5 ms·

There's no problem with having a house style, of course, but it's obnoxious to claim that following one particular stylebook makes one a "better writer". Parti

by blahedo 16y ago

There's no problem with having a house style, of course, but it's obnoxious to claim that following one particular stylebook makes one a "better writer". Particularly obnoxious in the linked article are the claims that "the removal of all adverbs from any technical writing will be a net positive," and likewise for "the removal of the passive voice". Adverbs are indispensable to good writing, technical or otherwise. Notwithstanding the claims of a variety of self-proclaimed experts, no good writer will omit adverbs, and no writer can successfully omit all adverbs without at the very least sounding incredibly choppy and awkward. The author of the linked article included quite a few; even just counting those adverbs that end in "-ly", I found ten (fortunately mechanically really genuinely personally frequently unfortunately solely rightfully technically), and there was even an adverb ("so") right there in the sentence where he was condemning adverbs! As for the passive, the author acknowledges the difficulty of avoiding them, but claims that their removal is still an improvement, though without explaining why. In fact, it makes the writing seem rather choppy (as if the author had to spend too much time paralysed by a set of rules to follow to actually be able to make the text flow). And despite apparently putting in a great deal of effort to avoid them, the author still included at least two that I found in a quick reread: "drawn for them" in the "beholder words" section, and "accepted for publication" right at the bottom. In both cases, the result is perfectly readable, not at all fuzzy, and entirely unremarkable---which shoots a rather gaping hole in the argument that there is anything wrong with a passive voice. I feel sorry for his grad students, and only hope that when they come out the other end, they will sensibly discard the silly mandates of their advisor, rather than perpetuating the myths....

scott_s 16y ago
All writing rules have exceptions. But in my experience as a CS grad student, his guidelines are good. His guidelines tend towards less words and more precision. Those are good goals. Also, having seen Matt Might give a talk on a day's notice when he was still a grad student, I think his students are in good hands.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
lallysingh 16y ago
I fear you're confusing good writers with computer science graduate students.
djacobs 16y ago
Usually the rule is "no -ly adverbs" - so perhaps he should have been more explicit. The author's point, though, is that doing so makes for better, clearer writing and that in nine cases in 10, it is the better option. Regarding the passive voice, the author is just providing general clues to good writing and is not imposing a dogma. Certainly the passive voice makes for a boring read. So I think that his point is: get rid of adverbs for clarity, and change the passive voice to an active one to maintain interest. I must say I agree.
- blahedo 16y ago
  > Usually the rule is "no -ly adverbs" What?? That makes even less sense than the "no adverbs" rule. Nothing in the syntax or semantics distinguish -ly adverbs from any other. (I only included -ly adverbs in my count because I was lazy and they were easier to search for.) > Certainly the passive voice makes for a boring read. You don't read much that isn't boring, then, eh? Too bad. Good writers use the passive voice. Writing that avoids the passive voice is not good writing.
  - djacobs 16y ago
    You're right about one thing: there is not much good writing out there. The -ly rule is a pretty established one. These adverbs are almost always pointless. Other adverbs (for example "not" or "almost" or many of the adverb phrases) are more crucial to language and important for clarity.
khafra 16y ago
For experimental contrast: I have no problem with a house style, but the claim that following one particular stylebook makes one a "better writer" annoy me. Worse, the linked article claims that "the elision of all adverbs from any technical writing," and "the removal of the passive voice," "constitute a net positive." Good writing, technical or otherwise, requires adverbs. Notwithstanding the claims of a variety of self-proclaimed experts, no good writer will omit adverbs, and no writer can successfully omit all adverbs without sounding incredibly choppy and awkward. The author of the linked article included a few; counting those adverbs that end in "-ly," I found ten (fortunately mechanically really genuinely personally frequently unfortunately solely rightfully technically), and in the sentence condemning adverbs he included an adverb ("so"). As for the passive, the author acknowledges the difficulty of avoiding them, but claims that their removal still improves writing, though without explaining why. In fact, it makes the writing seem rather choppy (as if the author had to spend too much time paralysed by a set of rules to follow and had none left to make the text flow). And despite putting in a great deal of effort to avoid them, the author still included two or more that I found in a quick reread: "drawn for them" in the "beholder words" section, and "accepted for publication" at the bottom. In both cases, I find the result perfectly readable, not at all fuzzy, and entirely unremarkable--which shoots a rather gaping hole in the argument against the passive voice. I feel sorry for his grad students, and hope that when they come out the other end, they discard the silly mandates of their advisor, rather than perpetuating the myths....
- blahedo 16y ago
  I'm not sure exactly what you're attempting here, but you made a lot of changes to text involving neither adverbs nor passives, and you missed several adverbs. What was this trying to experimentally prove, exactly?
- djacobs 16y ago
  I'm a fan of show, don't tell. Brilliant.
mattmight 16y ago
My goal with these scripts is really to prevent inappropriate use of the constructs I described. Reading the article over again, I do see how it makes it seems like I'm on a quest to ban these constructs. That's my fault for not being clearer. ;) Most of the time, my students use these constructs without thinking about it. That's the real problem. Perhaps I should have posted a few paragraphs from a recent draft to highlight what I meant by inappropriate (or excessive) use, but I don't think my grad students would appreciate a public shaming. As I mentioned in the article, there are times when the passive voice and adverbs have their uses. It would be a net positive if my grad students removed all their adverbs and all passive voice from their recent drafts. (Of course, the optimum would be to leave only the appropriate uses of these constructs.) I'm willing to bet this is true for a lot of new grad students in science or engineering first learning how to do scientific writing. It was certainly true for me once upon a time. Having the scripts highlight these constructs forces students to ask the question, "Is there a way I can say this better?" If the answer really is "No," then they can leave it in. But, I want them to think about it. /article author
- blahedo 16y ago
  > If the answer really is "No," then they can leave it in. Ah! That bothers me a lot less, then; I still wonder about some of the choices, and I think you underestimate the utility of adverbs and passives, but if you were stating style preferences rather than rules, that seems fine. Unfortunately, the linked post as written still appears to propagate the dumb Elements of Style canards as if they were absolute rules. :P

by blahedo 16y ago

scott_s 16y ago

All writing rules have exceptions. But in my experience as a CS grad student, his guidelines are good. His guidelines tend towards less words and more precision. Those are good goals. Also, having seen Matt Might give a talk on a day's notice when he was still a grad student, I think his students are in good hands.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

lallysingh 16y ago

I fear you're confusing good writers with computer science graduate students.

djacobs 16y ago

Usually the rule is "no -ly adverbs" - so perhaps he should have been more explicit. The author's point, though, is that doing so makes for better, clearer writing and that in nine cases in 10, it is the better option. Regarding the passive voice, the author is just providing general clues to good writing and is not imposing a dogma. Certainly the passive voice makes for a boring read. So I think that his point is: get rid of adverbs for clarity, and change the passive voice to an active one to maintain interest. I must say I agree.

blahedo 16y ago
> Usually the rule is "no -ly adverbs" What?? That makes even less sense than the "no adverbs" rule. Nothing in the syntax or semantics distinguish -ly adverbs from any other. (I only included -ly adverbs in my count because I was lazy and they were easier to search for.) > Certainly the passive voice makes for a boring read. You don't read much that isn't boring, then, eh? Too bad. Good writers use the passive voice. Writing that avoids the passive voice is not good writing.
- djacobs 16y ago
  You're right about one thing: there is not much good writing out there. The -ly rule is a pretty established one. These adverbs are almost always pointless. Other adverbs (for example "not" or "almost" or many of the adverb phrases) are more crucial to language and important for clarity.

khafra 16y ago

For experimental contrast: I have no problem with a house style, but the claim that following one particular stylebook makes one a "better writer" annoy me. Worse, the linked article claims that "the elision of all adverbs from any technical writing," and "the removal of the passive voice," "constitute a net positive." Good writing, technical or otherwise, requires adverbs. Notwithstanding the claims of a variety of self-proclaimed experts, no good writer will omit adverbs, and no writer can successfully omit all adverbs without sounding incredibly choppy and awkward. The author of the linked article included a few; counting those adverbs that end in "-ly," I found ten (fortunately mechanically really genuinely personally frequently unfortunately solely rightfully technically), and in the sentence condemning adverbs he included an adverb ("so"). As for the passive, the author acknowledges the difficulty of avoiding them, but claims that their removal still improves writing, though without explaining why. In fact, it makes the writing seem rather choppy (as if the author had to spend too much time paralysed by a set of rules to follow and had none left to make the text flow). And despite putting in a great deal of effort to avoid them, the author still included two or more that I found in a quick reread: "drawn for them" in the "beholder words" section, and "accepted for publication" at the bottom. In both cases, I find the result perfectly readable, not at all fuzzy, and entirely unremarkable--which shoots a rather gaping hole in the argument against the passive voice. I feel sorry for his grad students, and hope that when they come out the other end, they discard the silly mandates of their advisor, rather than perpetuating the myths....

blahedo 16y ago
I'm not sure exactly what you're attempting here, but you made a lot of changes to text involving neither adverbs nor passives, and you missed several adverbs. What was this trying to experimentally prove, exactly?
djacobs 16y ago
I'm a fan of show, don't tell. Brilliant.

mattmight 16y ago

My goal with these scripts is really to prevent inappropriate use of the constructs I described. Reading the article over again, I do see how it makes it seems like I'm on a quest to ban these constructs. That's my fault for not being clearer. ;) Most of the time, my students use these constructs without thinking about it. That's the real problem. Perhaps I should have posted a few paragraphs from a recent draft to highlight what I meant by inappropriate (or excessive) use, but I don't think my grad students would appreciate a public shaming. As I mentioned in the article, there are times when the passive voice and adverbs have their uses. It would be a net positive if my grad students removed all their adverbs and all passive voice from their recent drafts. (Of course, the optimum would be to leave only the appropriate uses of these constructs.) I'm willing to bet this is true for a lot of new grad students in science or engineering first learning how to do scientific writing. It was certainly true for me once upon a time. Having the scripts highlight these constructs forces students to ask the question, "Is there a way I can say this better?" If the answer really is "No," then they can leave it in. But, I want them to think about it. /article author

blahedo 16y ago
> If the answer really is "No," then they can leave it in. Ah! That bothers me a lot less, then; I still wonder about some of the choices, and I think you underestimate the utility of adverbs and passives, but if you were stating style preferences rather than rules, that seems fine. Unfortunately, the linked post as written still appears to propagate the dumb Elements of Style canards as if they were absolute rules. :P