IDENTIFY SOME WRITING TRICKS

I have always had a talent for editing and technical writing. When i write for myself, i am too prolix, and need an editor for what i've written. But i can take what others write and "clean it up" or provide a clear and easily read technical version. The way i do this is to look at the text as though i knew absolutely nothing about it, and make changes based on such an assumption. Then i go back through, and edit to reduce the word count, without sacrificing clarity.

Editing and "re-editing" my own text is the only way i've ever succeeded in dealing with my tendency to talk too much.

I think that is good advice - as well as McCullough's about getting started before all the research is done to force yourself to develop a logical outline and structure for the remaining research.

I too find it difficult to stay lean with my prose and avoid cluttering the argument (or text) with too many non-essential points or rhetorical flourishes. Editing is essential. For me focusing on the idea that there is a finite amount of reader attention available and that editing out "wasted words" is essential to preserve the available attention for the essential points. In addition, it isn't at all harmful to leave a few "gaps" in the development - something for the almost persuaded reader to do and engage himself with along the way.

bm - i hope to be back

There's definitely something to be said for having some structure -- but not so much structure that you don't have room to maneuver. That mainly works for fiction but I can also see it for technical writing, in the sense that you should have an idea of the conclusion you're striving for (so that you continue to march your points all in the same direction) but not have it so set in concrete that it all goes to hell if you find enough evidence to refute said conclusion.

Another trick -- short words! Nearly every lawyer I have known would say "prior to" and "subsequent to" when before and after are perfectly good words. Cluttering and obfuscation are unnecessary when you have something that you can really support.

Abject heresy . . . what the Hell is the objective of polemic if not to make your point, and facts be damned ! ! !

BBB
Good advice from everyone.

I'm not a professional writer. I'm largely self-taught. Some people might say I failed at my self-teaching effort.

For many years, business and technical writing dominated my efforts due to my jobs. One day, I said to myself when no one else was looking, I'm losing my ability to write prose. So I formed a small poetry writing group and found joy in the change of writing style. Writing poems and short stories gave me license to expand my vocabulary in my business writing. I also found that the language lived in my brain for a while before beginning to write a piece. It's was like verbalizing what I wanted to say rather than starting from the written word. I wonder what approach Edgar Blythe takes?

When I was an organizer, decades ago, I found organizing writing was most successful when I wrote as I talked (or as I wished I talked.) It was more human in relating to people. Barack Obama is very talented at this method. One has to be careful of "stream of consciousness" writing as it usually leads to unorganized thoughts and structures, making it difficult for the reader.

One rule I always adhered to when writing business and technical pieces, or when communicating a complex idea, was to give my document to someone knowing nothing about my subject. If the person could understand it, I knew it would work. If the person was confused and had questions, it was back to my desk for rewriting. People often make the mistake of assuming the reader is equipped with the information to understand the writer's concept.

Another discovery I made while reading and sometimes editing other people's writing is that they often write the most important statement at the end of their piece instead of in the first or second paragraph. When I start reading someone's piece, I usually read the first and last paragraph before reading the complete piece. It saves a lot of time.

BBB

Remember whom you are addressing Set. Not everyone cherishes the beauty of a well-constructed polemic (wherever it may lead us), or simply loves the fight - for its own sake - as do we.

.That was something that was posted in a writers market handbook.


Using the tree fiddy word, as opposed to the 20 dollar one is a gift in itself. Thats why I look at Joe NAtions and ENdymions work as gifted (Dont tell them cause theyll just swell up and blow up real good. I used to have some staffers who did "Post Docs" at Woods Hole or LAwrence Livermore. SOmething about those two places that must pay their staff scientists for obscure words. I recall learning the word "jeremiad" from its inclusion in a technical paper about sluicing titanium ores. First I hadda look up the word and then I axed"What the hell's the context of this word"? it was a turd in the salad (so to speak). When I redlined it, the guy stuck it back in because he wanted(in his words) for the reader to iunderstand that miners were really crying for a way to do this. Such overblown crap it was. However it took me sending it off to another editor to get it pulled out.


How about that idea of writing from the conclusion backward. I tried doing that for a paper I was submitting with 2 other colleagues and by the time we got done "over editing" each other , we werent even talking to each other .
(MAny times technical writing is taken on by people with egos too big)

I write regular articles for a magazine and have been told that readers like them because no matter the topic (and I've dealt with bereavement) I write with humour. I've not been taught to write professionally so all I can do is write as I speak (missing out the um's and the pauses to think of the right word).

I know that when you give talks you're meant to tell them what you're going to say, say it and then tell them what you've said.

When I research I do like to have all the work to hand and then jiggle it around - I find that part of the fun. But we've all got our own ways.

When I'm writing something technical, I'll work from a detailed outline. Then I remind myself to be flexible. But I always come back to the outline.

I try to keep the language simple, the sentences not too long, and the paragraphs cohesive.

When I encounter writer's block, I've found that it's always because there's a flaw in the organization. Something is simply not moving from one thing to the next. I review, ponder, and reorganize. Then I move on.

Im in the throes of completing several works, all are opinion papers. Ive found that that "stop working in the middle of a sentence" approach to have merit.

How detailed of an outline do you folks work with? I keep a very slim one and keep all the key techy words and data on a sheet or two of paper.

This works for any type of writing, and should be blazoned on the wall opposite all writers of fiction especially. I'm quite good at editing the work of others, but don't write well myself, and usually because i'm too prolix (and tend to use words such as prolix).

Two soldiers of the Continental Line were apprehended for rape, and their colonel asked Washington for permission to set up a drum-head court, which was granted. He then sent a message on a piece of paper on which Washington replied, and on which he replied again:

"Convicted, recommend execution."

"Concur."

"Executed."

Ha, at least youre not forced to use words like "Haplo-udult" or "heazylewoodite" in a sentence

Oh yeah, try using "environmentally degrading monoculture" in a sentence which lucidly and in simple terms explains the cultural and historical significance of the practice.

I understand Set's point and share the same affliction.

The prose I compose is usually too complex, with too many qualifying clauses & modifiers, and too many "big, round words". For me, the remedy is editing - I haven't been successful in fixing the thing as I write it. In an editing mode the words are before you, and you can focus on subject, verb and object (where the hell are they???), weeding out some of the unnecessary stuff along the way. Without that, I'm not so good: with it - you can decide.

I also find it useful to consider the level at which I am editing - essay, paragraph or sentence. Very often I add words and clauses that seem important as I compose sentences & organize my thoughts, but which don't really contribute to my purpose. Often, I find it hard to let them go. Editing a paragraph weeds out many, but not all, of the useless ones. A final pass over the whole product usually yields more.

The result in techy writing is a usual delving into the realm of the shibboleth. Its a necessary evil that makes all but the accolytes say that we(in sister areas) are really paid by the word.

Set --hint, environmentally degrading monoculture is a waste of words, just say "FARMING"

I started technical writing (don't do it anymore) by writing instructions. This forces you to be focused, simple, succinct, and thorough. You might want to give it a try, but you have to find someone willing to go along--to follow your instructions precisely and do nothing beyond what you've written.

I have found that it's almost impossible to edit yourself, unless you let a fair amount of time go by so that you can bring fresh eyes (and mind) to what you've written.

All the little writing eccentricities that you mention here are what I get paid to fix. I still snarl. Just cuz I'm paid doesn't mean I have to like it. Shape up, you guys!

Succinct is the hardest thing to accomplish. Yes , editing ones own work is almost impossible because we all have some pride in authorship.

"Aint nobody gonna say I have an ugly baby, ceptin me"

That sort of encapsulates the strong feelings we all have about our own writing. Im amused at how many arguments happen on A2K that are merely over word usage and not substance. Ive often jumped in and joined the fray .

I like the tips on writing instructions as a first step.
In my company, we often ask newbies to write an abstract or an executive summary. Many time they are really funny. We had a new chem engineer with a PHD from a U that was primo chem engineering and my partner gave him an article to write an exec summary for a client. NOW, English was not our engineers first language so, when he finished, his exec summary was actually LONGER than the paper he was abstracting. Hows that?

Roberta, I don't do any technical writing but your tip about writing instructions is very clever.

One tip that would NEVER work for me is to leave the writing mid-sentence. Sadly there's no way I'd remember what I was going to say when I got back to it.