[codemonkey]

My project advisor once gave me a piece of advice that changed everything I've written since for the better. After apologizing for the forthcoming crudeness, she passed on this gem:

You're writing "Mary was fucked by John." You /should/ be writing "John fucked Mary."

I can say what I need to say in half the words now.

[alan-crowe]

Somewhere along the line I learned that you make science writing objective by using the passive voice. I would draft "I analysed the data and found that murder causes death." Then I re-wrote mechanically to "The data was analysed and it was found that murder causes death."

Such a waste! I should have dropped myself from the story but stuck with the active voice and written "The data show that murder causes death." Notice the jarring effect of such forthright prose. Do the data really show that murder causes death? Atleast the writing lives up to the ideal of scientific objectivity: the focus is on what the data do or do not show.

[pbhjpbhj]

I know you're trying to be correct but using data in this way is annoying - "the data shows", not because it is necessarily right (it depends) but because it sounds right. If it helps then just consider data the singular noun for a block of information.

"The data shows murder causes death" sounds fine to me, nothing jarring about that except that it's probably not true "the data shows murder is a cause of death" (murder doesn't cause all deaths usually depending on the locus).

[dhimes]

data shows murder causes death

Are you making the claim that the word "data" is singular? It's not. And when you use a collective noun, you use the singular form (datum, in this case).

Along this line, though, what does sound jarring to me is the recent trend among the tech lit (and maybe others) to use company names as plural, as in, "Microsoft are keeping quiet about their new product." This is totally non-standard. First of all, Microsoft is a singular entity, identified by its articles of incorporation. What these authors are doing is using a lazy shorthand for, "Members of Microsoft management are keeping quiet about their new product."

See, for instance, "The Bedford Handbook for Writers" http://www.bedfordstmartins.com/newcatalog.aspx?isbn=0312595...

[doty]

To pile on the pedantry: "data" is one of those words that can be used in either a singular or plural construction. The OED has references going as far back as this one, from 1807:

W. IRVING Salmag. xviii. 366 My grandfather..took a data from his own excellent heart.

(Further proof that English is not Latin.)

[dhimes]

I agree that it's a tough game to standardize usage, especially when different "experts" don't agree (I would guess that you could find writing by other authors circa 1807 that used "data" as a plural). Currently, you find the use of "gender" confused with the use of "sex." Over time "gender" will probably come be used generally for male/female, and sex for reproductive references. But the first such uses were non-standard.

Perhaps it's best to leave it at, "know your audience."

[jamesbritt]

At the least, "The data show murder causes death"

[cema]

Could you just write: "Murder is shown to cause death", or do you need to mention the "data"?

[sofal]

Now you've got it passive again.

Final draft: "Murder kills."

[swombat]

Passive vs active voice is certainly useful, but it's only one of many, many bits of writing craft.

If you want a whole lot more of those, I suggest Strunk & White: http://www.bartleby.com/141/

[req2]

Strunk & White devote a lot of time to misrepresenting grammar and presenting rules that don't mean much. Both of these distract an author from writing with irrelevant questions of passive voices and adjectives.

Pullum points out how silly most of the book is in this article: http://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/2549...

A better respected book that wastes less time is Joseph William's Style: Lessons in Clarity and Grace.

A short review, with some excerpts: http://econ161.berkeley.edu/Econ_Articles/Reviews/williams.h...

[RyanMcGreal]

The problem with The Elements of Style is that White flagrantly, persistently and delightfully violates his own rules. Given that his writing is unfailingly charming and enjoyable to read, I have to wonder about value of those rules.

[electromagnetic]

The Elements of Style (which I personally dislike) isn't written for professional writers, it's written for non-professionals.

In today's culture people are barely capable of writing a sentence without losing half the vowels along the way, and god forbid you're American because you already lost half your U's before you were even born. Forget about adequate grammar, or even half-decent spelling.

White is a professional writers, and with everything there's one key thing to being talented and that's knowing when to break the rules. Breaking the rules when you know what you're doing can be amazing and produce awe-inspiring works, however breaking the rules because you're too ignorant to know they even exist certainly doesn't make you amazing and the only awe you'll inspire is stupidity.

The rules are very valuable, but any half-decent writer has already figured out the rules merely by reading.

[jacquesm]

> and god forbid you're American because you already lost half your U's before you were even born.

My spell checker thinks that every time I write colour, endeavour, or glamour that I've made some grave error.

I really can't stand that, it doesn't allow me to change the preferences to English (which I was taught in school) or American English.

Btw, any piece about spelling contains at least one spelling error, yours is no exception ;)

[electromagnetic]

> Btw, any piece about spelling contains at least one spelling error, yours is no exception ;)

I know! It's the irony of the world. No matter what, when you complain about a general lack of spelling there is always a spelling mistake, but you won't notice it until 5 hours later. It's like there's a frigging anti-spelling Nazi out there who hijacks your post just to screw with you.

God damn gremlins always plaguing English people :(

[blasdel]

I constantly have the opposite problem -- for some reason freetards just luurve en_GB. If you really want superfluously coloured language, set your locale!

[pchickey]

Following White's rules will do a good deal for those whose writing is not yet enjoyable to read.

[req2]

White's rules improve unenjoyable prose.

[crux_]

Good as well: Politics & The English Language. (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm)

[Perceval]

As someone mired in academia, I absolutely love that piece by Orwell. It's a good reminder that the writing I'm surrounded by isn't the type of writing I should emulate.

I keep a folder in my bookmarks of writing tips that I think are insightful. Here are a few:

* Elmore Leonard: http://www.kabedford.com/archives/000013.html

* Kurt Vonnegut: http://www.peterstekel.com/PDF-HTML/Kurt%20Vonnegut%20advice...

* E.A. Poe: http://www.eapoe.org/works/ESSAYS/PHILCOMP.HTM

[crux_]

Dare I point out the staleness of imagery in your first sentence ("mired in academia") or the passive phasing of your second? ;)

Seriously, though: good bookmarks.

[talison]

"On Writing Well" by Zinsser is also worthwhile:

http://bit.ly/2wH4VC (link to Google Books)

[edw519]

You're writing "Mary was fucked by John." You /should/ be writing "John fucked Mary."

I can say what I need to say in half the words now.

60%

[mkramlich]

.6

(concise by one more character, unlike this footnote)

[marcofloriano]

Brilliant !