tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38587595744746331752024-03-08T04:22:22.302-08:00Quick Writing TipsShort writing tips. Twice a week.Danielhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02388302796031288076noreply@blogger.comBlogger415125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3858759574474633175.post-41022657204628789472022-04-22T06:58:00.006-07:002022-04-22T07:02:53.281-07:00Omit Needless Punctuation<p><b>From the book <a href="https://amzn.to/3MlYvI2" target="_blank">The Fourth Turning by William Strauss and Neil Howe</a>:</b> </p><p><i>"While mom's task was to tend to every complaint, dad's was to pay the bills without the kids' knowing where the money came from."</i> </p><p>What's fascinating (ehhh, to a grammarian) about this sentence is that <i>it is grammatically correct</i>. But the reader gets thrown by the word <i>kids'</i> with its strange-looking <i>s'</i>. </p><p>What is it, exactly, that these kids are <i>in possession of</i> in this sentence? </p><p>It begins to make better sense if we reword it slightly to indicate the possession more directly. Here we'll rephrase "kids' knowing" into "the knowing of the kids" to give us: </p><p><i>"...without the knowing of the kids where the money came from."</i> </p><p>Now <i>this</i> ought to look vaguely familiar to readers of this blog: this is a <a href="https://quickwritingtips.blogspot.com/2013/01/nominalizations.html" target="_blank">nominalization</a>! And of course we know that the using of a nominalization is poor style.<b>[1]</b> </p><p>To improve readability and style, then, I would consider two possibilities: </p><p>1) <i>"...to pay the bills without the kids' knowledge where the money came from"</i> or, </p><p>2) <i>"...to pay the bills without the kids knowing where the money came from."</i></p><p>The first option eliminates the nominalization problem by replacing the nominalized verb <i>knowing</i> with the noun <i>knowledge</i>. The second option, by removing the apostrophe, actually changes the sentence's grammar: the word <i>knowing</i> changes from something possessed into a gerund, which then makes <i>kids knowing</i> into a simple noun-gerund pair. </p><p>Since the second solution is the simplest and cleanest, and also removes that ugly apostrophe, I consider it the best option. Therefore: </p><p><i>"While mom's task was to tend to every complaint, dad's was to pay the bills without the kids knowing where the money came from."</i> </p><div>Omit needless punctuation!</div><p><i><br /></i></p><p><b>[1]</b> If you catch the grammar joke in that sentence a gold star for you! </p>Danielhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02388302796031288076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3858759574474633175.post-91910618176814554302017-04-04T03:11:00.000-07:002017-11-03T16:59:33.287-07:00Henri Matisse And Self-DoubtThis short anecdote on Henri Matisse should resonate with anyone involved in any sort of creative work: <br />
<br />
<i>Matisse's continuing self-doubt is revealed in the story of his encounter with a group of schoolgirls in a Nice gallery where some of his paintings were on display. Years later one of the schoolgirls remembered, "At one moment we all stopped dead in front of a picture we couldn't understand... To our eyes, conditioned to perfect classical art, that work appeared as just 'bad.'" Matisse happened to be walking incognito among the students and heard their negative comments. When a girl asked him if he were Matisse, he did not identify himself, but when the group was about to leave he took their teacher aside and apologized for his lie. He said he had been afraid of the children's criticism: "I believe they are the only ones who see rightly, and for the moment I hate that picture in my heart for having shocked the eyes of a child, even if the critics should call it a masterpiece." </i><br />
--from <a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0151581835/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0151581835&linkCode=as2&tag=casukitc-20&linkId=f0c05b8bf101b896da2238140a3827bb" target="_blank"><b>Matisse: A Portrait</b></a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="//ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=casukitc-20&l=am2&o=1&a=0151581835" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important;" width="1" /> by Hayden Herrera<br />
<br />
This story shocked me, to be honest. Matisse was one of history's greatest artists. If <i>he</i> gets down on himself when a <i>schoolgirl</i> criticizes him, who am I to have any confidence at all--about anything?<br />
<br />
Then again, maybe there's an alternative, more encouraging way to think about this story. Yes, Matisse was one of history's greatest artists, but he's also a human being subject to self-doubt. Just like all the rest of us. <i>But his self-doubt didn't stop him from creating.</i> In fact, Matisse later went on to create some of his best-known works, including his famous <a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/080761291X/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=080761291X&linkCode=as2&tag=casukitc-20&linkId=3a095906824801d162eb27fb95d59aef" target="_blank"><b>late-career collages and cut-outs.</b></a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="//ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=casukitc-20&l=am2&o=1&a=080761291X" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important;" width="1" /> It didn't stop him.<br />
<br />
Maybe self-doubt is <i>normal,</i> and you just have to manage it--survive it--as best you can. But yet you still have the obligation to keep working, keep producing.<br />
<br />
It's just another way to think about it. And framing it up this way makes me feel kind of lucky that <i>sometimes,</i> every so often, I get a random moment <i>without</i> self-doubt.<br />
<br />
<b>Readers, what do you think? </b><br />
<br />
<br />
<iframe frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=casukitc-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0151581835&asins=0151581835&linkId=ea8e71f45146b7cadd0589b6ad06d056&show_border=true&link_opens_in_new_window=true&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff" style="height: 240px; width: 120px;"><br />
</iframe><br />
<br />
<iframe frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=tf_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=casukitc-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=080761291X&asins=080761291X&linkId=c21c31a23f1b7b5d7bee5d0eb11b0fa4&show_border=true&link_opens_in_new_window=true&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff" style="height: 240px; width: 120px;"><br />
</iframe><br />Danielhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02388302796031288076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3858759574474633175.post-15435606661953081352016-11-15T11:11:00.000-08:002016-11-15T11:11:12.161-08:00Avoid Complex Sentence Structure<b><i>What was different in the '80s--what ushered in the era of superstar corporate raiders and then made it disappear forever--were the rise and fall of Michael Milken, and the hard knocks education of large institutional investors.</i></b><br />
--From <a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0062369830/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0062369830&linkCode=as2&tag=casukitc-20&linkId=979cc5b6fbd806b8656dc22ab08f4bd4" target="_blank"><b>Dear Chairman: Boardroom Battles and the Rise of Shareholder Activism</b></a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="//ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=casukitc-20&l=am2&o=1&a=0062369830" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important;" width="1" /> by Jeff Gramm<br />
<br />
The otherwise exceptional book <i>Dear Chairman</i> gives QWT readers yet another example of how complex sentences and complicated writing inevitably hurts readers.<br />
<br />
The sentence above is grammatically correct, although it sure doesn't seem so. In fact, it's the correctness of the grammar that makes it read poorly. Readers hiccup and lose their rhythm when they get to "were" after the second dash.<br />
<br />
Why "were"? Because that verb's subject is plural: "Michael Milken" and "the hard knocks education of large instituional investors" <i>were</i> what was different in the '80s.<br />
<br />
So, no problems with the grammar, but the sentence still needs help. It's confusing, it's unwieldly, and it reads like there's a grammar error even though there isn't. Do not fling sentences like this at your readers.<br />
<br />
How can we fix it? Simplify it, make it direct... and <a href="http://quickwritingtips.blogspot.com/2009/07/omit-needless-words.html"><b>omit needless words</b></a>. Like this:<br />
<br />
<b><i>What was different in the '80s? The rise and fall of Michael Milken, and the hard knocks education of large institutional investors. This was what ushered</i></b><b><i> in the era of superstar corporate raiders--and then made it disappear forever.</i></b><br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0062369830/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0062369830&linkCode=as2&tag=casukitc-20&linkId=e756549fe37a237b546ee7e086f4f616" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?_encoding=UTF8&MarketPlace=US&ASIN=0062369830&ServiceVersion=20070822&ID=AsinImage&WS=1&Format=_SL250_&tag=casukitc-20" /></a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="//ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=casukitc-20&l=am2&o=1&a=0062369830" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important;" width="1" />Danielhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02388302796031288076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3858759574474633175.post-61989383128768574042014-01-26T11:11:00.000-08:002014-01-26T11:11:00.395-08:00A Low Information Diet<i>"Sociopolitical events, debates, and controversies are now lucrative forms of entertainment, as the media employs unpaid and fiercely motivated actors."</i><br />
--Nicholas Taleb<br />
<br />
Guess who the "fiercely motivated actors" are? Uh-huh: You and me. Arguing on Facebook and Twitter, in the comments on political and news websites, and clicking on yet more inane articles on the Huffington Post and Gawker. <br />
<br />
If this isn't yet another reason to adopt a low-information diet, I don't know what is. <br />
<br />
Less internet, more writing.Danielhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02388302796031288076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3858759574474633175.post-65124216219649371082013-08-21T11:11:00.000-07:002013-08-21T11:11:00.851-07:00Two Simple Writing Devices Anyone Can Use<em>In May 1980, Texas Instruments' new personal computer arrived in the stores, chiefly J.C. Penney's, where there was no one who knew how to sell it, and the few computer shops of the day, where no one wanted to sell it.</em><br />
--<strong>George Gilder, </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0671606425/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0671606425&linkCode=as2&tag=casukitc-20"><strong>The Spirit of Enterprise</strong></a><strong><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=casukitc-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0671606425" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important;" width="1" /></strong><br />
<br />
No, this isn't exactly the greatest sentence ever written. Yet it's notable thanks to two simple devices:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://quickwritingtips.blogspot.com/2010/07/use-parallelism-to-make-your-writing.html"><strong>Parallelism</strong></a><strong>:</strong> The parallel phrases <em>where there was no one who knew how to sell it/where no one wanted to sell it</em> give cadence to the sentence, making it more memorable and interesting.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://quickwritingtips.blogspot.com/2012/08/use-reversals-to-violate-your-readers.html"><strong>Reversal</strong></a><strong>:</strong> Readers get a surprise when they stumble on the reversal phrase <em>where no one wanted to sell it.</em> You'd think computer shops would <em>want</em> to sell computers, but not in this sentence. Clearly, this new personal computer from Texas Instruments is headed for some drama... and readers will want to keep reading about it.<br />
<br />
Parallelism and reversals aren't sophisticated writing devices. Anyone, including you, can use them to produce more forceful and memorable writing.<br />
<br />
<iframe frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=casukitc-20&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=0671606425&ref=tf_til&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="height: 240px; width: 120px;"></iframe><br />
Danielhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02388302796031288076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3858759574474633175.post-39344145068686756642013-08-11T11:11:00.001-07:002013-08-11T11:11:00.689-07:00Reader UpdateA brief update for readers. In order to dedicate time to some of my other projects, I'll be updating Quick Writing Tips somewhat less frequently for the next several months. I'll continue to share new material here, just not at my traditional twice-weekly posting schedule. <br />
<br />
If you have thoughts, input or anything else you'd like to share, <a href="mailto:dan1529@yahoo.com"><strong>you can always reach me here</strong></a><strong>.</strong><br />
<br />
As always, I am deeply grateful for your time, attention and support.Danielhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02388302796031288076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3858759574474633175.post-81559299339224745662013-08-07T11:11:00.000-07:002013-08-07T12:20:58.109-07:00Don't Let Your Clauses Mingle and Conspire<em>If a well-understood business is offered to you at half or less than its underlying intrinsic value two to three years from now, with minimal downside risk, take it. </em><br />
<strong>--from </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/047004389X/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=047004389X&linkCode=as2&tag=casukitc-20"><strong>The Dhandho Investor</strong></a><strong><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=casukitc-20&l=as2&o=1&a=047004389X" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important;" width="1" /> by Mohnish Pabrai</strong><br />
<br />
Readers, what's wrong with this sentence? Let's break down the clauses one by one:<br />
<br />
<em>If a well-understood business is offered to you... <br />
at half or less than its underlying intrinsic value...<br />
two to three years from now...</em><br />
<br />
Hmmm. Would you buy a business that won't be offered for another two to three years? I wouldn't. <br />
<br />
Sure, we can tell what the author means: He's talking about buying a business <em>now</em> at a discount to what its intrinsic value <em>will be</em>--two to three years from now. But the reader is left stumbling over a multiple-clause sentence that's too complex for its own good. <br />
<br />
Be careful cramming too many clauses together in single a sentence. A couple of clauses can get along well enough, but combine more than three or four and your clauses start mingling, planning things... Before you know it, they'll start a full-on conspiracy to confuse your readers. <br />
<br />
The solution? <em>Eliminate.</em> Strip out clauses until your meaning is unmistakably clear. I'd start by eliminating the clause <em>two to three years from now</em>:<br />
<br />
<em>If a well-understood business is offered to you at half or less than its underlying intrinsic value, with minimal downside risk, take it. </em><br />
<br />
There. Nothing unclear about that. <br />
<br />
<iframe frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=casukitc-20&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=047004389X&ref=tf_til&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="height: 240px; width: 120px;"></iframe><br />
Danielhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02388302796031288076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3858759574474633175.post-47067371414799477772013-08-04T11:11:00.000-07:002013-08-04T11:18:37.471-07:00Worry Porn<i>You're using a Teflon pan? Aren't you worried about that?</i><br />
<br />
<i>Vaccines will give my child autism.</i><br />
<br />
<i>Are you concerned about Bisphenol-A in the linings of your canned food?</i><br />
<br />
<i>Have you heard about the risks of <a href="http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html"><b>dihydrogen monoxide</b></a>?</i> <br />
<br />
We all have friends who share concerns like these, via chain emails, articles on Facebook or idle conversation. And of course the news media immerses us in this stuff around the clock. <br />
<br />
This is just another form of pornography. Yes, I said it: pornography. It isn't meant to inform you, it's meant to stimulate your limbic system. It's meant to provoke fear and worry (hence the term "worry porn") so you'll click, read or buy. <br />
<br />
And it works so well that we can be <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax"><b>fooled into fearing water</b></a>. <br />
<br />
Fear is a hindbrain reaction, nothing more. The information only has to be vaguely persuasive--easy to do since more readers lack basic critical thinking skills--and our forebrains follow along, quickly convincing us that the fear is real and worth worrying about. <br />
<br />
Here's the problem for writers: <i>When you worry you're not writing.</i> Worry destroys creativity. It damages your work and your future. <br />
<br />
Understand what worry porn really is. It's information constructed to keep us reading, watching, buying and <a href="http://quickwritingtips.blogspot.com/2013/04/tv-costs-you-quadruple.html"><b>lifestyle copying</b></a>, but it never provides useful information. Don't consume it. <br />
<br />
<i><a href="http://casualkitchen.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-cure-for-worry-porn.html"><b>Visit Casual Kitchen for a longer discussion of this subject</b></a><b>.</b></i>Danielhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02388302796031288076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3858759574474633175.post-72207790421552886832013-07-31T11:11:00.000-07:002013-07-31T11:11:00.106-07:00Don't Waste Time Agonizing Over PhrasingWriting offers us an infinity of agonizing decisions. At my food blog Casual Kitchen, I've spent more time wording and rewording a single sentence than I've spent on the entire post <em>containing</em> that sentence.<br />
<br />
Is this a good use of my time? Nope. <br />
<br />
Okay, sure, it depends on the importance of the sentence. Your title and your <a href="http://quickwritingtips.blogspot.com/2009/09/write-your-lead-last.html"><strong>lead sentence</strong></a> deserve extra editing time, clearly. But some sentence four paragraphs into your post deserves no more than a few minutes of decision time. Write it, let it go and move on. <br />
<br />
The time you spend agonizing over the phrasing of a sentence is time you <em>aren't</em> spending writing something else. Agonizing never happens in a vacuum. It displaces other important work you could be doing. Danielhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02388302796031288076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3858759574474633175.post-45991631855465721022013-07-28T11:11:00.000-07:002013-07-28T11:11:00.197-07:00Just One Instance of Writing Like This Can Make a Reader Put Down Your Book, Forever.<em>In its very suggestiveness, cheese is both like and unlike many of the other foods humans cook or ferment. Whether by fire or water or the action of microbes, one of the ways humans transform the edible stuff of nature is in the direction of greater allusiveness--in taste or smell or appearance. Just as we take pleasure in enriching our language with layers of metaphor and allusion, we apparently like to trope what we eat and drink, too, extracting from it not only more nourishment but more meaning as well--more psychic nourishment, if you will. It just so happens that the more vivid, odiferous tropes that cheesemakers have teased out of milk can verge on the indecent, taking us places polite society doesn't like to go. </em><br />
<br />
<strong>--from Michael Pollan's </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1594204217/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1594204217&linkCode=as2&tag=casukitc-20"><strong>Cooked</strong></a><strong><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=casukitc-20&l=as2&o=1&a=1594204217" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important;" width="1" /></strong><br />
<br />
I'm sorry to pick on Michael Pollan for two posts in a row, but his new book offers too many useful lessons on how not to write. This unfortunate paragraph offers several examples:<br />
<br />
<strong>1) Hyphens</strong><br />
Using hyphens in two consecutive sentences is a sign of muddled and unclear writing. <br />
<br />
<strong>2) Complex sentences</strong><br />
Layered clauses and prepositional phrases confuse and bore readers. <br />
<br />
<strong>3) Repetitive sentence structure</strong><br />
Believe it or not, the first three sentences of the writing sample above share identical structure. Each begins with a poorly-written prepositional phrase:<br />
<br />
a) <em>In its very suggestiveness,</em> <br />
b) <em>Whether by fire or water or the action of microbes,</em> and <br />
c) <em>Just as we take pleasure in enriching our language with layers of metaphor and allusion,</em><br />
<br />
Vary your sentences. Don't lull your readers to sleep.<br />
<br />
<strong>4) Inexplicable comma use</strong><br />
When used logically, commas help readers. When used illogically, they disrupt the entire act of reading. The second sentence (<em>Just as we take ... if you will</em>) is an excellent example how to use commas where you shouldn't and how to not use them where you should.<br />
<br />
<strong>5) Show-off language</strong><br />
Replace <em>allusiveness</em> and <em>trope</em> with less pretentious language.<br />
<br />
<strong>6) Needless words</strong><br />
Cut out phrases like <em>if you will</em> and <em>It just so happens that.</em> <br />
<br />
<strong>7) Pointless drivel/Purple prose</strong><br />
When grinding through passages like this, most readers have just one question: What is the author trying to say? If your readers ask this, you have failed to communicate with them. <br />
<br />
Just one instance of writing like this can make a reader put down your book, forever. Don't do it. Danielhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02388302796031288076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3858759574474633175.post-46566163798685115272013-07-24T11:11:00.000-07:002013-07-24T11:11:00.259-07:00Repelling Readers With Self-Indulgent ProseReaders: here are three quotes from Michael Pollan's new book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1594204217/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1594204217&linkCode=as2&tag=casukitc-20"><strong>Cooked:</strong></a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=casukitc-20&l=as2&o=1&a=1594204217" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important;" width="1" /><br />
<br />
<strong>"The underlying idea here is that freshly baked bread is the ultimate olfactory synecdoche for hominess."</strong> <em>(page 209)</em><br />
<br />
<strong>"The pot dish, lidded and turbid, has none of the Apollonian clarity of a recognizable animal on a spit; it trades that brightly lit, hard-edged object and its legible world for something darker, more fluid and inchoate."</strong> <em>(page 159)</em><br />
<br />
<strong>"But could it be that, for us, the taste of foods rich in umami also sounds deep Proustian echoes, bearing us back to memories, however faint, of our very first food? Is it merely a coincidence that so many of the things we think of as "comfort foods"--everything from ice cream to chicken soup--traffic in tastes of either sweetness or umami, the two big tastes first encountered on the breast?"</strong> <em>(page 174)</em><br />
<br />
There's a lot wrong with this writing. A <em>lot:</em> <br />
<br />
1)<a href="http://quickwritingtips.blogspot.com/2012/05/yes-you-have-amazing-vocabulary-you-can.html"> <strong>Show-off words</strong></a> like synecdoche, turbid and inchoate. <br />
<br />
2) Unnecessary references to Proust and Greek gods, which serve no communicative purpose except <a href="http://quickwritingtips.blogspot.com/2013/02/never-make-readers-suffer-through-your.html"><strong>to broadcast the author's learnedness and literacy</strong></a>. <br />
<br />
3) Complex sentences with countless clauses. Don't forget: <a href="http://quickwritingtips.blogspot.com/2009/10/key-enabler-of-bad-writing.html"><strong>the semicolon enables bad writing</strong></a>.<br />
<br />
This kind of prose enrages--and nauseates--readers. <em>One</em> of these self-indulgent sentences could be enough to drive away a reader. Fill a book with dozens upon dozens of them (and yes, <em>Cooked</em> is loaded with quotes like these and worse) and you could permanently damage a great writing career. <br />
<br />
Never write like this. <br />
<br />
<iframe frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?t=casukitc-20&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=1594204217&ref=tf_til&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="height: 240px; width: 120px;"></iframe><br />
<br />Danielhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02388302796031288076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3858759574474633175.post-81369953466831671322013-07-21T11:11:00.000-07:002013-07-21T11:11:00.436-07:00What Khloe Kardashian Teaches Us About Advanced Media ConsumptionImagine seeing the following piece of "information" in People Magazine:<br />
<br />
<em>Khloe Kardashian is getting divorced.</em><br />
<br />
I know, I know. Fascinating. But bear with me for a moment. <br />
<br />
We can interpret this information on a purely literal level if we wish. Here are two possible reactions: <br />
<br />
<em>"Wow, really? I thought she really liked [whoever she was married to]!"</em><br />
<em>"This is news? This is stupid. I can't believe they are writing about this. Who cares?"</em><br />
<br />
One of these reactions comes from a person who's interested in the factoid and who identifies with this celebrity. The other reaction comes from someone who identifies with feeling intellectually superior to this kind of information. <br />
<br />
These two reactions may seem different to you, but in reality they're essentially the same. They share the same level of interpretive sophistication. Both readers (whether they like it or not) now know that this celebrity is getting divorced, and both readers take the information and react to it, judge it and absorb it. Both are examples of a fundamentally passive and reactive way to read.<br />
<br />
What if there's a better way? Is there an active, creative and sophisticated way to consume information like this? Let's evaluate a different way to read and interpret this factoid by asking a series of open-ended questions:<br />
<br />
<em>"Why was this written?" </em><br />
<em>"What does that say about the readers of this magazine, or about our culture?"</em><br />
<em>"Where else do I see information like this?" </em><br />
<em>"Is this more or less common in our media, and why?"</em> <br />
<br />
These questions don't involve any judgment of the factoid. They're not emotional. Questions like these--<em>even when combined with utterly useless information</em>--can produce surprisingly useful ideas, thoughts and conclusions. <br />
<br />
If you consider yourself a sophisticated media consumer, yet you still find yourself getting annoyed at articles about the Kardashians, consider <a href="http://quickwritingtips.blogspot.com/2011/06/meta-reading.html"><strong>using the art of meta-reading</strong></a> with all of the media you consume. <br />
<br />
Develop a habit of asking meta-questions while you read. It will make your daily reading and information gathering more interesting, more fun, and far less irritating. It will enable you to talk to a much wider range of people. And it might even help you dispense with your superiority complex.<br />
<br />
<strong>A side note:</strong> You will find it <em>immensely</em> profitable to use this information consumption technique with financial media. Immensely. Profitable.Danielhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02388302796031288076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3858759574474633175.post-8555608740771733232013-07-17T11:11:00.000-07:002013-07-17T11:11:00.649-07:00Rearrange and Replace So Your Readers RememberThe next time you're editing a sentence with a list of adjectives, nouns or verbs, try reordering things. See if you can create a more interesting cadence.<br />
<br />
Short to long: <em>The girls were short, smart and foolish.</em><br />
Long to short: <em>they're uncomplaining, aggressive and smart.</em><br />
<br />
Finally, consider replacing or changing elements to bring out alliteration, assonance or rhyme: <br />
<br />
<em>The girls were short, smart and shallow.</em>Danielhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02388302796031288076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3858759574474633175.post-41837809013623585122013-06-19T11:11:00.000-07:002013-06-23T18:52:53.227-07:00A Short Break, and the Best of Quick Writing Tips 2013Quick Writing Tips is taking a short vacation. I'll return with a brand new post on Wednesday, July 17th.<br />
<br />
In the meantime, here's a brief linkfest of the best and most popular posts so far in 2013. Enjoy!<br />
<br />
1) <a href="http://quickwritingtips.blogspot.com/2013/05/a-30-day-trial-of-only-30-minutes-of.html">A 30-Day Trial of Only 30 Minutes of Internet a Day</a><br />
2) <a href="http://quickwritingtips.blogspot.ca/2013/06/process-focused-goals.html">Process-Focused Goals</a><br />
3) <a href="http://quickwritingtips.blogspot.com/2013/01/three-simple-tools-for-unforgettable.html">Three Simple Tools For Unforgettable Prose</a> <br />
4) <a href="http://quickwritingtips.blogspot.ca/2013/04/using-zombies-to-eliminate-passive-voice.html">Using Zombies To Eliminate Passive Voice</a><br />
5) <a href="http://quickwritingtips.blogspot.ca/2013/04/tv-costs-you-quadruple.html">TV Costs You Quadruple</a><br />
6) <a href="http://quickwritingtips.blogspot.ca/2013/05/how-to-have-outlandishly-productive.html">How To Have Outlandishly Productive Writing Sessions In Just Three Weeks</a> <br />
7) <a href="http://quickwritingtips.blogspot.ca/2013/02/never-make-readers-suffer-through-your.html">Never Make Readers Suffer Through Your Prose</a><br />
8) <a href="http://quickwritingtips.blogspot.com/2013/01/eliminating-verb-for-extra-force-and.html">Eliminating a Verb For Extra Force and Cadence</a> <br />
9) <a href="http://quickwritingtips.blogspot.ca/2013/01/minor-changes-can-make-perfect-sentences.html">Minor Changes Can Make Perfect Sentences</a><br />
10) <a href="http://quickwritingtips.blogspot.ca/2013/04/start-your-day-off-right-dont-eat-your.html">Start Your Day Off Right: Don't Eat Your Facebook First</a><br />
<br />
Bonus! <a href="http://quickwritingtips.blogspot.ca/2013/03/how-to-use-social-media-without-it.html">How To Use Social Media... Without It Using You</a>Danielhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02388302796031288076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3858759574474633175.post-46515281835690796522013-06-16T11:11:00.000-07:002013-08-08T06:09:58.045-07:00UninformationWhat do the following headlines have in common? <br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><i>Money Magazine:</i><b> 20 Hot Stocks To Own Now</b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><i>Cosmopolitan:</i><b> A Shocking Thing 68% of Chicks Do In Bed</b></span><br />
<br />
Here's what they have in common: <i>Neither will inform you of anything.</i> And admit it: you'd click on the second article, right? Be honest. <br />
<br />
These articles are product, not information. Both have optimized headlines containing every trick in the book to get you to click: numbers, calls to action, money, sex. Everything is there to tempt you, so you can have more product shoveled at you. <br />
<br />
Be wary of tempting information. Do you really think you'll know more about investing after reading the Money Magazine article above? It's more likely you'll be <i>less</i> informed. That is, unless you're a sophisticated-enough consumer of investment news to see the article for what it really is: a list of stocks you should probably <i>sell</i> rather than buy.<br />
<br />
How about the Cosmo article? Do you think it will inform you... of anything? You should know better, but you're still going to read it anyway, aren't you? This just shows how easy it is for media institutions to create information product that we can't resist.<br />
<br />
So, considering all this, what's the true nature of your daily reading? Is it real information that informs you? Or product that <i>un</i>informs you?Danielhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02388302796031288076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3858759574474633175.post-78599587454443579442013-06-12T11:11:00.000-07:002013-06-12T17:46:22.275-07:00Shorten Your SentencesThe easiest, most reliable route to clear and forceful writing is to reduce the length and complexity of your sentences. <br />
<br />
In order to show you what <i>not</i> to do, here's a terrible sentence from Wayne Dyer's book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060935839/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0060935839&linkCode=as2&tag=casukitc-20"><b>Your Sacred Self.</b></a><b><img alt="" border="0" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=casukitc-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0060935839" height="1" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important;" width="1" /></b> It's the final line to story Dyer tells about a laborer who wastes his time dreaming of all the things he intends to buy with his wages. The problem, however, is that his dreaming distracts him from his work, so he ends up losing both his job <i>and</i> his wages.<br />
<br />
Here's the last sentence--the proverbial "moral of the story"--from Dyer's parable: <br />
<br />
<i>Don't lose what you don't have simply because you have not learned how to discipline your mind and banish those incessant doubts that you create in your fantasies. </i><br />
<br />
If there's a moral there, I certainly can't find it. <br />
<br />
If you want your readers to wrap their minds around your point, the moral of your story must be concise and clear. See, for example, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1613823584/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1613823584&linkCode=as2&tag=casukitc-20"><b>Aesop's Fables,</b></a><img alt="" border="0" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=casukitc-20&l=as2&o=1&a=1613823584" height="1" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important;" width="1" /> which offer simple and tightly-written morals like <i>Don't count your chickens before they hatch</i> and <i>Slow and steady wins the race.</i> <br />
<br />
As circular as it may sound, we remember these sayings because they're memorable. By this same logic, Mr. Dyer's sentence is utterly forgettable. So, let's see if we can rewrite it in a tighter, more forceful style: <br />
<br />
<i>Don't fantasize about what you don't have. </i><br />
<br />
Strip down your sentences. The best writing is simple and clear. <br />
<br />
<iframe frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=casukitc-20&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=0060935839&ref=tf_til&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="height: 240px; width: 120px;"></iframe><br />
<br />
<iframe frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=casukitc-20&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=1613823584&ref=tf_til&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="height: 240px; width: 120px;"></iframe><br />Danielhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02388302796031288076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3858759574474633175.post-1398504931453542372013-06-09T11:11:00.000-07:002013-06-09T11:11:00.856-07:00The First Rule of Editing<i>The first rule of tinkering is to save all the parts. </i><br />
--Aldo Leopold<br />
<br />
Coincidentally, this is also the first rule of <i>editing,</i> especially when editing first draft copy. <br />
<br />
Writing tends to improve as you take things away. That's why everyone encourages you to rampage through your first draft--killing your darlings, omitting needless words, deleting entire sentences and paragraphs. <br />
<br />
Just be sure to save all the parts! Don't delete anything permanently. Just move the offending text somewhere else: to the bottom of the chapter, to the bottom of the post, or to another document where you keep all your castoff thoughts and ideas. <br />
<br />
It's almost certain that you'll use this material elsewhere. Don't waste it. It will be the seeds of the next excellent thing you write. Danielhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02388302796031288076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3858759574474633175.post-50326509143049724212013-06-05T11:11:00.000-07:002013-06-05T11:11:00.023-07:00Earn Readers With Well-Crafted Sentences<em>He was a good chairman who loved his job; he might have been better if he had loved it less. </em><br />
<strong>--from Alex Berenson's </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0812966252/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0812966252&linkCode=as2&tag=casukitc-20"><strong>The Number</strong></a><strong><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=casukitc-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0812966252" style="border: currentColor !important; margin: 0px !important;" width="1" /></strong><br />
<br />
This sentence, about the 1990s-era Securities and Exchange Commissioner Arthur Levitt, is an excellent example of good writing. Three reasons why: <br />
<br />
<strong>1) </strong><a href="http://quickwritingtips.blogspot.com/2010/07/use-parallelism-to-make-your-writing.html"><strong>Parallelism</strong></a><strong>:</strong> Note how <em>He was a good chairman</em> pairs with <em>he might have been better</em> and then note how <em>loved his job</em> pairs with <em>loved it less.</em> These parallel structures add a distinct cadence to the sentence, making it a pleasure to read.<br />
<br />
<strong>2) </strong><a href="http://quickwritingtips.blogspot.com/2012/08/use-reversals-to-violate-your-readers.html"><strong>Reversal</strong></a><strong>:</strong> The reversal is a simple technique where the author states an idea in one form and then restates it in opposing form. The second part of the sentence above is an excellent example of a reversal. This device, if used well, <a href="http://quickwritingtips.blogspot.com/2012/02/violate-your-readers-expectations.html"><strong>violates readers' expectations</strong></a> and grabs their attention.<br />
<br />
<strong>3) </strong><a href="http://quickwritingtips.blogspot.com/2009/07/omit-needless-words.html"><strong>There are no needless words</strong></a><strong>:</strong> Okay, there <em>might</em> be one needless word: we could omit "if" and rephrase the second half of this sentence to <em>he might have been better had he loved it less,</em> but this is a minor improvement. This is a beautiful, forceful and tightly-written sentence. <br />
<br />
If you want to attract readers, sculpt a brilliant sentence like this every few paragraphs. They'll come.<br />
<br />
<iframe frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=casukitc-20&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=0812966252&ref=tf_til&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="height: 240px; width: 120px;"></iframe><br />Danielhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02388302796031288076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3858759574474633175.post-37444553480864067522013-06-02T11:11:00.000-07:002013-06-02T11:11:00.017-07:00Process-Focused Goals Here in the Western world we celebrate goals. We encourage setting goals, achieving goals, and then setting still <em>more</em> goals. We set <a href="http://quickwritingtips.blogspot.com/2010/01/more-on-writing-goals-stretch-goals.html"><strong>stretch goals</strong></a> and <a href="http://quickwritingtips.blogspot.com/2009/04/bhags-unlock-your-talents-audacious.html"><strong>BHAGs</strong></a>. And if we don't reach our goals, we have to figure out what we did wrong--and then start over again with <em>better</em> goals.<br />
<br />
For those of us doing creative work, this presents a paradox. Why? Because setting goals is outcome-based. Creative work, however, is process-based. Or at least it <em>should</em> be process-based if you want any chance in hell of enjoying it. So if we seek satisfaction from our creative work, how can we resolve this process vs. outcome paradox? <br />
<br />
<em>By setting process-focused goals.</em> Seek goals that help you achieve non-attachment to the outcome of your work. Identify goals that are inviting and fun rather than intimidating. <br />
<br />
A few examples: <br />
<br />
<strong>* I will take a creative writing course this fall. </strong><br />
<strong>* I will work for 30 minutes on my novel each morning before doing any other activity.</strong><br />
<strong>* I will spend a hour every other day reading books on a subject I'd like to write about. </strong><br />
<strong>* I will practice a mindset of non-attachment to the quality of my work.</strong><br />
<br />
In other words, look for goals that motivate you to learn, or goals that motivate you to sit down and get started working. <br />
<br />
Finally, seek out goals that help you shake off existential questions about the quality, importance or popularity of your work. Focus on your process and the results will take care of themselves. Danielhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02388302796031288076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3858759574474633175.post-40807634850883723432013-05-29T11:11:00.000-07:002013-05-29T11:11:00.813-07:00You Can Write Better Than This!<em>While a rock quarry's worth of research was chipped away at in the formulation of this work, much of the narrative has been trapped inside me awaiting release since the beginning of my career.</em><br />
<strong>--from Joshua Brown's </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/007178232X/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=007178232X&linkCode=as2&tag=casukitc-20"><strong>Backstage Wall Street</strong></a><strong><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=casukitc-20&l=as2&o=1&a=007178232X" style="border: currentColor !important; margin: 0px !important;" width="1" /></strong><br />
<br />
Long-time QWT readers should see several problems in this awful sentence:<br />
<br />
<strong>1) Passive voice:</strong> <em>was chipped away, has been trapped.</em> Change to active voice. <br />
<br />
<strong>2) Poor arrangement of prepositional phrases:</strong> Two examples: <br />
<br />
a) <em>since the beginning of my career</em> is a standard introductory prepositional phrase. The fact that it languishes at the end of this sentence will confuse readers. Consider placing it at the beginning, or eliminating it entirely. <br />
<br />
b) Terrible phrases like <em>was chipped away at</em> should never survive editing. Really now. <br />
<br />
<strong>3) Needless words:</strong> The phrases <em>in the formulation of this work, </em>and <em>a rock quarry's worth of research </em>are too wordy. Strip them down. Don't shovel words onto your readers. <br />
<br />
One possible sentence repair idea: Consider replacing <br />
<br />
<em>While a rock quarry's worth of research was chipped away at in the formulation of this work </em><br />
<br />
with <br />
<br />
<em>Writing this book involved a mountain of research. </em><br />
<br />
It's the same information in half as many words. <br />
<br />
Once again, let me remind readers: this is a published author with a popular blog and best-selling book. And yet <em>you can write better than this.</em> Get to it.<br />
<br />
<br />
<iframe frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=casukitc-20&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=007178232X&ref=tf_til&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="height: 240px; width: 120px;"></iframe><br />Danielhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02388302796031288076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3858759574474633175.post-52389314832535427412013-05-26T11:11:00.000-07:002013-05-26T11:11:00.268-07:00Sentence Repair 101: Keep Your Lists and Clauses Separated!<em>The professor lives in a comfortable Victorian house with his wife, who teaches history at Carnegie Mellon, two kids, and a gentle, lumbering dog.</em> <br />
<br />
What's wrong with this sentence? Most readers, when they arrive at <em>two kids, and a gentle lumbering dog,</em> will stumble briefly. But why? <br />
<br />
Let's go over the structure. This sentence, essentially, is a list of things that some professor lives with: 1) <em>his wife,</em> 2) <em>two kids,</em> and 3) <em>a gentle lumbering dog.</em> But a big problem crops up when the reader arrives at the clause <em>who teaches history at Carnegie Mellon.</em> The reader thinks he's reading a list, and quite reasonably thinks he's about to arrive at the second item in that list. Instead, however, he gets sideswiped by an unexpected subordinate clause. <br />
<br />
Worse, it's now totally unclear to the reader what the relationship is among this list of things. Is <em>who teaches history at Carnegie Mellon</em> part of the list? Does it relate to the two kids and a dog? Or worse, does his wife teach two kids and a dog at Carnegie Mellon?<br />
<br />
Which leaves us with two rules I'd like to share about lists and clauses: <br />
<br />
<strong>1) Never combine subordinate clauses with lists of items. It disrupts context and confuses readers. </strong><br />
<strong></strong><br />
<strong>2) However, if you decide to break rule #1, set the subordinate clause apart using some punctuation other than commas. Dashes, parentheses, whatever. Make it painfully clear where the clause is and where the list items are.</strong> <br />
<br />
Here's what I mean by rule #2:<br />
<br />
<em>The professor lives in a comfortable Victorian house with his wife (who teaches history at Carnegie Mellon), two kids, and a gentle, lumbering dog. </em><br />
<br />
This is better--and certainly clearer--but let's see if we can improve this sentence still more. Be honest now: do we really need to know what his wife does? Perhaps these are <a href="http://quickwritingtips.blogspot.com/2010/07/truer-words-were-never-written.html"><strong>needless words</strong></a>. So, let's omit them and see what we get:<br />
<br />
<em>The professor lives in a comfortable Victorian house with his wife, two kids, and a gentle, lumbering dog.</em> <br />
<br />
This version--with a pleasant cadence, the <a href="http://quickwritingtips.blogspot.com/2010/06/rule-of-three.html"><strong>rule of three</strong></a> and no distracting clauses--reads the best. <br />
<br />
<em>I'm grateful to <a href="http://www.leeeisenberg.com/"><strong>Lee Eisenberg</strong></a> and his otherwise excellent book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743296257/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0743296257&linkCode=as2&tag=casukitc-20"><strong>Shoptimism</strong></a><strong><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=casukitc-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0743296257" style="border: currentColor !important; margin: 0px !important;" width="1" /></strong> for providing this bad sentence.</em> <br />
<br />
<iframe frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=casukitc-20&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=0743296257&ref=tf_til&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="height: 240px; width: 120px;"></iframe><br />Danielhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02388302796031288076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3858759574474633175.post-49057727847533831982013-05-22T11:11:00.000-07:002013-07-08T12:58:06.401-07:00How To Have Outlandishly Productive Writing Sessions In Just Three WeeksImagine starting each day with an explosively productive writing session. You slip rapidly into <a href="http://quickwritingtips.blogspot.com/2010/11/using-flow.html"><b>an engrossed flow state</b></a> where time simply flies by. An hour of writing passes by and it feels like minutes.<br />
<br />
Well, I have some bad news. If you start off your day checking Facebook, this glorious flow state ain't gonna happen.<br />
<br />
However, if you make creative work your "first action" each day, and gradually build the length and intensity of that creative session, you <i>will</i> experience this kind of flow state more often than not. And your productivity and output will explode upward. <br />
<br />
What follows is a three-week map for boosting your start-of-day productivity.<br />
<br />
<b>Week One:</b> First, start with a small but significant step: <a href="http://quickwritingtips.blogspot.com/2011/02/two-simple-steps-to-steady-writing.html"><b>set a goal of writing for 30 minutes</b></a> before you do anything else with your day. Just sit down at your laptop, set a countdown timer or an alarm, and write. When the timer goes off, reward yourself with a quick check of your email. Do this for one full week. <br />
<br />
<i>Note:</i> If on one of the days during this week you lose discipline and <i>don't</i> do your 30 minute writing session first thing, start the week over. Remember, we're trying to build a new habit here. <br />
<br />
<b>Week Two:</b> The next step is to build up this session. Expand it from 30 minutes to 45 minutes. If you're feeling aggressive, try expanding it to an hour. For some of you, this might seem preposterously difficult. But try it. Try it for a week (<i>just a week!</i>) and see how much it impacts the quality and quantity of your work. <br />
<br />
<b>Week Three:</b> Next, <i>build in a second session.</i> Instead of rewarding yourself with a (short) session of undirected websurfing after writing session #1, reset your alarm for a second writing session. Don't think about it, just do it. Reset your timer and set it for a shorter session of another 30 minutes. <br />
<br />
Hey, it's only a half an hour. Now that you've built up your first writing session to an hour, a piddling half hour more is a piece of cake.<br />
<br />
There. In just three weeks, you've created a daily habit of writing for an hour and a half every single day <i>before allowing yourself any distractions.</i> <br />
<br />
Remember, the internet is always going to be there, and it's always going to want to distract you. Let it wait. You can go for an hour or two before checking it. <br />
<br />
And in the meantime you'll have dedicated a significant amount of unfiltered, undistracted and mindful attention to your work. Maintain this habit for a year, and you'll be a different, more focused, and more productive person. And you'll never look back. <br />
<br />
A mere three weeks. These habits, if you put the time in to build them, will change everything. Danielhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02388302796031288076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3858759574474633175.post-81524976496213760252013-05-19T11:11:00.000-07:002013-05-19T11:46:38.893-07:00More On Your 30-Minutes-a-Day Internet TrialReaders, here are two more options to consider when executing your <a href="http://quickwritingtips.blogspot.com/2013/05/a-30-day-trial-of-only-30-minutes-of.html"><strong>30-day trial of reducing time-wasting internet use</strong></a>: <br />
<br />
1) If you have a traditional full-time job, and you normally check your personal email and browse a few websites first thing in the morning, skip that morning check-in. Instead, use that time to schedule in a 30 minute writing session. Then, when you get home from work, complete another 30 minute writing session <em>before</em> rewarding yourself with any internet use. <br />
<br />
Think about it: in this trial, you'll build a reward system around writing for 30 minutes every morning and 30 minutes every evening, <em>even though you have a full-time job.</em> You've created these writing sessions from nothing, just by reallocating previously wasted time. <br />
<br />
2) One other option: use <a href="http://casualkitchen.blogspot.com/2013/01/why-do-cheat-days-work.html"><strong>the "cheat day" technique</strong></a>. Compress your undirected internet use down to one 30 minute session per day, six days a week. However, on the seventh day, relax, and allow yourself as much extra websurfing time as you want. <br />
<br />
The knowledge that you have a cheat day coming up makes it easier to control your internet use during the week. One more thing: I'm betting when your cheat day rolls around you won't <em>want</em> to waste all that much time websurfing. You know you've got better things to do. Danielhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02388302796031288076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3858759574474633175.post-56963725014238162212013-05-15T11:11:00.000-07:002013-05-15T13:51:34.380-07:00A 30-Day Trial of Only 30 Minutes of Internet a Day<em>This post will walk through a 30-day trial of reducing your undirected internet use to just 30 minutes a day. </em><br />
<br />
When I was a kid, my parents allowed me to watch TV for only 30 minutes a day. Back then, I saw this as maltreatment. Now, I'm grateful for their foresight. <br />
<br />
Today, of course, the real threat to our productive time isn't TV--it's the internet. <br />
<br />
To be clear: I'm not talking about internet time spent on research, emailing query letters and so on. That's real work. I'm talking about toxic time-wasters: undirected, purposeless web browsing, <a href="http://quickwritingtips.blogspot.com/2011/11/pissing-your-life-away-on-people-who.html"><strong>pointless Facebook debates</strong></a>, even reading the daily news and getting depressed about some awful event you have no control over in some place you'll never go. <br />
<br />
Our goal is to cordon off and dramatically reduce the productive time we waste each day with undirected or unproductive internet use, and redirect that time towards our work. So, get out your calendar, pick a day to start (how about today?), and for the next 30 days, do the following: <br />
<br />
<strong>1) Start each day with a session of writing and creative work. <em>Don't</em> begin your day with undirected websurfing or social media.</strong><br />
<strong></strong><br />
<strong>2) Identify a specific time you intend to allocate to undirected internet use, set a 30 minute timer, and when the timer goes off, that's it. That's your mental candy for the day. No more email, Facebook, Twitter, news, Pinterest, games, nothing. Stop and go back to work. </strong><br />
<br />
This trial might seem incomprehensible to you at first, but after a few days, you'll get more and more used to the idea of cordoning off your websurfing time. Of course, the most important part of this trial is start each day with creative work, <em>not with internet use.</em> That first decision you make each day--to dedicate each day's first moments to your work, not someone else's--is the first big leap in this trial. Attend to your own stuff first.Danielhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02388302796031288076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3858759574474633175.post-54843993896819322082013-05-12T11:11:00.000-07:002013-07-03T10:41:18.741-07:00TV, Consumerism and Lifestyle CopyingWe already know television distracts us with mindless, creativity-sapping "entertainment." But there's another enormous problem with TV, one that wastes an enormous amount of creative time. <br />
<br />
That stupid flickering screen teaches us to buy stuff. Television induces consumerism. And quite often it does so in laughably unsubtle ways. Who hasn't watched young kids see a toy on TV and instantly demand it? <br />
<br />
Have you ever witnessed a child do this? Did you chuckle inside, and gratefully thank your stars that you've grown up and are no longer so easily manipulated? Thank goodness this kind of thing <i>never</i> happens with adults. <br />
<br />
I'm kidding. <i>The same exact thing</i> happens with adults. In fact, we're more easily manipulated because television works on us in more subtle and subversive ways. It frames a reality for us. It shows idealized ways to live, and we find ourselves copying aspects of this reality without really thinking about it. <br />
<br />
How does this waste our creativity? Because it takes energy--creative energy--to copy <i>someone else's</i> ideas on how to live. Imagine if we directed this energy at producing our own ideas. Danielhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02388302796031288076noreply@blogger.com