The uninhabited clause (23)

Please note: This is a long post (859 words).

Our average is 355 words.

The Uninhabited Clause* is a clause that has a non-human subject: a thing or an idea as opposed to a person or group of persons. There is nothing inherently wrong with using uninhabited clauses, but when we use a lot of them, we imply that nothing much is happening. In doing so, we bore and exhaust our readers. They prefer reading about people doing things.

Example

For example, below (in green) are the first three paragraphs of a New York Times article about a rape. The reporters use a lot of uninhabited clauses; in addition, they deliberately weaken several of their inhabited clauses. I have interspersed my specific comments (in blue):

The crime was horrific

Uninhabited.

and the verdict stunningly swift.

Uninhabited.

Two former Vanderbilt University football players are facing the possibility of decades in prison

Inhabited. However, the subjects aren’t doing much; just sitting around waiting to go to prison, where they won’t be doing much either.

after it took a jury less than four hours to convict them

Uninhabited – deviously so. The reporters distort the sentence by using the infinitive mood (“to convict”) so as to evade using the more natural declarative mood (“a jury convicted them in less than four hours”). So even the jury didn’t do much; it didn’t convict – it just “took.” This weasely trick continues the “nobody’s doing much” tone.

for their roles in a 2013 sexual assault of an unconscious woman.

Another distortion; this one is worthy of a shyster lawyer: The reporters use “for their roles in… a sexual assault” to avoid saying “for sexually assaulting.” By doing this, the reporters insinuate that the football players didn’t do much during the assault – they just had “roles.”

Two more former football players await trial.

Inhabited. Again, although there are human beings in this sentence, they are not doing much of anything; they’re just sitting around.

At a time of widespread alarm and almost daily news reports about sexual assaults on college campuses, it is hard to imagine a case more likely than this one, captured on video by the assailants, to mobilize a campus.

Uninhabited.

As if to underscore how pervasive the concerns have become nationally, representatives from 76 Tennessee colleges and universities were holding a conference on the subject here, not far from the courthouse

Inhabited: The subject “representatives” refers to human beings, but the verb is weak: “were holding.” In other words, nobody’s doing much. Just sitting around and expelling hot air.

where Tuesday’s verdict played out.

Uninhabited.

But transformative moments are hard to come by

Uninhabited.

when a community’s population turns over every four years

Technically inhabited, because a community is made up of human beings. But it’s a weak subject of a weak verb. The reporters continue to insinuate that nobody’s doing much.

and its members have a deep investment in its reputation.

Inhabited, because members are human beings. However, notice what verb the reporters use here: to have. This verb and to be are the two weakest verbs in English.

So interviews Tuesday and Wednesday at Vanderbilt brought out horror

Uninhabited – and fiendishly clever. The word “horror” is the first strong word in the article. The reporters, writing about rape – a felony and a heinous crime – have finally, after 166 words, used a strong word. But watch how they immediately weaken it. They don’t quote anyone who says “I recoiled in horror” or “I was horrified.” They just say that “interviews… brought out horror.” The horror just floated around the campus like a fog.

at what had happened

Uninhabited.

and a distinct distance from it. Until the trial began more than two weeks ago, the episode seemed to elicit little sense of urgency

Uninhabited.

— in fact, the student newspaper, The Vanderbilt Hustler, found that

Uninhabited.

many students were not even aware of it.

Inhabited. However, the clause contains the weakest verb in English: to be. 

Summary

The reporters seem to be trying to say (and at the same time, trying to avoid saying) that something horrible happened on campus but the students reacted blandly if at all. But the reporters themselves are writing blandly. They can hardly bear to even type a strong word. In fact, they go out of their way – sometimes deviously so – to evade using any strong words.**

This is intellectually dishonest writing. The reporters sound like they are trying to get away with saying as little as they can, while still filling column inches to get paid. They and the editor who approved this piece should hang their heads in shame.

The Takeaway: Unless you are writing about abstract topics such as metaphysics or mathematics, you should strive to include persons in most of your clauses. Otherwise, you risk sounding academic and boring. You may even sound dishonest and therefore untrustworthy. Be aware that many reporters deliberately diminish what they write about. Imitate such writers only if you deliberately intend to diminish what you write about.
__________________

*My coinage, so far as I know.

**In contrast, look at the words and phrases I use: deviously, dishonest, distort, evade, felony, fiendishly, get away with, hang, heinous, insinuate, rape, shame, shyster, strive, untrustworthy, weasely.

See disclaimer.

“A Tsunami of B.S.”

Of all the faults that prevent clear writing and clear speaking, bullshit (nonsense) is among the most common.

Every one of us employs B.S. occasionally; we differ only in frequency. That’s why I am recommending you read the essay “A Tsunami of B.S.” by the American entrepreneur and bestselling author Robert Ringer (pictured).

Here’s an excerpt:

So, the question is, what can you do to protect yourself from drowning in the tsunami of B.S. that relentlessly comes at you each day?
 
First and foremost is to make a sincere and ongoing effort to curb your own B.S.  Knowingly or unknowingly, we’re all guilty of slinging a bit of B.S. at times, but that doesn’t mean we have to make a religion out of it.

Second, always do your best to steer clear of those who demonstrate they have mastered the art of B.S.  And to accomplish that, you have to pay more attention to what people do and less attention to what they say.

That advice gets easier and easier to follow as you rack up experience. After more than 40 years as a professional writer and editor, I notice that I often quickly see through B.S. (my own and others’) that I would have fallen for when I was a younger man. One of the compensations of aging, I suppose.

The Takeaway: I recommend you read Mr. Ringer’s essay in full. It is good advice, clearly stated. If you would like to read a philosophical essay on B.S., I recommend On Bullshit by the American philosopher Harry Gordon Frankfurt.

See disclaimer.

Grammatical shysterism (3) – McDonald’s

Most writers who make mistakes in grammar do it unintentionally. But some writers do it intentionally, in order to trick people. I call this behavior grammatical shysterism: abusing grammar as a shyster lawyer would abuse it.*

An example of grammatical shysterism

If you stop at the drive-through window at McDonald’s and ask for a Honey Mustard Snack Wrap, the cashier will ask, “grilled or crispy?” Every time, every cashier will ask it the same way: “grilled or crispy?”

And in writing, McDonald’s carefully uses the exact same language: “grilled or crispy.” Such diligent consistency in marketing is one characteristic of large, successful marketers.

However, there is an odd inconsistency within the phrase itself. It is grammatically non-parallel.** Grilled is a past participle referring to a specific method of cooking food. Crispy is an adjective describing food after it has been prepared by an unspecified method of cooking.

In short, McDonald’s uses the word crispy as a way to avoid saying the word fried. But why? 

Don’t speak of the devil

McDonald’s probably knows, from its extensive market research and concept testing, that many customers who believe fried food is unhealthy will buy it if the seller doesn’t actively remind them that the food has been fried. So McDonald’s, by consistently refusing to write or utter the word fried, is cheerfully helping these customers pretend that the chicken has not been fried.

Think I’m making this up? Look at the Honey Mustard Snack Wrap (Crispy) page on the web site. You will see the more-general words cooked and prepared. But not the more-specific word fried. Not even once.

This is egregious, malignant shysterism, reminiscent of U.S. President Bill Clinton’s infamous discussion of what the meaning of is is.

I could be wrong

Of course, I could be wrong in my assumptions. It is possible that the product is not fried. And is possible that all the creative directors, copywriters, editors, proofreaders, supervisors, marketing directors and marketing vice presidents at McDonald’s, the immensely successful global marketer, are just careless writers. Possible but improbable.

The Takeaway: It’s understandable and forgivable to make inadvertent mistakes in grammar; we all do it. But we should always avoid grammatical shysterism. If you’re an honest person, never talk or write like a shyster; people may assume that you are a shyster.

See disclaimer.

*Thanks to Janice L. Brown, a colleague and a clear writer, for coining the term grammatical shysterism.

**A famous example of non-parallelism is the question, “Do you like it better in the city or in the summer?”

Grammatical shysterism (2)

Here’s another example of grammatical shysterism, the deceptive use of grammar:

When the U.S. Department of Justice “admitted it knew its central contention was false” in its prosecution of a businessman, an employee of the department commented, “Defendants aren’t entitled to a perfect trial. . . . Misstatements happen.”

Analysis

The Department of Justice employee chose a grammatical structure that avoids any mention of human beings. She avoided saying “we lied” or “Justice lied” or “the prosecutor lied” – or even “we misstated” or “Justice misstated” or “the prosecutor misstated.”

In effect the employee said, “They were not lies at all; they were misstatements. And those misstatements made themselves; nobody at Justice made them.”

Of course, grown-ups easily see through such childish deceptions.

The Takeaway: If you resort to grammatical shysterism, you will sound like a pathetic child.

See disclaimer.

Grammatical shysterism

If you are striving to write clearly, you should carefully avoid grammatical shysterism, the deceptive use of grammar. Here’s a classic example of grammatical shysterism:

WBBM-TV, a CBS affiliate, interviewed a four-year-old boy on camera and then edited the interview to distort the meaning of his words. When other journalists exposed this offense, WBBM-TV issued the following statement:

“We accept responsibility for the mistakes that were made, both in the reporting and editing of the story. The video of the child should not have aired. As soon as news management identified the problem, they took immediate steps to ensure that the video would not air in subsequent newscasts. In addition, we have followed up with our employees to make sure that we all have learned from the mistakes that were made.”

Analysis

When referring to the making, editing and broadcasting of the offensive video, the statement uses either passive voice:

mistakes that were made

or reflexive voice:

The video… should not have aired

When referring to what the station did after it got caught broadcasting the offensive video, the statement uses active voice every time:

We accept

news management identified

they took

we have followed up

we all have learned

The grammar suggests that a mischievous video aired itself on WBBM-TV but diligent managers at WBBM-TV immediately took steps to prevent that sneaky little video from airing itself again.

The Takeaway: Don’t slip into the habit of using grammatical shysterism; it will make you sound like a shyster.

Thanks to Janice L. Brown, a colleague and clear writer, for coining the term grammatical shysterism.

See disclaimer.