I recently read an article online about
the use of passive voice. And the article was really interesting in
that it criticized the critics of passive voice. Or rather, what the
general public has come to perceive as the passive voice.
Now, my own connection, if you will, to
the concept of the passive voice goes back to my junior year of high
school, when I became the editor-in-chief of our school's newspaper.
We had a new adviser that year and she had more journalistic
tendencies than any of our previous advisers. She taught me that in
journalism, passive voice is to be avoided like the plague (likewise
with the cliches). Why? Well, because passive voice is weak, whereas
active voice is powerful and portrays interesting action, which is
necessary for a newspaper. So in my editing I became more watchful
for passive voice, though I couldn't help but continue believing that
if it read well, that is, if it sounded good, should it really matter
if it was passive or active?
The article (which can be found here:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/03/22/active_resistance/)
makes a similar point. In fact, the writer states “All good writers
use passive voice”. And I tend to agree. There are several benefits
to be had from passive voice. For one thing, it can help to vary the
sentence structure, phrase length, and even the cadence of a
sentence. For another, using the passive voice helps to place
emphasis on the object of the action, rather than the subject, and in
certain cases, that is more useful for the writer than avoiding
passive voice simply because it's the “in thing” to do.
The author of the article points out a
schism which has developed between the technical and the popular
definition of passive voice. It is somewhat humorous to note how the
popular definition is often used by people (ho, ho, passive voice
usage!) in a snarky manner to point out the error in others' speech,
or more often writing, when they themselves are not technically
defining it accurately.
And here's something else to think
about. How important is accuracy? Both in speech and in writing? I'd
say that it's pretty important. In fact it's somewhat of a running
joke with my friends and me, all this “accuracy”. I think one
should always strive to be accurate, but it is not necessarily the
end of the world if someone has incorrect usage (for example, we all
use “hopefully” incorrectly, it actually means “with hope”,
but at this point, pointing that out is just being nit picky; though
I suppose, one could always just say “with any luck”, which
really is what everyone means when they say “hopefully”, but I
digress). But if someone points out the inaccuracies in others
constantly, it really becomes annoying, so perhaps at times it is
best to simply allow colloquialism to prevail.
For those of you who know Assassin's
Creed (courtesy of http://sassycreed.tumblr.com/):
Anonymous asked: Why is Leonardo such a grammer nazi?
In high school I always got the old school grammar snoots -- senior year I got this hip newfangled English teacher that basically tried to reverse educate us on all the old views of grammar.
ReplyDeleteWe read this one article about how many of these rules are fading away. Some of it is still used in British English (ex: you should say "and you are" instead of "who are you") but we all know if we ask someone "and you are" it's going to sound snooty and fake (hence the name grammar snoot). I think it's like a continuous attempt to separate the two cultures (the original reason for the separate American and British English dialects). Also, Europe and America do have a lot of cultural differences along with different norms and social mores.
Like you said, it's important to focus on the rules so it's readable... I agree. While language lovers take it a step further and support their reasoning for each rule down to a science and are very passionate about it, the rest of the world doesn't always see it as they do. On the other side, we could dig a little deeper and find something non-grammar enthusiasts are particularly devoted to that grammar enthusiasts aren't.
This reminds me of my junior year of College English, which was taught by a teacher nearing retiring age who was very set in his way. Mr. Friant's class was so much of its own category that we all called it "Friantology." He somehow convinced the school to give him funds each year to purchase 1980s era "JERE" SAT prep books, of which we would spend the entire period discussing how to properly dissect English and pick apart any and all flaws within the exercises. (In fact, I'm pretty sure I remember him saying that he professionally grades essays for SAT prep companies.)
ReplyDeleteWhen we wrote essays, we would automatically be deducted half of a grade letter for using passive voice, even when the essays were beautifully written and made perfect sense in their contexts.
To me, the issue lies in not being able to take concepts away from the written piece. If you can understand what the writer is saying, who cares if there are minor flaws or if it is written in passive voice?