Andy Rooney: A man of few words.

Following the Nov. 4 death of CBS 60 Minutes essayist Andy Rooney, a Seattle Times editorial  praised his commentaries not only for their wit, but also for being a marvel of brevity.

“His ability to craft those commentaries was a special gift,” the editorial read.  “A classic newsroom excuse is ‘I didn’t have time to write short.’ Bright, tight and brilliant is not easy. Andy Rooney spoke volumes in a few dozen words.” 

Writing is hard. Writing short is even harder, and most people don’t have the time to do it right. That adage originates in a quote from Blaise Pascal (1623 – 1662), a French philosopher and mathematician who at age 18 invented the first calculating machine. In his Lettres Provinciales (1656, No. 16), a defence of Jansenist doctrine, Pascal wrote, “I have made this letter longer than usual, because I lack the time to make it short (Je n’ai fait celle-ci plus longue parceque je n’ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte.”

Writing is hard, and writing short is even harder. Not only does it take time, but it also forces you to be critical of your own initial efforts. You may well save yourself time and also get a better finished product if you have someone else polish your words. If you just take enough time to write a first draft, or even a list of major points, an editor can organize and rework your thoughts into a consistent, more persuasive document. It may not end up as witty as an Andy Rooney monolog, but it will look professional and get your points across effectively. Look here for some examples.

Most of the time, adding an “ly” to the end of a modifier changes an adjective (which modifies a noun) to an adverb (which can modify a verb, an adjective or another adverb). In some cases, however, that “ly” can cause trouble.

“More important,” the coach added, ” was our inability to execute on offense or defense.”

Or should he have said, “More importantly?”

The correct phrase is “more important,” and the same goes for “most important.”  They are often, if not always, shortened versions of “what’s more important” or “what’s most important.”

Using the full phrase “what’s more importantly” in a sentence illustrates the error: “What’s most importantly is that we get good line play,” the coach said. That sentence doesn’t make sense. (Of course, the full version would start, “What’s most important is that…).

Another online source says “more important” and “more importantly” are used interchangeably in all kinds of text and by reputable writers, which means that there’s no reason not to use “importantly.” Except one: It’s wrong. Writers aren’t necessarily grammarians, which is why even writers of high repute can use an editor.

Here’s a cute video from School House Rock about adverbs and what they do.

When you can’t be your own best editor, try another trained set of eyes.

The interrobang in Palatino Linotype.

A recent Wall Street Journal article by Henry Hitchings (“Is This the Future of Punctuation!?”) delivers a lighthearted history of punctuation marks and also discusses some others, historic and current, that I have never heard of.  The interrobang , for instance, is a combination of an exclamation mark and a question mark. According to  language  expert Michael Quinion,  a New York City ad agency invented it in 1962.

“For decades,” Quinion writes, “advertising copywriters had used both marks together to imply various blends of question and exclamation. The combination might indicate a rhetorical question allied with an exclamation, or a shout of wonder and curiosity. It might also mark that mixture of incredulity and dismay which any parent may produce at stressful moments: “You did what?!’”

Interesting, but most of us find it hard enough to keep track of the punctuation marks we already use. But if you’re among the many who have trouble remembering whether to write it’s or its, or when to use a comma, a dash or a semicolon, there’s no reason to get your shirt in a knot over it. Just hire an editor to get it right for you.

Hitchings’s latest book, The Language Wars: A History of Proper English, has just been published.

Manual typewriter artwork from Mike Greenstein's business card and website.

My friend and frequent art director Melissa Snavlin gets the credit for choosing a manual typewriter as the artwork for my business card (thanks again, Missy, it’s still working for me!)  The image is of course intended to characterize my writing and editing business as traditional, steady and dependable.  That’s the way I see it, anyway.

Recently I read about another American artist who is taking the practically extinct typewriter in an entirely different artistic direction. According to this piece by writer Simone Preuss, Oakland, Calif., artist Jeremy Mayer takes old typewriters and reassembles them to look like human heads and bodies. Mayer has been building these sculptures since 1994, using nothing but old typewriter parts. According to the article, some of his work has sold for  thousands.

To see his works and find out more, visit his website,  jeremymayer.com.

For the record, I don’t really use a manual typewriter anymore, having gone totally digital many years ago. Every time there’s a power outage, however, I wish I still had one.

If you’re ever at a similar loss for words, contact me. Maybe a good editor at a remote location can help.

Here’s favorite list in the brochure (edited by me, of course!):

1. Editors think for a living.
2. Successful editors turn their love of language into a way to earn a living and have an impact on the world around them.
3. Editors are team players, often working with writers, publishers and other editors to reach a common goal.
4. Technology is changing the way that editors do their work and the types of documents they deal with, but not the reason for editing. An editor’s goal is always the same: to improve communication.

Nicely said.

EAC is making the brochure available for free. Read the text or download it as a PDF from
http://www.editors.ca/join_eac/be_an_editor/index.html.

Grammar's burning questions confronted.

In the adage “let sleeping does lie,”  is “lie” correct, or should it be “lay?” Do members comprise a committee, or do they compose one? Head-scratchers like these come up often, and each time they befuddle me anew. But do they continually befuddle me? Or is “continuously” the word I’m looking for?

Thankfully, the answers to such perplexing questions are now but a few keystrokes away. Any time you’re not sure whether you’re using the correct word or phrase,  just type the words that confuse you into a search engine and you’ll turn up more choices for grammar answers than you’ll ever need–and almost as many opinions about what’s right.

Here are a few examples:

Lie or Lay?

You lay or place something, as in: Lay the carpet or lay the book on the table. But you lie on a bed or other flat surface.
Therefore, the following  sentences are incorrect: He is laying on the bed. Why don’t you lie it on the bed? The correct forms are:  He is lying on the bed; why don’t you lay the book on the bed?

Here’s where it gets really confusing: The past tense and past participle of  lay is laid (they laid the groundwork; he had laid the plans), while the past tense of lie is lay and its past participle is lain: He lay on the floor face down; she had lain in bed for hours.

Continuing, Continuous or Continual?

Sorry, these words are not interchangeable.

Continual implies recurrence at regular or frequent intervals–for example, playing baseball requires continual practice. Continual means duration over a long period of time, but with intervals of interruptions.  A corporation evaluates the effectiveness of its products and implements change on a continual basis.

Continuous means extending uninterruptedly in time: For example: a continuous rain fell in Seattle for two days. Continuous is duration that continues over a period of time, but without intervals of interruption. For example:  The plan called for continuous improvement.  The electric fan emitted a continuous whirring sound.

In some cases, however, continuous can be interchangeable with continuing. If we look at them both as adjectives, continuous means unbroken and continuing usually means from a given point onward. Both can describe time or distance.  Some examples:

At one time, Route 66 was a continuous length of highway, stretching from Los Angeles to Chicago.

Ever since I’ve known you, your complaining has been continuous. 

Your continuing tardiness will not be tolerated.  (into the future)

As a present participle, continuing is often used in verb forms and as a gerund:  Continuing with this charade would be a grave mistake! (gerund)

The train passed through St. Louis and was continuing to Chicago. (participial phrase)

She was continuing to annoy me.  (past progressive tense)

Comprise or Compose?

Comprise means “is made up of” or “consists of.”  The whole comprises the parts. Compose means “make up” or “”make.”  The parts compose the whole.

Incorrect:  The Beatles was comprised of four musicians.

Correct:  The Beatles was composed of four musicians.

Correct:  The Beatles comprised four musicians.

Correct:  Four musicians composed the Beatles.

Searching for answers.

Once again, in practice it’s not that cut-and-dried. What about the phrases “is comprised of” and “is composed of”? In her excellent essay on this subject, Grammar Girl notes, “One of these (phrases) is allowed among grammarians, and one is not. ‘Is composed of’  is OK. You can say, ‘Our nation is composed of many ethnic groups.’ On the other hand, most grammar sources agree that ‘is comprised of” is an incorrect phrase. Just as you can’t say, ‘The house includes of seven rooms,’ you can’t say, ‘The house is comprised of seven rooms.’ You have to say, ‘The house comprises seven rooms.’”

Even this rule may be changing, however. Grammar Girl cites a survey by the  American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style. The survey reports  that in 1965, 54 percent of the usage panel disapproved of the phrase “is comprised of,” whereas in 2005, 65 percent approved of it, and only 35 percent disapproved. This traditional distinction may be destined to fall by the wayside.

Confusing? Of course! So don’t frustrate yourself with such arcane rules. When it comes to getting your words shipshape, just hire an editor and let an expert decide.

Sorry. It IS a big deal. Do a search on “typos” and you’ll find many websites devoted to making fun of them. But more than merely being embarrassing, typos cast yourself and your company in a less‑than‑professional light. In an extreme case, errors might even cost you money.

BBC News recently reported that spelling mistakes cost companies millions in lost sales. According to the article, an analysis of e-commerce websites showed “misspellings put off consumers who could have concerns about a website’s credibility.” The article quotes online entrepreneur Charles Duncombe that “spelling is important to the credibility of a website. When there are underlying concerns about fraud and safety, then getting the basics right is essential.” A New York Times blog post “The Price of Typos” by columnist Virginia Heffernan points out that misspellings could keep a website out of the Top 10 search results listings. “Search engines look for strings of characters in sequence,” she explains. “If your site has misspellings, Google is less likely to list it at the top of search results.”

Fred Vultee, a journalism professor at Wayne State University, recently conducted a study on the value of editing. Respondents read four edited news stories and four unedited news stories and answered questions about each. He found that readers, especially regular readers, can distinguish an edited news story from an unedited one. They notice errors and are bothered by them.

Do errors of grammar or spelling bother the readers of your website, blog or business letters? Rather than find out the hard way, maybe it’s a good idea to have someone else check your copy before you hit the Send button. An experienced editor can spare you embarrassment and sharpen your message. Contact an editor today: mikegreenstein.com.

Memphis Beat characters (left to right) Sutton, Hendricks and White discuss the intracacies of simile and metaphor at a crime scene.

Memphis Beat star Jason Lee (formerly the lead of the comedy My Name Is Earl) plays Dwight Hendricks, a Memphis police detective with an intimate connection to his city and a passion for its music. Investigating a mansion break-in, Dwight compares the high-end burglars who pulled the heist to former Detroit Lions running back Barry Sanders; like Sanders, these burglars retired uncaught in 10 break-ins several years ago, walking away from the game at  the pinnacle of their career. When uniform cop Davey Sutton (DJ Qualls) appears confused by the Sanders reference, Hendricks’ partner Charlie White (Sam Hennings) explains, “It’s a simile, son, simile.” Sutton, however, apparently knows something about literary devices himself, and responds: “Actually, that would be a metaphor, Whitehead. A simile would be something like ‘Your tie is a crime against humanity.’”

Detective White just lets it go, but Sutton’s retort is not quite correct. A simile is a figure of speech that compares two different things by employing the words “like,” “as” or “than, ” while a metaphor compares two things directly. For instance, a simile to describe a fast runner  would be: “Tom runs as fast as a speeding bullet.” A similar metaphor might read, “When Tom ran, he raced down the track at bullet speed.”

While Sutton correctly identifies Dwight’s comparison as a metaphor, his own example is not a simile. “Your tie is as ugly as sin”–a comparison using “as”–would be a simile. But “your tie is a crime against humanity,” with no “like” or “as,”  is simply an intentional overstatement–which is hyperbole,  a deliberate exaggeration to create emphasis or effect.

My advice on this topic: Watch Memphis Beat for its engaging stories, quirky characters and especially for its musical score, coordinated by the contemporary blues singer and composer Keb Mo. But when you need lessons in literary devices and good grammar, find a good editor.

To back up his claim, his March 25, 2011, column cited:

• President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who said it took him an hour to write a one-hour speech, but two hours or more to do a 30-minute version.
• Henry David Thoreau:  “Not that the story need be long, but it will take a long time to make it short.”
• Mark Twain: “If I had more time, I’d write shorter.”
• Carl Sessions, senior editor, American Journalism Review: “Consider the things that stick with you: the Ten Commandments, the Gettysburg Address, the Seven Dwarfs. Al (Neuharth) is right: Think long. Write short.”

On the other hand, Deborah Tannen, author and linguistics professor, Georgetown University, comments, ”Brevity hones thinking and forces clarity, but can also mean losing subtlety and nuance. The challenge is knowing when it does more harm than good.”

Which is why every writer could use an editor.

USA Today Founder and Columnist Al Neuharth

When Gannett began publishing USA Today in 1982, journalism pundits roundly ridiculed the five-day-a-week paper for its “McJournalism” style: short, punchy articles as lean as editors could make them. Today, in the Internet Age, that style almost seems long-winded, at least compared to 140-character-or-less tweets.

USA Today founder Al Neuharth’s Plain Talk of March 25, 2011, discussed how he writes his weekly column, which is never more than 300 words.

“When I do the first draft,” Neuharth wrote, “it sometimes runs 500 words or more. That’s easy. Trimming it down is difficult. That sometimes takes me two or three hours.

“Getting things short and to the point us the most important thing we should keep in mind in our personal or professional lives. In writing or speaking. From grade school to high school to college to our job.

“Long-winded stuff loses the attention of listeners., readers, viewers, friends, even family. That’s true in one-on-one discussions, group gatherings or the mass media.”

That’s great advice. But when you don’t have the time to polish   writing yourself, find yourself a good editor.