This broke my (marmish) brain.

The following panel from the obscenely popular Superman: Earth One wrought havoc with my brain all day:

Maybe because I've spent most of today writing midterm assessments—which requires re-reading nearly everything a student's written to get a sense of their development over the quarter—but when I first read this I was instantly convinced its author, J. Michael Straczynski, simply doesn't know his passive from his active voice, because both "A dog was killed last night" and "Last night, a dog was killed" are clearly in the passive.

Then I thought Clark Kent's response may have been Straczynski's way of underming Perry's authority, because "Someone killed a dog last night" is clearly in the active voice. 

Then I realized that "Someone killed a dog last night" was not—as "A dog was killed last night" and "Last night, a dog was killed" were—in quotation marks in the panel itself, meaning it's just a direct statement of concern from the Man Who Would Be Superman.  Perry's answer ("Just an example, Kent") would seem to indicate as much.

Then I remembered that Superman: Earth One is a re-telling of Superman's origin in which the would-be Man of Steel is reluctant to take up the mantle, which means his concern for an anonymous dog is only consistent with the character Straczynski's reinventing, not the one he's reinvented, meaning that quotations or no, that's got to be a criticism of Perry.

Then I saw that Kent follows Perry's remark with the statement "I like dogs," which would mean Straczynski's being inconsistent with the character, which would mean that he really doesn't know the difference between the active and passive voices since there's no critique, implicit or otherwise, of Perry's statement ...

... at which point it occurred to me, neither for the first time nor the last, that evaluating student prose has a noxious effect on an academic's ability to function like anything remotely resembling a normal human being.

Comments

[Ahistoricality]

I think Perry, in this case, is using the terminology sloppily, but not in the way you are reading it. You're right that both examples are in the passive voice, but the distinction Perry is making is about structure, and "active" in this case refers to placing the subject first, rather than the context.

And I think Perry is rambling, which the following panel reinforces, which is why he's being so sloppy with the language: his brain isn't fully engaged in the conversation. Neither is Clark's, apparently.

[anodognosic]

I don't know. To me, this seems like pretty straightforward Language Log bait of passive voice prejudice coupled with a complete lack of understanding about what the passive voice actually is.

[Dr. Virago]

Hahaha, Scott, yes, clearly your brain ceased to function normally at some point; however, I'm surprised that grading student papers didn't cause you to circle the whole rant and write "logic - both are passive" (or some such) in the margin.

And I'm with Anodognosic. Straczynski just doesn't know his passive voice from a hole in the ground and this is a clear case for a Language Log rant. Wait, I'll do it. The verbs in both sentences are obviously and identically passive: was killed. Apologies to Ahistoricality, but passiveness or activeness applies only to verb structure, not clause or sentence structure. (You'll find people out there referring to "passive structure" but it means the same as "passive voice," and I wish they'd use the latter, because then maybe people would be less confused, since verbs and only verbs have voice. Then again, maybe people would find another way to be confused.) And subject-verb order doesn't determine voice, or else questions such as "Have you eaten yet?" with the subject in second position would be considered passive (they're not). At any rate, the subject-verb order is the same in both sentences ("dog...was killed") -- it's only the adverbial phrase "last night" that's moved around. BUT, you can talk generally about the *liveliness* of the *style*, and since unnecessary passiveness can lead to wordiness, which deadens style (especially in word-budget conscious journalism), the inter-relatedness of the two (plus the misleading ways in which the concepts are often taught) may have confused Straczynski, like so many others before him.

Anyway, I only know this panel and its contents, but if the killer of the dog is unknown, the passive voice is actually *called for* here, no matter where you put the "last night." The agent is unknown; hence, "a dog was killed." A good reporter does NOT "always" go for the active voice.

Btw, when I read Straczynski, I thought Kaczynski (as in Ted, the Unabomber), and not just because of the -czynski. TK had an obsession with Strunk and White, who *also* didn't know the passive voice from a hole in the ground. Wait, Perry's last name is White...oh great, now *I'm* over-reading the whole thing, too!

[The Modesto Kid]

How is Perry's stylistic advice, his terminology aside? I was writing a link caption yesterday to the effect that "Robyn Hitchcock recalls the formation of the Soft Boys for The Quietus on the eve of the Can of Bees reissue" and it seemed like it would sound much better with the adverbial phrase in front of the subject, thus: "On the eve of the Can of Bees reissue, Robyn Hitchcock recalls for The Quietus the formation of the Soft Boys".

[Ahistoricality]

I'm not saying that Perry's use of the term is correct; I'm saying that JMS is making Perry look like an idiot on purpose and you're not getting it.

[Dr. Virago]

Ahistoricality - I still think it's Straczynski being sloppy. But I see now by your use of quotation marks that *you* weren't saying there was such a thing as active structure. Sorry about that.

The Modesto Kid - FWIW, I think "A dog was killed last night" is better for two purely stylistic reasons: 1) it has better continuous rhythm (whereas the other version forces a short pause after "Last night,..."), and 2) it lets you know the focus of the story more immediately (a dog) vs. the context of the story (last night). And that's probably what Straczynski was trying to get Perry to convey (see Ahistoricality's comment, which in my own addled state, I misread).

[Jonathan]

Scott, why aren't you writing your own graphic novel?

[SEK]

Scott, yes, clearly your brain ceased to function normally at some point; however, I'm surprised that grading student papers didn't cause you to circle the whole rant and write "logic - both are passive" (or some such) in the margin.

Honestly? One of the reasons I prefer reading graphic novels is that it's almost physically impossible to write in their margins: either the paper stock is too glossy or the image too crowded for me to write anything substantial, so I'm freed to just enjoy the book. (This is the same reason I prefer Penguin editions of George Eliot, although there I can still annoy myself by underlining significant sentences.)

Scott, why aren't you writing your own graphic novel?

Because I have three unfinished prose ones? Ha, like that would stop me. Yes, I've got one of those in the works, too, but it'll be years before 1) I have time to devote to it and 2) it sees the light of day. Unless, of course, some well-connected reader wants to put me in touch with someone ...

[Jed Hartman]

On the one hand, I agree with Ahistoricality that MJS was trying to have Perry White say that it's better to put the subject of the sentence first. (That is, that White is talking about structure rather than voice, and that his use of the word "active" is a red herring.) On the other hand, I agree with various people here that the most likely explanation for White's phrasing is that MJS (a) thought he was talking about active vs passive voice, but (b) wasn't entirely clear on what those are.

I say that because in my experience, many many people are confused by the terms "active voice" and "passive voice."

For example, I've lost count of the number of times people have told me things like, "Well, 'hit' is obviously a really active verb, so 'the ball was hit by him' is active voice." That's not the same confusion displayed in this panel, of course; I'm just saying that a lot of people, including a lot of people who ought to know better, aren't really clear on what exactly active voice is; they just know that whatever it is, it's better than passive voice.

...I love the idea that "Someone killed a dog last night?" could be a suggested active-voice alternative, but I agree that that reading isn't supported by the punctuation or by White's response. Too bad; that could've been really clever dialogue.

[Jed Hartman]

Dammit, I meant "JMS", not "MJS". Sorry.

[Dan]

I'm not saying that Perry's use of the term is correct; I'm saying that JMS is making Perry look like an idiot on purpose and you're not getting it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvdf5n-zI14

[Dan]

Protip: Any time you're arguing that JMS is shoehorning didactic opinions into the mouths of his characters for some reason other than that those are his own opinions and he is using those characters to lecture you, the reader - you are wrong.

[Ahistoricality]

You want to cite evidence, or is "is not" the limit of your argument?