Writing Tips for Non-Writers Who Don't Want to Work at Writing

Occasionally, articles on writing come up on the del.icio.us popular page and/or digg. I try to read one whenever I see it. Today, the article linked below showed up on both:

Writing Tips for Non-Writers Who Don't Want to Work at Writing

It's a good article with several good points. Three in particular stood out to me.

The first is under the heading "Punctuate, damn you".* From the "quick and dirty quide when to use punctuation" under that heading, he gives the following rule-of-thumb for when to use semi-colons vs. colons:

Semi-colon: Put these in your writing in the place where, in conversation, you'd arch your eyebrow or make some other sort of physical gesture signalling that you want to emphasize a point.
Colon: Use when you want to make an example of something: For example, just like this.

I have this whole semi-colon vs. colon debate in my head a lot. This really clarifies it for me in a way that I have some hope in remembering.

The second point that struck me is under the heading "When in doubt, simplify":

Worried you're not using the right words? Use simpler words. Worried that your sentence isn't clear? Make a simpler sentence. Worried that people won't see your point? Make your point simpler. Nearly every writing problem you have can be solved by making things simpler.

This should be obvious, but people don't like hearing it because there's the assumption that simple = stupid. But it's not true; indeed, I find from personal experience that the stupidest writers are the ones whose writing is postively baroque in form.

I think the "simple = stupid" idea is one that is widely-held, and as the author says, it isn't true. When I read this point, it made me think of computer programming. In programming, there are some who think (although, they'll probably never admit it) that the more complex it is, the better. I'm not sure what motivates this thought--possibly job security or the idea that if it's hard to figure out what's going on, it will make the programmer seem more capable to other programmers (showing off, basically). But, my thinking on the matter is that the hard part is to simplify the program into its most logical, elegant, simple form. The program should only be as complex as it has to be, and no more. The same holds true with writing. The point is to make it accessible to as many people as possible, without losing the meaning you're trying to express. To look at this from another direction, think back to the best teachers you've had or to the smartest people you know. As I do this, almost without exception, I think of people who have been able to explain complex things in ways that I was able to understand.

Lastly, the third point I wanted to highlight is "Speak what you write". He makes this point twice, since it's so important.

Basically: If what you're writing is hard to speak, what makes you think it's going to be easy to read? It won't be. So speak out loud what you write. If you can't speak it naturally, rewrite it. Simple.

Makes a lot of sense. I know that I've often gone back after posting an article and reread an article and found better ways to make my point. I've never read it out loud before, but I'm going to give it a shot.

Update 2/16/06: Apparently, the semi-colon usage described in the blog entry linked above is all wrong:

Scalzi says: "Put these in your writing in the place where, in conversation, you'd arch your eyebrow or make some other sort of physical gesture signalling that you want to emphasize a point."

No. Not at all. That explanation has absolutely nothing to do with reality. It's completely made up and entirely wrong. There's just no other way to say it. In fact, it's so far off the mark that I read it through a couple of times to make sure I wasn't misreading.

Semicolon rules are very simple, which makes Scalzi's explanation even more perplexing. Why make up your own rule when the real rule is, for once, very straight forward?

The real rule: Semicolons are like periods. You use them at the end of sentences (complete, grammatically correct ones). The distinction between when to use a semicolon instead of a period: When the next sentence is very closely related to the one you're finishing and you want to illustrate that relationship with your punctuation.

Example: You can put a period or semicolon here; it's really up to you.

Notice what's on the left and right of the semicolon: complete sentences. That's because (repeat after me) semicolons are like periods. They go at the end of sentences. In order to use a semicolon, you put it at the end of a sentence and then begin another sentence right after it. The only weirdness is that you use a lowercase letter to start the sentence after the semi-colon. Other than that, when you use a semicolon, you have nothing more than two complete sentences separated by a semi-colon instead of a period.

The above is from this entry on blogcritics.org, where the writer praises parts of the above-linked blog entry as well as takes issue on a few points.


* Yes, I see the irony of commenting on punctuation, while committing a punctuation sin (the period outside of the quotes). I do it in protest of the "rules". I think that the rule that states that the period should be inside the closing quotes is stupid and illogical. I think that there are times when it makes sense--mostly when quoting dialog--but in general, the period should be outside of the quotes. Quotes encapsulate a word or a complete thought, but the period marks the end the whole sentence. Therefore, the period should be last, final, at the end.