Lessons on Writing from One of the Greats
Every once in a while, I like to offer a short post on writing itself. It’s the birthday of the late American author Elmore Leonard, whose brilliant and prolific work spanned several genres: terrific stories set in the old West, as well as scintillating tales of crime and suspense. He once provided ten important rules on good writing, including, “I leave out the parts most people skip over,” and concluded with this gem: “My most important rule is one that sums up the 10. If it sounds like writing, I rewrite it.”
Somehow, this really speaks to me, and I use it whenever I help young people in this subject area. I advise them: To try to write the way you speak: nothing formal, nothing “well-crafted.” Just find your voice and use it–lots.
When my students are struggling to get something on paper, I often tell them, “Tell me what you’re trying to say.” When they do, I say, “Ooo, that’s good. Write that down. If you want to try to improve it from there, fine, but that’s a really good start.”
There have been studies to determine which writing styles result in the best grades from teachers. The studies have determined that simple writing does not result in the best grades. Also, panels of educated people tend to downgrade writing that is too simple, saying that it appears less thoughtful and less intellectual. Rather, they tend to give higher grades to writers who use longer and more complicated sentences. Some of this runs contrary to advice for clear writing which is intended to convey information.
Although teachers say that they prefer writing in the active voice rather than the passive voice, they tend to give better grades when students write in the passive voice. Examples:
1. I prefer to live in the country.
2.. My preference is for living in the country.
The style exemplified by example 2 results in better grades than example 1. The meaning in both is exactly the same, but example 1 is clearer, more straight forward, and less wordy. Students quickly learn which writing style results in the best grades and write accordingly. So, if teachers really, as they assert, prefer the active voice and simplicity, they should grade accordingly.
So, if one wants to be taken seriously and appear thoughtful, writing the way one would speak or writing in the simplest way possible is not necessarily the way to go. In any case, one should have the intended audience in mind when writing.
It is interesting to compare the writing style of Edward Gibbon in his “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” with more modern writing styles. He tends to use very long sentences and sometimes his paragraphs are almost an entire page long. Until one becomes accustomed to it, one often has to re-read a sentence to understand it.
One good piece of advice for writers is to re-read and edit until the item is just right. In the olden days before the ubiquity of word processors, that took an inordinate amount of time. With word processors, it is easy to make changes, even including rearranging sentences and paragraphs. And, don’t depend too heavily on spelling checkers which supposedly correct spelling errors; they can use the wrong word resulting in amusing or embarrassing results.
I realize that the names of books should be underlined, but this system does not permit that so far as I can determined. Thus, I had no choice but to violate the rules by using quotation marks instead.
If the example you provide above about living in the country is correct, I find that appalling–and so would Strunk and White, whose famous maxim on the subject is “omit needless words.”
If Hemingway wrote like that, we never would have heard of him.
FWIW, I don’t think writing should be unsophisticated, only that it should be unpretentious; there’s an important difference.
FWIW, I agree that writing should not be unsophi
Craig,
I got the example from an article about writing that I read many years ago. Unfortunately, I no longer remember where I found the article. In general I agree with you, but keeping it simple is not always the best approach. It depends on the purpose of the writing and the audience.
Some of the worst writing is done by lawyers, although there have been some improvements. Phrases like “party of the first part”, “party of the second part”, “pertaining thereto”, hereinafter known as”, etc., make for very difficult reading.
You found an interesting example Frank. The sad fact is that many see both those sentences as the same thing. In the first example the subject of the sentence is “I.” It is certainly simple and to some very clear to constantly write using I, my, you and your to start sentences. Perhaps some would say it is clear because the ego is front and center in the sentence and that is something simple and solid that is not too complicated.
In the second sentence the subject is the phrase “my preference.” “My preference” is not necessarily who I am. It can be less clear. It may be subject to change. It is not necessarily “in your face.” It is more subtle. It is certainly not for everyone. But it is another option and it can add variety to a long group of sentences that start with “I” and “me.” And it you wanted to express a more flexible attitude you might choose this as an option rather than starting a sentence with the word “I.”
I wouldn’t automatically assume that when someone writes “my preference” they could easily simply have said “I.” But most would seem to follow their own instincts rather than the author’s lead.
Perhaps the bottom line is to express what you are trying to say. Unfortunately we can attempt to write very exactly as in the studies I looked at for you and too many people only hear the simplest generalities. So the term “safest” was defined in the studies (pipelines vs railroads) to refer to accidents to people. Yet people perhaps with some prompting just generalize it to mean “safest for the environment” which was never intended. So I wonder then if “good writing” is then just writing what most people are willing to hear?
Breath,
In using “safest” in the pipeline context, I would mean both for people and the environment. Besides, if something is dangerous for the environment, it is probably also dangerous for people.
Unfortunately, it is just about impossible to write in such a way that multiple interpretations are impossible although attempts have been made to do so. Perhaps a good example is the Athanasian Creed; it goes on and on seemingly forever. For other examples, do a google search on “filioque”. Higher courts spend much of their time debating the interpretation of the Constitution and laws.
In the “my preference” example I gave, an essay was written in two different versions. One version was, to the extent possible, written in the active voice and the other was written in the passive voice. When the essays were presented to English teachers, the one written in the passive voice was rated higher. It was considered to be more erudite and intellectual. So apparently, many English teachers do not favor the direct, simple, and straight forward approach which they seem to advocate.
About 10 years ago, I was a volunteer tutor in a program to teach illiterate adults to read and right. The head of the program asserted that it was always wrong to begin sentences with “and” and decreed that we should emphasize that to students. She was very high-handed and dictatorial which is why I am no longer in the program. A friend of mine has studied classical Greek and told me that even in ancient times, Greeks sometimes began sentences with “and”. One can find examples of that in newspapers, books, magazines, etc. There were even examples in books written in simple English for beginning readers. So, although I can see why some people object to beginning sentences with “and”, I see that attitude as excessively rigid. When done infrequently, beginning a sentence with “and” can help the reader see the strong connection with the previous sentence. Connecting two sentences with a semicolon can serve the same purpose.
The last sentence of you post is without doubt sometimes true.
Unless I have to, I use quotation marks and commas, etc., in the manner which makes most sense to me. I do not understand the logic of (part of the sentence, “quotation.”). If the quotation is a complete sentence, then logically, the quotation should be terminated with a period followed by the closing quotation mark. And, if the sentence ends with the quotation, it should end with another period following the quotation mark, else the sentence should continue. British and American approaches to punctuation also differ.
There are very detailed rules for commas. Originally, the comma was to be used where the reader would naturally pause. Now we have rules about dependent clauses, independent clauses, etc. etc., which make things unnecessarily complicated. The real purpose of the comma is to expedite understanding.
Frank, lots of interesting stuff.
1st you can use “safest” in any way that you want. If however you were referring to any of the studies as supporting a claim of “safest for the environment” then, as I pointed out, the study would not support the claim as they did not use environmental impact data. They were referring to human accidents, twisted arm, broken leg, pinched finger… Said in another way the studies don’t talk about oil spills as a direct part of their safety concerns. So the reference would not, could not support a safest for the environment claim. You might as well cite what your mother told you. Unfortunately part of the problem of getting wrong information in our heads is that it is sometimes difficult to let go of it. If there is a valid study to support the claim that pipelines are safer for the environment then I couldn’t find it in my brief search. I remain undecided on the matter.
You might have other valid concerns but you simply can’t with any sense of logic or consistency depend upon the studies. Certainly what might be dangerous for the environment might be dangerous for people but the reverse is not true. What is dangerous for people may have little impact on the environment.
With further information it might be shown that accidents on railroads are a part of doing business that pipelines take away from people in the same way that driving cars would reduce tunneling accidents from making subway lines. I simply don’t know at this point. The point here is that many would say that this is splitting hairs and is too fine a distinction. I can’t argue with how people perceive things. I don’t have trouble seeing and appreciating the distinction. Some would. But you can certainly say anything you would like to say.
No doubt a full reading of the essays would let me share your understanding. As it was, I pulled out a distinction between the subjects rather than the point about the passive voice you were trying to stress.
It seems most of us have had some experience tutoring but we have each been impressed by a different aspect. In my case, there was a student who was so obviously tied in knots inside. Perhaps in this case writing was a kind of therapy. We started with simple description that focused on really seeing and accurately describing. Within three months someone who could hardly write a line was writing pages without effort. But it was really the student who did the work. I only directed the action. This reflects my own more utilitarian approach to writing as a form of expression and how I was exposed to basic composition.
I am sorry your experience lead to an unfortunate conflict of rules and direction.
Breath,
It would be a good idea for railroad accident reports to include information on the environment effects. Actually quantifying the effects would be difficult, but at least they should not be ignored.
Regarding writing, I did very poorly in high school. Fortunately, at the college level, I had a very excellent English instructor whose technique was very helpful. Each week, we were required to write a 250 word essay, usually on a subject we chose ourselves. That’s about two pages double spaced using a typewriter. Each week he would take project three essays, but in such a way that we didn’t know who wrote them. With his guidance, we would go over the essays and find the strong points, the week points, how they could be improved, etc. It was very helpful. After that I did very well in classes that required a lot of writing. That was years before personal computers and word processors. Word processors are a considerable aid to good writing because they make it so easy to correct mistakes and make changes.
With good instruction, practice, and determination, I think that anyone can learn to write well. It’s interesting that some degreed professional engineers are very bad writers as I learned many years ago when I worked for a manufacturer of generators and industrial engines. Also interesting is the fact that in earlier times, there were many people educated only to great eight or less who wrote very well. I don’t know what has gone wrong.
Frank, I like the distinction Mark Twain made in his remark that he never let his “schooling interfere with his education.” My schooling history in writing follows yours in many aspects. Practice is important, as is striving for a continually higher standard. This may be similar to any skill. But as is the case with some musicians who once they begin performance they tend to stop learning.
Perhaps a difference between today’s schooling and something of a previous time is the emphasis today on a relatively narrow knowledge and a technical skill in order to perform a function in a job. We seem to want to avoid actually educating people to observe, understand analyze and think in a general way. People are being schooled to be part of a society rather than an independent functioning member. Unfortunately this makes the masses susceptible to the rhetoric of a skillful orator.
There was a vocal push in the late 60’s and 70’s, by students for “relevant” classes in their field rather than simply (a liberal arts) education. Even today the classical education is considered ok only for someone with sufficient family wealth to not need a job. (and then they govern the rest) Companies seem to prefer potential employees who are trained in a specific field. So the meaning of “college educated” changed from an advanced (and broad) thinker to advanced training in a narrow field.
I have known many highly “educated” people who turned out to be extremely narrow minded and seemed to have little capacity to think and reason outside of their field. And so I am not surprised when we hear of highly “educated” people who rather blindly support Trump (or Hillary for that matter) I have sometimes wondered if there is some innate capacity that is beyond education and only some people can be trained to be broad thinkers while the best we can do for the masses is some kind of vocational training. And at other times feel that the benefits of education are available for anyone but it requires far more personal contact (mentoring) than is generally available in our public school system for the masses. (Or a uniquely motivated individual who will seek out a mentors alive or through their written words.)
It may be good in hind sight for us to have proper environmental impact data with which we can compare RR and pipelines. The studies are years old and they did not try to draw inappropriate conclusions but they have been cited inappropriately, perhaps by people attempting to make a point the studies did not cover.
We find this kind of thing all the time in studies, especially those commissioned privately by a particular company or industry. In those cases certain words are used which can be re used with a different meaning.
Craig, writing is a form of expression. We express ourselves for all sorts of reasons. Most often it may be because we want something. For popular writing we certainly would like to have people appreciate and admire our work.
If we look at a scientific paper popular appeal is likely to become a secondary goal to exact expression.
Poetry or philosophical writing is more likely to incorporate an element of soul searching.
On a sliding scale from more technical to more popular we might also find expression that ranges from extremely exacting to less exact. But strangely enough it is the very technical and very exactly defined writing which is often criticized as less clear.
Communication has two parts. The expression and the reception. We spend a great deal of time on the expression. If there is a “failure to communicate” we often seem to attribute it first to the author. Unless it is a technical paper where we tend to excuse the reader/listener saying that they may not have sufficient knowledge in the field to understand.
It is also possible, at least as a theoretical point, for a general reader/listener to not be able to make the effort to understand. Mortimer Adler’s book, “How to Read a Book” seems to identify that problem and bridge that gap. In it he refers to a classical education, the advantages it confers and how much active reading/listening is absent in our society.
With this as a background it seems that the suggestion that writing to be popular must be “dumbed down” for a modern audience could be a sad comment on the state of education and the ability of audiences to read/listen today.
An author may then be faced with the option to compromise their writing or suffer a lack of understanding and popularity.
Craig, I have continued to ponder the definition of “good writing.” When I include speeches perhaps a better goal and understanding comes when moving the conversation to the idea of “effective communication.”
Often your examples of “good writing” seem to be as in this article based upon stories which are for a mass market and popular appeal.
I had a good friend who was a writer from Australia. I concluded from our many conversations that part of his success was to write for the mass market in areas of travel, movies and popular ideas. He also had a great sense of humor.
Writing can also reflect a sense of the inner dialog and mental processing of the author. This writing is not necessarily for a mass audience. It can be a real blessing if that inner attitude is on the same wavelength as the popular market as I think you have perhaps many times demonstrated.
For the rest, the only path that would lead to popularity is careful editing. But editing too much also also implies change. I recall this dilemma, perhaps unresolved, from my time of formal schooling. A person of conscience may want change, may want knowledge and information but may also to not succumb to social influences that strive to make everyone the same. The dilemma of non popular writing then resolves to trying to express what is unique, what is individual to an audience that is primarily identifying with sameness.
Perhaps the best quality of this kind of writing would be honesty. It sounds like this could once again be an advert for simple writing. Perhaps most people are relatively superficial. They are like butterflies or bees that will go from flower to flower. Honesty in this case may imply simplicity. But perhaps there are a few Earthworms who have a preference for digging deep into the soil. In this case honesty may instead imply something more complex and an “honest” writing style may reflect that difference. But in any event I am not referring here to popular writing or most people just an alternative version of what is good (for the author) writing vs what may be good (for popularity) writing.
This would also then explain what Frank described as an educational bias toward complex writing. If sincere such writing would reflect a “deep thinker.” The world is however full of copy cats and it is possible for someone to pose as a “deep thinker” in their writing style quite insincerely attempting to (consciously or by training) fool some people. Sadly for the few it is part of human nature to discredit someone for insincerity rather than carefully appreciate what is the changing nature of “good writing.”
Thanks for a thought provoking post.
Breath,
I agree with most of what you wrote about education and writing in your multiple posts. There are entirely too many people with degrees, some of whom even have advanced degrees, whose educations are entirely too narrow. Ideally, we’d all have a good general education and be knowledgeable on many subjects, and be competent in critical thinking which ability is especially important when using the Internet. We’d also be very highly educated in one or a few specific subjects.
In earlier times, colleges and universities taught such subjects as Latin, Greek, literature, philosophy, theology, history, art, pure science, etc. That’s fine, but they did not teach practical subjects. The result was that the Captains of Industry in the late 19th and early 20th century tended not to be very well educated. For example, John D. Rockefeller did not complete the last year of high school. Instead, he took a course on double entry bookkeeping and got a job as an assistant bookkeeper. That sort of thing was typical because beyond a certain point, high school provided limited advantage.
Andrew Carnegie, recognizing the deficiencies of the colleges and universities of the time, donated money to them which was to be used to teach practical subjects at a high level. Modern colleges, and especially universities, now teach practical subjects including computer science, finance, and management, in addition to the subjects required for one to have a good general education.
Probably more emphasis should be put on informal education such as increasing one’s knowledge base by reading. Some TV programs are good for increasing knowledge, including some on PBS. Unfortunately, most TV programs are for entertainment only and do not make people more knowledgeable.
Frank, many schools once had a multiple language requirement for graduation. Latin, which you mentioned along with Greek and possibly Sanskrit were once considered fundamental and allowed a student to read the wisdom of great classical thinkers in the original language. These requirements have been dropped from most programs as most schools.
It is true that some of the wealthiest people do not have a lengthy amount of schooling. In addition to its educational aspects there is an indoctrination aspect to schooling. Isn’t it reasonable for those people who stand out and do things differently to not be too attached to the existing ways of looking at and doing things?
But I do suspect you can argue the point both ways if there is either by training or birth some reason why some people seem limited to more narrow thinking.
Why are some people bright and eager to learn while others are only interested in how much they can make? Why should these things be mutually exclusive? Have we reached the limit of what is possible in this evolutionary stage?
Breath,
Being eager to learn and being interested in wealth are not mutually exclusive. For example, Andrew Carnegie was well aware that his fifth grade education was inadequate. Through independent reading, attending lectures, etc., he became very well educated. In addition, he was once the wealthiest American. That is probably somewhat unusual, but not exclusive.
Frank, I agree with you and did also say that they should not be mutually exclusive. Perhaps the distinction I was aiming for was “learning” with the exclusive goal of personal wealth vs learning “for learning’s sake…” to better yourself, to better humanity or to be a better member of society.
I find it interesting that we have a social fascination with people of great wealth, more so than people with great learning, great skills, great knowledge, and especially more than people with great wisdom.
It could be that the idea of “trickle down economics” is based upon nothing more than this fascination and the “Royal” status we give to those with wealth. It may be the human form of “pecking order.”
Breath,
There does seem to be an inordinate fascination with wealthy people when compared with people who have made great contributions to humanity, not that the two are mutually exclusive. There is nothing new about it. Whether there is a remedy or whether we should try to do anything about it is unclear.