My Life Is in That Opening!

In starting a discussion on why writer’s block often happens when composing the opening of a business message, I often ask, “What’s in the opening that prevents us from writing it efficiently?”

People usually respond, “That’s the part that sets the tone for the rest of the message, so I try hard to find the right words to respect people’s feelings” or “Sometimes I’m really not sure of what my message is, so I immediately get stuck on my purpose statement.” Either of these answers works for gaining insight into this pressing writing problem.

I recently received a different answer so rich with both perception and pragmatism. When Jennifer Noble, a Systems Integrity Analyst at Nickelodeon, heard me ask the question, she promptly responded with two simple words: “My life.”

A follow-up chat with Ms. Noble showed that those two words have several philosophical and practical implications. For instance, by “my life” she could have meant:

1. The distractions of my life—my frantic schedule, my frequent interruptions, my diverse responsibilities, even my own insecurities—could get in the way of writing an efficient opening.
2. My own preferred style—which is a reflection of my attitude and life experience—might not work for this situation, so now I have to leave my compositional comfort zone.
3. My life— my business deal or my very reputation—is on the line, so writing the opening is unnerving.

What could we do about "my life" getting in the way? Skip the opening and jump to the details, which are much easier to write. You can return to the opening once you’re in a writer’s groove, when you’ll find crafting the opening a less imposing task.

Thanks for sharing “my life,” Ms. Noble!


To purchase your copy of The Art of On-the-Job Writing by Philip Vassallo, click here: http://firstbooks.com/shop/shopexd.asp?id=144

Oh, Those PDAs!

My busy schedule forces me to write more and more e-mails on a tiny handheld device, or PDA (personal digital assistant). Its 4.5-square-centimeter screen usually makes focusing on the entire message difficult because I cannot have it entirely on view. Its 3-millimeter type size increases my chances of making typographical errors. Add to these problems the distracting environments in which I compose these messages: bumpy buses, noisy restaurants, crowded elevators, and busy corridors in major American cities.

These factors contribute to e-mails whose tone is definitely curt and whose details are possibly missing, inaccurate, or unclear. Here are three solutions, depending on the situation:

1. Reread the message before pressing send.
2. Return the e-mail with a phone call, whose give-and-take nature suits the circumstances.
3. Wait until you return to the office, where you can write your response on a larger screen.

These PDAs should serve us in doing our job efficiently—not cause us new communication problems. We should use them wisely.

To purchase your copy of The Art of On-the-Job Writing by Philip Vassallo, click here: http://firstbooks.com/shop/shopexd.asp?id=144

Practice Makes Fluency

A recent conversation about musicianship gave me some insight into writing. My friend Theo Scott, an exceptional actor and musician, described how intensely he prepares for gigs. “I rehearse for endurance, speed, and dexterity.”

Those three nouns hung in the air a moment before they sunk into my imagination. For these three reasons, writers need to write every day. The continual practice will help us write longer, faster, and easier. Thanks for the analogy, Theo.


To purchase your copy of The Art of On-the-Job Writing by Philip Vassallo, click here: http://firstbooks.com/shop/shopexd.asp?id=144

Don't Dis That!

Occasionally, I have heard people say that you can always remove the pronoun that from a sentence.

Not true.

I’d grant you that that can safely be removed from the following sentences:

She said that the client will be here at noon.
The report that you wrote was not mailed.

But without that, the syntax would collapse in the following sentences :

A letter that criticizes our firm will be published in The New York Times.
The service that helped us is no longer available.

Here's a quick test of your linguistic competence. From which sentence could you remove that without compromising clarity:

1. I know that Maria will help.
2. I know that she will help.

I would not remove that from Sentence 1 because I do not necessarily know Maria but something about Maria. Maria could be used as both a subject or an object. However, I would not mind removing that from Sentence 2 because I would have written, "I know her" if I know Maria. By reading the subject case, she, and not the object case, her, you are expecting to learn something about Maria.

So think twice before dissing that by removing it from a sentence willy-nilly.

To purchase your copy of The Art of On-the-Job Writing by Philip Vassallo, click here: http://firstbooks.com/shop/shopexd.asp?id=144

The Silent vs. the Heard H

For the third time, my friend Marco DeSena, now a policy analyst with the Free Enterprise Fund in Washington, DC, makes an appearance on this blog. (See Get a Job! Tips for the Job Seeker on November 21, 2005, and “Try And” vs. “Try To” on January 17, 2006 for earlier mentions.) Mr. DeSena’s latest linguistic lather:

I see the term historic preceded by both a and an. The Wall Street Journal, if I’m not mistaken, uses an. Crain’s Business uses a. Your thoughts?

My response:

Regarding the silent vs. heard h, I go by sound, which is not the traditional view. (See the King James Bible, which uses an to precede h regardless of the sound.) Therefore, I will see you in an hour to discuss a hopeless situation. The "sound" approach applies to abbreviations as well. You have a master’s degree, but an MA (because the M sounds like em, which has an initial vowel sound).

I know that I did not address a/an when preceding historic. I would use a because my Bronx ears hear that h! (I take a history test, not an history test.) But Mr. DeSena is from Queens, so he may hear it differently. I hope that whether he writes about a historic or an historic precedent, his editor overlooks this minor point. After all, his readers would understand his message either way.


To purchase your copy of The Art of On-the-Job Writing by Philip Vassallo, click here: http://firstbooks.com/shop/shopexd.asp?id=144

World Wide Words: Another Fine Website Spotting

World Wide Words, billed by its author Michael Quinion as a website “about international English from a British viewpoint” offers virtually countless tips on word usage, often with humor and always with intelligence.

The website could be pedantic at times (etaoin shrdlu = A nonsense phrase; an absurd or unintelligible utterance), or downright silly (YAPPIE = Young Affluent Parent, OINK = One Income, No Kids, DINKIE = Dual Income, No Kids, HOPEFUL = Hard-up Older Person Expecting Full Useful Life, DUMP = Destitute Unemployed Mature Professional, SITCOM = Single Income, Two Kids, Outrageous Mortgage, SINBAD = Single Income, No Boyfriend, Absolutely Desperate). However, Quinion’s take on business terms like 360-degree feedback or on pronoun usage and acronyms, for instance, are immediately useful to the serious on-the-job writer.

What’s best about this site is that Quinion's discussion of commonly and uncommonly used words and phrases refrains from registering a righteous this-is-right-and-this-is wrong mindset. He knows that language is driven by context, and all his entries thoroughly deliberate on the topic. Here is the link: www.worldwidewords.org.


To purchase your copy of The Art of On-the-Job Writing by Philip Vassallo, click here: http://firstbooks.com/shop/shopexd.asp?id=144

Quibbling over And/Or

What does the phrase and/or mean? Once we use or, don’t we nullify and? Jason Paukowits, an analyst for the New York City Department of Environmental Protection, remembers hearing me say in a writing class that or will stand in just fine for and/or, so he e-mailed me: “Can you explain to me the rationale behind using or rather than and/or? I believe that you are right, but I am having trouble convincing others of this.”

OK. Let’s look at this sentence:

Please pay $100 by check and/or money order.

Clearly, we mean, “check or money order.” After all, we wouldn't want some of the payment by check and the balance by money order.

Here’s a trickier example:

The boss said that Jack and/or Jill must attend the meeting.

To the boss, it doesn’t matter if only one attends, so she should have written or. To Jack and Jill, however, both may elect to attend. If they do, they may be wasting company resources because one of them could have stayed back in the office and written reports instead of attending the meeting. Therefore, for clarity the boss should have written, “Jack or Jill must attend the meeting,” because as their boss it really should matter to her that only one attends.

Another example:

If you hold a United States and/or European Union passport, you must pay the value-added tax.

If you hold one passport or the other, then you must comply with the tax law. If you hold one passport, you must pay the tax; if you hold both, you must pay the tax as well. So what’s the difference? A US, an EU, or a US and EU passport holder must pay tax. Therefore, the or is sufficiently clear.

The phrase and/or indicates that any of the possible stated conditions may be true, but so does the word or. Therefore and/or is redundant. Legalistic thinkers, however, argue that and/or removes the possible ambiguity of the following sentences:

• You may write the chief executive officer, chief operating officer, and/or chief financial officer.
• Feel free to phone, fax, and/or e-mail me.

The phrase and/or, lawyers may contend, asserts that your three contact choices are available and combinable. If such were the case, however, then the word and should suffice. The point is that by eliminating and/or, you may find a more clear way of expressing what you need to.


To purchase your copy of The Art of On-the-Job Writing by Philip Vassallo, click here: http://firstbooks.com/shop/shopexd.asp?id=144