't thinking 'passive verbs' or even passive subjects, but was instead conflating a style of writing where the style is more 'passive' (i.e. less direct and more open to interpretation).

I've been using autocrit for years, which highlights 'passive language', so I've long conflated the terms for anything that isn't direct. In my view ("be" verbs are passive, as is text that is more convoluted.

As such, you should all ignore most of what I've said here. However, I'm still concerned with writing that waffles and doesn't get to the point. While it's valuable in many instances, it generally weakens a story unnecessarily when used inappropriately (or when it's used unconsciously).

But that's really a separate topic for another thread. :(

The motto of the University of Washington is "Lux Sit" which translates "let there be light." That doesn't sound passive to me. Sit is the imperative form of esse, to be.

There's always, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth." Depending on whether the subject is "God" or "the Beginning", it could be either passive or passive-aggressive. ;D

Or consider the alternative: "Let there be light" or "God lit the giant gas ball over the Earth on fire, and then fed the flames with his almighty farts!" 'D

A frequent annoyance I find here is the lack of a common glossary of technical terms.
You have been using passive when you should have been more specific and used passive language.
I have been using passive when I should have been more specific and used passive voice, which only ever applies to verbs.

I was a mit confused, as "passive voice" sounds suspiciously similar to "passive language" (at least from an author's point of voice (3rd Limited, in this case). Because I've been wrestling with the concepts for so long, I never even thought to research the original terms. Duh!

That said, I have to agree with Switch, the phrasing of the terms makes it sound like whether a verb is passive or active relies, not on the verb, but on how the subject is referred to (thus the verb is directly dependent upon the subject, making it ipso-facto a dependent relationship).

As for passive language, the main warning is that it's similar to 'passive-aggressive action by authors', in that it describes story details in a way that short circuits their attempts to tell their stories, making the story more difficult to understand because they're afraid readers won't 'get' the more nuanced issues they're trying to lecture them on. Just as passive-aggressive actions from lovers, it's generally an unrecognized action on their part, and thus deserves a concerted effort to curtail.

'Nuff said!

The way I will look at it in my new thread may only be suitable for current and former computer programmers - and all other kinds of mindless robots who come here. :-)

Does that include the reader-bots who looking been looking at new reading material?

P.S. Ross, to paraphrase a common sci-fi conundrum, if you were a bot, would you recognize the fact?

Will those who frequent here have a look at grammar.about.com (and esl.about.com, a companion site for 'English as a second language'). I find it very well researched and written. It contains precise and easy-to-understand definitions and

And a year from now you won't use it except for talking to people who are new to editing and writing. It has precise definitions that are incomplete and don't describe language as used. The issue is that advanced high-school grammar, which is about what that site gives you, covers a lot, but there are huge chunks of idiomatic and colloquial language that don't fit those definitions.
And the grammars that do cover those things...well I think I've pointed you at some of the edges of those, and there are good reasons we don't use them at all outside of graduate linguistics courses.
I agree grammar.about.com is a really great site, but I have fairly high confidence you'll out grow it, and for that reason it's kind of hard to ask people in a larger community to standardize on it. That said, I do agree it's good for the cases it covers.

It's neither the subject nor the verb, instead it's a way of speaking designed to introduce doubt

Doubt is one use. Not pointing a finger (blame) is another which is used in business all the time. But it is about the subject. I Googled OWL (Purdue University) and this is their definitions:

In a sentence using active voice, the subject of the sentence performs the action expressed in the verb.

In a sentence using passive voice, the subject is acted upon; he or she receives the action expressed by the verb. The agent performing the action may appear in a "by the..." phrase or may be omitted.

As I look at examples (sometimes incorrectly) attributed to the inappropriate use of the passive I am leaning towards focusing on the correct verb and then attempting to use that with the "preferred" subject for the paragraph ... but still not bothering to look at whether the result is active or passive.

That's the approach favored by most writing experts. They suggest changing the passive verbs to action verbs to make the passages more direct and less ... wordy or weak.

Again, I'm not arguing for the abandonment of passive text, as I use it often in my books, just that many authors need to be aware of it. As many of us grew up writing passive language in classes, businesses and organizations, we've all learned how to 'hide the message', and we often rely on that without even thinking about it.

@Switch

Another reason for using passive in fiction is to keep something from the reader. For example, "Jill was carried out of the nightclub." Who carried her? The reader will have to wait to find out if he's ever told.

As I've noted before, another common use of passive language (not necessarily be-verbs) is that it's often used to denote doubt, as in circumstances where someone is unsure of which option is best, or even whether their position is ultimately true or not. There's really no way to make a character's doubt more 'direct' or active, it simply is what it is. As such, it too introduces doubt, which will only be resolved as the story progresses--often a vital story element.

Besides, who the fuck cares if it is Dolphin doing the calling or Rabbit at the desk?

When I first read your passive sentence that's exactly what I said to myself. What's important was that Porpoise was called. So since who called him is not important, the original passive version is fine.

She was told by Mark, in a very contrite and soft voice, "Sorry, Mistress."

There was anger! For 'told' is not 'said' and the discussion of 'said' has been had again and again. No! It was thus.
On to her was said, "Sorry, mistress." And to her was given in apology the most exquisite of orgasms. The anger was replaced.