Language Arts
Posted in: Today's ChiliWhen I was in law school, a professor made a startling pronouncement that captured my attention and remained with me throughout my professional career: “There is no such thing as good writing. There is only rewriting.”
Today, I am almost prepared to concede that only the first of those two sentences is accurate. Good writing – clear, concise, and informative – is increasingly hard to find. More people are communicating more words at a faster pace than ever before in recorded history, but the quality of those communications is terrible. We could use more rewriting.
In this regard, consider a recent facsimile publication of the manuscript of “Swann’s Way,” the first volume of Marcel Proust’s monumental novel, “In Search of Lost Time.” This large and costly volume represents rewriting carried to an extreme: marginalia headed in every imaginable direction, with snippets of paper affixed to and folded over the original manuscript page. Proust was an editor’s worst nightmare, but he demonstrates what rewriting by a perfectionist can mean for a text.
Proust’s rewriting resembles an obsessive compulsive disorder, like repeatedly washing one’s hands until they become raw. Proust’s perfectionism, however, also produced a remarkable masterpiece. One can admire his search for both clarity of expression and clarity of feeling. He was not just telling a story. In fact, his massive novel lacks a traditional linear plotline. He was trying to say something important about the human condition, and the “plot,” such as it is, only emerges towards the end of the 3,000-plus pages of text – and then doubles back on itself in what today’s tech specialists might call an endless “feedback loop.”
Words convey practical information, as well as thoughts, impressions, memories, and feelings. For a serious writer, it is important to get the communication just right. Studying Latin, for example, sensitizes one as to how sentences sound – how they scan – as well as how they read. Occasionally, I will change an otherwise correct word in a draft not because it is wrong but because it sounds odd. Words are like notes in a musical score. Not all prose has to read like poetry, of course, but sometimes paying attention to the lyrical qualities of words can enhance the persuasiveness of even the most mundane prose.
And mundane prose abounds these days. In recent weeks, I have encountered some remarkable combinations. One information technology professional told me about the importance of “enterprise learning transformation.” What’s wrong with “teaching”? Another person employed the euphemism of “justice involved individuals.” What’s wrong with “criminals” or “convicted felons”? The context of the last example had to do with the rights of felons. “Justice involved individuals,” however, could encompass the Attorney General, the Chief Justice of the United States, the policeman patrolling a city block, a prison guard, a law clerk, or a jaywalker. Is it political correctness or fuzzy thinking that explains this corruption of basic, straightforward usage?
The information-technology world, which presumably aspires to connect us in new, interesting, and meaningful ways, actually makes true communications more difficult. “Techie talk” suggests specialization and precision when, on occasion, the opposite is true. This language often obfuscates and misdirects.
We now live in a world of endless “functionalities,” where experts operate in delineated “space,” as in higher-education space or “collaboration space.” I’ve encountered references to “new functionality and growth,” plus activities intended to “boost sales enablement.”
A recent study reported that the third largest cause of deaths in America is from medical errors. How many of these tragedies resulted from communications failures? When hospital shifts change and one weary resident transfers a patient to the incoming resident, errors can occur that harm patients. Words, it turns out, can be weapons; their use and misuse can inflict serious harm.
I am not an anti-tech Luddite, but I fear that technology designed to speed up communications is simultaneously slowing it down by fostering confusion, vagueness, imprecise shortcuts, euphemisms, and sloppy thinking. More communications do not necessarily mean better communications. Is it not possible that our technology sectors can find better ways to raise the quality of communications throughout American society?
The Austrian-English philosopher, Ludwig Wittgenstein, noted that “whatever can be said at all can be said simply.” Simple does not have to mean simple-minded. Today, we seem to seek complexity for its own sake, when simpler, more direct words and phrases would be better.
There are two short publications that every American high school student should be required to read and master before receiving a diploma. The first is “The Elements of Style” by William Strunk and E.B. White. This short volume is perhaps the best writing style guide ever published for the English language. Its origins go back almost a century, but its guidance (“Omit needless words.”) remains relevant today.
The second publication is a short, brilliant essay by George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language,” originally published in 1945. Orwell makes his points about good writing by comparing a beautifully written passage from “Ecclesiastes” with how the same passage might be written in modern English. Orwell warns against dying metaphors, pretentious diction, and meaningless words. He also offers us the following observation:
“The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink.”
Orwell wrote to help citizens sort through much of the nonsense and sloppy language that one often finds in political discourse. We can only wonder what he would have to say about the current state of political language in America some 70 years later. Why does the word “insincerity” come to mind?
Charles Kolb served as Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy from 1990-1992 in the George H.W. Bush White House. He was president of the French-American Foundation – United States from 2012-2014 and president of the Committee for Economic Development from 1997-2012.
— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
