Time to Write

Keep track of those body parts!

When you're writing, it's easy to come up with dramatic similes, metaphors, and descriptions that go a step too far. Here are a few actual examples from published books, thanks to a column David Langford wrote a while back for SFX magazine (unlike Langford, I'm sparing the authors their blushes):

"Franklin left his eyes on the floor, took a half step backward."

"His eyes fixed like grappling hooks on AAri's face..."

"...his eyes felt as if they had tendrils growing out of them, crawling like ants across the floorboards."

"Eyes like anguished talons were clutching hers." (Eyes like talons are bad enough, but anguished talons?)

It's not only eyes doing unusual things:

"The wind was shrieking, and so were her legs."

"I said through grated teeth." (Ouch, that one hurts to even think about.)

"Her face had the fragrance of a gibbous moon."

His unruly shock of red hair towered six feet above the floor."

"He felt once again the desire to bite his own backside in fury." 

And my favorite:

"His dark face was pale."

 

 

 

 

 

 

WRITE IT RIGHT: Demure, demur and an old favorite

In the same week I noticed two mix-ups of the words demure and demur:

"The costumes ranged from the demur to the over-the-top." - Coachella Valley Weekly

"But ask him about it and he'll demure." - Reader's Digest (!)

Demure (dəˈmyo͝or), usually describing a woman, is an adjective meaning reserved, modest and shy.

Demur (dəˈmər) is a verb, meaning to raise doubts or objections or show reluctance, or a noun meaning the action or process of objecting to or hesitating over something. "They accepted the judge's decision without demur."

Other recent sightings:

"Chocked full" instead of "chock-full," meaning full to the limit.

"Peels of laughter," from the Hollywood Reporter, presumably not referring to someone doing a pratfall on a banana skin...Otherwise, it's peals of laughter.

In ScienceDaily, a reference to something being superior than, rather than superior to...

From our usual rich source, USA Today: "A video that shows he and Kate MacKinnon being transformed..." (instead of "a video that shows him and Kate McKinnon..."). My old English teacher gave a very useful tip: if unsure, try saying it without the second individual and see if it sounds right. You wouldn't say "A video that shows he being transformed." Thank you, Mrs. Drake.

 And of course it wouldn't be a "Write it right" post without a sighting of our old favorite:

Yes, it's that shifty mountain again. Note to copywriter: take a peek at the dictionary.

By the way, of course I make lots of mistakes, too. My point is that professional publications seem to have stopped employing copy editors to check spelling, grammar and punctuation, which means readers are misled about the usage of words and phrases like the ones above.

This may be understandable in a small publication like the Coachella Valley Weekly, but I think we have the right to expect better of Reader's Digest, Hollywood Reporter, and USA Today.

 

Related articles

An epidemic of word conflation!

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

The elephant in the room vs the 800-pound-gorilla

I've written once before about how gradually the meaning of the term "the elephant in the room" is changing. It means something with a large presence that doesn't get talked about.

However, more and more I see it used this way (from a recent promotion for a webinar):

Jordan shares with us how YouTube is the elephant in the room. What does he mean by that?

• Everyone knows what YouTube is.
• Everyone considers it first for their solution.
• Everyone knows how to use YouTube.
• Everyone has watched a video on YouTube.
• Everyone is comfortable with it.

That's pretty much the opposite of the meaning, and I realized that it's taking the place of the 800-pound-gorilla, which was the previously popular phrase for something powerful.

Elephant vs. gorilla--advantage, elephant.

Write it write: the elephant in the room

"The elephant in the room" is a popular phrase that has traditionally referred to an obvious major issue or problem that nobody is talking about because it is taboo or would be too embarrassing to acknowledge. 

According to Wikipedia, "In 1814, Ivan Andreevich Krylov (1769-1844), poet and fabulist, wrote a fable entitled 'The Inquisitive Man' which tells of a man who goes to a museum and notices all sorts of tiny things, but fails to notice an elephant. The phrase became proverbial.^[3] Fyodor Dostoevsky in his novel 'Demons' wrote, 'Belinsky was just like Krylov's Inquisitive Man, who didn't notice the elephant in the museum....'^[4]

Lately, I've seen it used to mean simply the biggest problem or issue, not one that is unnoticed or ignored. 

I'm fascinated by how language changes, and this may be an example of a phrase in transition. There's a logic to this change, but some usages and patterns appear mysteriously. For instance, why do so many people now start a sentence with the word so, especially when answering a question? It seems to be replacing "well" as a way of buying a moment while you formulate your statement. 

PS: A headline that may have been the result of watching too many political debates appeared today, about a new computer mouse with "unpresidented" ergonomics." In the same article, Julian Horsey (who may not have been responsible for the headline) calls it "very unique." That's another word in transition--unique means one of a kind, so nothing can be very unique or a little unique, but increasingly the word is being used to mean unusual. 

 

 

 

Year-end 'Write It Right' round-up, offered with abandon

Time for this year's final round-up of language or grammar mix-ups spotted here and there. First, the ever-dependable USA Today featured this headline:

"Strangers Help Dog Get Home After Wandering a Thousand Miles"

It's amazing those strangers had any energy left to spend on helping a dog after they'd wandered a thousand miles.

Then there was the story referring to a "heroine overdose."

Did somebody read all of Little Women in one session?

Not a mistake, exactly, but an assault on language was the comment made by a representative of Alaska Airlines regarding a video showing baggage handlers having a contest to see who could throw a suitcase the farthest. He said, "The optics of this video are unfortunate." (And he claimed it wasn't a passenger's bag but one the handlers kept around for such amusement.)

Then there was an article stating, about something the author considered very important, that "the importance of this can't be underestimated." 

A rare sighting: somebody writing that a particular method "can be used without abandon." To do something with abandon means without restraint, inhibition, or worry, as in, "She dances with abandon." Come to think of it, I dance without abandon, so maybe that article was on to something. 

Let's finish with another one from USA today. A review suggested that a particular pair of headphones would "wet your aural whistle."

It's whet, and I'm having a hard time picturing an aural whistle.

I wish you a happy new year lived with abandon, featuring fortunate optics and lots of heroines!

 

 

 

Related articles

An epidemic of word conflation!

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

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

 

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.

 

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. 

A word to leave out of your fiction (most of the time)

What's the word to leave out of your fiction most of the time?

Suddenly.

Almost everything happens suddenly. 

A shot rings out.

She realizes there's a man behind her.

The waiter arrives to take your order. OK, I guess he could amble over to your table...

You don't have to ban the word totally, but it is over-used, especially by newer writers.

Ryan DeJonghe did an analysis and found that in his early fiction, Stephen King used one "suddenly" every ten pages; in his later fiction, only half as often.

A good way to convey the impact of something is to use short sentences, each a new paragraph:

They were laughing and re-telling the story of how Jason got so drunk one night that he passed out on his front lawn. Even twenty years later that one made Jason blush. The sound of the passing car didn't catch their attention. They did hear what sounded like the car backfiring.

A blossom of red appeared on Jason's forehead. 

He blinked and fell over backward.

That's a case where "suddenly" wouldn't have helped; if anything, it would have detracted from the power of the sentence.

Suddenly the blog post ended.

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.

 

 

15 examples of hyperbole that will rock your world, blow your mind (etc. etc.)

In a desperate bid to get us to click on articles or posts on the web, writers are creating headlines making ever-bolder promises and claims.

Here are a few I spotted this morning. Apparently if you read or look at these articles, they will:

...make you reconsider history

...make you speechless

...make your tummy rumble

Adjectives are gettting in on the act, too. One article promises to reveal websites that are not only useful but amazingly useful. Yes, there are many amazing things on the internet, including "Amazing Illustrations by Sayurikemiko" and "10 Amazing jQuery Typography Plugins for Your Site." If they're not amazing they're awesome, like "60+ Awesome Infographics After Effects Project Files."

The web also calls your attention to earth-shaking events you might otherwise miss, such "Why tonight's epsiode of Game of Thrones changed the rules forever." 

You'll find a lot of promises of ultimate experiences, like "Some of the Most Hilariiously Bad Racing You Will Ever See," and "This 'Ulysses' Auto-Correct Prank is Perhaps the Best Ever' (that "perhaps" is an unusual sign of modesty) and "10 Films That Can Teach You Everything You Need to Know About Cinematography." 

You'll also find a lot of useful life guidance, including "How 5 Post-It Notes Can Make You Happy, Confident and Successful" and "How to See Clearly Without Glasses Using a Simple Trick."

I'm sure diligent readers of this blog will be able to find a few cases where I've used titles that were a bit hyperbolic but I try to resist it.

I'm starting to skip reading  articles with headlines that make overblown promises. Not only do I know that the contents seldom, if ever, fulfil the claims but I'm also turned off and a little saddened by the whiff of desperation as they try to find new ways to say LOOK AT ME!!! PLEASE!!! HERE!!! ME!!!

Write it write: convene or commune?

A USA Today article written by Hilary Billings included this sentence: "Whether it's hiking in Red Rock Canyon or dirt biking through the desert, you're most likely to find Eric [Trump] convening with nature."

Convening: to come together or assemble, usually for some public purpose. verb (used with object), convened, convening. 2. to cause to assemble; convoke. 3. to summon

I think the author probably meant communing with nature. 

Communing: To be in a state of intimate, heightened sensitivity and receptivity, as with one's surroundings: hikers communing with nature.

There's also a wonky referent: "You can have your own dirt bike adventure with American Adventure Tours. Priding itself on offering the only extreme dirt bike experience in the valley, riders can enjoy three hours of cruising over 100 miles of desert trails and legendary off-road races." Phrased this way, it's the riders who are "priding itself." A better version: "You can have your own dirt bike adventure with American Adventure Tours, which prides itself on offering..."

A couple of quotes from her subject raise the question whether or not to correct someone's grammar when you quote them. He said, "The amount of fun things I've done in Vegas is numerous" and [his girlfriend] "enjoys laying on our pool deck." If you were the editor (not that this article seems to have had one) would you have been tempted to change either of these, or would you consider them part of giving an accurate portrait of the subject?

USA Today is partial to my current grammatical pet peeve, writing "sneak peak" when they mean "sneak peek," so it's probably unwise to expect much from them but it's still jarring to see these kinds of lapses in a national newspaper. 

 

 

Are you making these mistakes?

Here's another roundup of common mistakes in word choice or grammar. These are all examples I've read recently:

"Quick to setup." That should be "Quick to set up". Setup is a noun referring to the process, so you might say "The setup is quick." 

"Five things you should do everyday." That should be, "Five things you should do every day." Everyday means common or ordinary.

"Back in its hay days..." That should be its heyday (singular). 

"Unless you want to give your boss free reign on your Facebook account..." I can see why this one is confusing. Giving somebody the power to reign over you like a king makes sense; actually, the term comes from riding, in which free rein is a rein held loosely to give the horse free motion. However, the use of "free reign" is so widespread that many experts consider this a lost battle.

".. people would just as sooner use..." This is a combination of two terms, just as soon and sooner. For instance, "People would just as soon throw something away as have it repaired," meaning there's no difference in which option is preferred, and "People would sooner throw something away than have it repaired," in which case the option of throwing the thing away is preferred.

"to raise moral..." This could just have been a typo for morale. I'm very sympathetic toward people who have typos in their articles mainly because I know I have quite a few in mine. On the other hand it might have been someone who hadn't seen the word in print and sounded it out, like the person who wrote the word "Wallah!" for voilà, which is also easy to mix up with viola, the musical instrument (I've been guilty of that one).

And last but not least, a sentence in Dan Brown's novel, Inferno, reads, "Apparently having received all the information the man intended to share, Sienna changed tacks." Unless she was using one set of small nails and switched to using a different set, she should have changed tack (from a sailing term). The other mix-up with this one is confusing it with tact, which is a form of politeness.

All mistakes to avoid this year! 

Garrison Keillor on why you don't need that first page of your writing

Garrison Keillor, best known for his radio series, "A Prarie Home Companion" was asked what tricks he'd learned over his many years of writing:

"I wouldn't describe them as tricks. You do develop very quick reflexes of rejection and editing of your own stuff. When you're young, you're so fond of what you have created, because it takes a lot of effort to extrude this onto the page or onto the screen. You're very fond of it, even if it's wounded and you're barely alive, you still have affection for it.

But as you get older, you learn how to throw it out without much thought, without much pity. You look at a piece that you've written and you take those first three paragraphs, and you dump them. You just rip them out. Usually that's the part that needs to be thrown out, the big windup, the big introduction. The first page almost always can go. You learn to do that without regret."*

The sooner you get to that point the better. Some people never get to it. An acquaintance who shall remain nameless still can't help giggling whenever he reads something he's written and he can't bear to cut a word. Unfortunately, but perhaps not coincidentaly, he hasn't gotten very far as a writer. 

What can you do to be better at this? 

1. Put the material away for a week or two.

2. When you critique it, do so in a different location from where you created it.

3. Read it through a few times. Usually that cures you of being entertained by it any more.

4. Start with the big stuff (structure) and then move down to the details.

* from an interview on TomPeters.com: http://www.tompeters.com/cool_friends/011353.php

 

Related articles

Don't get lost in your own book - write a bible

Which word is on grammatical life support now?

We lost "hopefully" a long time ago..."literally" is in intensive care...

What's on grammatical life support now?

Unique.

Yes, I know you know it means one of a kind, without equal or equivalent, unparalleled.

There are no gradations. Something isn't very one of a kind, therefore it can't be very unique.

Eighty percent of the members of the Usage Panel at the Free Dictionary agree with us. 

Based on how often I hear things described as very unique, though, I think we're losing this one, too.