Time to Write

The importance of clarity in writing (did Israel disappear?)

The fact that people tend to skim rather than read carefully online makes it more important than ever to be clear in what we write. This morning on the BBC News site I ran across a couple of good examples of phrasing that may have been technically correct but could have been clearer.

The item about the death of James Last read, "The German-born musician's manager said he died at his home..."

Was it the manager or the musician who was German-born? It would have been clearer to write, "The manager of the German-born musician said..."

An article about alleged spying in Panama included this sentence: "Investigators said the wiretaps were carried out by members of Panama's National Security Council, who used sophisticated spy technology bought from Israel, which has since disappeared."

I guess we would have heard about it if it was Israel that disappeared, but sometimes it's a good idea to split a longer sentence like that. For instance, in this case: "...who used sophisticated spy technology bought from Israel. That equipment has since disappeared."

Two wrong sentences (one is 15 years long)

My new favorite headline: 

"Jury Convicts Couple of Having Sex on a Beach After Only 15 Minutes of Deliberation"

If only the couple had deliberated a few additional minutes...

Beyond the poor choice of sentence construction, there's a serious element--because the guy has a previous felony conviction, he automatically gets 15 years in the slammer.

Undoubtedly they should have booked a room (there were families present at the beach), but 15 years and registering as sex offenders? Sounds more like the kind of sentence we'd expect in Saudi Arabia. Don't tell the Florida authorities about the 1000 lashes option.

Write it Right: Hoard vs. horde

Has Apple been stashing away excitable young women? That's what you'd conclude from this opening line in an article in the Evening Standard:

"A hoard of excitable young women--iPhones held aloft--crowded into the Regent Street Apple Store last night to swoon over Matt Smith and Ryan Gosling."

HOARD: a large amount of something valuable that is kept hidden

HORDE: a teeming crowd or throng

 

Write it right: Mindless?

Here's a headline that had me heading for the dictionary:

"Seven Mindless Ways to Earn Extra Cash When You're On the Road"

Mindless? I wondered whether it had a meaning I wasn't aware of. But the dictionary offers these:

adjective

 

1. acting or done without justification and with no concern for the consequences.

   "a generation of mindless vandals"

   synonyms:

   stupid, idiotic, brainless, imbecilic, imbecile, asinine, witless, foolish,empty-headed, vacuous, unintelligent, half-witted, dull, slow-witted,obtuse, weak-minded, feather-brained, doltish, blockish; More
2. not thinking of or concerned about.
   "mindless of the fact she was in her nightie, she rushed to the door"

   synonyms:

   indifferent to, heedless of, unaware of, unmindful of, careless of,insensible to, blind to "she was mindless of the consequences of her actions"

   The suggested ways to earn cash included renting out your home or your car while you are away, so I guess they meant methods that didn't require your attention once they were in motion. I can't think of a single word that encapsulates that (but mindless isn't it). If you have a candidate, let me know!

Write it right: envious vs. enviable, flare vs. flair

A few more matters of grammar, punctuation and wording that are easy to get wrong:

From an ad for a new apartment development:

"..making this a truly unique and envious place to live."

envious: feeling envy

enviable: worthy of envy

From that reliable source of mistakes, USA Today:

"Mouray, 28, is a U.S. entertainer who adds comedic flare to such topics as pet peeves..."

If he's using funny flares, don't get a seat in the front row. If he's adding flair, you'll be OK.

From The Express newspaper:

"(Doctor) Hamlyn successfully treated brain-damaged boxer Michael Watson after being knocked down by fellow Briton Chris Eubank in a world title fight in 1991.

Who knew that the doc was a world-class boxer (although obviously not as good as Chris Eubank)?

 

Language Matters: You can fool some of the people quite a lot of the time

Years ago I read a terrific little book called "How to Lie With Statistics" and I was reminded of it this morning when I got an email with this promise:

"Yoga-Like" Routine Burns 53% More Calories (Take 2-Minutes)

As far as we can tell, it's one of the biggest breakthroughs in exercise since the invention of the gym. That’s because…

These bizarre 2-minute “yoga-like” routines have been proven to burn 53% more calories in just ONE SESSION!

Yes, I need this impressive program!

...Wait a minute....53% more calories than what? 

Inside, it mentions a man "who lost 35 pounds of stubborn fat that personal trainers swore he would never be able to lose." Tip: If you have a personal trainer who says you're 35 pounds overweight but you'll never be able to lose it, fire him or her and get a new one.

By the way, I'm not suggesting that the people behind this promotion are actually lying, I'm sure the exercise routines they are promoting are useful, even though the sales letter refers to them as "miracle" routines and plays the "they don't want you to know" card:

"When the mainstream fitness moguls that advocate long drawn out workouts, pricey supplements and extreme diets catch up  with of the information on this page, they'll stop at nothing to get me to take down this page!" 

Gosh, I hope he's hired a bodyguard.

Another current favorite of copywriters is labeling the things they're promoting as "weird" (as in "one weird trick)" or, in this case, "These Bizarre 2-Minute Routines."

I'm not sure why weird and bizarre are considered desirable attributes unless we're supposed to feel we'll be getting something others won't have or won't understand. 

After quite a few pages, the sales pitch reveals that the "53% more" refers to workouts that were done the usual way, and then done again a few days later, but this time instead of taking a three-minute rest between each round of exercises, doing these two-minute bizarre miracle exercises.

In other words, by doing an additional six minutes of exercises, the test group burned, on average, 82 additional calories. 

Given that you have to burn about 3500 calories to lose a pound, it would take 42.5 sessions to lose one extra pound. Actually it might take only 41 because the more you rev up your system during an exercise session, the more calories you continue to burn for a while afterward. 

It's not a bad thing to burn more calories, but I'd hardly call it "the miraculous increase in calorie burn" that this sales page trumpets.

It also announces that a scientific study of people who did additional exercises like this before doing their usual exercises "Increased Their Overall Oxygen Consumption During Their Workout By 21.4%." 

This was published in the presumably prestigious Journal of Sports Sciences, Volume 19, Issue 9, September 2001, pages 693-700. I'm surprised it took seven pages to report that if you add six more minutes to your 25-minute routine you end up burning proportionally more oxygen. Probably it included charts. 

At least the sales pitch allows you to get a full refund if you're not happy with the program: "No Questions Asked And We Can Still Be Friends!"

I didn't even know we were friends already. I'm getting a warm feeling. 

And there's good news! We're not going to have to pay $1000 (whew!); we're not even going to have to pay $47! For a very limited time, we can save 53% and get it for $19--and no shipping charges! (Because it's all digital). 

Why have I gone on at some length about this pitch? Not because it's unusual; quite the opposite. It's because we are getting used to people sneaking past our bullshit detectors by using statistics and language that we don't have the time and energy to scrutinize.

If we spend just two minutes a day doing that, we will improve our bullshit detection by over 45%, according to the Journal of the Society for the Promotion of Accurate and Honest Use of Language and Statistics, Volume 1, Issue 1, Page 1.*

* Source: Me. I just founded the Society a minute ago and I'm pretty darned impressed with the work we are doing, which includes writing this post and...er, that's it.

 

When did "insanely" become the most popular adjective? (Join HAA! now)

If you read much on the internet you may have noticed that "insanely" now seems to be the most popular adjective:

"You'll learn some insanely successful ways..."

"Insanely cheap flights"

"25 insanely sexist vintage Valentines"

"Insanely easy vegetarian chilli"

"21 of the most insanely genius hacks"

Somebody, somewhere, must have figured out that more people click on articles with the word insanely in the headline and now it's spreading.

ALSO INSANELY POPULAR: RIDICULOUSLY

Coming up fast from the rear we have "ridiculously":

"ridiculously photogenic"

"the 21 most ridiculously frustrating video game moments"

"8 ridiculously hard butt moves"

Also ridiculously fun, resilient, efficient, handsome, responsive, extraordinary, and hot.

INSANELY, RIDICULOUSLY OVERBLOWN

Sooner or later, people will realize that what they read when they click on these headlines seldom is insane, ridiculous or outstanding in any way.

Perhaps we can start a movement for Honesty In Adjectives and Adverbs (HAA!), in which case the above would read, "You'll learn some occasionally successful ways..", "8 somewhat difficult butt moves," and "averagely priced flights."

"YOU WON'T BELIEVE NUMBER..."

Another current favorite is to add to many listicles "You won't believe number X"  in hopes you'll open the list just to see the one you won't believe. A few examples:

"Top 10 Smartest Female Celebrities. You Won't Believe Number 6!" The text starts, "Who said you can't have ridiculously good looks...") No, I didn't look to see who number six is.

"Restaurants open on Thanksgiving. You won't believe number 13!" (I didn't look, but I think it unlikely that I'd react with astonishment to the fact that any particular restaurant is open on Thanksgiving.)

"10 Reasons the Web Is Getting Worse. You won't BELIEVE number six!!" Note the capital letters and the double exclamation mark. I think this is a sign of inflation in the "you won't believe" category. 

A variation is "Number X made me..." Examples include "made me cry," "made me spit out my coffee" and "made me lol on the train."

Unfortunately, I won't believe any of those.

An epidemic of word conflation!

There seems to be an epidemic of word conflation:

"China and Russia Will Takeover Economic Lead"

"How this model can takeoff"

"Become an e-learning rockstar" (recognized as one word in the Urban Dictionary, otherwise it's rock star).

And a few bloopers:

‘[he] didn’t fair so well, either."

 "Newer double-pained, energy-efficient windows/doors..." 

and my favorite, from USA Today:

"The Oakland County Animal Control Office took the dog in custody and will be put to sleep." 

Irony, headlines, and the ugly 'below'

IRONY 1:

How's this for irony: Che Guevarra's son is offering motorcycle tours of Cuba in honor of his father's love of motorcycles (as shown in the film, Motorcycle Diaries). The nine-day tour goes for $5,800, flights not included. 

I wonder whether he also offers t-shirts that say, "My father started a revolution and all I got was this lousy capitalistic travel agency that exploits his memory?"

IRONY 2:

The great writer, Maurice Sendak, who happened to write children's books, left his collection of rare books to the Rosenbach Museum and Library. The collection includes several books by Beatrix Potter, but Sendak's executors don't want to give those, calling them "merely children's books." 

That spinning sound you hear...

***

Headline I spotted the other day:

"Masked Men Wanted for Home Invasion."

I applied, but the positions had already been filled.

***

Headline I never got past: "Ignore Those Ugly Rumors About Mulch."

***

Tim Ferris wrote a post about the great writer and teacher John McPhee. Ferris hoped that if McPhee saw the post he wouldn't find it wanting. However, the post included the phrase, "the below piece" (as opposed to "the piece below"). Most dictionaries consider that wrong usage, but a couple now accept it.

I don't care whether it's accepted or not, it sounds ugly. I feel on fairly safe ground guessing that McPhee would agree.

 

Why it's a good idea to read your writing out loud

One of the most common writing tips is: read your writing out loud (or listen as someone else reads it).

This headline is a good example of why that's a good idea:

• Jessica Ennis-Hill Sent Vile Rape Threats Over Ched Evans Comments

What they mean is that she received vile threats, but a quick reading makes it sound like she sent threats. Often reading something like this out loud makes you aware of the undesirable ambiguity.

Most computer systems include a text to speech function that will allow you to have a synthesized voice read what you write. It does sound rather robotic so it won't give you the nuances in dialogue, for example, but it's still useful. 

Write it right: Unfortunate wording

 Time for the Associated Press to have a quick review of sentence construction. Here's the first line of an article they released today:

LIMA, Ohio (AP) -- Authorities say they have apprehended the convicted killer of three Ohio students who escaped from a prison.

No, the three Ohio students didn't escape from prison. 

Better: Authorities say the convicted killer of three Ohio students has been apprehended after escaping from prison on Thursday. 

Next, a headline that's not incorrect but perhaps unfortunately worded:

“8 Urban Fiction Authors Who Overcame Prison and Forged Careers"

 

Related articles

Ahh, the modern journalist (and the parrot)

Grammar Gone Wrong (USA Today--hire a copy editor!)

What's the correct usage when you're referring to people that could be either gender?

The exclusionary tradition was "he/his" regardless of whether or not it referred to something that included women.

Some people suggested using only "she/her" for a hundred years or so to even the score but that didn't catch on.

The grammatically correct "he or she, his or her" works but can get awkward when required too often in the same sentence: "When a student leaves for college, his or her parents can be upset about his or her departure and miss him or her dreadfully." (OK, there are less clumsy ways to say that, but you get the idea.)

Some writers alternate, using "he/his" in one sentence and "she/her" in the next. Not great because you tend to make a mental picture of the first person referred to and it feels a bit strange when the next sentence refers to a person of a different gender.

Often the plural is a good solution: "When students leave for college, their parents..." 

Even when referring to one person some writers use they/their: "When a student leaves for college, their parents..." To folks who were brought up to think of "they/their" as always plural this is jarring but this solution is gaining on the others.

Whichever one you choose, the important thing is to be consistent, unlike this example from a USA Today article by Mark Saltzman:

"No one wants his tech running out of steam before they do."

He starts out with "his" and switches to "they," which is especially confusing here because, reading quickly, it sounds like "they" could refer to "tech" as well. 

Another sentence from the same article confirms that USA Today is sticking with their "we don't bother to edit columns" policy:

"If interested, the app also synchs audio at the same time as your notes, perhaps recording what the teacher or professor is saying."

What gets the app interested? And when something synchs with something else, "at the same time" is by definition. The "perhaps" makes it sound like the app may or may not decide to record what the professor is saying. I guess it depends on its mood.

I'm not trying to be overly hard on Mr. Saltzman--I'm sure he could find lots of errors on this blog--but when something goes out in the name of a national newspaper (even a newspaper-lite like USA Today) you'd think they'd have an editor give it at least a quick look.

 

 

Fat loss through writing & other boo-boos

Here's a round-up of some of the more amusing typos and other errors in print I've run across lately. The first one is my favorite, since it seems to suggest an easy way for writers to lose weight:

"The low level laser used in i-lipo creates a photobiomodulation effect that can break down triglyceride and glycerol molecules. This process now makes them small enough to exit through your prose and be used as fuel by your metabolism."

If you've been been accused of writing flabby prose, now you know why.

"Recently he had to throw a couple of guys out for being too drunk. They called him names. But after losing 152 pounds, they didn’t call him fat."

They were probably too weak from losing all that weight. 

"30 Strange Gadgets and Accessories for Babies That Actually Exist"

Can we buy them for imaginary babies as well?

"For the price of a latte from Starbucks, once a month you get 12 issues of Confidential Cures."

You can give copies to 11 friends.

"Watch adorable double-amputee kitten learn to walk, fall down stairs."

I detect a hint of sadism mixed in with that LOL.

(Feel free to use the comments section to share any funny typos or in-print mistakes you've encountered.)

Do you know the difference: awhile vs. a while (vs. protracted)

A month ago I wrote about a USA Today article that incorrectly used "awhile" in place of "a while" (link in related posts below). Just to review, Oxford dictionaries.com says: 

The single word awhile is an adverb meaning ‘for a short time’, and should not be confused with the noun use of a while, ‘a period of time’: stand here awhile, but we stood there for a while.

Today USA Today had a headline that read, "Amazon-Hachette dispute may last awhile."

"Awhile" is the right choice because it modifies the verb "last."

However, a different word entirely would have been better. The first paragraph of the story reads:

"...Amazon has launched a defense against a rising chorus of criticism about its decision to limit the supply of books from publisher Hachette Book Group and warned that the tussle could be protracted."

Protracted is the opposite of for a short time. 

Proofreaders and copy editors, send your resumes to USA Today.

 

 

 

 

 

My favorite in-print bloopers

Here are a few of my favorite bloopers from various things I've read lately.

“The lesson here is that there is not necessarily some magic bullet that is going to stop these mass shootings, though I wish there were,” Mr. Winkler said.

How about blanks?

The dead on outstanding Mountain views will leave you breathless.

Maybe you should bury them before the Open House.

There's room for you to add your own personal flare to the decor.

I'll have to bring matches.

Publisher “Five Simple Steps” seized to exist. 

Sounds like it was sudden.