In Defense of Passive Voice — A Grammar Geek Goes Rogue

Summary

The article "In Defense of Passive Voice — A Grammar Geek Goes Rogue" discusses the author's conflict with the grammar rule against using passive voice, arguing for its value in conveying complex meanings and narrative depth.

Abstract

The author, who identifies as a grammar geek with a general respect for rules, challenges the blanket prohibition against the use of passive voice in writing. Despite acknowledging that many style manuals discourage its use, the author points out that passive voice is employed in famous quotes and can add layers of meaning that active voice cannot. As a psychologist, the author appreciates the nuances that passive voice brings, suggesting that it can imply underlying currents and invite the reader to explore a more intricate story. The article defends the passive voice as a tool that, while sometimes imprecise, can be effective in creating mystery and depth, contrasting the starkness of active voice admissions like "I made a mistake" with the more ambiguous and inviting "Mistakes were made."

Opinions

The author has a fundamental respect for rules but admits to breaking some, particularly when it comes to the use of passive voice.
The author finds the rule against ending sentences with prepositions acceptable in formal writing but rejects it in less formal contexts.
Passive voice is seen as having its own place and value, with the author arguing that it should not be dismissed or overly restricted.
The author believes that passive voice can change the core meaning of a sentence and that it is not interchangeable with active voice.
Passive voice is defended for its ability to create a sense of mystery and complexity, which the author finds appealing and engaging for the reader.
The author cites Krista Ratcliffe's argument that passive voice can obscure accountability, further emphasizing its potential to intrigue and involve the reader in the narrative.
The author suggests that the imprecision of passive voice is not a weakness but a strength, as it encourages further inquiry and thought.
The article concludes with a playful acknowledgment that rules, including those against passive voice, may sometimes be broken, hinting at the author's rebellious side when it comes to grammar conventions.

In Defense of Passive Voice — A Grammar Geek Goes Rogue

I like to think of myself as a grammar geek. Rules, in general, mostly give me comfort. They give me the illusion of order and reason in this chaotic, random world. They help me sleep at night. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve broken a few rules in my time, but generally, I’m the kind of girl who would stop at the stop light in the middle of the night on a deserted road, just because, well, the light is red. Blame it on my catholic school upbringing, or my fundamental respect for authority, or my naturally compliant temperament, but I tend to think, or want to think that rules are in place for a reason.

But every now and then there is a rule I just cannot make peace with. Clearly, as just evidenced, one is ‘never end a sentence with a preposition.’ I am ok with that one in my formal academic writing. But here, I just could not make myself change that to “ . . . a rule with which I just cannot make peace.” Ewwww! That’s just wrong on levels I cannot even explain.

Hands down, the biggest rule I love to hate is ‘do not use passive voice.’ Happily this is not a hard and fast prohibition, though some grammar bullies will impose it as such.

It does pain me that some of the best style manuals highly discourage its use. But, to be fair, passive voice has its supporters, or at least tolerators, and many famous quotes use the convention. Case in point:

For of those to whom much is given, much is required.

— JFK and Luke 12:48

Being a psychologist, I am always looking for the complexities and underlying meaning in everything. And passive voice insinuates undercurrent. To me, to be forced to change a sentence from passive to active voice, is to change its core meaning.

“Mistakes were made” is so fundamentally different from “I made a mistake.” Of course, each has its appropriate place. But never, ever are they a substitute for one another for me.

“Mistakes were made” is so deep and nebulous that it sucks me in. It’s dark and twisty. There’s room for a big complicated story with many sides and tangled webs in there. Kinda like life.

In her book on rhetoric, Marquette University professor Krista Ratcliffe argues that “passive voice mystifies accountability by erasing who or what performs an action” (p. 94). Exactly! It’s that mystery that pulls the reader in further.

Passive voice has been criticized for being imprecise. My response — “Why yes! Yes it is!” That’s its beauty. That’s its glory. That’s what makes me want to know more.

My response to “Mistakes were made” is, “Oh, reeeeallllyyyy?” with a raised eyebrow. “Do tell.”

Whereas, “I made a mistake” just elicits “Oh well. Everybody does. Suck it up buttercup and get over it.”

Maybe I’m being unfair. Maybe I am just over-analytical. It’s an occupational hazard.

But maybe, just maybe . . . rules will be broken.