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!