"Styling" your writing

When working with words, it’s easy to get stumped on certain issues of style. I’m not talking about fashion sense but, rather, those fine points regarding spelling, usage, punctuation and other fundamentals that are an essential part of any well-written communication.

For example, how should you write Web site (or is it website)? Do you write out the word “percent” or use the symbol? Does e-mail really take a hyphen? After all, you’ve seen it both ways. There are dozens of such matters that writers routinely encounter. To help you sort them out, you need to consult a style manual.

Two references that are widely used are the AP Stylebook and the Chicago Manual of Style. Both are good and are worth the investment if you do even a moderate amount of writing. Be aware, though, that even the most respected style manuals sometimes differ, and that’s all right. The important thing is that you have some credible authority that you can cite for why you made a particular style decision in what you’ve written. Too many people guess, which can tarnish an otherwise fine piece of writing.

Before you buy a style manual, check around in your organization. It may already have a preferred style manual. You’ll want to be sure you buy that one. If no particular manual is preferred where you work, then buy either of the two listed here and you'll be covered.

Some larger companies and organizations have what’s known as a “house style,” which identifies the words and terms that it routinely uses and specifies how they should be used in their communications. If one of these exists, get a copy and use it in conjunction with your regular style manual.

Occasionally in this blog, I’ll address some of the more troublesome style issues. Let me start now. According to the AP Style manual, here are some pointers:

-- Web site, not website

-- Internet, not internet

-- e-mail, not email

-- Spell out the word “percent.” Don’t use the symbol. Also, if you’re specifying a percentage, use a figure: 3 percent, not three percent

-- Periods and commas always go inside quotations marks: “We’re revising our style manual,” the communications chief said.

How you say it counts

David Reich's outstanding blog "My 2 Cents" recently offered some helpful advice to aspiring business bloggers. I suggest taking a look at what Dave had to say.

The only thing I'd add to David's observations is that as the prospective author of a blog, you should learn how to write. That sounds obvious, but too many blogs fail not because of what the author has to say but how he or she says it.

The appearance and content of a blog are important, of course. But what good is the window dressing if readers can't grasp what the writer's trying to convey.

I'm not suggesting that if you can't write lyrical prose then you shouldn't be blogging. But at a minium, you should be able to string together words in a logical fashion that adheres to the general principles of sound writing.

Wondering what those are? Well, scroll through this blog, which tries to capture what I've learned in nearly 25 years of professional writing. It also includes much of what I try to teach in my university writing course.

If I had to recommend just one book on the craft of writing, it would be Strunk and White's "Elements of Style" (see my suggested reading list to the right). This slim volume speaks volumes about the fundamentals of solid writing. And best of all, you don't have to be a grammar expert to understand it.

As a writer, you are what you read

Many writing tasks, such as authoring e-mails, reports and memos, involve conveying thoughts, requests, instructions and similar information. Completing these assignments is a matter of gathering your material and then relaying it accurately and clearly.

Yet some writing jobs – speeches and newsletter articles, for example – require copy that not only communicates but does so with style, flair and maybe a sprinkling of humor, wit or deep thought tossed in.

But what if you don't consider yourself creative or intellectual? Don't believe it. Most people have a spark of both flickering inside; it's just a matter of stoking it to make it burn more brightly. There are a number of ways that can be accomplished, the first of which is believing you're more creative and capable of deeper thought than you know, and then spending time during the re-writing process to give your copy more punch and depth.

Another method doesn't involve writing, it involves reading. Good readers often make good writers for a number of reasons. Those who read broadly are exposed to a richer range of thought. The diversity of your reading material counts too. By reading others' ideas or opinions, for example, you can see something from a different vantage point. And if you approach reading as a writer – that is, you're searching for insight on how to write more effectively – you'll be exposed to a continuing source of knowledge and information.

There are many more ways in which reading benefits writing, but I think you get the picture. Books, newspapers, magazines, ads, the Sunday funnies. Absorb the written word in all of its forms. What you read doesn't matter as much as the fact that read widely and regularly.

Giving credit

There has been plenty of back-and-forth lately over Barack Obama's use of lines originally delivered from his pal and adviser Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick. I'm not going to offer my opinion regarding this campaign season dust-up, but it does raise the question of how and when you credit others' work or ideas in your writing.

The rule we learned in college was that in written works you must acknowledge another's ideas and words in the body of your text and in footnotes or endnotes and through a bibliographic citation. In the world of business writing, those rules don't seem that fixed. But certainly the concept of crediting others remains.

As a general guideline, the closer you can adhere to the formality of footnotes and citations, the better. How close you need to stick with these rules depends a lot on the type of communication you're assembling. Case studies and white papers should be thoroughly annotated with regard to sources. The same probably would hold for formal reports and proposals. As for memos and e-mails, I say forego footnotes and bibliographic citations, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't credit your source. Just slip the credit smoothly into the copy itself using wording like "according to .....:" or "In his 'Tactics' article 'Journalists get Web 2.0: Do you?' Mike Neumeier says ...."

The idea is to not only give credit but to equip your readers with enough information that they can find the source material themselves if they wish.

There is also a practical advantage to detailing your sources in what you write: It forces you to take a hard look at them. Knowing that you'll be identifying your sources and that your readers will be judging their appropriateness makes you more likely to use only the most reliable ones.

Let it be written, let it be said

In this month's issue of Tactics, British business journalists Stuart Crainer and Des Dearlove are quoted as saying, "Being able to write effectively and persuasively – whether creating a business plan, e-mail, report, appraisal or positioning statement – is a core executive skill."

I agree. In fact, that statement should be treated as holy writ and nailed over the entrance of every business, law, medical and engineering school in the nation. Writing effectively represents more than communication -- which is significant -- but it also forces us to think. Sloppy writing often results not just from poor technical skills but the fuzzy thinking it masks.

Yet, despite the importance of writing, it's often treated as an afterthought in many professional training programs. If I were king, no one would venture out of college, regardless of their field, until he or she had demonstrated an ability to communicate effectively with words.

If you've established yourself as a capable writer, congratulations; you can probably attest to the difference it has made in your career and in your contributions to your business or organization. If you haven't earned your writing chops yet, I'd urge you to do so. It's not as hard as you might think, and I can promise you it will be one of your best career moves ever.

.

Subject to error

Knowing what form of a verb to mate with a subject isn't always simple. In a straightforward construction like, "The books are on the shelf" it's uncomplicated. Our subject, "books" is obviously plural, so we'd want to use the plural verb "are."

But what about this one: "The CEO, along with several other executives, is/are traveling today." If you said "are," you're wrong. But don't sulk. It's a common mistake. The error lies in thinking you have a multi-part, or compound, subject consisting of the CEO and the other executives. But actually, the subject is limited to the CEO, which is singular and takes the singular verb "is."

The rule to remember is that phrases such as "along with" and "in addition to" are used to shoehorn additional information into a sentence. They're not part of the subject, though, so don't let them fool you into choosing a plural verb when you want its singular cousin.

Another trap lurks when you have subjects that define units like money, measurement and diseases. These subjects take a singular verb, as in:

-- Three million dollars is all he was willing to pay.

-- Four thousand feet of road has been laid.

-- Mumps is a disease that threatens many children.

Avoiding subject-verb agreement errors not only requires knowing the special rules that apply, but being able to strip a sentence down to its main subject and main verb, which makes solving the puzzle easier. Good luck.

World of confusion

English is loaded with pairs of words and phrases that are easily confused. That's what makes writing so much fun, right? "When Words Collide," the text I use in my writing class and which I reference to the right of this blog, contains a glossary that discusses puzzling pairs of words. In this post, I'll address a few common ones and try to revisit the issue periodically.

-- Can/may. These two aren't interchangeable. Use "can" when you are denoting ability, as in, "Do you think I can win the race?" Use "may" when you want to establish permission: "May I borrow your book?"

-- Compare with/compare to. Write "compare with" when you're making a literal comparison. "Our profit this quarter was up when compared with our profit in the same quarter last year." Use "compare to" to make a figurative comparison. "Laura compared assembling the annual report to running a marathon."

-- Since/because. "Since" is the proper word when you want to express a period of time, as in, "It has been years since I visited there." Use "because" to give a reason or cause. "Production is slumping because our machinery is old and broken." The common error involving these two is to misuse "since," as in, "I refuse to sign this report since I disagree with it." That's wrong. Swap "since" with "because."

-- Principal/principle. I recently discovered an error with this pair on a colleague's Web site. "Principal" is someone who is first in rank or authority, as in the principal of a high school or the principal speaker at a convention. "Principle" refers to a truth, doctrine or rule of conduct.

-- Eager/anxious. Writers frequently use "anxious" when what they really mean is "eager." Use "anxious" when you're describing a state of fear and worry. Think "anxious" and "anxiety." "Eager" is the word when you want to indicate a mood of stimulation or excitement.

When in doubt, leave it out

Even the most skilled writer will fail unless the information being conveyed in his or her material is accurate. Everybody knows that, right? But yet writers sometimes – either out of laziness or hurry – neglect to check their facts, and so errors and inaccuracies creep into copy.

When you write, ask yourself where you got your information. Is it from a credible source? The Editors Weblog recently carried a post detailing how Agence France Presse recently banned its reporters from relying on Facebook and Wikipedia as sole sources in their stories. I agree with the news organization's reasoning – the two sites rely on info posted by whomever, so in many cases it hasn't been reviewed for accuracy. It's not necessarily credible.

You need to be just as wary as Agence France when you're writing. Find a source, ask questions, be skeptical. If you can't verify, then don't include it in your copy. Adhere to this journalism maxim: "When in doubt, leave it out."

Become a vigorous verb collector

In last week's post, I emphasized the value of jamming as many lively, punchy verbs into your bean as possible because verbs are the heart of effective writing. But how do you become well-versed in verbs? You need to collect them with all the zeal of an antiques fancier.

Perhaps the best place to do your verb mining is within the work of good writers. Keep pen and pencil handy the next time you're reading, and when you encounter a forceful verb, jot it down. Before long, you'll have compiled a sizable list. Then it's a matter of making them part of your writing vocabulary. The act of writing them down helps fix them in your mind and may be all that's needed to make them yours.

Like a collector of rare baseball cards or pottery, though, you might like to become even more familiar with your collection. In that case, use the entries on your verb list in sentences. Do that a few times and they'll definitely become yours, and your writing will be that much brawnier.

Pump up scrawny writing with powerful verbs

One of the first lectures I give in my writing class every semester is on verbs. This vital classification of words is the bedrock on which all solid writing is based, which makes sense. Verbs, after all, express action (to write, to run, to strike, to die) or a state of being (I am, you are). Their very presence is required to form a sentence.

But their power extends far beyond their ability to express action. It's how they express it that makes them shine. If you want to instantly improve your writing, cultivate an appreciation for lively, descriptive verbs.

Why say, "She took the hat from his head," when you can say, "She snatched...ripped...plucked the hat." Why not spice up a dull sentence like, "The wind blew hard across the prairie" by recasting it using a punchy verb: "The wind scoured the prairie."

Just as verbs can liven a sentence, provided you choose wisely, picking the wrong verb can be like tossing a spoon into a whirring garbage disposal. You'll make an unpleasant noise and just might break something, like the reader's attention.

Mean what you say

The tag line for my public relations and marketing communications business, Leigh Communications, is "Say What You Mean."

I chose that phrase because saying what you mean, particularly in writing, can be a challenge, as the The Dallas Morning News recently discovered in making its "Texan of the Year" selection.

The paper's aim in designating a Texan of the year is to recognize a person or group that has had a major impact or has produced change in the Lone Star State over the past year.

But the paper touched off a prairie fire of criticism when it named the illegal immigrant as its Texan of the year. The selection produced 800 blog postings and more than 150 letters to the editor -- all slamming the decision. As one reader fumed, "What part of stupid are you guys that support illegal aliens?"

Backpedaling, the paper explained that being named "Texan of the Year" isn't necessarily an honor and its intent wasn't to support "illegal aliens." The News explained that its selection was intended to make the point that the flood of illegal immigrants is having a considerable impact on Texas and the rest of the nation. But critics weren't buying that nuance, and for that, the newspaper is at fault.

In naming the selection "Texan of the Year," the News was ignoring a fundamental rule of communication: You must be clear in meaning. To put it another way, say what you mean.

The paper failed in that by ignoring the long held practice of corporations and organizations of naming a man or woman of the year and intending that designation to be an honor. You can't use that "____ of the year" phrasing, with its strong connotation of being an accolade, and expect to rope it to some other meaning. Time magazine commits the same error with its "Person of the Year" designation. Both publications should develop another name for these designations that more closely describes their intent. How about "The Year's Top Influencer"?

Saying what you mean requires attention not only to the precise meaning of words or phrases but to their connotations and common usages. Failing to do so, as the Dallas Morning News discovered, can have perilous consequences.

Will Facebookers ever learn to write?

The most recent issue of Public Relations Tactics, the trade publication of the Public Relations Association of America, contains a bit about writing that I emphatically agree with.

Tactics' "PR blotter" notes that among today's teens, e-mail is as old school as a mullet. Young people today rely almost exclusively on instant messaging, text messaging and alerts on Facebook and MySpace.

These quick and abbreviated communications media may be trendy, but they have a monumental drawback -- they don't force users to communicate in grammatically correct sentences or even in complete, complex thoughts. Instead they're electronic versions of a caveman's grunts and gestures.

The PR Blotter piece correctly points out, though, that while e-mail may be passe among teens, it still rules the workplace. That means that in the professional world, you must be able to communicate effectively with the written word, a skill that young people entering the workforce will have a hard time mastering after spending their teens texting.

So, how do you combat modern society's hi-tech assault on grammatically correct, comprehensive written communication? That's a good question. Maybe it starts with placing the same emphasis on writing in grade school and high school that's now being placed on math and science.

Have you got rhythm?

Thanks to a post on Dan Santow's Word Wise blog, I recently visited Confident Writing, a blog by Joanna Young, a Brit, who offers 10 tips on improving your writing. To second what Dan said, Joanna does a nice job with her list, though I think every writer would have a largely different one.

I particularly like Joanna's advice that we writers must avoid basic grammar mistakes, use plain everyday words and try not to "witter on" (obviously a British expression for droning on in long, meandering sentences).

The only tip on Joanna's list that I would amend is her advice to use short sentences. Yes, short sentences are key to solid, punchy, readable writing. But over-reliance on them can also make writing read woodenly.

I advise my writing students to learn how to write short sentences; too many beginning writers tend to witter on. But once they've mastered that tool, I urge them to mix in longer sentences. Blending long and short sentences gives life and rhythm to writing.

Know what to look for

I've commented recently on reading over your copy carefully before sending it, which improves your chances of catching errors. Of course I say this knowing there are those out there who couldn't care less whether their communications are cluttered with misspellings, comma splices, punctuation goofs and other flaws.

Trying to change that way of thinking may be about as successful as persuading college football to scrap the Bowl Championship Series and institute a play-off. So, for those who don't care what their copy reads like (I guess that also means that you don't care if you communicate), this post isn't for you.

For those who do care, let me get to the point. Yes, careful rereading will catch most if not all errors. And once you've made that technique a habit, the next step is to know what to look for when you're scrutinizing your copy for mistakes.

That can be a long list. But one of the chief errors that creeps into copy has to do with everyday words that sound like other words.

I'm talking about writing your when what you meant to say was you're, or their, when what you intended was they're or there. Other commonly confused pairs are its and it's, and who's and whose.

As I said the list of common errors can be lengthy and it can be different for every writer. Pay attention to the inadvertent mistakes that end up on your copy and make a point of looking for them when you inspect your text for flaws. It's hard to catch all your mistakes, I know I can't, but if you can spot and fix most of them, you're doing well.

Whoa there!

One of my favorite writing blogs is Kenneth W. Davis' "Manage Your Writing." In a recent post, Kenneth reminds us of the need to "take a few more swings" at a piece of communication before we send it.

In other words, don't hit the send button the instant after you type the last period of the last sentence of your e-mail. Don't publish your most recent blog post while your keyboard is still warm from your flying fingers.

Allowing a piece of writing to cool down -- even for a few minutes -- before sending it is an invaluable technique for spotting errors in your copy or your thinking. And if you were guilty of WWA (writing while angry), giving your writing some time to age can give you time to come to your senses and either delete the ire-filled communication you were about to send (and probably regret), or at least take out the four-letter words.

How much time should you take? As much as you can. If you only have a moment or two, then take it. Of course, the more time that elapses between first draft and sending, the more likely you are to catch and fix errors.

Get to the point in news releases

Way back in September, I criticized myself for neglecting my blog and promised to be more diligent regarding its care and feeding. But it didn't happen. I could offer the usual excuses but I won't. Like anyone who has fallen off the wagon, I'm simply going to dust myself off and clamber back on board by discussing news releases. In particular, how you should start them off.

A few weeks ago, I read a column by one PR expert who urged her readers to introduce or "lead" their news release with feature copy. In other words, instead of ripping into the meat of what information the release is intended to convey, you should, according to the expert I'm citing, look for ways to hook the reader by offering a compelling anecdote, lively description or the outcome of a relevant study. That's a feature lead, a technique used by journalists that can be incredibly effective when hammered together by a capable wordsmith. But "news releases" are not "news stories." They are not intended to entertain an audience. They're a blunt communication tool whose aim is to spark news coverage.

So my advice if you're pondering whether to start your news release with a feature lead is don't. And there's a number of reasons why I say that, most of them based on having spent years as a journalist who read thousands of news releases -- many of which were poorly written.

Reporters and editors who are scanning your news release don't want to be entertained by a feature lead. They don't care how clever or creative the news release writer is. What they want when they look at your news release – along with the dozens of others they receive every day -- is to make a simple determination: Is there anything in this news release that my readers or viewers would care to know?

The sooner you can answer that question in your release, the better. If there's nothing in your release that's of interest to the news outlet you sent it to, no amount of tarting it up with a feature lead is going to "sell" the journalist on using it. The real danger with slapping a feature lead on a news release is that if you do have actual "news" to share, an exasperated editor may give up on your news release before gleaning that fact because it's buried so deep in the copy that she'd need a pick axe to find it.

Journalists are busier now than ever, so they won't spend a lot of time trying to excavate the point of your news release. They expect it to be up top, where it's supposed to be, so put it there and vent your creative side somewhere else.

Clarity comes first

I read somewhere that you have to approach blogging like a farmer, meaning, I guess, that you must carefully tend your fields or they'll quickly become overgrown. As I survey my own back forty, as represented by this blog, I can see that the rabbits, gophers and weeds have invaded. This is my first entry in weeks and the only excuse I can offer is that I've been too busy. As an independent public relations practitioner that's a good problem to have – work piling up – but it's no way to run a blog.

So, let's get to the subject at hand – writing. Now that summer has ended, my university media writing class has resumed, and I've been spending Monday and Wednesday afternoons in front of a group of students who are eager to learn how to write. Their first efforts bear the usual problems, some of which are easy to fix. Stripping away the cliches and pointing out basic punctuation and grammar flaws, for example.

What's more difficult is teaching them to write clearly. Clarity is a problem in many people's writing, not just university students. In fact, I'd say people spend a sizable portion of every business day trying to figure out what someone else is trying to say in an e-mail, text message or report.

Removing the clutter from your writing (jargon, cliches and over-used intensifers like "very" and "really") helps. But after that, the challenge of establishing clarity becomes thornier. If you're not careful, you can craft sentences that are grammatically correct but contribute little to effective communication.

How do you teach clarity? It's difficult, I can tell you. What I advise my students and would tell anyone who's faced with a writing task is to try to cultivate the ability to see your writing as the reader sees it. You know what you're trying to say, but your readers don't. Where in your text might they take a wrong turn or slam into a wall of confusion. Ask yourself these questions and if you have even a hunch that your reader might not get your meaning, recast your copy. Break it down. Simplify it. Brevity may be the soul of wit, but clarity is the essence of understanding.

So simple a middle-aged writer can do it (or maybe not)

When it comes to technology, I feel like the Geico caveman: I understand enough to get by in today's hi-tech world, but look more closely and you can easily tell I'm a neanderthal when it comes to certain things involving computers. This blog is a good example. I'm happy with the content, but I know there are plenty of technological bells and whistles that should be added, like a blog roll.

So, until I muster the motivation to learn how to put one on here, let me list a few writing and communication blogs that I find worth reading. Maybe you will, too.

-- "My 2 cents" by public relations and communications expert David Reich offers cogent comment on marketing, media and PR. I like Dave's writing style, too.

-- Kenneth W. Davis' "Manage Your Writing" always seems to have something helpful to say on the craft. Check him out.

-- The great thing about Roy Clark's writing blog is that besides its outstanding content, it also introduces you to Poynteronline, an informative Web site that's aimed at journalists but is worth reading by anyone interested in effective communication. Take a look at Roy's post today on the art of revision.

-- Another must-see blog for me is Dan Santow's "Word Wise." Dan offers specifics on grammar, usage, punctuation and other vital topics, and he conveys them in a highly readable way.

That'll have to do until I can get that blog roll figured out.

Be careful what you ask for

I frequently have clients who, in asking me to exmaine something they've written say, "All it needs is proofread." I try not to cringe and then gently explain that what they're requesting may not be what they really want, or shouldn't be. Here's why.

To most professional writers and editors "proofreading" refers to a process of scanning a document for errors in spelling, grammar, usage and punctuation. That's it. Proofreading amounts to little more than what Microsoft Word's spell-grammar check function accomplishes, and we all know how effective that is.

Proofreading fails to encompass a vital, more time-consuming examination that every piece of written communication should undergo – editing. When professionals edit text, they not only proofread it, but they also examine it for problems of structure, logic, style, tone and other fundamental elements. Getting these things right is what marks the difference between an effective communication and one that baffles readers. In fact, you could have a piece that's free of errors in spelling, usage and grammar and still be utterly unreadable because of the other flaws I just mentioned.

If I had to have an error in my copy, I'd rather it be a typo or punctuation goof than an error in logic or structure. And what I'm saying doesn't just go apply to someone who's barely capable of stringing two words together. Even pros need edited, not just proofread. I believe so firmly in that advice, that if a client insists that he or she wants me to comb text only for mistakes in grammar, usage and punctuation, I refuse the assignment.

No name calling

I was reading an article by Biz Stone on the Blogger Web site's help page recently when Biz (is that short for something?) referred to someone as a "grammar bitch." Ouch! That's a snarky way of referring to a person who suggests that if we're going to write in English we should observe its rules of grammar, usage and punctuation.

Actually, to give Biz some credit, he used the b-word in a paragraph in which he tossed a bone to the advocates of clear writing, advising that if you don't know a pronoun from a proverb, you should "fix yourself up a bit...have some respect for your readers."

Though I haven't been called a grammar bitch or bastard yet (not to my face, anyway), I have noticed that whenever I advocate the need to write well and observe the rules of grammar, I often get an icy response along the lines of "no one cares about that anymore."

I won't do as Biz does and resort to name calling. In fact, in the interest of playing fair intellectually, I'll conditionally concede that point by responding, "Sometimes no one cares." And even in those cases, the non-caring is limited to simple errors in capitalization, spelling, or some other flesh wound of a grammar flaw. But if you butcher sentence structure, disregard subject-verb agreement, or dangle your modifiers, people do care. They care enough to dismiss you as a buffoon and will go elsewhere for information. Now, that is a bitch.