Conventional modern writing discourages the use of passive voice.
First, what is passive voice? It's where the action is carried out without an active agent. So:
"Mistakes were made." is passive voice.
While:
"Bob made a mistake." is active.
Passive voice weakens the writing because it removes agency. And the above example, which is an example most of us are familiar with, deliberately does so. That's why it weakens the voice. Should it be avoided?
Like any writing "rule", saying "yes" is not absolute. It does have a function, and one of those functions is it moves the focus on to the action, not the actor. If you want to emphasise that, passive voice is a better choice when it doesn't matter *who* did it.
It's also useful when the actor is unknown, or you want to leave the actor unknown. It can create tension. For example:
"The coffin lid opened."
vs
"A white arm opened the coffin lid."
The latter gives certainty. You know whatever is in the coffin opened it. But in the first, you don't. It might have opened by itself. The narrator might not be in a position to see what opened it. The key is that the reader doesn't know, and that leaves them wondering. It delays the reveal, which may be the effect that you want. And remember, the POV character may not know themselves, so it filters it through their perception, so it can be a useful tool for an unreliable or uncertain narrator. People *do* use the passive voice when speaking. So it has a narrative purpose.
Where it will fail is when it's used without purpose, which happens more often than not, so it feels like it fails more often than it succeeds. But if you use it knowing what it does, it's a perfectly legitimate construct, not one to be avoided at all cost.
First, what is passive voice? It's where the action is carried out without an active agent. So:
"Mistakes were made." is passive voice.
While:
"Bob made a mistake." is active.
Passive voice weakens the writing because it removes agency. And the above example, which is an example most of us are familiar with, deliberately does so. That's why it weakens the voice. Should it be avoided?
Like any writing "rule", saying "yes" is not absolute. It does have a function, and one of those functions is it moves the focus on to the action, not the actor. If you want to emphasise that, passive voice is a better choice when it doesn't matter *who* did it.
It's also useful when the actor is unknown, or you want to leave the actor unknown. It can create tension. For example:
"The coffin lid opened."
vs
"A white arm opened the coffin lid."
The latter gives certainty. You know whatever is in the coffin opened it. But in the first, you don't. It might have opened by itself. The narrator might not be in a position to see what opened it. The key is that the reader doesn't know, and that leaves them wondering. It delays the reveal, which may be the effect that you want. And remember, the POV character may not know themselves, so it filters it through their perception, so it can be a useful tool for an unreliable or uncertain narrator. People *do* use the passive voice when speaking. So it has a narrative purpose.
Where it will fail is when it's used without purpose, which happens more often than not, so it feels like it fails more often than it succeeds. But if you use it knowing what it does, it's a perfectly legitimate construct, not one to be avoided at all cost.
