Bits and pieces (4)

Today we present examples of various errors that can make you sound ill-educated.

Logic error

“His father was a building contractor and his mother came from France.” (Source)

Shifting grammatical person

“I’ll clue you in on a secret: death is not the worst thing that could happen to you. I know we think that; we are the first society ever to think that. It’s not worse than dishonor; it’s not worse than losing your freedom; its not worse than losing a sense of personal responsibility. (Boldface added.) (Source)

General ignorance

In a harassment case, Tufts University “may have made free speech history by being the first institution in the United States to find someone guilty of harassment for stating verifiable facts directed at no one in particular.” In other words, a once-venerated university publicly demonstrated that its administrative staff did not know that harass is a transitive verb, but apparently was not embarrassed by this ignorance. (Source)

The Takeaway: Whenever you are writing something for publication – even if it’s “just” a blog – present yourself as a well-educated grown-up. Have an experienced editor read your copy; that’s what well-educated grown-ups do.

See disclaimer.

Montreal Gazette publishes readers’ pet peeves

Denis Coderre, ill-served mayor of Montreal

If you enjoy reading peoples’ pet peeves about language, read this article in which the Montreal Gazette humbly and cheerfully publishes a couple of pet peeves from its readers.

The Takeaway: Enjoy the article.

See disclaimer.

Bits and pieces (3)

Today we present examples of errors that can make you sound ill-educated.

Misuse of prepositions

“This is the first and most important component to problem solving.” (Source)

The natural preposition here is of: “This is the first and most important component of problem solving.”

“In total, you see about twice the number of four-year students (~11 million) than two-year (~6.5 million).” (Source)

The natural preposition here is as: “In total, you see about twice the number of four-year students (~11 million) as two-year (~6.5 million).”

Use of fun as an adjective

“East Coast Grill in Cambridge - very fun place with great seafood/bbq.” (Source)

An educated grown-up would use entertaining, enjoyable, stimulating, or the like. Even rollicking. But not fun.

Non-parallel use of not only… but also

“He’s not only funny, but also he’s intelligent.” (Source)

The correlative conjunction not only… but also must be used in a parallel construction. In the example above, it is not. One correct alternative would be “He’s not only funny but also intelligent.” For additional correct alternatives, see this page in Grammarly Handbook.

The Takeaway: Whenever you are writing something for publication – even if it’s “just” a blog – present yourself as a well-educated grown-up. Have an experienced editor read your copy; that’s what well-educated grown-ups do.

See disclaimer.

Random thoughts (7)

Using your arm or hand as a map: I spent most of my life in Massachusetts, and on a few occasions in the 1970s and 1980s, I observed a Cape Cod resident use his left arm as an improvised map of the cape and then use his right forefinger to point out a location on that “map.” Because Michigan looks very much like a hand (or mitten), I wondered if Michiganders did something similar. I forgot about that until 1994, when I traveled to Kellogg Company (Battle Creek, Michigan), to accept a speechwriting assignment. When my client wanted to point out the location of a city, sure enough he held up his right hand as a map of Michigan.* These two actions have a certain down-home charm.

Words that are older than we think: We tend to think that words and phrases, except for the more common ones, were recently coined. We are often wrong, by decades or even centuries. For example, last Thursday I mentioned that word of mouth has been used since 1553. Another example is OMG. You might be willing to bet that it was coined in the 1970s by histrionic teenage girls, but a slide show in Dictionary.com says “The first citation of OMG in the Oxford English Dictionary appears in a 1917 letter from the British admiral John Arbuthnot Fisher to Winston Churchill.” The slide show discusses seven other surprisingly old words; take a look.

This trope must drive psychologists insane: There’s a movie trope about mental problems that goes like this; a patient has a deeply buried mental problem and won’t admit it. The psychologist eventually persuades the patient to cry. As soon as the patient cries, he is completely cured or almost completely cured. A well-known example is the “It’s not your fault” scene in Good Will Hunting. Because this trope reduces psychology to a trick, it implies that psychology is vastly overpriced.

Writing as depicted in the movies: Being a professional writer, I naturally notice when a movie shows a writer writing. But as I’m sure you know, such scenes are rarely shown. And when they are shown, the writer is writing a first draft, not a revision (revisions are where real-life writers spend most of their time). Example: In Citizen Kane, newspaperman Charles Foster Kane writes one draft of a manifesto for his paper and runs it on Page 1 without further revision. An exception that proves the rule: In How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying, the protagonist is discovered asleep at his desk on Saturday morning; crumpled papers suggest that he has been writing draft after draft all night. But the protagonist has contrived the scene in order to impress his boss. So I am not surprised that, whenever I’ve said that speech writers often write more than 20 drafts of a speech, non-writers have stared (or laughed) at me in disbelief. Fiction trumps reality.

To open… When I was in grammar school, I heard this lame joke: “Why did the two bugs run a race on the cracker box? Because the box said ‘Tear along the dotted line.’ ” But in recalling it recently, I realized that fewer packages today display any directions for opening them. Some of the packages are like dexterity tests. As the U.S. population ages, you would think manufacturers would have more, not less, empathy for their customers, more and more of whom are becoming arthritic.

The Takeaway: Be here now.
________________________
*Another charming geographic anecdote about Michigan: When I landed at the nearest airport to Battle Creek, I saw a sign that read “Yes, there really is a place called Kalamazoo.”

See disclaimer.

Beyond narcissism

In the last post, I showed you three examples of narcissistic writing and explained how narcissism can make a writer or public speaker look foolish.

In this post, I show you an article that goes beyond narcissism and into solipsism. It may or may not be a parody; nowadays, it’s hard to tell.

The first thing the typical reader notices is that the author, while writing about providing consulting services to businesses, sounds like a giddy child. She sounds bedazzled by the world of business, and she seems to have only a superficial awareness of how businesspeople think, speak and act.

The second thing the reader notices is that the author doesn’t realize that her typical reader would be familiar with common business expressions such “word of mouth” and “referrals,” and would know that these are long-established expressions* as opposed to hip new fads that they need to be introduced to. The author did not need to say:

… what people call “word of mouth” and “referrals.”

Nor did she need to say:

…what we call inbound marketing.**

By this point, the typical reader suspects that, metaphorically, the author just fell off the turnip truck. She seems to be new to business. There’s nothing wrong with that; we were all novices once. What is cringeworthy is the author’s lack of empathy; she seems to assume that her readers are as callow as she is.

In the next three paragraphs, she keeps the reader cringing:

In this process of speaking with startups and established companies over the past year and 8 months I have come to realize that there should be a profession that is specific to startup consulting. Why not call it what it really is. 

Startup consulting helps startups understand what they need to do to grow: Startups have problems. Startups have ideas. Startups need to define their market positioning. Startups need help.

Myself and all the other Inbound Marketing Specialists at HubSpot should really call themselves Startup Consultants. Every company was once a startup. Aspects of even established companies have startupy parts of them. (Boldface and italics in original.)

The author seems to think she has created startup consulting. To avoid embarrassing herself, all she need have done is take five seconds to Google the phrase “startup consulting.” (I just tried it and got 24,600,000 hits.)

In fact, I know several people who, for 30 years or more, have been consultants to startups. (By the way, I would be shocked if any of those consultants used the word “startupy,” or any other such puerile word – except ironically.)

In general, the author’s logic is unsound; e.g., she speaks of “aspects” that “have parts” and says “Talk with the company about their vision for what they want to solve for.” Her grammar, diction, punctuation and capitalization are careless. However, this post is already long, so I don’t have the space to provide more detail here.

The Takeaway: The author sounds like she has acquired astronomically too much self-esteem. She seems to be completely unaware how childish her writing sounds. If you are a novice and want to avoid a similar fate, do this: Before you write for publication, or speak in public, or become a consultant, first fill in any large gaps in your logic, grammar, diction, punctuation and capitalization. It won’t take more than 300 hours; i.e., it will take a lot less time than the average American adult spends watching television in 12 weeks.*** But it does demand attention, humility and empathy. Do this and you will look and sound a lot more experienced.
______________
*For example, “word of mouth” has been in use since 1553.

**If the author had simply glanced at her employer’s home page, she would have seen the phrase “Inbound Marketing & Sales Software” and could have gathered that her employer assumes that visitors to its website already know what inbound marketing is.

***The average is more than 33 hours per week (source). My math: 33 hours per week times 12 weeks = 396 hours.

See disclaimer.

Quotations on thinking, speaking and writing (32)

On Sanity and Insanity

“It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.”
~Jiddu Krishnamurti

“Social psychologists have found that we are overconfident, sometimes to the point of delusion, about our ability to infer what other people think, even the people who are closest to us.”
~Steven Pinker

“It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong.”
~Voltaire

“…the social sciences have been in the grip of a political orthodoxy that has had only the most tenuous connection with empirical reality, and too many social scientists think that threats to the orthodoxy should be suppressed by any means necessary. Corruption is the only word for it.”
~Charles Murray

“Whoever controls the media, controls the mind.”
~Jim Morrison (pictured)

“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”
~Aldous Huxley

“Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where’s the harm? September 11th changed all that.”

~Richard Dawkins

“No matter how cynical you are, it’s never enough.”
~Lily Tomlin

The Takeaway: “Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper or your self-confidence.” ~Robert Frost

See disclaimer.

How to write a sentence (parody)

In case you missed it. The New Yorker (may require subscription) ran a wonderful parody of an instructional article about writing a sentence. Here’s a sample:

Why sentences? Well, that question answers itself, really. Look at it: “Why sentences?” There’s something missing, isn’t there? I’ll tell you: yes. What’s missing is the rest of the words. And it’s shoddy. It’s shoddy and lazy. It’s shoddy and lazy and frustrating, sticking out there like a bad piece of junk. I’m disappointed on both our behalves.

The Takeaway: Have fun finding the errors in the parody. To read an example of an inadvertent self-parody (also on the topic of writing), go here.

See disclaimer.

Placement of modifiers (28)

David Weidman

Careless placement of a modifier can make a sentence unclear.

Example

“David Weidman, the UPA animation artist whose mid-century style silkscreened prints found a new appreciation in recent years, died Wednesday. He was 93 and had lived in the Highland Park neighborhood of Los Angeles in a house he built himself since the 1950s.” (Source) (Thanks to Paul G. Henning for spotting this in Variety.

Analysis

The reader may think that Mr. Weidman had been building his house for six decades. A clearer version of this passage would be:

David Weidman, the UPA animation artist whose mid-century style silkscreened prints found a new appreciation in recent years, died Wednesday.  He was 93. Since the 1950s he had lived in the Highland Park neighborhood of Los Angeles in a house he built himself.

Example

“By promoting to men the message that their own sex is full of rapists, abusers and pedophiles, men will be less inclined to identify with other men, or with men in general, and will feel much less in the way of mutual support or sympathy.” (Source) (Italics in original)

Analysis

The reader may think that the phrase “By promoting…” modifies “will be less inclined…” But he quickly recognizes the meaning as illogical. A clearer and more logical version of this passage would be:

By promoting to men the message that their own sex is full of rapists, abusers and pedophiles, feminists will more successfully prevent men from identifying with other men (or with men in general) and from obtaining mutual support or sympathy.

Example

“Constantly decried as racists by a bien-pensant elite, the overwhelming evidence is that, until recently, Britons have absorbed seismic shifts in this country’s ethnic make-up with remarkable patience and good humour.” (Source)

Analysis

The reader may not easily recognize that the phrase “Constantly decried…” actually modifies “Britons.” A clearer version of this passage would be:

The overwhelming evidence is that Britons, constantly decried as racists by a bien-pensant elite, have until recently absorbed seismic shifts in this country’s ethnic make-up with remarkable patience and good humour.

The Takeaway: Carefully place every modifier as close as possible to what it modifies. When you place a modifier carelessly, you force your readers to guess what you mean. Yes, it’s true that the guessing usually takes only a few seconds and usually is successful. However, you should not be forcing your readers to guess at all. If you force them more than a few times, they may become irritated. If you persist, they may assume you are inconsiderate or stupid or both. They may decide never again to read anything with your name on it. I’m not kidding; many readers will do that, especially the more intelligent readers.

See disclaimer.

Random thoughts (6)

A Subaru Forester

When the spell-checker in Microsoft Word detects no errors, it tells me “You’re good to go!” I am offended by this puerile, presumptuous language. On the other hand, I realize that the fellow who wrote it may be retarded; if so, it wouldn’t be fair of me to judge him by normal grown-up standards. On the other other hand,* why does Microsoft allow such employees to communicate with customers? Of course, it could have been worse; it could have been “Your good to go!”

Where I live and work (Meredith, New Hampshire), a portion of the shore of Lake Winnipesaukee is historically known as “Church Landing.” A local developer bought Church Landing and built a beautiful but very pricey inn on it. Confusingly, he named the inn “Church Landing” and the inn’s restaurant “The Lakehouse Grille.” It seems to me that the inn would more logically have been named “The Lakehouse on Church Landing.” Or maybe there’s something here that I am misinterpreting.**

Two years ago, on the advice of my doctor, I set out to lose 90 pounds. After I had lost the first 30 or 40, people started asking me, “How did you do it?” When I told them the simple truth, “I ate less,” they typically let out a nervous laugh and then asked, “No, really, how did you do it?” Apparently my candid answer was unwittingly embarrassing people by reminding them that they had allowed themselves to be distracted by the $20-billion-dollars-a-year weight-loss industry, whose aggregate message seems to be, “You can’t lose weight just by eating less. Trust us. Our book / plan / group / seminar / pill /surgery is the way.” So nowadays when people ask how I lost weight, I say either “I don’t remember” or “I think it may be cancer.” They seem to be more satisfied with these obvious lies than with the simple truth. I give them what they want and they leave me alone, which is what I want.

On a recent flight from Boston to Miami, I noticed that the airline boarded us coach passengers by groups. Good method, except they do it backwards: They board from fore to aft (front to rear). In other words, Group 1 boards first, in the front section of coach, which forces Group 2 to wait until every single slowpoke in Group 1 has stowed his carry-on bags and has finished asking stupid questions of the stewardesses. Then Group 3 has to wait for every slowpoke in Group 2, and so on. It would be quicker and easier to board the coach passengers from rear to front. How do I know this? Simply by recalling that that’s how airlines used to do it, decades ago.

Here in New Hampshire, many of my neighbors drive Subarus.*** I hear that Subarus are good on snow, of which we get plenty. And yet I don’t recall ever seeing a Subaru ad. So where does Subaru advertise?

The Takeaway: Be here now.
______________________
* Every editor should have at least three metaphorical hands.
**I have no financial interest in the restaurant, inn or lake.
***I have no financial interest in Subaru or its parent company, Fuji Heavy Industries.

See disclaimer.

Emotional reasoning in the National Journal

Recently the National Journal ran an article titled “Ron Paul Is Putin’s New Best Friend,” by staff correspondent Lucia Graves. The article is an example of emotional reasoning, immaturity, subjectivity and misquotation.

On his YouTube channel, Canadian author and philosopher Stefan Molyneux posted an entertaining, instructive video critique (21:18) of the article. In the critique, he proceeds line by line and discusses several examples of the author’s faulty thinking and writing, including:

“blaming America”

“folk wisdom”

“quick to attack”

“pointing fingers”

“conspiracy theories”

“mysteriously”

Although he occasionally indulges in redundancy and histrionics, Mr. Molyneux is a very effective teacher. Especially if you are a beginning writer, I recommend you watch this video critique.

The Takeaway:  As writers, we must develop the habit of reading critically, because many articles today, like “Ron Paul Is Putin’s New Best Friend,” appear to be innocuous gibberish or prattle but are actually deliberate attempts to insinuate or manipulate. Try not to unconsciously absorb and unconsciously imitate that kind of writing.

See disclaimer.

Microsoft CEO is a heavy user of cliches

Satya Nadella (pictured), CEO of Microsoft Corporation, writes badly. For example, his July 10, 2014, public memo to all employees, which journalists have described as “disquieting,” “plodding” and  “coma-inducing,” is filled with cliches:

Core

Drive

Embrace

Enable

Experience

First and foremost

Focus

Footprint

Fundamental

Global

Impact

Nimble

Off the table

Passion

Planet

Reinvent

Seamlessly

Share

Solution

Stuff

Transform

Truly

Unique

And more. In a single memo, Mr. Nadella seems to have used most of the cliches on the big-business checklist of cliches.

CEOs are paid to provide clear direction. When a CEO writes in cliches, he reveals timidity, evasiveness, or vague thinking. Employees, partners, customers and investors tend to be discouraged by this kind of writing. (For example, look at the faces in the picture above.)

The Takeaway: A few CEOs (for example, John Mackey and T. J. Rodgers) are good writers, but most are not. What you read in the press from most CEOs is bad writing. Bland, boring, effete, evasive writing. Try to avoid becoming infected: (1) If you are not required to read such writing, do not read it; (2) if you are required to read it, pause at every paragraph break and say (silently or aloud) “This is dreck.” Your subconscious will get the message; as a result, you will be less likely to imitate the dreck.

See disclaimer.

Placement of modifiers (27)

Should it say "MIXED BABY BEANS & CARROTS"?

Be especially careful when placing only; most writers get it wrong most of the time. For example, “...it’s Twitter policy to only suspend parody accounts when the person or entity in question is the one doing the objecting.” (Link in original omitted here.)

Better:  ...it’s Twitter policy to suspend parody accounts only when the person...

From sportswriter Phil Mushnick: “This Jalen Rose now blames his transgressions — including theft, while an NBA player — as ‘the Detroit coming out in me.’ What does that mean? As a black man from Detroit we should expect no better?”

Better:  As a black man from Detroit I can do no better.

“The Rockabilly Hall of Fame was established on the internet on March 21, 1997, to present early rock and roll history and information relating to the artists and personalities involved in this American music genre. Headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee, the first induction certificate was issued on November 16, 1997, for singer Gene Vincent.” (Source) (Links in original omitted here.)

Better:  The Rockabilly Hall of Fame, headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee, was established on the internet....

The Takeaway: Whenever you are writing something for publication – even if it’s “just” a blog – try to have an experienced editor read your copy.

See disclaimer.

Reductio ad absurdum (2)

Recently we discussed reductio ad absurdum, which is disproof of a proposition by showing an absurdity to which it leads. Here is another good example of reductio ad absurdum:

Example

Author Theodore Dalrymple noticed some large posters that declared “Science needs women.” He commented:

“Science does not need women any more than it needs foot fetishists, pole-vaulters, or Somalis. What science needs (if an abstraction such as science can be said to need anything) is scientists. If they happen also to be foot fetishists, pole-vaulters, or Somalis, so be it: but no one in his right mind would go to any lengths to recruit for his laboratory foot fetishists, pole-vaulters, or Somalis for those characteristics alone.”

Analysis

The author of the posters probably had wanted to propose “The people who hire scientists should hire more women,” but feared that this candid wording could make his proposition sound like the subjective opinion of a social meddler. So he tarted up his proposition to sound like an axiom: “Science needs women.”

Of course, the proposition “Science needs women” is nothing more than a specific instance of the general proposition “Science needs scientists who have certain traits irrelevant to the work of scientists.” In his comment, Mr. Dalrymple disproves this general proposition by citing three laughably irrelevant traits: having a certain sexual fetish, participating in a certain sport, and being a member of a certain ethnic group.

The Takeaway: Reductio ad absurdum is a familiar way to disprove a proposition. It is effective (persuasive) and efficient (requiring few words).

See disclaimer.

Don’t worry about big, conspicuous errors

Do you worry that someday you’ll make a big, conspicuous error and embarrass yourself publicly?

Stop worrying about that.

If you write a lot, you almost certainly will make such an error someday, but you shouldn’t feel too embarrassed when it happens. You see, if you have made a habit of clear writing, your loyal readers will chuckle at, and immediately forgive you for, the occasional big error.*

If you must worry about something, worry about leaving a residue of small errors in every paragraph, bogging down your reader. Most readers do not forgive that.

A recent article, “Arne Duncan vs. Oklahoma,” illustrates what I mean. Here are the first four paragraphs of the article (minus the links), with my comments:

“In yet another stunning example of his lack of knowledge about life outside the elitist Washington bubble, [United States Secretary of Education] Arne Duncan came out swinging at Oklahoma governor Mary Fallin during a press conference yesterday (6/9) for signing the bill (HB3399) to end the Common Core State Standards initiative in Oklahoma.”

The phrase “came out swinging” is ambiguous: What exactly did Mr. Duncan say or do?

“Apparently, pure politics caused the governor (current Chair of the National Governor’s Association, who along with the Council of Chief School Officers propelled a set of education standards into national lexicon) to abandon Common Core for her state.  Apparently the thousands of parents who wrote letters, sent emails and called Governor Fallin’s office urging her to sign HB3399 during the interim between passage (5/23) and signing (6/5), have been downgraded to political widgets in a game of chicken between a state and the federal government.”

The reader has to read quite a lot of this paragraph before he recognizes that the author is being ironic.

“It’s interesting how quickly the anti-Common Core forces, once vilified as ‘conspiracy theorists’, ‘fearmongers’ and ‘liars’ have become vindicated since – and by Duncan’s own hand no less.  Duncan’s latest temper tantrum can’t help but make it readily apparent to even the passing skeptic that there must be something to the legions of arguments connecting Common Core and federal overreach into public education.”

The reader wonders how these “anti-Common Core forces” are related to “the thousands of parents who wrote letters…”

“Truly, no one (including the Fordham Institute or Bill Gates) has been able to effectively mount an argument supporting the stake the U.S. Department of Education has in Oklahoma’s education standards. Really, what does Arne Duncan care what standards Oklahoma uses to educate its children? What difference can it mean to Duncan?”

It is difficult for the reader to infer a connection between the first sentence and the second and third sentences. My guess is that the author is trying to say, “The U.S. Department of Education has no stake in Oklahoma’s education standards, so Mr. Duncan should mind his own business and stop threatening Governor Fallin.”

The rest of the article is similarly confusing. In almost every paragraph, something impedes the reader: an awkward sentence, an overloaded sentence, an ambiguous verb, a confusing transition, a misplaced modifier.

The Takeaway: Put your energy into making every paragraph readable and clear. Your reader will notice and appreciate it. If you leave a residue of small errors in paragraph after paragraph, your reader will tire of slogging through it. He may even vow never to read another piece with your name on it.

See disclaimer.

_____________
*I relate this personal example in all modesty: Decades ago I was a PR man for Honeywell. One day, while I was visiting with the editor of a trade magazine, I noticed a Honeywell press release posted on a bulletin board. Looking more closely, I recognized it as a release in which I had made a grammar error – in the headline! I groaned. The editor smiled, shook his head, and said, “We see errors like this every day. This one was worth posting because it was from you.”

Reductio ad absurdum

Reductio ad absurdum (Late Latin for “reduction to the absurd”) is disproof of a proposition by showing an absurdity to which it leads. It is a familiar form of logical argument.

A compelling example appears in the essay “Anatomy of the State,” by economist Murray Rothbard (pictured). Rothbard begins by stating that:

“... it is common to hear sentiments expressed which violate virtually every tenet of reason and common sense such as, ‘we are the government.’ ”

He shows an absurdity to which the proposition “we are the government” leads:

“[But if] ‘we are the government,’ then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and untyrannical but also ‘voluntary’ on the part of the individual concerned.”

He also gives examples, including:

“... if the government conscripts a man, or throws him into jail for dissident opinion, then he is ‘doing it to himself’ and, therefore, nothing untoward has occurred. Under this reasoning, any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they must have ‘committed suicide,’ since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and, therefore, anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part.”

He closes the paragraph with:

“One would not think it necessary to belabor this point, and yet the overwhelming bulk of the people hold this fallacy to a greater or lesser degree.”

The Takeaway: Reductio ad absurdum is a familiar (and usually very efficient) way to disprove a proposition.

See disclaimer.

A soldier who wrote like a professor

Most professors write exhausting prose. They exhaust their readers by continually forcing them to decode circumlocutions, euphemisms, evasions, ambiguities, misplaced modifiers, vague antecedents, and logical fallacies. They make the readers endure passive voice, elegant variation, and sheer nonsense. They make the readers slog through long sentences.

But professors are not the only vexers. Many non-professors exhaust their readers, too. Consider, for example, the British soldier Frederick J. Veale (pictured), who died in 1976. In his revisionist history Advance to Barbarism, Veale claims that the Allies thought up the idea of deliberately bombing civilians and the Axis merely followed suit. But after enticing his readers with this provocative thesis, Veale exhausts them with prose like this:

“It would not indeed be correct to say that what was officially termed ‘the strategic bombing offensive’ was carried out to the last day of the war without opposition, protest or misgivings. Questions were asked in Parliament as to the character of this air offensive which were fully reported in the Press with the answers given. Certainly it cannot be said that the Ministers of the Crown upon whom fell the duty of answering these questions, resorted to evasion or equivocation.

“In accordance with the British tradition they kept a stiff upper lip and gave clear and emphatic replies, without any signs of embarrassment such as might have been expected from them having regard to the fact that as recently as March 1942 Mr. Churchill’s War Cabinet had accepted the plan laid before it by Professor Lindemann by which ‘top priority’ as an objective for air attack was in future to be given to ‘working-class houses in densely populated residential areas.’ ” (161 words)

Analysis

There are many things wrong with these two consecutive paragraphs; for the sake of brevity, I’ll just hit the highlights:

Long sentences (average 40.2 words).

Passive voice; for example: “Questions were asked in Parliament as to the character of this air offensive which were fully reported in the Press with the answers given.” (Boldface added.)

An egregious, grotesque circumlocution: “...such as might have been expected from them having regard to the fact that as recently as March 1942 Mr. Churchill’s War Cabinet had accepted the plan laid before it by Professor Lindemann by which ‘top priority’ as an objective for air attack was in future to be given to ‘working-class houses in densely populated residential areas.’ ” 

A suggested rewrite

In just over three minutes, I did this rough rewrite:

Several government officials opposed, protested or at least questioned “the strategic bombing offensive.” For example, Members of Parliament asked the Ministers questions about the character of the offensive. The Ministers answered clearly and emphatically, and the press fully reported both the questions and the answers. The Ministers did not appear to be embarrassed that the War Cabinet had decided to deliberately bomb “working-class houses in densely populated residential areas.” (68 words)

My rewrite is 58 percent shorter than the original, and it is much easier to follow. (Note: I felt it was fair to delete the mention of Professor Lindemann, because two paragraphs later a quotation describes the professor’s role in the offensive.)

The Takeaway: Try not to fall into the bad habits of the typical professor. As you edit your drafts, watch for circumlocutions, euphemisms, evasions, ambiguities, misplaced modifiers, vague antecedents, logical fallacies, passive voice, elegant variation, and sheer nonsense. Keep your sentences mostly short; vary the sentence length. And always check your prose for readability; if your Flesch Reading Ease score is consistently below 30, you probably are writing like a professor. Ask a capable editor to look at samples of your work and advise you on how to break your bad habits.

See disclaimer.

Grammatical parallelism, parallel structure, parallel construction, parallel form (6)

Grammatical parallelism is also called parallel structure, parallel construction, and parallel form. It is the use of equivalent syntax to array equivalent ideas. One place we occasionally violate parallelism is in a series of direct objects.

Example

“Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart is a triumph of literature that everyone in the world should read. However, it may trigger readers who have experienced racism, colonialism, religious persecution, violence, suicide, and more.” (Source)

Analysis

The terms racism, colonialism, religious persecution, and violence all denote actions that (1) happen to a person and (2) are not necessarily fatal. The term suicide is non-parallel to those terms because it denotes an action that (1) a person does to himself and (2) is necessarily (by definition) fatal.

So, in the author’s unintentional non-parallelism, the reader senses an unintentional, macabre joke: the suicide, being dead, can neither read Mr. Achebe’s book nor suffer any emotional distress triggered by triggers in the book.

The Takeaway: When you write a series of direct objects, check to make sure they are all parallel. Correcting faulty parallelism is one of the quickest fixes you can make during a copy-edit. Parallelism helps make your copy easier to read. Your readers will notice and appreciate it.

See disclaimer.

Simplifying: making technical information easy to read

If you are a beginning writer, you are probably learning that it is surprisingly difficult to simplify technical information. In other words, it’s hard to make technical information easy to read.

Unfortunately, the ability to simplify technical information usually takes many years to acquire. I don’t say this to discourage you; it’s just a fact.

Fortunately, there is a bright side: You eventually will become really good at simplifying. It doesn’t require any special gifts. Just practice and feedback.

One writer who is very good at simplifying is Andrew Beyer (pictured), a journalist for the Washington Post. He has been writing articles and books about horse race betting for decades. A few days before the 2014 Kentucky Derby, he wrote an article on the role of pace:

He takes one paragraph to introduce the topic of pace:

The best horse doesn’t necessarily win the Kentucky Derby. Sometimes the best horse is trounced, because the outcome of the race can be dramatically affected by the early pace. Even though California Chrome is the most accomplished horse in 140th Derby, his chances may hinge on the way the first half mile of the race is run.

Then he takes a paragraph to describe pace generally:

All horseplayers know the axioms of pace handicapping: When a horse takes the early lead without much pressure, setting a slow pace, he will have strength in reserve to fend off the challenges of stretch runners. Conversely, when the early leaders battle each other and run too fast, they are apt to weaken and set the stage for stretch runners.

Then he explains why pace is especially important in the Derby:

These truths apply at every level of the sport, but they are especially important in the Derby. With its now-customary 20-horse fields, more front-running types are apt to be in the Derby than in a normal race. Because of the oversize fields, jockeys may have to hustle their horses early to secure a decent tactical position.

It is easy to follow what he is saying, even if you’ve never handicapped a race.

The Takeaway: The ability to simplify is one of those abilities that you acquire slowly and steadily. If you are a beginning writer, have patience. Keep seeking feedback from editors and readers. Over time, you will become highly skilled at simplifying.

Thanks to Paul G. Henning for pointing out the article.

See disclaimer.

Grammatical parallelism, parallel structure, parallel construction, parallel form (5)

Grammatical parallelism is also called parallel structure, parallel construction, and parallel form. It is the use of equivalent syntax to array equivalent ideas. Parallelism makes writing easier to read; faulty parallelism makes writing harder to read.

An example of faulty parallelism

“In other words, the more English a given region, the less political and ideological flexibility one finds in that area among white voters.” (Source)

A suggested  rewrite

In other words, the more English a given region, the more inflexible (politically and ideologically) the white voters.

An example of faulty parallelism

“Get organized in ways that help you better use everything you still have. Organize your refrigerator like a supermarket. Organize your kitchen like a programmer. Organize your clothing by color, like in a clothing store, so it's easy to find what you're looking for.” (Source)

A suggested rewrite

Get organized in ways that help you better use everything you still have: Organize your refrigerator by category, your kitchen by function, and your clothing by color.

The Takeaway: Check your parallel constructions to make sure they really are parallel. This is one of the quickest fixes you can make during a copy-edit. Parallelism will make your copy easier to read. Your readers will notice and appreciate it.

See disclaimer.

Bits and pieces (2)

Today we present examples of miscellaneous errors that may confuse your readers.

Using a general verb instead of a specific verb

“...the use of these ubiquitous texting shortcuts is negatively altering their ability to identify and use correct grammar.” (Source)

When you feel that you must add an adverb to a verb, you’re probably using a verb that’s too general. Above, for example, the writer used the general verb alter and probably sensed that she must add an adverb to make it more specific. But it’s still too general. She should have just used a more-specific verb; for example, hinder, hurt, reduce, dull or destroy.

Misuse of preposition

“They (the big corporate contributors) tried this (bribery) to me in Minnesota.” (Source)

The natural preposition here is on: “They tried this on me.”

Logic error

“emotionally charged social and political implications” (Source)

An implication is a concept; it cannot carry or hold or experience an emotional charge. A person can experience an emotion as a reaction to recognizing an implication. The writer should have decided what emotion she had in mind and should have rewritten the passage. For example, she could have written “frightening social and political implications.”

The Takeaway: Whenever you are writing something for publication – even if it’s “just” a blog – try to have an experienced editor read your copy.

See disclaimer.