Wordiness

This blog is ultimately about words, so I’ve decided to devote a post to using them more economically and correctly.

Wait! Don’t leave! Keep reading! HEAR ME OUT!

See, one way to alienate your friends and acquaintances is to be that über annoying person who corrects grammar, saying, with a nose tilted upward, “Whom not who.”

Disclosure: Despite making a living with the word “editor” in my title, I don’t consider myself a “grammarian.” I lack deep, deep understanding of exactly how the English language is constructed, and I’d rather read an insipid Danielle Steel novel than debate split infinitives or whether “website” should be one word or two.

My grammatical wishy-washiness is not helped by the fact that my career started when publishing was very much in flux. When budgets for editorial work got cut, so did editorial standards. Publishers merging with other publishers often led to lack of oversight and quality control. The reduction of print and boom in online jabber have made the written word much more fluid and ongoing. Production schedules shrank. From what I understand, systems--and people--to train and mold grammar sticklers are now few and far between. The result is a freelance pool overflowing with poorly trained, unqualified editors who edit on the basis of what "sounds right." Of course, technology ain’t all bad. Programs abound that allow for manuscript tracking, redacting, detection of plagiarism, verification of references, and so on. Heck, even a simple PDF is highly searchable and incredibly useful if you need to check the consistency of a single word’s use throughout a 1,000-page book without losing two weeks of your life. The tools are there to improve editorial quality.

But no, I’m no grammarian. Mostly, I’m a rule-follower. I won’t take a stroller on an escalator, cross a street without a crosswalk AND a walk signal, or wear white after Labor Day. Thus, once I learn a grammar or editorial style rule, I follow it.

Less charmingly, I become sort of a stickler for it. I cringe when “impact” is used as a verb (which occurs in damn near every other sentence on CNBC) or a hyphen is used in place of an en dash.

That said, I get a tad annoyed when people freak out about a typo in the newspaper, or a minor inaccuracy in a book. Statements like, “The editor should’ve caught x, y, or z” from people who have no clue about publishing are aggravating. Readers really have no idea in what kind of condition that manuscript was submitted, what sort of prima donna author that editor is dealing with, that editor’s workload or pay scale, the quality of the copyeditor or proofreader the editor was stuck with, the deadlines forced on the publication, or the internal drama surrounding it.

Devoting a post to grammar, punctuation, or sloppy wordiness does little to dispel the notion that I copyedit or proofread for a living, which I’m pretty sure is what most of my family members think I do. I don’t. In fact, I don’t like to copyedit or proofread, because it’s really hard to do it well and you can't build an interesting career doing it (although you can bring in some extra cash). Most importantly, it’s BORING. Important  . . . but boring.

One thing that decent copyeditors can do is reduce word counts. Tight writing is a crucial part of good writing. Why, why, WHY use 9 words to say the same thing 1 or 2 might say?

So, for the good of the English language, I’ve managed to compile a list of obnoxious phrases I’ve recently come across and suggest words that can easily take their place (ahem, I mean substitute).

• the majority of = most
• is able to = can
• make the assumption that = assume
• has/have the ability to = can
• is defined as = is
• for a comparison of = to compare
• provided with = given
• my hope is that = I hope
• a multitude of = many
• would still be able to = could
• and therefore = , so
• put the emphasis on = emphasized
• for the purposes of = to
• the manner in which = how
• come to an understanding of = understand
• through the addition of = by adding

See, none of the original phrases is wrong. Each is simply wordier than necessary, at least within the context it was used.

Why do I tell you this? Mainly, to bring attention to the importance of words. To raise appreciation of the error-free Facebook status update (I hypocritically type this—mine are riddled with errors). To give credit to good basic writing that can then be tweaked, inverted, and pushed in the service of literature.

Words are important!

Red Hook Road

Red Hook Road
By Ayelet Waldman (343 pages)
Published by Doubleday
Bookish rating: 4.25

Red Hook Road has a horrifying yet catchy premise: A bride and groom are killed in an accident during the limo ride from their wedding to the reception.

What follows is four years of both families--the well-to-do bride's family and the working-class groom's family--coping with their losses.

Waldman takes a big risk with the novel's "inciting incident," which could have easily been reduced to a gimick or overdramatic, sentimental poo. Fortunately, Waldman steers clear of everything threatening to tank a novel about loss and premature death. In doing so, she illustrates the complexity and gravity the topic deserves.

That's not to say the novel is heartless. Waldman drops little bombs that are utterly overwhelming to anyone with a shred of maternal instinct. For example, Iris, the bride's mother, arrives on the accident scene and sees a body bag--and tiny strands of blond hair stick ever so slightly out of the bag's zipper. Hair she had brushed, blonde curls she delighted in, and on and on. Yeah, I had nightmares the night I read that scene.

The writing is very good, and the characters, particularly Iris, are well-drawn. Waldman, perhaps unintentionally, approaches the gruff character of Jane, the groom's mother, with some condescension. Jane is working-class, uneducated, small town, and Protestant, while Iris is well off, a literature professor at Columbia, living in New York City, and Jewish. Truthfully, the character of Jane seems to be written by Iris--and, well, Iris and the author are quite similar. Just saying.

That said, Iris's access to literature and music (her dad is a retired world-class violinist) takes the novel up yet another notch by deeply revering literature and music. Totally neccessary to the novel? Not really. But it's a nice perk.

Some back story gets a little long-winded, and the dialogue isn't always quite right, particularly that of a young girl in the novel. Another minor quibble? Waldman gives lovely descriptions of the lavender wedding colors and the decor inside the historical hall in Coastal Maine where the reception was supposed to occur, but the cover shows an outdoor wedding reception with peach tableclothes. I mean, really?

Overall, Waldman gives us a non-gimicky, non-cheesy, and non-sentimental novel that explores the deepest kind of grief. Recommended.

The Lonely Polygamist

The Lonely Polygamist
By Brady Udall (624 pages)
Published by W. W. Norton & Company
Bookish rating: 4

Obviously, the irony of The Lonely Polygamist is right there in the title. How can a dude with four wives and close to thirty children be lonely?

But lonely our male polygamist lead, Golden, is. In this rather long novel, Udall examines the dynamics and weirdness of polygamy. Although I do think that Udall glosses over some extremely problematic aspects of polygamy (e.g., sexual exploitation of young girls, its community's often cult-like isolation), his nonjudgmental approach allows characters to be more fully developed. Overall, I Udall's overall portrayal of polygamy is too freaking rosy, but that rosiness also differentiates the novel from other literature and tell-alls dealing with the topic (e.g., The Chosen One [which I highly recommend], The 19th Wife, Escape).

With a cast as large as Golden's huge family, Udall neccessarily focuses only a select few: Golden, the husband; Trish, the discontented and bored fourth wife; and Rusty, the neglected and somewhat wacky child. Through these three main characters, Udall manages to effectively illustrate the power struggles and competition among wives; the kids' yearning for attention, the chaos of almost 30 kids; the preciousness of each child's life, even in the midst of SO MANY of them; the pressure to PROVIDE for everyone; and so on.

The novel has no overarching plot; instead, it moves forward with a simmering pressure, and eventually all hell breaks loose at the climax. It works. That said, Udall's writing can get a tad long-winded, and at over 600 pages, it's really not neccessary. He also does a LOT of jumping back and forth, depending heavily on flashbacks. For the most part, jumping backward timewise works just fine, but it can get distracting.

Overall, The Lonely Polygamist is a must-read for anyone interested in the bizarre world of polygamy. The characters are incredibly drawn, the writing is simultaneously heartbreaking and hilarious (especially when we have Rusty's point of view), and the nuances of the family life are extremely believable. Recommended.