That Maligned Passive Voice Has Its Place

English teachers and writing critics warn of the evils of the passive voice. To quote William Zinsser's respected On Writing Well: "The difference between an active-verb style and a passive-verb style--in clarity and vigor--is the difference between life and death for a writer." Wow, that's aggressive about the passive! To be clear, the usual sentence structure is subject-verb-object. (The boy hit the ball.) The passive structure reverses this to make the object of an action into the subject of the sentence. (The ball was hit by the boy.) The passive voice requires use of a form of "to be" with a past participle, and while it is grammatically OK, the passive form is often clunkier, wordier, and less clear. That said, convincing writers that the passive is totally taboo does them a disservice. There are times when the passive voice is the right choice. You may opt for the passive when the object of the action is much more important than the performer of the action, for example. This is especially true in news writing: The shorter headline "Spree Killer Convicted" grabs attention before "Jury Convicts Spree Killer." The passive structure can work fine when the performer of an action is unknown. (Five dogs were adopted last week.)  When the subject/actor is unimportant to the reader, the passive may be preferred. (Our new TV was delivered today.) In dialogue, use of the passive voice also can create an intentional nuance of feeling and motive. For example, a character who speaks in the passive voice may be expressing emotional distance. (A new home has been found for the children.) The passive can imply evasion and avoidance of responsibility. (Mistakes were made.) And when the passive form is frequently in the first person, it shows the self-focus of the constant subject. (I was envied/chosen/injured/angered by...) For more discussion and usage examples, see http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/passive-voice/