George Orwell and the Passive Voice

George Orwell is often accused of "telling us not to use the passive and then using it all the time". I asked @Grok to highlight all uses of the passive in his essay Politics and the English Language. @Grok speaking:

Here are notable examples of passive voice from George Orwell's essay "Politics and the English Language" (1946).  (orwellfoundation.com)
  
Orwell criticizes the passive voice as a tool that obscures agency and promotes vagueness (e.g., in his discussion of "Operators or verbal false limbs," where he notes: "the passive voice is wherever possible used in preference to the active"). Yet he uses it himself for stylistic reasons, generality, or emphasis—highlighting the nuance in his own advice.  
(en.wikipedia.org) 
 
Early in the essay (opening paragraphs) "it is generally assumed that we cannot by conscious action do anything about it." (Passive: the assumption's source is vague.) Me: How would you recast this in the active voice? Many assume?

"It is not due simply to the bad influence of this or that individual writer."   
Me: "It is" is in the active voice.

"A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure..." (though "to be" here is more linking, the construction echoes passive patterns). Me: He feels himself to be... is in the active voice.

"I hope that by that time the meaning of what I have said here will have become clearer." (Future perfect passive-like.) Me: None of this is in the passive voice.
 
In descriptions of bad writing habits "the passive voice is wherever possible used in preference to the active..." (He explicitly calls this out while using similar constructions elsewhere.) Me: He is condemning the exclusive use of the passive voice. "The passive voice is used" is in the passive. How to fix? "Bad writers use the passive voice..."?

"banal statements are given an appearance of profundity by means of the not un- formation." Me: How to fix? "Bad writers give banal statements an appearance of profundity..."?

"Simple conjunctions and prepositions are replaced by such phrases as..." Me: Again, replacing with the active is awkward. You'd have to keep using "bad writers" as the actors.

"the ends of sentences are saved from anticlimax by such resounding commonplaces as..." Me: Replacing with the active would be awkward. You might use the generic "you". An editor once warned me against this because, he asked, "Who are you?".
 
Other examples throughout "These five passages have not been picked out because they are especially bad..." Me: You'd have to make the actor "I" in this case.

"They are a little below the average, but are fairly representative examples." (Copular, but part of passive-like generality.) Me: Not even "passive-like". "They are" is in the active voice.

"prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated hen-house." Me: "Prose consists" is in the active voice.

"Bad writers... are nearly always haunted by the notion that Latin or Greek words are grander than Saxon ones." Me: "Bad writers are..." is in the active voice.

"unnecessary words like expedite, ameliorate, predict, extraneous, deracinated, clandestine, sub-aqueous and hundreds of others constantly gain ground from their Anglo-Saxon opposite numbers." (Mixed, but "gain ground" follows passive tendencies in context.) Me: "gain ground" is in the active voice.

In the Ecclesiastes translation parody: "success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate..." and "a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account." (He uses this to mock inflated passive-heavy style.) Me: But none of what you've quoted is in the passive voice.
 
Later sections (on political language and rules)"political language has to consist largely of euphemism..." (Some linking passives.) Me: Really? Let's hear them. "Has to consist" is in the active voice.

"Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out... the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire..." (Classic passive examples in his discussion of euphemism, where agency is hidden.) Me: Isn't he pointing out that this passage avoids blaming the perpetrators? How can he point out where it is deceptive to use the passive without giving examples?

"All these [dying metaphors, etc.] are used without knowledge of their meaning..." Me: Again, you'd have to use "bad writers" as the actors - you couldn't keep on repeating them.
 
Orwell's essay contains roughly 20% passive constructions (higher than some averages), which shows he applies his rules flexibly rather than rigidly. (en.wikipedia.org) 
 
Passive voice isn't inherently "bad"—it's a tool, and Orwell uses it effectively for objectivity or to mirror the vagueness he critiques. Me: Thanks, Grok, for agreeing with me!

Here are Orwell's bullet points, and I recommend reading them ALL. Especially the one about clichés.

Avoid cliches: Never use a familiar metaphor, simile, or figure of speech.
Keep it simple: Never use a long word where a short one will do.
Edit ruthlessly: If a word can be cut, cut it.
Use action words: Prefer the active voice over the passive.
Speak plainly: Avoid foreign phrases, scientific terms, and jargon for common English words.
Stay flexible: Break any of these rules before saying something "outright barbarous".

If you like clichés there are more here, and links to the rest.

Received Ideas According to George Orwell

 

The other night a barmaid informed me that if you pour beer into a damp glass it goes flat much more quickly. She added that to dip your moustache into your beer also turns it flat. I immediately accepted this without further inquiry; in fact, as soon as I got home I clipped my moustache, which I had forgotten to do for some days.

Only later did it strike me that this was probably one of those superstitions which are able to keep alive because they have the air of being scientific truths. In my note-book I have a long list of fallacies which were taught to me in my childhood, in each case not as an old wives’ tale but as a scientific fact. I can’t give the whole list, but there are a few hardy favourites:

    That a swan can break your leg with a blow of its wing.
    That if you cut yourself between the thumb and forefinger you get lockjaw.
    That powdered glass is poisonous.
    That if you wash your hands in the water eggs have been boiled in (why anyone should do this is a mystery) you will get warts.
    That bulls become infuriated at the sight of red.
    That sulphur in a dog’s drinking water acts as a tonic. 

And so on and so forth. Almost everyone carries some or other of these beliefs into adult life. I have met someone of over thirty who still retained the second of the beliefs I have listed above. As for the third, it is so widespread that in India, for instance, people are constantly trying to poison one another with powdered glass, with disappointing results. 

George Orwell, As I Please, 1944

Kingsley Amis reports that his landlady came into his room to collect his breakfast tray, and started closing the curtains. What are you doing, he asked. The sunlight puts the fire out, she responded. He explained that when the sunlight hit the fire, you could no longer see the flames, and it looked as if it was going out. Oh really? And she closed the curtain.

The full set is here, in my book What You Know that Ain't So.

More here, and links to the rest.