The cumulative effect of vague expressions

Every time you use a vague word or phrase, you are likely to earn a small demerit in the mind of an intelligent reader. These demerits add up. At some point (different from reader to reader) your total demerits exceed the reader’s tolerance and he stops reading. He is not going to work hard to decipher copy that you were too lazy to write clearly.

In other words: one offense, by itself, probably will not stop any intelligent reader. But an accumulation of many offenses, however small individually, will stop all readers (except for readers who are obliged to keep reading; for example, as part of a course assignment).

Here’s a piece of text with a lot of vague expressions per paragraph. On Freep.com (The Detroit Free Press online), Barb Arrigo last Tuesday posted an article titled, “That &*#@ California tailpipe rule.” These are the first two paragraphs (a total of 119 words):

“Among the issues that are tough for an editorial writer, the ability of states to take a different stand from the federal government is one of the trickiest to navigate. If you only want what’s best for your state, you end up being for states’ power — except when you’re against it. There aren’t prizes for that kind of reasoning.

“So today we have the semi-regular topic of whether California (and at least 13 other states that have tagged along) should be able to set separate tailpipe rules for carbon dioxide. As staunch Detroiters and Michiganders, we think this is an awful spot to put the domestic automakers in. The impact of global warming falls everywhere, not just in California.”

As you can see, this is really sloppy writing. Now here is the same text with questions (in blue) that a reader may silently ask at various points:

Among the issues that are tough for an editorial writer,

By “tough,” do you mean difficult to understand; politically dangerous to write about; or something else?

the ability of states to take a different stand

Do you mean the ability of each state to take a stand, or do you mean the ability of several (or even all) states to take one collective stand?

from

Did you intend to insert that of here? Without that of, the sentence is illogical and ungrammatical.

the federal government is one of the trickiest to navigate.

How does one navigate an ability?

If you only want what’s best for your state, you end up being for states’ power — except when you’re against it. There aren’t prizes for that kind of reasoning.

What kind of reasoning? What are you trying to say?

So today we have

Do you mean that this is the topic your article is going to discuss today; or do you mean that the topic is being discussed currently in some legislature or court; or something else?

the semi-regular topic of whether California (and at least 13 other states that have tagged along) should be able to set separate tailpipe rules for carbon dioxide.

Separate from the tailpipe rules for other effluents? Or separate from the federal government’s tailpipe rules for carbon dioxide? Or separate from other states’ (that is, outside of California and the aforementioned “at least 13 other states”) tailpipe rules for carbon dioxide? Or something else?

As staunch Detroiters and Michiganders, we

Is this the editorial we? If it is, you are using it awkwardly because you are cornering yourself into having to refer to yourself as more than one Detroiter and more than one Michigander. Or are you actually presuming to speak on behalf of all residents of Michigan, as if they were of one mind?

think this is an awful spot

Which spot is that?

to put the domestic automakers in. The impact of global warming falls everywhere, not just in California.

How does that last sentence support your argument, and what is your argument, anyway?

(From this point on, the editorial becomes even vaguer and more rambling, so I will stop analyzing it here. I think I’ve made my point: there are a lot of vague words and phrases in the first two paragraphs, and the cumulative effect irritated you.)

The Takeaway: By publishing what you write, you are implicitly asking the reader for his continued voluntary attention. Every time you use a vague or awkward word or phrase, you gain a demerit in the reader’s mind. If the demerits keep accumulating, eventually he will stop reading. He may even decide to avoid your writing altogether in the future.