THANK YOU, Tobias Buckell, for giving the infamous “to be” variations a little breather. This short post is a quick review of an article I recently read in the July/August 2022 Writer’s Digest magazine, titled “The Tyranny of the Verb To Be.” Stepping in like a defense attorney, Mr. Buckell provides us with some insights on the history of passive voice – such as the groupthink that led to the cultural norms we see today when it comes to the usage of passive voice and the treatment of the “to be” verb. My favorite lines come at the beginning and set the tone for the article: “Why do we, as a writing community, come down so hard on the passive verb? Did passive voice push some author’s grandmother into traffic?” (p.28).

What I loved most about this article, aside from the interesting historical bit which was, in itself, a fascinating part to read (with references to CIA influence and anti-Soviet propaganda), was the thoughtful approach to using passive voice. Should we use it? Yes. Like anything, moderation is key. To cut every “be” and every passive sentence from a manuscript is overkill, you don’t need to chop down every tree to get through a forest. But it can be used as a diagnostic tool.

Perhaps I should write my own article on the defense of adverbs…it seems a lot of people have had some harsh feelings toward these little modifiers. Steven King believes the road to hell is paved with them. Good grief; nothing can be all bad…can it? Adverbs: Use Responsibly. Enough said. (By the way, 18.1% of this was written passively…).

Reference: Buckell, Tobias. “The Tyranny of the Verb To Be.” Writer’s Digest, July 2022, pp. 28–32.