I have turned in my winter article, recipe and photos for Edible San Francisco. This article marks one year of writing for this beautiful seasonal magazine. It's never too late to get a subscription...
Bruce Cole, our editor and publisher, sent us a "Style Guide" for our articles. Specific grammar reminders and some special requests. I feel endlessly graced that some of my best friends and parents are editors, so I have their voices in my head as the words stream from my fingertips. But there are the odd mishaps, the moments where I take grammar into my own hands, and the dashes and splashes of poetic license I season my paragraphs with.
I am a huge proponent of blogs. This very one has changed my life a million ways from Tuesday. There are billions of voices out there none would ever hear or read if it were not for this incredible technology. Have you taken a click through of my "kooky" section? How about "not for the meek," "more like this one"? Of course these are barely a nano of what exists, but they are where I have time to go to a few times a week.
But inherent in blogs is a voice that can sometimes be quite lazy grammatically. Whole baskets of sentences that don't need to be there. Paragraph breaks which never arrive, making eyeballs tired. Words which are spoken but don't need to be written.
I read an interesting flier at The Commonwealth Club about making the Internet more accessible to people with disabilities. When I write my posts I try to think of all the different sorts of people reading them. My "traffic" states that over 500 people visit a day, yet only a handful of you lovelies tells me you're there by commenting. It's impossible to imagine who is reading, but I try to write better and better all the time. Thereby becoming a better writer, and also pleasing all of y'all more and more.
Here are a few of the Style Guide rules we follow at Edible San Francisco:
"William Zinsser on simplicity:
The secret of good writing is to strip every sentence to its cleanest components. Every word that serves no function, every long word that could be a short word, every adverb that carries the same meaning that's already in the verb, every passive construction that leaves the reader unsure of who is doing what—these are the thousand and one adulterants that weaken the strength of a sentence. And they usually occur, ironically, in proportion to education and rank.
William Zinsser on style:
Few people realize how badly they write. Nobody has shown them how much excess or murkiness has crept into their style and how it obstructs what they are trying to say. If you give me an article that runs to eight pages and I tell you to cut it to four, you'll howl and say it can't be done. Then you will go home and do it, and it will be infinitely better. After that comes the hard part: cutting it to three. The point is that you have to strip down your writing before you can build it back up. You must know what the essential tools are and what job they were designed to do. If I may labor the metaphor of carpentry, it is first necessary to be able to saw wood neatly and to drive nails. Later you can [end of page 19] bevel the edges or add elegant finials, if that is your taste. But you can never forget that you are practicing a craft that is based on certain principles. If the nails are weak, your house will collapse. If your verbs are weak and your syntax is rickety, your sentences will fall apart.
William Zinsser on clutter:
Clutter is the disease of American writing. We are a society strangling in unnecessary words, circular constructions, pompous frills, and meaningless jargon. "I might add," "It should be pointed out," "It is interesting to note that"—how many sentences begin with these dreary clauses announcing what the writer is going to do next? If you might add, add it. If it should be pointed out, point it out. If it is interesting to note, make it interesting. Being told that something is interesting is the surest way of tempting the reader to find it dull; are we not all stupefied by what follows when someone says, "This will interest you"? As for the inflated prepositions and conjunctions, they are the innumerable phrases like "with the possible exception of" (except), "due to the fact that" (because), "he totally lacked the ability to" (he couldn't), "until such time as" (until), "for the purpose of" (for)."
PET PEEVES
Ruth Reichl’s Never List:
• Food, in my world, is NEVER divine.
• Nor is it sinful.
• I dislike yummy.
• I loathe eatery.
• addictive - it's a silly way to say something's good to perfection.
• crispy (things are crisp, not crispy)
• meltingly (why is meat ALWAYS meltingly tender?)
• veggies (so disrespectful to growing things)
• yesteryear (like fingernails on chalk to me)
• toothsome (ditto)
• sumptuous when referring to meals
• vibrant (in connection with food)
• served up (served is fine all by itself)
• tend to be (I prefer "are often")
• procuring - such a needlessly pretentious verb
{Shuna's Never list:
* Food is not healthy, people are. Food is, if it actually is, Healthful.
*Decadent is not a compliment. No, don't put it near my chocolate cake! The word you mean is Opulent.
* A cake is never flour-less. The word cake denotes flour present. When something that rises like a cake has no flour in it, it is a Torte. }
(For Derrick's pet peeve, click here.)
Jesse Kornbluth’s Never List:
• PERFECT
As in "the perfect vacation" or "the perfect date." No. Nothing's perfect. [Well, maybe: a perfect idiot, a perfect delusion.] People who use "perfect"—a dumb, empty, overused and altogether meaningless adjective—are not signifying their good taste, but their unwillingness to think of a more descriptive word. {Amen}
• HOPEFULLY
Everyone uses "hopefully" as a shortcut for "I hope." It is not. Yes, the dictionary allows it, but that's just bending to popular usage. In my book, there is only one correct use for "hopefully." It's a synonym for "prayerfully"—as in, "She looked up hopefully and said, 'Dear Lord, please make it rain soon, or we'll have no harvest.'" Do you want to say "I hope"? Then say "I hope."
• EVERYONE and THEY
As in: "Everyone knows what they want." Who is this "they"? A singular subject is followed by a singular pronoun. How to write this sentence correctly? I say: "Everyone knows what he/she wants." Looks awkward? True. But at least it isn't sexist. Or wrong.
• SINCE and BECAUSE
They're not synonyms. "Since" only refers to time: "Since August, he's been in a funk." It cannot be used to suggest causality: "Since he's depressed, we never call him."
• VERY UNIQUE
I think this started in real estate ads, where hype often trumps truth. "Your apartment is unique? Wait 'till you see this totally unique place." Implication: The new apartment is far more unique than the old one. But something can't be "more" or "less" unique than anything else. "Unique" is an absolute. It can't take a modifier. And if you stop to think about it, you grasp that everything is unique and everyone is unique—as in "one of a kind"—and, suddenly, "unique" becomes...banal.
• OVER and MORE THAN
"He has over a billion dollars." Wrong. Riveting, but wrong. "Over" refers to positioning in space—the opposite of "under," as in "over the fence." When you refer to quantity, you want "more than."
• DISINTERESTED and UNINTERESTED
"Disinterested" describes neutrality. "Uninterested" suggests a negative point-of-view. A gay man may be said to be sexually "disinterested" in women; that is, he doesn't care about having sex with them. But he may be "uninterested" if a woman propositions him; that is, he has a definite opinion on the idea, and it isn't to rip her clothes off.
• ITS and IT'S
Now you think I'm being insulting. But its amazing how often people get this wrong. Oops. Wrong. (But you caught that, didn't you?) I meant "it's"—the contraction of "it is." The possessive adjective has no apostrophe.
• DAY THAT CHANGED US...FOREVER
A cliché used to describe 9/11, and, as a result, other events. What does "forever" mean here? That it didn't change us in a way we could unwind? As if we could, with less momentous events, turn back the clock and have a do-over? No, unless there's been a change in philosophy and physics, even if you could tidy up whatever occurred so there was no evidence anything ever happened, you and the place would be still be changed forever—you're in a later time. All change is forever. Live with it. And dump the horror movie sound of "forever."
Do you have any grammatical pet peeves you'd like to add?
Recent Comments