WTF... He probably means something different than what he's saying here. The way most people talk naturally is pretty poor. It often doesn't even make sense when they're saying it out loud - reading it back in written form can be headache-inducing.
He's probably not saying "write exactly what you would say out loud", but that's the takeaway I got from it, and probably many others have too over the years.
he means write in your natural tone. many people write in a completely different manner than they speak.
When I wrote for my high-school paper, people would often comment that I wrote how I spoke. That it sounded as if they were speaking to me. Other writers, read like they were giving a speech or making a presentation, and it wasn't natural for the reader.
he means write in your natural tone. many people write in a completely different manner than they speak.
I wish he had said this, however. Many people do think that writing requires a windy, pretentious tone, which it doesn't. But I specifically tell students not to write the way they talk for the reasons the GP hits.
it still ignores the point that not everyone has a good natural tone. some people may be never be good verbal presenters, and they'll need to develop a good written tone in the absence of good speaking skills.
This reminds me of a quote from Christopher Hitchens. I'm paraphrasing, but it was something along the lines of, "If you can speak then you can write. The problem is that few people know how to speak well."
Vapid nonsense that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. A well placed synonym can do wonders for a piece of text, making it a pleasure to read and sharper than a razors edge. I'll take my highfalutin words over the soulless all-inclusive drivel that's infested ad-copy since the likes of David Ogilvy got their sweaty mitts on it.
Also, I don't know what the work ethic was like in 1982, but in 2012, if you want something done make damn sure you've got a paper trail.
Interesting - just ordered the suggested book. I still think there is some potential in some virtual writing training camp for all the bloggers, self published authors and everyone in between who wants to improve the writing capabilities.
A quote from the article: "Never use jargon words like reconceptualize, demassification, attitudinally, judgmentally. They are hallmarks of a pretentious ass."
When I worked as a NASA engineer on the Space Shuttle, I met a manager who was fond of the word "definitized" (where "defined" would have done as well) and he would use it whenever possible. In spite of my persistence, I never managed to wean him from this usage. It eventually came out that he believed smart people, important people, used smart, important words, by which he meant words longer and more obscure than their meaning required.
This was, of course, years before I heard a U.S. President insist that he was "misunderestimated." It was then that I realized the problem was getting worse.
This advice may seem out-of-date, but a classic style book named "The Elements of Style", popularly known as "Strunk & White", offers many useful writing rules. The rule I find most memorable and useful is "make every word count." What applies to a sentence, applies with equal justice to the sentence's words.
I see concision in writing as a sign of respect for your reader -- you don't plan to waste his time with obese verbiage.
Another good reference, although less advertising oriented, The King's English, by H.W. Fowler, insists on solid principles:
Prefer the familiar word to the far-fetched.
Prefer the concrete word to the abstract.
Prefer the single word to the circumlocution.
Prefer the short word to the long.
Prefer the Saxon word to the Romance.
IIRC, a lot of the pushback against Strunk & White is against its proscriptive viewpoint towards language, which is a philosophical battle. I don't think this quite merits a "they don't what they are talking about" when it comes to evaluating their writing advice.
Fair enough. I think "The Elements of Style" is aimed more toward people who must communicate effectively with the smallest number of words, where efficiently conveying information is the only priority.
Obviously someone writing creatively is free to ignore these journalism guidelines. On the other hand, many well-known writers first learned their craft at newspapers where the principles of Strunk & White (or its predecessors) were fully accepted -- Samuel Clemens and Ernest Hemingway to name just two.
> Fair enough. I think "The Elements of Style" is aimed more toward people who must communicate effectively with the smallest number of words, where efficiently conveying information is the only priority.
See http://www.economist.com/styleguide/introduction, if you want to communicate succinctly. The Economist's style is just one possibility, but they do manage to write short and efficient pieces.
A humorous side note on the excellent linked paper. In the paper Daryl Bem is cited as an authority on clear, simple writing -- the same Daryl Bem responsible for a spectacular bouhaha surrounding his claim that psychological responses in the present are affected by events in the future. Well, we can take comfort that he composed his claim according to the highest literary standards:
And the highest scientific standards. His work raises interesting questions concerning the scientific process, what can be experimentally shown in spite of being false, how hard statistics is, even for the experts, etc. It doesn't matter what he believes concerning ESP: no one doubts his integrity, which means the results are mighty interesting.
Unless you mean "the highest scientific standards" among psychologists, which is an entirely different claim, since psychology's research standards are notoriously low.
> It doesn't matter what he believes concerning ESP: no one doubts his integrity, which means the results are mighty interesting.
The interest in his results revolves around how such a study could be published in the first place -- and this is not my opinion, but that of his many critics, as shown in the above linked articles.
Statistically questionable, but much better than most non-mathematical publications involving statistics. The problem is: every use of statistics outside of pure mathematics is questionable. Even in experimental physics, where perfect distributions are assumed, when an experimental setup may well lead to a bias. That's the major point the paper raises. Given the standards, I don't doubt for a second that this paper was rightfully published. If it wasn't, the question is: how many other papers weren't? I'd argue more than half of those employing statistics.
"Definitize" should mean "to make not finite", as when launching a space craft out of gravitational orbit.
"Misunderdestimate" was a flub or portmanteau of "misunderstand" and "underestimate", not a word that was used intentionally and repeatedly. It is actually kind of a cool portmanteau.
WTF... He probably means something different than what he's saying here. The way most people talk naturally is pretty poor. It often doesn't even make sense when they're saying it out loud - reading it back in written form can be headache-inducing.
He's probably not saying "write exactly what you would say out loud", but that's the takeaway I got from it, and probably many others have too over the years.