How to Write the Shit Out of Something
erickarjaluoto.com
erickarjaluoto.com
English classes in the U.S. spend a lot of time teaching people how to write five-paragraph essays: one paragraph of introduction, three paragraphs of argument, one paragraph of conclusion. But outside the classroom the five-paragraph essay form is worse than useless: it's actively harmful.
For simple arguments, it's harmful because it forces the writer to jam words down the throat of their argument to plump it up so it fits the format. For complex arguments, it's harmful because it forces the writer to lop limbs off their argument to fit it into an arbitrary box. Most arguments are simple arguments, so the first sin is the greater one.
So much bad writing is bad because the writer couldn't just say what they mean and then stop. They stuff their argument with fluff like it's a damn pillow. An argument should be lean, cut, diamond-hard. Packing it with fluff just makes it soft and saggy. So skip all that -- just say what you mean, then stop.
Rule No.2 - always proofread before hitting send/post :)
[EDIT Re your main point, now that the typo is out of the way]
There are various ways of structuring an argument - as a dialogue, as thesis, antithesis then synthesis, or treating it as an oration like Cicero's with 6 parts ending in a peroration. All of them are imposing structure on thought (and thus restricting creativity), and none of them will perfectly fit any argument, but some structure is vastly preferable to no structure at all, which is a far more common problem. The problem most people have in their writing and speech is a lack of structure, and I think the school lessons you evoke are meant to counter that by imposing some (even at the risk of making essays boring and formulaic). I don't think the intention is to forevermore make everyone write in the same structure (which would be a procrustean bed as you mention), but more to show people that you can use structure, and employ it persuade and explain. Students are then expected to grow out of that structure later or explore other possible structures.
Once you understand the mechanics of argument, you can then break them with great effect, but only if you do it sparingly, and it's best to know the rules in order to know when you're breaking them.
A far more insidious problem nowadays in terms of imposed structure is the habit people have of making a list (as the OP does) as if this is a substitute for properly structuring their thoughts - to me that's a cop-out and not far above no structure at all. Usually the results are then labelled top n x or n things you didn't know about x and contain more than n examples of x, without any attempt at an introduction or a conclusion.
Speaking as a language professional:
If there's no direct association between the parts, present them as a list.
Otherwise, you're going to impose narrative structure that does not add meaning and thus is extraneous.
[[apologies to original poster in /. years ago]]
Good point. I agree with it so much that a while back I made a Chrome extension just to dramatize it: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/buzzfeed-delistica...
People don't realize how much Web content is plodding, soggy "listicles" these days until you make it visually obvious.
A great way to achieve this yourself is to take your first draft (or current paragraph, or whatever) and read it out loud. Don't fake it under your breath. Stand up, go somewhere private, and really read it out loud. If it sounds horrible, rewrite it.
This "as clear as speech" goal is basically the style Strunk & White are training people for. Once you've mastered it, you can decide whether you want to go for more (e.g. Faulkner-like, Derrida-like, "casual," etc. Also check out the "spoken++" advocated by _Clear and Simple as the Truth_. You could even read Joyce's Ulysses for a parody of all kinds of writing styles.). But start with just making your writing communicate as well as your speech does.
* First paragraph introduces the topic and states your thesis.
* Second paragraph expands on the thesis.
* Third paragraph makes arguments in support of the thesis.
* Final paragraph summarizes the thesis.
I agree completely that too many people think "writing" means "using fluffy language" but the structure of a persuasive essay is a non-fancy, workaday model that works just fine.
Parent is at least subtle and not so terribly redundant.
I agree with this, but would like to point out that grey-area's point was that there are other forms which fit other uses:
> There are various ways of structuring an argument - as a dialogue, as thesis, antithesis then synthesis, or treating it as an oration like Cicero's with 6 parts ending in a peroration.
The five-paragraph comp works very well for a standard argument.
Anything that doesn't fit the thesis requirement, like a list or synthesis, might not do so well with that format.
Things like 'we need to move forward and complete x' become 'we need to complete x'. (sloppy example)
It's amazing how professional the emails look once you remove all the fluff, but it's something so many people dont do.
What also does not help is imposing limits (generally minimum pages) on students, so they feel they need to pad their papers with worthless content. Things like that become habits in normal writing after some amount of time. I did have some technical writing courses at my university that at least tried to emphasize saying what you mean as clear as possible without a lot of fluff, but only engineers and computer scientists were require to take them as far as I know.
Exactly.
Write however you like in order to get something down, but then go back and chop the cruft. Kill stuff like "due to the fact", "let me explain", and anything else that isn't providing either content or context.
I disagree. Writing is part of the process of determining what you want to say. It's an imaginary conversation with your reader and with your conscience.
We all have vast quantities of ideas bouncing around in our heads, like those animated gifs of Brownian motion. Writing is a way of coralling them.
It's useful to cultivate an inner voice that asks "is that true?". Every time you write a word, get your voice to ask if that word is true. Which actually sounds very like insanity, but seems to work.
Maybe write it so that people can understand what the fuck you're trying to say?
Does it help swearing in your writing - apparently so?
I have no clue what "Shit" and "Writing" have to do with each other.
Ironic that a article that in theory (I'm guessing) is about writing clearly and concisely, has a title that says NOTHING about what the article is about.
Oh, and the article is good, too. Even if a lot of it may seem obvious, I think many people (myself included) need to be reminded that writing with brevity and emphasis is important for readability.
Anyone interested in a more in-depth consideration of improving your writing style would be well-advised to read "Line by Line: How To Edit Your Own Writing" by Claire Kehrwald Cook. It describes not only common grammatical errors and how to avoid them, but also strategies for condensing your prose (like avoiding the passive voice). It's also a good way to introduce yourself to the language of grammar (voices and tenses and participles, oh my!) If you find yourself writing things like, "Emergency lights flashing, cars pulled aside as the ambulance roared past," this book can help.
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.877,y.0,no.,conte...
I'll be sharing this with my twitter followers.
As a web manager, this is something I struggle with at my company on a regular basis. It's great to have a stance and all, but then you're just a talking head and nothing more. There needs to be a little soul behind what you're saying.
Offer solutions, not problems.
The other thing I'd add is that fluff is something I've personally struggled with when I write something. I often go back to Edgar Allan Poe's guidelines for writing short stories:
In the whole composition there should be no word written, of which the tendency, direct or indirect, is not to the one pre-established design.
Agreed. The art of writing good opinion pieces is the lay out the arguments sequentially so that the reader is led to the conclusion by himself; such that when you state your opinion he's already come to that point of view. It's time-consuming and requires restraint, but it's very effective.
I am looking for something that is simple and non-intrusive that I can just put up random thoughts.
Medium and Svbtle seem good and clean, but I don't have an invite.
I find that proofreading my writing helps to avoid such errors...
Most of my posts are written on an iPhone. As such, autocorrect sometimes "fixes" these sorts of things. Sadly, these changes often look right even when I scan over my writing with the aim of catching errors.
*Yes, I know.