Ok. I’m a positive person, really. But right now I am about ready to scream. The next “however”, “thereby”, “as well as”, or contorted dependent clause that comes into my view is going to get pounced on, shaken, and wrung to within a frail millimeter of its life. Yes I am a gentle peace-loving soul! But bad writing is rubbing me the wrong way today.
Here’s the story. My boss and I are co-authoring an article. I’m very happy to be co-author, good for my list of publications, etc etc. And I did discover the stuff, so I don’t think it’s outrageous. He wrote the first version, and I made all the figures. I proofread it of course, but I didn’t quibble because I know what his writing style is like and, well, I didn’t want to get into it.
However. In the fullness of time came the discussion of where this thing should be published. “Oh no!” I hear one day from the inner sanctum. “We can’t submit it to xyz journal because they won’t consider anything over 10,000 words.” There followed a panic-stricken (on his part) and conciliatory (on my part) discussion about options. Finally I ventured to suggest that “you know, if it really should go in that journal, I’d be happy to try cutting it down. With all due respect, your style is verbose (yes I actually said that!) and I bet we could get it under 10,000 words.”
There it rested, on my promise. The original was almost 15,000 words. In a day or so I got it down to 9,779, preserving import and intelligibility. Great! He didn’t like parts of it, “too abrubt”, but given the constraints of the journal, everything seemed set. And I was much happier with the style.
I digress here to explain how I made that tremendous cut in the prose. It was not by eliminating entire sections. It was not by restructuring the argument. It was not by substituting words of 18 syllables for 8 words of one syllable. No. The process was in fact simple:
1. Remove parenthetical clauses which do not add to the argument.
2. Remove phrases surrounded by dashes, as they interrupt the flow and can be incorporated in other ways.
3. Remove lists of synonyms and use one good word.
4. Remove sentences that repeat each other; combine into one sentence.
5. Remove meaningless phrases such as: inasmuchas, as well as, thereby, on the one hand, on the other hand, thus, see below, at this point, in respect to, however, therefore, regarding, it is important to note that, in fact, that is, indeed, we suggest that, e.g., etc.
Trick 5 accounted for half of the cuts, the rest was achieved through condensing what was left using tricks 1-4.
Yesterday my boss got a call from a friend and the article now has a home in a book soon to be published. Hooray! Good news. The book, however, has no word limit on submissions. Guess what? Yep. That’s right. He took the pared-down (dare I suggest much clearer, more concise, and easier to read?) version and *started adding everything back in*. Then, this afternoon, he lays it on my desk and says ok, put in these changes.
I had to take a break and go for a walk. I don’t know why I get so upset by contorted prose. I should just let it be. However, whenever someone in fact edits my changes—and, as a result, makes “corrections” that are exactly what I was trying to avoid—I get, as well as irritated, profoundly frustrated, grumpy, and, indeed, angry. (see above). That is, were I to suggest alterations or adjustments to an article (e.g., the one described above), thereby improving the clarity of the argument, or narrative, I become on the one hand grieved, and on the other hand outraged, to find all of my changes with respect to intelligibility nullified, or obviated, by a careless scattering of irrelevant fluff.
Ergo, as my father would say, schmergo. Had to vent somewhere. What I need is one of those old fashioned carpet-beaters, and a carpet to beat.