I’ve edited a lot of material over the years. From my days in an active newsroom with dozens of stringers on the payroll at any given time, to my current experience as a contracted editor for a major media company, I’ve reviewed the work product of probably more than a thousand different writers.

I’ve been paying more attention lately to the common threads I see among other professional scribes. Some of the things that prove the most vexing aren’t necessary objective errors, but rather modes of writing that result in weak or flabby prose.

With full recognition that I’m an offender as well as an accuser, please permit me to share the “top 10″ challenges I’ve seen … with some tips for correcting them.

1. Lack of in-depth exposure to a consistent style manual. Every writer needs a style manual. Most professional journalists use the AP Stylebook or the New York Times Manual of Style, and general writers may use Chicago or MLA or APA — the point is, writing should conform to a specific authority. Adherence to a stylebook brings orthographic consistency and uniformity of referencing. Although most professional writers occasionally avail themselves of a manual, too many remain unclear about the finer points of a manual’s contents and intrinsic value. Nerdy as it may be, actually reading a stylebook cover-to-cover may be the most effective cure for style confusion. At the least, you’ll know the scope of your manual and hence be better clued into when you ought to look something up.
2. Too-frequent use of existential clauses. Which sounds better: “There are dogs barking in the front yard” or “Dogs are barking in the front yard?” Use of tics like “there is” or “there are” mark a weak writer; in most cases, these unnecessary elements may be deleted and the sentence’s strength thereby improved.
3. Using permissive circumlocutions instead of more precise constructions. Which sounds better: “You can unclog a drain by using a plunger” or “Use a plunger to unclog the drain?” Liberal use of words like “you can,” “you may,” “you should,” and equivalents are typically unnecessary — it’s not the writer’s job to give permission, but to get to the point.
4. Limited vocabulary. Granted that writers should write to the audience — and that some editors insist that the audience has a sixth-grade reading level — there is precious little need for prose larded with strings of simple phrases when a choice, rare word would pack more power. Alas, the only real cure for a weak vocabulary is to read challenging material. No one should be called a writer, who is not foremost a discriminating reader.
5. Employing adjective clauses when a single adjective would suffice.  Which sounds better? “The child who had an illness was not allowed to go to school” or “The ill child was not allowed to go to school?” Most often demonstrated by writers who are trying to pad their word count, the frequent use of adjective clauses instead of single adjectives results in bloated, anemic prose.
6. Excessive credulity.  A good writer has a cynical streak; he wants to be shown, not told, and wants facts to bolster assertions. Many writers believe random Web sites merely because they show up on the first page of Google searches, or accept statements by interviewees at face value without prodding for hidden truths. In all things, try to get at the original fact, and be skeptical of sources that have a vested interest in the truths they pronounce.
7. Incoherent verbal tags and vacuous statements.  “Fortunately, you can solve this problem with a few simple steps.” A double offender — tags like “fortunately” don’t have a lot of business in formal writing, and expressing blinding flashes of the obvious in print is similarly unnecessary. Look for sentences and statements that do not convey any useful information — and strike them without mercy.
8. Misplaced dependent clauses.  What’s wrong with this sentence? “Google Voice allows you to manage phone calls, which is a telecom service offered by Google.” The ” … which is offered …” part belongs after “Google Voice.” In general, any clause or phrase that refers to some word in a sentence should immediately follow that word, not be appended anywhere within the sentence.
9. Uncertainty about when and how to reference sources. The general rule is that any fact that is not common knowledge ought to be attributed, as should every quote. Too many writers either don’t attribute private facts, or they over-attribute — as in, “Taxes are due on April 15, according to the IRS.” The due date of taxes is general knowledge; it doesn’t require a citation.
10. Inappropriate use of passive voice. Some authorities suggest that passive constructions should be anathema. However, passive voice does have its uses. The challenge for most writers who are engaged in simple expository writing? Knowing when passive sentences are useful, and when they’re merely lazy.

 

There. Ten weaknesses in professional writing. Thoughts? Comments?

• «Previous Post
• Next Post »

---