7 ms·

Mary Dash's Writing Tips

179 points by primogen 7y ago

dang 7y ago
I changed the URL from https://plainlanguage.gov/resources/ https://plainlanguage.gov/resources/ to the item on the list that has the most information. Lists tend not to make great HN submissions because there isn't much to discuss beyond the lowest commmon denominator of the items on the list. That leads to generic discussions and specific discussions are better. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20denominator%20list&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20generic%20discussion&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
ucarion 7y ago
All of plainlanguage.gov is a treasure trove of good advice on writing -- definitely a site worth exploring!
adamzegelin 7y ago
When is it best to use formal (bureaucratic) vs informal (conversational) language? When writing reports and documentation I prefer formal language, but for blogs I switch over to informal.
- ucarion 7y ago
  I'm guessing it depends on what your users expect: https://plainlanguage.gov/guidelines/audience/ https://plainlanguage.gov/guidelines/audience/ IBM has some guidance on this too, as part of their design system: https://www.carbondesignsystem.com/guidelines/content/general https://www.carbondesignsystem.com/guidelines/content/genera... Basically IBM's rule seems to be: there's never a need to be _formal_, but you should be less conversational on specific tasks, and more conversational on high-level docs and marketing material.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  Use formal language when the audience demands it, and never otherwise. Why? Because your audience is human beings, not machines. Write for humans. Even in reports and documentation, your audience will thank you if you sound like a human. Now, documentation has to be precise, and therefore has to define and use terms precisely. But documentation also contains description, and that description should be written informally when possible. Edit: Ignore this. ucarion said it better.
- vharuck 7y ago
  In my experience writing reports on public health data, it depends on the audience and their intent. Lay people will skip (or worse, misinterpret) any paragraph containing "statistically significant." But the epidemiologists will want enough details to completely recreate my numbers. I've settled on a mix: plain language that expresses intent and the key points (not just using a thesaurus to replace jargon). And at the end, a hyper-detailed technical notes, methodology, and references section. The goal is any expert who's read the tech notes can read the report and understand the assumptions and math behind each statement. Personally, I like this kind of reporting. Read the tech notes to check that it's reliable, then read the report with peace of mind. I was going to "translate" the jargon into basic concepts anyway, so this saves a step.
- combatentropy 7y ago
  I would say never use either. Strive to be plain. By plain, I mean both clear and unpretentious. This kind of writing doesn't have to sound informal. This advice is not my own. It is ancient, and you could say it is the gist of books like The King's English by the brothers Fowler (1906), The Elements of Style by Strunk and White (1959), On Writing Well by William Zinsser (1976), and The Sense of Style by Steven Pinker (2014). Bureaucratic language to me means wordiness, vagueness, and indirection. Conversational is often wordy too and likewise short on substance. But while bureaucratic sounds like it came from a robot, conversational puts the writer too much in the spotlight. The reader comes to a piece of writing to learn something. The purpose of writing is to help the reader, as quickly and clearly as possible. The techniques in the books I mentioned, or on plainlanguage.gov, are meant to help you do just that.
  - Veen 7y ago
    This is generally good advice, but there are occasions in which the signalling value of jargon, formality, or complexity outweighs the value of clarity. If your primary goal is to appeal to an audience that values formality, it makes sense to be formal. Clarity is important, but it doesn’t override “write for your audience”.
  - hirundo 7y ago
    Like Paul Graham.
wespiser_2018 7y ago
Good advice! Although there are situations were the passive is best, using simpler, more direct words makes the text much clearer.
SeanFerree 7y ago
Awesome article!
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
draw_down 7y ago
The thing about avoiding passive voice drives me batty- not just here, that admonition is everywhere. Sometimes it's useful, that's why it exists. Using it does not (necessarily) indicate a moral failing.
- sharedfrog 7y ago
  > that admonition is everywhere Generally speaking, I think it's because this advice is very easy to remember and repeat. Passive voice is easy to spot. Someone reading to look for errors can easily go "Aha! You did a naughty here." because they were once told that "passive = bad".
  - msla 7y ago
    > Passive voice is easy to spot. A whole list of evidence to the contrary: http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/grammar/passives.html#passivepostlist http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/grammar/passives.html#passivepostlis... For example: https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1504 https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1504 > "On religious tolerance, he gently referenced the Christians of Lebanon and Egypt, then lamented that the 'divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence' (note the use of the passive voice)." The only way that statement is in the "passive voice" is if you want to ding the speaker for not blaming someone specific; that is, it's only in the passive voice in the political sense. Grammatically, it's in the active voice. Here's a piece on what the passive voice is: https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2922 https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2922
  - draw_down 7y ago
    Yes, that's exactly my issue. People see it and just immediately throw up the red flag as if it were an actual grammatical/syntactic error.
danso 7y ago
Tangent: plainlanguage.gov has been around since at least 1998 [0], and had the same design from 2005 [1] until late 2017. Hadn't checked the site for years (until seeing this today), so great to see it with a fresh look along with good content. [0] https://web.archive.org/web/19981111185743/https://plainlanguage.gov/ https://web.archive.org/web/19981111185743/https://plainlang... [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20051113011109/http://www.plainlanguage.gov/ https://web.archive.org/web/20051113011109/http://www.plainl...
jfengel 7y ago
I find the "avoid gobbledygook" instruction a little odd. It's really about adopting a less formal register, which is fine, but words like "additional" and "purchase" aren't really obscure. From the examples, it seems to be more about avoiding French- and Latin-derived words, and using Germanic-derived ones instead. We do tend to use our Norman root words in legal and other formal registers, and Anglo-Saxon roots do have a more active feel to them. And some of the examples are best left to legal documents ("pursuant", "concur"). It's probably decent advice to a novice writer, especially one who has been learning from academic or government writing and picked up an unnecessary sense of formality. But they're hardly "gobbledygook". They're perfectly cromulent words, with shades of meaning different from their "synonyms", and can be used to enhance writing rather than obscure it.
- smacktoward 7y ago
  The point isn't that they're valid words (you're right, they are), but that they're not commonly used words, and thus come across as formal and somewhat show-off-y. More people will understand a simple, commonly used word than will understand a more complex, less commonly used one, even if it's an exact synonym. The people who write for governmental agencies tend to be highly educated people, and highly educated people have a bad habit of thinking that if they aren't constantly demonstrating how highly educated they are, someone will come along and take all their certificates away. So they lard their prose down with ten-dollar words, which makes sure that the only thing their readers will come away with is a sense of just how smart they are. (Or think they are, anyway.) For a writer, the road to hell is paved with thesaurus pages. Use simple words, and anyone with basic literacy will be able to understand you.
- dan-robertson 7y ago
  If you’re writing for a very wide audience, many of whom may not have good literacy, then avoiding anything slightly complicated matters a lot. There are all sorts of words one often sees in documents from governments (and this article is from and for the us government) that are not suitable for wide audiences. For example: - shall - one as a pronoun - whom (instead of “incorrectly” writing who) - sentences with lots of clauses - basically any uncommon word, especially a long word or one with an uncommon morphology that makes it hard to sound out People with poor literacy will not be able to scan text and so every sentence and paragraph should be short and to the point (as it may be read in its entirety and if it is too long it will be skipped). I think something like 40% of the US has this level of literacy. Incidentally, writing for an audience like this improves the efficiency and engagement of mere literate people too. As an unrelated point: many legal phrases use both a Germanic and Romance word, eg assault and battery; breaking and entering
nixpulvis 7y ago
I was caught thinking about set builder notation yesterday, and I can't help but draw parallels between active/passive voice, and my arguments in: https://nixpulvis.com/ramblings/2020-03-16-set-builder-notation https://nixpulvis.com/ramblings/2020-03-16-set-builder-notat... Im quite sure this post needed editing however ;)
puzzledobserver 7y ago
I concede that people have a tendency to overuse the passive voice, perhaps to appear less assertive, but... I find this injunction against the passive voice simplistic. The active and passive versions of a sentence _mean_ different things, and one cannot blindly substitute one for the other. Compare: 1. There was a cat in the house. She had not been fed by her owner that morning. She meowed loudly at the passing postman. 2. There was a cat in the house. Her owner hadn't fed her that morning. She meowed loudly at the passing postman. Also, who is the intended audience of style guides such as this? One's style in a romantic letter is necessarily different from the tone used in a scientific paper, both of which are different from how one would tell a story to a friend. Without nuance, a one-size-fits-all approach to linguistic style will destroy much that is beautiful about the world.
- nixpulvis 7y ago
  Well put... I find your first example "stays in key" if you will. Or literally, with the subject. However, in the context of getting shit done, I'm thinking active is generally best.
- mrob 7y ago
  The famous opening line of Pride and Prejudice relies on passive voice: "It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife." If you specify who's acknowledging it then the joke doesn't work.
  - ellius 7y ago
    This is a great example of where to use the passive voice. Austen reverses the sentence structure to pack the punch at the end. In general, 2 good principles are: 1. Put the punch at the end of a sentence. 2. Put familiar information at the beginning of a sentence and new information toward the end. The passive voice can help you with both of these design goals. Orwell talked about where the passive voice is most dangerous/bad. It mainly comes down to thoughtlessness or insincerity. The passive voice removes or hides the actor, so it's useful for people trying to cloak their beliefs or hide assumptions. "Politics and the English Language" is a great read, as is the book "Style."
thesaint 7y ago
I write all day and every day. I use grammarly, it's amazing! I also wear a tie....
nixpulvis 7y ago
I'm enjoying this read, however one example stood out to me. I personally find: "Although Mr. Doe was found to be eligible for this position; all of the positions in Boston had already been filled by our personnel office prior to receiving his application." to sound much better than: "Though we found Mr. Doe eligible for the position, our personnel office had filled all positions in Boston before we received his application." YMMV
- mrob 7y ago
  And from https://plainlanguage.gov/guidelines/conversational/use-must-to-indicate-requirements/ https://plainlanguage.gov/guidelines/conversational/use-must... : Before: "The applicant shall be notified by registered mail in all cases where the permit applied for is not granted, and shall be given 30 days within which to appeal such decision." After: "We will notify you by registered mail if we reject your application. You must file an appeal of that decision within 30 days." That changes the meaning to make it sound like appeal is mandatory. It should be something like "If you choose to appeal that decision, you must file your appeal within 30 days."
nixpulvis 7y ago
Re: pronouns. They suggest the use of "you", but I feel pretty good about using "we" in its place quite often. For example: "we can now see that x is in fact greater than 10" sounds a lot less demanding than "you can now see ...". I, the author, am also a reader.
- dan-robertson 7y ago
  I think this construct is quite formal and quite unfamiliar to people who have not read the kind of academic literature where it is common
zumu 7y ago
I'm curious how much of this applies to non-American English writing as well. It is no secret the style in American English is to be causal and direct. But has this trend come to prominence in other parts of the Anglosohere?
cranekam 7y ago
The UK bank Monzo has a great page about tone of voice with many of the same ideas: https://monzo.com/tone-of-voice/ https://monzo.com/tone-of-voice/ Also, The Economist has really great English. Despite being quite well-known for using very obscure words now and then the bulk of its writing is very clear, with succinct sentences and everyday words (they often use words like "stuff" in exactly the same way as spoken English). I don't always agree with its editorial stance but I find its style very enjoyable. Orwell's Six Rules for Writing are great as well (along with pretty much everything he wrote): https://infusion.media/blog/george-orwells-six-rules-for-writing/ https://infusion.media/blog/george-orwells-six-rules-for-wri...
motohagiography 7y ago
The problem I have with the passive voice is how certain people use it to affect a kind of officious, administrative power. When I ask someone to clarify whether they're offering their own opinion or that of some other, specific external authority, they tend to get angry. The passive voice is really the passive-aggressive voice, and I recommend taking every opportunity to antagonize it when someone uses it on you. It's not polite and euphemistic, it's bureaucratic, pseudo-intellectual, and bullying.
btilly 7y ago
Judging by this sample, Mary Dash should be receiving writing tips, not giving them. Do you doubt me? Consider the opening paragraph: Readers prefer active voice sentences, and we should try to use the active voice in most of our business writing to communicate our message most effectively. Active voice clearly identifies the action and who is performing that action. Unfortunately, much of government writing is in the passive voice, giving documents a wordy, bureaucratic tone. Over time, writing in the passive voice simply becomes a habit, one we should all work to change. Here is a quick redraft: We should use the active voice in most of our business writing. Readers prefer it, and will better understand our message. This style clearly identifies what the action is, and who is doing it. Unfortunately most government writing is in the passive voice. This gives documents a wordy, bureaucratic tone. We need to break that habit. The message has not changed, but readability improved a lot. Use https://app.readable.com/text/ https://app.readable.com/text/ to test that. The required reading level went from grade 10 to advanced grade 5, and other measures of readability also improved. This is a big difference. https://www.wyliecomm.com/2019/03/us-literacy-rate/ https://www.wyliecomm.com/2019/03/us-literacy-rate/ reports on a broad survey of adult literacy rates. Only 2% of US adults read and write at a grade 11 or better level. By contrast 48% read and write at a grade 6 or better level. My redraft is readable by an order of magnitude more people. What did I change? 1. Break up complex sentences. 2. Shorter is better. This isn't hard. But it really makes a difference.
- briefcomment 7y ago
  This is very effective in my experience. This kind of simplicity always gets praise in work environments, without explicitly being identified as "simplicity". Your rewrite was particularly skilled. Sometimes, it's hard to see that some things aren't adding value. Another tip: -In Emails, liberally use new paragraphs. Sometimes, even one sentence paragraphs are ok. I think this is because any way of compartmentalizing writing in non-trivial ways improves comprehension. It gives cues on how to digest the ideas in the writing.
  - aggie 7y ago
    > Sometimes, even one sentence paragraphs are ok. They're more than ok -- they're a great attention management device! Don't worry about stuffy rules of prose when writing an email.

179 points by primogen 7y ago

dang 7y ago

I changed the URL from https://plainlanguage.gov/resources/ https://plainlanguage.gov/resources/ to the item on the list that has the most information. Lists tend not to make great HN submissions because there isn't much to discuss beyond the lowest commmon denominator of the items on the list. That leads to generic discussions and specific discussions are better. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20denominator%20list&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20generic%20discussion&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

ucarion 7y ago

All of plainlanguage.gov is a treasure trove of good advice on writing -- definitely a site worth exploring!

adamzegelin 7y ago

When is it best to use formal (bureaucratic) vs informal (conversational) language? When writing reports and documentation I prefer formal language, but for blogs I switch over to informal.

ucarion 7y ago
I'm guessing it depends on what your users expect: https://plainlanguage.gov/guidelines/audience/ https://plainlanguage.gov/guidelines/audience/ IBM has some guidance on this too, as part of their design system: https://www.carbondesignsystem.com/guidelines/content/general https://www.carbondesignsystem.com/guidelines/content/genera... Basically IBM's rule seems to be: there's never a need to be _formal_, but you should be less conversational on specific tasks, and more conversational on high-level docs and marketing material.
AnimalMuppet 7y ago
Use formal language when the audience demands it, and never otherwise. Why? Because your audience is human beings, not machines. Write for humans. Even in reports and documentation, your audience will thank you if you sound like a human. Now, documentation has to be precise, and therefore has to define and use terms precisely. But documentation also contains description, and that description should be written informally when possible. Edit: Ignore this. ucarion said it better.
vharuck 7y ago
In my experience writing reports on public health data, it depends on the audience and their intent. Lay people will skip (or worse, misinterpret) any paragraph containing "statistically significant." But the epidemiologists will want enough details to completely recreate my numbers. I've settled on a mix: plain language that expresses intent and the key points (not just using a thesaurus to replace jargon). And at the end, a hyper-detailed technical notes, methodology, and references section. The goal is any expert who's read the tech notes can read the report and understand the assumptions and math behind each statement. Personally, I like this kind of reporting. Read the tech notes to check that it's reliable, then read the report with peace of mind. I was going to "translate" the jargon into basic concepts anyway, so this saves a step.
combatentropy 7y ago
I would say never use either. Strive to be plain. By plain, I mean both clear and unpretentious. This kind of writing doesn't have to sound informal. This advice is not my own. It is ancient, and you could say it is the gist of books like The King's English by the brothers Fowler (1906), The Elements of Style by Strunk and White (1959), On Writing Well by William Zinsser (1976), and The Sense of Style by Steven Pinker (2014). Bureaucratic language to me means wordiness, vagueness, and indirection. Conversational is often wordy too and likewise short on substance. But while bureaucratic sounds like it came from a robot, conversational puts the writer too much in the spotlight. The reader comes to a piece of writing to learn something. The purpose of writing is to help the reader, as quickly and clearly as possible. The techniques in the books I mentioned, or on plainlanguage.gov, are meant to help you do just that.
- Veen 7y ago
  This is generally good advice, but there are occasions in which the signalling value of jargon, formality, or complexity outweighs the value of clarity. If your primary goal is to appeal to an audience that values formality, it makes sense to be formal. Clarity is important, but it doesn’t override “write for your audience”.
- hirundo 7y ago
  Like Paul Graham.

wespiser_2018 7y ago

Good advice! Although there are situations were the passive is best, using simpler, more direct words makes the text much clearer.

SeanFerree 7y ago

Awesome article!

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

draw_down 7y ago

The thing about avoiding passive voice drives me batty- not just here, that admonition is everywhere. Sometimes it's useful, that's why it exists. Using it does not (necessarily) indicate a moral failing.

sharedfrog 7y ago
> that admonition is everywhere Generally speaking, I think it's because this advice is very easy to remember and repeat. Passive voice is easy to spot. Someone reading to look for errors can easily go "Aha! You did a naughty here." because they were once told that "passive = bad".
- msla 7y ago
  > Passive voice is easy to spot. A whole list of evidence to the contrary: http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/grammar/passives.html#passivepostlist http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/grammar/passives.html#passivepostlis... For example: https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1504 https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1504 > "On religious tolerance, he gently referenced the Christians of Lebanon and Egypt, then lamented that the 'divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence' (note the use of the passive voice)." The only way that statement is in the "passive voice" is if you want to ding the speaker for not blaming someone specific; that is, it's only in the passive voice in the political sense. Grammatically, it's in the active voice. Here's a piece on what the passive voice is: https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2922 https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2922
- draw_down 7y ago
  Yes, that's exactly my issue. People see it and just immediately throw up the red flag as if it were an actual grammatical/syntactic error.

danso 7y ago

Tangent: plainlanguage.gov has been around since at least 1998 [0], and had the same design from 2005 [1] until late 2017. Hadn't checked the site for years (until seeing this today), so great to see it with a fresh look along with good content. [0] https://web.archive.org/web/19981111185743/https://plainlanguage.gov/ https://web.archive.org/web/19981111185743/https://plainlang... [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20051113011109/http://www.plainlanguage.gov/ https://web.archive.org/web/20051113011109/http://www.plainl...

jfengel 7y ago

I find the "avoid gobbledygook" instruction a little odd. It's really about adopting a less formal register, which is fine, but words like "additional" and "purchase" aren't really obscure. From the examples, it seems to be more about avoiding French- and Latin-derived words, and using Germanic-derived ones instead. We do tend to use our Norman root words in legal and other formal registers, and Anglo-Saxon roots do have a more active feel to them. And some of the examples are best left to legal documents ("pursuant", "concur"). It's probably decent advice to a novice writer, especially one who has been learning from academic or government writing and picked up an unnecessary sense of formality. But they're hardly "gobbledygook". They're perfectly cromulent words, with shades of meaning different from their "synonyms", and can be used to enhance writing rather than obscure it.

smacktoward 7y ago
The point isn't that they're valid words (you're right, they are), but that they're not commonly used words, and thus come across as formal and somewhat show-off-y. More people will understand a simple, commonly used word than will understand a more complex, less commonly used one, even if it's an exact synonym. The people who write for governmental agencies tend to be highly educated people, and highly educated people have a bad habit of thinking that if they aren't constantly demonstrating how highly educated they are, someone will come along and take all their certificates away. So they lard their prose down with ten-dollar words, which makes sure that the only thing their readers will come away with is a sense of just how smart they are. (Or think they are, anyway.) For a writer, the road to hell is paved with thesaurus pages. Use simple words, and anyone with basic literacy will be able to understand you.
dan-robertson 7y ago
If you’re writing for a very wide audience, many of whom may not have good literacy, then avoiding anything slightly complicated matters a lot. There are all sorts of words one often sees in documents from governments (and this article is from and for the us government) that are not suitable for wide audiences. For example: - shall - one as a pronoun - whom (instead of “incorrectly” writing who) - sentences with lots of clauses - basically any uncommon word, especially a long word or one with an uncommon morphology that makes it hard to sound out People with poor literacy will not be able to scan text and so every sentence and paragraph should be short and to the point (as it may be read in its entirety and if it is too long it will be skipped). I think something like 40% of the US has this level of literacy. Incidentally, writing for an audience like this improves the efficiency and engagement of mere literate people too. As an unrelated point: many legal phrases use both a Germanic and Romance word, eg assault and battery; breaking and entering

nixpulvis 7y ago

I was caught thinking about set builder notation yesterday, and I can't help but draw parallels between active/passive voice, and my arguments in: https://nixpulvis.com/ramblings/2020-03-16-set-builder-notation https://nixpulvis.com/ramblings/2020-03-16-set-builder-notat... Im quite sure this post needed editing however ;)

puzzledobserver 7y ago

I concede that people have a tendency to overuse the passive voice, perhaps to appear less assertive, but... I find this injunction against the passive voice simplistic. The active and passive versions of a sentence _mean_ different things, and one cannot blindly substitute one for the other. Compare: 1. There was a cat in the house. She had not been fed by her owner that morning. She meowed loudly at the passing postman. 2. There was a cat in the house. Her owner hadn't fed her that morning. She meowed loudly at the passing postman. Also, who is the intended audience of style guides such as this? One's style in a romantic letter is necessarily different from the tone used in a scientific paper, both of which are different from how one would tell a story to a friend. Without nuance, a one-size-fits-all approach to linguistic style will destroy much that is beautiful about the world.

nixpulvis 7y ago
Well put... I find your first example "stays in key" if you will. Or literally, with the subject. However, in the context of getting shit done, I'm thinking active is generally best.
mrob 7y ago
The famous opening line of Pride and Prejudice relies on passive voice: "It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife." If you specify who's acknowledging it then the joke doesn't work.
- ellius 7y ago
  This is a great example of where to use the passive voice. Austen reverses the sentence structure to pack the punch at the end. In general, 2 good principles are: 1. Put the punch at the end of a sentence. 2. Put familiar information at the beginning of a sentence and new information toward the end. The passive voice can help you with both of these design goals. Orwell talked about where the passive voice is most dangerous/bad. It mainly comes down to thoughtlessness or insincerity. The passive voice removes or hides the actor, so it's useful for people trying to cloak their beliefs or hide assumptions. "Politics and the English Language" is a great read, as is the book "Style."

thesaint 7y ago

I write all day and every day. I use grammarly, it's amazing! I also wear a tie....

nixpulvis 7y ago

I'm enjoying this read, however one example stood out to me. I personally find: "Although Mr. Doe was found to be eligible for this position; all of the positions in Boston had already been filled by our personnel office prior to receiving his application." to sound much better than: "Though we found Mr. Doe eligible for the position, our personnel office had filled all positions in Boston before we received his application." YMMV

mrob 7y ago
And from https://plainlanguage.gov/guidelines/conversational/use-must-to-indicate-requirements/ https://plainlanguage.gov/guidelines/conversational/use-must... : Before: "The applicant shall be notified by registered mail in all cases where the permit applied for is not granted, and shall be given 30 days within which to appeal such decision." After: "We will notify you by registered mail if we reject your application. You must file an appeal of that decision within 30 days." That changes the meaning to make it sound like appeal is mandatory. It should be something like "If you choose to appeal that decision, you must file your appeal within 30 days."

nixpulvis 7y ago

Re: pronouns. They suggest the use of "you", but I feel pretty good about using "we" in its place quite often. For example: "we can now see that x is in fact greater than 10" sounds a lot less demanding than "you can now see ...". I, the author, am also a reader.

dan-robertson 7y ago
I think this construct is quite formal and quite unfamiliar to people who have not read the kind of academic literature where it is common

zumu 7y ago

I'm curious how much of this applies to non-American English writing as well. It is no secret the style in American English is to be causal and direct. But has this trend come to prominence in other parts of the Anglosohere?

cranekam 7y ago

The UK bank Monzo has a great page about tone of voice with many of the same ideas: https://monzo.com/tone-of-voice/ https://monzo.com/tone-of-voice/ Also, The Economist has really great English. Despite being quite well-known for using very obscure words now and then the bulk of its writing is very clear, with succinct sentences and everyday words (they often use words like "stuff" in exactly the same way as spoken English). I don't always agree with its editorial stance but I find its style very enjoyable. Orwell's Six Rules for Writing are great as well (along with pretty much everything he wrote): https://infusion.media/blog/george-orwells-six-rules-for-writing/ https://infusion.media/blog/george-orwells-six-rules-for-wri...

motohagiography 7y ago

The problem I have with the passive voice is how certain people use it to affect a kind of officious, administrative power. When I ask someone to clarify whether they're offering their own opinion or that of some other, specific external authority, they tend to get angry. The passive voice is really the passive-aggressive voice, and I recommend taking every opportunity to antagonize it when someone uses it on you. It's not polite and euphemistic, it's bureaucratic, pseudo-intellectual, and bullying.

btilly 7y ago

Judging by this sample, Mary Dash should be receiving writing tips, not giving them. Do you doubt me? Consider the opening paragraph: Readers prefer active voice sentences, and we should try to use the active voice in most of our business writing to communicate our message most effectively. Active voice clearly identifies the action and who is performing that action. Unfortunately, much of government writing is in the passive voice, giving documents a wordy, bureaucratic tone. Over time, writing in the passive voice simply becomes a habit, one we should all work to change. Here is a quick redraft: We should use the active voice in most of our business writing. Readers prefer it, and will better understand our message. This style clearly identifies what the action is, and who is doing it. Unfortunately most government writing is in the passive voice. This gives documents a wordy, bureaucratic tone. We need to break that habit. The message has not changed, but readability improved a lot. Use https://app.readable.com/text/ https://app.readable.com/text/ to test that. The required reading level went from grade 10 to advanced grade 5, and other measures of readability also improved. This is a big difference. https://www.wyliecomm.com/2019/03/us-literacy-rate/ https://www.wyliecomm.com/2019/03/us-literacy-rate/ reports on a broad survey of adult literacy rates. Only 2% of US adults read and write at a grade 11 or better level. By contrast 48% read and write at a grade 6 or better level. My redraft is readable by an order of magnitude more people. What did I change? 1. Break up complex sentences. 2. Shorter is better. This isn't hard. But it really makes a difference.

briefcomment 7y ago
This is very effective in my experience. This kind of simplicity always gets praise in work environments, without explicitly being identified as "simplicity". Your rewrite was particularly skilled. Sometimes, it's hard to see that some things aren't adding value. Another tip: -In Emails, liberally use new paragraphs. Sometimes, even one sentence paragraphs are ok. I think this is because any way of compartmentalizing writing in non-trivial ways improves comprehension. It gives cues on how to digest the ideas in the writing.
- aggie 7y ago
  > Sometimes, even one sentence paragraphs are ok. They're more than ok -- they're a great attention management device! Don't worry about stuffy rules of prose when writing an email.