Archive October 2005

Rules of Writing

A while back I recommended The Elements of Style. Many of you might have already studied this book in school, but it would be a good idea to review it.

Robert Masello has recently published Robert's Rules of Writing, subtitled, "101 unconventional lessons every writer needs to know." He asserts that many conventional rules and practices taught by our teachers do not really help to improve our writing, but are often useless or even counterproductive. Rules like, "Burn Your Journal," "Skip the Starbucks," and "Tell, Don't Show," express some of my own sentiments about writing. Although I disagree with many things he writes in this book, I am glad that at least someone else finds the journal unnecessary for practice and that telling is often clearer than showing.

Speaking of the rules of writing (and breaking them), there are a number of rules and conventions that I deliberately break or ignore in my writings. Then, some of my practices do not really break the rules, but are just different from other writers. It would be helpful if I could offer a list to the readers for reference, but I have not bothered to make one because none of these deviations from conventional rules and practices obscure comprehension. Rather, I break these rules often because I thought it would improve the comprehension and comfort. At other times, it is just because I prefer to do things differently, and since my writings belong to me, I can do what I want. In any case, sometimes I break rules and conventions that are now acknowledged to be unfounded or unreasonable traditions to begin with. Then, of course, sometimes I just make mistakes! The danger, especially when there is no list of deliberate violations, is that some readers might not know when I am deliberately breaking the rules, and when I am just making mistakes.

Let me give you some examples. Again, not all of these are instances of breaking rules and conventions, but some just tell you about my preferences. None of them are too outrageous.

There are two patterns that I use to list bibliographical information in the footnotes. One almost follows one of the standard patterns; the other purely conforms to my preference with very little regard for conventions.

There is the split infinitive. I will split an infinitive whenever I want. It often makes the sentence more precise to do it. Some people seem to think that a split infinitive is always wrong, but many writing guides declare that this is only a myth of grammar.

There is the colon. Diana Hacker says, "A colon must be preceded by a full independent clause" (Rules for Writers, 5th edition; Bedford/St. Martin's, 2004; p. 294). I usually adhere to this rule, but I will use a colon when it is visually preferable even when it is not preceded by a full independent clause — for example, I will often do this when introducing block quotes.

Then, here is something that I do that is not necessarily "wrong," but seems to deviate from the practice of others. That is, I would refer to something like "Acts 17:1-5" in the singular and not the plural, since I consider it a reference to a passage, and not to several verses. But many writers would use the plural. Of course, I would refer to something like "verses 1-5" in the plural.

Related to this is that many writers would refer to two consecutive verses or two or more non-consecutive verses with a comma rather than a hyphen. Thus they would write "Romans 1:1, 2," "Romans 1:1, 5," and "Romans 1:1, 3-5." I agree with the second and the third, but for the first, I would write "Romans 1:1-2" instead.

Creating this list of passages from Romans brings up another issue, and here is an example of a reluctant concession on my part. I am referring to how American English puts the punctuations within the quotations, including the times when you are using commas to separate the items in a list. Even The Elements of Style, which affirms this rule, declares it illogical. When I first learned English, I was taught the British system, which places the punctuations outside the quotations. I made the change to make my writing consistent with other American conventions that I have adopted, but I have never learned to like it.

Here is a practice that seems to be rare: I never abbreviate the names of biblical books, but always write them out in full (not Gen. 1:1, but Genesis 1:1), unless I am offering direct quotes from those who use abbreviations. I certainly have no spiritual objection against the abbreviations, but it is just a personal and practical preference to write out the names of the biblical books in full.

How about gender-inclusive or gender-neutral language? When I first learned English, it was still widely taught that a generic "he" is correct and acceptable. In fact, there was no mention of gender issues at all — it was assumed that when referring to humanity in general or "someone" in particular, words like "man" and "he" are taken in the generic sense, and can refer to both genders. I would rather call everybody an "it" than to use "he or she," "s/he," or "they" all the time. Gender-inclusive and gender-netural language can be bothersome to write and annoying to read.

Here is where Hacker errs. She says, "Avoid mankind whenever possible. It offends many readers because it excludes women" (Rules, p. 540). What? It is true that "mankind" can exclude women if this is the intended sense within the context, but this is the second definition in Merriam-Webster — the first includes both genders. The same is true in Webster's New World.

I will continue to use male-oriented language if for no other reason than to rebel against the gender-inclusive and gender-neutral nonsense. If someone cannot grasp that "mankind" includes both genders, then he probably cannot understand much of anything else when he reads. And someone who gets offended over something like this will probably be much more offended by the actual content of my writings anyway. So there is no problem.

Going back to something less controversial, I will always prefer clarity and consistency over style and variety. For example, I will usually say, "However, he is too short to play basketball," rather than, "He, however, is too short to play basketball." Or, when the connection between two ideas is important, even when I could say, "He is too short to play basketball. I will take him to swim," I might often choose, "He is too short to play basketball; therefore, I will take him to swim." These are simple examples, but the difference can be significant when we are dealing with detailed theological expositions and arguments. Consistency in sentence structure and vocabulary can greatly enhance readability, even if it makes the prose a little mechanical at times.

A final example: Many writers alternate between saying "Scripture" (singular) and "Scriptures" (plural). The Bible itself uses both in different places. For the sake of convenience and consistency, I have chosen to write only "Scripture" (that is, unless I am quoting a passage from someone else or from the Bible that uses "Scriptures"). This is because I can freely interchange it with the singular "Bible" without complicating matters. 

There are other perhaps more significant examples, but only the above come to mind right now. Anyway, they are sufficient to let readers know about some of my preferences, and that I sometimes deliberately break the rules and conventions, and in those cases, I have carefully considered my options and reasons before I made my choice.

Then again, sometimes I just make mistakes. I have very little time to proofread anything that I write before releasing it to the public, so I do not mind at all when people contact me to point out typos and grammatical errors. 

It is good to first learn and follow all the standard rules and conventions before making deviations, if any at all. Again, I recommend The Elements of Style, but you should also get a larger reference like Diana Hacker's A Writer's Reference or Rules for Writers. Christian writers should also consider The Christian Writer's Manual of Style. I also highly recommend Patricia T. O'Conner's Words Fail Me and Woe is I.