This is something that has always confused me when I write in Microsoft Word. It would underline an entire sentence, telling me that it is written in a passive voice, and recommend that I write it in an active voice. So when I looked up what passive/active voices were in writing, I now ask myself if there is a proper balance between the two. I noticed that my story is heavily written in a passive voice and very little with an active voice. It's not only me, but a few of my friends also write excessively in a passive voice. I wonder why that is? Is this bad? I always thought that sentences like: "The spider was eaten by the bird." or "The bird was shot by the hunter." were better than the shorter "The bird ate the spider." and "The hunter shot the bird." At least in the example I gave, the shorter version seems a bit more plain and too straightforward? Maybe I'm missing the bigger picture here... What do you guys think? What are the pros and cons of active/passive writing? Is one better than the other? When should one be used over the other?
The received wisdom is that active voice is preferable most of the time precisely because it's more straightforward. It's more efficient (fewer words), and it's clearer and more direct. The passive voice has very little energy; try writing a fight scene or something with the passive voice. It will be lame. Of course the passive voice is very useful sometimes, for example when it is desired that the agent's identity in the sentence remain unknown. There's a reason it exists, but it shouldn't be overused when the active voice would do just as well.
I think the problem with passive voice is it's boring. I agree it's fine to use at times, but most beginning writers tend to use it too much and more importantly they don't understand what it is or the difference between passive and active voice. To become a strong writer you need to learn these kinds of things, and when you understand it then you can decide what to use when. I agree that there are no real rules, at least not in the sense some people interpret that term—meaning iron-clad laws you must always follow or go to writing jail. Instead they're guidelines. It's more like "These are things that work really well and you should learn about them so you can use them when appropriate, so your writing isn't limited by ignorance." Too much passive voice makes it feel like you're looking out a window at trees gently swaying in the wind, rather than an engaging story taking shape. It's the difference between a lazy afternoon in the sun just lazing in a chair on the deck with some lemonade, and a day hiking or exploring some ancient ruins. They're both great, but you have to be aware of the differences and know when to use one and when the other.
I also want to say, just reading a description of the difference between active and passive voice isn't the same as knowing it. It's like learning a language—just being able to understand other people when they speak it doesn't mean you can speak it yourself. I think this is why it's recommended people write a lot in active voice, showing rather than telling, in order to really come to understand it. Because you don't really know a language until you can speak it well yourself. And that requires a good deal of time spent using it, just like it took you years as a child to learn to speak your language really well.
I view this topic from an "external" perspective because my native language does not use passive voice (only as a neologist construct borrowed over). I tend to also write without it - or at least I perceive so. The main issue I see with passive voice is the repeated beat in the rhythm of sentences. Passive relies on an auxiliary verb and the perfect form - I already loathe past and continuous tenses for loading up my sentences with extra, repeating words; passive doubles down on this. Highlights are "fake passive" sentences; any where you use the word "by" after the passive - that's yet another repeating filler word forced into your sentence by English grammar that you could easily avoid with active voice. Worst of all, these auxiliary verbs + additions clutter together. The chandelier was lowered by the servants that flocked in. The servants flocked in and lowered the chandelier. The reason Hungarian scarcely uses passive is similar, except for the detail that the auxiliary verb separates the verb from the adverb (that we have for most verbs) and lodges inbetween, and that the "by" is sent to the end of the sentence as a longer word. The above in my native tongue: A csillár le lett eresztve a belépő szolgák által. A belépő szolgák leeresztették a csillárt. Way uglier, rather obviously. Hence the full-out avoidance. Now all the above's my take and perception on passive voice which also means I don't mind passive being used every now and then - it has its place, just like adverbs do, or prologues in some cases, whatever.
I see. I guess I fell into the trap of 'the more words I put, the better my writing is.' This is starting to make sense the more I look at my current story. I completely agree! Looking back at what I have written, it does seem a bit plain and lame. I was under the impression that if I was too direct and straightforward with the fight, it would end too quickly. I usually get stuck on trying to explain what happened rather than just say what happened. I should find a way out of that... This is very helpful to know, and I truly appreciate it. I agree, passive writing, at least in some instances, can be very boring and not very informative for the reader. I didn't think I was a beginner writer, but after seeing many mistakes and flaws in my writing, it seems I'm not as good as I thought I was either. This is great because I can only continue to learn and avoid making novice mistakes in the future. Furthermore, I think I'm stuck in a mindset where I need to write how some authors do because that's how to properly write a story. It's ignorant on my part, now that I think about it... Looking back at my older works, I have improved a lot, but looking at my current work, I can see I still need to iron out the habits that stayed. I think you're right when you say it's more like guidelines rather than rules.
THIS. THIS is literally the main issue I see in my writing! I feel like all my sentences, no matter how I write them, always fall in the same 'beat/rhythm.' Even during the action scenes! I've always felt that my writing, although not terrible, isn't spicy enough to catch the reader's attention, at least not for long. I could never put my finger on it, but this is actually the best way to put it. I always start with the same group of words or sentences, and even when I try to break out of it, it seems sloppy or rushed.
There’s definitely a time an place for passive The hunter crept through the bushes, eschewing the loud orange safety vest those city slickers used. The tall blades of switch grass grazed across his stubble. Finally he sighted it, the partridge, head up an alert, but not yet spooked. The hunter brought the gun up to his cheek, squinted down the rusty iron sights, and boom! The bird was blown away by the hunter. HORRIBLE use of passive voice. next example: The peacock saw his quarry, the young buxom hen that had been teasing him all week. Unaware of the hunter in the blind, he spread his glorious feathers, strutted towards his prize, began to mount the finally subdued hen, and boom! The bird was blown away by the hunter. Okay so neither is great prose, but the passive voice matches the second example much better because the subject of the sentence matches the main focus of the paragraph. The hunter blew away the bird I think is an inferior option there, but not dramatically inferior.
That isn't necessarily always because of passive voice. It's important to learn to vary your sentences in several ways. For length—use short, mid and long sentences. Also vary the placement of the subject, verb, object, and adverbial or adjectival phrases. If you always use Subject, Verb, Object it comes out like this: The boy ran with the dog. The birds flew overhead. The wind blew. Clouds drifted across the sky, and then his mother called him in for lunch. By varying sentence length and the placement of the various parts of speech you can get a lot more variety and create a pleasing rhythm: It was an extremely pleasant day. Fleecy white clouds drifted lazily across the endless blue sky and birds flocked and frolicked overhead. Even Rover woke up and found enough energy to come galumphing out into the long field next to Johnnie's house as he ran back and forth pretending to be various different animals. A horse—rearing up whinnying and neighing and charging straight ahead. A monkey—chittering while waving his arms loosely overhead. A crocodile, almost laying flat on his belly and dragging himself over the short fresh-cut grass. While he was a dragon, roaring in a terrifying voice and spewing invisible fire out of his mouth all around, his mom slid open the deck door and called him in for lunch. And one thing I do to help with sentence rhythm is to imagine it being read aloud by a really excellent actor. Usually an English one with a Sir in front of their name like Patrick Stewart, or Peter O'Toole, or maybe James Earl Jones. Or just actually read it aloud yourself, which is probably better.
That’s definitely a trap. More words only add to a story if the words add propositions, or passion, or vibrancy, or descriptiveness. here’s what I mean by propositions: Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water. this sentences proposes a number of items to the reader: There is a person named jack There is a person named Jill There is a hill There is a pail There is water on the hill The water can be fetched with the pail Jack and Jill are taking that pail up the hill to get the water Most of this is so obvious we don’t really break it down. But to agree with you further about not falling into the trap, adding more words without adding propositions is not great: The person named Jack joined with the person named Jill to retrieve a pail, take it up a previously unmentioned hill, and collect water from the hill, in the pail obviously. Adding propositions however, can be better: The wind tussled Jack’s red locks as his eyes gazed over Jill’s ample womanly hips, and Jill smiled back, picking the pail from the wet grass, her eyes casting a glance towards the hill, an unspoken invitation for him to accompany her on her chores to retrieve water. It’s a silly example, but you can see the second example doesn’t just add words, it adds propositions, which help add character and feeling.
Lots of good stuff has already been said (he noted passively), so I'll just add one small thing. Sometimes you may want to use the passive voice to emphasize the object of the action rather than the initiator. For instance, The first version puts the emphasis on Bob by placing him right up front, whereas the second one emphasizes the sheriff's (passive) role as the victim. It is a little clunky, though, so should be used sparingly. It works better if you're not naming the action's initiator. (aside: is initiator the right word here? I don't want to say subject. Cause? Meh. You get what I mean, I hope) EDIT: And passive can be quite useful for weaseling out of something by DE-emphasizing the initiator's role, as in the infamous "Mistakes were made." FURTHER EDIT: I just realized that @montecarlo said basically the same thing, and provided more context than I did. But my example was still cooler!
I do read my story aloud and it totally helps. I try to read it in and imagine it setting a tone. If it's not what I like, I usually go back to edit it so it fits. I totally back you up on this, it works! This is a wonderful example and helps me understand what I am doing wrong. I find myself over explaining things and holding the hand of the reader too much, which often leads me to write exclusively in a passive voice. Being more direct cuts out the extra 'fluff' I seem to catch in my writing. The amount of information that one sentence can hold literally cuts paragraphs of fluff and makes the story flow a lot easier.
Sometimes passive is okay, but I think it's best to use active voice whenever possible. In marketing/advertising copywriting, passive voice is a huge no-no. That's the business world, but it's helped me to transfer that idea to my fiction writing. We hear "clear and concise" all the time when it comes to writing. Active voice helps that, IMO.
They're tools, like anything else. I sometimes find passive writing useful for evoking a certain mood. For example, if a character is in shock, and is seeing things happen without really reacting to them or registering what they mean.
Active/passive is often the technical way to describe show/tell in fiction writing. A suggested ratio of show(active) to :tell (passive) is 60:40. I have no idea where I've seen that, but it sticks in my mind.
