Placement of modifiers (10)

Careless placement of modifiers is a frequent cause of unclear writing. Place your modifiers as close as possible to what they modify. Don’t make your readers rely on an interpretation of the context or on guesswork.

Here’s an example of the careless placement of a modifier.

Example

A bill (H4509) introduced in the South Carolina General Assembly on February 2 contains this language:

“Federal agents have flouted the United States Constitution and foresworn their oath to support this Constitution by requiring registration of the purchasers of firearms and ammunition, and these requirements violate the limits of authority placed upon the federal agents by the United States Constitution and are dangerous to the liberties of the people…”

The adverbial phrase “by requiring registration of the purchasers of firearms and ammunition” appears only three words after the verb “to support” and therefore could easily be interpreted as modifying “to support.”

However, the context suggests that the bill-writers intended the adverbial phrase to modify the verbs “have flouted” and “[have] foresworn,” which are farther back in the sentence.

If they did intend to modify “have flouted” and “[have] foresworn,” they should have placed the adverbial phrase closer to those verbs than to the verb “to support.” For example, they should have written something like this:

By requiring registration of the purchasers of firearms and ammunition, federal agents have flouted the United States Constitution and foresworn their oath to support this Constitution. These requirements violate the limits of authority placed upon the federal agents by the United States Constitution and are dangerous to the liberties of the people…

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.

Jacques Barzun on plain tone

Plain tone helps create clear writing. The great Jacques Barzun (pictured) had this* to say about plain tone:

“[T]he best tone is the tone called plain, unaffected, unadorned. It does not talk down or jazz up; it assumes the equality of all readers likely to approach the given subject; it informs or argues without apologizing for its task; it does not try to dazzle or cajole the indifferent; it takes no position of coziness or sophistication. It is the most difficult of all tones, and also the most adaptable. When you can write plain you can trust yourself in special effects. The plain tone is that of Lincoln always, that of Thoreau, Emerson, William James, Mark Twain, ‘Mr. Dooley’ [Finley Peter Dunne, 1867-1936], Fitzgerald, and Hemingway at their best.”

Re-read the second sentence in that quotation. It is a detailed definition of plain tone. Each of its five clauses describes a characteristic of plain tone.

The Takeaway: Keep that second sentence handy as a checklist for your writing. Keep testing the readability of your copy – it’s quick and easy with Microsoft Word. Keep reading samples from the writers mentioned by Mr. Barzun. These three techniques will slowly but steadily improve your plain tone.

*Jacques Barzun. Simple & Direct: A Rhetoric for Writers. Paperback. Quill, an Imprint of HarperCollins Publishers, 2001. Pages 111-112.

A few amusing examples of mixed metaphors (6)

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: LewRockwell.com

A January 26 article, “Heat and Austrian Economics,” includes this:

“That is what the Federal Reserve is all about. The politically favored get to belly up, like hogs at a trough, to the ‘Discount Window’ where the currency creation is doled out.”

Humans, because they walk upright, can belly up to bars. Hogs, because they walk on all fours, cannot belly up to a trough; their bellies face the ground, not the trough. The presence of the word window arguably makes this mixed metaphor a triple.

Example of a mixed metaphor

Source: Brisbane Times

A January 1 article, “Filed under ‘F’ - for flash of genius,” includes this:

“Stuart Appleby on the state of his golf game, hits them out of the park in the mixed metaphor competition: ‘It's not like I’m swinging horrendously, but I am finding it difficult. I can’t be in the wrong shed. I’m in the right shed with the right tools, and I’m just trying to start the old battery to crank the whole thing over.’ ”

Example of a mixed metaphor

Source: BBC

A December 30 page, “Wednesday football as it happened,” includes this:

“From Keith, Chesterfield, via text: ‘On Radio Sheffield on Monday a caller stated that he’d heard Steve Cotterill had already turned down one job [Cheltenham] as he knew there was "a bigger fish around the corner" I do love a mixed metaphor.’ ”

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).

Disclaimer: The purpose of this blog is to show and explain examples of clear and unclear writing and speech. Accordingly, I select examples for the diction they contain, not the ideas they express. I promote no political position – unless you consider clarity a political position.

Straight talk: an example (3) – Mark Twain

We writers should occasionally take a small dose of straight talk. Reading or hearing a bit of straight talk can help make us more aware of the evasive diction that constantly besets us.

Here’s a brief example of straight talk from the world-famous straight-talker Mark Twain. This example is from a 1905 pamphlet titled “King Leopold’s Soliloquy.” The pamphlet condemns Leopold II, King of the Belgians, for torturing and murdering 30 million people in central Africa.

“In fourteen years Leopold has deliberately destroyed more lives than have suffered death on all the battlefields of this planet for the past thousand years. In this vast statement I am well within the mark, several millions of lives within the mark. It is curious that the most advanced and most enlightened century of all the centuries the sun has looked upon should have the ghastly distinction of having produced this moldy and piety-mouthing hypocrite, this bloody monster whose mate is not findable in human history anywhere, and whose personality will surely shame hell itself when he arrives there – which will be soon, let us hope and trust.”

The Takeaway: Many of us are startled when we read or hear straight talk. We react this way because we have been habituated to euphemistical, effete, evasive diction. I advise you to occasionally take a small dose of straight talk. By contrast, it will help you remain consciously aware of evasive diction – and therefore less likely to unconsciously absorb and imitate evasive diction.

Disclaimer: The purpose of this blog is to show and explain examples of clear and unclear writing and speech. Accordingly, I select examples for the diction they contain, not the ideas they express. I promote no political position – unless you consider clarity a political position.

LABELS: clear speaking, clear writing, diction, honesty

Abusing vague expressions

In several posts, I’ve discussed the vague expressions kind of and issues. Politicians* widely abuse vague expressions in order to avoid making clear statements for which they may be held accountable.

Here’s another example.

Example

In a January 26 article titled “Wal-Mart Using Fake Community Group to Manufacture Support,” Kevin Robinson quotes Michael Mini, Government Relations Director at the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce, whom he interviewed.

“Mike Mini told me that Wal-Mart is indeed a member of the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce, that they have ‘a representative on the Government Affairs Committee,’ and that ‘our process is kind of open. Any member that expresses an interest can come to meetings and work on issues that are important to them.’ ” (Boldface added.)

At this point in the article, a typical reader would probably give Mr. Mini the benefit of a doubt, as opposed to immediately concluding that Mr. Mini was being deceptive.

But later in the interview, Mr. Mini forfeits the benefit of the doubt:

“Given that Wal-Mart supporters (and the website run by the Chicagoland Chamber) claim that opponents to Wal-Mart are outsiders that don’t live in the neighborhood, I thought I should find out if Mike Mini lived in [the neighborhood]. ‘Uh, no.’ What part of Chicago you live in? ‘No comment.’ Do you even live in Chicago at all? ‘No comment.’ ”

The Takeaway: If you are not a politician, don’t talk or write like one. Don’t abuse vague expressions such as kind of and issues. These expressions are acceptable in informal conversation; but in formal discussions (such as press interviews) and in writing, they can make you sound crooked.

*I mean politicians not in the narrow sense of people who run for office but in the wider sense of all professional deceivers, including shyster lawyers, corrupt professors, and corrupt journalists.

Avoid being too academic – even if you’re an academic

Even academics should avoid being too academic. Here’s a hard-hitting 531-word essay on why and how you should avoid being a “smarty-pants” writer. Definitely worth reading.

The Takeaway: Before writing anything – even an email – pause for a moment to visualize your intended reader. This is especially important if you are a specialist and your reader is a layman. A well-developed habit of empathy is the mark of a professional writer.

Journalists’ code words

During my years as a corporate spokesman, I enjoyed many a chuckle at the code words (insinuations, evasions and excuses) used by many journalists.

I was recently reminded of this topic by a Thomas Pynchon quotation that appeared in a February 1 article about famous literary “recluses” remaining after the death of J.D. Salinger:

‘Recluse’ is a codeword generated by journalists, meaning: ‘doesn’t like to talk to reporters.’

Here are my four favorite code words:

“Unclear” is code for “we couldn’t figure it out, and by press time we couldn’t find a source who could figure it out for us and who was willing to talk to us and who was politically correct.”

“Controversial” is code for “we disapprove of this fact, and so we’d like to just ignore it, but the wires and the European papers have covered it, and by press time we couldn’t find a source who could rationalize it away and who was willing to talk to us and who was politically correct.”

“Ironic” is code for “we think the result should have been different.” (Sometimes used when a government program produces the opposite of what it was ostensibly intended to produce; for example, when a poverty program increases poverty. But these kinds of results are not ironic; they would be expected by anyone who understands economics.)

“No one could have predicted [x]” is code for “neither we nor the politically correct sources we favor predicted it.” Naturally, these same journalists diligently ignore anyone who did in fact predict [x]; for example, the U.S. Government’s defeat in Vietnam, the disintegration of the Challenger, the Crash of 1987, the collapse of the USSR, 9-11, the Great Crash of 2008, and gold above $1,000 per ounce.

Yes, it is also possible to use these words and phrases accurately and honestly (and the better journalists do). For example, if a retired sea captain drowned in his bathtub, it would be accurate and honest to call that event “ironic.”

The Takeaway: Don’t emulate dishonest reporters. The habitual use of dishonest diction promotes unclear writing and moral decay.

Disclaimer: The purpose of this blog is to show and explain examples of clear and unclear writing and speech. Accordingly, I select examples for the diction they contain, not the ideas they express. I promote no political position – unless you consider clarity a political position.

The much-abused adverb “literally” (2)

As I illustrated in a recent post, careless writers habitually abuse the adverb “literally.” In an attempt to intensify a figurative expression, they confusingly add “literally” – unaware that “literally” in this case means “I don’t mean this figurative expression figuratively.”

Careful writers avoid this mistake. They use “literally” correctly or not at all. There are many more careless writers than careful writers; that’s why we so rarely see the word “literally” used correctly. Here’s a recent example of a correct use:

An example of “literally” used correctly

A January 10 article on NewsBusters appeared under this headline:

“Venezuela Slipping Into Socialist/Statist Darkness, Figuratively and Literally.”

The article listed the headlines of recent wire stories:

“Venezuela weakens currency for 1st time in 5 years.”

“Chavez Says He’ll Seize Businesses That Raise Prices.”

“Chavez announces new discount ‘socialist’ stores.”

“Venezuela faces risk of devastating power collapse.”

The Takeaway: Don’t use “literally” unless you mean it literally.

Disclaimer: The purpose of this blog is to show and explain examples of clear and unclear writing and speech. Accordingly, I select examples for the diction they contain, not the ideas they express. I promote no political position – unless you consider clarity a political position.