Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Seven Sins of Writing

hamilton.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 119 posts

Re: Seven Sins of Writing

#71

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

hp6 wrote: post #67

PASSIVE VOICE: Thomas Jefferson’s support of the new Constitution was documented in a letter to James Madison. ACTIVE VOICE: Thomas Jefferson documented his support of the new Constitution in a letter to James Madison. IMO the passive voice makes much more sence for this example.

Passive doesn't just sound better in the example, it's objectively correct.

Jefferson wasn't attempting to document anything. That wasn't the action he was taking at all. We only consider it documented after the fact; it's completely incidental to what he was trying to accomplish.

Therefor, only the passive voice describes what occurred. The only people actively documenting anything are those who deliberately set out to create documentation of events (and I think they might all be assholes, as a rule... so maybe he was actively documenting?).

Re: Seven Sins of Writing

#72

Post by racktash »

d-s wrote: post #60

Why the hell is passive voice so frowned up by Americans?

I suspect Elements of Style is at the root of "avoiding passive" being popular advice.

It's a decent rule of thumb for those of us who accidentally slip into writing in the passive. Too much passive leads to writing that feels less direct, less active. Alas, as with every rule of thumb, you will get people who take it as a commandment and loudly denounce any and all use of passive, thinking they're being clever. I worked with a tech doc writer who liked to point out passive voice usage in peoples' work emails. Whatever gets you through life I guess...

Re: Seven Sins of Writing

#73

Post by zelphirkalt »

hp6 wrote: post #67

PASSIVE VOICE: Thomas Jefferson’s support of the new Constitution was documented in a letter to James Madison. ACTIVE VOICE: Thomas Jefferson documented his support of the new Constitution in a letter to James Madison. IMO the passive voice makes much more sence for this example.

It depends on whether Thomas Jeferson wrote the letter or someone else.

Re: Seven Sins of Writing

#74

Post by racktash »

msla wrote: post #3

Be clear about what the passive voice is: https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2922 > It is clear that some people think The bus blew up is in the passive; that The case took on racial overtones is in the passive; that Dr. Reuben deeply regrets that this happened is in the passive; and so on. (Needless to say, none of those are in the passive voice. Of course, some people think questions are in the passive voice,…

I was surprised when reading The Sense of Style by Pinker (not a book I would recommend incidentally) that the use of 'they' as a generic pronoun was still considered controversial. Pinker opts to alternate his chapters with he, then she, then he again – he explains this is to avoid the issue of having to otherwise use he/she type constructs. Had he used 'they', I would've never thought anything of it. Maybe it's a geographical thing?

Re: Seven Sins of Writing

#75

Post by watwut »

hp6 wrote: post #67

PASSIVE VOICE: Thomas Jefferson’s support of the new Constitution was documented in a letter to James Madison. ACTIVE VOICE: Thomas Jefferson documented his support of the new Constitution in a letter to James Madison. IMO the passive voice makes much more sence for this example.

Imo, the difference is in the focus. The passive voice version makes the "support of the new constitution" the most important thing the sentence is about. The active voice makes "Thomas Jefferson" the most important thing the sentence is about.

So, it really depends on what the rest of the paragraph is supposed to be about.

Re: Seven Sins of Writing

#76

Post by segfaultbuserr »

Tomte wrote: post #70

Regarding the passive: you should read Joseph M. Williams' "Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace" that discusses where the passive voice is preferable to the active voice. Namely when it creates better cohesion and flow. The whole idea behind Williams' (and Gopen's and McEnerny's – they are all from the University of Chicago) style is that you should arrange your words so that they sit in the correct positions. Na…

> Regarding the passive: you should read Joseph M. Williams' "Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace" that discusses where the passive voice is preferable to the active voice. Namely when it creates better cohesion and flow.

Remember to never split an infinitive. The passive voice should never be used. Do not put statements in the negative form. Verbs have to agree with their subjects. Proofread carefully to see if you words out. If you reread your work, you can find on rereading a great deal of repetition can be avoided by rereading and editing. A writer must not shift your point of view. And don't start a sentence with a conjunction. (Remember, too, a preposition is a terrible word to end a sentence with.) Don't overuse exclamation marks!! Place pronouns as close as possible, especially in long sentences, as of 10 or more words, to their antecedents. Writing carefully, dangling participles must be avoided. If any word is improper at the end of a sentence, a linking verb is. Take the bull by the hand and avoid mixing metaphors. Avoid trendy locutions that sound flaky. Everyone should be careful to use a singular pronoun with singular nouns in their writing. Always pick on the correct idiom. The adverb always follows the verb. Last but not least, avoid cliches like the plague; seek viable alternatives.

Re: Seven Sins of Writing

#77

Post by watwut »

fasterik wrote: post #14
martinjacobd wrote: post #6

I wish I understood what "wordiness" means. Perhaps it's restating the same simple point three times in as many loose sentences. People who harp on this point usually point to the writing of Hemingway and similar writers (Carver comes to mind). All of these men are better writers than I am, but I still prefer to read Nabokov. Could Nabokov have "made his point" in fewer words? Almost certainly, but I wouldn't have en…

It's a lot more obvious in academic writing and other non-fiction. Using a lot of big words to make a simple point is often a sign that the writer is trying to signal intelligence rather than convey information. In literature the goals are different, but I still think the rule applies in most cases. Nabokov is the exception that proves the rule. Great writers have earned the right to be wordy. When an average writer…

> Nabokov is the exception that proves the rule. Great writers have earned the right to be wordy. When an average writer tries write like Nabokov, we call it purple prose.

When an average writer tries write like Hemmingway, the prose is boring and unreadable. It reads like highschool summary report of the story rather then story.

Also, in non-fiction, writers who use the shortest possible way to express things are super hard to read. Meantime, writers who use more space are often much easier to understand.

Re: Seven Sins of Writing

#78

Post by watwut »

JackFr wrote: post #11
martinjacobd wrote: post #6

I wish I understood what "wordiness" means. Perhaps it's restating the same simple point three times in as many loose sentences. People who harp on this point usually point to the writing of Hemingway and similar writers (Carver comes to mind). All of these men are better writers than I am, but I still prefer to read Nabokov. Could Nabokov have "made his point" in fewer words? Almost certainly, but I wouldn't have en…

The problem is most people aren’t Nabokov. (And Nabakov as a poet, translator of poems and expert on prosody was very, very good at writing fluidly - he could afford to be wordy.)

They are not Hemmingway either.

Re: Seven Sins of Writing

#79

Post by pm3003 »

I really like the "Pet Peeves" one. In English and other languages, I fight against what I call "adverbializing" by which I mean putting unnecessary adverbs and adverbial phrases everywhere, especially in speech; these include "equally", "in truth", "definitely", "veritably" (favourite word of an old boss of mine who thought it made him sound like an intellectual).

I'm rather against the interdiction of the passive voice, or the interdiction of shifting the reader's point of view. While the passive voice can very quickly damage clarity, not every text should read like a to-do list.

Different styles can be pertinent, just don't think writing in a complicated manner will make people want to read you.

Re: Seven Sins of Writing

#80

Post by euroderf »

PakG1 wrote: post #47
cebert wrote: post #5

I’ve always seen recommendations to avoid passive voice in writing. However, when I encounter passive voice it doesn’t bother me. It also is one of my more frequent writing mistakes. Is this still considered bad practice?

The interesting question is if passive voice is so bad, how did it come about in the English language and why did it survive? That directly contradicts a lot of this advice. Though I try to use primarily active voice because it helps me save on word/page count when I'm trying to submit papers to conferences.

Do you find yourself having to reply to difficult questions about an unnecessary war in the Middle East ?

Try this: "Mistakes were made."

Post reply on HN