On Passive Voice by Van W. |
|
This is one of those stories that starts out as an email, then turns out to be something you want to say to two or three, and then, Bam, something happens. The outcome of this took some twists and turns I did not anticipate. That makes it a story.
I
have been reflecting on the use of passive voice in my writing. M/S
Word
complains
about
it.
One
friend
complains
about
it.
Another
says
he likes the way I write. I wonder what the origin of the usage is? Is
it the way I am wired? A statement that
is itself in passive voice. Neurologically there are at least two
kinds
of interesting people: Connection rich, and neuron rich. This oversimplifies
the more important question of, "What are one's neurons bathed
in?",
but I will defer the neurotransmitter-bath-is-everything-issue
for a moment. I
am constantly asking myself questions. In a recent book I asked,
When I found the answer, I encoded it as:
There's
that passive voice again, referring from the caboose to the locomotive,
making the train go backwards… Why? Because my hook is the three word term, "The lowest frequency",
not the blank stare placeholder, "what". (I
am a living sea of three word hooks, and Restating
the answer provides active voice.
In
this latter edition, the term "what" (from
the original question) is replaced by The Answer, in this case, "frame
rate". I
do not decode by the obvious hook of "what". I decode by
the three word term, "The lowest frequency." So Bam there it is. I encode and decode in a manner that favors passive voice.
Was it the French I took before my language centers
were completely pruned? Perhaps
the problem is similar to the adjectival one, to wit: There
is no coffee table in I
will end with an even more bizarre perspective. I had a dream I was in the army. In it received a "section four". Someone told me, "You can get thirty days if you do that again". I woke up and thought about it. Twice would be a "section eight". I checked with a friend. A "section eight" is what Klinger was trying to get on M*A*S*H to get out of the Army.
My
point. I have "wobble" in my thinking. Wobble is defined
in a footnote.. Loose vacuous holes in which the wrong term or idea
can slip in, mutating into a new one. Does this make me connection
rich,
neuron
rich,
or simply a food product, like Swiss cheese? Example. Was Klinger
trying to get out the Army
or out of the television series? This may be obvious, clear
and certain to you. What a gift. I have to take a fleeting
moment to
construct a set of possible realities and examine them for
the
correct interpretation. Then I say, "Of course. It was a story." pretending
to be just like everyone else in the audience, even
though I am a click behind, laughing after the studio
has gotten
very
quiet. In the reality of the story, Klinger was trying to "escape".
The result of that escape has three possible outcomes, suggested
by language: Klinger
can escape from the Army, but keeps his job in the TV series. Klinger
can escape from the Army, but if he does, he won't be on the series
any more. Klinger
can escape from the Army, appear in my living room, and ask for a place
to stay. Then
I remember. Klinger
is not in the Army, he is on a TV show. Klinger
is an actor. Klinger
does not really exist. And yet there he is.
I'm watching him do some fine work. What
were we talking about? Oh
yeah. Language
is an amazing thing, requiring us, yet seeming to exist independently
of us. I will use it as I see fit, with respectful deference to those
with whom I am attempting to communicate. Those remain at best, "attempts".
This reminds me yet again, that we are, in our totality, merely expressions,
in the Handwriting of G-d on this runaway freight train existence called
planet Earth. |
|
To
make us, 64 RNA triplets code non-uniquely for
20 amino acids. The most significant bit is the first member of
the triplet, followed by the second and third. The uncertainty
in the coding has to do with a tolerance problem termed, "wobble" in
the ribosomal translation machinery. |