4.2 It's All In the Way You Say It

IT'S ALL IN THE WAY YOU SAY IT
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

Words are the lifeblood of writing. Picking the right words can make your writing come alive. Use the wrong ones, and your writing can be flat and boring, or downright incendiary. Generally, improper word usage results from two circumstances:

✦ Overusing Jargon and Academese

✦ Trying to Avoid Vulgar, Rude, and Crude Words

Overusing Jargon and Academese

I group these two together because they share common ground. Jargon includes words, often called technical terms, that are known only to a select segment of society. Academese is a form of jargon found only in academic communities and is more inflated, haughty, and verbose.

Suppose you were walking along and your friend turned to you and said, "Let's lay a pull for a pogue, find an experienced dipper or twirl, then blag a barker—you can be crow." What he's actually saying is, "Let's plan a robbery, find an experienced pickpocket or lock picker, then steal a gun—you can be lookout." This was jargon used in Victorian London by street thieves.

Or, your friend might say in modern vernacular, "Let's set up a botnet of zombies by cross-site script phishing, or mass spam malware to keylog carders and cash-out before the honeypots IP us." What he's actually saying is, "Let's set up a network of hijacked computers by exploiting financial companies and sending out fake e-mail's to trick people into sending confidential information, or send malicious software that records every keystroke to obtain stolen credit card information and transfer money from bank accounts before computers set up to catch us locate the numerical identifier of our computer."

Whew! Jargon is definitely a short-hand of sorts, but it can be confusing to the reader.

Writers are sometimes so close to the subject they can no longer tell the difference between jargon and standard English. I once read a story about horses that was so filled with horse jargon that I couldn't finish it. Some of the words mentioned were snaffle, hackamore, and headstall—and those were just the ones I can remember how to spell. I spent more time looking up words than reading.

One test you can use to see if it's jargon is try and find the word in the dictionary. If so, it's probably okay to use, but not always. I found snaffle in the dictionary, but it's not part of general knowledge and is more shoptalk than anything else.

On the other hand, some technical terms can be used even if they aren't found in the dictionary. For example, in the translation of the paragraph filled with computer jargon, I used terms like 'e-mail' and 'software' to explain the jargon. These terms still haven't made it into the dictionary, but they are so widely used that even people who don't use computers usually understand their meaning.

These are the kind of words that start out as jargon but work their way into our lives. Words like workstation and user-friendly were once only understood by computer experts, but are now understood by almost everyone. Because of that they have a place in modern writing. They still can't be found in the dictionary, but its better to use them and avoid lengthy discussions that slow down a story.

Obviously, there's a fine line between a legitimate technical term and jargon. The final test is a gut feeling you have about your readers. If you think they will understand the terms, then use them freely. If not, either don't use them, or be sure to define them the first time you do. Give your readers a break and work definitions of these words into your prose. However, there's very little you can do to ease the pain of your reader when using academese.

This language comes from a strange land called Academia. It's an attempt by scholarly folk to use words that contain as much of their definition as possible in the words. If you doubt me, look up the following word in the dictionary: uniformitarianism. It's a real word related to geology. It may be in the dictionary, but I would never use it in a fictional story. I'm not even sure, had I been a geologist, I would use it in a scientific article without defining it. Beware of academese—it's not English.

I began to understand the trend in our society to use jargon and academese from, of all places, a routine by comedian George Carlin. Words start out very simply, everyone comes to understand them, but then we begin to turn them into something he called 'soft language'. Here is Carlin's example:

There's a condition in combat. Most people know about it. It's when a fighting person's nervous system has been stressed to its absolute peak and maximum—can't take anymore input. The nervous system has either snapped or is about to snap. In the First World War, that condition was called shell shock. Simple, honest, direct language. Two syllables, shell shock. Almost sounds like the guns themselves. Then a whole generation went by and the Second World War came along and the very same combat condition was called battle fatigue. Four syllables now. Takes a little longer to say. Doesn't seem to hurt as much. Fatigue is a nicer word than shock. Shell shock—battle fatigue. Then we had the War in Korea, 1950. Madison Avenue was riding high by that time, and the very same combat condition was called operational exhaustion. Hey, we're up to eight syllables now, and the humanity has been squeezed completely out of the phrase. It's totally sterile now. Operational exhaustion—sounds like something that might happen to your car. Then of course, came the War in Vietnam, and thanks to the lies and deceits surrounding that war, I guess it's no surprise that the very same condition was called post-traumatic stress disorder. Still eight syllables, but we've added a hyphen. And the pain is completely buried under jargon.(1)

The point is to use simple, direct words. And if the combination of words needs defining, define it. It takes more effort, but it's proper English. Otherwise, your readers may be liable to, as Carlin put it, "engage in an involuntary personal protein spill" (translation: vomit).

Academese also had a tendency to lean toward wordiness. This is basically puffery—an author trying to show how educated he or she is. This is done by using fancy words, too many words, or empty words.

Fancy words

Authors walk a fine line. On the one hand, we don't want to pander to the lowest common denominator. Our job is to illuminate and one of those ways is to raise the vocabulary of the reader. Yet doing so excessively can turn a reader off. Choose those big words you want to use carefully and make sure they're there for a reason. Otherwise, use common words.

An examination was conducted (made).
He wanted to initiate (begin) the process.
He picked up some flowers that were reduced to dryness (dried).
His diurnal (daily) routine never changed.
He spoke with pretentious (showy) words.

Too Many Words

This is a practice that many authors fall into easily. We love words so we want to fill up the page with wonderful ways to say things. This is fine, but can turn disastrous. For example, the following sentence ...

He believed the answer to that question had to be an inherently negative one.

Would be better written ...

He believed the answer to that question would be no.

Empty Words

These are words that authors add load their writing with egotism. These words add absolutely nothing and are easily remedied. Just strike them out and see how tight the writing flows.

I personally believe
Their opinions seemed to be in conflict.
The primary purpose of his plan was to join the military.
In order to maintain control, he shouted.
She found it often times necessary to follow him.
There were several factors that could have been important.
Their time was limited to a rather short period of 10 to 20 minutes.
They were married in the month of June.
The trees were sufficiently large enough to provide shade.


Trying to Avoid Vulgar, Rude, and Crude Words

An editor I once worked with, named Ted Larson, told me an amusing story about how writers go out of their way to avoid what they believe to be vulgar terms. Let me paraphrase his story ...

One time I was at a meeting of scientists discussing insects. One reported on an experiment in which he used a radioactive material to trace the movements of insect larvae. He said that his research team found a lot of radioactive larvae, one radioactive rabbit hole, and six radioactive bird turds. The comment drew a laugh from the audience because it was clear and to the point. But when he published the report in a scientific paper, the six radioactive bird turds had become: "six radioactive avian excremental deposits."(2)

In talking, the scientist had used plain English. However, when he wrote about it, he opted for a long-winded description. If you look up the word in Merriam and Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, you'll find the definition of turd is "a piece of excrement—sometimes considered vulgar." Well, if it's vulgar, we can't use it, right?

Wrong. Look up vulgar in the same dictionary and you'll find it's defined as, "of or relating to the common people." By this definition, all the little common words we use in writing would be considered vulgar. Sounds good to me.

What about some other words we think of as vulgar. Is urinate any different from piss? One is considered vulgar, the other is not. Yet they both have the exact same meaning. If one is considered vulgar, both are vulgar.

I once heard a man comment upon leaving a public bathroom, "I've pissed in better ditches." It wouldn't have had nearly the same impact if he had used the term "urinated".

Let's look at another so-called vulgar word. What about "screw"? Suddenly I hear the coffins of my old English teachers begin to rattle and rotate. You can't use that word. After all, it means ... well, you know ... it has a sexual connotation. But look up the various meanings of the verb use in the dictionary:

         to twist into
         to press, strain, or force
         to increase the tension
         to exhort by pressure
         to take advantage of
         to cheat

So, what's wrong with writing that someone screwed something up, or was going to screw us with shady dealings. Nothing. And if you doubt me, let's turn to classic literature to prove the point. Below are just three examples from some famous authors.

But screw your courage to the sticking place, and we'll not fail.
         —William Shakespeare, MacBeth

I screwed him out of these particulars.
         —Sir Walter Scott, Rob Roy

You'd have been screwed in gaol, Bute, if I had not kept your money.
         —William Makepeace Thackeray, James Crawley's Pipe Is Put Out

Yet what do authors do instead? They try to find a way around these words that are perfectly suitable. They do so through the use of euphemisms and circumlocutions.

I can hear you groaning. No, you shouldn't have to learn those terms, just understand what they mean. Both have to do with how authors write something to avoid being thought crude or rude, when crude or rude works just fine. What usually happens is the writer comes up with a perfectly good word or phrase that is commonly used, and then decides to use a thesaurus to write something they think will be less vulgar.

Euphemisms are substitutions of a less offensive term for one considered to be more offensive. Usually it is only a word or two. As an example, let me introduce a guy we'll call careless Charlie. Evidentially, he can't find his wife because someone wrote a memo that said:

We were notified today by the central office that Charlie Jones, from accounting, lost his wife on July 18th.

Maybe if we all got together, we could all help careless Charlie look for his wife. Even "passed away" is better than "lost", but that's still just another euphemism. Why not just say she died.

Many times, words don't even need to be considered vulgar to change them. Sometimes writers just get showy with their words. A perfect example is Winston Churchill. In 1940, he was serving as Secretary of War for Great Britain. He wrote a memo that contained the following line:

All water supplies between Mersa Matruh and the Alexandria defenses must be rendered depotable.

When Churchill quoted that memo in his memoirs, Their Finest Hour(3), he apologized in a footnote for his use of that "wretched word." Here is how he later wished he had written it:

All water supplies between Mersa Matruh and the Alexandria defenses must be rendered undrinkable.

As it turns out, depotable isn't even a word. It could have at least been un-potable, but undrinkable is far better. If you have a choice between two or more words that carry the same meaning equally well, vulgar or not, use the more common word.

Circumlocutions are just like euphemisms, except they usually involve more than a word or two. In them, the author has taken a roundabout route to say something rather than using easy direct English.

There is an explanation for this. Years ago, people were taught that the little short words of common English were vulgar, but that long words of Latin origin were elegant. H.L. Mencken explained this in The American Language.(4)

Mencken made fun of these people, who couldn't even call a bull a bull. They preferred to call it "a gentleman cow". They wouldn't call a leg a leg—it was a "nether limb". It was so bad that they covered the legs of pianos with drapes so the idea of legs wouldn't be unnecessarily arousing.

That kind of thinking has carried over into modern writing. It's best to rid yourself now of these prudish prejudices over the words of common English that everyone understands. The following are a few examples of how badly this tendency can go awry.

He turned to the side and in an unpleasant manner expectorated saliva from the confines of his mouth.
(Is there something wrong with spit? It's a real word from our expressive English language and is filled with effective imagery.)

The female insect then assumed an ovipository position with legs drawn up and body lowered.
(Is there something wrong with squats? It's exactly the right word to express this action, and it's proper English.)

Then you have authors that just love to yak(5). In conversation, that's not necessarily a bad thing. But talk is cheap and printing is expensive. Be sure to use the simple direct words in common use. An example is an actual broadcast overheard on a local radio station:

Officer Hennessy was fatally assaulted prior to being enabled to reach his car for utilizing his radio transmitter for summoning assistance

Would you write it that way? I wouldn't. Instead, I might write:

Officer Hennessy was shot and killed before he could reach his car to radio for help.

Simple, direct, and to the point. Why skirt the issue that he was shot and killed by covering it up with a lot of fancy words. If you want to get your ideas across, use common words. Big words will swamp your thoughts. Remember, you can't make little ideas bigger by dressing them up in big words.


▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
FOOTNOTES

(1) Carlin, George. "Explicit Lyrics."

(2) Larson, Edward. Personal communication, 12 February 1976.

(3) Churchill, Winston. Their Finest Hour. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1949. p. 431.

(4) Mencken, H. L. The American Language. New York, NY: Knopf Publishers, 1945.

(5) Don't you just love the word yak? I could have written talk, but that would have just made me yawn. Yak means to talk, but while talk is the generic verb, yak implies a totally different way of talking. The lesson is to use all the expressive English words at your disposal.

REFERENCES

Zinsser, William. On Writing Well. NY: Harper. 1988. Chapter 3.