August 22, 2006
WRTA.com
 Brown
Shoes Diary
Elements of Style for Educators
I'm sure I'm guilty of a lot of things,
but abstruse writing is not one of them. Unless, of course, you find two
syllable words like "abstruse" abstruse. In a recent letter to the editor at
WRTA.com ("Forest Gump and the Economy"), a certain educator accuses me of
writing with "big words" and "length", by which I think he means too many big
words.
The facts are that I used 1,014 words in my essay, "Chairman Tim and the
Socialist Economy," with an average of less than 4.8 letters per word. I
think those facts pretty much rule out the complaint that I use too many "big
words."
Regarding the length of that essay, I would agree that shorter would be
better. But when the task is to address the multitude of economic fallacies
in Professor Slekar's essay, I should think I am due praise for brevity. The
good Professor describes himself as the Wal-Mart of opinion pieces, because he
"offers more for less." But he omits quality in his metaphor. His opinion
pieces are more like K-Mart and as Raymond Babbitt would say, "K-Mart sucks."
Still, I have to admit that 1,014 words is 25% longer than the standard essay
in Newsweek. But
those writers have a week (and sometimes three or four) to re-write their
pieces to fit the 800 word limit. Since I earn a bit less for my opinion
pieces at WRTA.com than, for example, George Will does at
Newsweek, I think I deserve a
little slack.
As it turns out, certain objective measures of my essay suggest that it's not
difficult reading at all. On the Flesch scale of reading ease, my essay rated
a 49.4. The scale runs from 0 to 100, with higher numbers representing easier
reading. So my score is right in the middle, which incidentally is exactly
where Newsweek and
Time are. On the
Flesch-Kincaid grade scale, my essay rates an 11.0, which means that a high
school junior should be able to read it without any trouble. If a professor
of education is having difficulty with 11th grade reading, I think that might
send off some alarm bells among his students.
But as always, the main argument of Tim's is wrong. It's not long, carefully
crafted essays that bamboozle people, but short ones encompassing platitudes
such as "the common good" and "social economy." One can invoke such empty
expressions at will, turning them into slogans that incite passions and cause
riots and revolutions. History is littered with such examples of
demagoguery. Yes, I appreciate pithiness as much as the next person, but I'd
rather err on the side of perspicuity. (For those of you who can't read on
the 11th grade level, what I just wrote was that I'm willing to spend a few
extra words to make my argument clearer so that the reader can be assured he
is NOT being fooled.)
I do agree with Woody Allen that short, funny lines are better than long,
serious ones. And Churchill was right too when he wrote, "Short words are best
and old, short words are best of all." Would that I had the eloquence of
either man! But while I aspire and work to achieve such craftsmanship, in the
meantime I must settle for maintaining a careful and clear approach in
presenting my arguments.
They are, after all, as Tim has admitted elsewhere, simple arguments. That
doesn't mean they are easy to appreciate or even easy to grasp. It just means
that if you work hard enough at understanding economics and justice, you will
at some point come to understand the necessity of private property and the
capitalist system. Isn't that worth a few extra words of reading?
P.S. This essay rates at the 9th grade level on the Flesch-Kincaid scale.
I've dumbed it down a couple of grades for those of you who are challenged by
my usual style.
The opinions and ideas expressed in this essay are those of John D
McGinnis and should not be considered representative of WRTA.com, any
institution with which McGinnis is associated, or anyone else. He can be
contacted at john@wrta.com.
Contact John D McGinnis
Back to
Main Page of Brown Shoes Diary
|