The Lost Art Of Writing

[Chevalier]

I thought those "you had better phrases" (like "should of" and other things) are youth language. I can't remember a grown up person that said something like "You had better go!". I think I missed the entry of those phrases into the everyday speech. Well, my dad used them sometimes, but he wasn't serious about it.

[beak]

..........

 

One of Beak's points is that many educated speakers know that the 'don't split the infinitive' rule is somewhat arbitrary, but they do it anyway - it's an adoption of a certain style. They know that they can speak otherwise - and they might well do, for different audiences. But their identity is bound up with the more educated cultural markers, which they uphold.

 

.............................

You highlight an interesting point, and I would agree that these things can be taken as a badge of identity - and I now notice too how strongly these things can be felt. A flag to rally round! This may be the reason that people can become so heated in their defence of a certain usage: a sense of outrage sets in.

 

To add to the Split infinitive discussion, the thing that will annoy some is the interruption in the flow of meaning when the infinitive is split; you then have to wait for the verb while a description is inserted.

 

How to completely fill a pen - against - How to fill a pen compleltly. If the second of these is habitual, the first will always seem clunky, inelegant and sound like a scratch on a record, and no 'authority' or degree of use by others will change one's mind about that.

[Mickey]

Since you specified "unnecessary padding," I wonder, too, what *necessary* padding would look like.

 

Song lyrics, as one example, may contain padding to satisfy the needs of scansion, rhyme, and emphasis. The most artful lyrics, however, tend to have the least padding.

----------------

 

Though tightly written prose typically contains fewer syllables, clarity with compactness is the goal. If a sentence is made clearer by the addition of a word or words, the addition is justified. If not, the additions are padding. An almost perfect example of padding is "in order to," which can nearly always be replaced with "to" with no loss of clarity. As a rhetorical flourish (as in the Preamble to the Constitution), it is justifiable, but in most circumstances it is padding.

 

It is possible to be over terse.

[DAYoung]

Though tightly written prose typically contains fewer syllables, clarity with compactness is the goal. If a sentence is made clearer by the addition of a word or words, the addition is justified. If not, the additions are padding. An almost perfect example of padding is "in order to," which can nearly always be replaced with "to" with no loss of clarity. As a rhetorical flourish (as in the Preamble to the Constitution), it is justifiable, but in most circumstances it is padding.

 

Do you apply these guidelines to fiction and creative non-fiction? I'm guessing 'no', but I thought I'd ask.

[Moagy]

..........

 

One of Beak's points is that many educated speakers know that the 'don't split the infinitive' rule is somewhat arbitrary, but they do it anyway - it's an adoption of a certain style. They know that they can speak otherwise - and they might well do, for different audiences. But their identity is bound up with the more educated cultural markers, which they uphold.

 

.............................

You highlight an interesting point, and I would agree that these things can be taken as a badge of identity - and I now notice too how strongly these things can be felt. A flag to rally round! This may be the reason that people can become so heated in their defence of a certain usage: a sense of outrage sets in.

 

To add to the Split infinitive discussion, the thing that will annoy some is the interruption in the flow of meaning when the infinitive is split; you then have to wait for the verb while a description is inserted.

 

How to completely fill a pen - against - How to fill a pen compleltly. If the second of these is habitual, the first will always seem clunky, inelegant and sound like a scratch on a record, and no 'authority' or degree of use by others will change one's mind about that.

 

 

In so many ways I could not agree more - and yet... As someone who grew up with the "To Boldly Go" split infinitive of Star Trek in her ears before I knew what an infinitive was, never mind that it could be split, sometimes the split infinitive is more satisfying.

 

As we all know it should be "Boldly to go" or "To go boldly" but with the three repeats of the same vowel sound, rhythmically it sounds better with the double syllable in the middle; it flows so much more smoothly, like a sine wave. Yes, grammatically it is wrong, but rhythmically it is right... and believe me, it sticks in my craw to say it!

[beak]

'...to seek out strange new usage, to boldly spilt infinitives that have never been split before...' Was that Douglas Adams? There's a literary example, anyway.

 

I am not, contrary to a solidifying image here, a pedant about the forms of grammar I picked up in childhood. For one thing, I can't see the terror in using 'their' in place of the 'correct' 'his or her'. Neither can I subscribe to the dogma that a sentence must not begin with and.

 

It's not as though basic meaning were at risk in splitting the infinitive, which Is why I was emphasizing that it is a matter of style. I am however inordinately peeved at new usage that destroys subtleties of meaning, for instance when I hear anticipate used to mean expect, and so on and on. No amount of hearing just how wonderfully flexible and evolutionary language is will make an atom of difference to my sense of loss, and sense of tyrannical destruction.

 

ETA

And now the realization dawns that the reason I support the non-split infinitive is that it somehow protects anticipate and all of its endangered fellows! The point being, for me, that if I protect the one, the other may be saved as well; it feels like a little plea being sent out to respect the subtleties of the language and not throw them away too quickly. If I care, and show it, perhaps someone else will. Silly, probably.

 

Dear me, we seem to have strayed far from the OP. Apologies for my part in that. But this general diversion comes up time and time again, and does that not show that it's important to us, at least, and do we not find that we get more out of the discussion every time? I hope we do.

Edited July 23, 2011 by beak

[Mickey]

Though tightly written prose typically contains fewer syllables, clarity with compactness is the goal. If a sentence is made clearer by the addition of a word or words, the addition is justified. If not, the additions are padding. An almost perfect example of padding is "in order to," which can nearly always be replaced with "to" with no loss of clarity. As a rhetorical flourish (as in the Preamble to the Constitution), it is justifiable, but in most circumstances it is padding.

 

Do you apply these guidelines to fiction and creative non-fiction? I'm guessing 'no', but I thought I'd ask.

 

I apply them, but not rigorously. Flabby prose is death, regardless of genre, so I write loose (capture the idea), revise terse (refine the thought), then adjust to taste and genre. My punctuation, I'll concede, is idiosyncratic.

Edited July 23, 2011 by Mickey

[Chevalier]

I think that's the point, it's always a matter of context and intention.

[DAYoung]

I apply them, but not rigorously. Flabby prose is death, regardless of genre, so I write loose (capture the idea), revise terse (refine the thought), then adjust to taste and genre. My punctuation, I'll concede, is idiosyncratic.

 

I think prose can be highly refined, without being terse. I've not checked the manuscript, but I suspect a great deal of distillation produced this:

 

Under certain circumstances there are few hours in life more agreeablethan the hour dedicated to the ceremony known as afternoon tea. Thereare circumstances in which, whether you partake of the tea or not--somepeople of course never do,--the situation is in itself delightful. Thosethat I have in mind in beginning to unfold this simple history offeredan admirable setting to an innocent pastime. The implements ofthe little feast had been disposed upon the lawn of an old Englishcountry-house, in what I should call the perfect middle of a splendidsummer afternoon. Part of the afternoon had waned, but much of it wasleft, and what was left was of the finest and rarest quality. Real duskwould not arrive for many hours; but the flood of summer light had begunto ebb, the air had grown mellow, the shadows were long upon the smooth,dense turf. They lengthened slowly, however, and the scene expressedthat sense of leisure still to come which is perhaps the chief sourceof one's enjoyment of such a scene at such an hour. From five o'clock toeight is on certain occasions a little eternity; but on such an occasionas this the interval could be only an eternity of pleasure. The personsconcerned in it were taking their pleasure quietly, and they were notof the sex which is supposed to furnish the regular votaries of theceremony I have mentioned. The shadows on the perfect lawn were straightand angular; they were the shadows of an old man sitting in a deepwicker-chair near the low table on which the tea had been served, andof two younger men strolling to and fro, in desultory talk, in front ofhim. The old man had his cup in his hand; it was an unusually large cup,of a different pattern from the rest of the set and painted in brilliantcolours. He disposed of its contents with much circumspection, holdingit for a long time close to his chin, with his face turned to the house.His companions had either finished their tea or were indifferent totheir privilege; they smoked cigarettes as they continued to stroll.One of them, from time to time, as he passed, looked with a certainattention at the elder man, who, unconscious of observation, rested hiseyes upon the rich red front of his dwelling. The house that rose beyondthe lawn was a structure to repay such consideration and was the mostcharacteristic object in the peculiarly English picture I have attemptedto sketch.

[DAYoung]

I am however inordinately peeved at new usage that destroys subtleties of meaning, for instance when I hear anticipate used to mean expect, and so on and on. No amount of hearing just how wonderfully flexible and evolutionary language is will make an atom of difference to my sense of loss, and sense of tyrannical destruction.

 

Would you agree that subtle minds create and appreciate subtleties of meaning? And that those without subtlety won't miss it?

 

If so, are you trying to protect language, strictly speaking? Or are you trying to save your compatriots from their own lack of nuance?

 

Given a great many English-speakers will continue to think, speak and write judiciously and innovatively, what is at stake?

[beak]

............, what is at stake?

Well, you may be right, I admit the possibility, but then I hear a state chief of police sating that he presumes someone to be innocent when he means that he assumes it.

 

And I listen again and again to CEOs and politicians saying absolutely nothing at all for minutes on end, and much of their audiences thinking that they have said something - language weakened to the point that nothing is committed to by the speech, because the words are so 'flexible' - because their meanings are blurred.

 

The tyranny is not on the part of those wishing to preserve the differences, but on that of those who wish to disguise the fact that they have nothing to say, or would prefer that whatever they have said can be interpreted to their taste at a later date.

 

And what of those learning the language; what use is it to them to have their teachers unable to tell them the difference between transpire and happen? Certainly, '... a great many English-speakers will continue to think, speak and write judiciously and innovatively....' but their numbers are surely falling.

 

I think that the point is far more important than just missing out on subtlety; and it's much more important than style or 'form'. Those who have little respect for the language (and thus for accuracy and meaning in what they say and are responsible for) are now beginning to teach, hold influential office and occupy TV screens for most of the evening; I can't find a way to believe this is in any sense a good thing.

[Mickey]

I apply them, but not rigorously. Flabby prose is death, regardless of genre, so I write loose (capture the idea), revise terse (refine the thought), then adjust to taste and genre. My punctuation, I'll concede, is idiosyncratic.

 

I think prose can be highly refined, without being terse.

 

 

You miss the point. Stripping the obviously unnecessary from the first draft (terse edit) highlights what is necessary, so that any elaboration allowed by the genre is done purposefully. This can't be reduced to a syllable count.

 

 

I've not checked the manuscript, but I suspect a great deal of distillation produced this:

 

Under certain circumstances there are few hours in life more agreeablethan the hour dedicated to the ceremony known as afternoon tea. Thereare circumstances in which, whether you partake of the tea or not--somepeople of course never do,--the situation is in itself delightful. Thosethat I have in mind in beginning to unfold this simple history offeredan admirable setting to an innocent pastime.

 

I find it self-indulgent. To my taste, its charm (and is has some) is insufficient to justify the excesses. If I were editor for this writer I would return the following for consideration.

 

Under certain circumstances there are few hours in life more agreeable than the hour dedicated to the ceremony known as afternoon tea. There are circumstances in which, whether you partake of the tea or not--some people of course never do,--the situation is in itself delightful. Those (?) that I have in mind in beginning to unfold this simple history offered an admirable setting to an innocent pastime.

 

The repetition of "circumstances" suggests a list, which never materializes. I would omit the first clause of the second sentence. (I'm not all that keen on "Under certain circumstance" either.) I would consider replacing "than the hour" in the first sentence with "than those." In the second sentence, "the situation" is too weak a payoff for the set up. This is a case where either greater specificity or elaboration might help. (Consider replacing "the situation," perhaps with something like "the ritual is in itself delightful" or "the simple fact of it is delightful.") To what does "those" in the third sentence refer. It is not clear.

 

Basta cosi'. I think I know what the author wants to do, but this paragraph stumbles rather than marches. It certainly doesn't sing to me. In criticizing it, I've probably plowed under some literary icon, but I call 'em like I see 'em. This paragraph is not (yet) my cup of tea. (Way too much bergamot.)

 

 

[DAYoung]

You miss the point. Stripping the obviously unnecessary from the first draft (terse edit) highlights what is necessary, so that any elaboration allowed by the genre is done purposefully. This can't be reduced to a syllable count.

 

Yes, I agree with your description of editing, i.e. taking out what's unnecessary. But I wouldn't say this makes it 'terse'. To me, 'terse' is one mood or style an author might cultivate, rather than a feature of all editing. When Joyce was writing parts of Ulysses, he was being very deliberate with his words. But the prose, in the end, wasn't necessarily terse.

 

Put another way, the word 'terse' implies a syllable count. It is abrupt, concise writing.

 

But if, by 'terse edit', you simply mean 'stripping the obviously unnecessary', I'm happy to agree. And it might well be that I'm missing some of the nuance of the word 'terse'. If so, I'll consider myself, yet again, educated in conversation.

[DAYoung]

And I listen again and again to CEOs and politicians saying absolutely nothing at all for minutes on end, and much of their audiences thinking that they have said something - language weakened to the point that nothing is committed to by the speech, because the words are so 'flexible' - because their meanings are blurred.

 

Yes, this is the Orwellian criticism. And I'm certainly sympathetic to it.

[DAYoung]

Basta cosi'. I think I know what the author wants to do, but this paragraph stumbles rather than marches. It certainly doesn't sing to me. In criticizing it, I've probably plowed under some literary icon, but I call 'em like I see 'em. This paragraph is not (yet) my cup of tea. (Way too much bergamot.)

 

By the way, the novel's Henry James, Portrait of a Lady. You wouldn't be the first to plough him under! (I like your 'bergamot' line.)

 

Incidentally, James had a habit of writing 'Basta!' in his letters, after he'd penned a long passage. It's a funny coincidence to see your 'basta cosi' there.

Edited July 24, 2011 by DAYoung

[Mickey]

Basta cosi'. I think I know what the author wants to do, but this paragraph stumbles rather than marches. It certainly doesn't sing to me. In criticizing it, I've probably plowed under some literary icon, but I call 'em like I see 'em. This paragraph is not (yet) my cup of tea. (Way too much bergamot.)

 

By the way, the novel's Henry James, Portrait of a Lady. You wouldn't be the first to plough him under! (I like your 'bergamot' line.)

 

Incidentally, James had a habit of writing 'Basta!' in his letters, after he'd penned a long passage. It's a funny coincidence to see your 'basta cosi' there.

 

Interesting. I'm a burnt out old opera singer. I wonder what his excuse was.

 

Answering your other query, my use of terse comes from a professor already ancient when I took his class 40 years ago. (He first brought to my attention the destruction of language wrought by mass media, the news "readers," particularly. His banner cry was the use of awful where unpleasant or inferior would be more accurate.) By terse, he meant spare, stripped of all that was unnecessary. Though his manner was frequently abrupt, he didn't believe good prose need be.

 

I borrowed the bergamot business from the protagonist in a novel I'm working on. (Strunk and White, note the dangling participle.) He didn't care much for the tea, but drank out of fondness for the long dead Earl.

[DAYoung]

Interesting. I'm a burnt out old opera singer. I wonder what his excuse was.

 

 

He spent many years in Italy. His impressions were collected in a travel book entitled Italian Hours.

 

Answering your other query, my use of terse comes from a professor already ancient when I took his class 40 years ago. (He first brought to my attention the destruction of language wrought by mass media, the news "readers," particularly. His banner cry was the use of awful where unpleasant or inferior would be more accurate.) By terse, he meant spare, stripped of all that was unnecessary. Though his manner was frequently abrupt, he didn't believe good prose need be.

 

This strikes me as an idiosyncratic use of the word ''terse'. But, as I suggested, I might be using the word clumsily.

 

 

[KateGladstone]

Chevalier — "You had better" has been around for a few centuries; see abundant instances here: http://www.google.com/search?q=bartleby.com+%22you+had+better%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safariThe phrase gradually outcompeted "you would better" and is now being outcompeted by "you better" in that vast free market that is the English language.

[KateGladstone]

I find that the split infinitive is often more precise and less likely to interrupt the thought being exposed. "he failed to completely learn cursive" is usefully different from "He completely failed to learn cursive," and is not initially misleading (as would be "He failed to learn cursive completely": which could support either meaning, but appears — until the very last word — to support an unintended meaning.)

[KateGladstone]

Teaching a student of English that "transpire" differs from "happen" is useless when nobody but the teacher uses the two words thus. In fact, it is worse than useless, if the student's eventual employer uses the two words as synonyms and expects his new employee to understand him as others do.