Fallacies (1) – sunk costs

The fallacy of sunk costs is one of dozens of common fallacies. A fallacy is any example of “[p]lausible but invalid reasoning.” Many fallacies have been known since ancient times.

The fallacy of sunk costs is the consideration of spent time or spent money as a factor in a decision.

For example, an investor holds 500 shares of a stock, and is trying to decide whether to sell the shares. The shares have lost 40 percent of their value since he bought them. He would like to sell in order to invest the proceeds elsewhere. He would also like to hold the 500 shares until he regains the value he has lost. So, he is torn.

But the amount he has lost in the past, however painful it may feel to him, is irrelevant. It should not be a factor in the present. He should consider only the likely future performance of the shares as compared to the likely future performance of the other investment he could make if he liquidates the shares.

For more detail on the fallacy of sunk costs, read this easy-to-follow article by business coach Paul Lemberg.

Here’s an excerpt:

Sunk costs are sunk.

They are gone.

They are spent.

The assets you’ve created may have some surplus value, like unused inventory. Or they may have salvage value [like gold in a shipwreck]… But in many cases the value of your sunk costs is a tiny fraction of the original price.

The Takeaway: Remember that clear writing presupposes clear thinking. Try to avoid fallacies such as the fallacy of sunk costs. Best wishes for the New Year.

Clarity is not an ornament

A great many people, when they write prose, think clarity is optional. They believe it is an ornament, and that the essence of writing is “just get it down on paper.”

Frank Rich (pictured), one of the few literate writers left at The New York Times, recently gave us a nicely stated example of the value of clear writing:

“You’d think after Enron’s collapse that financial leaders and government overseers would question the contents of ‘exotic’ investments that could not be explained in plain English. But only a few years after Enron’s very public and extensively dissected crimes, the same bankers, federal regulatory agencies and securities-rating companies were giving toxic ‘assets’ a pass. We were only too eager to go along for the lucrative ride until it crashed like Tiger’s Escalade.”

The Takeaway: Clear writing can be worth a trillion or two. Maybe more.

A few amusing examples of mixed metaphors (5)

Mixed metaphors are often amusing, as these examples illustrate. However, we writers are usually more interested in informing and persuading our readers than in amusing them. Mixed metaphors may distract our readers and impede information and persuasion. Here are* a few amusing mixed metaphors:

Example of a mixed metaphor

Source: BBC News (website)

A December 8 article, “Irish Republic faces second tough budget in a year,” mixes a medicine metaphor with a cooking metaphor. But at least the author has mixed the metaphors consciously:

“If you’ll pardon the mixed metaphor, administering strong medicine to the sick patient that is the Irish economy is not a recipe for political success in the short term…”

Example of a mixed metaphor

Source: live dangerously be a conservative (blog)

A December 8 post, “Through the Window ala Looking Glass,” combines three metaphors in a single sentence:

“The parameters of the Overton Window are shifting in a kaleidoscopic fashion. As a mixed metaphor of sorts, we need to stop the kaleidoscope, throw open the sash and jump through the looking glass.”

Example of a mixed metaphor

Source: LewRockell.com (website)

A December 11 article, “The Crystal Meth Economy,” contains one sentence with six metaphors:

“Optimism was given free rein to establish an entire hallucination economy, one based on ever-rising asset values pushed higher by ever-rising credit availability, itself a product of pyramiding values on spiraling government debt, laundered through a public treasury that strip-mined the savings of three generations.”

The Takeaway: Mixed metaphors may distract your readers. They may even make your prose impossible to understand. Ideally, you should have someone edit your copy (mixed metaphors are more easily spotted by the reader than by the writer).

*I selected these samples for the diction they contain, not the ideas they contain. On this blog, I am promoting no political position – unless you consider clarity a political position.

Mantras and “The Gray Lady”

Decades ago, most reporters at The New York Times (nicknamed “The Gray Lady”) wrote in clear, often elevated English. By contrast, most of the people they quoted spoke in mantras.*

Today, that contrast is disappearing. Times reporters usually write in mantras; they have lowered themselves to the level of the dullards they interview. Apparently The Gray Lady went slumming and never came back.

Examples of reporters’ use of mantras

A November 7, 2009 article contains many typical examples of reporters’ use of mantras. (Boldface added.)

“Marilyn Wann is an author and weight diversity [vague mantra left undefined throughout the article] speaker in Northern California…”

“Heavier [euphemistic mantra] Americans are pushing back [maniacally popular mantra for resisting] now with newfound vigor…”

“Other less-scientific arguments have also gained traction [vague mantra for “obtained a hearing” or “caught on” or “became popular” or something else?] …”

“…that weight diversity is a good thing and that size discrimination [vague mantra left unclarified throughout the article] is as offensive as any other kind.”

“Weight is an incendiary issue [a confusing mantra; if the reporter wants to imply that some people are using their body mass or their words to (metaphorically?) burn things or people, why won’t she identify who’s burning what or whom – and how and why?]…

The Takeaway: If you are more than 50 years old, you probably remember when young writers could pick up good writing habits by emulating the prose in The New York Times. Today, they would probably pick up more bad habits than good. Don’t emulate Times reporters. Emulate good writers, such as the writers in my “List of Writers to Absorb.” If you would like a copy of the list, please email me at the address shown in my profile. I will respond via email.

*Back then, we usually called them bromides or clichés.

On readability, UPS scores higher than average

Good readability (consisting of short sentences, short words, legible typeface, adequate leading, and so on) is a prerequisite to clarity.

Rudolf Flesch based his Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) test on sentence length and word length alone. FRE has proved to be a highly reliable test of readability and is now the world’s most widely used test.*

Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) Scores

FRE scores range from approximately 0 (the lowest readability) to approximately 100 (the highest readability). Here are a few typical ranges:

60s Reader’s Digest
50s Time magazine
40s The Wall Street Journal
30s Harvard Law Review
20s tax forms; academic papers
10s High-tech web sites

Readability in the Corporate World

Large companies in the USA score in the 30s, 20s or 10s. Many high-tech companies score lower than 10. There may be a large company that scores above 40, but I have not found it yet.**

Try this: Randomly select a company from the Fortune 500 list, and randomly select one of its press releases, white papers, or web pages. It will probably score in the low 20s. This means, most large companies are trying to sell products or services via marketing copy that is as hard to read as a tax form or an academic paper.

Below I display a passage that has high readability, by the relaxed standards of the corporate world. This is the best you can normally expect when corporate committees try to write. (But you will learn to do better than this – much better. I will help you.)

The sample is a page from the UPS web site. It is the history of the company from 2000 to 2007. This web page scores 25 on the FRE.

From the UPS web site

2000-2007

Global Commerce and Transformation

Over time, UPS has become a leader in global supply chain management. At UPS, global distribution and logistics involves managing not only the movement of goods, but also the information and funds that move with those goods.

UPS customers repeatedly asked to tap into this expertise, which ultimately led to the development of a full-service business. UPS Supply Chain Solutions is a streamlined organization that provides logistics, global freight, financial, and mail services to enhance customers’ business performance and improve their global supply chains.

In 2001, UPS ventured toward retail business by acquiring Mail Boxes Etc., Inc., the world’s largest franchisor of retail shipping, postal and business service centers. Within two years, approximately 3,000 Mail Boxes Etc. locations in the United States re-branded as The UPS Store® and began offering lower UPS-direct shipping rates. The stores remain locally owned and operated, and continue to offer the same variety of postal and business services, with the same convenience and world-class service.

UPS continues to expand service worldwide. In Europe, Asia, and South America, customers enjoy an unmatched portfolio of time-definite and supply chain services. Two major enhancements to international service came with the expansion of Worldport, the air hub in Louisville, Kentucky, as well as the European air hub in Cologne, Germany. With Asia identified as a primary growth target, in 2005 UPS launched the first non-stop delivery service between the U.S. and Guangzhou, China. That same year, UPS acquired the interest held by its joint venture business partner in China, giving it access to 23 cities that cover more than 80% of the country’s international trade.

From using electric vehicles in New York City during the 1930s to developing water conservation techniques while keeping the familiar brown package cars clean, as well as operating the world’s largest fleet of compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles, UPS has long practiced environmentally-conscious innovations. Although sustainable practices are not new to UPS, the company recognized the need to formally document its focus on responsible business models. In 2003, UPS issued its first Corporate Sustainability report, highlighting the importance of balancing economic, social and environmental objectives. Now an annual report, it tracks the company’s key performance indicators relevant to the business.

UPS continually gains wider access to various markets through acquisitions. The 1999 acquisition of Challenge Air made UPS the largest express and air cargo carrier in Latin America. Purchasing Menlo Worldwide Forwarding in 2004 added heavy air freight shipment capability, while the acquisition of Overnite in 2005 expanded the company’s ground freight services in North America. Other recent acquisitions in the U.K. and Poland present new opportunities for growth in Europe.

Over the past 100 years, UPS has become an expert in transformation, growing from a small messenger company to a leading provider of air, ocean, ground, and electronic services. The most recent public change came in 2003, when the company introduced a new brand mark, representing a new, evolved UPS, and showing the world that its capabilities extend beyond small package delivery. The company went another step further, adopting the acronym UPS as its formal name, another indicator of its broad expanse of services. Ever true to its humble origins, the company maintains its reputation for integrity, reliability, employee ownership, and customer service. For UPS, the future promises even more accomplishments as the next chapter in the company’s history is written.

The Takeaway: Always strive for high readability. As you write, watch word length and sentence length. As you edit, look for long words that should be short words. Try to break up sentences longer than 20 words. Always aim for an FRE score above 50. Settle for 30 to 50 if the topic requires it. But don’t willingly go below 30. For most readers, below 30 is too hard to read.

*FRE is even built into Microsoft Word.

**If you know of a company that consistently scores above 40, please identify the company, in a comment on this post. I would appreciate it very much. I would like to give the company some well-deserved credit.

Politicians are poor role models for writers (1) - Barack Obama in Oslo

If you want to write clearly, accurately and honestly, don’t imitate politicians. With few exceptions, they are the worst possible role models for writers.

For example, Barack Obama (right) said this* as he accepted the Nobel Peace Prize last Thursday:

“As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. [Martin Luther] King’s life’s work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there is nothing weak – nothing passive – nothing naïve – in the creed and lives of [Mohandas] Gandhi and King.

“But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people.” (Boldface added.)

In fact, Mr. Obama is not sworn to “protect and defend [his] nation.” The oath of office, as prescribed by Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States, reads as follows:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” (Boldface added.)

The Takeaway: Don’t imitate politicians. They are the worst possible role models for writers. With few exceptions, politicians are incapable of using words clearly, accurately and honestly.

*I selected this sample for the diction it contains, not the ideas it contains. On this blog, I am promoting no political position – unless you consider clarity a political position.

If you want to build trust, don’t use jargon

Jargon does have its place. Among members of a craft, profession, specialty or any other in-group, jargon often provides an efficient shorthand.

But as we all know, jargon can also be abused. It can be: (1) overused, (2) directed at people outside the group, (3) used to feign profundity of thought, (4) used to feign novelty of thought, or (5) used to feign clarity of thought.

Mark Ragan (pictured), CEO at Lawrence Ragan Communications, wrote an entertaining story describing abuses (1) and (2) from the victim’s point of view.

Mr. Ragan is a seemingly-inexhaustible source of ideas about writing, public relations and marketing. Follow him on Twitter.

The Takeaway: To avoid abusing jargon, practice empathy. A writer who diligently practices empathy will rarely, if ever, abuse jargon.

Mantras dull our minds (2) – Thomas Sowell

As I explained a few weeks ago, mantras are enemies of clear writing. They dull our minds and the minds of our readers. I cited an article in which Thomas Sowell lamented the use of the "mindless mantra" making a difference.

In that same article, Dr. Sowell also lamented the use of giving back:

“ ‘Giving back’ is a similarly mindless mantra.

“I have donated money, books and blood for people I have never seen and to whom I owe nothing. Nor is that unusual among Americans, who do more of this than anyone else.

“But we are not ‘giving back’ anything to those people because we never took anything from them in the first place.

“If we are giving back to society at large, in exchange for all that society has made possible for us, then that is a very different ballgame.

“Giving back in that sense means acknowledging an obligation to those who went before us and for the institutions and values that enable us to prosper today.

“But there is very little of this spirit of gratitude and loyalty in many of those who urge us to ‘give back.’

“Indeed, many who repeat the ‘giving back’ mantra would sneer at any such notion as patriotism or any idea that the institutions and values of American society have accomplished worthy things and deserve their support, instead of their undermining.”

The Takeaway: Think. Don’t mindlessly imitate people who use a lot of mantras. These people are dull and lazy. You are a professional writer. You are, and should be, perceptive and diligent.

Unintentional hedging (4) – “kind of” and “sort of”

Unintentional hedging – the unintentional use of kind of, sort of, pretty much, about, umm, like, and other hedges – is an easy habit to fall into. I’ve discussed this habit in previous posts: (1), (2), (3).

Kind of and sort of appear to be especially addictive. Many people start out as occasional users and end up as heavy users. Heavy usage can hurt your credibility. By “heavy usage,” I mean usage that is frequent, egregious or both.

Example

Here’s an example of “frequent.”

Because I am a speechwriter and speech coach, I can’t sit in an audience without mentally critiquing the speakers. Recently, at a technology conference, I noticed that one speaker (a man with a lot of academic degrees listed after his name) was frequently using kind of. For the remainder of his speech, I clocked him. On average, he used kind of once every nine seconds.

Now that’s just ridiculous, and even obtuse listeners are going to wake up and notice it. When they do, they will receive this unintended message from the speaker: “I’m not really saying anything. I’m just thinking out loud, and I’m not even sure of the thoughts. So, don’t listen to me. Check your email, play Tetris, or sneak out the door.”

Example

Here’s an example of “egregious.”

Many speakers use kind of preceding a noun, adjective or adverb that denotes extremeness; for example, “It was kind of a disaster.” “He was kind of hideous.”

In a November 5 article, reporter Matt Taibbi gave us a great example. Mr. Taibbi is a “tough” reporter: a master of the exposé and a user of strong language. But even he succumbed to the habit of unintentional hedging:

“It’s kind of amazing that with all the uproar over the Galleon business, nobody is making much hay over the recent revelations about the AIG bailouts. . .”

Later in the article, he hedges the word amazing again, this time with sort of:

“That he bought 50,000 shares in Goldman after the AIG bailout and is not in jail right now is sort of amazing. . .”

Well, is it amazing or is it not amazing?

The Takeaway: Heavy use of the hedges kind of and sort of can damage your credibility. Check yourself occasionally. Use your word processing software to search for these phrases in copy you have written; check for egregious uses. Get a tape recording of yourself giving a speech or participating in a meeting or a conference call – don’t break any laws doing this. Listen to the tape, or have it transcribed, and count the hedges. If they are frequent (as a rule of thumb, more than one hedge per minute), you are undermining what you say. Try to become more conscious of this habit.

Placement of modifiers (9)

Careless placement of modifiers is a frequent cause of unclear writing. When you place a modifier carelessly, you force your readers to guess what you mean to modify.

If you force them to do that, many readers will conclude that you are inconsiderate, indolent or stupid. Don’t take the risk; do it right.

Here’s a good example of careless placement of a modifier.

Example

When the Telegraph (UK) covered the recent gatecrashing at the White House, the report included this sentence:

“The couple, described as aspiring reality TV stars and polo-playing socialites, were photographed arriving at the White House.”

Almost all readers will conclude that “aspiring” is meant to modify the phrase “reality TV stars,” because the phrase immediately follows the modifier. This conclusion will almost certainly be correct.

However, many readers will be unsure about “polo-playing socialites.” When a modifier precedes two phrases separated by and, the modifier usually is meant to modify both phrases.

But the context here suggests that “aspiring” does not modify “polo-playing socialites.” The context implies that the gatecrashers (pictured) are already “polo-playing socialites” and are aspiring to become “reality TV stars” in addition. In other words, it implies that they have time on their hands, that they pass the time giving lavish parties and riding expensive horses, and that they would like to add a third social-climbing pastime.

If that is true, and if the Telegraph reporter knew it, he should have written this, or something like this:

The couple, described as polo-playing socialites and aspiring reality TV stars, were photographed arriving at the White House.

The Takeaway: Place every modifier so that the reader can easily identify what you intend to modify and what you do not intend to modify. Don’t make your readers work harder to read the sentence than you worked to write it.

And the Fair Land

Yesterday The Wall Street Journal ran an editorial titled “And the Fair Land.” It was written in 1961 by Vermont Royster (pictured), who was editorial page editor from 1958 to 1971. The Journal has run this editorial annually since 1961.

The prose is elevated but not stuffy. It is stirring but not sentimental. It is forthright and clear.*

Today, the editors of major newspapers cannot write clear, forthright, stirring prose. But I am thankful that Vermont Royster and some of his contemporaries could and did.

The editorial begins:

Any one whose labors take him into the far reaches of the country, as ours lately have done, is bound to mark how the years have made the land grow fruitful.

This is indeed a big country, a rich country. . .

And continues:

And a traveler cannot but be struck on his journey by the thought that this country, one day, can be even greater. . . .

So the visitor returns thankful for much of what he has seen, and, in spite of everything, an optimist about what his country might be. . . .

And ends:

But we can all remind ourselves that the richness of this country was not born in the resources of the earth, though they be plentiful, but in the men that took its measure. For that reminder is everywhere – in the cities, towns, farms, roads, factories, homes, hospitals, schools that spread everywhere over that wilderness.

We can remind ourselves that for all our social discord we yet remain the longest enduring society of free men governing themselves without benefit of kings or dictators. Being so, we are the marvel and the mystery of the world, for that enduring liberty is no less a blessing than the abundance of the earth.

And we might remind ourselves also, that if those men setting out from Delftshaven had been daunted by the troubles they saw around them, then we could not this autumn be thankful for a fair land.

[End]

I wish my countrymen a happy Thanksgiving.

*I selected this sample for its diction, not for its content. On this blog, I am promoting no political position – unless you consider clarity a political position.

A handy guide to concise writing

If you are a young writer and you have difficulty writing concisely, allow me to encourage you in two ways.

First, I assure you that you will improve steadily, year by year. Eventually you’ll be able to cut an article or chapter by 10 percent or even 20 percent, omitting no essentials. You’ll be able to do it quickly and without much hesitation.

Second, I recommend this handy guide: The Writer’s Digest Dictionary of Concise Writing, by Robert Hartwell Fiske.*

The dictionary consists of two sections. The first section is a tutorial, with plenty of examples. The second section is the dictionary proper. In alphabetical order, it lists wordy phrases and concise equivalents.

This is a reference book to keep by your elbow whenever you revise or edit.

The Takeaway: To become a more concise writer, be diligent in your revising and editing – and use The Writer’s Digest Dictionary of Concise Writing.

*I have no financial interest in the sales of this book and no financial relationship with Writer’s Digest or Mr. Fiske.

Bad diction: the uninhabited clause (8)

Today we look again at the overuse of the uninhabited clause, a form of bad diction. “Uninhabited clause” is my phrase for a main clause* with a subject that is a physical thing or a concept, as opposed to a person or group of persons. It is a main clause that has no people in it.

Now, there’s nothing inherently wrong with uninhabited clauses. But when we use a lot of them we confuse, tire and irritate our readers.

An example of the overuse of the uninhabited clause

Today’s example is an excerpt from an essay by Andy Nowicki titled “The Bright Side of ‘Torture Porn.’ ” (Don’t worry, the excerpt contains no disturbing language. Via uninhabited clauses and other bad diction, Mr. Nowicki has made it as bland as oatmeal.)

Here are Mr. Nowicki’s first three paragraphs, with the subject of each main clause in boldface:

“Moral permissiveness is one symptom of a society in conspicuous decline. However, insofar as moral permissiveness feeds into artistic permissiveness, a wholly negative trend becomes at least potentially positive. ‘Extreme’ art — that is to say, art that is dark, disturbing, and, to use a much overused word, ‘edgy’ — often provokes reflection among its consumers, whether or not the artist intended any such thing. That is especially true of movies, which remain powerful and culturally ubiquitous in their influence.

“I hardly need point out that reflectiveness and permissive behavior seldom go hand in hand; the former is, in fact, the determined enemy of the latter, and vice versa. Thus, in an age of decadence, movies that are ‘extreme’ in content and theme have a double-edged function. On the one hand, they tend to feed the increasingly perverse appetite of a jaded and debauched general public. But that problem is sometimes misleadingly magnified by shortsighted right-wing scolds (conservative film critic Michael Medved being the most egregious example), who appear to think that the production of any movie containing profanity, nudity, or violence amounts to another act of naked aggression by liberal Hollywood against decent American values.

“Less often remarked by prominent conservatives is the undeniably chastening effect that an ‘extreme’ movie tends to have on an audience. Watching people do terrible things to other people for two hours on screen may titillate some viewers who are probably already drawn to deviancy, but it usually has the opposite effect on most people. In fact the ‘extreme’ format may be an ideal vehicle for bringing home the point that restraint, found through the embrace of morality, is needed lest we become a society in which ‘anything goes’ — which is just another way of describing a realm where the strong and sadistic have free rein to prey upon the weak and defenseless.”

Critique of the example

I’m sure you can feel it. Whenever a writer piles up a lot of main clauses with non-human subjects, his writing feels academic, theoretical and irrelevant. Overall, the prose conveys to the reader a sense that “nobody’s doing anything.”

In these three paragraphs, Mr. Nowicki has used thirteen main clauses, with thirteen subjects. Twelve subjects are non-human. Only one (“I”) is human:

permissiveness
trend
art
That [the provoking of reflection]
I
former
movies
they [movies]
problem
effect
Watching
it [watching]
format

The Takeaway: Whenever you feel that your copy is dry, take out a pen and circle the subject of every main clause in two or three paragraphs. Then go back and double-circle the human subjects. Then read aloud all the non-human subjects. You will see, hear and feel the lifelessness of your copy. Where possible, put in some people. It will animate your prose. Of course, when you are dealing with abstract topics such as logic and metaphysics, you won’t be able to add as many people. But adding even a few people here and there – even if only in examples – can make your copy feel more alive to the reader.

*Also called primary clause, independent clause, and sentence.

A few amusing examples of mixed metaphors (4)

Mixed metaphors are often amusing, as these examples illustrate. However, we writers are usually more interested in informing and persuading our readers than in amusing them. Mixed metaphors can distract our readers and impede information and persuasion.

Here are a few amusing mixed metaphors:

Example

Apparently the mayor of Nashville, TN, wants Nashville to be a World Cup host. The Tennessean reported November 10 that, after making a presentation to U.S. Soccer officials, Mayor Karl Dean said, “I think we hit a homerun...” (Thanks to Post Politics.)

Example

On “Top Chef Las Vegas”:

“She’s oftentimes been lucky enough to be the lesser of two equals. Hopefully the buck’s about to run out on that one.” (Thanks to the kitchn.)

Example

From What’s Happening to American English? (1978) by Arn Tibbetts and Charlene Tibbetts, page 6:

“ ‘Everything was coming up roses for a young west suburban married couple as long as two pay-checks – his and hers – were rolling in. Then came the first of five children. And the cozy little two-paycheck dream world of Donald B. and his wife, Phyllis, collapsed into a rat race – slowly at first. Then the vicious circle of debt accumulation began to close in. When its grip was total, it embraced the young couple in $5,000 worth of debts.’ It is significant that university English majors preparing to teach usually do not see anything strange in that passage. Nor, apparently, did the writer who shifts through metaphors involving roses, rolling in, dream world, rat race, and a vicious circle that closes, grips, and embraces.”

The Takeaway: When editing your own copy, watch for mixed metaphors. Ideally, get someone to edit your copy. For some reason, others can spot our mixed metaphors much more easily than we can.

Mantras dull our minds (1) – George Orwell and Thomas Sowell

Mantras dull our minds and the minds of our readers.

When we writers use mantras, we fool ourselves into thinking that we are thinking as we write. We are not thinking – we are mindlessly grabbing popular phrases just because they are popular. We forget that most mantras are popular because they are stupid.

And we fool our readers into thinking that they are thinking as they read our prose. They are not thinking. They are swallowing our mantras whole – as smoothly as Jell-O.

As we keep doing this, we make ourselves and our readers less and less perceptive.

George Orwell described this pernicious process in his famous 1946 essay, “Politics and the English Language.” Here’s an excerpt:

“A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts…. Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble. If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly…

“[A] mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence is the most marked characteristic of modern English prose… As soon as certain topics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: 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 henhouse.”

An example of a stupid and stupefying mantra

Thomas Sowell, a renowned clear thinker, discussed the mantra “make a difference,” which is an outstanding example of what Orwell was talking about:

“I would be scared to death to ‘make a difference’ in the way pilots fly airliners or brain surgeons operate,” wrote Dr. Sowell. “Any difference I might make could be fatal to many people.

“Making a difference makes sense only if you are convinced that you have mastered the subject at hand to the point where any difference you might make would be for the better.

“Very few people have mastered anything that well beyond their own limited circle of knowledge. Even fewer seem to think far enough ahead to consider that question. Yet hardly a day goes by without news of some uninformed busybodies on one crusade or another.”

The Takeaway: Think. Don’t mindlessly imitate people who use a lot of mantras. These people are dull and lazy. You are a professional writer. You are, and should be, perceptive and diligent.

First, second and third person (4)

If clear writing is your goal, be consistent with grammatical person (first, second and third person). When you begin a passage in one person, stay in that person until the end of the passage. If you switch person within a passage, you risk confusing your readers.

An example of the risk of switching person

A good example of the risk recently appeared on the JibberJobber blog:

“If you are not getting value out of LinkedIn, I’d seriously try and figure out what you are doing right and what you are doing wrong.”

The writer starts out in second person (“If you are not getting…”). He then introduces the first person with a subjunctive verb (“I’d seriously try” = “I would seriously try”) and then reverts to second person (“what you are doing right”), all in one sentence. It almost sounds as if the writer were offering to directly help the reader edit his LinkedIn profile.

But I am guessing that the writer means to say this:

If I were you and I were not getting value out of LinkedIn, I would seriously try to figure out what I was doing right and what I was doing wrong.

That rewrite is logically valid and grammatical; however, it is cumbersome. A smoother and more direct approach would be to eliminate the subjunctive and write something like this:

If you’re not getting value out of LinkedIn, try to figure out what you’re doing right and wrong.

It’s shorter, cleaner and clearer than the original.

The Takeaway: When you begin a passage in one grammatical person (first, second or third person), stay in that person until the end of the passage. If you switch person, you risk confusing your readers. Review the pronoun section in your grammar book; learn first person, second person and third person so thoroughly that you will jar yourself awake whenever you accidentally switch person.

"The Elements of Style" turns 50

If you ask writers about early influences in their careers, a great many will mention The Elements of Style, the brief style guide authored by William Strunk, Jr., and E. B. White.

This year is the 50th anniversary of the famous guide, which is often referred to affectionately as “Strunk and White” and “the little book.”

Here is a review that ran last Friday in The Wall Street Journal.

Concise writing is usually clear writing (9) – Alex Beam, literate newsman

Here’s another great example of clear, concise writing. It’s from Alex Beam, a columnist for The Boston Globe. He is the paper’s resident curmudgeon – and one of the few literate newsmen still working for the mainstream press.

Background: Mr. Beam was recently assigned to the political beat. Many of his long-time readers will be delighted: In Boston, politics equals corruption, and Mr. Beam is a master of irony and sarcasm.

His first piece from the political beat ran October 23, 2009. Even if you aren’t familiar with the weasels he names in this piece, it is worth reading purely for entertainment.

Here are the first 181 words:

“So my maiden assignment is an expense-account-funded pub crawl. Covering politics sounds like fun!

“My first stop of the evening lands me at Jasper White’s Summer Shack on Alewife Parkway in Cambridge, just in time for Senator Anthony Galluccio’s fund-raiser. ‘Free Beer and Wine, Compliments of Senator Galluccio,’ the invitation reads. Understandably, I am psyched for a wing-ding.

“Yes, it does seem like an odd moment for the senator to be popping corks and tapping kegs. It was just a few weeks ago that the former Cambridge mayor left the scene of a hit-and-run traffic accident, prompting the Globe and others to remind readers of his previous encounters with the DUI [driving under the influence] laws.

“Astonishingly, Senator Galluccio didn’t seem happy to see me. After some gettin’-to-know-ya banter, I asked him about the advisability of holding a fund-raiser in a bar so soon after his traffic mishap. As he ushered me to the door – politely, gently, firmly – I heard the words: ‘No comment . . . off the record . . . this isn’t a bar; it’s a restaurant.’ ’’

By the way, the piece rates a very high Flesch Reading Ease score of 60.9.

The Takeaway: To improve the clarity of your writing, spend at least ten minutes a day reading aloud from writers who write clearly, such as Alex Beam. You will see, hear and feel the stark contrast between careful, grown-up diction and the careless, infantile diction that besets us every day. If you would like a list of recommended writers and works, please email me at the address shown in my profile. Ask for my “List of Writers to Absorb.” I will respond via email.

Mr. Clarity's favorite Steven Wright jokes

Here are my top ten favorite Steven Wright jokes:

What’s another word for “thesaurus”?

I went to a general store but they wouldn’t let me buy anything
specific.

My neighbor has a circular driveway. He can’t get out.

Whenever I think of the past, it brings back so many memories.

If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the precipitate.

Right now I’m having amnesia and deja vu at the same time. I think I’ve forgotten this before.

I went down the street to the 24-hour grocery. When I got there, the guy was locking the front door. I said, “Hey, the sign says you’re open 24 hours.” He said, “Yes, but not in a row.”

I went to a restaurant that serves “breakfast at any time.” So I ordered French toast during the Renaissance.

You can’t have everything. Where would you put it?

It’s a small world, but I wouldn’t want to have to paint it.

Omitting verbs usually reduces clarity (1)

At the general store in the small town where I live, there is a bulletin board for advertisements. Today I noticed that the local sawmill had posted an ad seeking an employee to cut and split firewood.

The ad had been neatly desktop-published. The creator of the ad had written this in the right-hand margin with a thick black marker: “Woman Included.”

The owner of this sawmill is widely known and respected for offering generous benefits packages. But I think he has gone too far this time, offering to supply a woman as a benefit.

Although I am not a lawyer, I suspect that it would be involuntary servitude and therefore a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment.

Perhaps the advertisement should have read like this:

We will consider both male and female candidates for this position.

The Takeaway: It’s nice to be concise. But it’s risky to omit all verbs from your sentences.

Placement of modifiers (8)

Careless placement of modifiers is a frequent cause of unclear writing. A misplaced modifier, also called a dangling modifier, forces the reader to guess what the modifier is intended to modify.

Example of a dangling modifier

A recent article contained this dangling modifier:

“Financially crippled due to our continued wars for empire and the printing of billions of new dollars to repay political cronies in the financial world has left us in a precarious position in Afghanistan.” (Boldface added.)

When the reader begins reading this sentence, he sees the adverb “[f]inancially,” which clearly modifies the next word, the past participle “crippled.” So far, so good.

Next, the reader naturally expects to encounter the word or phrase that the participle “crippled” modifies. Who or what has been crippled?

A word or phrase modified by a participle usually appears immediately after the participle, as in Robert Browning’s classic line, “Smiling the boy fell dead.”

Or if not immediately, soon.

But in our example, the modified word or phrase does not appear immediately or soon.

After the modifier “crippled,” the reader has to slog through 23 words that modify the modifier:

“…due to our continued wars for empire and the printing of billions of new dollars to repay political cronies in the financial world…”

The reader now has read a total of 25 words (enough to create an overly long sentence) and is still waiting to find out who or what has been crippled.

But he will not learn it from the author, who immediately introduces the main verb: “has left.”

Apparently, the author has forgotten that he began the sentence with the modifier “crippled.” As a result, he has forgotten to specify the word or phrase modified by that modifier.

He has also forgotten to specify a subject for the main verb: Who or what “has left us in a precarious position in Afghanistan”? And to whom does the direct object “us” refer?

Well, I know that:

• In this article, the author frequently uses the pronoun “we,” often in connection with wars waged by the U.S. Government.

• According to the bio at the end of the article, the author is a retired soldier of the U.S. Government and participated in one of the wars mentioned in the article.

But it is highly probable that many of his readers have never been soldiers of the U.S. Government and did not participate in any of the wars mentioned. The author surely knows this.

Therefore, I will guess that, by “we,” the author does not mean “my fellow soldiers and I” or “you readers and I.”

He probably means “the U.S. Government.” The U.S. Government is an “it,” but many people mistakenly call it “we,” just as they mistakenly call the nearest Major League Baseball franchise “we.”

So, here’s my suggested rewrite:

Financially crippled by its continued inflating and war making, the U.S. Government has left itself in a precarious position in Afghanistan.

The Takeaway: Avoid dangling modifiers. Place every modifier close to the word or phrase it modifies. If that isn’t possible, recast the sentence. Don’t make your readers work harder to read the sentence than you worked to write it.

The vague antecedent (3): “as such”

A frequent error that hampers clear writing is the vague antecedent. An antecedent is a noun (a word, phrase or clause) that a pronoun refers to. The antecedent should precede the pronoun.* The antecedent should be clear, not vague. In summary: every pronoun should have an easily identifiable noun as its antecedent.

For some reason, we are especially prone to using vague antecedents in connection with the pronoun such as used in the phrase as such. Here’s a typical example.

Example of a Vague Antecedent

The Daily Mail (UK) recently ran an article (Warning: Article includes a disturbing drawing) about the infamous murderer nicknamed “Jack the Ripper.” The article discusses a suspect in the case, a mortuary attendant named Robert Mann.

“After the killing of Polly Nichols, the Ripper’s first official victim, Mann unlocked the mortuary for the police so they could examine the body and as such, was called as a witness in her inquest to help establish the cause of death.”

The pronoun such has no clear antecedent. It apparently refers to the clause, “Mann unlocked the mortuary...” If that was the writer’s intention, he should have written something like this:

Mann was the attendant who unlocked the mortuary…

This gives the pronoun such a clearly stated noun (attendant) as an antecedent.

The Takeaway: Avoid vague antecedents. Every pronoun should have an easily identifiable noun (a word, phrase or clause) as its antecedent. Don’t make your readers guess which noun you mean. It’s bad manners.

*The English word antecedent comes from Latin for going before.

Straight talk: an example (2) – H.L. Mencken

We writers should take a daily dose of straight talk. The diction we read and hear around us every day is often evasive: indirect, insinuating and euphemistic. Reading or hearing a bit of straight talk can help counteract the seduction of evasive diction.

A few samples from a famous straight-talker: H.L. Mencken

Henry Louis Mencken (1880-1956), the reporter, columnist, editor and lexicographer, was widely known for straight talk – often acerbic as well as straight. Here a few samples.*

On reformers

“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”

On intelligence

“No one in this world, so far as I know – and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me – has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.” [This is probably Mencken’s most famous quotation.]

On the military draft

“If it is the duty of a young man to serve his country under all circumstances then it is equally the duty of an enemy young man to serve his. Thus we come to a moral contradiction and absurdity so obvious that even clergymen and editorial writers sometimes notice it.” [The adverb sometimes tells us a lot about Mencken's opinion of his fellow editorial writers, don't you think?]

On the sincerity of politicians

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed – and thus clamorous to be led to safety – by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” [In all the public discussions of swine flu, trans fats, and global warming, how often have we heard a statement (from any political quarter) delivered in language as straight as that?]

The Takeaway: Many of us are startled when we read or hear straight talk. We react this way because we have been habituated to evasive, soft, insincere diction. I advise you to read or listen to a sample of straight talk from time to time. We should always remain consciously aware of evasive diction, lest we absorb it and unconsciously imitate it.

*I selected these samples because of the diction (not content) they contain. On this blog, I am promoting no political position – unless you consider clarity a political position. I often select samples from politics because, as Mr. Orwell so famously warned us, politics is the human activity most characterized by evasiveness.

Chrissie Maher and the Plain English Campaign

Today The Wall Street Journal published a delightful and inspiring article about Chrissie Maher (71), founder of the Plain English Campaign (UK). Ms. Maher (pictured) has made millions of people aware of inexcusably bad English.

The late Rudolf Flesch achieved similar results in the USA.

As we have discussed on this blog many times, consciousness of bad English is the first step toward writing good English.

Thank you, Ms. Maher!

A few amusing examples of mixed metaphors (3)

Mixed metaphors are often amusing to readers, as these examples illustrate. However, we writers are usually more interested in informing and persuading our readers than in amusing our readers. Mixed metaphors get in the way of information and persuasion by distracting our readers from our topic.

When we do employ humor, it should be intentional and relevant to the topic – as opposed to mixed metaphors, which are unintentional and irrelevant.

Here are a few recent examples of mixed metaphors from the press:

Example

In a September 15 column in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

"In what passes for 'conservatism' nowadays, however, Republican leaders in Congress and right-wing media figures seem to intent on riding – and sometimes sewing – the winds of hate."

Example

In a September 20 guest editorial in The Toronto Star:

"Unfortunately for Layton, the Liberal wind abruptly changed direction last month in Sudbury and he has been caught with his pants down."

Example

In a September 26 “Errors & Omissions” column in The Independent (UK):

“Mixed metaphor of the week: This is from an article on Thursday about Tony Blair and his prospects for the European Union presidency: ‘Blair is unwilling to launch a public campaign in a forum in which the favourite all too often falls at the last fence.’

“The original forum was the market place of ancient Rome, where the law courts sat. Hence, a place for argument and debate. There are no horse races in a forum.”

The Takeaway: When editing your own copy, watch carefully for mixed metaphors. Better yet, ask someone to edit your copy. For some reason, others can spot our mixed metaphors much more easily than we can.

To give your writing emotional power, use an emotional hook

As you know, emotional power can create an unforgettable passage: an unforgettable scene in a movie, play or novel; an unforgettable paragraph in an essay; or an unforgettable climax of a speech. Emotional power enables you to make your point clearly and concisely.

There are several ways to load your writing with emotional power; one of the easier ways is to use an emotional hook.

Example

For example, do you remember these words?

“I coulda been a contenda. I coulda been somebody. Instead of a bum, which is what I am.”

The words are from a scene in the movie On the Waterfront (1954). The speaker is Terry Malloy (Marlon Brando, right), a longshoreman and ex-boxer. He is speaking to his older brother Charley Malloy (Rod Steiger, left), a gangster.

By today’s standards, the scene is technically primitive. No color. No special effects. No quadraphonic sound. Until the end of the scene, no action – just two men talking in the back seat of a car.

But the scene is unforgettable, because it connects to a powerful emotion in the minds of the viewers: pity for someone who knows he has missed his main chance in life.

Great playwrights, novelists, essayists and speechwriters do the same. They connect their themes to powerful emotions that are already stored in the memories of their readers or audiences.

Here are three examples from famous speeches in English.

Example

William Jennings Bryan, 1896: “We will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: ‘You will not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.’ ”

• Theme: A gold standard would impoverish Midwestern farmers.
• Emotion: Christians' reverence for Christ’s suffering.
• Hook: A crown of thorns and a cross, symbols of Christ’s suffering.

Example

Martin Luther King, Jr., 1963: “From every mountainside, let freedom ring.”

• Theme: Racial equality is essential to a great nation.
• Emotion: Patriotic feelings evoked by the song “America.”
• Hook: The last six words of the song.

Example

Ronald Reagan, 1987: “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.”

• Theme: The Soviet Union must permit emigration.
• Emotion: Painful memories of the closing of the Soviet border.
• Hook: The Berlin Wall, symbol of the closed border.

The Takeaway: Use an emotional hook to make your writing unforgettable. Hook your theme to a strong emotion that is already stored in the memories of your readers, listeners or viewers.

Using quotation marks with other punctuation

In recognition of National Punctuation Day, I’m going to briefly review the rules for the use of quotation marks with other punctuation (in American English).

Rules for using quotation marks with other punctuation

Comma: always inside (,") the quotation marks

Period: always inside (.")

Semicolon: always outside (";)

Colon: always outside (":)

Question mark: inside (?") only if it is part of the text quoted; otherwise outside ("?)

Exclamation point: inside (!") only if it is part of the text quoted; otherwise outside ("!)

The Takeaway: The rules for using quotation marks with other punctuation are simple. Just memorize these six rules. Exceptions are rare.

First, second and third person (3)

If clear writing is your goal, always strive to be consistent in your use of grammatical person (first, second and third person). In other words, when you begin a passage in one person (first, second or third), stay in that person until the end of the passage (sentence, paragraph or several paragraphs).

If you change person within the passage, you risk confusing your readers. The shorter the passage, the greater the risk. That’s because the shorter the passage, the more unexpected the change.

Example of a change of grammatical person

An example of a change of person within a single sentence appeared last Friday in the Telegraph (UK). The newspaper carried an article titled, “How you write ‘shows if you’re a liar,’ scientists discover,” which begins with a one-sentence paragraph:

“Instead of analysing body language or eye movement, to catch out people telling fibs, people’s handwriting can instead give them away.”

Most readers, when encountering the phrase, “to catch out people telling fibs,” are likely to expect an imperative-mood verb. The implied subject of an imperative is always second person (you). So the reader expects something like this:

Instead of analysing body language or eye movement, to catch out people telling fibs, just analyse their handwriting for tell-tale strokes.

But in the article, the subject (handwriting) and the verb (can) are third person.

Alternatively, some readers may expect third person, as in:

Instead of analysing body language or eye movement, to catch out people telling fibs, some bankers, insurance brokers and police detectives are beginning to analyse their handwriting for tell-tale strokes.

In this case, there is no change of person; readers expect third person, and the clause is in third person. However, the readers expect the subject to be the people who are analyzing handwriting, not the people whose handwriting is being analyzed.

The Takeaway: When you begin a passage in one grammatical person (first, second or third person), stay in that person until the end of the passage. If you change person, you risk confusing your readers. Review the pronoun section in your grammar book; learn first person, second person and third person so thoroughly that you will jar yourself awake whenever you accidentally switch person.

First, second and third person (1)
First, second and third person (2)

Straight talk: an example (1)

As writers, we need a daily dose of straight talk. Most of the diction we read and hear every day is evasive; it’s indirect, euphemistic and insinuating. Anything but straight. We need to read and hear straight talk to counteract the seduction of evasive diction.

A recent example of straight talk

Doug Casey (photo), an economist and bestselling financial author, is internationally famous for his straight-talking style. In an interview last week, he commented on the reaction to Joe Wilson's heckling of Barack Obama:

“One trouble with Congress – one of very many – is that it’s entirely too politically correct. They have rules about how they are supposed to treat each other with respect, not call each other names, etc. But I’m of the opinion, assuming we have to have a Congress at all, that the country was much better served during the 19th century, when these creatures would physically fight each other on the floor and invite each other outside for duels.”*

The Takeaway: Many of us are startled when we read or hear straight talk. We react this way because we have been habituated to evasive diction. Be consciously aware of evasive diction, lest you absorb it and eventually imitate it.

*I selected this sample because of its diction, not its content. On this blog, I am promoting no political position. Unless you consider clarity a political position.

A few amusing examples of mixed metaphors (2)

Although mixed metaphors can be amusing to read, you should be careful to avoid writing them. Mixed metaphors not only amuse but also distract. Your readers may pause to laugh at a mixed metaphor and lose track of your main argument. They may even stop reading.

Example

A September 13, 2009 post on “The King’s College-ENG 110” blog pointed out this mixed metaphor from Our Town, N.Y., cited by The New Yorker in March 2000:

“ ‘The environment [of a subway station] contributes to the fear that develops in men and women. The moment that you walk into the bowels of the armpit of the cesspool of crime, you immediately cringe.’ ” (Boldface added.)

A rare quadruple mixed metaphor!

Example

From a September 14, 2009 comment on the “Alpine Opinion” blog:

“EVERY DOG DESERVES HIS DAY IN COURT. (Somehow I think that’s a mixed metaphor)”

It may also be fair to coin the phrase “mixed bromide” to describe that mixed metaphor: It is a combination of “Every dog has his day” and “You will have your day in court,” both bromides. But that may be confusing, because “mixed bromide” may be a mixed metaphor itself (a literal bromide is a chemical and can be mixed with other chemicals).

Example

From a September 16, 2009 post on the “Playing in the Word Farm” blog:

“Metaphors carried to (and sometimes beyond) their logical conclusions can obviously be entertaining. They can be made even more entertaining by derailing them with what’s commonly known as a mixed metaphor. In a letter to a friend, for instance, I once bemusedly watched myself write, ‘she steeled her threadbare nerves.’ ”

The Takeaway: Be careful to avoid mixed metaphors (unless you are deliberately using them for comedic or educational effect). Whenever possible, have someone edit your copy; it’s hard to spot your own mixed metaphors.

Concise writing is usually clear writing (8) - Joyce Carol Oates

Here’s another great example of concise writing from Joyce Carol Oates. It’s from her novel I’ll Take You There.

Example of concision

In the novel, a philosophy student ponders:

As the ancient Jewish people, persecuted by their enemies, interpreted history and the random events of nature moralistically, believing that catastrophes even of weather and geology were consequences of man’s evil, so in times of emotional distress we’re inclined to ascribe moral significance to whatever happens. We cease believing in chance and cling to a belief in design; we can’t accept that we don’t deserve what happens to us; we prefer a wrathful, capricious god to no god at all.

That’s a lot of history, psychology and philosophy packed into 80 words. It is classic Oates. We may not always agree with her assertions, but we always know what they are.

The Takeaway: To improve the clarity of your writing, spend at least ten minutes a day reading aloud from writers who write clearly, such as Joyce Carol Oates. You will see, hear and feel the stark contrast between careful, grown-up diction and the careless, infantile diction that surrounds us. If you would like a list of recommended writers and works, please email me at the address shown in my profile. Ask for my “List of Writers to Absorb.” I will respond via email.

A few amusing examples of mixed metaphors (1)

A mixed metaphor can be unintentionally amusing. It can also confuse or distract your reader. Your reader may stop to chuckle at the incongruity of the mixed metaphor and lose track of your main argument. Worst of all, your distracted reader may even stop reading what you have written.

Example

From a September 8 post on the “Bah! Humbug” blog:

“ ‘Now we are ready to venture into the tiger’s lair in search of the holy Grail’ Great mixed metaphor”

Example

From a September 10 article on the “LewRockwell.com” web site:

“Tuition costs have gone in only one direction – up – during Mr. Weiss’s career. ‘I genuinely believe that we are at a crossroads here in higher education,’ he said. ‘I think we have reached a ceiling that we’re beginning to bump into.’ ”

[Mr. Weiss is a college president and a former management consultant; even highly educated and experienced people inadvertently use mixed metaphors, especially when speaking.]

Example

From a September 10 post on the “while coding” blog:

“These questions only scratch the surface, but hopefully they plug a few leaks. (How’s that for a mixed metaphor?)”

The Takeaway: For some reason, we generally find it difficult to detect our own mixed metaphors. If possible, always have someone edit your copy.

Concise writing is usually clear writing (7) – Thomas Paine

Here’s another great example of concise, clear writing. It is from the essay, Dissertations on First Principles of Government (1795), by Thomas Paine (pictured).

Example of concision

In the last paragraph of the essay, Mr. Paine tells politicians why they should not attempt to rationalize torture or other barbarities:

“An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.”

He makes his point clearly, in only 54 words.

In contrast, the March 14, 2003 memo in which George W. Bush’s Department of Justice attempts to rationalize the use of torture by U.S. troops runs 81 pages.*

The Takeaway: Concise writing is almost always clear writing, and clear writing is almost always concise writing. Careless writers dash off a draft, run it through a spell-checker and are satisfied. The result is usually overly long and not overly clear. In contrast, careful writers revise several times until they know the writing is both clear and concise. Thomas Paine and his contemporaries wrote with quill pens; we who write with word processing software are kidding ourselves when we say we have no time to revise.

*Clear writers are always clear thinkers. That’s why Mr. Paine could foresee that men like George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld would eventually show up.

Mixed metaphors (4)

When you inadvertently use a mixed metaphor, you are taking a risk. A mixed metaphor can easily confuse or distract your reader. Your reader may stop to chuckle at the incongruity of the mixed metaphor and lose track of your main argument. Worst of all, your distracted reader may even stop reading what you have written.

Definition of a mixed metaphor

A mixed metaphor is a series of two or more metaphors that become incongruous when combined. Often the incongruity strikes the reader as humorous.

Example of a mixed metaphor

Two weeks ago, Atlanta-based wsbtv.com published a memo that was “circulating the Internet.” The last paragraph of the memo contained an unintentionally amusing mixed metaphor:

“At the end of the day, when the morning comes, a black agenda would better enable us to have our interests respected by and our influence realized in any administration.”

The Takeaway: Here are five tips for avoiding mixed metaphors: (1) Use metaphors sparingly. (2) Double-check the definition of each metaphor you use. (3) Make sure each metaphor is clear and imaginable. (4) Make sure there is no chance of a mixed metaphor – unless you are deliberately creating a mixed metaphor for the purpose of humor. (5) Have someone edit your copy: for some reason, we generally find it difficult to detect our own mixed metaphors.

Concise writing is usually clear writing (6) – Joan Didion

Here are two more great examples of concise, clear writing. They are from A Book of Common Prayer by Joan Didion. As you may know, Ms. Didion is famous not only for her concision but also for her detachment and precision. You can see all these qualities in the passages quoted below.

Example of Concision

The setting of the novel is the fictional Boca Grande, a small and poor Latin American country. The narrator, Grace, is a widow and a member of the ruling family. Here, she describes her sister-in-law Elena:

The day Luis [the president] was shot Elena [his wife] flew into exile in Geneva, a theatrical gesture but unnecessary, since even before her plane left the runway the coup was over and Little Victor had assumed temporary control of the government. The wife of any other Latin president would have known immediately that a coup in which the airport remained open was a coup doomed to fail, but Elena had no instinct for being the wife of a Latin president. Nor does she make a particularly appropriate presidential widow. In any case. A few weeks later Elena came back. Edgar and his father and I met her at the airport. She was wearing tinted glasses and a new Balenciaga coat, lettuce-green. She was carrying a matching parrot.

The passage is only 124 words long. However, it tells us a lot about Grace (worldly-wise), Elena (histrionic), the family (powerful), and the insurgents (weak).

Example of Concision

Later in the novel, Grace describes how the family stays in control of the government:

Oil wells about to come in have a sound the attentive ear can detect.

As do earthquakes.

Volcanoes about to erupt transmit for days or weeks before their convulsion a signal called "the harmonic tremor."

Similarly I know for months before the fact when there is about to be a "transition" in Boca Grande. There is the occasional tank on the Avenida Centrale. Sentries with carbines appear on the roof of the presidential palace. For reasons I have never understood the postal rates begin to fluctuate mysteriously. There is a mounting mania for construction, for getting one’s cut while the government lasts: dummy corporations multiply, phantom payrolls metastasize. No one has an office but everyone has a mail drop. A game is underway, the "winner" being the player who lands his marker in the Ministry of Defense, and the play has certain ritual moves: whoever wants the Ministry that year must first get the guerrilleros into the game. The guerrilleros seem always to believe that they are playing on their own, but they are actually a diversion, a disruptive element placed on the board only to be "quelled" by "stronger leadership." Guns and money begin to reach the guerrilleros via the usual channels. Mimeographed communiqués begin to appear, and twenty people are detained for questioning. A few are reported as prison suicides and a few more reported in exile but months later, again mysteriously, the same twenty are detained for questioning.

A mounting giddiness about the proximity of the guerrilleros sets the social tone of the city: many tea dances are planned, many adulterous liaisons initiated.

Many citizens adopt eccentric schedules to comply with the terms of their kidnapping insurance.

El Presidente, whoever is playing El Presidente at the moment, falls ill, and is urged to convalesce at Bariloche, in Argentina.

In only 301 words, Ms. Didion gives us a clear sense of the narrator’s cynicism, the family’s corruption, and the insurgents’ foolishness.

In both passages, the writer is restrained and deadpan. The reader supplies the emotions. This is a powerful literary technique, smoothly executed.

The Takeaway: To improve the clarity of your writing, spend at least ten minutes a day reading aloud from writers who write clearly, such as Joan Didion. You will see, hear and feel the stark contrast between careful diction and the careless, vague, infantile diction that besets us every day. The topic you select for your reading doesn’t matter, because you’re reading for style not content. If you would like a list of recommended writers and works, please email me at the address shown in my profile. Ask for my “List of Writers to Absorb.” I will respond via email.