![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
There is nothing quite so likely to draw me into a flamewar on a forum as seeing someone confidently telling another person not to do X, where they have utterly misidentified X itself. It's not even a matter of disagreeing on whether or not X is ever appropriate, or appropriate in those circumstances... No, it's a complete misunderstanding of how X is actually defined.
For bonus points: using the wrong term for it entirely!
This is why I am currently taking slow, careful breaths so that I do not froth madly at someone who advised another person to never use "the passive tense", and then helpfully identified sentence portions along the lines of "The hunter is sending out his dogs" as passive.
IT IS NOT CALLED THAT AND DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY.
*pant pant pant*
Anyway, maybe I should go use some of that emotional energy on my own writing, eh? Especially since the current novel project has some perfect opportunities for people to actually debate this in character.
...but then I have to work out how closely the language everyone in this second world fantasy is speaking (barbarians aside) actually matches the vague Latin-or-Greek grammar I've been assuming so far. Oh dear. Whipping up a conlang for this setting is not something I want to deal with right now, because that is a vast time sink that could swallow me whole.
For bonus points: using the wrong term for it entirely!
This is why I am currently taking slow, careful breaths so that I do not froth madly at someone who advised another person to never use "the passive tense", and then helpfully identified sentence portions along the lines of "The hunter is sending out his dogs" as passive.
IT IS NOT CALLED THAT AND DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY.
*pant pant pant*
Anyway, maybe I should go use some of that emotional energy on my own writing, eh? Especially since the current novel project has some perfect opportunities for people to actually debate this in character.
...but then I have to work out how closely the language everyone in this second world fantasy is speaking (barbarians aside) actually matches the vague Latin-or-Greek grammar I've been assuming so far. Oh dear. Whipping up a conlang for this setting is not something I want to deal with right now, because that is a vast time sink that could swallow me whole.
From:
froth away
From:
Re: froth away
The passive voice is when the subject of the sentence isn't the one controlling the verb, but the one the verb is happening to. Not doing, but being done to. Compare, for example:
ACTIVE: Susan shoots the zombie.
PASSIVE: The zombie is shot by Susan.
The actual event of each sentence is identical--one zombie, one Susan, one act of shooting, the bullet passing from Susan's gun to the zombie's brain--but "shoots" and "is shot" mark that in one case, the person at the start of the sentence is doing the action, and in the other case, the person at the start of the sentence is having the action done to them.
Now, often you'll find that using the passive voice makes writing sound weaker, vaguer, or less exciting. However, "Never use the passive voice" is about as useful of advice as "Never use adverbs." Trying to follow it as an ironclad rule means that you'll miss all the instances where it could be useful. Compare, for example:
ACTIVE/ACTIVE: After Susan shot one zombie, the rest of the zombies ate Susan.
ACTIVE/PASSIVE: After Susan shot one zombie, she was eaten by the rest.
Our interest, in this case, is on Susan herself, and the second sentence makes that clear, while also avoiding an unhappy "one zombie/the rest of the zombies" hiccup in sentence rhythm. Passive voice can also be very useful when the person-or-thing performing the action is unknown or irrelevant; you'll see it a lot in constructions like "The law was passed" or "The building was razed" where the writer wants emphasis put on the law, or the building, and not , say, the state congress or the particular construction company chosen.
Now! Here's the tricky bit.
Passive verbs are often marked with versions of "to be". For example, in the previous sentence, "are marked" lets you know that the subject, "passive verbs", is being acted on by some other (unspecified) force. (This is also an example of a situation in which a passive verb is useful. Imagine trying to turn that around and still make it succinct. "Theoretical people who wish to speak in the passive voice often mark said passive verbs with versions of 'to be'." There's probably a better way to express that, but the clearest, simplest, best way to do so is just let the damn sentence be passive.)
HOWEVER!
Not all passive verbs are marked with versions of "to be", and not all versions of "to be" in a verb are part of something passive. For example:
ACTIVE: The zombie bit Susan.
PASSIVE: Susan was bitten by the zombie.
But!
ACTIVE: The zombie was biting Susan.
PASSIVE: Susan got bitten by the zombie.
Now, "got", as a substitute for "was", is a fairly colloquial approach to making a verb passive, and tends to imply responsibility as well. But it's damn common, and since it ends up working exactly like a passive verb marker in many situations, I'm going to go ahead and say that's what it's doing there. Conversely, "to be" can simply mark a progressive verb: one that's representing a continuing action, usually happening at the same time as some other verb in the same sentence or one nearby.
Also not passive sentences:
NOT PASSIVE: There is a zombie on the lawn.
NOT PASSIVE: A zombie is on the lawn.
"There" is a dummy subject; it's just sitting there because we don't like subjectless sentences, but we need that "is" to mark the time during which "a zombie" and "on the lawn" are happening together. In the second sentence, we've gotten rid of the dummy subject by shuffling the bits afterward around, but "to be" is still pretty much there to mark tense--which is to say, when the things in the sentence are happening.
Now, at times "to be" can be a sign that writing isn't lean and fast enough, especially in prose. Stating that things exist or are the case can be very boring next to saying that they're happening, and a lot of "is doing" progressive constructions can make the whole thing sound too conversational, along with being wordy. But that doesn't mean it's passive voice, and it damn well shouldn't be called that.
From:
Re: froth away
From:
Re: froth away
From:
Re: froth away