Writing in the Passive Voice?

APPROVED

BLUF: 

• Passive-voice sentences that omit the actor are always shorter and tidier than their active-voice counterparts. Hooray!

• If the actor needs to be specified, then, for crying out loud, put it in.

• After that, I don't really care if you use the active voice or not. Just make it good.

This article satisfies Squid Commo Objective #3: Clarify and simplify the rules.

The rule "use the active voice" and its slightly more indulgent sibling "prefer the active voice" are monkeys on the backs of business and military writers, two professions where grammar bullies skulk and scupper in abundance. I was even told at an Army school I attended that a former Chief of Staff of the Army actually tried outlawing the use of passive voice entirely. 

The trouble is that, even though passive-voice-infested bureaucratese is one of the most hideous forms of communication, the passive voice is not always wrong. In fact, it's often the better choice, and (surprise!) in some cases the passive voice is the only way to say something and have it make sense. 

The solution to bad writing isn't to avoid the passive voice. What we really want to avoid are clumsy, vague, wordy, and otherwise poorly written sentences. Sometimes that means preferring the passive voice.

Be Verb + Past Participle = Be Verb + Adjective

Briefly, passive voice happens when an actor has passed an action on to a receiver. But the sentence describing it uses the receiver as the subject, not the actor. This is accomplished by employing a be verb with the past tense of the verb describing the action. We call this verb form a past participle.

For example, here are some Squid Approved! passive-voice sentences that I think are just fine. 

Now consider the active-voice counterparts to the Squid Approved! sentences above, with the actor inserted as the subject.

As you can see, active voice didn't improve a thing. And farthermore, it is not true that active voice is inherently less wordy and less clumsy. But notice what all six sentences have in common: Including the actors was completely unnecessary.

Now brace yourselves.

All past participles of transitive verbs* fundamentally qualify as adjectives. So passive-voice sentences like those above are equivalent to saying "You are ugly" or "I am handsome." They stand up all by themselves just fine and are always (always!) shorter and cleaner than their active-voice counter parts. 

Passive Voice 1, Active Voice 0.

Now do you get it? The culprit in all this is the actor. And therein lies the bottom-line basis for regulating the use of passive voice.

Here's the Big Takeaway

In the end, what makes passive voice potentially evil is its use in situations where the actor needs to be identified. I can think of two general cases—one that definitely needs correcting and one that might.

This fails to specify exactly who will be doing the clearing and who will be doing the occupying. It's not a PUG issue, though. It's a personnel issue. Get you some smarter people.

This might be okay. It's wordier and, I think, clumsier than the active counterpart, "Mrs. Harris's dog bit John." But it's a matter of emphasis. Perhaps we're emphasizing John, because John might need our sympathy right now.

Or, if you're like me and hate Mrs. Harris's dog, you might want to emphasize that little abomination's role in John's misfortune. That would call for the active voice.

Additionally, a rule prohibiting Case 2 passive constructions would require exceptions. For example, the red flag goes up with "Bill was smitten by Barb." But the active-voice counterpart, "Barb smote Bill," is of no help, since it changes the meaning.***

__________