Omit Needless Punctuation

From the book The Fourth Turning by William Strauss and Neil Howe: 

"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." 

What's fascinating (ehhh, to a grammarian) about this sentence is that it is grammatically correct. But the reader gets thrown by the word kids' with its strange-looking s'. 

What is it, exactly, that these kids are in possession of in this sentence? 

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: 

"...without the knowing of the kids where the money came from." 

Now this ought to look vaguely familiar to readers of this blog: this is a nominalization! And of course we know that the using of a nominalization is poor style.[1] 

To improve readability and style, then, I would consider two possibilities: 

1) "...to pay the bills without the kids' knowledge where the money came from" or, 

2) "...to pay the bills without the kids knowing where the money came from."

The first option eliminates the nominalization problem by replacing the nominalized verb knowing with the noun knowledge. The second option, by removing the apostrophe, actually changes the sentence's grammar: the word knowing changes from something possessed into a gerund, which then makes kids knowing into a simple noun-gerund pair. 

Since the second solution is the simplest and cleanest, and also removes that ugly apostrophe, I consider it the best option. Therefore: 

"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." 

Omit needless punctuation!

[1] If you catch the grammar joke in that sentence a gold star for you! 

Henri Matisse And Self-Doubt

This short anecdote on Henri Matisse should resonate with anyone involved in any sort of creative work:

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."
--from Matisse: A Portrait by Hayden Herrera

This story shocked me, to be honest. Matisse was one of history's greatest artists. If he gets down on himself when a schoolgirl criticizes him, who am I to have any confidence at all--about anything?

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. But his self-doubt didn't stop him from creating. In fact, Matisse later went on to create some of his best-known works, including his famous late-career collages and cut-outs. It didn't stop him.

Maybe self-doubt is normal, 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.

It's just another way to think about it. And framing it up this way makes me feel kind of lucky that sometimes, every so often, I get a random moment without self-doubt.

Readers, what do you think?

Avoid Complex Sentence Structure

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.
--From Dear Chairman: Boardroom Battles and the Rise of Shareholder Activism by Jeff Gramm

The otherwise exceptional book Dear Chairman gives QWT readers yet another example of how complex sentences and complicated writing inevitably hurts readers.

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.

Why "were"? Because that verb's subject is plural: "Michael Milken" and "the hard knocks education of large instituional investors" were what was different in the '80s.

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.

How can we fix it? Simplify it, make it direct... and omit needless words. Like this:

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 in the era of superstar corporate raiders--and then made it disappear forever.

A Low Information Diet

"Sociopolitical events, debates, and controversies are now lucrative forms of entertainment, as the media employs unpaid and fiercely motivated actors."
--Nicholas Taleb

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.

If this isn't yet another reason to adopt a low-information diet, I don't know what is.

Less internet, more writing.

Two Simple Writing Devices Anyone Can Use

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.
--George Gilder, The Spirit of Enterprise

No, this isn't exactly the greatest sentence ever written. Yet it's notable thanks to two simple devices:

Parallelism: The parallel phrases where there was no one who knew how to sell it/where no one wanted to sell it give cadence to the sentence, making it more memorable and interesting.

Reversal: Readers get a surprise when they stumble on the reversal phrase where no one wanted to sell it. You'd think computer shops would want 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.

Parallelism and reversals aren't sophisticated writing devices. Anyone, including you, can use them to produce more forceful and memorable writing.

Reader Update

A 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.

If you have thoughts, input or anything else you'd like to share, you can always reach me here.

As always, I am deeply grateful for your time, attention and support.

Don't Let Your Clauses Mingle and Conspire

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.
--from The Dhandho Investor by Mohnish Pabrai

Readers, what's wrong with this sentence? Let's break down the clauses one by one:

If a well-understood business is offered to you...
at half or less than its underlying intrinsic value...
two to three years from now...

Hmmm. Would you buy a business that won't be offered for another two to three years? I wouldn't.

Sure, we can tell what the author means: He's talking about buying a business now at a discount to what its intrinsic value will be--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.

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.

The solution? Eliminate. Strip out clauses until your meaning is unmistakably clear. I'd start by eliminating the clause two to three years from now:

If a well-understood business is offered to you at half or less than its underlying intrinsic value, with minimal downside risk, take it.

There. Nothing unclear about that.