Thread: Is there a passive voice expert in the house?

I’d like to use the following sentence in a story, except that it’s passive voice:

“Fifteen months on, the idea of a fortnight’s vacation for Tarquin was proposed.”

If that sentence had “by management” tacked on the end, it would be a simple matter to switch the sentence around so that it becomes, “Fifteen months on, management proposed the idea of a fortnight’s vacation for Tarquin,” and thereby eliminate the passive voice.

But I have a plan for a following sentence explaining how management was NOT involved in this decision-making process, a sentence which CAN’T be changed, and as a result can’t include “by management” in that first sentence.

I suppose I could simply leave it as it is and to heck with the rules.

But on the off-chance someone might see a way out of the mess, I decided to ask around.

What do you think?

What rules? Passive voice is fine, you just don't want to over-use it. If you write entirely in active voice the tone of the piece can be too overbearing, passive voice softens this and makes it more palatable to read.

I don't know what I'd do without you, Foxee.

“Fifteen months on, the idea of a fortnight’s vacation for Tarquin was proposed.”

Can I ask what the next sentence is? Context and all that.

I don't think the passive voice in your demonstrated sentence sounds bad. Especially if you started the next sentence something like "Management had nothing to do with the decision..."

There's no need to change the sentence unless it remains unclear about who did the proposal.

Several times I have explained in these boards the value of the passive voice. The sentence is fine as it is. It provides both the information and the effect needed.

In broadcast news writing the dominant voice should be active, but the passive is essential in pacing the story. I've noted the same thing in good fiction.

Originally Posted by Candra H

Can I ask what the next sentence is? Context and all that.

No. (Starseed got it half-right.)

Why was the road crossed by the chicken? has a different emphasis, it puts the causal relationship between the chicken and the road rather than between the chicken and what is on the other side, or some other third factor. It is not grammatically incorrect, if it is used appropriately it is not wrong in any other way either, as I see it.

Now a year removed from my last high school English course, I can honestly say I don't ever think about passive or active voice any more. Whichever reads better for the sentence is what I use.

Overusing passive voice could, I suppose, lead to a very detached, long-range narrative, which is probably why people say don't use it. In practice though, you shouldn't ever have to worry about this as you'll probably be using active most of the time anyway.

Originally Posted by Vertigo

Now a year removed from my last high school English course, I can honestly say I don't ever think about passive or active voice any more. Whichever reads better for the sentence is what I use.

Thanks. That about sums it up, I guess.

Originally Posted by The Backward OX

No.

Fine, go stick then.

Without a Subject, you can't change from one voice to another.

For Example:

"He was stabbed in the Heart."
This cannot be converted until and unless you add a "by Brutus" in the end.
So, it Becomes "He was stabbed in the Heart by Brutus."

And this becomes, "Brutus stabbed him in the Heart."

(Advantages of having Advance Communication in College )