Writing in the Bus Lane
By Philip YaffeStrong statements make for strong writing, provided that they can be properly supported. Unfortunately, many people are prone to sweeping generalizations with little or no support at all. Competent writers avoid such shoddy thinking at all costs.
In the city where I live (Brussels, Belgiuim), extensive road works recently caused buses on a major route to detour into a rather small street to get around the obstacles. Parking was clearly prohibited where the bus had to make the turn. However, one day when I was on my way into town, the turn was hindered by a car parked directly in front of the "No Parking" sign. 1. Delete the generalization
I couldn't contain myself. I remarked to the lady sitting next to me, "That really makes me angry. I hope that car gets towed away and the driver gets stuck with a stiff fine." "The police obviously are not doing their job," the lady replied.
After much cautious maneuvering, the harassed bus driver was finally able to negotiate the turn and we continued on our way.
What is wrong with this story? No, it isn't that some people (too many) act like pigs, believing their wants and needs take precedence over everyone else's. It's the casual comment the lady made about the police. Not that the police are sacrosanct, but because her declaration was mired in ignorance.
She had no idea how long the car had been illegally parked, how often the police patrolled the area, whether or not the bus driver had called the police to signal the infraction, etc. However, despite knowing essentially nothing about the situation, she felt competent to make a sweeping, damning generalization: "The police obviously aren't doing their job."
What does all this have to do with effective expository writing? A basic form of expository (non-fiction) writing is argumentation. The text first makes a claim, then supports it with facts; or vice versa, it first presents facts, then comes to a conclusion based on those facts.
To the attentive reader, a generalization lacking clear factual support is likely to be unconvincing and therefore detrimental to the purposes of the text.
Sweeping generalizations are characteristic of children and teenagers. However, they are not necessarily eradicated by advancing age or education. A friend of mine who teaches doctoral candidates at a prestigious university recently complained about the lamentable writing skills displayed by some of his students.
"They are obviously very intelligent; otherwise they wouldn't be in line for a Ph.D. Nevertheless, when writing their dissertations, a disturbing number of them cannot seem to distinguish between fact and opinion. It's as if they believe that saying something strongly enough, and often enough, makes it so."
Occasionally, we all do this. However, very few are aware of it or take it seriously, even when it is pointed out. This is probably because we do not sufficiently appreciate the potential damage our unexamined utterances can do.
For example, what made this lady's declaration about the police so iniquitous was that the police may in fact have been doing their job very well. I was probably the only one who heard her comment on the bus, but later she may have recounted the incident to others, who picked it up and spread it around.
Sweeping generalizations are never good for anyone. They tar people with blame they don't deserve and may deny them recognition they do deserve.
If we are all prone to this error, what do we do about it?
First of all, recognize that unsubstantiated generalizations made while speaking are there for only a moment; unless repeated, they then vanish into the ether. However, when written, there are there for ever. One such statement in a text might cause the attentive reader to raise an eyebrow. Several such statements will almost certainly result in the document's theses being rejected as doubtful or total rubbish.
According to my professor friend, "The best defense against this kind of error is to be constantly aware of it, and constantly on guard against it."
This doesn't mean that you must examine every word, phrase, sentence and paragraph you write as you write it. Most competent authors follow the dictum: Write fast, edit slow. In other words, once you have researched you subject, write your first draft at speed, with little concern for grammar, vocabulary spelling, punctuation – and even sweeping generalizations.
The purpose of the first draft is to try to put your facts and ideas into some kind of order. The purpose of the second draft (there must always be a second draft) is to correct the errors of the first one.
If you discover that you have one or more sweeping generalizations with insufficient factual support, the second draft is the time to do something about it. Your options are:
2. Find the facts to support it
3. Admit your weakness
Options 1 and 2 are largely self-evident. If the generalization is not really vital to your subject, get rid of it. If it is vital to your subject, find the facts to support it.
Option 3 is the psychological troublemaker, because it stands between 1 and 2. If you consider the generalization to be vital to your subject, but you can(y find enough facts to totally defend it, you can almost always find enough facts to make it at least plausible.
Don't fall into the trap of trying to gloss over the weakness in your argument; attentive readers will catch you out. Serious theses are seldom won on a single outing. Admitting that your argument has weaknesses will gain you credibility; trying to suggest that it is flawless will almost certainly lose it.
Acknowledging gaps in your argument doesn't require that you stand up and shout "Mea Culpa." The effect can often be obtained by the language you choose to present the facts at your disposal. You have seen many examples of this throughout this article. For example:
• "To the attentive reader, a sweeping generalization lacking clear factual support is likely to be unconvincing . . . ," not "will be unconvincing."
• "I was probably the only one who heard her comment on the bus, but later she may have recounted the incident to others . . .," not "must have recounted."
• "Several such statements will almost certainly result in the document's theses being rejected . . . ," not simply "certainly."
But doesn't this kind of writing make the text wishy-washy? That's for you to judge. You have just read a text full of such tempered statements rather than sweeping generalizations. Do you think it sounded wishy-washy?
Remember: If you have something strong to say and are prepared to stand behind it, then do so. You should have a pretty good idea of any strong positions you want to take before you start writing. However, you should become truly concerned about distinguishing between tempered statements and strong statements primarily in the second draft; the first draft is destined for other things. Happily, the more experience you gain in making this distinction, the more you will find yourself automatically doing so in the first draft, as well.
"I'm not a very good writer, but I'm an excellent rewriter." - - James Michener
"Having imagination, it takes you an hour to write a paragraph that, if you were unimaginative, would take you only a minute. Or you might not write the paragraph at all." - - Franklin P. Adams
"Write your first draft with your heart. Re-write with your head." - - Anonymous
Biographical Information
Philip Yaffe has more than 40 years of experience in journalism and marketing communication. At various points in his career, he has been a teacher of journalism, a reporter/feature writer with The Wall Street Journal, an account executive with a major international press relations agency, European marketing communication director with two major international companies, and a founding partner of a marketing communication agency in Brussels, Belgium, where he has lived since 1974. He is author of The Gettysburg Approach to Writing & Speaking like a Professional. Contact: phil.yaffe@yahoo.com,phil.yaffe@gmail.com.
|
|
|
|
