Passive & Active Prose

[Anonymous No.14782151]

I have a bad habit of reading amateur writing to observe common mistakes in some weird narcissistic ego soothe. The single most common flaw is ignorance of passive and active language. If you already know what that is, then I will say passive language has a place. However that place is already overcrowded. If you still commit to passive prose as if it's your identity, then you better be exceptional at it. For those who don't, I will shortly mansplain.

Passive: Timmy went to the store.
Active: Timmy walks to the store.

This is Prose 101. Nearly every single piece of submitted or posted writing here or on the internet is written passively. They went to do this. He loved her. This had to say goodbye. This is shit writing.

If you are unaware you are writing passively, you are a bad writer. If you are choosing to write passively, then you better be genuinely talented and aware of the tools it presents.

If you are now aware of active and passive language. Now you have an advantage over every other shitty aspiring writer. Rewrite your prose entirely with active language and you will likely find improvement.

[Anonymous No.14782265]

Stephen King: I think timid writers like [passive verbs] for the same reason timid lovers like passive partners. The passive voice is safe. There is no troublesome action to contend with . . . I think unsure writers also feel the passive voice somehow lends their work authority, perhaps even a quality of majesty. If you find instruction manuals and lawyers” torts majestic, I guess it does.

Two pages of the passive voice—just about any business document ever written, in other words, not to mention reams of bad fiction—make me want to scream. It’s weak, its circuitous, and it’s frequently tortuous, as well. How about this: My first kiss will always be recalled by me as how my romance with Shayna was begun. . . . A simpler way to express this idea—sweeter and more forceful as well—might be this: My romance with Shayna began with our first kiss. I’ll never forget it. I'm not in love with this because it uses with twice in four words, but at least we’re out of that awful passive voice.

[Anonymous No.14782407]

>>14782151
>Passive: Timmy went to the store.

That's past-tense not passive.

Passive: The man was carried by the horse
Active: The man rode the horse

Both verbs are in the past-tense, yet one is passive and one is active. So you can see tense has no bearing.

In the examples above, the horse acts on the man in the passive (the man is (verbed) by the horse); the man (verbs) the horse in the active.

The indicative construction of the passive, to reiterate, is "....to be (verbed) by..."

[Anonymous No.14782420]

>>14782151
Recommend an english grammar for an ESL

[Anonymous No.14782448]

>>14782151
Your example is not passive voice you absolute retard.

[Anonymous No.14782472]

>>14782151

[Anonymous No.14782487]

>>14782407
past tense are passive prose

Active: The man rides the horse.

"Prose" and "Language" are non-explicit and clearly connotate the sum of it's parts. You will not the title is "Prose" and not "Verbs". "Active" prose is something happening now, not then. Up to and including your active verbs.

[Anonymous No.14782519]

>>14782487
I can't believe your that much of a retard. Look at the fucking example you posted in your image.

The verb "denied" IS IN THE PAST-TENSE IN BOTH EXAMPLES. Tense is not what makes something passive or active---in grammar, in "prose", in any sense.

[Anonymous No.14782539]

>>14782519
Tense does make something active and passive when it comes to "PROSE". Ask the editor who threw your manuscript out.

[Anonymous No.14782544]

>>14782487
This is completely wrong. Writing in the active or passive voice is possible in any tense. It's all about the relationship of the subject and the verb. At least try to know your shit before giving others advice.

[Anonymous No.14782550]

>>14782539
You're comically stupid.

[Anonymous No.14782553]

>>14782544
Yet one cannot write in the present tense using an "inactive" verb.

[Anonymous No.14782562]

>>14782539
Then explain to me why you chose the image you did, since it's apparently wrong by your standards, given both are in the past-tense.

[Anonymous No.14782565]

>>14782553
My brain is being battered by your stupidity.

[Anonymous No.14782592]

>>14782562
Because I posted on 4chan using a quick google search because I was miffed after reading a critique thread and some trash on r/destructivereaders. Clearly I should've wrote more about active verbs but the main lesson I feel, perhaps mistakenly, is writing in present tense often invokes active verbs by default. An easy fix for any aspiring writer on /lit/, as it's possible this thread is the single first moment they've even been exposed to the idea.

[Anonymous No.14782599]

>>14782553
Sure you can. "OP is considered a fag," is an example of a present tense sentence written with the passive voice.

[Anonymous No.14782602]

>>14782565
First person dialogue isn't prose.

[Anonymous No.14782608]

>>14782599
'Retards consider OP a fag' is a stronger sentence. See?

[Anonymous No.14782623]

>>14782539
>Ask the editor who threw your manuscript out.
>threw your manuscript out

That's shitty passive writing by your (incorrect) standards.

Write "actively": "Asking the editor who throws away your manuscript." There, all neat and tidy in the present tense. (Or active tense as you creatively call it.)

[Anonymous No.14782628]

>>14782151
OP you are in no position to critique anything. Back to the drawing board for you!

[Anonymous No.14782634]

>>14782623
You're right. It was a mistake to submit my reply post on /lit/ for publication. You got me. BTFO.

[Anonymous No.14782643]

>>14782608
I agree with you, but the same sentence could be written in past tense. I'm just saying that voice and tense are two different things. IMO, present tense writing is often hacky and amateur, relying on a fake sense of immediacy and momentum.

[Anonymous No.14782651]

>>14782151
>I have a bad habit of reading amateur writing to observe common mistakes in some weird narcissistic ego soothe.

That's the best part of this whole post. You soothe your ego diagnosing 'bad prose' on a fatuous basis. Hahahaha. Beyond help.

[Anonymous No.14782652]

>>14782602
Their brains are being battered by his stupidity.

[Anonymous No.14782663]

>>14782643
And again, the title of the thread is "Prose" and not "Verbs". Thank you for an actual conversation. Furthermore, I genuinely ask you for an example for present tense writing from any current or archived thread, here or reddit wattpad whatever, and demonstrate it's amateurity. I'm sure they exist, honestly, but 99.9999% of all available amateur fiction is inactive and in past tense. Perhaps a future conversation about genuinely awful present and or active writing would be beneficial to demonstrate the benefits of passive and past tense writing.

[Anonymous No.14782675]

>>14782652
battered is past tense

His stupidity batters the retards brains. Objectively stronger.

There, I made your inactive prose with active.

[Anonymous No.14782682]

Okay, writing brainlet here and a newfag to actual reading.
What am I supposed to do instead when writing something and its not supposed to be as sterile as the passive voice?

Is my understanding correct:
>The smell of flowers is something that excited Timmy
>Timmy always got excited when he smelled the flowers

Is this a difference between passive and active voice?
Is active voice putting the person, character or whatever doing the action first, and then the object / person the action is performed on second? Does it make writing more lively?

[Anonymous No.14782696]

>>14782682
The smell of flowers excite Timmy.

[Anonymous No.14782704]

>>14782696
So active voice can only be present tense?
Isn't this what some people in this thread is claiming to not be the case?

[Anonymous No.14782714]

none of you faggots have learned a romance language or latin/greek.
When a subject does an action = active
Passive is an action being done to the subject.

[Anonymous No.14782721]

>>14782675
I was demonstrating using passive prose in the present tense which you said wasn't possible >>14782553

[Anonymous No.14782732]

>>14782704
Dont ask OP for advice. He is an embarrassment.

https://library.royalroads.ca/writing-centre/writing/grammar/parts-speech/verbs/passive-versus-active-verbs

[Anonymous No.14782737]

>>14782704
You can talk to me and understand I am just a guy on the internet. I did not title the thread active verbs, I titled it active prose. However within academia an active voice is considered predominant use of verbs regardless of tense. This was my mistake when creating this thread. I knew this, I just wasn't in that headspace, I was in my hipster literary writing cringe mood where I read essays and books from dead writers and not the actual agreed rules of an active voice. It was my mistake using an image with said theory. Excuse the pedantic splintering of words, but "active prose" or "active language" is writing in present tense with the active verbs that naturally accompany it. As you see through the insults here, this almost always improve your prose. You can write with active verbs in a past tense, as it's been shown here, but it will be lacking, with room for improvement, thus not "active prose".

[Anonymous No.14782742]

>>14782714
That's exactly what this post >>14782407 explains. It's also what OPs oroginal image explains despite his insistence on whatever inane BS he's peddling re: 'active verbs'

[Anonymous No.14782753]

I've never seen an OP ruin his own thread this fast before.

[Anonymous No.14782763]

>>14782721
All you proved was it's bad writing, thus not possible. Unless you're possible of bad writing.

[Anonymous No.14782765]

>>14782737
>lacking
That's like your opinion, man. I shat upon your tyranny of tenses after I fucked your mother.

[Anonymous No.14782768]

>>14782753
Was about to post the same, this was hilarious

[Anonymous No.14782769]

>>14782765
Cool. Get it published.

[Anonymous No.14782781]

>>14782763
You're clearly ESL

[Anonymous No.14782786]

>>14782769
In the present tense you can denounce me as a lunatic. Presented as past tense you cannot refute my claim. Retroactively refuted, desu.

[Anonymous No.14782791]

>This thread

[Anonymous No.14782793]

Is there a bigger myth than
>passive voice bad!
?

[Anonymous No.14782799]

>>14782781
And you're projecting. Let's pretend I'm an actual retard for a moment. And you're not pretending, so this will be fun. You know and I know every shitty writer writes in inactive prose. Or what I'm calling inactive prose. I understand you're explaining the academic theory of an active voice with use of active verbs and less passive verbs. I understand. What you're obfuscating is the clear benefit of writing in present tense with natural active verbs. And how that would benefit most if not all shitty writers. Additionally, the term "active prose" or "language" was coined by Hemingway in his essay on short stories. I don't want to just, shrug that off onto him, and I'll admit, when I made this thread, I like an idiot forgot the academic theory you're espousing. I admit this because I don't care about the insults or internet ego insult downvote things anon does. Obviously I should've read the image I posted and was like "Oh right.". If there is some aspiring writer here with shitty prose who are reading your insults and understanding the difference between verbs. Great. If they can see how your examples are inherently bad writing. Awesome. They can really see the difference between passive and active verbs, their use in tenses, and what's ideally the best use of language. Which, altogether, is present tense with active verbs.

[Anonymous No.14782804]

>Past tense = passive = bad
Am I understanding you right, OP?

[Anonymous No.14782809]

>>14782804
Yes. You should NEVER EVER write in past tense.

[Anonymous No.14782828]

>>14782809
You guise can keep writing in past tense with inactive verbs but it will likely not be published or win actual contests as most submissions are written in past tense with inactive verbs. Writers who employ such prose often find success in story structure and or selling an idea. Not their writing, per se. I made this thread to help fix the single most common flaw that keeps writers from validation. Acknowledgment of your quality and money in your account.

[Anonymous No.14782834]

>>14782809
what the actual fuck?

[Anonymous No.14782839]

>>14782828
A verb being "active" or not is entirely fictional and poorly defined. This is required reading for posting in /lit/; I suggest you read it.
http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/passive_loathing.pdf

[Anonymous No.14782843]

>>14782769
You keep talking about editors and publishing, but so many (maybe even most) published books are written in the past tense. You keep making this distinction between active "verbs" and "prose," but as far as I can tell that's something which you invented for the purpose of saving face. Anyway, passive voice has its place. A whole story written in passive voice feels stagnant, of course, and it is easy for a novice writer to default to using it. But some sentences are better expressed in the pasive voice, and it can be used deliberately as a pacing tool.

[Anonymous No.14782853]

>>14782151
Based.

[Anonymous No.14782865]

>>14782151
People already noted that the example is weird and barely qualifies for passive ... but overall this is still a good post which draws attention to a real issue. Passive voice fags sure are triggered.

[Anonymous No.14782870]

>>14782799
Hemingway wrote almost exclusively in the past tense

[Anonymous No.14782879]

>>14782870
Him and most writers /lit/ likes would have a hard time getting published in the modern market.

[Anonymous No.14782882]

>>14782843
That is a solid point. But if these books were published, they went through an editor or gatekeeper. Who read mostly inactive prose. If you are going to commit to passive language, like I mentioned, you better be exceptional.

I google searched "fiction award" and the first hit was this book titled The Girl on the Train published 2015. Found an excerpt which does open with a first person past tense prologue but then follows into this prose:

There is a pile of clothing on the side of the train tracks. Light-blue cloth—a shirt, perhaps—jumbled up with something dirty white. It's probably rubbish, part of a load dumped into the scrubby little wood up the bank. It could have been left behind by the engineers who work this part of the track, they're here often enough. Or it could be something else. My mother used to tell me that I had an overactive imagination; Tom said that, too. I can't help it, I catch sight of these discarded scraps, a dirty T-shirt or a lonesome shoe, and all I can think of is the other shoe and the feet that fitted into them.

[Anonymous No.14782885]

>>14782407
wrong

[Anonymous No.14782886]

>>14782799
I like your OP and all your contributions. Get off plebbit and stay here to sex us further.

[Anonymous No.14782888]

>>14782865
What real issue, if you please? Read http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/passive_loathing.pdf

[Anonymous No.14782889]

>>14782519
>your

[Anonymous No.14782893]

>>14782882
>My mother used to tell me that I had an overactive imagination
Not super on topic but still wonder, is the THAT necessary?

[Anonymous No.14782905]

First good thread on here in months

[Anonymous No.14782923]

Probably the worst thread in months.

[Anonymous No.14782933]

>>14782151
it's seriously blowing my mind right now how stupid you are.

[Anonymous No.14782934]

>>14782923
nah it's better than arguing about philosophy this is actual literature

[Anonymous No.14782936]

>>14782905
Is active vs. passive voice that much a revelation? What the fuck? Are you going to cream your pants at the revelation that Show Don't Tell™ is an extension of active verb usage?

[Anonymous No.14782938]

>>14782934
Philosophy is more lit than stupid-ass grammar arguments

[Anonymous No.14782943]

>>14782888
Trips wasted on some autist who intentionally misses the point and spergs over small details.
OP pointed out themselves that passive isn't necessary bad, if the writer knows what they are doing.

[Anonymous No.14782949]

>>14782943
>>14782936
There's no such thing as "passive". No one can agree on what it means and half the time it's misdiagnosed. Refute the essay or stop spreading the myth.

[Anonymous No.14782959]

>>14782407
Very based. OP is a pseud.

[Anonymous No.14782963]

>>14782938
by definition, it isn't

[Anonymous No.14782971]

>>14782959
But published so take heed or insult and keep scrolling.

[Anonymous No.14782989]

hello this am pajeet i having advice for writer in english, to write gooder book just do "pajeet go to store" not "pajeet were to store going". good advice for many awards winning. all writer will thanking me soon or else cry in envious when i winning oscar for best book forever.

[Anonymous No.14783002]

The reason most teachers prescribe active language is the same reason most driving instructors prescribe placing both hands on the steering wheel.

You are vastly overestimating the average person's syntax, and almost comically overestimating the ability of novice writers to do anything but wax pathetic about each and every tarrying thread of an idea that pops into their prose.

>>14782888
Wow, a whole 51 citations since 2014. Truly a field-altering piece, if ever there was one.

>On page 4, this person labels an absolute phrase a passive voice construction
And now I see why.

[Anonymous No.14783003]

>>14782989
It actually is a cute kek but actually, yes, simple as it is. When 99% of your competitors write "pajeet went to the store" and you write "pajeet goes to the store", then your editor will keep reading. That's why I made this thread because it really is that simple.

[Anonymous No.14783020]

>>14783003
Past tense isn't passive voice you absolute cockgobbler.

[Anonymous No.14783034]

>>14783020
But writing in past tense invites more passive verbs.

[Anonymous No.14783044]

>>14783034
There are no passive verbs in the English language. The English language does not have a passive tense. It does not conjugate verbs to indicate the reception or delivery of objects.Passive voice is a matter of syntax, not diction.

[Anonymous No.14783050]

>>14783003
pajeet congratulate other pajeet on good thread of simple helpful. see other pajeet on red carpet for book oscar

[Anonymous No.14783057]

>>14783034
So writing in past tense, but being mindful of using active voice is good?

>The night was dark, the liquor cold and the smoke from countless cigarettes filled the room.

Is this acceptable as past tense and still active voice?

[Anonymous No.14783073]

>>14783003
"Pajeet went to the store" is an example of active voice

[Anonymous No.14783085]

>>14783057
That sentence is a poor example.

>The night was dark. The liquor was cold. Countless cigarettes filled the room with smoke.

Combined:
>The night was dark, the liquor was cold, and countless cigarettes filled the room with smoke.

[Anonymous No.14783109]

>>14782989
Based.

[Anonymous No.14783119]

>>14783073
don't confusing with your "grammars". can see passive very much here: "went", not "go". weak and passive like homosexual who let penis in him like lady and not like strong hard man homosexual who puts the penis and writes only "go" never "went". in publishing company in america they like only strong homosexual so be him.

[Anonymous No.14783124]

Is this thread for real? lol

[Anonymous No.14783169]

>>14783085
I see, and this makes it more pleasant for the reader to read?
In the end of my example I wrote
>and the smoke from countless cigarettes filled the room
and this was the mistake, of letting the verb control the object and not the other way around right?
So your example reads better for the reader? Or what is the intention of doing this?

[Anonymous No.14783180]

op just making shit up in here

[Anonymous No.14783192]

>>14783057
The night is dark and the liquor cold. Cigarette smoke fills the room. Main character is thirsty for shitposting is thirsty work. He struts to the bar and orders a forsty kek inbetween puffs of tobacco.

Thing about "active prose" or writing in present tense is each sentence allows the next. As the prose is sum of it's parts. In past tense:

The night was dark, the liquor cold and the smoke from countless cigarettes filled the room. Main character was thirsty for shitposting was thirsty work. He strut [or walked] to the bar and ordered a frosty kek inbetween puffs of tobacco.

Now this isn't necessarily worse. But the use of verbs like strut or walked feel dampened. And it feels like a memory or something unreliable opposed to something happening currently inside my brain movie. That may be an artistic choice, of course. Passive language has it's place. But when you write actively, your writing will stand out from the actual real heap. Which is why I made this thread.

[Anonymous No.14783199]

>>14783169
No. Readers don't typically pay any attention to syntax. Nothing is "pleasing" to the average reader from that level.

I reordered the smoke to come at the end of the opening clause because I thought it flowed better in terms of its logic - cigarettes = smoke

Your construction, the smoke from countless cigarettes filled the room, was fine grammatically. I felt that having a basic S-V, not a compound or noun phrase, would make it sound more direct.

[Anonymous No.14783206]

>>14783192
Your past tense example contains no passive voice whatsoever.

Just stop.

[Anonymous No.14783213]

What image comes to a native speaker's mind when they realize they're talking to an ESL? I'm one too, but rarely called out on it. When I see someone trying to write in my language and clearly fumbling I instinctively feel like they're a subhuman, even if I know they might write well in their own language.

[Anonymous No.14783214]

>>14783206
I would if my rewritten sentence wasn't objectively better and I haven't written the pedantic difference between "active prose" and "active voice" despite my mistaken use of the thread image. I'm not here to piss you off, I'm here to help shitty writers.

[Anonymous No.14783220]

>>14783192
>Which is why I made this thread.
you made this thread because you have the self-awareness of a sleeping pig and you continue posting in it because you also match it in dignity

[Anonymous No.14783227]

>>14783220
Insults. Eh.

[Anonymous No.14783243]

I intentionally write in the passive tense to avoid being too assertive

[Anonymous No.14783244]

>>14783002
Instead of arguing through popularity, do you have anything to say about how people can't agree at all on what "passive" means?

[Anonymous No.14783247]

>>14783227
exactly! complete indifference to public shame. one can envy the pig.

[Anonymous No.14783253]

>>14783214
You don't help shitty writers by giving shitty examples and explaining your shitty ideas in shitty ways.

Your examples are literally equivalent in all ways apart from the conjugation of a single fucking verb. There is no objectively better quality in either, just continued misinformation from a confused anon who thinks past tense can't be active and present tense can't be passive.

[Anonymous No.14783259]

>>14783220
>>14783247
This made me laugh out loud twice, and I'm not sure why. Something about the words chosen and the direct way it was delivered is just funny as fuck.

[Anonymous No.14783263]

>>14783244
It's an academic paper, purportedly. Relevance matters.

People do agree on what passive means. Google "passive voice" right now and the very first result will return an identical description to the paper you posted. It is the voice which places the object of a verb as the subject of a sentence.

[Anonymous No.14783314]

>>14783247
I do appreciate your envy.

>>14783253
They are welcome to read through the read and come to their own conclusions. Frankly, between you and me, there is so much anger directed towards this opinion. A rage likely stemming feeling their identity attacked by investing in their passive prose. If they were published, that rage would not be there, and instead be kek. Writing words of encouragement to other passive writers. "You can do it! Here's how to write passively!" But instead I'm here, saying you cannot, and I know. I am a severely flawed person to be spending my free time here, but flawed I am, I do speak from a position of authority. I speak the truth.

Shitty writers: You are likely writing in past tense. You can keep doing that with active verbs, but it's shitty writing. Write in present tense with active verbs and your prose will improve substantially. It is honestly the simplest and first thing to change.

[Anonymous No.14783316]

>>14783263
Then why does the paper have 100 examples of it being misdiagnosed?

[Anonymous No.14783345]

>>14783314
Ugh, the self-victimization. The martyrdom. It's almost as bad as your advice, but at least we can laugh at that. Giving bad advice and being called out for it is not evidence of some conspiracy against your opinion, anon. Your opinion is wrong. It has been explained to you why it is wrong (that's passive, by the by), and, as far as /lit/ posters go, those explanations have been positively glowing.

Your explanations and advice are simply terrible.

[Anonymous No.14783373]

>>14783314
Oi, slow down there, mate.

You're correct about the passive and right that the shitty writers are offended because of harsh truths, but aside of past tense making it more tempting, there is nothing bad about past tense itself and it's still very common.

[Anonymous No.14783378]

>>14783316
For the same reason we have this thread. Writing an academic paper about "Boy golly, a lot of people sure do suck at writing" is fucking idiotic. The author of the paper purposefully ignores examples of writing tutors, books, and websites accurately describing passive voice and misdiagnoses his own fucking examples by labeling an absolute phrase, which is not an object of a verb, as an example of passive voice.

The paper proves only that its author has a fetish for browsing sites with bad writing advice. For every site an example he listed, there are at least a dozen explaining why passive voice is fine, why "to be" verbs are not always passive, and so on. To base your entire argument on a single shitty paper only proves you don't have any idea what the discussion is about.

[Anonymous No.14783384]

>>14783345
"Active prose" is present tense with active verbs. "Active voice" is writing with active verbs instead of passive verbs. That is not an opinion. What is an opinion is whether shitty writers or "passive prose" can win story contests or submission publications. Considering how often threads are made asking where these contests are or where to send submissions, one would assume many /lit/izens are on that path.

They are welcome to continue writing passively. My opinion is they are shitty and likely won't be validated with acknowledgement or money. You and they are certainly most welcome to prove me wrong.

[Anonymous No.14783403]

>>14783378
>labeling an absolute phrase, which is not an object of a verb, as an example of passive voice.
He said the opposite of that; he said the quote did that. Try not speedreading.

[Anonymous No.14783421]

>>14783384
>"Active prose" is present tense with active verbs
There is no "active prose." It is not a linguistic or syntactical concept. You are free to search your heart away online for any author, published or no, talking about "active prose." You're right that it's not an opinion; it's a fucking lie. There are no active or passive verbs in the English language. None.

Let's look at some of these contests to see if you have any idea what's happening in or around them.

>Pulitzer Prize in Fiction, 2019
>The Overstory by Richard Powers
>"We found that trees could communicate, over the air and through their roots. Common sense hooted us down. We found that trees take care of each other. Collective science dismissed the idea. Outsiders discovered how seeds remember the seasons of their childhood and set buds accordingly. Outsiders discovered that trees sense the presence of other nearby life."

Now I'm sure for an author of your caliber a Pulitzer seems trivial, but correct me if I'm wrong: this award-winning author, validated with both acknowledgement and money, seems to be using "passive prose" in his writing?

[Anonymous No.14783425]

>>14783403
You ignored the rest of my points. Your thoughts?

[Anonymous No.14783429]

>>14783314
This is a pretty funny larp.

[Anonymous No.14783431]

>>14783259
I see you admiring anon's active prose

[Anonymous No.14783439]

>>14783384
"Active prose" is just some shit you made up. There is no mention of it in the Hemingway essay "The Art of the Short Story."

[Anonymous No.14783442]

>>14783421
Are you Richard Powers?

I've never read this book and I literally just googled it so let's see how it unfolds together. "Active voice" is an academic theory that pertains to all written word including essays, reports, journalism, etc. "Active prose" pertains explicitly to fictional prose. If this book blows up in my face then at least you get some keks and the bumps help others learn about active verbs and their use in present and past tenses.


https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25226927-the-elements-of-active-prose

Also, c'mon, are you actually Richard Powers? Do you shitpost on /lit/? That would actually make me feel a lot better about myself.

[Anonymous No.14783456]

>>14783421
Anon probably means "active voice", for which the tense isn't crucial but the choice of verbs, and then the example proves his point, shit has to be active and not the passive crap most people on /lit/ write.

[Anonymous No.14783458]

>>14783442
I saw a guy posting in another thread that he was 62 years and reading a book.
Maybe this guy is Richard Powers and he is shitposting on /lit/.
Would be kind of amazing to know that accomplished authors also waste their time throwing shit at strangers online.

[Anonymous No.14783465]

>>14783425
That was your only argument against him. If passive voice is so real, how come no one can agree on when it appears? Even you had to make up a new word about it. There's no such thing as "active" language. It's all a myth.

[Anonymous No.14783469]

>>14783458
>wins pulitzer
>shitposts on /lit/

that's the life

[Anonymous No.14783472]

>>14783429
i don't think it's a larp. there's a core of stubbornness about it, a certain circling around a single worthless thought that reminds me of a handicapped boy we used to tease when i was a kid. this is a cruel thread

[Anonymous No.14783507]

>>14783472
this is the core

>>14782862
>>14783265
>>14782308
>>14777419

And that's just today. Was I flawed in presenting active prose instead of voice? Yup. Okay. Insult away. But these words are altruism, not nihilism, unlike you.

[Anonymous No.14783525]

>>14783442
You didn't know Richard Powers existed before that post and you've never read one book he's written. I can find no scholarly or authorial examples of "active prose" beyond the single author you posted, and her advice, based on what I could find, contains no prohibitions on the past tense, just on a preponderance of "to be" verbs.

[Anonymous No.14783526]

>>14783507
If nothing else you seem sincere OP, I've enjoyed your thread

[Anonymous No.14783543]

>>14783465
>My only argument
Only if you ignore the fact this author deliberately mischaracterizes writing advice to be universally awful in identifying passive voice. He cherry-picked some examples of bad writing advice (picking on Strunk and White? In 2014? Really? That hasn't been examined to death already?) and used that as evidence that no one knows what passive voice is.

It's not a paper so much as it is a rant.

[Anonymous No.14783568]

>>14783507
Do you just make up your own meanings for words or do you honestly believe altruism is pretending you're a writer for headpats on some internet forum?

[Anonymous No.14783583]

>>14783525
Some of us have New Yorker subscriptions. Especially when they get their new iPads and wanna be an intellectual hipster.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/10/18/to-the-measures-fall

Another anon mentioned "active prose" isn't in Hemingway's essay on short stories. Which is correct. So obviously somewhere in my brain I adapted "present tense with active verbs" as "active prose" and forgot about the academic "active voice". Maaaaybe I read it elsewhere in another tome about Hemingway, but I've already sloughed off the responsibility, so I will own it entirely, So every anon who said I was making it up was apparently right. You, whoever is reading this, have to decide whether "active prose" is valid. You can choose not to, of course, like many others here. Or, instead of arguing about Germanic philosophers, you can try rewriting a single line of your prose with my "active prose". With present tense and active verbs. See if I'm crazy or not yourself.

http://www.tahlianewland.com/product/the-elements-of-active-prose/

[Anonymous No.14783594]

>>14783568
If one single writer learned about active and passive language today then by definition my efforts are altruistic.

[Anonymous No.14783611]

>>14783583
Anon, again, you haven't read the advice that woman posted. It isn't about making up your own mind; you're deliberately and stubbornly refusing to admit and acknowledge you're fucking wrong.

From the woman's own website:
>"Active writing always shows, so instead of saying ‘Terrance was skipping’, we would say, ‘Terrance skipped.’

Both examples, the wrong and supposedly right one, are in past tense. Your single example has been disproven to you at least a dozen times. There is no general or acknowledged prohibition on past tense as an obstacle of good prose. Take the fucking L.

[Anonymous No.14783615]

>>14783594
But the real question is how you write with those stakes through your palms.

He keked for our sins.

[Anonymous No.14783645]

>>14782989
Honestly, this has been the best thread in a while despite OP being a retard.

[Anonymous No.14783649]

>>14783645
you mean "because of"

[Anonymous No.14783652]

>>14783611
If that will make you happy, as one can be on chan, then I will take the L. Here, is me, taking it. The L is mine. You win. The internet victory is yours. I told you I hadn't read the book. I told you it could blow up in my face. And the next insult you make will bump the thread so more people will learn about active and passive language. Did you not read where I admitted to "making up" active prose?

Why do you think I made this thread?

This is what gets me. Insult me. Cool. Does that change how most writers write in a passive language? Are the insults meant to keep the shitty writers shitty. Will somehow degrading me make your own past tense prose better? I already got mine. The only possible damage to my ego is mistaking active voice for prose and the artificial memory of reading in Hemingway's essay. Which I will learn to carry on from such intense trauma.

At this juncture, if someone is reading this thread, it's either for schadenfreude over my flaws or to learn about active voice. Whether my "active prose" is valid. Either are better substitutes for threads about philosophy.

[Anonymous No.14783664]

>>14783652
There's no such thing as "passive language."

[Anonymous No.14783670]

>>14783664
Tell that to your Editor and your bank account. I'm talking about real life, not academic theologies about literature.

[Anonymous No.14783672]

>>14782732
>>14782888
Holy fuck I hope this whole thread is bait. Lit is truly the dumbest board. Snakeoilsalesmantier writing myths in pursuit of a bugman market edge. This is fucking ridiculous. Unliterary on all fronts, not to mention refutable with even a passing understanding of grammar. Even if we were talking about voice, which apparently no one here understands, restricting it by ignorant rules would make your writing unnatural and stunted, making for dogshit prose. There's a reason languages have voice.

[Anonymous No.14783684]

>>14783670
I'm a published author. Passive voice still doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.14783686]

>>14783652
>I was the retard all along!
I'm glad you thought the wait was worth it, but you spoiled the reveal in your first post.

[Anonymous No.14783710]

>>14783684
If passive language doesn't exist, as per verbs, for some reason, then past tense and present tense do. If you may, is your work written in past tense or present? If in past tense, and feel free to say no, may you post a short excerpt of your published work? If not, I understand, because doxing yourself doesn't seem fun.

[Anonymous No.14783743]

>>14783686
It may be confusing to interact with someone honest and without a conventional online ego but I am capable of admitting mistakes. A folly for the ritualistic internet arguments but I don't measure my masculinity with online fights. I assert "active prose" is present tense with active verbs. Right now I am just a guy on the internet. Which is why the term "active prose" needed sourcing. But consider how terms are coined, defined, and carried on. I am not the first to use the term "active prose", and for now on in all my teachings and workshops, I will use the term "active prose" aware full well it is my term, but I will use it. Where it goes from here is how all words go from there.

[Anonymous No.14783750]

>>14782151
>Passive: Timmy went to the store
Does this post represent a bold new style of bait? I will give you a 7/10 since you put some effort into it and people are responding.

[Anonymous No.14783772]

>>14783652
see, this is what i meant earlier about stubbornly circling around a single worthless idea. his original thought as far as i can tell was "maybe i will be a famous writer once i switch to present tense, i bet no one tried that before" and then it grew like a cancer into this thread and some sort of evangelizing mission to make everyone aware of the absolute nothing that is his one precious non-insight, finally metastasizing straight into the core of his personal identity which we are now watching unspool. an average person upon thinking a stupid thought would toy with it briefly and move on, but with this guy every firing neuron could signal a new catastrophe like a fart triggering an avalanche.

[Anonymous No.14783773]

>>14783743
I've seen flat-earthers with less dogged persistence to being wrong. Here's hoping your hatred of past tense never makes it out of whatever asylum you're workshopping in.

[Anonymous No.14783802]

>>14783772
Not famous but I am a writer. There is a feeling of validation /lit/ and every other writing hub on the internet collectively yearns for. It's a good feeling. Paying a bill with word money is form of apotheosis. So when you scroll and read neurotic insecurities and "pls read my prose" and it's aalllll uniformly passive. When you participate or run an actual workshop, the unpublished are aaalllwaaays passive. You can project a caricature onto me, personally, if you need. If that makes you feel better about your own prose.

But the simplest and easiest fix a shitty writer can do is write actively.

Are we seriously going to pretend this isn't a thing?

>>14762913

[Anonymous No.14783805]

>>14783594
>>14783594
Hey I learned the difference. Thanks anon.

[Anonymous No.14783812]

>>14783802
There's only one passive sentence there, which is used intentionally. The worst mistake there is "didn't used."

[Anonymous No.14783823]

>>14782487
>past tense are passive prose

Past tense active: Many workers built the CN Tower in 1976.
Past tense passive: The CN Tower was built in 1976.

In the active voice, the subject performs the action. In the passive voice, the subject receives the action. You can use the passive voice with any tense. Do you notice how much more natural the passive sentence feels? We use it when it is more important to show which noun/noun phrase is receiving the action than it is to show which noun/noun phrase is performing the action. The noun phrase "many workers" is pretty useless and doesn't add anything to the sentence. It's better to use the passive voice and just omit that noun phrase altogether.

[Anonymous No.14783862]

>>14783823
I know it's late in the thread about "active prose", a thing I made up apparently, is present tense with active verbs. Additionally such a sentence isn't appropriate with fictional prose. More of a technical sentence outlining data per journalism or an essay.

Active Prose: The year is 1976. Workers construct the CN Tower into the sky.
Passive Prose: Workers constructed the CN Tower in 1976. OR In 1976 workers constructed the CN Tower.

But honestly thank you for explaining active and passive voice and their use of verbs. The more it's written the more it's learned.

[Anonymous No.14783969]

>>14782989

[Anonymous No.14783992]

>>14783862
This explanation is for anyone who might come across this.
The reason that passive voice looks like past tense is because the verb is always in the past participle form. Usually, with regular verbs, this is just the base form with "-ed" at the end; however, with irregular verbs the past participle form differs from both the base and past tense form. Syntactically, one way to tell the difference between the past tense with a regular verb and a passive voice sentence is that a passive voice sentence will always have the verb "to be" as an auxiliary located just before the main verb. What I always tell my students is that the verb "to be" is what "takes the tense" in a passive sentence since the main verb always has to be in the past particle form regardless of the tense.

Here are some examples with an irregular verb:

Present active: "A thief steals my car."
Present passive: "My car is stolen by a thief." or "My car is stolen."

Past active: "A thief stole my car."
Past passive: "My car was stolen." or "My car was stolen by a thief"

The present tense sentences are pretty weird sounding, but that's just because we don't use the present tense to describe things happening in the present using the present tense in English. It's much more conventional to used the present progressive tense to describe things that are happening "now".

Present progressive active: "A thief is stealing my car."
Present progressive passive: "My car is being stolen." or "My car is being stolen by a thief."

You can even replace "to be" with "to get" in the passive voice. It's fairly common in conversations.

Past passive (get): "My car got stolen." or "My car got stolen by a thief"
Present progressive passive (get): "My car is getting stolen." or "My car is getting stolen by a thief."

[Anonymous No.14784022]

>>14783862
>The year is 1976. Workers construct the CN Tower into the sky.
Lol Mr. Published Author schooling all of us on how to write

[Anonymous No.14784159]

>>14783220
/thread

[Anonymous No.14784212]

This really activates my prose. Thanks OP!

[Anonymous No.14784259]

>>14783802
Read the thread more closely. We (other than a few tards) closed the book on passive voice being the exception and active voice the rule. OP was being a faggot and arguing for the existence of "active prose" which is some scrombled abortion of an idea defined as writing sentences with active verb syntax only in the present tense. If it was written in the past tense or any other tense the retard was calling that passive prose. He has been soundly refuted, but confusion remains in his wake--as is evident by your post.

[Anonymous No.14784387]

>>14782989
/lit/ is the best board

[Anonymous No.14784476]

>>14783192
I’ve been told before that I’m a genius reader or very close reader or whatever, and I can assure you right now the better portion reads more evocatively. The first is very visual but the second has more feeling. I have no idea, either, what passive or active is - I don’t think it’s as straightforward as this.

[Anonymous No.14784484]

>>14784476
> *better = second

[Anonymous No.14785721]

>>14782893
HELL YEAH https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnMgUBZ3H9c

[Anonymous No.14786327]

>>14782151
>weird narcissistic ego soothe. The single most common flaw is ignorance of passive and active language
Yep.

>This is shit writing.
Contemporary primary schooling has taught neither grammar nor composition for at least three decades (in the US anyhow).

>>14782265
>It’s weak, its circuitous, and it’s frequently tortuous,
Kafka Trap (for your Reader's eyes) as a syntactic style.

>>14783992
>my vehicle's been struck by some thievery, I am bereft!
kek

[Anonymous No.14786575]

>>14782151
based passive voice