Could Dickens help your business writing?

Friday, 27th January, 2012 by Susannah

At the end of our Clarity training courses we give out a list of recommended reading. The idea is that people’s writing is influenced by what they read and that a dose of good fiction may counteract the corporate drivel that they are inundated with at work.

I’m thinking of adding Dickens’ novels to our list. But how, you may be wondering, could I possibly recommend a Victorian writer so often accused of long-windedness and sentimentality? The quality in Dickens that could be helpful is his vivid description of people and places.

The problem with so much business writing is its imprecision, its vagueness. It deals in processes and policies, and uses abstract nouns with other words piled in front of them as descriptors. For example, “the talent and development agenda” and “pragmatic effective learning and development solutions”.

Dickens wrote stories about individuals and places that we can visualise. We can hear them speak. We can almost smell them. That’s the way to communicate ideas – by creating pictures in the reader’s mind, by writing as far as possible about real people doing things. I think reading a bit of Dickens could help.

Time magazine is running a series of blog posts on why read Dickens in advance of the bicentenary of his birth on 7th February 2012.

Proofing and credibility

Monday, 9th January, 2012 by Rupert

I’ve just been reading and thoroughly enjoying The House of Silk, the new Sherlock Holmes novel, written by Anthony Horowitz. My enjoyment was only spoilt by the publishers’ apparent refusal to engage the services of a proofreader.

I winced to read illiteracies such as “I remembered Carstairs telling Holmes and I that…”. Yet the grammatical glitches, typos and missing prepositions were not the most egregious errors. A character called Lord Horace Blackwater becomes Sir Horace Blackwater a couple of paragraphs later; while the villainous vicar Charles Fitzsimmons becomes Fitzwilliams on the next page. Most extraordinary of all, after one character has died in grisly circumstances with a knife embedded in his neck, his demise is referred to later on as “the shooting of X”!

I refuse to accept that my reaction is pure pedantry or pernicketiness. When a book is so lovingly written in the style of Conan Doyle, its credibility depends on sustaining that style, and those standards. Precision and accuracy are the essence of Sherlock Holmes. Fluent and elegant prose is Conan Doyle’s hallmark. Lose those qualities, and you lose the magic. It reminds us why proofreading matters.

P.S. Thank you to my own proofreader, Will, who corrected a mistake in my first draft!

Collaborative writing

Wednesday, 7th December, 2011 by Chris Mohr

At its best, collaborative writing can result in something better than any of the writers might have produced alone. At its worst, it can be a horribly painful and undermining experience.

It goes like this: you write your draft report, then you send it round to all the other interested parties. They change what you’ve written, add bits of their own and send it back to you. You swallow hard, tweak it again and send it back for another round of changes. And so it goes back and forth, till your original is unrecognisable and the fight goes right out of you.

So here is a five-point strategy to help you manage the process.

  1. Send your draft as a read-only electronic version. That will prevent others from plunging in and tracking their changes all over it.

  2. Attach a separate sheet for feedback. Frame the questions so they elicit clear responses: for example, are the messages clear? is anything missing? is there anything you would like to change and, if so, why?
  3. Pick your battles. Concentrate on getting the main messages right.
  4. To resolve disagreements about style, grammar or punctuation, refer to a higher authority: your house style guide, if you have one, or a trusted external one such as Clarity or the Guardian style guide (http://www.guardian.co.uk/styleguide).
  5. If you are the owner of the document, make sure you can live with the final result.

What is your experience of collaborative writing? Maybe you have some tips to add.

Don’t write – talk

Thursday, 1st December, 2011 by Chris Shevlin

I was about to start coaching Steve (not his real name). He looked nervous, waiting to hear what I thought of the writing sample he’d sent me. I’d only known him for ten minutes but I liked him: he was funny and straightforward.

Unfortunately, his writing was terrible. It was a speech for his boss, the head of a think tank, full of phrases like “business architecture restructuring” and “building a financial escalator”. Still, I’ve helped people become coherent before. We started working on some exercises, using techniques that have worked for other clients.

After two sessions we were in exactly the same position. He seemed to understand what I said, so why couldn’t he improve?

An idea occurred to me. Steve had told me that he felt he was less educated than his colleagues. I think he was unconsciously making his writing ‘difficult’, and therefore sound clever, to compensate. So for the next session, I took my dictaphone with me. I asked Steve what one of his more mystifying paragraphs meant; recorded his answer, typed it and printed it.

It was good: brief, concise, mentioning the most important points first and backing up assertions with real-world examples. True, it’s unlikely his boss would want to swear quite so much in a speech, but fixing that took a couple of minutes. Redrafting the abstract, complex, jargon-rich writing he’s been producing till now has taken hours, and never produced a good result.

Now we have something. We’ve found a way of getting Steve to write the way he talks.

Just because …

Thursday, 3rd November, 2011 by Will

I recently received an email asking if it was ever OK to begin a sentence with the word “because”. It’s definitely one of those words, like “and”, that people are reluctant to use at the start of sentences following years of tellings-off from dogmatic grammar teachers. The emailer also asked if, having decided that you were going to use a conjunction at the start of a sentence, “as” was preferable to “because”.

I prefer “because”. Because The Economist’s Style Guide doesn’t mention this, I referred him to a higher authority, Emily Dickinson. The literary aficionados among you will know her poem Death and its famous opening lines:

“Because I could not stop for Death,
He kindly stopped for me;”

If it’s good enough for Emily, it’s good enough for me. She chose “because” because it had two syllables and kept the meter of the poem. That said, she was writing poetry, not letters about mortgages, so here’s my explanation of why you should use “Because” and not “As”.

Compare the following:

“As I was starting to feel sick, I decided not to go to work today.”

and

“As I was starting to feel sick, a knock came at the door.”

In the first sentence, the second half is directly related to the first half. It’s the reason that I decided not to go to work. In the second sentence, however, the first half is just setting the scene for what happened afterwards. Because “because” is never used in that second sense, it avoids any confusion the reader might feel about scene-setting.

I admit that we generally prefer short words to long ones, and “as” has that on its side; but because it has more meanings, “as” can actually create more confusion than the straightforward “because”.

Why bother with grammar?

Monday, 17th October, 2011 by Chris Mohr

“Why can’t we let people write the way they want to?” someone challenged me in a training session last week. Like many others, he had never been taught grammar at school and didn’t see why he should start now. And he cited his heroes – Jack Kerouac, Hunter S. Thompson, William Burroughs – as examples of writers who broke the rules to terrific effect.

He had a point. Are the old rules still relevant in the age of texting, tweeting and instant messaging? Some people think those platforms encourage dumbing down, but aren’t they also full of genuine creativity? So why can’t we be a bit less rigid about grammar and spelling in other written communications as well?

Then I went back to those beat writers, and guess what? Their spelling is conventional. Their grammar is impeccable, unless they choose otherwise. And their punctuation is perfect. Which may explain why my challenger, despite his self-confessed ignorance, understood instinctively how to use commas.

You need to know and understand the rules before you can start breaking them.

Mediocre but instructive

Thursday, 13th October, 2011 by Richard

The three party conferences of 2011 are over, and even political anoraks are relieved. It is a poor commentary on all Britain’s professional politicians that the most memorable speaker from all three parties was a 16-year-old schoolboy.

None of the party leaders distinguished themselves in their conference speeches – although there were instructive features in all three.

Nick Clegg’s speech was the most focused. Read my analysis of the all three leaders’ speeches to their parties.

Message to Miliband – don’t be negative

Monday, 3rd October, 2011 by Richard

Ed Miliband needed to make a big impact in his speech to the Labour Party Conference. He did not do this for me, as you can see in my instant critique on the politics.co.uk website.

The speech had far too much stale politician-language – especially in the peroration, where he most needed to stir hearts and fill minds. “Fulfilling the promise of Britain … a new bargain”. Whose heart beat faster at these vapid phrases? Who remembered them afterwards?

The speech failed to make an emotional connection with its audience either in the hall or with the more important one outside it. Why?

One major reason was that far too much of it was expressed in negative terms. Time and time again, Ed Miliband defined himself by what he was against, or who he was not, or what he was not going to do. Negative statements invariably have far less colour and drama than positive ones, and in Miliband’s speech their proliferation left vital questions unanswered: what are you for, who are you, and what are you going to do?

Poetry anyone?

Tuesday, 13th September, 2011 by Rupert

I went to a poetry evening last week, organised (rather improbably, you might think) by the International Visual Communications Association. Actually, it was the scriptwriters who organised it, and a very good idea it was too.

Poetry reminds us how words affect us in so many different ways. It might be the aptness of associations, the power of metaphor, or quite simply the sound of the words themselves.

I chose U.A. Fanthorpe’s poem Atlas, a geriatric love song in which she refers poignantly to the daily chores that spouses perform for each other. She mentions WD40, Road Fund Tax and planting bulbs, reminding us of the little tasks that uphold “the permanently rickety structures of living … as Atlas did the sky”. I love it for its cleverness, and rightness, in elevating the everyday into the heroic.

I was then bowled over by a brilliant and highly erotic poem about a pole-dancer, written by a poet I had never heard of but whose works I shall now seek out – Grevel Lindop. Finally, for the umpteenth time, I revelled in Lewis Carroll’s Jabberwocky. It’s a sublime piece of nonsense that enchants simply by the sounds the words make.

An occasional blast of poetry does us a world of good, like a snatch of Mozart floating free above the tone-deaf world of business communication.