A Way with Words, Part 1: Albert Murray's Singular Vernacular

With this post, I begin a 10-part series on unusual diction successful writers have used to capture their readers' attention. Let's start by checking out the singular syntax in the first sentence of chapter 4 of South to a Very Old Place by Albert Murray. It's an awkward start for a reader of "fine literature," but knowing where Murray's coming from, I wouldn't change a word. Here it is:

The old place you used to come into coming in from Atlanta by railroad was Chehaw, from which you used to take the Chehaw Special on into the campus.

Before dissecting Murray's sentence, let's consider the topic of Murray's chapter, titled "Tuskegee." Few places figure more prominently in American history than this Alabamian city. After the Indian Removal Act of 1830, the Muscogee people who lived there were displaced to Indian Territory. Tuskegee was a site of cotton plantations owned by white slaveowners. In 1881, Booker T. Washington founded the Tuskegee Normal School for Colored Teachers, a historically black land-grant university now known as Tuskegee University. The renowned Tuskegee Airmen who piloted fighter planes in World War II, originated from that campus. Tuskegee was also the location of the unethical and illegal 40-year Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male, conducted by the United States Public Health Service, resulting in the death of many untreated black citizens at the hands of duplicitous healthcare workers and scientists. The racist gerrymandering of Tuskegee into a 28-sided voting district disadvantaged the dominant black voter base, leading to Gomillion v. Lightfoot, a 1960 Supreme Court case that found the redistricting violated the Fifteenth Amendment. In 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace took a hard stand against the desegregation of Tuskegee High School. Today nearly 90 percent of Tuskegee's 9,000 residents are black with a third living in poverty. This is the Tuskegee Murray was writing about. 

Now, for Murray's 29-word sentence, many stylistic flourishes appear: 

1. Informal pronoun. Murray wants all his readers to feel as though they were listening to him talking to them on a street corner. The tone he sets with this device is remarkably conversational, frank, even endearing. Murray uses the pronoun you twice in the sentence, disregarding rhetorical purists who would eschew such a tactic.

2. Phrasal Verbs. Now Murray twice drops the same phrase in this sentence. He could have written the more concise came instead of used to come and took instead of used to take. I doubt he employed this language because he was being paid by the word. Rather, he again wanted that down-home-in-Alabama effect. 

3. Double prepositions. The phrases in from and on into seem awkward at first read. Yet those phrases reflect the way people speak, especially from Murray's neck of the woods. He was a native of Alabama. 

4. Mid-branching sentence. Murray divides the base clause, The old place was Chehaw, by 11 words: you used to come into coming in from Atlanta by railroad. I'm not sure how many people usually speak like that, but I do. The effect creates an element of suspense. 

I admit that I had to read Murray's sentence twice to understand it. But sometimes that effort in itself is one of the pleasures of reading. He could have written Chehaw was the old place one would arrive from Atlanta by railroad, followed by the Chehaw Special to the campus. This 19-word alternative, a 10-word reduction (35 percent) just doesn't sing off the page like Murray's original—and original he was. The way he wrote that sentence, man, I could taste those words.

One Way of Getting Started in Writing

To get started efficiently with any business message, writers need a single purpose. The document itself should have only one point, each paragraph that follows should have only one supporting point, and each sentence should have only one focusing point. Easier said than done? No. 

One approach to achieving this objective is to heed the advice of "A (Very) Simple Way to Improve Your Writing" by Mark Rennella in the Harvard Business Review. The article, an easy five-minute read, systematically breaks down the writing process for a practical method that successful writers already use, and developing writers should. WORDS ON THE LINE is loaded with nearly 20 years of similar suggestions.  

On Breaking Parallel Structure

I have written often in this blog about the value of parallel structure in creating fluent, clear, and concise phrasing. Just type the term parallel in the search bar on this page for numerous helpful tips and examples on the topic. 

I have also written about breaking parallel structure to achieve a desired effect in fiction and business writing, and I have shown how great writers like Joan Didion have done so. For another example of breaking parallel structure, simply in the name of plain language, here is a sentence from former US President Barack Obama in a tribute on X to Ethel Kennedy after her death:

Ethel Kennedy was a dear friend with a passion for justice, an irrepressible spirit, and a great sense of humor.

If you'd say that sentence seems understandable, I'd agree. But Obama breaks with the parallel convention, which would not have proven as good a sentence. He describes three Kennedy's attributes:

• passion for justice (noun + prepositional phrase)
• irrepressible spirit (adjective + noun)
• great sense of humor (adjective, noun + prepositional phrase)

 Note the inconsistency in the phrasing. Here are three alternative and consistent phrasings based on the context of the original sentence:

1. Noun + Prepositional Phrases: Ethel Kennedy was a dear friend with a passion for justice, humanity through an irrepressible spirit, and a sense of humor. 
2. Adjectives + Nouns: Ethel Kennedy was a dear friend with passionate justice, an irrepressible spirit, and great humor.  
3. Adjectives, Nouns + Prepositional Phrases: Ethel Kennedy was a dear friend with a deep sense of justice, an irrepressible spirit for humanity, and a great sense of humor. 

I hope you agree with me that example 1 seems robotic and redundant, example 2 nonfluent and confusing, and example 3 overwritten and verbose. Obama's usage, on the other hand, seems ironically parallel, although it technically isn't. The three phrases he chooses are more common speech and, therefore, heartfelt and understandable.

My point: Use parallel structure but know when to break this rule.

 

Writers Must Change Their Language

"Writers are obliged, at some point, to realize that they are involved in a language which they must change." - James Baldwin, "On Language, Race, and the Black Writer" in The Cross of Redemption: Uncollected Writings

Although James Baldwin began his essay with the sentence in the epigraph to assert a cause for racial justice, I would suggest that all writers should heed his advice, from novelists, playwrights, or poets creating an artistic work; to technical writers crafting instructions; to investigators authoring incident reports; to administrators composing policies; to auditors drafting workpapers; to managers positioning proposals; to lawyers finessing court briefings. Language changes, and writers are responsible to effect those changes as reasonably, precisely, and understandably as possible.

Words constantly enter our lexicon thanks to changes in our culture, workplace, and technology. We need new words, or at least word forms, to express novel concepts. As an example, think of smishing, which conveniently refers to a fraudulent text message posing as from a reputable source intended to capture personal information from the receiver. As new words arrive, we must be mindful of how best to use them in terms of their context. We would not want to say we were smished if someone pickpocketed us or scammed us in a three-card monte game. We have other words for those schemes; I would settle for robbed. On the other hand, I can imagine any of us comfortably—and accurately—saying, "She's ghosting her boyfriend for his incessant mansplaining." 

Writers also need to refine existing words to reflect the times they live in. As we moved toward gender-inclusive language, English language writers replaced terms like policeman with police officer and mankind with humankind. Sensitive to pejorative meanings of words, they prefer an inexpensive product to a cheap one, as the former denotes only price while the latter connotes poor quality. Managers might write about a project due date, which seems more neutral than the stress-inducing deadline.

Baldwin's insight about the writer's obligation reminds us that language is fluid, and as writers, we are the architects of its evolution. 

On Writing in Tough Conditions

Some of my clients write in difficult situations. They are investigators reporting from their car at the site of an accident during a snowstorm. They are analysts assessing a particular market by email on the trading floor during an especially hectic day. They are project managers creating spreadsheets of multi-million-dollar construction jobs from a cramped, dark trailer. (Some have even had to write messages to their base from an active battlefield.) Writing in tough conditions, such as during bad weather, in noisy environments, or with uncomfortable ergonomics, presents unique challenges that test a writer's creativity, focus, and resilience. These obstacles can make it difficult to maintain concentration, leading to frustration, slower progress, and reduced quality. However, mastering the ability to write in such conditions can foster stronger discipline and adaptability. Here's how.

Bad Weather

Bad weather, particularly heavy rain or cold, can impact both the mind and body, undermining comfort and concentration. The key is to create a mental and physical barriers to block external discomfort. Some ways:

• Prepare yourself. Make sure your devices are fully charged. Organize the writing space of your car, if that's where you work. Stay hydrated and bring comfort food.
• Create as a comfortable an environment as possible. Do whatever you can to optimize your writing space. Find as quiet and comfortable place as feasible. Use a blanket if outdoors or a space heater if indoors, to create an agreeable environment. 
• Find internal motivation. Focus on the content rather than the discomfort. Have the talking points squared away in your head and attack them one at a time.
• Use dictation tools. This method is particularly helpful for those who are not fast typists.
• Use video and photography. Taking videos or pictures onsite can help you recall content when you are writing or rewriting offsite in a more comfortable place. 
• Break up the writing process. Remind yourself that the particular report you're working on takes only x minutes to capture all the content. Plan and draft the report where you are and revise, edit, and proofread it when you are in a better physical space.
• Set small goals. Break your writing into short, timed sessions with reasonable word-count goals to maintain productivity despite external conditions.

Noisy Environments

Noisy environments, such as high-talk areas, traffic, or construction noise can be intrusive. While some writers are not bothered by background noise, others may struggle to concentrate. Three tips:

• Relocate. When possible, find a quieter place, such as a library or unused office space, to escape loud distractions. If you’re in a public space, choosing a quieter corner can make a difference.
• Turn off notifications. You may need to be available to all incoming messages, but you can delete the noisemaking part of notifications. The difference may be minor, but all these differences add up.
• Use noise-cancelling headphones. Investing in such devices can help you block loud or distracting sounds, allowing you to focus more easily.
• Ambient noise or music. If absolute silence isn't an option, try playing soft background music or ambient sounds (like  slow-paced instrumental music or nature sounds) to help you focus on the writing task instead of the unbearable surrounding noise.

Uncomfortable Ergonomics

Uncomfortable ergonomics, like poor seating or inadequate lighting, can cause physical strain, leading to discomfort or pain and reduced productivity. Some actions you can take:

• Check your posture. Get into the habit of telling yourself, "Body check," making sure you are not slouching or twisting in ways counterproductive to efficiency.  
• Invest in ergonomic equipment. Invest in an ergonomic chair, a laptop stand, or an external keyboard and mouse to ensure proper body support.
• Adjust your seat. Find the right height from your seat to the floor. This adjustment makes a big difference in fighting body fatigue and back or leg pain.
• Break regularly. Avoid sitting in an awkward position for long periods. Stand up, stretch, or walk around every half hour to relieve pressure on your body and refresh your mind.
• Improve lighting. Ensure your workspace is well lit, with natural light if possible, or use a desk lamp that mimics daylight to reduce strain on your eyes. Alleviating this physical challenge generates longer periods of concentration.

Though writing in tough conditions is demanding, it is usually not an unconquerable task. It builds endurance. Adapting to these circumstances develops stronger focus. Embracing these challenges can turn discomfort into an opportunity for growth. Implementing these practical solutions will improve your writing productivity, enhance your comfort, and increase your self-confidence in challenging conditions.

The Value of Reading Redux

A post I wrote five years ago for this blog called "The Value of Reading" highlights nine reasons that reading adds immeasurable benefits to our lives. I doubt that piece will ever lose its importance, and it might be the best of 1,300-plus posts I've written here over the past nearly 20 years. At 451words, it is an easy and quick read, so I encourage you to read it.

Before going there, you can find right here a tenth reason for reading as an indispensable activity: Reading deepens our empathy. It brings the world closer to us. It helps us to better understand other people, origins, cultures, desires, attitudes, and actions. Through choice, quality reading, we immerse ourselves in the aspirations, challenges, shortcomings, strengths, and courage of those whose struggles we share and, in many cases, whose lives are far harder than ours. We find common ground. We rediscover those ideas and dreams that make us all human. 

So sure, pick up a newspaper and a magazine, but a book too. Stretch yourself and read a broad range of topics. It will make you a better human being.  

Avoiding a False Equivalence

Let's say you live in Buenos Aires and have landed a job in New York City. You ask an American friend where you should live, in the city or in a small suburban town 30 miles away. She answers, "You'll have to pick the lesser of two evils. You could live in a congested, polluted, loud, unsafe place, or you could deal with long commutes and limited cultural activities." The choice seems like you can put your health and life at risk, or you can endure long train rides on weekdays and suffer from boredom on weekends. Your friend has not quite endorsed living in the suburbs, but she might as well have.

That's the choice Pope Francis laid out when asked about the coming United States presidential election. "You have to choose the lesser evil," he said. "What is the lesser evil, that woman or that man? Both are anti-life—both the one who throws out migrants and the one who kills babies. Both of them are against life." While the pope might claim impartiality about the outcome of the election, he in fact creates a false equivalence. He asks his audience to consider which is preferable: deportation, which he assigns to Donald Trump, or infanticide, which he links to Kamala Harris. Of course, we would rather deport someone than murder a child. In effect, he implies—no, asserts—that Donald Trump is the better choice. 

As writers, we need to be aware of this logical fallacy. We must the check the equivalence of offered options. Every genuine option has at least one disadvantage as well as an advantage. We must avoid false dilemmas by fully exploring the depth of nonbinary situations. The pope, even from a perspective of, as he put it, "political morality," failed to do so.