Quote:
Originally Posted by stickybuns
Actually, it is a common misperception that there is something inherently wrong with using the passive voice. Depending on the modality of writing, the passive voice can be more correct than the active voice. For instance, in a scientific journal article, the writer's goal is to emphasize the research itself rather than the researcher. The writer must use the passive voice to accomplish this task: "The specimen was placed in a ceramic beaker containing 30 ml of tap water. The temperature of the water was slowly raised until it reached a boiling point." No one really cares that it was Underpaid Lab Assistant Joe Blow who actually did the placing and temperature upping; his participation in the experiment is superfluous information so using the active voice would result in an inaccurate overemphasis of his importance.
|
Fully agree with you. This dislike of the passive voice is a very recent phenomenon, and IMO, reflects the general dumbing-down of education. Passive voice is not a reflection of 'foggy thinking' - on the contrary, correct use of the passive voice requires a high degree of language proficiency. Learning a language begins with the active voice - this is why children frequently make inanimate objects 'come alive' so they can 'speak' - and use of the passive voice requires a high level of skill, which for children learning English, rarely occurs before the age of 5 years, and usually takes until the age of about 8–9 years to be mastered.
As Stickybuns said, passive voice can sometimes be far more appropriate, even in fiction - it can be a very effective way of taking the narrator out of the story and allowing the reader to put themselves in that position.