4 ms·

I think the US government’s “plain language” site has examples showing that changing passive to active can definitely improve texts, like here: https://www.plai

by mbrock 7y ago

I think the US government’s “plain language” site has examples showing that changing passive to active can definitely improve texts, like here: https://www.plainlanguage.gov/examples/before-and-after/employment-assistance/ https://www.plainlanguage.gov/examples/before-and-after/empl...

Veen 7y ago
Passives are an information structuring tool that writers use to control how information is presented in a sentence. They can be used well or they can be poorly. For example, on the page you linked to the first line of the body text reads: > This example was created for training and is not official agency text. The first clause of that sentence is in the passive voice — “was created” — and is a good example of how passives should be used. Nothing is gained by replacing it with: > We created this example for training and it is not official agency text.
- mbrock 7y ago
  Sure, I agree that prohibiting passive voice entirely is a bad idea. No rule can ever substitute judgment and experience. I’d formulate the passive thing as “watch out for the passive voice and try if an active reformulation sounds better.”
- ghaff 7y ago
  IMO which of those works better is a function of the overall tone of the piece. The passive version probably fits better in a Howto or manual that is focused on just communicating information in a neutral just-the-facts way. The active version fits better with a style that's going for something more conversational.
dpwm 7y ago
There are cases where eliminating passive voice can improve things. In a lot of the example cases I've seen in such guides, however, the examples are somewhat straw-man sentences that don't have so much to do with passive vs active. I also agree with the grand-parent that as writing advice for literature it's bad advice. I'd also like to state that passives are a tool, and like any tool they can be and are misused. I've read sentences in active voice that were clearly contortions around such advice and would have been much better as passive voice. They were usually, but by no means always, of the form without the by-clause. Also, in English, a lot of people have got the idea into their heads that this applies to the imperfect tense, often from the likes of grammar checkers that warn about eliminating passives and don't seem to understand imperfect past. Consider: "He was punched" vs "{subject} punched him" The two have quite different meanings, but a lot of grammar checkers warn about passive voice here. But even if we take the past continuous passive, "He was being punched" has a subtly different meaning to "{} was punching him." As an author of literature, who was doing the punching might be stylistically omitted. A good editor arguably should pick these contortions up, drastically improving writing; just as a good editor should pick up misused passive voice where active voice would be better. Sadly, editing time given to literature these days even by the better publishers is fairly cursory compared to some of the efforts of the past. The rise of easy-access self-publishing may have had an impact here, but the bar had already been significantly lowered by the pathological profit-obsession of big publishers.
- ghaff 7y ago
  It shifts the focus from the outcome to the action that a specific individual took. Which, as you suggest, may or may not be what you want. "Mistakes were made" types of construction are widely (and properly) mocked in many cases because they're viewed as evading responsibility. However, there are cases--such as having a post mortem of some sort--where you really do want to focus on what happened and how it could have been prevented rather "Joe kicked the power cord out."

by mbrock 7y ago

Veen 7y ago

Passives are an information structuring tool that writers use to control how information is presented in a sentence. They can be used well or they can be poorly. For example, on the page you linked to the first line of the body text reads: > This example was created for training and is not official agency text. The first clause of that sentence is in the passive voice — “was created” — and is a good example of how passives should be used. Nothing is gained by replacing it with: > We created this example for training and it is not official agency text.

mbrock 7y ago
Sure, I agree that prohibiting passive voice entirely is a bad idea. No rule can ever substitute judgment and experience. I’d formulate the passive thing as “watch out for the passive voice and try if an active reformulation sounds better.”
ghaff 7y ago
IMO which of those works better is a function of the overall tone of the piece. The passive version probably fits better in a Howto or manual that is focused on just communicating information in a neutral just-the-facts way. The active version fits better with a style that's going for something more conversational.

dpwm 7y ago

There are cases where eliminating passive voice can improve things. In a lot of the example cases I've seen in such guides, however, the examples are somewhat straw-man sentences that don't have so much to do with passive vs active. I also agree with the grand-parent that as writing advice for literature it's bad advice. I'd also like to state that passives are a tool, and like any tool they can be and are misused. I've read sentences in active voice that were clearly contortions around such advice and would have been much better as passive voice. They were usually, but by no means always, of the form without the by-clause. Also, in English, a lot of people have got the idea into their heads that this applies to the imperfect tense, often from the likes of grammar checkers that warn about eliminating passives and don't seem to understand imperfect past. Consider: "He was punched" vs "{subject} punched him" The two have quite different meanings, but a lot of grammar checkers warn about passive voice here. But even if we take the past continuous passive, "He was being punched" has a subtly different meaning to "{} was punching him." As an author of literature, who was doing the punching might be stylistically omitted. A good editor arguably should pick these contortions up, drastically improving writing; just as a good editor should pick up misused passive voice where active voice would be better. Sadly, editing time given to literature these days even by the better publishers is fairly cursory compared to some of the efforts of the past. The rise of easy-access self-publishing may have had an impact here, but the bar had already been significantly lowered by the pathological profit-obsession of big publishers.

ghaff 7y ago
It shifts the focus from the outcome to the action that a specific individual took. Which, as you suggest, may or may not be what you want. "Mistakes were made" types of construction are widely (and properly) mocked in many cases because they're viewed as evading responsibility. However, there are cases--such as having a post mortem of some sort--where you really do want to focus on what happened and how it could have been prevented rather "Joe kicked the power cord out."