The principles listed here are sound and helpful. If you follow them, your writing style will undoubtedly improve.
But do not adhere to them as rigid rules or you will suffer in your ability to express yourself. Passive voice exists for a reason. Long words can add variety, rhythm, and color to your prose. Elongated sentences can help give your writing a flow that a mere parade of short sentences can never hope to achieve, not even after a thousand rewrites. Or not. All such items can be misused as well, and the books are replete with bloated forms of expression used by lawyers, politicians, educators, administrators, and the like who would not know a simple word or sentence even if it stood before them doing somersaults. The key is to know sound principles for clear and concise writing and then to apply them with a rhythmic ear for balance in your forms of expression. That means, yes, use passive voice, long words, and flowing sentences as needed to add grace to your prose but always with the baseline in mind: that is, to communicate in ways that are clear and concise and that people will readily understand for your stated purpose (formal style for formal settings, casual for casual, and whatever fits for anything in between).
I note all this because, years ago, I consciously and diligently set about to attempt to master writing and stumbled upon the rock of "simplicity" during such stretches in my learning process where I had assumed that all one could do was follow such rules. Any attempt to apply such rules one-dimensionally is a mistake, and you will regret trying it. Follow sound principles, by all means, but not dogmatically.
The other major keys to good writing are depth of language skills and extensive reading. No one will read your work unless you have something helpful to say. You get this by working hard to develop your skills, and lots of writing (and reading) is vital to this process.
Much truth here. Years ago I took a summer school course in technical and scientific writing involving intense exercises in ruthlessly eliminating passive voice (regardless of the gymnastics involved in doing so) and many other common tropes of academic writing. The course was like a cell-obliterating chemotherapy against whatever creative writing voice I had managed to put together at that age, and it took years to overcome the effects.
Toss in a good measure of courses involving study of Hemingway and Vonnegut and I was a wreck for years. A passive construction, a ten-dollar word, the odd adverb--all had me in doubt and writing the most vanilla prose.
So it goes.
It was only when I started participating in NaNoWriMo that the forced march of cranking out 1666 words a night for a month combined with the permission to produce a shitty first draft allowed me to being my recovery.
Hemingway: Manuel drank his brandy. He felt sleepy himself. It was too hot to go out into the town. Besides there was nothing to do. He wanted to see Zurito. He would go to sleep while he waited.
Faulkner: He did not feel weak, he was merely luxuriating in that supremely gutful lassitude of convalescence in which time, hurry, doing, did not exist, the accumulating seconds and minutes and hours to which it its well state the body is slave both waking and sleeping, now reversed and time now the lip-server and mendicant to the body's pleasure instead of the body thrall to time's headlong course.
Reading this reminded me of some of the parallels one can make between writing and jazz. Ask any jazz musician and they will say that there are tons of "rules" and "suggestions" for what to play over specific harmonic movements. This is important, vital stuff for a jazz musician.
However, they will also say to forget all that and go beyond, because expression shouldn't be confined by rules.
I've always thought you abide by the rules just long enough to spot their usefulness and then your throw them out the window and create something new.
They were attempting most likely to follow Strunk & White's idiotic dictum to omit all needless words. More often than not, when people trust Strunk & White to do their thinking for them, bad language occurs.
The "concise" in "Writing clear, concise, sentences" is a non-restrictive adjective, tacked on as secondary information, and spoken between two pauses, with a different pitch to the other 3 words. The sentence could mean the speaker or author thinks sentences must be concise to be clear.
The "concise", like the "clear", in "Writing clear concise sentences" is a restrictive adjective, primary to the meaning of the sentence, with all words spoken at the same pitch. Clarity and conciseness are orthogonal. Perhaps there's a slight pause between clear and concise, which could be shown with a single comma.
It depends on what you mean by "shouldn't". The Oxford comma is optional and considered syntactically correct if used. If you mean that it is more concise to leave it out, then thats another issue.
EDIT: Ignore this. I thought he was referring to the first line of the post.
"Follow the principles below to write sentences that are clear, to the point, and easier to read."
We're being needlessly cheeky here. It isn't on every page and it isn't on the pdf. I propose it's an accident which happend when the document was moved from Word to the web. Notice the comma makes sense in How to Write Clear, Concise, and Direct Sentences. They just removed and Direct to shorten the title and someone, not necessarily the authors, mistakenly left the comma.
Some of the comments I've read seem to misunderstand the purpose of this page. This isn't the objectively best writing style, this is a concise writing style. No, it might not be the most pleasant to read, because extremely to-the-point short sentences sound blunt. The guidelines provided for writing short and concise sentences are very useful, if that's the style you are aiming for.
> "Clear, Concise, Sentences" [sic]) falls under the heading "Improving Your Writing Style."
Well I don't see the problem here. It is true that many righting concise sentences can help many people improve their writing style (it's the case for foreigners like me).
I think the site targets two types of audience:
- Those with very poor style who want to improve
- People with good style who just want to learn how to write concise sentences.
I'll give an example illustrating the second point. For some of my school projects, I had to review a lot of "science project reports", and similar stuff. Well trust me, it is painful to read a report with long, convoluted sentences expressing a simple idea..
These are great guidelines. If you don't at least understand them, your style probably sucks. And I say that objectively.
Good writing skills are so important today when you consider that much of the writing people typically do is in an email or a powerpoint, not a romantic novel.
This is a good default style. If you can write clearly, you can also write in other styles for artistic effect. It's like learning scales for your instrument. If you can't play scales well, you can't play Beethoven or George Crumb well either.
To look at it another way, these are the rules that are made to be broken in the service of stylized writing. If you don't know the rules, you won't know when to break them.
A lot of sales copy could benefit from a more concise, factual writing style too. There's a mountain of research to show that people react negatively when they feel they're being played, yet advertisers continue to make obviously inflated claims and use meaningless buzzwords. :-(
This advice seems to mimic much of what's in _Style: Towards Clarity and Grace_, which I found out about from Richard Gabriel (achievement unlocked: LISP connection) and which is probably the most hacker-friendly writing book ever written.
When I was a TA, this book was in very heavy use across departments as a recommended add-on for undergrad classes. (Say you're teaching Roman Civilization. You plan to assign at least 2 papers and probably also some short writing assignments. Recommend the Williams, prod them towards it, and discuss it a little - even if you don't have tons of time in your class to teach writing.)
All great, and I liked the book quite a lot. However, the publisher decided to max out on the book's popularity. First, there were quickly about 4-6 (slightly different) versions of it in print, all at the same time. Second, they would release a new version of the main edition (Style: Toward Clarity and Grace) every year. Once they realized it was a textbook, the price leapt up and up. I suppose it's just supply and demand, but it made it very hard to get students to buy the book (once it went from $10 or $12 to $35), if it was recommended and not required.
tl;dr Buy the 1995 edition for $8.93 on Amazon, not the 10th edition for $35. I'm reasonably confident that the essential advice and meat of the book is the same.
Have you seen the post 3 shell scripts to improve your writing, or "My Ph.D. advisor rewrote himself in bash."? It's Bash, not Emacs Lisp, but you might still enjoy it.
If you get the chance, read Orwell's "Politics and the English Language."
Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
Never us a long word where a short one will do.
If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
Never use the passive where you can use the active.
Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
I love The Economist's spartan (but cheeky) style guide, which opens with Orwell's six writing rules. This guide is based on the style book which is given to all journalists at The Economist.
I only wish I could up-vote this more. See also this earlier Language Log essay (http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003366.h...), in which Pullum points out that passives occur in "Politics and the English Language" at a considerably higher rate than was typical in contemporary periodicals - Orwell couldn't follow his own advice, even as he was dispensing it.
The same goes for Strunk and White, who in the very passage instructing writers to abjure the passive, say:
"Many a tame sentence of description or exposition can _be made_ lively and emphatic by substituting a transitive in the active voice for some such perfunctory expression as /there is/ or /could be heard/."
Still, at least the guide linked in the OP has picked actual examples of the passive voice as illustrations, and concedes that there are times when it can be reasonably used (sorry, "writers can reasonably use it"). This makes it something of a rarity, even if the advice is still poor.
A lot of this information is presented as a consistent methodology when in fact it is very subjective. For example, one of the suggestions is that "you should try to avoid using inflated diction if a simpler phrase works equally well." Unfortunately, it is not clear when a simpler phrase works equally well. I may want to 'use' a certain phrasing in one scenario, but feel it is more appropriate to 'utilize' another phrasing in a different scenario. There is no simple rule that can be applied to determine whether one is more appropriate than the other.
Interesting how many of the suggestions for "improvement" sound very dry and artificial. I would rather use the "bad" language in some of these examples.
I agree with the article that good writing is concise and clear, but don't conflate clear and concise with simplistic and short, thinking the only good sentence is a short sentence, as if we should all write like Hemingway in a hurry.
"Vigorous writing is concise...this requires not that the writer make all sentences short, or avoid all detail and treat subjects only in outline, but that every word tell."
- Strunk and White "The Elements of Style"
Alas, this version does not include the edits and commentary by E.B. White (thus, it came to be known as "Strunk and White"), but it's an interesting archive of the original work.
You have to break rule number one to be a politician, corporation, or spokesperson for either. Passive voice is what you use to acknowledge that something fucked up, without placing the responsibility.
This topic seems to have legs, so I'll recommend another book in this area: Clear and Simple as the Truth: Writing Classic Prose[1] (by Francis-Noel Thomas and Mark Turner).
They are far more thoughtful about style (what it is and how to teach it) than most writing guides. They acknowledge that there is not one best or ideal style for all occasions and that the style they describe and teach is one among many. It's an eye opening book in many ways. (Note: I see that there's a second edition just out. I haven't read that. I read the original in the late 90s. I doubt they've ruined it, but just in case.)
Are there any software packages or web services that help with this? Writing is a huge part of my job but because I'm english second language I'm lacking the intuitive sense for such rules. Especially since I learned most of my english in my formative years on internet forums...
Clear writing is difficult because it requires clear thought. This makes it worthwhile, even if no one reads it, because it shows the writer whether he or she understands the subject matter.
Muddy writing, by contrast, is generally meant to impress and not convey information. The intended reaction is "I don't understand what you said, so you must be smart." This, unfortunately, seems to work for businesspeople and academics. But I hope that geeks can see through it.
This subject reminds me of a quote by CS Lewis about students being afraid to read classic works, and going instead to modern, unintelligible commentaries on them.
"But if [the student] only knew, the great man, just because of his greatness, is much more intelligible than his modern commentator. The simplest student will be able to understand, if not all, yet a very great deal of what Plato said; but hardly anyone can understand some modern books on Platonism. It has always therefore been one of my main endeavours as a teacher to persuade the young that firsthand knowledge is not only more worth acquiring than secondhand knowledge, but is usually much easier and more delightful to acquire."
I agree this is a very useful resource for writing in a concise manner. It is something I am attempting to implement in my daily writing. Even though it is old news the best advice I have come across is to write your content. Let it sit for an hour or more. Come back and read it out loud to yourself. This technique is underused and underrated in my opinion. Thanks for pointing out this resource. Bookmarked!
Its kind of an object oriented style isn't it? That doesn't mean that it transfers well to programming where there are other concerns apart from communication. (You don't have to worry about controlling state in your paragraphs). Anyway, for me the laziest way to improve my composition is to just read Hemingway and let the style rub off.
If you want to improve the clarity of your writing, I also recommend StyleWriter (http://www.stylewriter-usa.com). It's a bit expensive, but the functionality is unique and helpful.
Very interesting, especially for people like me ( English is not my mother language ) these basics are useful to build a strong knowledge about Writing.
With a title like this, I won't even read the thing. So many things are wrong with this first sentence.
1. Why The Capitals For Each Word? That screws with my human word recognition algorithm.
2. The title implies three things: Writing clear, do something concise and something with sentences. That's all but clear to me. "Writing clear": you mean writing the word clear? Does not sound interesting to me. What do you want with "Sentences" and "Concise"? Not clear at all to me.
3. Probably, the author meant something like "How to write clear & concise sentences". That gives the sentence instantly another meaning.
But do not adhere to them as rigid rules or you will suffer in your ability to express yourself. Passive voice exists for a reason. Long words can add variety, rhythm, and color to your prose. Elongated sentences can help give your writing a flow that a mere parade of short sentences can never hope to achieve, not even after a thousand rewrites. Or not. All such items can be misused as well, and the books are replete with bloated forms of expression used by lawyers, politicians, educators, administrators, and the like who would not know a simple word or sentence even if it stood before them doing somersaults. The key is to know sound principles for clear and concise writing and then to apply them with a rhythmic ear for balance in your forms of expression. That means, yes, use passive voice, long words, and flowing sentences as needed to add grace to your prose but always with the baseline in mind: that is, to communicate in ways that are clear and concise and that people will readily understand for your stated purpose (formal style for formal settings, casual for casual, and whatever fits for anything in between).
I note all this because, years ago, I consciously and diligently set about to attempt to master writing and stumbled upon the rock of "simplicity" during such stretches in my learning process where I had assumed that all one could do was follow such rules. Any attempt to apply such rules one-dimensionally is a mistake, and you will regret trying it. Follow sound principles, by all means, but not dogmatically.
The other major keys to good writing are depth of language skills and extensive reading. No one will read your work unless you have something helpful to say. You get this by working hard to develop your skills, and lots of writing (and reading) is vital to this process.