All research scientists know that writing in the passive voice is artificial; they are not disembodied observers, but people doing research.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I think it's important for scientists to speak in their own voices and not just be mediated by journalists or others speaking for them.
It's my experience that scientists can find it difficult to understand the needs of scriptwriters or storytellers.
I'm not a passive person by any stretch of the imagination.
Mental events, it is said, are not passive happenings but the acts of a subject.
The simplest and cheapest of all reforms within institutional science is to switch from the passive to the active voice in writing about science.
Ninety-five percent of all writers who write do not get published, but 100 percent of all writers write because they have a voice in their head. The vast majority of writers simply write because they have to.
When you write, you hear the characters speaking to you as you take dictation from what they say. And obviously, they had particular personalities when you hear them.
I think writers, by nature, are more observers instead of participators.
A writer has an inescapable voice. I think it's inherent in the nature, and I think that we don't control it anymore than we control what we want to write about.
Writers are the ones who figure out how to put their observations into words.