Curiouser and Curiouser

My vigilant girlfriend forwarded me Dan Neil’s take on the National Geographic Channel’s new ad campaign, which centers on the grammar-unfriendly tag Live Curious. I’ll let Mr. Neil explain why that’s wrong and how it doesn’t work. And I’ll congratulate him for taking NGC to task for creating a marketing campaign that hangs on confounding and empty phraseology. (“Live Curious” is only the beginning of the campaign’s problems.)

A lot of creatives who make a lot more money that I do have made it common practice to consider language as pliable as imagery. Consider all the word mash-ups (SportsCenter), nonsensical all-capitals (LIVESTRONG—also a word mash-up and, like Live Curious, an incorrect adverbial phrase; double bonus!), and plainly fabricated words (Accenture) that the world’s marketers throw at us. It’s to the point where words on a page or screen have been freed from the bonds of common sense.* In the hands of certain creatives, language becomes just another element to a logo, no different from colors, textures, and shapes.

I’m going to fight the urge to take a swipe at folks who work in dog-friendly environments outfitted with foosball tables and slides down to the cafeteria. Instead, I’ll close with this hopeful query: at what point will clean, grammatical English seem so different and eye-catching that it becomes the new old thing among marketers? When will it gain the vintage cachet of a Mad Men episode? Not too soon for me.

—

*I may sound like a crab by using the phrase “common sense,” but break it down and you’ll see how it’s imperative to language. I’m referring to a sense or understanding that’s common to all of us. Like, the kind of thing I would think marketers and creatives aspire to achieve.

Prescriptivism vs. Descriptivism

Up in Yakima, Washington, my good friend The Indoorsman is shedding the bonds of prescriptivism for the bold rush of descriptivism. I’d explain the difference, but I’ll let him do that. (But here’s one way to think about it: do words have inherent usage rules, or do users get to form rules as we evolve?) Read his column, and then take a big guess as to where I come down in the debate.

Transportive Writing

The latest installment of Good Writing is a lesson in using active voice and parallel construction to paint vivid imagery. The scene it describes—of central Baghdad after two suicide bombings killed more than 150 people—is horrific. The L.A. Times’s account from Monday contains more than just a death toll, rundown of the infrastructure damage, and analysis of the political fallout. It also contains a paragraph that transports the reader directly to the scene:

The explosions ripped through traffic and buildings a block apart, hurling vehicles through the air, incinerating drivers and burning office workers at their desks. Blast walls erected for protection were pulverized. Mangled bodies and pieces of flesh lay strewn around the streets. Water spewed from a destroyed main and collected in blood-tinged pools.

In 53 words, the writers convey the raw damage. Notice that each sentence is constructed basically the same way: a subject takes an action, causing an effect. The active construction of the sentences (as opposed to passive construction, in which an action happens to a subject) and the rhythmic repetition throughout the paragraph grab the reader by the collar. There’s no escaping this imagery, even if we want to turn away.

Waddya Think?

I’m not aware of a rule about this, but doesn’t the phrase around the world make more sense than across the world? Seeing as the world is a sphere (and don’t let the Flat Earth Society tell you any different!) around seems more accurate than across, right? Or am I plunging too deep into the well of preciseness? Talk to me, readers.

Exclude the Includer

I’ll continue my series on small and often unnecessary words with a look at all. Writers will insert this word to signal to readers that every item listed is inclusive, but this is unnecessary when the context of the sentence makes the inclusiveness apparent. In the following sentences, we can delete all and still easily understand that none of the items listed would be excluded from their intended action:

• Revenue, expenses, profit and retained earnings are all looked at when creating a budget.
• Prepared in a frying pan, the dish features mushrooms, cheese, and arugula all rolled into fluffy eggs.
• Then letters of congratulations are sent to all the listed dentists.
• My specialists have all gone beyond the call in helping me provide my patients with truly excellent coordinated patient care.

Dreamy Writing

My former colleague Randall Roberts posted a gorgeous telling of a Saturday night–Sunday morning event at Hollywood Forever cemetery here in Los Angeles this weekend. Like every blog post, it could be polished here and there with a copyedit, but no matter: Randy paints a shimmering* image of a remarkable seven hours.

This is a great example of a writer not becoming overwhelmed by his subject. He easily could have lapsed into maudlin or overdetailed language. Instead he dances right along that line between properly conveying enthusiasm and slobbering all over a subject. It’s also a masterful illustration of tone matching content. The setting, the time of night and day, the music and film being showcased melted into a dreamy experience, and Randy’s words beautifully convey the scene.

*To borrow a word favored by another former colleague, Falling James.

Big Trouble with a Little Word

Using as in a causal sense—similarly to because, since, and for—is more often than not a misuse, a misguided attempt to elevate tone to a faux-academic level, and a good way to confuse the reader. As has so many other, more common uses (“It’s hot as hell outside today!”), and causal words like because are always clearer alternatives. There is rarely, if ever, a good reason to use as in the causal sense—unless you’re trying to use artificially inflated language to impress your reader. … Wait a minute. That’s a terrible reason.

Here are some sentences I’ve come across recently that I think misuse as. Every use would be clearer with because or since:

• Profits and losses from selling stocks must be reported to the IRS as they affect your net income. [Note the potential confusion: this could easily be read as “... must be reported while they affect ...”]
• A lack of reports does not guarantee the business’s legitimacy, as unscrupulous owners may merely move or change names.
• A corporate communications office will devote a great deal of time to handle a company’s marketing as it can directly affect a businesses financial success.
• If you plan to do this, talk to a tax professional, as a CPA can give you a clearer picture as to when it will be most advantageous to reduce your taxable income.
• If you own a sole proprietorship, you’ll have a much tougher time obtaining a car loan, as the bankruptcy will show up on your credit report.
• Some bungees can be hooked to the metal top of the wheel wells at the back of the truck, but this generally isn’t recommended as it’s not terribly secure.
• However, it’s difficult to cut more panels in the fiberglass resin cover itself, as the more you cut into it the more a chance it has to break or crack.
• Some corrosion is normal, as it is impossible to prevent exposure of the terminals completely.

I Don’t Get Women

There is a hitch in the language that everyone seems to get (or simply accept) but me. Maybe someone can help me on this.

If I were to refer to a group of painters who were men, I would call them male painters. If they were women, I’d call them female painters. No problem there.

But I could also call the female group women painters. While it’s odd to me that no one uses the term men painters, I’m more interested in the plural nature of women: Why are the adjectival forms of female (singular) and women (plural) interchangeable?

Back when I worked at a business magazine, I would insist that we use the term woman business owners. It was only years later that I finally allowed overwhelming usage to wear me down. I knownow call them women business owners. But why? Why is this odd tic in usage acceptable? You wouldn’t call them females business owners.

Any thoughts?

***

Special thanks go to my Aunt Sarah, for catching “I know call them … .” Duly fixed.

Any Old World

Writers lacking confidence in their mastery of a subject too often use any as a hedge. They throw in the word to needlessly broaden nouns, as if to say, “If the word I’m using isn’t exactly correct, I am protecting myself by inserting any.” I would argue that this use of any doesn’t protect an inexact writer, and that it results in shaky, flabby copy. In the following examples, the sentence would do just fine without the word:

• Only about 30 percent reported any chest discomfort.
• This serves to illustrate your financial diversity to any lenders who may need to review your credit history.
• When you’re thinking about any student loan consolidation, ask potential lenders about any available discounts.
• Any discrepancies such as extra accounts or incorrectly reported late payments would negatively affect your credit score.
• Use the online form to dispute any incorrect information in your Experian credit report.
• This is useful for establishing a track record and identifying any potential conflicts of interest.
• If a REIT passes along 90 percent of its profits to investors, it is not required to pay any corporate income tax.
• If you buy a policy before fully understanding which type you have, you may not be eligible for any benefit payments.

My Worst Mistake

As I collect writing examples for future posts and compose a response to a couple great recent comments from readers, I’ll share the story of the worst mistake I’ve ever made.

This was a few years into my career, when I was associate editor at a business magazine in the Midwest. I had been on the job only a few weeks when one day the marketing director rushed into my office and shoved some papers in front of me. “This is a program for a luncheon event we’re hosting in a couple weeks. I need you to proof this right away; it’s late.”

I did as I was told, rushing through the proof and hustling it back to her office. Then I forgot all about it till a couple weeks later, when I was at the event. As I took my seat in the hotel ballroom, I noticed the other attendees pointing and laughing at the program I had proofread. This made me nervous. Nothing in that program was supposed to be humorous. Why were they laughing?

I asked the person sitting next to me, a co-worker, what was so funny. He looked over the program and then laughed himself. Then he pointed it out to me:

One of the speakers at the event was the president of the statewide association for certified public accountants. Except that, in the program I had proofread, public was missing its “l.” I had rushed through the proofreading so quickly that I didn’t take the time to look for common misspellings. Or unfortunate ones.

I don’t know of too many copy editors who have learned of their worst mistakes in real time, among their readership. But I do know it was one of the more uncomfortable moments of my career. I somehow managed to keep the job, and stayed on with the company for two more years. You had better believe, though, that I’ve never made that mistake again. In fact, for the rest of my time at the magazine, I had a Post-it note affixed to my computer monitor bearing the word public. The “l” was written in red.