Language Pet Peeve
There are few things that can destroy my confidence in someone in a position of authority over matters literary than when they make an egregious error in matters in which they are claiming authority.
Most recently I saw a reappearance of the mistaken idea that every verb which uses "was" is automatically passive voice -- which clearly showed to me that the person in question, who was heatedly anathemizing passive voice, had absolutely no idea what it was.
Even a quick visit to Wikipedia will get the definition that's generally accepted in linguistics: that a sentence is in the passive voice when the subject of the sentence is the receiver (patient) of the action of the verb rather than the actor (agent). And yes, the passive voice in English does involve the use of some form of "to be," and since past tense is the unmarked case in English fiction, a passive voice sentence in a work of fiction is apt to include the word "was" (or "were" if the subject is plural).
However, there are plenty of perfectly valid non-passive constructions that include the word "was." In particular, there are the various progressive forms, which show ongoing, continual or habitual action. It makes me very frustrated to see someone who claims to be an authority on language but cannot tell the difference between "she was taken to the park" and "she was taking the dog to a walk in the park." Trying to get rid of the latter, especially when it's there to show an action in progress when something else happens, is apt to result in contorted prose and sentences twisted like pretzels.
And then there's the use of "was" in description -- no, it's not passive, it's a copula. Trying to get rid of it, especially in the description of stationary fixtures of the setting, often results in a pseudo-active construction that feels forced and ridiculous, in which buildings and roads and the like can't just be there, but have to "rise" and "stretch" and whatnot. Rivers flow, traffic flows, but when a road has to flow across the land because some authority on good writing has decreed it can't just be, I start wondering if the asphalt is melting and running across the landscape.
I'm not going to name names, although in this day and age of indie publishing editors no longer hold the power of life and death over a writer's access to an audience. But I really wish that, before people claiming to be authorities on good writing make absolutist pronouncements on matters of language, they'd actually check and make sure that they're not making fools of themselves in the eyes of anyone with a background in linguistics.
Most recently I saw a reappearance of the mistaken idea that every verb which uses "was" is automatically passive voice -- which clearly showed to me that the person in question, who was heatedly anathemizing passive voice, had absolutely no idea what it was.
Even a quick visit to Wikipedia will get the definition that's generally accepted in linguistics: that a sentence is in the passive voice when the subject of the sentence is the receiver (patient) of the action of the verb rather than the actor (agent). And yes, the passive voice in English does involve the use of some form of "to be," and since past tense is the unmarked case in English fiction, a passive voice sentence in a work of fiction is apt to include the word "was" (or "were" if the subject is plural).
However, there are plenty of perfectly valid non-passive constructions that include the word "was." In particular, there are the various progressive forms, which show ongoing, continual or habitual action. It makes me very frustrated to see someone who claims to be an authority on language but cannot tell the difference between "she was taken to the park" and "she was taking the dog to a walk in the park." Trying to get rid of the latter, especially when it's there to show an action in progress when something else happens, is apt to result in contorted prose and sentences twisted like pretzels.
And then there's the use of "was" in description -- no, it's not passive, it's a copula. Trying to get rid of it, especially in the description of stationary fixtures of the setting, often results in a pseudo-active construction that feels forced and ridiculous, in which buildings and roads and the like can't just be there, but have to "rise" and "stretch" and whatnot. Rivers flow, traffic flows, but when a road has to flow across the land because some authority on good writing has decreed it can't just be, I start wondering if the asphalt is melting and running across the landscape.
I'm not going to name names, although in this day and age of indie publishing editors no longer hold the power of life and death over a writer's access to an audience. But I really wish that, before people claiming to be authorities on good writing make absolutist pronouncements on matters of language, they'd actually check and make sure that they're not making fools of themselves in the eyes of anyone with a background in linguistics.