Writing rules from Robert Heinlein
- You Must Write
- Finish What You Start
- You Must Refrain From Rewriting, Except to Editorial Order
- You Must Put Your Story on the Market
- You Must Keep it on the Market until it has Sold
- Start Working on Something Else
Tufte on Presentations
Rules from Edward Tufte for better presentations.
- Show up early: Something good is bound to happen.
- Lay out the problem: who cares about it and what the solution is.
- When presenting complicated material, follow PGP (particular/general/particular). When you talk, TALK: avoid the obvious reliance on notes.
- Give everyone in your audience a piece of paper.
- Match the information density in your presentation to the highest resolution newspapers. Avoid overhead projectors. Keep the lights up in the room.
- Never apologize.
- Use humor, but make it relevant and never irritating.
- Use gender-neutral speech.
- Practice intensely beforehand.
- Meetings have a very low rate of information transfer.
- Take questions, but NEVER condescend to the questioner.
- Keep in mind that most questions arise from personal concerns.
- Express enthusiasm about your material, but only if your enthusiasm is real.
- Finish early.
orwell's rules
Rules to follow for better writing.
- Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
- Never us a long word where a short one will do.
- If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
- Never use the passive where you can use the active.
- Never use a foreign phrase, scientific word, or jargon if you can think of an everyday English equivalent. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
orwell's questions
Ask these questions when writing or editing
- What am I trying to say?
- What words will express it?
- What image or idiom will make it clearer? Is this image fresh enough to have an effect? Could I put it more shortly?
- Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly?
My question to add:
- Can I say this more beautifully?
romance of the hobbit
The desire for romanticism draws us to The Hobbit.
I believe the attraction to it is because of its simplistic yet enthralling plot. Its hero, Bilbo shows tremendous courage even though he is humbly three feet tall.
The Hobbit, as far as the plot is concerned, is simplistic, which is common in romantic literature. Other romantic literature of this nature would be Beowulf and of course King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table. Here we see a simplistic meta-narrative of good versus evil. The simplicity captivates toward a clearly defined journey through goblin-filled paths, evil-possessed forests, and finally dragon-filled mountains where we will meet the breather of hellfire, the great Smaug.
The plot orients toward the quest -- to be in the good to overcome the evil. In this tale, our Bilbo is presented with the decision to be for the Good before asking to be an adventurer against the Evil. He must be a problem-solver before he has even decided if he wants to solve problems. He must become the ring-bearer before he even wants a ring.
Romantic literature is attractive because it's aspirational. Bilbo as a hero strikes us because he is a non-hero archetype. Unlike more common heroes like Beowulf (strength-conqueror) or Arthur (king-conqueror), we aspire to be Bilbo because of his heart. It is rightly large even though his stature is not. In Beowulf, we cling to the strongest man of the British Isles and in Arthur, we cling to the greatest leader to walk the hill fields of England.
But Bilbo attracts through is non-heroic heroism. The dwarves are the brave, strong ones. Gandalf is the wise, all-knowing one. Yet, the entire journey's success is dependent upon the heroism of being clever, short, and lucky.
Short always wins.
But perhaps The Hobbit is not so different of a romance. Let's look at Beowulf. This book obviously has good battling evil. Our great and strong hero battles the evil terrorizing monster, Grendel. And Beowulf defeats Grendel, yet the surprise is that the defeat of Grendel's mother happens through a dual sacrifice of his paternal love for his countrymen and her motherly love for her monstrous son.
Sacrificial smallness always wins.
In the Arthurian legends, the King rallies his knights in the exterior and interior battle against the temptations delivered by the quasi-evil Morgana. As in the other romances, our hero, King Arthur, defeats through sacrifice of his humble (almost un-royal) suffering by a deference toward other better knights.
Nevertheless, let us go back to the unfortunate moment. Smaug, the great lizard of Middle Earth, is defeated by the right-hearted Bilbo. What cannot happen, happens. Bilbo cannot win, but Bilbo wins. He sacrifices everything and therefore wins everything.
As we read these fairy tales, we feel a warming in our hearts as if we are falling in love again with the idea that sacrifice matters more than self. The greatness of romance literature is that it is the humanistic manifestation of our human attempt to transcend humanity. And so we should come to a judgment: The Hobbit guides us over a mystic land of Elves, Dwarves, Goblins, Shape-Changers, and Wizards to bring us a little more closer to romancing the heart toward the hobbit, the small one.
And what's wrong with a little more romancing the hobbit?
This is a slightly adapted essay from my high school days. Not bad.
Strunk and White's Principles Of Composition
Follow These and Write Better
- Choose a suitable design
- Use the active voice
- Put statements in positive form
- Use definite, specific, concrete language
- Omit needless words
- Place yourself in the background
- Write naturally
- Write with nouns and verbs
- Revise and rewrite
- Do not overwrite
- Avoid qualifiers
- Do not affect a breezy manner
- Use orthodox spelling
- Do not explain too much
- Do not construct awkward adverbs
- Avoid fancy words
- Avoid dialect
- Avoid mixing languages
- Prefer the standard to the offbeat
My students should read this book, Elements of Style. They will be better for it. I know I am.
write better
Reduce:
- Does it move the piece forward?
- Stand back from the paper and look objectively at the major chunks. Do they all belong?
- Move in a little closer. Are there paragraphs or sentences the paper could live without?
- Lean over the pages still closer. Are there idle, cluttering phrases or words?
- Get out the magnifying glass. Could shorter words express the thought as clearly? Could some words be shortened?
Rearrange:
Unity:
- Is there a unity of subject and scope?
- Is there a unified tone and style?
- Are verb tenses consistent?
- Are paragraphs and sentences to the point and unified?
Coherence:
- Are all references unambiguous?
- Are all words together that belong together?
- Are the relationships between sentences and ideas clear?
- Are transitions smooth?
Emphasis:
- Are all the parts in the right proportion?
- Are the important things anywhere but in the middle?
- Have I used effective repetition, variable length, and careful positioning?
Reword:
- Have I always select the best word, best phrasing, and most effective diction?
- Do my sentences vary in length and form?
- Have I scrutinized my verbs? Is the use any of these [am, is, are, was, were, be being, been, will, shall, should, have, having, has had, may, might, must, can, could] a passive verb construction? Could I make any of these active or substitute a noun/preposition in a gerund? Have I used the verb that comes as close as possible to giving the reader an image of the action—without requiring an adverb to make it work?
- Have I limited modifiers instead of choosing the right noun? Have I used nouns that come as close as possible to describing the subject (or object) without requiring one or more adjectives? Do the nouns paint images, or are they merely vague abstractions? Have I limited parenthetical explanations, modifiers, and clauses? Have I used to concrete details? Have I made my writing live by stimulating the reader’s several senses? Do I have mixed, confused, or dead metaphors?
- Have I avoided distracters like obscenities, sexisms, dialects, clichés, jargons, misspellings, and misuses?
- Am I enjoying my writing? Will others enjoy my writing?
apostolic fathers
For my next desert island bookshelf pick, I would grab my small two volume verison of the Apostolic Fathers (Loeb Edition). These letters have been invaluable for me when I think about the secondary and tertiary ripples of the impact of the incarnation. Somehow, yes, we can understand the first ripple of the "Yes" to Christ that Peter gives or even the awe inspiring conversion of Paul. But, for the second and third ripple of those who did not know Jesus but knew Mark. Here in the Apostolic Fathers (vol. I and vol. II), we see how the good news hits the fan.
My favorite is Ignatius of Antioch:
"I prefer death in Christ Jesus to power over the farthest limits of the earth. He who died in place of us is the one object of my quest. He who rose for our sakes is my one desire."
As I'm seeking coconuts on my desert island, I'll have one of these pretty volumes in my frayed cargo shorts pocket.
summa
Continuing in my series of the Desert Island Bookshelf, I'd like to add another.
If I'm shipwrecked I'll make sure, of course, to have a bookshelf. And on that bookshelf will be my Summa Theologiae by Thomas Aquinas.
My undergraduate education gave me much time with this masterwork and when I began to pursue my graduate work I bought one of those expensive copies that I could read cover to cover. Just like Thomas did not finish writing it, I feel perfectly happy that I have not yet finished reading it. And yet, along with my daily Bible study, I try to read an article a day because as they say, an article a day keeps the metaphysical doctor away. I find Thomas' vision of God dynamic, provident, and intelligent. Alles ist Ordnung. And my Christian faith and metaphyscially-oriented humanity needs that sustaining meal. Somehow, I'm more who I should be as a theologian and as a Christian when I'm near my Summa.
As a side note, in graduate school, my theological friends and I began a group called the Summa Wrestlers. We would meet once a week to read and discuss one question. We got quite far and we were the better for it. If I were on a desert island, I would be Summa wrestling.
