Using commas correctly (2)

When a noun is preceded by a series of two or more adjectives, the rule is to separate the adjectives with commas. The commas help the reader recognize that he is reading a series of adjectives and that a noun will appear immediately after the end of the series.

This assistance to the reader is especially important when one or more of the adjectives could otherwise be mistaken for a noun, as in the following example.

CORRECT EXAMPLE: Doreen placed the bolts in a light, square, steel pan on the workbench.

There is an exception to the rule: If the last adjective and the noun form a familiar phrase when combined, that phrase “feels like” a noun to the reader. Therefore the reader doesn’t need to see a comma before the last adjective.

CORRECT EXAMPLE: Ben is a thoughtful, energetic young man.

The adjective young and the noun man form the familiar phrase, young man.

Here’s an incorrect example that appeared in The Boston Globe last week.

INCORRECT EXAMPLE:

“It has been 14 years since lawyer Jan R. Schlichtmann of Beverly rocketed to fame as a result of ‘A Civil Action,’ the best-selling book made into a movie starring John Travolta that chronicled Schlichtmann’s nine-year legal battle against companies accused of leaking contaminants into drinking wells in Woburn….

“ ‘I sit here and almost drown in the irony of [a recent lawsuit],’ the wiry, 58-year-old replied in his wood-paneled office…”

To the reader, the adjectival phrase, 58-year-old (the word man is implied), feels like a noun. Therefore, the comma after wiry is not needed. In fact, the presence of the comma is confusing. The reader pauses and silently asks, “Why is that comma there?”

The Takeaway: When a noun is preceded by a series of two or more adjectives, place commas between the adjectives. Exception: If the last adjective and the noun form a familiar phrase when combined, that phrase “feels like” a noun to the reader. Therefore, do not place a comma before the last adjective.

Mixed metaphors (2)

Mixed metaphors can reduce the clarity of your writing in two ways. First, mixed metaphors can make your readers pause to wonder what you meant by combining two or more metaphors in an incongruous way.

Second, mixed metaphors can make your readers pause to laugh at the incongruity. Every time you make your readers pause, every time you distract them, you run the risk that they will miss your main point, or even stop reading.

In addition to reducing your clarity, mixed metaphors can reduce your credibility. The more intelligent of your readers will think, “He’s careless with words; maybe he’s careless with facts.”

Example of a mixed metaphor

Here’s a simple example of a mixed metaphor:

“Stockton, California is one of many flash points of the housing bubble.”

A flash point is not a place; it is a temperature. It is “[t]he lowest temperature at which the vapor of a combustible liquid can be made to ignite momentarily in air.”

When, as in the example, the metaphor flash point is combined with the metaphor bubble, readers will become confused. Is the flash point the point at which the bubble forms or the point at which the bubble becomes so large that it bursts? Neither of these events involves ignition. The sentence is nonsense.

The Takeaway: Whenever you write, pay attention to the metaphors you are using. When you combine metaphors, double-check the definition of each metaphor and make sure there is no chance of a mixed metaphor. Mixed metaphors will confuse and distract your readers. They will also damage your credibility with the more intelligent of your readers. These readers are keenly aware of your diction. They are judging you, line by line. Always strive to win their esteem.

Concise writing is usually clear writing (3)

Here is another excellent example of concise writing and clear writing. It is a poster satirizing the Big Three U.S. automakers: GM, Chrysler and Ford. (Warning: strong language.)

You could read thousands of pages of recent news coverage of the auto bailout. You could read a stack of books about National Socialism (Nazism). You would learn a lot of historical details but you wouldn’t understand any more about the concept of the bailout or the concept of Nazism than is captured in the 112 words of this poster.

The poster explains why people who run big corporations – in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s, in the United States in 2008-2009, or in any other country or era – decide to beg politicians to take over their corporations.

It explains why politicians are pleased to oblige.

And it explains what the takeover does to citizens who voted for those politicians (and to the citizens who voted against them, and to the citizens who didn’t vote at all).

The Takeaway: Whenever you find yourself struggling to concisely summarize what appears to be a big, complicated concept, stop! Take a few minutes to clear your mind of your “mental baggage.” Discard the prejudices, denials, euphemisms, circumlocutions, projections, fears, evasions and lies that you have associated with the concept. Adopt the point of view of an intelligent but disinterested observer. You will be amazed at how simple the concept becomes. Then the intelligent, disinterested observer within you can just tell the story as it is. That is how the fellow who wrote that poster could do it in 112 words.

The maniacal use of “comfortable”

In several posts I have discussed the abuse of certain fad words; for example, issues and drive. For various reasons, many writers have developed a maniacal attachment to these words. They abuse these words egregiously, most often for purposes of obfuscation.

Today I want to discuss the abuse of comfortable. This abuse has continued and increased for years. The abuse became a controversy in the social-media world this week, when TechCrunch published an article titled, “Twitter Grows ‘Uncomfortable’ With The Use Of The Word Tweet In Applications.” The article quoted a statement from an unnamed employee at Twitter:

“ ‘Hi,

Twitter, Inc is uncomfortable with the use of the word Tweet (our trademark) and the similarity in your UI and our own. How can we go about having you change your UI to better differentiate your offering from our own?

Thanks,’ ”

TechCrunch asked Twitter management for clarification and received a response from Biz Stone, a co-founder of Twitter:

“ ‘The ecosystem growing around Twitter is something we very much believe in nourishing and supporting. As part of this support, we encourage developers of new applications and services built using Twitter APIs to invent original branding for their projects rather than use our marks, logos, or look and feel. This approach leaves room for applications to evolve as they grow and it avoids potential confusion down the line.

As we build our platform team, we will be adding more guidelines and best practices to help developers get the most out of our growing set of open APIs. We have healthy relationships with existing developers who sometimes include Twitter logos, marks, or look and feel in their applications and services. We’ll continue to work together in a fair and flexible way to ensure success for Twitter, developers, and everyone who uses these services.’ ”

TechCrunch commented: “It’s a rather vague statement that doesn’t really make it clear whether the use of the word ‘tweet’ is now frowned upon or not.”

I comment further, on the unnamed employee’s reference to the policy and on Mr. Stone’s statement of the policy:

The reference to the policy

When an employee uses a vague word while referring to a company policy, the reader or hearer cannot know for certain whether the employee is (1) uninformed; (2) semiliterate; (3) literate but careless; (4) literate and usually careful, but careless while making the reference; (5) literate and careful, and signaling (consciously or unconsciously) that the policy itself is vague.

The statement of the policy

The vagueness of Mr. Stone’s statement indicates that the unnamed employee’s use of uncomfortable was probably an example of (5). That is to say, Mr. Stone’s statement demonstrates that the policy is vague; therefore the unnamed employee probably was revealing the vagueness of the policy.

The Takeaway: Don’t abuse the fad word comfortable. Write like a grown-up; say what you mean and mean what you say. If a policy is vague, don’t discuss it publicly. If pressed, say that your company has not yet clarified the policy enough for public discussion. And always assume that anything you write about your company could be demanded in a subpoena someday; to assume otherwise is childish. For a good example of a grown-up statement of policy, take a look at this page of the Sun Microsystems web site. Yes, it’s tedious, but many grown-up things are.

Avoiding redundancy (4)

In previous posts (1, 2, 3), I used real-world examples to demonstrate that redundancy causes more damage than we think. Here’s another example:

Today I stopped for gas at a Citgo station in Hanover, NH. Attached to the pump was this sign:

PLEASE PREPAY FIRST
OR USE A CARD HERE
BEFORE PUMPING ANY GAS

A triple redundancy!

(paying before pumping = paying first = prepaying)

The Takeaway: Remember two things about redundancy. First, every redundancy impedes your reader for a second or two. Second, redundancies have a cumulative effect; the more redundancies you use, the worse you look. At some point, your reader will conclude that you are careless or stupid.