Free Writing Tips

Tips that illuminate and liberate

Fine Points

Posted on January 10, 2017 by Norm Friedman

See if you can make a slight refinement in each of these sentences from the Bridge Bulletin, the monthly magazine enjoyed by members of the American Contract Bridge League.

1. Masterpoints, as they are presently constituted are meaningless.

2. Watch out for an opportunity to block the opponents’ suit.

3. The lineup for France, winners of Group B in the round-robin, were Pierre, Marie, Claude and Isabelle.

The hairsplitting edits

1. We need a comma after constituted to complete what we started after Masterpoints. (I’d also delete they are to get rid of the weak verb to be – in this case, are. And to get really hairsplitting about this sentence, some purists like to reserve presently for the meaning soon, so they’d use currently here. Our finished product then becomes Masterpoints, as currently constituted, are meaningless.)

2. The apostrophe in opponents’ suit is correct because bridge is played in teams of two. We’re not talking about an opponent’s suit. But I’d change Watch out for to just Watch for. We watch out for something that will hurt us, but here we are referring to an opportunity.

3. The verb were (plural) does not agree with lineup (singular). The fact that we have four names doesn’t change the grammar. We want The lineup … was.

You can go to http://www.normfriedman.com/index.shtml to learn more about my workshops on writing in the workplace, individual coaching, editing, and handbook – 100+ Instant Writing Tips. Thank you.

Posted in Common Grammar Errors, Common Punctuation Errors, Commonly Confused Words, Flair & Finesse | Leave a comment

Getting Started

Posted on January 3, 2017 by Norm Friedman

Whether we’ve resolved to write our first screenplay in 2017 or simply craft better emails, we benefit from mindfulness that writing is a three-step process: pre-writing, writing, rewriting. Too many of us focus almost entirely on writing itself, largely neglecting the before and after. So what better place to begin our 2017 posts than at the beginning?

Let’s say we’re composing a report on four unrelated personnel matters. Because there is no “natural order” to the report, we have many ways to organize it. How many? Well, those who remember advanced algebra know we have 24 possibilities (4 x 3 x 2 x 1). If we start writing willy-nilly, chances are we’ll have to do a lot of reorganizing as we go, and even then we’re likely to wind up with a product that could have been more cohesive.

The trick is making a wise investment in the report up front by spending a few minutes brainstorming and planning. Here are three examples of ways to accomplish that.

Magical methods

1. Take a sheet of scrap paper, cut it into several pieces, and jot ideas on each one. After you’ve brainstormed content for a short while, arrange the points as you want to convey them to your reader. You now have a skeleton for your rough draft. (And if you’re partial to working with Post-its instead, go for it.)

2. Brainstorm ideas onto a sheet of scrap paper and simply use numbers or arrows to plot the order in which you want to communicate your points. You might call the result a messy, but extremely useful, outline.

3. Brainstorm on your computer screen, perhaps with brief phrases. Then cut and paste those notes to create a winning order. (Cutting and pasting before we start writing, rather than while we’re writing or after, saves loads of time.)

The math is compelling

If we’re composing an agenda, and we settle on six topics for the meeting, we have 720 possible arrangements. If we’re writing a major document that discusses 10 issues, we have 3,628,800 conceivable arrangements. So whenever a document we are writing is at all unwieldy, we cannot afford to skip the planning step. When we pre-write, we win, and so does our reader.

Posted in Flair & Finesse | Leave a comment

Two Complementary Resolutions

Posted on December 27, 2016 by Norm Friedman

Let’s put aside the usual fine points regarding grammar, punctuation, and word use in favor of two broader ideas for improving our writing in 2017:
1. Make sure our writing reflects the way we talk.
2. Look for opportunities to make our writing more precise.

See how these two objectives complement each other.

1. Yes, our writing should be superior to our speech in many ways – better organized, clearer, more concise, more error-free – but it should also seem natural. A friendly, conversational tone is key to forging a strong connection with our readers.

That means, for example, there’s no reason to prefer utilize over use. Why write, “Did you utilize that information I gave you?” We’d most likely say use, so why not write it? Why get fancy, as though we are shooting for a higher grade on a term paper?

2. At the same time, we do want our writing to transcend our spontaneous speech, and a vital way to accomplish that is through greater precision. So, a good meeting might become unifying or refreshing. A bad meeting, disjointed or tedious. An interesting finding, instructive or surprising. An amazing result, promising or unprecedented.

Reallocate!

The trick is saving time by writing more naturally and using those extra minutes to see where we can sharpen our ideas through more precise language. Doing so can markedly improve our writing and make the writing process more enjoyable and fulfilling. Try it.

Happy new year.

Posted in Flair & Finesse, Tone | Leave a comment

Softballs

Posted on December 19, 2016 by Norm Friedman

To get in the swing of the season, I’m extending five gifts – five errors that should be a cinch to spot. Identify them all to bat 1.000.

1. I could of hitched a ride with Carrie, but I decided to drive.
2. Except for Jerry and myself, everyone arrived on time.
3. We heard that your going to Florida for a few weeks.
4. Sherry has ran in more than 10 marathons.
5. Please send your reactions to the proposal to Barry and I.

“C” for correctness and credibility

No one can bat 1.000 every day, so the best we can do is limit our errors and commit to avoiding errors that are so fundamental they will distract the reader and rob us of credibility. The errors in numbers 1, 3, and 4 fall in that category. (The errors in 2 and 5 are fundamental as well, but, unfortunately, commonplace. Try to get those right every time, too.)

1. The reason for this error is our pronouncing could have as could’ve, which lures us into writing could of instead of could have.
2. Far too often, writers and speakers use I or myself when the correct pronoun is me. We don’t have to be grammar experts to get this right. Just eliminate Jerry and for a moment. It should then be clear that except for me sounds correct, so we want except for Jerry and me.
3. Ouch. We want the contraction for you are – you’re – not your.
4. The conjugation goes “Today I run.” “Yesterday I ran.” And “I have run.” So it’s Sherry has run, not ran.
5. We’d never say send your reactions to I. Therefore, we want to Barry and me.

Posted in Common Grammar Errors, Commonly Confused Words | Leave a comment

Plus/Minus

Posted on December 12, 2016 by Norm Friedman

To ensure clarity, some of our most valuable writing skills are ability to organize the message effectively, identify with the reader, avoid unnecessarily long sentences and paragraphs, and use jargon with discretion. But have you ever thought about the need to recognize words that can be ambiguous or misleading?

Here are a few on my radar. Decide if the underlined word strikes you as positive, negative, or neutral.

• Tell me about an attribute you have as an adult you did not have as a child.
• The party affected my mood the rest of the weekend.
• Sue gained a lot of notoriety when she served on City Council.
• Stu made several drastic changes in his time as CFO.
• The vacation made a surprising impact on our family’s dynamics.

See if you agree

• An attribute is simply a characteristic, not necessarily an asset. It’s neutral. Maybe as an adult you are more flexible or too stubborn. They’re both attributes.
• Affect is neutral. The party might have lifted my spirits or put me in a funk. (Often in workplace writing we should change affect to a precise word like improve or reduce or strengthen to make our point clear immediately.)
• Notoriety is negative (as is notorious), so maybe Sue continually created discord. (When we use notoriety as a synonym for a neutral word like fame, we can mislead.)
• Drastic, with synonyms including radical and severe, has negative connotations, which is why phrases like drastic upgrade are odd. But dramatic upgrade works nicely.
• Impact is like affect (and effect). It’s neutral. The reader needs more information to know if the impact on our family has been favorable or unfavorable.

Posted in Commonly Confused Words, Flair & Finesse | Leave a comment

The Full Course

Posted on December 5, 2016 by Norm Friedman

Among the points covered in last week’s post was the difference between outside and outside of. That brief explanation was your appetizer. Now let’s see how you handle the full course by making nine choices involving prepositions followed by of.

1. Phil led his family inside/inside of the cave.
2. Lil usually gets to her office inside/inside of 30 minutes.
3. Despite the wind, the parachutist managed to land inside/inside of the circle.
4. No one on our staff outside/outside of Will speaks Spanish.
5. Jill delivered her news report from outside/outside of the Capitol.
6. Gil applied at every mall business outside/outside of the eateries.
7. The manager took 20 percent off/off of my check because of the slow service.
8. The kids had a ball jumping off/off of the sand dunes.
9. Let’s move off/off of this discussion so we can get to our final item.

Your answers

Using of after another preposition is almost always incorrect, but inside of and outside of have special meanings. Inside of means less than (as in #2). Outside of means except or except for (as in #4 and #6). Off of is never correct. Therefore, we want of only in 2, 4, and 6.

Posted in Common Grammar Errors, Commonly Confused Words | Leave a comment

Keep Your Eye on the Ball

Posted on November 28, 2016 by Norm Friedman

With the Cleveland Browns now winless in 12 games, let’s reflect, mercifully, on the Indians’ run all the way to the seventh game of the World Series. This was accomplished despite a relatively paltry payroll, as noted in a Nov. 20 piece in The Plain Dealer. What would you refine in this excerpt, in which I am numbering the six short sentences?

(1) The Indians ranked 22nd in payroll at $98 million. (2) They were the only team outside of the top 15 in payroll to even make the playoffs.

(3) There are 30 MLB teams. (4) Besides the Tribe, the only other team outside the top 15 payroll to even have a winning record was Houston.

(5) So the 23rd-ranked Tribe and 24th-ranked Astros were the only two winning teams not in the top half in payroll. (6) Only the Tribe played in the postseason.

Yikes. This is why our teachers instructed us to proof our work. Here are my main objections – in addition to the clumsy lack of flow:

• (1 & 5) So did the Tribe rank 22nd or 23rd? (We’ll call the rank 23rd.)
• (2 & 4) How can outside of and outside, used the same way, both be correct? Regular readers of my blog know that of is almost always wrong after another preposition, but that outside of has a special use. It means except or except for, as in Outside of Zeke, everyone liked the movie. But here the point is that the Tribe fell outside the top 15 in payroll.
• (2) Why even make the playoffs? That makes no sense. Earning a spot in the playoffs is not a marginal achievement; it is every team’s goal at the start of the season.
• (3) The fact that Major League Baseball comprises 30 teams should be established at the beginning, as context for the Tribe’s rank.
• (4) Oops. We need in before payroll, and, again, even doesn’t make sense.
• (5) Everything here, except that the Astros ranked 24th, was just stated in the previous sentence.
• (5) Wouldn’t not in the top half be more gracefully conveyed as in the bottom half?
• (6) We already learned that in (2).

Now let’s correct, polish, and cut the 78 words to 42.

Of 30 MLB teams, the Indians ranked 23rd in payroll at $98 million and were the only team outside the top 15 to make the playoffs. The only other team in the bottom 15 with a winning record was Houston, ranked 24th.

Posted in Brevity, Commonly Confused Words, Flair & Finesse | Leave a comment

Listening

Posted on November 21, 2016 by Norm Friedman

I think you’ll agree that an attribute we deeply appreciate in others is listening skills. So in a fast-paced digital world, how can we enhance our written communications to show we are paying attention? Here are three tips:

1. Echo the language you received. If Alberta writes us asking to help spice up an announcement, why write back saying we’ll be glad to see if we can add some pizazz or make the announcement more dynamic? We can show we’re listening by playing back the sender’s wording and saying we’ll be glad to take a stab at spicing up the announcement.

2. Take advantage of “prime property”: the subject line. If Alphonse sends an email titled Need some help because he wants advice regarding a dilemma, why not respond with Your dilemma in the subject line? (In general, the trick of updating or sharpening the subject line in an email exchange still appears to be a well-kept secret.)

3. Include a detail. Next Monday, many emails will start with something like Good morning, Alma. I hope you had a great Thanksgiving weekend. And that’s a good thing. That’s friendly. But we can do even better with something like Good morning, Alma. I hope you had a great Thanksgiving weekend, and everyone loved your new cherry pie recipe. Now Alma knows we’ve been paying attention.

The swirl of today’s communications challenges us to take extra steps to forge strong connections. Showing we’re listening is key.

Posted in Flair & Finesse, Tone | Leave a comment

Who?

Posted on November 14, 2016 by Norm Friedman

Take a look at this sentence from an article that appeared shortly before the election: You could do a survey, which is merely a collection of answers from whomever cares enough to answer the survey. Did the author and editor get everything right? Nope, and here’s why.

Even the pros can get tripped up when deciding whether whoever or whomever (or who or whom) follows a preposition like from, so let’s back up a moment.

We know from our school days that an object of a preposition needs to be in objective case. That would mean, for instance, we want to him not to he, after us not after we, off me not off I, and from whomever not from whoever. But this sentence is trickier.

We are supposed to treat the entire clause whomever cares enough to answer the survey as the object of the preposition. Therefore, within that clause, the pronoun needs to be in subjective case as the subject of cares. (After all, we’d never write or say him cares or me cares, right?) So we want from whoever cares enough to answer the survey.

My advice

Because whom and whomever have an air of formality, and we often want our writing to sound natural, we can save time and stress by not overthinking and just sticking with the generally well accepted who and whoever, with three exceptions:
• You are writing a document that should be more formal, so you want to rise above a conversational tone.
• You know the reader is a stickler for correctness.
• You are a stickler for correctness.

Posted in Common Grammar Errors, Commonly Confused Words, Flair & Finesse | Leave a comment

Back Pain

Posted on November 7, 2016 by Norm Friedman

We need to remember that many words beginning with re-, such as reflect, return, and revert, do not need to be followed by back:

Even when I already know the story, I like hearing Grandma reflect back on her early days in this country. (Back is redundant.)

We decided to return back to our original itinerary. (Back is redundant.)

We need to guard against reverting back to the production problems that plagued us in June. (Back is redundant.)

Sometimes when we fall into redundancies, we are not just failing to write concisely. We are also failing to appreciate a word’s full meaning.

Hark back

I heard a well-spoken political analyst use the phrase hearken back in a recent radio interview. Thinking he should have said hark back, I did a bit of research and discovered that what he said is fine. To hark is to recall, and the primary meaning of hearken (also spelled harken) is listen, but as often happens with words, the repeated use of hearken back to mean recall has become accepted.