This week Jan Freeman’s article in the Sunday Globe, “Active Resistance”, blasted its way through English language enthusiasts’ long-held belief that “[passive voice is] shifty and craven, weak and flabby.”

Maybe we should give ole p.v. a break, Freeman suggests (”Do we have any idea what we’re talking about?”), noting that we all succumb to passive’s agonizingly seductive power sometimes.  Even George Orwell used passive voice–while complaining about how bad it is!

So, I’m with Freeman.  Let’s take some TNT to the stodgy, crustified Man’s ways! Starting with some of literature’s greatest active voices.

Behold, the mighty passive:

“Ishmael is what I’m called.”

“Romeo, Romeo.  Wherefore art thou Romeo?  Thy father and name should be refused by you.  Or, if they won’t be [here the Bard uses some passiveness of his own, the sly fox!], be but sworn my love and Capulet won’t be my name anymore.”

“Lo-lee-ta: three steps are taken by the tip of the tongue…”

“Please sir, more is wanted by me.”

“Mrs. Dalloway said the flowers would be bought by her.”

“My gulliver was tolchocked…”

At any rate, I liked the first comment to the article, re: passive voice abuser/addict Ronald Reagan (mentioned in the article for his famous non-apology for Iran Contra):

“Would it have sounded better if he’d said, ‘Mr. Gorbachev, we need to have this wall removed?’”

Yes, yes it would have. In fact, with a little passivity, the Cold War might have been ended sooner, too.

Tags:   Alexis · Boston Globe · grammar · revolution · writing habitsNo Comments