Clear Writing with Mr. Clarity

You don't need to say "in color"

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Roy, "Mr. Clarity") — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 13:28:00 +0000

You don’t need to add “in color” after an adjective for color.

For example, the phrase “in color” is unnecessary in these sentences:

Red blood cells are red only because they contain a protein chemical called hemoglobin which is bright red in color. (Source)

Yellow Lustrium® - Same characteristics as Lustrium®, but yellow in color because of coating with 23 karat yellow gold. (Source)

Of course, names of colors are sometimes used figuratively; for example, “feeling blue” (depressed) and “a green product” (environmentally friendly). In these cases, some explanation may be needed.

The Takeaway: Don’t automatically add “in color” after an adjective for color. Do it only if the meaning would be unclear without it.

See disclaimer.

George Carlin on euphemisms (4)

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Roy, "Mr. Clarity") — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 13:21:00 +0000

The late comic George Carlin (pictured), a keen observer of language, had a lot to say about euphemisms. For example, here’s a transcript of a portion of one of his routines from the late 1980s. (Warning: profanity.)

And we have no more old people in this country. No more old people. We shipped them all away and we brought in these senior citizens. Isn’t that a typically American twentieth-century phrase? Bloodless, lifeless. No pulse in one of them. A senior citizen.

But I’ve accepted that one, I’ve come to terms with it, I know it’s here to stay, we’ll never get rid of it, that’s what they’re gonna be called so I’ll relax on that, but the one I do resist, the one I keep resisting is when they look at an old guy and they’ll say, “Look at him, Dan, he’s 90 years young.”

Imagine the fear of aging that reveals. To not even be able to use the word old to describe someone, to have to use an antonym. And fear of aging is natural, it’s universal, isn’t it? We all have that, no one wants to get old, no one wants to die, but we do. So, we bullshit ourselves.

I started bullshittin’ myself when I got to my forties. Soon as I was in my forties, I’d look in the mirror and I’d say, “Well, I, I guess I’m getting older. Older sounds a little better than old, doesn’t it? Sounds like it might even last a little longer.

Bullshit. I’m gettin’ old. And it’s OK, because thanks to our fear of death in this country, I won’t have to die. I’ll pass away (ovation) or I’ll expire, like a magazine subscription. If it happens in the hospital, they’ll call it a terminal episode. The insurance company will refer to it as negative patient care outcome. And if it’s the result of malpractice, they’ll say it was a therapeutic misadventure.

I’m telling you, some of this language makes me want to vomit. Well, maybe not vomit. Makes me want to engage in an involuntary personal protein spill. (Ovation.)

The Takeaway: Every euphemism falls somewhere in the spectrum between polite forbearance and malicious deceit. As a writer, you need to know, at all times, where you are in that spectrum. I won’t presume to tell you never to deceive, but as a writing coach I have a duty to tell you not to deceive unintentionally. As Oscar Wilde quipped in an analogous context, “A true gentleman is one who is never unintentionally rude.”

See disclaimer.

Grammatical shysterism (2)

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Roy, "Mr. Clarity") — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 13:46:00 +0000

Here’s another example of grammatical shysterism, the deceptive use of grammar:

When the U.S. Department of Justice “admitted it knew its central contention was false” in its prosecution of a businessman, an employee of the department commented, “Defendants aren’t entitled to a perfect trial. . . . Misstatements happen.”

Analysis

The Department of Justice employee chose a grammatical structure that avoids any mention of human beings. She avoided saying “we lied” or “Justice lied” or “the prosecutor lied” – or even “we misstated” or “Justice misstated” or “the prosecutor misstated.”

In effect the employee said, “They were not lies at all; they were misstatements. And those misstatements made themselves; nobody at Justice made them.”

Of course, grown-ups easily see through such childish deceptions.

The Takeaway: If you resort to grammatical shysterism, you will sound like a pathetic child.

See disclaimer.

Don’t use “issues” foolishly

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Roy, "Mr. Clarity") — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 09:44:00 +0000

Abusing the word issues can make you look foolish. For example, a recent CNN Money article titled “Doctors going broke” quotes Marc Lion, a CPA who “advises independent doctor practices about their finances,” as follows:

“A lot of independent practices are starting to see serious financial issues.”

This language is general and euphemistic. For example, it uses see as a euphemism for confront, experience or suffer. It also uses issues as a euphemism for difficulties, problems or setbacks.

The quotation sounds weak by itself; it sounds even weaker in the context of the article, which includes these strong words from doctors:

“…I will have no choice but to close my doors.”

“...we still barely made payroll last paycheck…. I might seriously consider leaving medicine…. If [a Medicare pay cut] goes through, it will put us under.”

And these strong words from an executive of a hospital cancer center:

“Many [doctors] are too proud to admit that they are on the verge of bankruptcy…. [they] see no way out of the downward spiral… [one oncologist] hasn’t taken a salary from his private practice in over a year. He owes drug companies $1.6 million…”

Every one of these quotations is more specific and more direct than the financially advising CPA’s quotation. In this company, he sounds non-committal at best.

The Takeaway: Millions of your fellow Americans make themselves look foolish by abusing the word issues. But you don’t have to imitate them. Preserve your dignity and probity.

See disclaimer.

Concise writing is usually clear writing (25) – H.L. Mencken

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Roy, "Mr. Clarity") — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 09:44:00 +0000

Here are two examples of clear, concise writing. Both passages are from In Defense of Women, by H.L. Mencken (pictured).

The first passage is from Mr. Mencken’s about-the-author paragraph:

I am wholly devoid of public spirit or moral purpose. This is incomprehensible to many men, and they seek to remedy the defect by crediting me with purposes of their own. The only thing I respect is intellectual honesty, of which, of course, intellectual courage is a necessary part. A Socialist who goes to jail for his opinions seems to me a much finer man than the judge who sends him there, though I disagree with all the ideas of the Socialist and agree with some of those of the judge. But though he is fine, the Socialist is nevertheless foolish, for he suffers for what is untrue. If I knew what was true, I’d probably be willing to sweat and strive for it, and maybe even to die for it to the tune of bugle-blasts. But so far I have not found it.

The second passage explains why politicians spend most of their time suppressing free speech:

For democracy is grounded upon so childish a complex of fallacies that they must be protected by a rigid system of taboos, else even half-wits would argue it to pieces. Its first concern must thus be to penalize the free play of ideas. In the United States this is not only its first concern, but also its last concern. No other enterprise, not even the trade in public offices and contracts, occupies the rulers of the land so steadily, or makes heavier demands upon their ingenuity and their patriotic passion.

The Takeaway: To improve the clarity of your writing, spend at least 10 minutes a day reading aloud from writers who write clearly. You will see, hear and feel the stark contrast between careful, grown-up diction and the careless, infantile diction that besets us every day.

See disclaimer.

Placement of modifiers (16)

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Roy, "Mr. Clarity") — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:44:00 +0000

Recently I reserved a hotel room; I received an email confirmation that included this sentence:

As a hotel guest of the xxx Hotel, we would like to offer you discounts to [local attractions].

I thought:

The phrase “As a hotel guest of the xxx Hotel” appears to be a modifier, and therefore probably modifies something that soon follows it. But what soon follows it, “we would like,” does not seem to be or contain the thing modified; for one thing, “we” is plural while “a hotel guest” is singular.

The phrase “a hotel guest” probably refers to “you” (which means me, the recipient of the email). The phrase “As a hotel guest of the xxx Hotel” probably refers to something I do or will do in my capacity as a guest.

Now I can guess what the writer of the email probably meant to write:

As a guest of the xxx Hotel, you are entitled to discounts at [local attractions].

The Takeaway: Place every modifier carefully. It is bad manners to make your readers work harder to read a sentence than you worked to write it.

See disclaimer.

How to write a white paper from an interview

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Roy, "Mr. Clarity") — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:44:00 +0000

Here’s a method I use when a client wants me to write a white paper from an interview. This method is like sculpting; it consists mostly of removing unnecessary words from the interview transcript. The method produces a strong first draft; typically a client will say the draft is 90 percent of the way to the final draft.

Method

Record the interview. Have the audio professionally transcribed. Then make these seven passes through the transcript:

First pass: Chisel away the irrelevant discussions: introductions, small talk, tangents, next steps, deadlines, exchanges of email addresses, and so on.

Second pass: Chisel your interview questions into short headlines. For example, chisel “Just to get started, my first question is, can you give us a brief overview of the topic without a lot of detail?” into “Overview.”

Third pass: Chisel away the repetitions, false starts, and circumlocutions that the interviewee indulges in as he gathers his thoughts to make a point. For example, chisel “Well, I was talking to a number of financial advisors – this was actually last month at a financial advisors conference in Chicago. The hot topic that came up – one of my company’s partner companies had a representative at the meeting, too, and he asked – in fact, he was a speaker there. So, offline he asked a question around commodities trading and it sort of touched off a kind of passionate discussion in that venue” into “Commodities trading is a hot topic.”

Fourth pass: Using the find-and-replace function in your word processor, delete all these filler words and phrases: kind of, kinda, sort of, sorta, pretty much, actually, totally, absolutely, out there, OK, so, I mean, I think, you know, just a thought, my two cents, well, basically, frankly, to be honest.

Fifth pass: From the top of the transcript to the bottom, chisel away all unnecessary words, phrases and sentences. This pass is usually the most time-consuming pass.

Sixth pass: Do a normal, line-by-line copy edit.

Seventh pass: You now have a strong Draft 1 of the white paper. Proof it and send it to your client.

The Takeaway: Don’t write; edit. When you have to turn an interview transcript into a white paper, don’t think of it as a writing project. Remind yourself that the white paper is already there, inside the interview transcript. Reveal the white paper via editing; chisel away the unnecessary words.

By the way, if you would like some great tips on interviewing, go here, here and here.

See disclaimer.

Quotations on thinking, speaking and writing (8)

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Roy, "Mr. Clarity") — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 13:12:00 +0000

“Don’t use words too big for the subject. Don’t say ‘infinitely’ when you mean ‘very’; otherwise you’ll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite.”
~C.S. Lewis (pictured)

“If you can’t write your strategy or idea on the back of your business card, it’s too complex to execute. Keep it simple.”
~Dawn Hudson

“It’s [seducing female writing students is] not worth it. Afterward, you have to read their short stories.”
~Christopher Hitchens

The Takeaway: Keep an open mind. Have a great day.

See disclaimer.

Sending the wrong message

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Roy, "Mr. Clarity") — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 15:54:00 +0000

A few years ago, while driving around in Vermont, I saw an electrician’s shingle: “Sure-Fire Electric.” The electrician probably meant something like the dictionary definition of sure-fire (adj. Informal. Bound to be successful or perform as expected). However, he overlooked an important fact: one reason why the typical homeowner hires a professional electrician is that he is afraid that if he does his own wiring he may burn down his house. In an electrician’s company name, fire is probably the worst possible word besides electrocution.

More recently, I noticed a tax preparation service called “Taxing Matters.” The tax preparer behind this frivolous name is probably competent, but her business name doesn’t do her justice. A sober name could inspire more confidence.

And speaking of frivolous company names, in 2006 a woman in Texas actually named her PR firm “Blabbermouth” (n. Informal. One who talks indiscreetly).* When I saw that name, my first thought was to imagine how strange it would look at the bottom of a non-disclosure agreement. My second thought was to imagine a pharmaceutical company inadvertently disclosing a few thousand patients’ names via email and then asking its PR firm, Blabbermouth, to prepare a press release to explain the indiscretion.

The Takeaway: If you are considering a certain word or phrase as the name of your product, service or company, be sure to study all the denotations and connotations of the word or phrase. Put yourself in your prospective customer’s place and imagine all the ways in which he may react – both positively and negatively – to the proposed name. This is not to say that you should skip over an otherwise good name because it has one unfortunate connotation; it is only to say that you should make an informed decision.

See disclaimer.

*In 2009, the firm was renamed “Penman.”

Just for fun

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Roy, "Mr. Clarity") — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 14:41:00 +0000

Just for fun: Download and listen to “Fry’s English Delight: The Complete Series,” an audiobook of a four-part series on BBC Radio 4 hosted by Stephen Fry (pictured). The audiobook is available on iTunes.*

In this series, the erudite and amusing Mr. Fry interviews experts on puns, metaphors, quotations, and clichés. These experts are also erudite and amusing.

We learn why we like bad puns; we meet metaphors with disputed histories; we hear a compiler admitting that he inserts his own quotations among the famous ones; and we are told the story of “the world's first self-cancelling cliché.”

The Takeaway: If you like discussions of language for the sake of language, you will enjoy this audiobook.

Happy New Year!

*I have no financial interest in the sales of this product.

Concise writing is usually clear writing (24) – Chris Hedges

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Roy, "Mr. Clarity") — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 09:44:00 +0000

Here’s another sample of clear, concise writing. It is from a 2008 column by American journalist Chris Hedges (pictured) on the corruption of American journalism.

The past week was a good one if you were a courtier. We were instructed by the high priests on television over the past few days to mourn a Sunday morning talk show host [Tim Russert], who made $5 million a year and who gave a platform to the powerful and the famous so they could spin, equivocate and lie to the nation. We were repeatedly told by these television courtiers, people like Tom Brokaw and Wolf Blitzer, that this talk show host was one of our nation’s greatest journalists, as if sitting in a studio, putting on makeup and chatting with Dick Cheney or George W. Bush have much to do with journalism.

No journalist makes $5 million a year. No journalist has a comfortable, cozy relationship with the powerful. No journalist believes that acting as a conduit, or a stenographer, for the powerful is a primary part of his or her calling. Those in power fear and dislike real journalists.

The Takeaway: To improve the clarity of your writing, spend at least 10 minutes a day reading aloud from writers who write clearly. You will see, hear and feel the stark contrast between careful, grown-up diction and the careless, infantile diction that besets us every day.

See disclaimer.

Insist on clarity! – an editorial

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Roy, "Mr. Clarity") — Mon, 26 Dec 2011 13:44:00 +0000

Author Dan Pallotta (pictured) believes we should insist on clarity. He has written a powerful blog post about our misguided toleration of others’ deliberately unclear diction. Read the post here.

The Takeaway: I agree with Mr. Pallotta. I often insist on clarity and I recommend that you do likewise. If you’re not yet accustomed to being assertive, start out with easy encounters. For example: While you are shopping, a clerk approaches you and asks, “All set?” You respond, “To do what?” Nine times out of ten, the clerk will quickly correct his question to “Can I help you find something?” You have gently but successfully shamed an indolent clerk into using the clear, polite, grown-up diction that his job requires. His quick correction proves that (1) he knows darn well that his job requires grown-up diction; (2) he knows how to use such diction; and (3) he avoids using it only out of indolence. If enough of us keep reminding these slackers to speak adult English, they may decide to make it a habit.

See disclaimer.

A heavy user of mixed metaphors

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Roy, "Mr. Clarity") — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 09:44:00 +0000

All writers occasionally distract their readers by inadvertently using mixed metaphors. You do it, I do it, we all do it. But some writers use mixed metaphors heavily.

For example, here is an essay that contains many mixed metaphors. I quote four below (boldface added):

Even a minor foreign policy or economic event like a Greek default or Middle East crisis could reap [sic for wreak] havoc with the precarious interlocking sovereign debt pyramid in the West.

Of course, no nation wants a collapse – especially China – because a western debt collapse and write down is certainly uncharted financial waters and the contagion risks are global.

Consequently, after 30 years of watching, writing and creating protective retirement planning and financial strategies, today I'm finally going to yell “FIRE” inside the closed “financial iron curtain” which is America.

I do not have a crystal ball or inside political information on a specific imminent threat, only the observation that the sovereign debt crisis from Europe, a debt ceiling misstep from the clowns in Washington or a Middle East event could suddenly trigger the collapse. [Clowns in Washington are walking upside down on the ceiling!]

I don’t mean to pick on this writer; many other financial writers are equally heavy users of mixed metaphors.

The Takeaway: Mixed metaphors can distract your readers. In some cases, they make your prose impossible to understand. Ideally, you should have someone edit your copy, because it is difficult to spot your own mixed metaphors.

See disclaimer .

Concise writing is usually clear writing (23) – Lysander Spooner

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Roy, "Mr. Clarity") — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 09:44:00 +0000

Here’s another sample of clear, concise writing. It is a paragraph that explains why a highwayman is morally superior to a politician: both rob you, but the highwayman otherwise leaves you alone. This paragraph is from No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority (1870), by Lysander Spooner (pictured), a Massachusetts lawyer, entrepreneur and essayist.

The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a “protector,” and that he takes men’s money against their will, merely to enable him to “protect” those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful “sovereign,” on account of the “protection” he affords you. He does not keep “protecting” you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villainies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.

The Takeaway: To improve the clarity of your writing, spend at least 10 minutes a day reading aloud from writers who write clearly. 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 joeroy(at)joeroy(dot)com. Ask for my “List of Writers to Absorb.” I will respond via email.

See disclaimer.

Editing advice from Richard Rhodes

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Roy, "Mr. Clarity") — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 09:44:00 +0000

In case you missed it: Richard Rhodes (pictured), author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning “The Making of the Atomic Bomb,” recently offered some excellent editing advice in The Wall Street Journal. His advice is especially helpful for beginning writers.

Here’s an excerpt.

The work of writing, I tell [students], isn’t simply copying down their self-talk. If they think so, I say, try transcribing a conversation and see how much is redundant or extraneous.

No, the work of writing is deliberately choosing a voice, a fictional construct, in which to argue or narrate, and then, through draft after successive draft, composing and editing a translation of their self-talk into prose that others can read and understand.

The Takeaway: I have nothing to add except my frequent reminder: keep reading. In particular, spend at least 10 minutes a day reading aloud from writers who write clearly; it will help you follow Mr. Rhodes’ advice more easily.

See disclaimer.

A five-minute fix

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Roy, "Mr. Clarity") — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 13:05:00 +0000

I frequently see business writing that (1) confuses and insults the customer and (2) could be fixed in five minutes or less. Here’s an example from an email I received.

Example

Your order has been processed and shipped. You may track your package/s after 8:00pm at www.ups.com or www.fedex.com with the following tracking number:

Date Shipped
11/07/11

Via
USPS FIRST CLASS MAIL
Tracking Number:

Please note: If no tracking number appears above, your order has been sent via U.S. Postal Service. Please allow 3-5 business days for delivery via U.S. Mail.

Analysis

Although the company apparently has set up an automated shipping confirmation system, the company has not bothered to set up separate message formats for UPS shipments, FedEx shipments and USPS shipments. Instead, the company sends a confusing “one-size-fits-all” message to all customers.

Five-Minute Fix

If the company had set up three separate message formats, the message I received could have read like this:

We shipped your package 11/07/11 via First-Class Mail. It will be delivered to you in 3-5 business days.

The Takeaway: Intelligent customers understand that good business writing takes time and that your time is limited. They don’t expect perfection. But they do expect you to make easy, five-minute fixes like the example here.

See disclaimer.

Quotations on thinking, speaking and writing (7)

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Roy, "Mr. Clarity") — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 09:44:00 +0000

“God does not much mind bad grammar, but He does not take any particular pleasure in it.”
~Erasmus (pictured)

“Have something to say, and say it as clearly as you can. That is the only secret of style.”
~Matthew Arnold

“The secret of play-writing can be given in two maxims: stick to the point, and, whenever you can, cut.”
~W. Somerset Maugham

The Takeaway: Keep an open mind. Have a great day.

Thanks to Paul G. Henning, a friend and a clear writer, for pointing out the first two quotations.

See disclaimer.

Concise writing is usually clear writing (22) – Mark Fuhrman

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Roy, "Mr. Clarity") — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 09:44:00 +0000

Below is another sample of clear, concise writing. It is the beginning of a chapter on the 1993 death of Deputy White House Counsel Vincent Foster, in The Murder Business: How the Media Turns Crime Into Entertainment and Subverts Justice, a book by former Los Angeles Police Department detective Mark Fuhrman (pictured).

“Here’s a tip that may sound callous. If you plan to commit suicide, do your loved ones a favor and make it abundantly clear. Choose perhaps a bridge during rush hour.

“You may not want to blow your brains out on live television, like disgraced politician Bud Dwyer did, but you really should, out of respect, make sure you have reliable witnesses of some kind.

“But whatever you do, don’t go into a vast park you have no connection to, with a gun not familiar to your wife, with bullets not traceable to your stash, leaving no definitive note, telling no one, promising your secretary you’ll be back shortly, and hope that everybody is able to work it all out after you’re gone. Don’t be in that much of a hurry. Please. Write a suicide note that actually has your fingerprints on it, at least. And don’t tear it into thirty-seven pieces and put it in your briefcase. Especially if you are the Deputy Counsel to a scandal-plagued, power-mad administration.” (Emphasis in original.)

This passage is highly readable; it scores 65.6 on the Flesch Reading Ease test. Although the language is indirect and sarcastic, the passage clearly expresses the writer’s point of view and feelings. It lists a few of the many clues that would have made an experienced homicide detective strongly doubt that Mr. Foster (Bill Clinton’s lawyer) killed himself. It also conveys Mr. Fuhrman’s anger over the handling of this case; later in the chapter, he calls the investigation “almost mind-bogglingly unorthodox.”

The Takeaway: To improve the clarity of your writing, spend at least 10 minutes a day reading aloud from writers who write clearly. You will see, hear and feel the stark contrast between careful, grown-up diction and the careless, infantile diction that besets us every day.

See disclaimer.

Jacques Barzun on the evolution of language

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Roy, "Mr. Clarity") — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 13:21:00 +0000

Many professional writers admire historian Jacques Barzun (pictured) for his books Simple & Direct: A Rhetoric for Writers and On Writing, Editing, and Publishing. In the latter book, he includes this warning:

“There is no getting around it: meaning implies convention, and the discovery that meanings change does not alter the fact that when convention is broken, misunderstanding and chaos are close at hand. True, the vagaries of those who pervert good words to careless misuse seem more often ludicrous than harmful. This might give us comfort if language, like a great maw, could digest anything and dispose of it in time. But language is not a kind of ostrich. Language is alive only by a metaphor drawn from the life of its users. Hence every defect in the language is a defect in somebody.”

The Takeaway: Get in the habit of reading this warning from time to time. I keep a copy of it on my “Why It Matters” page.

Mr. Barzun turned 104 yesterday.

See disclaimer.

Safety warnings (3)

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Roy, "Mr. Clarity") — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 12:55:00 +0000

We’ve previously discussed unclear safety warnings (1, 2). Here, for a change, we discuss a clear safety warning: the wording of the sign in the picture above. This sign appears at several places on the tree line of Mount Washington, the highest peak in New Hampshire.

Compared to the highest peaks nationwide, Mount Washington isn’t much: it’s only 6,288 feet high. There are many peaks more than twice as high; Mount McKinley, the highest at 20,320 feet, is more than three times as high.

But more people have died on Mount Washington than on any other mountain in the United States, and all but a few mountains worldwide. Two big reasons are weather and location.

The cone of Mount Washington has literally the worst weather in the United States. Wind speeds can exceed 200 miles per hour. Rainstorms and snowstorms are difficult to predict and can overtake a hiker in minutes.

Nearly 70 million people can drive from their homes to Mount Washington in a day or less. As a result, many inexperienced hikers climb it. Many of them are drastically unprepared; for example, they take a summer stroll up the mountain carrying no warm clothes, no shelter, and no food. This is risking death by hypothermia.*

In short, Mount Washington is often underestimated. That is probably why the government used uncharacteristically direct and clear language in those tree-line signs. The government knew that, for many hikers, those signs would be the only clue that they could be fatally unprepared for the trail ahead.

The Takeaway: If you are ever responsible for writing or editing a safety warning, give it your most careful attention. Readers depend on you.

*There are more deaths in August than in any other month.

See disclaimer.

It’s OK to mention product benefits

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Roy, "Mr. Clarity") — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 09:44:00 +0000

Most marketing experts agree that a supplier should not sell its product or service too hard. For example, a supplier should not overstate the benefits of its product or service.

But it is also possible to err in the other direction, by mentioning no benefits at all. For example, this is the entire text of the web page about a product called Helium:

What is Helium? Helium is a minimalistic real-time kernel for the HC(S)08 core by Freescale and Atmel AVR.

Update. Future releases of Helium will compile with gcc. Codesourcery provides a pre-compiled command line toolchain featuring gcc, g++, etc. as well as linker scripts and startup code for the 68k/Coldfire architecture. Instructions for building a cross-compiler on Mac OS X with gcc are here.

2009-2-28 HELIUM 2 RELEASED. Go to the downloads page to get your very own copy.

Visit the Helium Users’ Group on Yahoo to post questions and find answers to common problems (created 8-11-2008).

Please help to offset development costs by donating to the Helium project.

So far as I can see, the web page includes no benefits at all. Maybe technical insiders can infer benefits from the product description. But even if that’s true, it does not help the relative newcomers who may read this page.

The Takeaway: If you are marketing a product or service, be sure to mention benefits, not just features. Prospects want to know the benefits of your product or service.

Happy Thanksgiving!

See disclaimer.

The power of specificity: David Brooks

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Roy, "Mr. Clarity") — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 14:21:00 +0000

As we mention often on this blog, one way to improve your writing is to keep reading examples of good writing. David Brooks (pictured), a columnist for The New York Times, recently provided a superb example of a hard-hitting essay. In this piece, he satirizes Americans’ beliefs about inequality.

I especially call your attention to one characteristic of the piece: specificity. Instead of using a lot of generalities, he relentlessly pounds away with example after example.

He organizes the examples into pairs. For instance,

“Fitness inequality is acceptable. It is perfectly fine to wear tight workout sweats to show the world that pilates [sic] have [sic] given you buns of steel. These sorts of displays are welcomed as evidence of your commendable self-discipline and reproductive merit.

“Moral fitness inequality is unacceptable. It is out of bounds to boast of your superior chastity, integrity, honor or honesty. Instead, one must respect the fact that we are all morally equal, though our behavior and ethical tastes may differ.”

He goes on: Acceptable, unacceptable. Acceptable, unacceptable. Soon the reader recognizes that Americans are, to put it kindly, inconsistent on inequality.

This is a writing technique worth emulating.

The Takeaway: If you want to be persuasive when arguing or debating a point, use specificity. A sustained barrage of specific examples in plain language can be more powerful than the most beautifully worded generalities.

See disclaimer.

Update, Wednesday, November 30, 2011: Prompted by a comment from Anonymous, I changed liberals to Americans. Thank you, Anonymous.

Concise writing is usually clear writing (21) – Gary North

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Roy, "Mr. Clarity") — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 13:15:00 +0000

Here’s another sample of clear, concise writing. In this sample, historian Gary North (pictured) explains why Penn State behaved as it did during “The Paterno Affair” (Sandusky scandal). In 318 words, he describes how universities developed administrative law, a system different from the jury system that most laymen think of as law.

The West has developed two unique and crucial institutions: the university and the jury. The first has always been at war with the second.

The mark of the university’s claim to legal sovereignty is the black academic gown. Judges wear them. So do graduates and professors. So do clerics. From the earliest days, universities demanded equal sovereign status with church and state. It was an illegitimate claim, but it has stuck.

College professors got their money from students in the old, old days. Students would not pay the flakes. Students’ standards prevailed. They established the success indicators. The substandard professors – always in the majority – hated this. It forced them into a free market. They changed the rules. Students henceforth paid the college. Mediocre professors run the college: majority rules. “He who can, does. He who can’t, teaches. He who can’t teach, administers.” This has been true for 800 years of university life.

The university was a collection of semi-autonomous colleges. They established boundaries. They demanded autonomy from the cities in which they were located. This was the origin of the phrase, “town and gown.” The mark of this autonomy was the university police force. The professors and the students claimed near-immunity from city councils and city police. The university police’s #1 task was to keep city police off campus. Only secondarily were the university police to establish order on campus.

Add to this state funding since about 1870 in the United States, and decades earlier in Prussia, the modern university’s academic model. The state now asserts jurisdiction over the university. It pays; so, it sets the rules. This jurisdiction is separate from, and quietly in opposition to, the city’s geographical jurisdiction. The university substitutes its hierarchical system of courts from the city’s. The city’s system of justice is based on the jury. The university’s is based on administrative law: judges and police combined in one non-elected autonomous system.

The Takeaway: To improve the clarity of your writing, spend at least 10 minutes a day reading aloud from writers who write clearly. 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 joeroy(at)joeroy(dot)com. Ask for my “List of Writers to Absorb.” I will respond via email.

See disclaimer.

Placement of modifiers (15)

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Roy, "Mr. Clarity") — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 12:58:00 +0000

Careless placement of modifiers is a frequent cause of unclear writing. Here’s an example of the careless placement of a modifier:

The deputy editor of Harvard Magazine lays the blame for passing on these chores to corporations.

The reader at first thinks that the phrase “to corporations” modifies the nearby phrase “passing on.” But this sounds wrong, so the reader reads the sentence again. This time, he recognizes that “to corporations” actually modifies the verb “lays,” which is farther away than “passing on.” In other words, he sees that the writer meant to write:

The deputy editor of Harvard Magazine blames corporations for passing on these chores.

The Takeaway: Place every modifier carefully. Don’t make your readers work harder to read a sentence than you worked to write it.

See disclaimer.

George Carlin on euphemisms (3)

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Roy, "Mr. Clarity") — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 09:44:00 +0000

The late comic George Carlin (pictured), a keen observer of language, had a lot to say about euphemisms. For example, here’s a transcript of a portion of one of his routines from the late 1980s. (Warning: profanity.)

And some of this stuff is just silly; we all know that; like on the airlines, they say they want to pre-board. Well, what the hell is pre-board? What does that mean? To get on before you get on? They say they’re going to pre-board those passengers in need of special assistance.

Cripples! Simple, honest, direct language!

There’s no shame attached to the word “cripple” that I can find in any dictionary. No shame attached to it. In fact, it’s a word used in Bible translations: Jesus healed the cripples. Doesn’t take seven words to describe that condition.

But we don’t have any cripples in this country any more; we have the physically challenged. Is that a grotesque enough evasion for you? How about differently abled? I’ve heard them called that: differently abled. You can’t even call these people handicapped any more. They’ll say, “Were not handicapped; we’re handi-capable.” These poor people have been bullshitted by the system into believing that if you change the name of the condition, somehow you’ll change the condition. Well, hey, cousin (raspberry sound), doesn’t happen. Doesn’t happen. (Ovation)

We have no more deaf people in this country; hearing-impaired. No one’s blind any more; partially sighted or visually impaired. We have no more stupid people; everybody has a learning disorder. Or he’s minimally exceptional. How would you like to be told that about your child? “He’s minimally exceptional.” “Oh, thank God for that.”

Psychologists actually have started calling ugly people those with severe appearance deficits. It’s getting so bad that any day now I expect to hear a rape victim referred to as an unwilling sperm recipient. (Ovation)

The Takeaway: Every euphemism falls somewhere in the spectrum between polite forbearance and malicious deceit. As a writer, you need to know, at all times, where you are in that spectrum. I won’t presume to tell you never to deceive, but as a writing coach I have a duty to tell you not to deceive unintentionally. As Oscar Wilde quipped in an analogous context, “A true gentleman is one who is never unintentionally rude.”

See disclaimer.