Latest posts by Ken Carroll (see all)
- How To Get The Content Advantage - December 11, 2015
- Why I’m Buying Jay Baer’s New Book Even Before I Know The Title - December 10, 2015
- The Managerial Class Sucks At Content And This Is Your Opportunity - November 19, 2015
If you're interested in writing, this Stephen Fry video is worth 6 minutes of your time.
First of all, there's the amazing musicality of the audio. Injecting music into your writing is a powerful writing technique – as I have argued - and I think Fry proves the point. By the time you’ve listened through, you’ve learned a great deal about how to interest and entertain your reader through musical prose. (It’s always a good idea to read aloud what you have written to know how it sounds.)
Secondly, Fry rightly puts the grammar pedants in their place. He asserts that most of what the grammar busy-bodies have to say about usage is irrelevant nonsense. No arguments from me, and more Kudos to Fry.
But Fry misses the point
For one thing, he kind of implies that grammar is entirely irrelevant. Which is not the case, of course. The fundamentals of grammar are non-negotiable for anyone who wants to be read. In reality, you can’t go around flouting every grammar rule known to man, unless you want to end up as opaque as Donald Barthelme.
And sometimes, even the grammar-obsessed/grammar-police make the right call. So, here’s how you know when: If the grammar rule helps readability, then go with it; if it doesn’t help readability, then you don’t need to worry about it.
Readability, not grammar
Readability (and not grammar) is the issue for you and I (and me). Because if your writing isn’t readable, then the grammar is of no consequence: No-one’s going to read it anyway.
And sometimes grammar can be an excellent guide to readability.
Let’s look at some examples of when.
Use verbs, not nouns
The grammarians tell us that we should use verbs rather than nouns wherever possible, and I agree.
Let me show you why through some examples from the great stylist, Joseph M Williams:
Which sentence is better?
"The intention of the committee is to audit the records."
"The committee intends to audit the records."
The second sentenced is better of course, but not because it follows some pristine grammar rule. It’s better because it reads better - the verb’ “intends” is stronger, clearer and more vivid than the noun “intention”. The meaning is clearer and the style is more likely to hold the reader's interest.
So, how about these?
“We did a review of the evolution of the brain”
“”We reviewed how the brain evolved.”
Again, obviously, the second sentence is clearer and more direct.
“Our loss in sales was a result of their expansion in outlets.”
“We lost sales because they expanded outlets.”
No need, I think for any more comment.
Nouns are clumsy and abstract
I strongly recommend choosing verbs over nouns whenever possible. Nouns invite all sorts of clumsy constructions around themselves – the noun sentences are drab and artless and usually longer: “The intention of the committee is to audit the records”. Ouch.
But there’s something even more important at work here: Readability. Nouns that are converted from verbs tend to be abstract, and that's not good because abstractions are bad for readability.
My war against abstraction
There’s nothing to visualize (in your mind's eye) in an abstract sentence. Nobody’s doing anything. It's all vague.
Which makes it inevitable that these abstract nouns sap the energy of your piece. When they rob it of verbs they rob it of vigor. Abstract is not readable.
But in the end, it’s all about readability. This is Fry's oversight.