Subject: Re: The snow covered the fields
From: Cecilia Baader (ceciliaann@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Jan 05 2001 - 01:09:53 GMT
Scottie Bowman wrote:
> No 4 of George Orwell's
> rules for good writing: 'Whenever possible, use the active
> rather than the passive voice.'
Tim has already demonstrated that the passive voice often results in muddy
sentences, lack of clarity and a distinct feeling of no real action taken.
In his post, Tim also mentioned Strunk & White's ELEMENTS OF STYLE, a book I
mention again not only because I'm about to quote from it but also because
it cannot be mentioned too many times for my taste.
"Vigorous writing," says William E. Strunk, also known as my hero, "Is
concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words . . . Muddiness is
not merely a disturber of prose, it is also a destroyer of life, or hope . .
. "
Now I'm not saying that I always adhere to Mr. Strunk's dictates at all
times, mind, but the man does have a point. Concise writing is vigorous
writing. Extraneous words slow the action down. And the passive voice by
its very nature is slow-- it's so slow that its action happened long ago in
the hashavehad past. Not a tense, then, for compact writing.
And most modern writing tends to be compact, thanks to (among others) our
friend Papa. Thus come the active voice dictates in every writing and style
book you find these days, methinks. However, the passive voice has its
place. The sentence structure needs to match the feeling you are trying to
create. The passive voice is useful for creating a dreamlike atmosphere,
for creating a feeling of distance, for creating a feeling of pondorous
slowness. Consider the following passage** from Oliver LaFarge's LAUGHING
BOY:
"He had fought, and sung, and raced horses, and known the
uplift of the great dances; he was old friends with hunger,
cold, fatigue, and suddenly contrasted feasting and comfort;
he had lived out to the tops of his fingers, but this was
something that made everything else turn thin and shadowy.
That was her magic, perhaps, and it was wonderful, it
altered life . . ."
Such sweet wonder, such warmth of feeling for the past. Spend a couple of
seconds trying to rewrite that in the active voice. Defeats the purpose,
doesn't it? Like any style "rule", it too can be, and should be broken--
proper style should be mastered early on so that it does not become a later
master.
But what do I know? They're reading Orwell, not me, in the high schools
these days.
Regards,
Cecilia.
** LAUGHING BOY: I promise to report on this book just as soon as I can.
Indeed, the Laughing Man connection is strong, but the book stands just as
strong by itself. If you're smart, you'll rush right out and buy it now.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Wed Feb 21 2001 - 09:44:22 GMT