How to use this Page

Do you try to impress your readers with fancy-pants words? Do you use “arachnid” instead of “spider”? Or perhaps you’ll throw out a phrase like, “wandering eight-legged spinner” instead of “spider.”

It’s a lovely phrase, “wandering eight-legged spinner.” But most of the time, using the simple term will keep your reader focused on your story, rather than your pretty writing. Packing your writing with purple prose phrases and fancy-pants vocabulary is a sure road to rejection. So why not just use spider?

Yes, there are times when our writing should have an impressive slant. But it should never be so impressive that a reader gets lost in our words. For most of us, writing in the everyday world, that means we need to keep our words and sentences clear, simple, and focused. We need to think about readability.

That’s where readability tools come into play. Once you enable these gems in your writing tools options on a Word document, I’ll bet you’ll wonder how you ever managed without them. With one click, you can see whether your text is highly readable—or not so much.

The basic statistics (like words per sentence) will give you a good idea of whether you’re over-writing. I tested a couple passages from a contemporary best-selling novel, Angels and Demons, using paragraphs packed with dialogue to those heavy on description. The average count came to 14 words per sentence. Fourteen words per sentence seems like a good standard. I mean, if it’s good enough for Dan Brown, it should be good enough for the rest of us, right?

Next, I thought it would be fun to try an experiment, to compare my writing against a best-selling novelist’s writing. So I used passages of similar word counts (300-ish) from Angels and Demons and my humble blog post here. Let’s see how I did, shall we?

The words per sentence came to 12.2 in the Angels and Demons sample. And my blog post? 13.9. That’s in the Dan Brown ballpark, so I’m happy.

Next, I can see whether I’m overusing that pesky passive voice. Dan’s passage weighed in at 4%, and my lowly post came in at 0%, thank you very much.

Now it’s time to check out the Flesch Reading Ease score. The higher the score, the better the readability. High scores (A long-ago editor of mine required scores in the 70’s) mean that your fancy words are few, that your sentences don’t run on, and that your text is broken into a couple paragraphs.

So, let’s take a look at Dan’s passage: 69.4 (Impressive). My blog post: 69.6 (So there.).

Finally, I checked the grade level. Brown’s novel sample comes in at 6.6, while my blog post sample comes in at 6.8. I think sixth grade is a good target for any adult market, and 6.8 is pretty close.

In fact, my numbers, overall, are pretty darn close to best-selling novelist’s Dan Brown. And now it’s your turn. Compare your writing against work in the field you’re trying to break into and see how your numbers stack up. With practice and an eye to readability, your writing will improve for your readers.

And then together, friends, we shall take over the writing world. Bwahahahaa!

~Cathy C. Hall

Display Comments Add a Comment

While I was on Facebook this morning, I read a short conversation that took place yesterday between two of my closer friends; one from years past and close to my heart, the other newly formed and also close enough to hear my heartbeat.

What struck me as interesting was the subject of their discussion. They talked about poetry. Not just any poetry, but about well-known Sufi poets, both those of many decades or more past, as well as those of more contemporary times.

That subject isn’t one you can find lying around the average library when seeking good reading material. It struck me as relevant, too, that my older friend hasn’t been reading from these poets for very long. He’d discovered them after taking a recommendation from a newer acquaintance. An early morning discussion of Sufi philosophy isn’t usual FB fare, but it happens sometimes between educated people.

I realize that this doesn’t seem significant to the average reader. What makes it significant is that it came on the heels of a report I read this past week on the Illiteracy Reality that was released recently. The numbers on that report would make anyone stand up and protest or sit down in total discouragement.

According to the latest and greatest research, the current number of American adults, classified as functionally illiterate increases by 2.25 million each year.

Stop and think about that for just one second. It equates to having an equivalent population to the city of St. Louis joining the ranks of those who’re reading below a 5^th grade level. The number of people who are able to do routine math is even more dismal.

Here’s another factoid for you. When I worked corporate, albeit many years ago for one of the Fortune 500, I was asked to simplify my internal memos. Why? Because, my informant replied, the language structure accepted by upper echelon never exceeds 8^th grade reading level. Everyone else, used 5^th grade level to communicate.

I was stunned, to say the least. I suppose it comes from jargon needs. Jargon? Oh yeah. Every industry as its own jargon/language. Even fast food joints. This verbal shorthand makes communicating between employees faster, easier, and less likely to confuse the employees.

My question i

Add a Comment

Elvin Lim is Assistant Professor of Government at Wesleyan University and author of The Anti-intellectual Presidency, which draws on interviews with more than 40 presidential speechwriters to investigate this relentless qualitative decline, over the course of 200 years, in our presidents’ ability to communicate with the public. He also blogs at www.elvinlim.com. In the article below he reflects Obama’s speaking style. Read his previous OUPblogs here.

President Barack Obama’s first press conference was serious, measured, and according to Mark Nikolas (Politicalbase.com), three grade levels more complex than President George W. Bush’s first press conference.

A cursory glance at readers’ comments to Nikolas’ post reveals sharp disagreements about both the empirical claim and its implications. Since I have used the Flesch readability scale to score the rhetoric of every president since George Washington, I will venture to offer some observations to suggest that George Bush and Barack Obama aren’t all that different.

Superficially, they couldn’t be more different. While the former president is a self-styled cowboy who has rejected his northeastern roots in favor of a Texan down-home speaking style, the current one is a former professor of constitutional law who (if one recalls his speech on race in Philadelphia at the height of the Jeremiah Wright fiasco) will not demure from pontificating on things complex and controversial. I doubt many people will argue that Bush was a more sophisticated speaker, but people disagree about whether or not his simple sentences were delivered at the expense of complex thoughts.

Complex thoughts can be simply expressed, his defenders contend. But Einstein also said that “things should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” Consider John Robert’s question to President Bush in his first press conference in 2001: “I’m wondering what message he (the Secretary of State) will take from this administration to leaders of the Middle East in the area of sanctions that matter, sanctions that are effective on the regime?”

President Bush answered in his inimitable style: “I have said that the sanction regime is like Swiss cheese. That meant that they weren’t very effective. And we’re going to review the current sanction policy and review options as to how to make the sanctions work. But the primary goal is to make it clear to Saddam that we expect him to be a peaceful neighbor in the region, and we expect him not to develop weapons of mass destruction; and if we find him doing so, there will be a consequence.”

President Bush dedicated little time to “review options” on improving the efficacy of sanctions on Saddam’s regime. And the conditional clause “if we find him (Saddam) doing so” (developing WMDs) was far from satisfied before the President rushed to war. The fact is it was by our president’s slovenly words that we were led to do rather foolish things, as George Orwell warned.

Yes, we need a president who connects with the people. Simple words can conceal complex thoughts. But that is exactly the problem. If we allow presidents to sweet talk us with simple platitudes, and assume that complex negotiations and deliberations are going on behind the scenes and outside of public earshot, we abdicate our role as citizens to adjudicate the direction of public policy. A seduced citizenry cannot hold their executive accountable. Eloquent platitudes generate applause, not reflection. As a component of democratic discourse, they are, like Swiss cheese, utterly inadequate.

Lest this may sound like a partisan post, let me say that Obama is not immune to the draw of anti-intellectualism. The President’s and Secretary Geitner’s messages on the economic stimulus package and especially TARP 2 have thus far been woefully lacking in detail. The President is back to being the Poet-in-Chief, taking his message on road as if he never left the campaign trail. The stock market takes no partisan sides, and it has not taken kindly to the president’s eloquent generalities.

Life is like a box of chocolates, Mama Gump once told Forrest. Profound truths can be simply said, but what we need now are concrete solutions, not quotable verses. President Obama may be speaking at a higher grade level than President Bush, but so far, he appears no more adept at offering us precise answers. The President can use his words – simple or complex – to educate or to obfuscate. The choice is his.

Add a Comment