This may be coming too late in the competition to do the remaining contestants much good, but I though it may still be useful for future contestants. My goal here is to clarify advice on the use of passives, and thought maybe the thread could grow beyond that into something useful about good writing.
There has been a lot of advice bandied about in the form of "avoid passive" and "you used too much passive voice; don't do that". Which is not necessarily to say that the sentences that elicited the advice were perfect, but that advice on its own does not provide much specific guidance as to how to proceed.
So first, what is a passive?
Simply, it is an auxiliary + a past participle.
My car was destroyed by an elephant. ('was' is an auxiliary; 'destroyed' is a past participle)
The auxiliary is frequently a form of 'to be,' but it does not have to be -
My car got destroyed by an elephant.
This is a perfectly good passive sentence, but does not use any form of the verb to be, anywhere. A rule to avoid 'to be' would not catch this sentence. To be honest though, I wouldn't use it in formal writing either.
Passives differ from actives in the focus of the action of the verb. In the passive sentences above, the sentences are about my car. My inert, rather lifeless car that is just sitting there being destroyed. It's not terribly engaging for a reader to be focused on things that are having things done to them. And this is a very good reason to avoid the passive - it feels passive and dull. Compare the active -
An elephant destroyed my car.
Much better! So why would you ever want to use a passive, when the active is so much more active? To put it differently, why do good writers use passives well, and how can I learn to use them better?
It comes down to focus and what your sentences are about vs what they should be about.
Which of these two sentences sounds better?
1. A black hole is created by the collapse of a dead star into a point perhaps no larger than a marble.
2. The collapse of a dead star into a point perhaps no larger than a marble creates a black hole.
Maybe you prefer the second - it is active, and avoids the passive used in the first.
Now consider them in the context of a short paragraph -
1. Some astonishing questions about the nature of the universe have been raised by scientists exploring the nature of black holes in space. A black hole is created by the collapse of a dead star into a point perhaps no larger than a marble. So much matter compressed into so little volume changes the fabric of space around it in profoundly puzzling ways.
2. Some astonishing questions about the nature of the universe have been raised by scientists exploring the nature of black holes in space. The collapse of a dead star into a point perhaps no larger than a marble creates a black hole. So much matter compressed into so little volume changes the fabric of space around it in profoundly puzzling ways.
Personally I find the second (with the active sentence) to be far more awkward. The ideas don't flow together well at all. In the first, the first sentence ends with mention of a black hole, which is immediately picked up in the second sentence. They work together. This is what good writing should strive for - not to abandon the passive, but to use it when it should be used.
(example borrowed from this book, link goes to Amazon: Williams: Style)
So, to return now to a related point - when is the verb 'to be' not passive? And why might it not be a good idea to lump it together with passive, and avoid them both?
The verb 'to be' is incredibly useful. It is used with adjectives, with nouns, and with verbs, with nary a hint of a passive in sight.
Which is better?
I am hungry. (be + adjective)
I hunger. (verb)
I don't know. Maybe it depends on context, but the second sounds far more pretentious to me. If it's a problem, there may be a different way to fix it than with this verb, but that still avoids the verb 'to be'.
What about this pair?
Darth Vader: "No. I am your father."
Darth Vader: "No. I fathered you."
I can't imagine any way to make the first sentence better - would it have been so powerful or become so iconic without the verb 'to be'?
I have just one last nit to pick, to distinguish the passive from the progressive. Both rely on 'to be' with verbs. Progressives have their use too, but often do create writing that is weak.
Passive:
I was eaten by a bear. (auxiliary + past participle)
Progressive:
I am eating a bear. (auxiliary + present participle)
Note that the forms of the verb are different, and to keep me ("I") as the subject, I had to change who was doing what to whom. Progressives don't focus on things, they focus on ongoing, not-yet-completed actions. Passives are done; the actions detailed by the verb are over, unless they are combined with the progressive, of course. But don't go there lightly ;)
I hope that by knowing what these grammatical forms are, an aspiring writer will more easily learn to master them, and become at least a better writer, if not a great writer.
