rules...no, guidelines...for effective writing

A reposting of George Orwell's "6 Rules for Effective Writing" (though this writer seems to stop at the number of digits on one hand) has just surfaced. I'm going to commit high heresy here and say that they are not good rules. The content isn't the problem--it's their phrasing. All of them are phrased as absolutes. About the only absolute rule I could formulate is "Never use absolutes". I'll address each of the 5 rules.

"1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print." Actually, I can agree with this one. College students' writing tends to be laden with cliches, many of which are incorrectly deployed.

"2. Never use a long word where a short one will do" and "5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent." The problem with these two hinges on "will do" and "equivalent". Like Orwell, I prefer punchier, more direct Anglo-Saxon derived words. However, it is rare that the meanings of Anglo-Saxon, French, and Latin synonyms overlap exactly. They have slight variation in denotative and connotative meaning, and often great variation in register. If all that is taken into account, then I suppose I would agree with these items, but it also makes the choices far from clear.

"3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out." This is also generally good advice, but the meaning has to be maintained. Just today I administered an editing test, and students cut out modifiers and relative phrases all over the place. The remaining sentences were (usually) still grammatical, but they lost information.

"4. Never use the passive where you can use the active." Wrong! There are places where the passive is preferable to the active. The information structure of English prefers that old information precede new information in discourse. Since English also prefers active voice (about 75% of English sentences are in active voice), the agent is often old information (the topic) and therefore comes first. But sometimes the patient is the topic, and the agent is either new information or irrelevant. About 70% of passive sentences omit the agent, so forcing active voice can actually clutter up the writing with irrelevant information. Here's an example from today's San Jose Mercury News. First, the one with all passives transformed into active, then the original.

Passives transformed: Since October, shoppers at Trader Joe's and Whole Foods Market on South Bascom Avenue in Campbell have reported that somebody has stolen more than 20 purses and wallets, according to police. The thefts aren't happening on any consistent day of the week, but Saturday people reported that somebody stole five wallets, according to Adams. Police believe one or more suspects are responsible for a majority of the thefts. Adams said thieves are targeting purses and wallets that people leave unattended or out of view, including open purses that people hang over their shoulders. Campbell police ask victims of theft to report it to them.

Original (abridged): "Since October, more than 20 purses and wallets have been reported stolen by shoppers at Trader Joe's and Whole Foods Market on South Bascom Avenue in Campbell, according to police. The thefts aren't happening on any consistent day of the week, but Saturday five wallets were reported stolen, according to Adams. Police believe one or more suspects are responsible for a majority of the thefts. Adams said thieves are targeting purses and wallets that are left unattended or out of view, including open purses hung over a person's shoulder. Victims of theft are asked to report it to Campbell police."

Using the passive can result in more direct, information-rich sentences, especially in a case like the above where the agent (the thief or thieves) is unknown. I would say that writers shouldn't use the passive unless they have a good reason, but there are good reasons.

So I assume that Orwell was framing his advice in absolute terms as a polemic device. Still, while these are good guidelines that are generally applicable, they are certainly not hard and fast rules that lead automatically to good writing.

privatization of higher ed

The California Faculty Association Winter 2006/07 magazine has a an article (p. 19) on the dangers of the privatization of higher education. The values of education (especially publicly-funded education) are not the values of the marketplace. In this view, the students are not first and foremost consumers, as in the corporate view. Some services--such as health care and education--are not best left to the marketplace.

When students are seen as consumers, then they are just full pockets waiting to be emptied. The New York Attorney General has launched an investigation into student loans and found that "educational" institutions are colluding with student loan companies to defraud (I don't think that's too harsh a word) the students. I'm certainly not anti-capitalism and I'm not even entirely opposed to certain business-like changes made in higher education (such as regular student feedback and improved student services), but its heart should be enabling intellectual development, not making money on the backs of those it is supposed to serve.

applying for jobs

I am in the middle of reading my students' submissions for a resume/cover letter assignment. My expectation is for them to put the best face on whatever experience they have. Of course that relates to confidence, and sometimes their confidence is not enough to make a good case. As luck (or synchronicity) would have it, reddit today has a link to an outstanding example of doing the best with one's background: Former marijuana smuggler seeks legitimate employment. Now that's a great resume.

I'm literally ecstatic

I am glad to see that someone else is getting tired of the misuse of literally. Sally Brownlow gives some examples of the misuse of literally to mean metaphorically (i.e., the word's complete opposite, trope-wise) in her column "It's hard to express irony with tongue literally in cheek". In Fall 2005, I mentioned this phenomenon in a journal entry for a class on teaching developmental reading and writing:

[I]n Limerick's ad hominem attack against academic writing, she contributes to the ongoing abuse of literally: “This [going to graduate school] gives you, quite literally, your footing.” Well actually it gives you, quite metaphorically, your footing. I wonder if in 50 years literally will have taken on the meaning of metaphorically, since that is how it is constantly used.

As someone with some background in linguistics, I know that words change their meaning over time, but I definitely agree with the Heckler that the meaning of literally is precious enough to deserve conservation.

February blog check-in

My business writing students had to make three posts to their blog in February. I did some browsing during the month, but today I went through everyone's blogs to see if they did the assignments so I could enter their points into the gradebook. I didn't really know what to expect since this is the first time I have used blogs for a class.

What I found, I have to say, really thrilled me. Almost everyone did 3 posts, and almost all of them fulfilled the assignment (related to business or the writer's studies, long enough to be meaningful). The posts show a wide variety of topics and responses to issues, and in general they appear to have some real thought behind them. I couldn't have expected a better result.

Following are some notable posts I came across.
Ana R.
Chester C.
Clayton M.
Randy W.
Ronny L.
Sung C.L.
Varun C.
Yi J.

I'm looking forward to seeing what people come up with for March!