3 ms·
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with the passive voice, but people overuse it. For example, I've edited technical documents that used the passive voice so f
by actuallyalys 10y ago
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with the passive voice, but people overuse it. For example, I've edited technical documents that used the passive voice so frequently that I lost track of what was being done by the user and what was being done automatically.
- gkya 10y agoOkay, but why throw the baby out with the bathwater?
- actuallyalys 10y agoI don't think anyone seriously advocates avoiding it entirely. For example, even Strunk and White say: "This rule does not, of course, mean that the writer should entirely discard the passive voice, which is frequently convenient and sometimes necessary." (http://www.bartleby.com/141/strunk5.html#11 http://www.bartleby.com/141/strunk5.html#11)
- coldtea 10y agoBecause it's not a case of baby and bathwater, where the thing you don't want to throw is millions of times more valuable than the one you want to throw away. Here, the two things that might be thrown away are of the same value (justifiable passive voice vs unjustifiable passive voice), and it's not that big a value to begin with. Plus, you have a perfectly good replacement (active voice). Lastly, it's just a general advice for people who overuse unjustified passive voice. It's not supposed to be subtle. If those people could understand subtlety they'd kept the justified passive voice themselves when it's appropriate.