Writing to the Imagination

We process words as language in the frontal lobe of the brain. We do it the way a computer processes computer language. As we mature, we become increasingly able to process words another way too, as raw stimuli. This happens as we accumulate a vast store of experiences in memory farther back. They are networked words, images, sounds, and so forth — a relational database.

We use this farther-back part of the brain to visualize. It's the image-ination. It develops through use, so it doesn't fully develop until a person is in her or his mid-twenties. That is, it doesn't fill in with gray matter (an intricate network of connections among brain cells) till then.

Let's see how words work on each of these parts of the brain.

If you ask a teenager whether eating a cockroach is a good or a bad idea, she has no knee-jerk reaction to the question. That's because she processes your sentence as language, in the front of her brain. Considering that brain cells transmit information at hundreds of feet per second, she takes much longer to come up with an answer than an adult does. And she doesn't have the same reaction to the question that an adult does. She just matter-of-factly replies that eating a cockroach is a bad idea. In contrast, an adult does have a knee-jerk reaction to the question. He not only responds much more quickly, he screws up his face and says, "Yuck!"

Why? Because he doesn't process your words as language in the front of the brain. Your question lights up brain cells farther back, in the area that houses the imagination. So, while you're asking the question, he doesn't analyze it, he experiences it: He sees a cockroach, feels its mushiness inside, and feels its skittering legs clawing his tongue.

Children have imaginations, too. But their imaginations haven't yet accumulated a vast store of experiences to reference and aren't yet networked with words. So, you can't stimulate a child's imagination the way you can an adult's. (That's why children's books need pictures.) If that teenager does imagine eating a cockroach, she doesn't do so automatically, as a knee-jerk reaction: she must make a conscious effort to imagine eating one. Even then, she won't have as vivid an experience as an adult does.

Experts think this is why teenagers and children show "poor judgement." For example, put a kid on a bike at the stop of a staircase and see what he decides to do. But no adult you put on a bike at the top of that staircase would ride down it. Adults may make no greater effort to think before acting, but they automatically imagine an act before doing it. Adults therefore see what could go wrong and get this warning in a way that has much greater impact that the kid's pure logical analysis.

And so, if words don't stimulate the imagination, they are processed as language in the front of the brain.

As a fiction writer, that vivid experience in the imagination is what you're after. You must write in a way that stimulates it. You must write in a way that makes the reader unaware of the words on the page, a way that makes him visualize the story as if it were taking place on a stage or a screen in his mind. Doing so sucks him into your story so that he becomes absorbed in what we call the Fictive Dream. Which is like a daydream, except that you, the author of the story, make it up.

In other words, your writing must never call attention to itself. You DON'T what the reader pausing to think, "Wow! That's a cool way of turning that phrase!" That's a distraction that dissolves the Fictive Dream.

No matter how well you write, distractions will occur, but if the reader experiences too many of them she soon yawns and puts down your book.

This is why the reading level of great fiction is usually very low and speaks directly to the imagination with sights, sounds, smells, and feelings instead of narrative. Great fiction is so readable that it practically reads itself, making reading so effortless that the reader becomes unaware of the words on the page (because she hardly needs to use the frontal lobe to interpret your words as language) and is absorbed in the Fictive Dream going on in her imagination. Gotcha. That's right where you want your reader.

Now take her for an emotional ride.

     

American English or British English?

Let's say that you're an entrepreneur who speaks English as a second language and needs to write published articles or technical documentation in English for an international audience.

You haven't time to waste, so here we go.

First you must decide whether to use British English or American English. Until recently, British English was the international standard. However, today American English is the standard for business, the Internet, and software documentation.

Even some British publishers have resorted to American spelling, because their readers are so used to American spelling that they think the British spellings in a document are misspellings. (What cruel irony!)

That said, there is no fixed rule, unless your publisher specifies which dialect of English you should use. In purely technical writing, native speakers of English throughout the world have no problem with whichever form of English you choose.

If your writing bears nuance though, unfortunate misunderstandings may occur. An American and a Briton may be carrying on an enjoyable conversation for twenty minutes when, suddenly, one of them feels that he or she has just been slighted. Why? Because some word choices and figures of speech have different connotations in American English than British English.

So, be careful, avoid all slang, and look up every word you're not absolutely certain about.

Consider your audience. Especially your readers for whom English is a second language, because they are the ones who can most easily be confused. Are they more familiar with American English or British English? Indians, for example, are so at home with British English that American English is no problem for them. But many Asians aren't as fluent in English and have been exposed to much more American English than British English. In other words, your choice matters little to Indians, but it may matter to people from the Far East.

When in doubt, go with American English.

     

More on Using the Singular "They"

Using the Singular They, Them and Their

• These are payments made to an employee because of physical or mental incapacity that renders them unable to fulfill their duties.
• Nobody got their paycheck yesterday.
• Everybody loves their dog.
• If a client calls, tell them I'll be back at nine o'clock.
• When anybody does that to us, we feel like asking them who they think they are.
• Nobody in their right mind would do that.

Do notice that everybody loves their dog, not their dogs. So, we say —

Everyone was blowing their nose.

— instead of —

Everyone was blowing their noses.
If you get confused, look at the subject (everyone) and ask yourself whether we say Everyone is (singular) or Everyone are (plural). Since we are talking about one person, she or he has but one nose.

Also notice that, since they is normally plural, it takes a plural verb. So, we say —

Somebody murdered her, and they are going to pay for their crime.

— not —

Somebody murdered her, and they is going to pay for their crime.
Educated native speakers of English are unlikely to make any of these mistakes. Yet there's one mistake it's easy to make with any pronoun: giving it an ambiguous antecedent. So, as with all pronouns, make sure there's no doubt what word the singular they refers to.

We connect a pronoun to the nearest preceding noun that agrees with it in number. So, since they is normally plural, look out for another plural noun, especially one nearer than the one you refer to. For example, if you fill in the blank below with they, two nouns will compete for it:

When an applicant notifies the other residents, ______ must file a Form 2b within thirty days.

You can't use they in the blank to refer to applicant, because residents is nearer and plural. So readers would think you mean that the other residents must file, not the applicant. Therefore, though the applicant is an indefinite person, the only nonsexist solution is —

When an applicant notifies the other residents, he or she must file a Form 2b within thirty days.

     

How to Use the Singular "They"

If English is your second language, be careful with the singular they. The rules can be confusing. But if you're a native speaker of English, you should have no problem if you just proofread like you ought. For, you've been using the singular they in speech all your life. Therefore, you don't need to remember the rules, because they're instinctual to you by now.

Nonetheless, here are the rules ;-)

To learn how to use the singular they, just pay attention to how you use it in speech. That is, use the singular they instead of he or the he-or-she combination only when referring to a generic person — an indefinite person, who could be of either sex and could be either a collective entity or an unknown one. In other words, because the "editor" in the sentence below is a definite (defined) person, you can't write —

The editor from upstairs who was helping arrived yesterday. They....

— because we won't connect they with editor. Instead, we'll stop reading at they, wondering who "they" are. We interpret they as singular only when it refers to an indefinite person. Since the editor in this example is a definite person, they doesn't work. In that sentence, the only pronouns you can use for editor are he, she, or the he-or-she combination. Again, for example, native speakers of English don't say —

I went to the doctor yesterday, and guess what they said.

— because that doctor is a definite person. Since this example is in the first person, even the he-or-she combination makes no sense, because the speaker knows the sex of this doctor. (Well, okay, somebody who wanted to conceal the sex of that doctor might say I went to the doctor yesterday, and guess what he or she said? But normally, in the first person, you must pick he or she to refer to a definite person.)

That's all just common sense, isn't it? So, if you're a native speaker of English, don't worry about this indefinite-person qualification, because you instinctively know when you can use the singular they.

Note that the person referred to must be indefinite, not their sex. Here is a sentence in which the indefinite person's sex is definite, because all these debaters are women.

Had both the children been there, the affair might have been determined too easily . . . and every body had a right to be equally positive in their opinion, and to repeat it over and over again as often as they liked.

That's the narrator in Pride and Prejudice, by Jane Austin

So, in this example, using the singular they doesn't make sex indefinite — just irrelevant.

The same rules hold for the plural them and the plural their. This is why the most common form of the singular they is their referring to indefinite singular words like whoever, each, every, everybody, nobody, somebody, anybody, everyone, no one, someone, and anyone.

More on using the singular they next time.

     

The Singular "They"

You often have yet another option for eliminating he, him, and his: replace them with they, them, or their.

But, you say, that's a grammatical error: they and its derivatives are plural!

Not always. Notice that in everyday speech we often use they and its derivatives in the singular. English-speaking people have been doing this since the thirteenth century when he came to mean "male." Writers since Chaucer have been doing it, too. Here's an example from Shakespeare's As You Like It:

God grant everyone their (not his) heart's desire.
The three great unabridged dictionaries of the English language firmly establish this usage. They are the Oxford English Dictionary, Webster's New International Dictionary, and Random House's Dictionary of the English Language. The editors of the Oxford English Dictionary prepared the first entries establishing this usage between 1909 and 1915. Here is what the Random House Dictionary of 1987 says:

Long before the use of generic HE was condemned as sexist, the pronouns, THEY, and THEM were used in educated speech and in all but the most formal writing to refer to indefinite pronouns and to singular nouns of general personal reference probably because such nouns are often not felt to be exclusively singular. Such use is not a recent development, nor is it a mark of ignorance.

Yes, I know what your high-school English teacher said. That's why the Random House Dictionary added that note above — to contradict grammarians. Here's why.

Using they in the singular instead of the gender-specific he became popular in writing during the eighteenth-century, as women became literate and authors naturally started writing for them too. Grammarians had a thermonuclear reaction to this trend. What nobody else finds confusing, they found very confusing, declaring that we cannot use the same pronoun in both the plural and the singular.

But if that's the real reason for their meltdown, why did they say nothing about the plural pronoun you having recently replaced thou for use in both the plural and the singular?

Something's showing, isn't it?

The only conceivable reason for their howling is that, in the case of you, they had no masculine pronoun to impose on us instead. This conclusion is consistent with the fact that grammarians rage only about issues that involve gender.

They decreed the "he/man" words gender-neutral and persecuted authors who used the they in the singular, characterizing them as ignorant and uneducated. For two centuries, few writers dared incur their wrath. Thus pedantry, language policing, word-watching, was born.

Their descendants overreacted to the same degree when journalists started using the singular they in print. Big business had invented nonsexist language (to get better executives by insuring the promotability of women). Government agencies had followed suit (for Constitutional reasons in the wake of the Civil Rights Amendment). Of course, the Women's Liberation Movement thought nonsexist language was a good idea and used and promoted it, but otherwise had nothing to do with it. Yet, pedants cry that the singular they is something new and that gender-neutral language is just "political correctness" imposed on the ignorant by a rancorous Women's Liberation Movement.

Like their eighteenth-century forebears, they warn that English shall be destroyed any minute now by continuing this 800-year-old practice of using they in both the plural and singular.

But language isn't carved in stone: it's whatever the population using it makes it. So, in a pinch consider using they, them, or their in the singular if you can do so without ambiguity. More on this next time.

     

Eliminating the Possessive Pronoun "His"

Often, eliminating his is harder than eliminating he or him, especially if you have a he, him, and his in the same sentence. Yet, you have six ways to eliminate his.

To avoid using "his":

• Cut the word his.
• Use an article (a, an, or the) instead.
• Switch to the plural.
• Switch to the second person (using you).
• Write in the passive voice.
• Substitute "his or her" for "his."

Follow examples. In the first two, just cut the word his.

A senator must use his good judgement.

Every player in this program must be prepared to spend his summers at camp.

Each player must bring a driver's license or other photo identification.

Players must bring their driver's license or other photo identification.

You must bring your driver's license or other photo identification.

A driver's license or other photo identification is required.

Each player must bring his or her driver's license or other photo identification.

     

Eliminating the object pronoun "him"

In the last example of the previous post, notice that I wrote "she or he" instead of "he or she." Using these expressions interchangeably is good, because it avoids the subliminal suggestion in always putting he first. But it has a drawback: we're so used to reading he or she that she or he seems unidiomatic and calls attention to the writing. But only the first time and only for the second it takes to interpret, so don't consider this little speed-bump a distraction.

Either way, the he-or-she method has limited use, because it can quickly lead to writing littered with he-or-she's, as in monstrosities like this —

He or she can't fulfill the second part of his or her mission if he or she doesn't see the opposing net player making his or her move on the ball.

He (a subject pronoun) is easier to avoid than him (an object pronoun), and both are easier to avoid than his (a possessive pronoun).

To avoid him, your options are:

• Switch to the plural.
• Substitute a noun for "him."
• Reword the sentence to eliminate the need for "him."
• Substitute "him or her" for "him."

Here are examples of all but the last method.

Eliminating the Object Pronoun "Him"

Original: The best way to pressure a person is to confront him with choices.

Revised: The best way to pressure people is to confront them with choices.


Original: By demanding a down-the-line return, you make him hit the very return he usually tries to not hit.

Revised: By demanding a down-the-line return, you make receivers hit the very return they usually try to not hit.


Original: If your partner often does a particular thing you don't like, simply tell him how it makes you feel.

Revised: If your partner often does a particular thing you don't like, simply say how it makes you feel.

     

Avoiding Sexist Language

The problem is English's third-person-singular personal pronouns: there's no gender-neutral one, except it.

Other languages, like French, have this problem too. But in them nouns (i.e., the names of persons, places, and things) still have gender, too (inherited from Latin). So, gender hasn't such strong sexual connotations in these other languages as it does in English, where only pronouns referring to a human or animal still have gender. Because of these sexual connotations, the word gender, which originally meant "genus," has come to mean "sex."

You can avoid this sexual designation for an animal or infant by using "it." But you can't refer to a person as "it." We naturally refer to a newborn infant as "it" till it develops a personality. Parents are the first to see a personality in the baby. Similarly, we may refer to a stray dog as "it," but we never refer to our pet dog as "it."

So, for example, how do we talk about a hypothetical dog owner? We can say The owner must be ready to battle for dominance before he or she brings home a rescued Cairn Terrier. Fine, but if you've tried the "he or she" solution, you know what's wrong with it: you soon have a mess of he-or-she's, him-or-her's, his-or-hers's, and himself-or-herself's.

Eighteenth-century grammarians decided to just redefine he and its derivatives to mean "he or she." But nobody has the power to change what he, him, and his mean to the English-speaking people of the world. Words mean what we all use them to mean in everyday speech, and nobody can control that. So teachers defining them as "genderless" or "generic" is an exercise in futility. And putting a disclaimer in the front of your book, telling readers you mean them "genderlessly" or "generically" is an exercise in futility.

Therefore, if you write a sentence about the typical day of the average major league baseball player, say He takes batting practice before lunch. If you write a sentence about the duties of the average Girl Scout, say She sells cookies every spring. But if you write a sentence about how the average medical doctor works, don't say He runs tests before diagnosing.

Try —
They run tests before diagnosing.
The doctor runs tests before diagnosing.
Doctors run tests before diagnosing.
You have tests run before the diagnosis.
Tests are run before the diagnosis is made.
She or he runs tests before diagnosing.

From these examples we can see that, to avoid he, your options are:

• Switch to the plural.
• Substitute a noun for "he."
• Switch to the second person (using you).
• Write in the passive voice.
• Substitute "he or she" for "he."

Prefer the first three methods, because the passive voice and he-or-she methods have drawbacks. Switching to the plural is the most versatile method, but you often must switch the surrounding sentences to the plural as well.

     

Oh, those darned third-person singular pronouns!

This turns into an even hotter topic than whether American English is legitimate or not. So, let me start off this series on how to avoid gender-specific language with the justification for avoiding it.

The bottom line is that you must use gender-neutral language to get published. Nonetheless, a decent respect for the opinions of all requires more of a reason than expediency.

So, let me mention at the top that language isn't a moral issue. It belongs to no one, let alone the monarch of the United Kingdom.

It isn't private property: it's community property. It is the property of all who speak it. The world over. THEY make the rules and change them at will. Not grammar teachers and pedants. Okay?

Writing is a service industry. So, to be profitable, it must please the customer.

Notice that native speakers of English use nonsexist language when speaking in mixed company. In fact, because of this habit, they usually do likewise whenever appropriate, even when speaking to all males.

This usage dates back to the 13th century. We see it in Shakespeare's line:

God grant everyone their heart's desire.

Why? Because it's instinctive to use the gender-neutral their instead of his. Just listen to yourself: you'll find that you use it all the time.

Why? Because it's simple courtesy to the half of your audience that is female. By using this inclusive language, you treat them like they are there. They won't like it if you don't. So, don't expect them to pay for a slight to their very existence.

And the argument that his means "his or her" doesn't hold water. Since a language is the property of its whole native-speaking community, THEY define the meaning of words, not professors of English. Tests prove that masculine pronouns and man-words mean "male" to native speakers of English.

Indeed, there was a time when they didn't. In the Dark Ages a native speaker of English would say that a certain queen was a "a wonderful man." Man meant "human" back then. But no native speaker of English would say that today, because man now means "adult male." Whether grammarians like it or not.

And the problem of meaning is far worse in English than in languages like French, in which all nouns still have gender. In English, only sexual beings are refered to with gender. So, in English, the word gender has stopped meaning "kind" and has come to mean "sex."

Since native speakers of English use gender-neutral language when they talk, why should they write according to different rules?

In my next few posts, I'll show how it's done. It may seem hard at first, but that's just due to your HABITS in writing. Once you get used to it, writing in gender-neutral language becomes second nature.

     

Style Tip: Put Statements in Positive Form

In his Elements of Style, William Strunk wrote, "Make definite assertions. Avoid tame, colorless, hesitating, noncommittal language. Use the word not as a means of denial or in antithesis, never as a means of evasion."

For example:

Instead of John was not very often on time, write John usually came late.

Instead of Lisa did not think that was a very nice thing to say, write Lisa thought that a mean thing to say.

Not is a weak word. Your readers want to know what is.

Certain uses of the negative help though. Placing a negative in opposition to a positive makes a stronger, clearer statement.

Here is an example: Your tone should be friendly and engaging, not distant or intimate.

And yet another...

Ask not what your country can do for
you -- ask what you can do for your country.

     

Style

When a copyeditor edits a new author's work, she checks for many things, but most of her edits flag multiple instances of the same few stylistic errors. The result can take the wind out of your sails, because you get your work back with something flagged in every other sentence.

It isn't that bad though: it's just that you weren't taught to write the way you must write for publication. You have no way of knowing the tricks of the trade, so you keep making the same few mistakes. Unfortunately, these are stylistic errors that you must recast the sentence to fix. Then, after you revise your edited work, you need a second copyedit to check for other things and polish the piece.

So, whether you're writing fiction or nonfiction, you can slash your copyediting costs by learning and using a few basic principles of good writing style. Then you really get your money's worth out of an editor. You don't need her level of professional expertise just to tell you to write in the active voice… one hundred times at $30-$55 dollars an hour. That's overkill, like paying an M.D. to show you how to take your temperature.

Moreover, then your editor can dig deeper and do the things you really need an editor for. The result is a finely crafted piece of work.

     

Classic English Mysteries

Theoretically, mysteries needn't center on crime, but most pure mysteries do.

In fact they typically center on the crime of murder, because it's the perfect crime for this type of story. For one thing, since dead men tell no tales, murder is inherently mysterious. It's also simple and economical. All you need is a dead body, no other action and explanations to distract from real story. Moreover, murder gives the main character, the enigma buster, the strongest reason to solve the mystery. Since the victim cannot seek justice, society must. The victim's "blood cries out to heaven for justice," and letting somebody get away with murder is as bad as murder, for it amounts to participation in the crime through consent to it. So, murder insures suspension of disbelief by putting the protagonist in a crucible with the unknown antagonist — especially when the police screw up, give up, or ignore evidence to pin the wrap on somebody, regardless of whether he's really guilty. For, the only worse thing than murder is convicting an innocent person of murder so that he takes the fall for somebody else's sin.

Here are some examples of classic English mystery:

• "The Murders in the Rue Morgue" by Edgar Allan Poe
• The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (a collection of stories)
• The Greek Coffin Mystery by Ellery Queen (a locked-room mystery)
• Death in the Clouds by Agatha Christie (a locked-room mystery)

The classic English mystery has quite a few characters, because there's a whole group of suspects. But each hardly needs much characterization, because the typical puzzle or locked-room mystery is a whodunnit game, and the reader is interested only in what is relevant — the clues. So, most authors just spice up the characters (especially the detective) with some eccentricities that give you a picture of them and bring them to life. The detective has a scientific attitude toward the other characters involved as pieces of the puzzle.

Since the main character in a mystery is dealing with somebody else's problem, and since her character doesn't grow, it can be reused. Examples of such recycled characters are:

• Sir Authur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes
• Agatha Christie's Hercule Poirot and Miss Marple
• Dorothy Sayers' Lord Peter Wimsey

These stories have no plot in the usual sense of the word. The murder in the beginning and the discovery of whodunit in the end may be the only real events that occur. The rest of the "plot" is just the steps the detective takes to solve the crime, and, though there are twists and turns, those steps needn't be consequential or opposed.

In fact, the classic English mystery plot parallels the complications and twists of a comedy plot. It's essentially a comedy of manners with a good deal of tension relieving but quiet humor toward soft society in it. Unfortunately, that humor is missed by many critics and readers on both sides of the Atlantic. Which makes it less enjoyable to Americans, so...

     

British English or American English?

Or Australian English, for that matter. (Canadian English is American English.)

Generally, write in your language. Ultimately, it's up to the publisher. For an international audience the standard is American English for obvious reasons. In international business documents, software documentation, and Internet publication, American English is usually preferred.

But this standard isn't closely adhered to, because all forms of English grow more alike than different today.

If somebody is going to think you erred because you write the American different than instead of the British different from, tell him or her to ditch the arrogance. American English is as English as English English. Americans have their own language and needn't conform to British standards.

Besides, stuff like that is no problem. If your publisher wants the language to conform to a particular standard, copyediting can find and fix those little things quickly and easily.

Figures of speech, or even certain words, can be a problem though! Strange misunderstandings can occur if you aren't careful with them. So, for example, try to avoid using words and expressions that mean or connote something different to Americans than to Brits.

     

It's All About the Reader

Publishing is a trade, and writing is a commercial product. It's a business. A service industry. People buy fiction to get an enjoyable experience in fantasy. Not to be guided, edified, informed, educated, changed, shamed, preached at, or persuaded of anything.

Many writers fail because they view writing as a way to get attention. They have a burning desire to express themselves and think the world cares to listen. They have something to say and think the world cares to hear it. They view a book as some sort of public address system. Unfortunately, everybody wants to get attention, but nobody wants to give it. Everybody wants to be heard, but nobody wants to listen. If you want to get something off your chest to the world, go find it in microcosm — some stranger — and try to tell him. You reply, "What do you think I am? nuts?" Nobody would dream of walking up to some stranger on the street and spamming him that way. Except wanna-be writers, who dream of doing it on a national scale.

Now, maybe if you pay that stranger for his attention he would give it. But you can't expect him to pay you for his attention. So, here's the best advice you'll ever get: Don't think you need to impress people by how you write. Writing for attention sabotages the hard work of many who would otherwise be fine, successful, and happy writers. Such a writer becomes the proverbial "talker," self-absorbed and oblivious to the person he's talking to. That's because, since it's all about him getting attention, it's all about HIM. Good writers know it's all about the reader.

That's why good writing never calls attention to itself, whereas poor writing does. Good writing evokes emotion, whereas poor writing expresses it.

Good writers know that reading fiction is primarily an emotional experience and that the writer's job is to manipulate the reader's emotions, not to vent his own. To manipulate the reader's emotions you must know your reader. Pay constant attention to her, and know the effect your words are having on her.

The trick is to attract no attention. For, the message is what counts, not the medium. Even in nonfiction, writing should be as transparent as possible. In fiction, the writing should disappear, absorbing the reader into the story as though she is experiencing it in the here and now. That's what impresses acquisitions editors.

Beautiful and elegant prose is never loud. In his works, Shakespeare sometimes has characters comment on other written works of his day. When he praises writing, he does so for two qualities: modesty and imagination. Though fame can go to a writer's head as easily as anybody else's, if you disregard all the really famous writers and consider all other successful writers, you'll be struck by how many are modest people.

So, just be yourself and tell a good story. Your job isn't to impress people, improve people, or express yourself: it's to deliver a reading experience enjoyable enough to be worth the reader's precious time.

Owning that fact is no more a "sellout" than selling any merchandise is. Indeed, selling oneself, instead of one's work, is hardly taking the high moral ground. And the need to entertain your reader doesn't mean that great writing has gone the way of the dinosaur, either. If a great heart and great thoughts are in you, they will out! But remember that you are just a storyteller.

     

Use Strong Verbs

Weak verbs are actionless verbs, vague verbs, and verbs in the passive voice. We have already discussed the passive voice, so let's focus on actionless verbs and vague verbs.

Actionless verbs include static verbs, like exist and the various forms of the verb to be. Other actionless verbs include English's infamous cargo of "helping" or "auxiliary" verbs. (See below.) I call them "little verbs." Vague verbs convey little meaning and usually require help to adequately describe the action. For example hit is vague. Slapped, punched, or walloped more vividly and precisely describe the action.

Use a thesaurus to find strong, precise verbs. The time is well spent, because using verbs that carry more meaning eliminates the need for additional words to bolster and modify them

Little Verbs

• be, am, is, are, was, were, being, been
• have, has, had, having
• do, does, did, doing
• may, might
• can, could
• would, will, shall
• the contracted forms 's, 're, and 've.
  

Note: In British English will and shall still have different meanings. Through sloppiness in the mass media, this useful nuance has been lost in American English. A word to the wise: shall is rarely used in the U.S. and may even strike an American audience as stilted. Nonetheless, I do rarely use it myself -- when I want to emphasize inevitability rather than volition by the actor. In some contexts the use of the unusal shall conveys that message even to an American audience not used to hearing it.

One good way to achieve conciseness (eliminate wordiness) is to just challenge every instance of these little verbs. Use them only when necessary.

For example, can you change The police had been called to The police were called? If you can, do. Again for example, can you change I have called the police to I called the police? If you can, do. Notice that writing in the active voice eliminates some of these little verbs for you.

     

Wordiness creeps into everyone's writing.

Wordiness creeps into every writer's work. Here are just a few examples of common wordy phrases and their potential concise alternatives.

Wordy Phrase >>> Potential Alternative(s)
is able to >>> can
due to the fact that >>> because
in an effort to >>> to
in order to >>> to
in regard to >>> about or on
in the course of >>> during or in
in the near future >>> soon
in view of >>> since
in view of the above >>> so
afford an opportunity >>> allow
on a daily basis >>> daily
by means of >>> by

If you would like a dictionary of fancy words and wordy phrases set opposite their potential alternatives, the Plain English Campaign offers one you can download.

www.PlainEnglish.co.uk/guides.html

Note that this organization is based in the United Kingdom and that some words are spelled differently in British English than in American English. The most common difference is that British English often spells words with "ISE" that American English spells with "IZE." For example, o-r-g-a-n-i-s-a-t-i-o-n is the British spelling of organization.

     

Engage your reader -- Part 2.

Step 2 in the process of engaging your reader is to organize your writing to meet your reader's needs.

People read to get answers. Anticipate the questions your readers bring to the work, and organize your material to respond to those questions. Also think through the questions your readers are likely to ask while reading, and further organize your material to answer each question immediately.

When appropriate, consider using a question-and-answer format in which you write the section headings as questions. This format assumes the reader is the one asking the questions, so write them in the first person (using "I").

Unless a section is brief, summarize it at the top or state the bottom line at the top. Then your reader sees what the section is about and knows what you're getting at. Writers often do the opposite, saving the conclusion or summary for the end.

Teachers, for example, have learned that the way to teach people is to:

1. Tell them what you're going to tell them.
2. Tell them it.
3. Tell them what you just told them.

For your reader, this approach makes the difference between wandering and going somewhere. If she doesn't know where your argument is headed, following your explanation is much harder. That's because, at many points, she won't know what to make of something you say. Similarly, if she has no idea what your main points will be, she must work to organize the information you give, and she is much less likely to grasp those main points.

     

Engage your reader.

Reading your words is spending time with you. So, make the persona you project engaging.

To engage your readers:

• Speak to them directly and clearly.
• Organize your message in a structure that reflects their interests.
• Use an appropriate tone.

And, before you even begin writing, identify your audience. You must grab and hold your readers' attention if you want to get your ideas across. They aren't interested in your information for its own sake: they want only news they can use. The best way to grab and hold their attention is to figure out who they are and what they want to know. Put yourself in their shoes. It will give you a new perspective.

To identify your audience, think about what kind of person will read this book or document and why. Keep in mind the average reader's level of technical expertise.

Tell your readers why the material is important to them. Say, "If you want ___, here's what you have to do." Or, "If you want ___, here's what you should know."

     

Put statements in positive form.

In his Elements of Style, William Strunk wrote,

Make definite assertions. Avoid tame, colorless, hesitating, noncommittal language. Use the word not as a means of denial or in antithesis, never as a means of evasion.

Here are examples to show the difference ...

John was not very often on time. >>> John usually came late.
Lisa did not think that was a very nice thing to say. >>> Lisa thought that a mean thing to say.

Not is a weak word. Your readers want to know what is.

Certain uses of the negative help though. Placing a negative in opposition to a positive makes a stronger, clearer statement. Here is an example...

Your tone should be friendly and engaging, not distant or intimate.

And yet another…

Ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.

     

Readability

Writings' readability is its ease of understanding. Under-standing is mental weight lifting and requires effort. As tested, understanding therefore requires two things: the ability to understand and the effort to understand. So, readability is a function of both complexity and the average reader's willingness to make the required effort to understand.

Readable writing is considerate of the reader, writing that communicates effectively with minimal reader effort.

Most American fiction is readable at a 6th-to-8th grade level. Most nonfiction books for a general audience are readable at a 7th-to-9th-grade reading level. Occasionally the subject matter requires a 10th-grade reading level because of the terminology (as in books on health). That's what your competitors are achieving. And that's what American readers expect.

The facts don't say Americans can't comprehend writing above an 8th- or 9th-grade level: they say Americans don't comprehend writing above that level. Some can't, but most just find it tedious, declining to spend the required time and effort.

In other words, their eyes may pass over the words, but they aren't bothering to actually under-stand anything they'd have to pause to under-stand. If a sentence doesn't make sense to them, they don't pause to reread it. In the end they have a foggy idea of what the writing was about and little comprehension. People only dig into writing at high reading levels in something they must read or in something of special interest to them.

So, if you want to communicate effectively, communicate efficiently: make your writing as readable as possible.

Outside the United States there's less competition for publication, so the readability standards aren't so rigorous.

The chief enemies of readability are:

• words some readers don't know
• abstractions (chiefly in words of three or more syllables like abstraction)
• unnecessary words (fog)
• sentences too long to easily follow
• complex constructions that confuse readers and throw them overboard so that they must keep reanalyzing and rereading sentences to make sense of them — if they can