Avoiding the "passive voice" .... really?

[HavinAThink]

When I write documents for work, Microsoft Word underlines, and tells me I should "consider revising", sentences that are in the passive voice (e.g. HR will be the first department to be provided with the new ID cards).

Normally I ignore it, but today I googled it, and it turns out many people (though possibly just in the US) have been told by their teachers and lecturers that good writing uses the active voice not the passive voice.

Surely that's bollocks? My DCs were taught the difference between the active and passive voice, but as far as I know they weren't told that one is superior to the other, and neither was I when I was at school.

I'm about to change my MS Word settings so I don't need to be bothered by it again. AIBU?

Unimaginative, you're right, of course. My point is that there are times when using a passive construction works well and is admirably clear- there's no hard and fast rule.

Ah but 'the helicopters were flown in' could also be in the passive to hide something... For example if it were in a report where someone else wanted to make it look like they had arranged for the helicopters.

E.g.The Red Cross were active on the ground handing out supplies. Helicopters were flown in....

The reader assumes the helicopters were from the Red Cross because they have been given no other reference. Despite the fact the helicopters may have been sent by Joe Blogs...

Passive voice is very powerful - particularly in reporting and used to mislead...

In other words context... V. important.

The passive voice exists for a reason. The problem is that people overuse it and it can sound very jargony.

But there are times when it's exactly the right thing. Imagine if newspapers reporting the assassination of JFK had written "A man has assassinated President Kennedy..." rather than "President Kennedy has been assassinated..."

I can't speak for business documents, but I see no reason that the passive voice should be considered inferior. In lots of situations it is the obvious thing to use - i.e. when the person/thing doing the action is either unknown or less important. For example:

"The church was built in 1783". Who built it? Don't know, don't care!

"The man was spotted escaping from the scene..." By whom? Not important.

In any case, the passive in no way prevents you from stating who's doing the action. "Hard hats must be worn.... by all people on site, including visitors".

It may not be the done thing to use the passive in 'corporate speak', but that doesn't mean the rest of us shouldn't use it. I'm a linguist and a teacher. I've never taught (or been taught) that the passive should be avoided. It is very common in English - more than in some other languages.

I didn't say the active voice was 'better', I said it was almost always better.

Of course there are times you need it ('the church was built' is a perfect example) - but a lot of the time, people use it to be obfuscatory, hedging, or even plain dishonest, which is why in academic writing in particular, the active is almost always clearer, more direct, and more honest - which are generally things I would have thought people want writing to be!

I work in governance and use the passive voice as it is the perfect vehicle for obscuring accountability. As all Minutes are public documents, they are increasingly opaque and producing these is an art form (and industry) in itself.

I think the active voice is better for brevity and clarity, but that is not always the desired aim of a document

I'm a professional editor and IMHO the advice is too broad. There are contexts where the passive voice is more appropriate - using the active voice for everything, regardless of context, can lead to a 'dumbing-down' effect.

Re "show, don't tell", I pinned the attached advice a while ago.

Microsoft drives me MAD. I'm a PA in a private specialist's practice (several, actually, as I temp). Many clinic letters and all medicolegal reports use the passive a lot and Microsoft keeps suggesting it should be changed - I probably waste ages, when spellchecking documents, pressing the ignore button.

mrsjoyful - One of the first things I do when I'm working on a major document in Word is to turn off spelling and grammar checking, as it's mainly a pointless distraction.

I was going to say I don't think you can turn it off permanently, but I've just had a look and noticed you can set this for all new documents (but not all existing documents I assume).

Yep, I turn off the spelling and grammar checker too. It's intrusive, annoying and not always right. Plus it's very unhelpful when you are writing a document in more than one language!

In creative writing the active voice is much more immediate and powerful

It has changed in Science writing. Active voice now preferred.

Guide to authors by Nature

Nature journals prefer authors to write in the active voice ("we performed the experiment...") as experience has shown that readers find concepts and results to be conveyed more clearly if written directly. We have also found that use of several adjectives to qualify one noun in highly technical language can be confusing to readers. We encourage authors to "unpackage" concepts and to present their findings and conclusions in simply constructed sentences.

*TheNavigator: I work in governance and use the passive voice as it is the perfect vehicle for obscuring accountability. As all Minutes are public documents, they are increasingly opaque and producing these is an art form (and industry) in itself.

I think the active voice is better for brevity and clarity, but that is not always the desired aim of a document grin*

I am a lawyer who works in compliance. Increasingly, regulators are requiring organisations to document their risk assessment processes. I would agree with the above use of the passive voice to obscure responsibility.

Personally, for business clarity and process improvement, I much prefer the active voice. I find the passive voice shifty and is designed to disguise transparency and accountability. Some people do it unwittingly but for others, it is deliberate and is a red flag for me when I read something like that to question further.

Passive voice in an email is also a good way to take credit for something you did not do by mentioning an achievement and keeping the actors vague.

@DadDadDad and that's how it should be - the writer should do the heavy lifting, not the reader.

I do lots of 'tone' work in organisations and to be honest many of them care not a jot - until I say something like, 'how long do you spend dealing with your inbox? How would you feel if this work could reduce that time by a quarter?' It's the biggest 'buying hook' I have.

I take your point, Lonny. It's a trade-off: if I spend 15 minutes editing an email so it takes 5 people 5 minutes less time to read, then it's worth it (assuming their time is as valuable as mine ).

And of course, the trade off is even greater if those 15 minutes mean that none of the 5 misunderstand or need clarification.

And indeed if it drives the required action - but that's my advanced course

@villageshop - the reason that's not quite right is because the sentence in its current form isn't about the cat's feelings, it's about the mouse's actions. "Frightened" is being used as the past tense of the verb "to frighten", not as an adjective. The mouse is frightening the cat - it's about what the mouse is doing. If the key thing you want to convey is what the cat is feeling, then you want to rework the sentence so it's about feeling, not about frightening.

"The cat was frightened by the mouse" is passive, because "frighten" is the verb, and the cat is the object.
"The cat felt frightened by the mouse" is active, because "felt" is the verb and the cat is the subject.

Thank you, Pants, that's very interesting. I think I see what you mean. Basically I think you're saying it's better to rework the sentence to be active while still conveying the intended meaning, rather than using a passive sentence to convey the same.

Yikes, I'm not sure that conveyed anything. It's late and maybe a couple of glasses of wine are not helping... I need to do some reading up on this.