How to not write bad - Ben Yagoda 2013
To Use to Be or Not to Use to Be
How to not write bad
a. Abstract Nouns
Preposition abuse is often linked to a couple of other weak sisters of language: the verbs to be (often in the form of the passive voice) or to have, the definite article (that is, the), and abstract nouns, especially ones ending in -tion. The problem is especially vexing in my field, academia. But you also find it in government, business, and various other outposts of bureaucracy, where passing the buck and generally not saying what you mean is valued. In this (admittedly extreme) example, abstract nouns are in bold, to be verbs in [brackets], thes in italics, and prepositions underlined.
Going forward, the solution to the dissatisfaction [will be] a reconsideration of the initiative that [was] offered by the administration.
(I threw in a current cliché, going forward, just for fun.)
So much mealymouthed dancing around the subject, so little meat. The point, such as it is, seems to be:
Students have made it clear that they hate the new policy, so the administration will change it.
Here’s a simple two-part way of sussing out if a to be verb is a problem.
1. If the back half of the sentence takes the form to be + pos-sessive/article/identifier + noun or to be + adjective, you’re probably okay. Using song titles again, that would give you:
We are the world.
The song is you.
You’re the top.
The lady is a tramp.
The gentleman is a dope.
I am the walrus.
You are so beautiful.
We are family.
2. However, if the sentence takes the form noun + to be + prepositional phrase or to be + noun + who/that/which + verb phrase, there’s a strong chance it could be beefed up, usually with a stronger and more specific verb. For example:
[Obama is the beneficiary of the union’s donations.]
The union gave money to Obama.
[Rizzotti is the student who won this year’s citizenship award.]
Rizzotti won this year’s citizenship award.
b. The Passive Can Be Used, but Not Always
Don’t use the passive voice is one of those rules—like change “the fact that” to “that” or don’t use fragments—that many writing books are a bit too quick to proclaim. The passive can be deployed quite effectively. The previous sentence is an example, I would submit—certainly of the passive voice, but also of not-at-all-bad writing. Not only is it perfectly okay as is, but if you switched to active, you would produce a dull monstrosity along the lines of: Many writers deploy the passive voice quite effectively. Who are these faceless writers? (Take a memo: we’re adding many to the list of words that should be avoided if possible.)
Putting the matter in general terms, the passive is fine if your emphasis is properly on the object of the verb, rather than the subject, or if a quality of the subject isn’t knowable. The passive President Kennedy was shot earlier today is better than the active An unknown gunman shot President Kennedy earlier today.
The passive is a problem if and only if it leaves in its wake an insistent question that begins with the word Who? The classic non-apology-apology was made famous, if not originated, by Ron Ziegler, President Nixon’s press secretary, in 1973, in reference to what he had previously said about the Washington Post’s Watergate coverage: “We would all have to say that mistakes were made in terms of comments.” That quote went down in history because Ziegler tried to fudge the key point: who made the mistakes?
Scientific writing apparently demands the passive voice. However, in other forms, it should be used sparingly. In the passage below, it appears four times in three sentences.
[Because the peppercorns were contaminated (1) with the bacteria, a recall was issued (2) on all of the contaminated salami. 1.3 million pounds were recalled (3). The product was destroyed (4) under supervision by specialists.]*
In my judgment, 1 is fine, 2 is bad, and the last two are borderline. But the passage can only sustain one passive, so I would get rid of 3 because it’s easily changed. So a possible rewrite could be.
The Centers for Disease Control issued a recall on all contaminated salami, and eventually, 1.3 million pounds were recalled. CDC specialists destroyed the meat.