Do I Make Myself Clear? - Book Summary

Diving into clarity: Understanding how to communicate effectively

Have you ever found yourself struggling through a complex legal document, trying to decipher the intricate language and jargon? Or perhaps trying to keep your eyes open while reading a potentially intriguing scholarly article, but the convoluted vocabulary puts you off?

In today's digital world, where there are no constraints on word count, we are drowning in oceans of convoluted language and impenetrable prose. Gone are the good old days when a writer or editor had to strive for brevity, delivering a clear and concise message in a paragraph or a page.

This audio series will provide you with essential guidelines for clear and efficient communication. You will not only refine your writing skills but also rekindle your appreciation for the power and beauty of clarity.

In this journey, you will uncover:

The reasons to steer clear of the passive voice,

Strategies to eliminate unnecessary words that obscure your message, and

Techniques to exterminate language "zombies" and "flesh-eaters".

Untangling the web of bad writing: Discovering the art of lucid writing

If you've always been a devout reader of quality journalism, chances are you would eagerly wait for the latest issue of the New Republic magazine. When it was a print publication, it was the hallmark of engaging and incisive writing.

In 2012, Chris Hughes, one of the co-founders of Facebook, bought the magazine, introducing new writers and transitioning it exclusively online. The anxiety about a potential decline in quality rose, and this fear was more or less validated when a press release described the revamped publication as a "cross-functional collaboration" to "align themselves from a metabolism perspective" as a "vertically integrated digital media company."

Sadly, this sort of vague and confusing language is quite ubiquitous on the internet.

Consider another instance. The Financial Times claims that its online content is "improving the efficacy of measurable learning outcomes." You might be left wondering, "What does that mean exactly?"

In the era when print newspapers reigned, writers had limited space to deliver their message. They were required to be concise, clear, and direct.

Contrarily, online content often lacks substance, favoring verbosity over brevity, and the problem is further exacerbated by the proliferation of clickbait and misleading news.

The blame cannot be placed solely on internet platforms and Facebook — TV news reporting and academia are equally notorious for producing some of the most convoluted writing.

Fortunately, it doesn't have to be like this. Contrary to popular belief, writing is not an innate talent. It's a skill, one that can be honed and improved with consistent effort and determination.

Even the legendary William Shakespeare tirelessly worked on refining his writing.

From his early, relatively unremarkable works to later masterpieces such as King Lear and The Tempest, Shakespeare's writing journey exemplifies how dedicated writers can continuously evolve their craft.

The good news is, you can embark on this journey too. In the sections to come, we will delve into a series of tips and techniques that you can start applying today.

Mastering the mechanics of writing: Understanding traditional structures and readability indexes without becoming dependent on them

There's no harm in adhering to the conventional sentence structures taught in our school days. But remember this: If every sentence follows the same pattern, the writing can become monotonous.

Bear in mind that the primary role of a sentence is to communicate a comprehensive idea, and there are multiple ways to accomplish this. Classic sentence structures serve as guidelines, ensuring that your subject, verb, and predicate are in the right place, making your thoughts easy to comprehend.

However, sentences can be effective even without including the subject, verb, or predicate. For instance, ending a paragraph with a one-word sentence can be impactful. Rejoice! (Did you catch that?)

Writers often get advice to keep their writing simple. While it's indeed beneficial to keep an eye out for superfluous adverbs and adjectives to make sentences clearer, creating an endless sequence of bland short sentences isn't the solution either.

The ultimate goal should be lucid communication. Simple sentences like "The cat sat on the mat" are easily understandable, but if such sentences bore your reader, you're not communicating effectively. A paragraph filled with similar sentences can be tedious.

Another potential source of guidance is a readability index, but it's essential not to rely heavily on it.

Since the late 19th century, scholars have been exploring the qualities of clear writing, leading to the creation of tools like the Flesch Reading Ease Index, which gauges the readability of a piece of writing. There's also the Flesch-Kincaid grade level, indicating the level of education a reader needs to comprehend the content.

Other indices like the Gunning fog index and the Dale-Chall Formula consider the frequency of "difficult" words in your writing.

While these tools can provide valuable insights — for instance, Flesch's formula suggests that the ideal sentence length is 18 words on average — they can't provide a comprehensive assessment. In fact, a composition could be pure gibberish, but if it uses simple vocabulary and relatively short sentences, it would still score high on these indices.

Striking the right balance: Steering clear of sentence front-loading and excessive use of passive voice

Harold Evans has worked with several renowned authors such as Norman Mailer, E.L. Doctorow, and Gore Vidal. Despite each one having a distinct writing style, they all adhere to the same fundamentals of coherent and impactful writing.

Many writers concur that it's best to keep the use of passive voice to a minimum.

The passive voice tends to pad your sentence with unnecessary words and diminishes the immediacy and assertiveness found in the active voice.

For instance, you could draft a memo using passive voice like this: "It was decided that the next employee meeting should be held on Monday." However, the active voice would make it more straightforward: "The next employee meeting is on Monday."

Of course, every rule has exceptions, and the passive voice can be helpful in conveying tact or delicacy regarding sensitive topics. In some cases, you might want to emphasize the receiver rather than the doer, a task that the passive voice can accomplish by placing the receiver at the start of the sentence.

So, if your narrative centers around a baby rather than, let's say, a president, it might be more appropriate to say, "The baby was kissed by the president," instead of, "The president kissed the baby."

Another valuable guideline is to avoid loading the front of your sentences with numerous words before getting to your central point.

Here's a typical case: "Given the problems of unfriendly climate, poor infrastructure, various militant groups vying for bribes and a lack of refrigerated trucks, it was difficult for the government to transport food to the village."

This sentence requires the reader to sift through twenty words and a litany of issues before they understand the problem. A clearer and more effective sentence would present the problem first, followed by the reasons.

Cleanse your sentences: Cut down on redundant adverbs, superfluous prepositions, and vague terms

If you've ever found yourself in an academic, bureaucratic, political, or technological sphere, you've likely come across writing bloated with unnecessary verbiage. These extraneous words might be used to project an image of intellectual superiority or modernity, or they might be deliberately wielded to confuse the reader.

Surprisingly, it's not rare to find voting proposals composed in such a convoluted way that citizens, overwhelmed by the confusing language, end up voting for laws they wouldn't normally support.

Such perplexing language is usually littered with needless words like adverbs, adjectives, superfluous prepositions, and abstract nouns. As Stephen King, one of the world's most celebrated authors, quipped: "The road to hell is paved with adverbs."

So, a handy rule to follow is to limit adjectives and annihilate adverbs.

Adverbs like "exactly," "precisely," and "really" can often be eliminated without any loss of meaning. Instead of penning "the price was exactly five dollars," just state "the price was five dollars."

Generally, adjectives are adverbs sans the "-ly" suffix, such as "precise" and "exact," and their use should be controlled.

Bear in mind: a writer's mission is to convey clear thoughts. When executed properly, the need for superlatives naturally wanes. A writer shouldn't describe an event as "shocking," but elucidate why it shocked people.

Superfluous prepositions are another class of redundant words.

These often tag along after perfectly useful words and contribute nothing substantial. Common culprits are "up" and "out." So, next time you write, "Let's meet up at the cafe and test out the new app," consider sparing a few words by saying, "Let's meet at the cafe and test the new app!"

Last but not least, abstract nouns. These words lack a concrete definition, making them incapable of adding clarity to your sentences. They encompass terms like "regard," "indication," "facilities," and "issue."

Be precise! Instead of saying you "take issue" with something, make your feelings explicit.

Writing with clarity: Nix unnecessary negatives and dodge the dreariness of monotonous prose

It's a truth universally acknowledged by writers everywhere that double negatives are a cardinal sin in clear writing. This is a rule you certainly wouldn't want to forget.

When suitable, go a step further to sidestep 'not's, and convert negative phrases into positive assertions. As a writer, it's more effective to explain what is happening rather than what isn’t.

Typically, a well-crafted sentence is not only clearer but also uses fewer words than a less refined one. Therefore, instead of penning, “it is unlikely that the fees will not be raised next year” you could instead write, “the fees will likely increase next year.”

This kind of assertive writing always resonates more deeply with the reader, conveying meaning more accurately and engagingly.

Another trap writers need to evade is the lifelessness of rigid, mechanistic language.

Exceptional writing has a certain cadence, just like music. And akin to melodies, variety is an asset.

There are three techniques to keep your prose vibrant and your reader engaged; juggle form, function, and style.

Sentences come in two forms — simple and complex. Sterling writing mingles both types. You could first employ a few simple sentences, like, "She hopped into the car and zoomed off," to captivate the reader, then follow with a longer, more complex sentence — or vice versa.

You can diversify function by blending statements, directives, queries, and exclamations. Heads up, dear reader! How about spicing things up by interspersing a question now and then?

Lastly, consider style. You have three choices: casual sentences, mirroring colloquial conversation; periodic sentences, offering concise, powerful points; and balanced sentences, epitomizing symmetry and order.

While a periodic sentence lands its point with a bang, a balanced sentence does so with calm poise.

Guard your prose from zombified nouns, word gluttons, and overworked phrases

We've already dissected the perils of unnecessary prepositions, but these small annoyances are dwarfed by the chaos sown by zombie nouns and word gluttons.

Zombie noun is a term crafted by Professor Helen Sword from the University of Auckland, referring to words that originate as a verb but undergo a ghoulish transformation into sentence-destroying nouns.

Run-of-the-mill zombie nouns include "implementation," "documentation," and "authorization." All of these were previously lively verbs — "implement," "document," "authorize." Their transformation, or zombification to be precise, is ironically known as nominalization.

Zombies also feast on adjectives, morphing into superfluous words such as "applicability" and "forgetfulness."

While occasionally a zombie noun may be inescapable, or at least justifiable — for example, when discussing an "invention" or someone's "imagination" — it's wise to comb through your manuscript, scrutinizing words ending in "-ation," "-ance," "-mant," "-ment," "-ence," and "-sion." Such words can often be excised or substituted with the original verb to streamline and clarify your message.

Word gluttons, or "flesh-eaters" as they're also known, are unnecessary words or phrases that can gut a sentence of clarity.

Any superfluous verbiage that obfuscates a simple point qualifies as a word glutton. Classic examples include using "in the possession of" instead of "has," or "concerning the matter of" instead of "about."

These word gluttons frequently infest legal documents, making contracts a tediously baffling read.

Word gluttons bear similarities to hackneyed, worn-out phrases, which should be given a wide berth to keep your writing fresh and original.

It's nearly impossible to completely sidestep clichés, but it's worth striving to minimize their presence in your prose if you aim for freshness and originality.

Part of the art of exceptional writing lies in concocting novel expressions and cleverly rephrasing worn-out phrases such as "blazing inferno," "hammered out a deal," "last-ditch effort," "pool of blood," and so forth.

Good writing: A potent weapon in preserving meaning in a post-truth era

In his legendary novel 1984 , George Orwell conceptualized "Newspeak," a language variant that both dilutes the essence of words and eradicates free thought.

In Orwell’s dystopian world, an oppressive regime aims to impose Newspeak as the sole communication medium by 2050. Given recent developments, it seems we're exceeding that timeline, with the genuine definitions of words increasingly falling prey to political manipulation.

New York Times columnist Roger Cohen succinctly encapsulated this concern: “Emptying words of their meaning is an essential step on the road to autocratic rule.” Cohen was responding to statements like Donald Trump's claim of a “landslide” victory and his assertion that the media are “among the most dishonest human beings on earth.”

In a telling instance, Scottie Nell Hughes, a spokesperson for the right-wing Tea Party, remarked on the Diane Rehm Show, “People say facts are facts – but they’re not really facts.”

Time and again, we hear politicians like Donald Trump use terms such as “challengeable” and “questionable” to cast a shadow of doubt over established facts.

Eminent humanitarian author Hannah Arendt and satirical scribe Jonathan Swift eloquently highlighted the perils of the “political lie.” They drew a stark contrast between uttering a falsehood to evade trouble and manufacturing a lie to "disempower facts" and spin a “fictional narrative.”

That's why mounting a robust defense against these assaults on truth with exceptional writing is absolutely imperative.

The onus is on us to safeguard the truth. To fulfill this responsibility, we must judiciously choose our words, respect their authentic meanings, and use them appropriately. This includes differentiating between "effect" and "affect," "continual" and "continuous," "loan" and "lend," and "reign" and "rein."

Bad writing: A shrouded tool for political machinations and financial malfeasance

You might dismiss the importance of a few correctly used words, but let recent happenings serve as a stark reminder: poor writing can wreak havoc costing billions.

The recent economic downturn that kicked off in 2007 stands testament to the potential devastation caused by misleading language.

Journalist and editor at Financial Times, Gillian Tett, notes that banks intentionally obfuscate details about their subprime loan packages in convoluted language. This linguistic legerdemain is designed to keep customers and regulators in the dark. Attempt deciphering a Collateralized Debt Obligation (CDO) or a Structured Investment Vehicle (SIV) for a first-hand experience.

Customers, kept clueless about the exact nature of their purchases, find themselves on thin ice if things go sideways. Regulators, left grappling with these linguistic puzzles, are unable to mount effective countermeasures against these sinister profiteering tactics.

In essence, one could argue that vague and indecipherable language brought the global financial system to a near collapse, resulting in countless people being stripped of their homes and life savings.

Barton Swaim, a former political speechwriter, confesses that politicians too are no strangers to cryptic language. They often use it to either buy time or distance themselves from taking definitive stands on issues.

However, the malevolent power of bad writing extends beyond the realm of politics. Amid ongoing debates on climate change, political entities deliberately wield deceptive language to undercut environmental conservation efforts.

As per the Texas Republicans, “'climate change' is a political agenda which attempts to control every aspect of our lives.”

Since 2009, Republicans have employed manipulative language to oppose the Affordable Care Act and sway public opinion against it. Their infamous scare tactic? Alleging the existence of “death panels” intended to euthanize senior citizens.

Even though English can be misused for obfuscation and deceit, it can also be a potent force for upholding the truth. Now more than ever, we must harness its power to champion the cause of honesty and transparency.

Concluding thoughts

The central thesis of this book:

The significance of lucid writing cannot be understated. Language has the power to mold our ideas and worldview, and can be leveraged for both noble and nefarious purposes. Entities such as politicians and banks often resort to convoluted language to cloak their true intentions. Therefore, champion clarity! By adhering to some fundamental principles, we can render our written communication clear and succinct – a transformation that promises to benefit us all.