IS ARE WAS WERE BE BEEN BEING

F--

YOU FAIL. START OVER.

ARRRGHHHHHH

I <3 Passive Voice

TMD

WORD STINKS AND MUST BE BURNED!

There is nothing wrong with using the passive voice. People who tell you not to use it in a paper "because it's less active" or something like that should not be listened to.

And Word's grammar check shouldn't be listened to most of the time. I turned it off years ago because it kept saying my perfectly correct grammar was wrong and making the most ludicrous suggestions. : /

Exactly! If the Romans could use it, so can I!

I mean, if the topic of my paper is the ball, I want to say "The ball was kicked by John." DON'T TELL ME TO SAY "John kicked the ball." I DON'T CARE ABOUT JOHN! THE BALL IS THE IMPORTANT PART!!

ARGASDF AND I DON'T WANT YOU TELLING ME MY MLA WORKS CITED PAGE IS FULL OF FRAGMENTS. OF COURSE THEY'RE FRAGMENTS! IT'S A WORKS CITED PAGE!!

*too lazy to turn off grammar check tho*

People who tell you not to use it in a paper "because it's less active" or something like that should not be listened to.

People who tell you not to use it in a paper and are going to grade it that way should .

Really, I agree with active > passive. There are some times when passive is more appropriate, such as in tragic incidents like "John was sniped down in Iraq." But I consider it way better to say "John kicked the ball" rather than "The ball was kicked by John." John is a person. He's the one who acts. You shouldn't focus on the fact that the ball is on the receiving end of the action; it's assumed as long as you are told someone is kicking it. The nature of narrative is to describe action. There's no need to reiterate the fact that for push there is a pull.

But if you believe you can write good stories without consciously avoiding passive voice, go for it. B)

People who tell you not to use it in a paper "because it's less active" or something like that should not be listened to.

People who tell you not to use it in a paper and are going to grade it that way should .

 

Really, I agree with active > passive. There are some times when passive is more appropriate, such as in tragic incidents like "John was sniped down in Iraq." But I consider it way better to say "John kicked the ball" rather than "The ball was kicked by John." John is a person. He's the one who acts. You shouldn't focus on the fact that the ball is on the receiving end of the action; it's assumed as long as you are told someone is kicking it. The nature of narrative is to describe action. There's no need to reiterate the fact that for push there is a pull.

 

But if you believe you can write good stories without consciously avoiding passive voice, go for it. B)

Are you going to tell me that "This man was killed by his wife" sounds less awkward than "His wife killed this man"? And sometimes it just flows better. "John Doe died in 1984. He was shot by his wife." vs. "John Doe died in 1984. His wife shot him."

And, I mean, if the preposition "by" EXISTS in the English language, and the construct "A was [verb]ed by B" LEGITIMATELY EXISTS, why can't we use it!?

Plus it adds variety to your sentence structure.

There is simply nothing grammatically incorrect about it.

If I can make a recommendation; OpenOffice. Free, better and it can read Word files.

There is simply nothing grammatically incorrect about it.

I know, it's a matter of style. Writing is art, so there's no way to be "incorrect" about it. But writers generally agree that by default you should choose active over passive, just as a painter might advise against leaving too much negative space in a composition.

There have to be some people who read in such a way that how action is dictated affects their impression of it and other people who accept action for what it is and don't care if it's narrated in either voice.

You know, there was a whole rest of my post there, where I explained why you might use it other than the sheer fact that it's there and it's not grammatically incorrect.

And I'm writing a research paper, not a story. So creative license isn't so big an issue.

There are just some instances where it's simply better to use passive voice. Like, you could just say "I was born and raised in the city" rather than "My mother gave birth to me and my family and mentors and friends raised me in the city." I mean, you have to admit, the passive voice sentence is just more concise and to the point, and focuses on what is likely the subject-- no, I shouldn't say subject, since that implies grammatical subject; it's what is likely the topic of the sentences that follow: "I."

You know, there was a whole rest of my post there, where I explained why you might use it other than the sheer fact that it's there and it's not grammatically incorrect.

 

And I'm writing a research paper, not a story. So creative license isn't so big an issue.

 

There are just some instances where it's simply better to use passive voice. Like, you could just say "I was born and raised in the city" rather than "My mother gave birth to me and my family and mentors and friends raised me in the city." I mean, you have to admit, the passive voice sentence is just more concise and to the point, and focuses on what is likely the subject-- no, I shouldn't say subject, since that implies grammatical subject; it's what is likely the topic of the sentences that follow: "I."

Why even say that you were born and raised in the city though? Why not say, "In west Philadelphia born and raised."

The whole "Active tense sounds more active!" thing entirely misses the point of what is wrong with the passive voice. The problem is not with how in-your-face your sentences are, but that you can use it to completely ignore the object, often to be evasive, such as in the classic Washington rhetorical construct "Mistakes were made."

Unless you want to sound like a politician trying to avoid admitting that you are a screw up, you should probably avoid passive voice.

The whole "Active tense sounds more active!" thing entirely misses the point of what is wrong with the passive voice. The problem is not with how in-your-face your sentences are, but that you can use it to completely ignore the object, often to be evasive, such as in the classic Washington rhetorical construct "Mistakes were made."

Unless you want to sound like a politician trying to avoid admitting that you are a screw up, you should probably avoid passive voice.

... yeah but this isn't in a political context, or a debate, it's a factual, expository, research paper. Sometimes, the agent is simply not as important as the receiver of the action. Like the example I mentioned earlier (although that's in the context of a story, but whatever). "I was born and raised in the city..." depending on the direction the story is heading, it might not be important at all who was the person who gave birth and who was the person/people who raised you. For one thing, it's pretty obvious who gave birth to you, unless you're some weird clone/alien thing but assuming that the story is NOT about a weird clone/alien thing... and for another thing, it'd just make the sentence sound clunky to put it in active, again like I mentioned earlier: "My mother gave birth to me and my family, friends, and mentors raised me in the city." If you want to elaborate on how you were raised, you can do so in subsequent sentences. "I was born and raised in the city. I grew up hearing my grandma's stories." etc.

Sometimes it's just more to the point. If you're lying on the ground bleeding and the paramedics say "WHAT HAPPENED!?" you say "I was shot!" and not "The strange person wearing all black who escaped down that alley shot me!" Okay, maybe that's exaggerated, but the passive voice sentence is still more to the point and a more direct response than "Some guy shot me!"

There might be multiple agents, or the agent could be ambiguous or hard to define. Like "The criminal was incarcerated after the trial" instead of "The judge sentenced the criminal who was then brought to the jail by guards and locked up by the warden," and again, in this case, the agent is not important at all, if you're focusing on the criminal. In this case the reader doesn't care about the judge and the guards and the warden. They're not important to the meaning of the sentence. It doesn't sound evasive, it's just to the point.

Shouldn't it be, "I'm sorry Lyger, I'm afraid I can't let you correct that"?

The MiWo

I think this is unanimous.