Told you so: Use active voice!

I’ve told you that you should use active voice as much as possible. Here’s some reinforcement from Lori Mortimer:

Use the active voice. Instead of saying, "The running back was tackled by the linebacker," say, "The linebacker tackled the running back." The passive voice moves the actor (subject) away from the action (verb) and makes it seem like the whole world sits around waiting for something to happen.

She calls it "absolutely vital."  Can’t argue with that.

Comments

[David]

>"Use the active voice as much as possible."

For a brief explanation of one reason why that isn't good advice, go here: http://www.lucidprose.com/tip_activevoice.html .

For other and more detailed explanations, see Joseph M. Williams, "Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace," and George Gopen, "Expectations: Teaching Writing from the Reader's Perspective."

Rather than "Use the active voice as often as you can," I would suggest: "Use the active voice as often as you should." And by exactly the same token, "Use the passive voice as often as you should." The trick, of course, is knowing when you should.

[Roy Jacobsen]

David,

Thanks for pointing out the article on Precision Plain English. It raises some good points. However... (You knew that was coming, didn't you?)

Even in the example Mr. Thomasson points to in Williams' Style, I think you could end up with the basic sentence structure Willams advises using active voice. The sentence he shows is "A black hole is created by the collapse of a dead star into a point perhaps no larger than a marble." I agree that this is preferable to the other one, given that the surrounding material is all about black holes. But it's not better because it uses passive voice; it's better because it makes black holes the subject of the sentence, rather than the object. I think you could write it so black holes are the subject, while using active voice, like this: "A black hole forms when a dead star collapses into a point perhaps no larger than a marble."

I stand by my advice, because I think people tend to use passive far more than they should. I seldom see writing that exemplifies the over-use of active voice. I do admit that I appreciate your use of "should" in your version. And saying that the trick is knowing when to use either active or passive is spot on.

[David]

Roy,

Here is what Williams says: "Unreflective critics of style relentlessly urge us to avoid the passive, because it requires an extra word and because it encourages impersonality. In general, that's not bad advice, but like so many other bits of standard advice, it is often wrong. Often, the passive is the better choice."

In disagreeing with your advice ("Use the active voice as much as possible") I am disagreeing with the idea that good writing can be reduced to simple rules and pat forumlas. Williams' point is that although it is possible in many instances to use the active voice, it isn't always advisable to do so. The decision whether to use or not use the passive requires thought, not a rule.

Take your counterexample: You say that the sentence "A black hole is created by the collapse of a dead star into a point perhaps no larger than a marble" could be converted to active voice thus: "A black hole forms when a dead star collapses into a point perhaps no larger than a marble." The problem is that in slavishly adhering to the active voice, you lose sight of what the first sentence conveys that the second does not: a causal relation. Black holes don't just form; they are formed *by* something. The first sentence makes that something clear; the second is ambiguous on that point. Note that you dropped the word "create" and substituted "form" to make your active example work. Try it without the substitution and I think you'll see the problem.

[Roy Jacobsen]

David,
I think we're talking past each other a bit, and I apologize for not making my point clearer.

I'm not disagreeing with your points that sometimes passive voice is better, and that good writing can't be reduced to pat formulas. When I first wrote about active and passive voice on this blog, I mentioned a number of reasons why you would use passive voice (see that piece here: http://rmjacobsen.squarespace.com/notebook/2005/9/17/passive-aggressive-part-2.html ). I agree that there are no pat formulas here, which is why I listed those exceptions to the principle.

My intent with the alternative black hole sentence was to show that it wasn't merely the use of passive voice that made Williams' second example preferable to the first, not to prove that active voice was the best choice here. It wasn't a "slavish adherence;" I was just trying to show that there was more than one way to make "black hole" the subject of the sentence. There are a number of other words that could be used in the place of "is created" or "forms" that would render largely the same meaning. For example, "A black hole comes into being when a dead star collapses..." (I want to emphasize that I'm not saying the active voice "forms when a dead star collapses" is better than the passive "is created by the collapse of a dead star." I'm just pointing out the alternative.)

As far as the causal relationship you mention, we could quibble about this all day, but I think that "[A] forms when [B] occurs" at the very least strongly implies causation. Why mention [B] if it's unrelated?

Finally, I still stand by my statement that passive voice is used inappropriately far more than active voice is, and that as a GENERAL PRINCIPLE, and not an absolute rule, "Use active voice" will serve most people quite well.

[David]

Roy,

I think this exchange would never have occurred had you said what you meant to say rather than what you did say. My objection was and is to your statement -- which you "stood by" before you stood away from it -- to use the active voice "as much as possible." Well, since it is *always* possible to change the passive voice to active, the plain meaning of that advice is an absolute: Never use the passive voice. Now, at last, you say that you really meant to state "a GENERAL PRINCIPLE, and not an absolute rule [that] 'Use active voice' will serve most people quite well."

By the way, your view of most people is a bit lower than mine. At one point you acknowledged that "the trick is knowing when to use either active or passive." I believe that most people are capable of learning that trick. Why not use your site to teach it to them rather than dispense bumper-sticker slogans such as "use active voice"?

Some of your comments are simply puzzling. But so as not to prolong this fruitless exchange, let me mention only this parenthetical remark as an example: "(I want to emphasize that I'm not saying the active voice 'forms when a dead star collapses' is better than the passive 'is created by the collapse of a dead star.' I'm just pointing out the alternative.)"

What puzzles me is why you go galloping after such an obvious straw man. I never suggested that there wasn't an alternative to the passive. The purpose of revision isn't merely to change writing but to make it better. This whole discussion was prompted by your claim that people would improve their writing by using the active "as much as possible." And now you emphasize that you're not suggesting that active is better than passive in this instance. We do seem to be talking past one another.

I will conclude -- and I do mean conclude -- with some unsolicited advice: In your own mind, characterize your intended audience more carefully and keep them in view when you write. If you think, as you seem to do, that "most people" either don't need or can't digest anything more discerning than "Use active voice," stick to that level of advice and resist the temptation to draw distinctions. Once you begin qualifying simple phrases, you're inviting your readers to think -- and you see where that has got us.

In short, I think that you are ambivalent about "Clear and Simple" versus "Clear and Simplistic." The former can accommodate advice and discussion more sophisticated than bumper-sticker slogans; the latter cannot.

[Roy Jacobsen]

David,

Actually, from my perspective, this whole "discussion" was prompted by you apparently wishing to make mountains of stylistic molehills: "Use active voice as much as possible" vs. "Use active voice as much as you should;" and "a black hole is created by..." vs. "a black hole forms when..."

I have pointed out in a more detailed article (which I linked in my original post, linked again in one of my replies to you) that it isn't always possible to use active voice without muddling up what you really want to say; I have provide examples of when you should use passive voice. Apparently, that's not good enough for you; every time I mention active and passive voice, I need a detailed disquisition.

Simplistic is insisting that "it is *always* possible to change the passive voice to active." On second thought, that isn't simplistic. It's the same sort of arrant nonsense as "never end a sentence with a preposition." Other arrant nonsense is believing that readers will conclude that "Use active voice as much as possible" means exactly the same as "Always use active voice."

Simplistic, on the other hand, is concluding that my opinion of people is lower than yours based on an exchange in the comments of a blog. Since we're dispensing unsolicited advice, here's some for you: Don't try to psychoanalyze people through text messages, and if you really want to have a discussion, drop the condescending tone.