Haha. That article exemplifies exactly what he's complaining about. It's poorly written, doesn't clearly explain his point and is basically an ad for his book. He doesn't define what he means by "bullshit" until 3/4 into the article. Did he have an editor? His article lacked clarity. As for the accuracy, it was opinion piece. That's not a factual thing, as is most communication on the internet. CYA memos clearly and accurately convey what they're trying to convey. They're trying to CYA. They don't fall under the definition of "bullshit" as he's defined it. It's true that print media was a lot more edited before the internet. There are a lot of ramifications of that. His analysis is simplistic and unhelpful. This is just an ad for his book and a good example of what he considers "bullshit". If he could clearly and accurately convey what needs to be changed to create writing that is not "bullshit", the might be a step in the right direction. He has not done that here. Given there's so much access to the internet, there's no way to get everyone to the same level of education and ability to clearly and accurately convey their point.Bullshit is communication that wastes the reader’s time by failing to communicate clearly and accurately. With no editors, clarity and accuracy are hit or miss, and bullshit is inevitable.
If you’re lucky, soon after you graduate, you get a job. The first thing they do is show you the employee manual, which is full of legalese and jargon. Your colleagues are writing long, cover-your-ass bullshit in the reports and emails you read. So you take those skills you learned in school and become part of the corporate bullshit machine.
Until every writing teacher, administrator and legislator in America reads and changes the way we teach writing, this won’t be any different. But that’s ok. I’ll settle for changing you. Just recognize that what you learned in high school and college is not what you need now to write without bullshit.
He gives a pretty good outline in the first two paragraphs — "unnecessary words", "jargon", and "unclear" all jump out as examples of what he's calling bullshit. That sets him up to go into more depth later. He's not really a social critic, as far as I can tell, and I don't think he ever set out to analyze those ramifications. It looks like he writes books about effective business techniques. It's very common for writers and actors and directors to go on the circuit to promote their upcoming thing. Every interviewee, every chat show guest, has some new thing that is now available in fine cinemas or bookstores everywhere. It's not an unreasonable way to do things, so long as their interview or article isn't just an ad — it should stand on its own in some way. This article outlines how an interesting problem came about. His book is, naturally, about how individuals can fix it. I probably won't buy the book, but I did enjoy reading the article.He doesn't define what he means by "bullshit" until 3/4 into the article.
There are a lot of ramifications of that. His analysis is simplistic and unhelpful.
This is just an ad for his book
They're trying to convey something else, then obscure it in the name of CYA, so everyone reading has to decode what you're trying to say without putting YA on the line. It is wasted effort, but it has more to do with working in an authoritarian organization than not knowing how to be more clear.CYA memos clearly and accurately convey what they're trying to convey. They're trying to CYA. They don't fall under the definition of "bullshit" as he's defined it.
I disagree that CYA memos are wasted effort. They serve an important function. They are documentation and internal paper trail devices that give the person's stance on something. If there's an issue that's blowing up around you, it's important to create a document about why you did or did not take action, what authority you had to do it and why you took that action. In the memo, the original issue is likely to be obscure because in order for it to be clearer, the person taking a stance would have to point a finger at the person they think is at fault. It's better not to do that. It's still a clear and accurate portrayal of what the person is trying to convey. They're trying to convey a CYA memo. I agree that it has to do with working in an authoritarian organization, but almost all organizations are authoritarian by their nature.
Too simple, but he's on to something with the negative feedback loop of all those unedited Huffington Post blogs, etc. The actual reason is that we no longer read (real) books as a society. I learned to write by reading. It's easy, basically a shortcut. Learning to write by taking a writing class is self-defeating and torturous. It's like learning to speak by thinking of definitions and sounds word-by-word instead of going off internal deep knowledge.By the time your essay-writing ability has gotten you into college, you’ve internalized a few lessons. One is that a longer paper will probably get a better grade. You read academic writing, which is full of passive voice and jargon, and learn to imitate it to sound smart.
No, Ryann, I don't. Oh.Going into this semester I was optimistic about how this year would go. I had encouraged myself to get way more involved because ultimately I think that was my biggest struggle last year. The first two semesters of college I was not going to get involved in much because I wanted to remain focused on my studies which meant no clubs, sports, or jobs. It was not until the last portion of my second semester that I started seeing potential in the school, and do you know why?
I joined theatre group, took a seat as a senator of my class, and started reaching out to make new friends.
What is the difference between a (real) book and a (not real) book? Are you talking novels and well written nonfiction vs pop sci or something else (if something else, please explain a bit, I'm interested).The actual reason is that we no longer read (real) books as a society.
You know the difference. But anyway, I said that since I can't say "we don't read anymore" hard stop. That's not true, at least not obviously. (Google it and you'll get lots of conflicting info, but the trend isn't nearly as sharp as you would expect if you spend all your time reading scare articles about millennials and ebooks.) But a lot of the same articles you'll see -- here's one -- make the point that what we're reading matters way more than how much. Words on hubski, words on facebook, even words at The Atlantic, they don't help as much as Dostoevsky, Hemingway or Woolf. The argument further goes that young adult fiction really cratered a generation's reading ability, because it's so damn easy. It seems logical (as a parent, teacher, librarian or even as a teen who "likes to read") to think of young adult as the next step on the ladder in the hierarchy from children's literature to classics and nonfiction, but it's more like a broken rung. Also, age is crucial. If fewer and fewer 15 year olds read -- well, I was proficient in the English language at 15, but I wasn't a great writer. I got better. If I had been stunted by a lack of desire to read, I would still be able to bang out corporate emails and bad forum posts, but I would not be able to sit down and write a short story or poem.
Yeah but I wanted to have a discussion, dammit. What you read is definitely important, but what, exactly is the impact of reading some sort of young adult fiction versus, say, Mark Twain at a young age? Or to pick an elementary school example, The Giver? As a kid I read plenty of Harry Potter, Eragon (hey I didn't know any better), etc., which I think could be classified as young adult fiction (maybe not?) as did many people in my age bracket. Is there more of a negative stimulus from reading that type of work compared to a positive stimulus of reading children's literature or nonfiction? Paging lil.Words on hubski, words on facebook, even words at The Atlantic, they don't help as much as Dostoevsky, Hemingway or Woolf. The argument further goes that young adult fiction really cratered a generation's reading ability, because it's so damn easy. It seems logical (as a parent, teacher, librarian or even as a teen who "likes to read") to think of young adult as the next step on the ladder in the hierarchy from children's literature to classics and nonfiction, but it's more like a broken rung.
I think when as a young reader you are encouraged to pursue works outside of your contemporary world, written valuing different styles, language schools, and values, you take advantage of the elasticity your brain possesses in youth and gain significantly greater comfort with diverse modes and styles of Communication, Specifically writing, than you do by staying solely within the works written during your time for readers of your age level at that time. Mark Twain is a challenge because he's removed from the present. Harry Potter and Eragon are engaging and good because they're writing and students reading them are still reading, but the language challenges aren't the same.
I was almost buying it until I got to this What does a snide remark about US politics have to do with reading? But also this I've read some of the authors you and he list. I wasn't transformed. The author is speaking for a group of people (lifetime readers) and making a claim about them he can't possibly know that he conveniently can't back up with evidence. If people aren't convinced, I'm not sure they should be.But a lot of the same articles you'll see -- here's one -- make the point that what we're reading matters way more than how much. Words on hubski, words on facebook, even words at The Atlantic, they don't help as much as Dostoevsky, Hemingway or Woolf.
Could a country that had widely read “Huckleberry Finn” have taken Donald J. Trump seriously for a second? Twain’s readers will remember “the king” and “the duke.” They know what a bullying con artist sounds like.
Lifetime readers know that reading literature can be transformative, but they can’t prove it. If they tried, they would have to buck the metric prejudice, the American notion that assertions unsupported with statistics are virtually meaningless. What they know about literature and its effects is literally and spiritually immeasurable. They would have to buck common marketplace wisdom, too: in an economy demanding “skill sets”—defined narrowly as technical and business skills—that deep-reading stuff won’t get you anywhere.
Nothing. That's dumb. Certain publications cannot write an article in 2016 without mentioning Donald Trump. It's getting frustrating. Who have you read that transformed you? Sometimes people are different.What does a snide remark about US politics have to do with reading?
I've read some of the authors you and he list. I wasn't transformed.
For me personally, I'm more transformed by non-fiction over fiction. Since this discussion is about fiction writing, I'd compare something like The Brothers Karamazov to a book like The Life of Pi. Both are filled with imagery, metaphors and religious allusions. The Life of Pi was slightly more accessible because I didn't also have to deal with the different cultural references that related to that specific time period. Both had the ability to make people think differently about religion and man's place in the scheme of things. I think that can be done without those books as well. People who are curious will find their ways to those issues. Those who aren't will probably take those books too literally. I've been in several books clubs with people discussing The Life of Pi. The people who saw the metaphors were those people who were already questioning and curious. For the people who thought the book was about a tiger in a boat, it wouldn't matter what they read.Who have you read that transformed you? Sometimes people are different.
Maybe so. What about a 10 year old who isn't aware that books can be taken at more than face value because he's never read a good one? If he is funneled into young adult dystopia land, he may never realize that. Maybe those are the adults (I assume) you've seen across the table at the book club. Not everyone is going to read Great Expectations and walk away changed. But everyone should be given the chance.For the people who thought the book was about a tiger in a boat, it wouldn't matter what they read.
I stopped reading the books I was assigned for English class after Ulysses because I decided the game of constructing a nonsense essay that checked off all the boxes I needed to get an A was more fun than plowing through anything like Ulysses ever again.
Oh god. This is all so true. I write for a living, and the tsunami of crappy writing I am inundated with every day is truly a horror. Lack of concision. Jargon jungles. Passive voiced authoritarian writing, about a topic the writer knows nothing about. (Implied expertise.) And just shitty, hole-filled, fuzzy-headed, word vomit thinking. Almost everyone sucks at expressing themselves in writing.