Something happened today and rather than lose my temper I thought I'd write about it. In a class today, I saw a technical writer present on the distinctions between different kinds of writing. That's a good way to get me riled up. Then she went on in great detail elaborating on how, common wisdom suggests, clear, concise, and logical writing should not be creative. I don't mean to be arrogant; I'm sure the title of this post is ironic. But at the same time, I feel compelled to move the argument in new directions. That this is the last word on grammar shall be a kind of joke between me and whoever reads this blog.
Some of the clearest, most concise writing is creative and unexpected. Writing doesn't need to be lifeless to get a point across. The spaceships hung in the sky in the exact way that bricks don't, Douglas Adams wrote. Does anyone not understand that? The girl's problem is this: She was confusing sloppy grammar, esoteric weirdness, and artsy garbage with genuine creativity. When ideas are expressed in a creative way, we are more likely to remember them. Think of Ben Franklin's witty remarks. (Not just the Poor Richard quotes, but also the serious ones, as in his essay Whistle: When I see a beautiful, sweet-tempered girl married to an ill- natured brute of a husband, What a pity, say I, that she should pay so much for a whistle.)
One of the technical writer's main points was that if someone misreads the directions on a product, they could potentially harm themselves. It reminds me of a misting fountain I once bought at a novelty store. I never read instructions, but this time I did. The Korean technical writer admonished me -- I'll never forget -- Be warning! If mist too big and wet table, do not touch or electric shock shall harm you! I might not have thought of that if I hadn't read the instructions. And I certainly wouldn't have read the instructions if they weren't... creative. That was three or four years ago.
First, Will Strunk Jr. and E.B. White's thoughts on conciseness (another of the girl's main arguments against creativity in technical writing).
Now, I will offer this question: Why is grammar important?
If grammar were so important and rigid, how could good writers get away with breaking the rules? I am confident grammar matters because without proper grammar, we would not be able to understand what writing says. Errors are distracting, they break the spell of reading, destroy the vivid and continuous dream. But intentional bending of the rules is not distracting. So we need conventions to understand one another. Clarity above all things.
But wait: Why is clarity important? Why clarity above all things?
Because clarity allows communication. It allows a connection between author and reader. It makes the process dynamic.
Therefore, grammar matters only in terms of clarity, which matters only in terms of connecting as human beings.
Some of the clearest, most concise writing is creative and unexpected. Writing doesn't need to be lifeless to get a point across. The spaceships hung in the sky in the exact way that bricks don't, Douglas Adams wrote. Does anyone not understand that? The girl's problem is this: She was confusing sloppy grammar, esoteric weirdness, and artsy garbage with genuine creativity. When ideas are expressed in a creative way, we are more likely to remember them. Think of Ben Franklin's witty remarks. (Not just the Poor Richard quotes, but also the serious ones, as in his essay Whistle: When I see a beautiful, sweet-tempered girl married to an ill- natured brute of a husband, What a pity, say I, that she should pay so much for a whistle.)
One of the technical writer's main points was that if someone misreads the directions on a product, they could potentially harm themselves. It reminds me of a misting fountain I once bought at a novelty store. I never read instructions, but this time I did. The Korean technical writer admonished me -- I'll never forget -- Be warning! If mist too big and wet table, do not touch or electric shock shall harm you! I might not have thought of that if I hadn't read the instructions. And I certainly wouldn't have read the instructions if they weren't... creative. That was three or four years ago.
First, Will Strunk Jr. and E.B. White's thoughts on conciseness (another of the girl's main arguments against creativity in technical writing).
Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell.So we may safely say that all writing, not just technical writing, should be concise. Or else it will not be vigorous. Fair enough. No one would accuse Ernest Hemingway or Ivan Bunin of not being concise. In fact, they are laconic.
Now, I will offer this question: Why is grammar important?
If grammar were so important and rigid, how could good writers get away with breaking the rules? I am confident grammar matters because without proper grammar, we would not be able to understand what writing says. Errors are distracting, they break the spell of reading, destroy the vivid and continuous dream. But intentional bending of the rules is not distracting. So we need conventions to understand one another. Clarity above all things.
But wait: Why is clarity important? Why clarity above all things?
Because clarity allows communication. It allows a connection between author and reader. It makes the process dynamic.
Therefore, grammar matters only in terms of clarity, which matters only in terms of connecting as human beings.
The End
Leave a comment