TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
James Lockhard writes . . .
>>The active voice is clear, direct, and lively--active. The
>>passive voice is unclear, indirect, and phlegmatic. Which would you want
James -- I'm afraid these subjective, blanket statements prove my point. I'll
try it again: Sometimes, specifying the actor is unnecessary and wordy, and it
deflects emphasis from the true point of interest in the sentence -- the object
of the action. Simple example: "The house was built in 1910." Far from being
"unclear, indirect, and phlegmatic," it tells me exactly what I need to know.
But if the sentence read "Architect John Smith built the house in 1910," I'm
going to wonder who the hell John Smith is, and why his name needs mentioning
here. Here, the active voice muddies the sentence if all I want to know is the
date the house was built (the date the builders built the house?).
And John Gear writes . . .
>>The active voice is not "action-oriented" -- it's *actor*-oriented.
John -- I never said that the active voice is "action-oriented." In fact, I
used the very term you use above, but without the cutesy asterisks.
And I'll just add . . .
There's never anything passive about an active/passive voice debate.