Fwd: Concision?

Subject: Fwd: Concision?
From: "Patricia Egan" <capdev -dot- communications -at- gmail -dot- com>
To: "TECHWR-L List" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 07:29:26 -0700

Sorry, s/b "lessons" not "lessions". No coffee yet this morning.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Patricia Egan <capdev -dot- communications -at- gmail -dot- com>
Date: Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 7:28 AM
Subject: Re: Concision?
To: "Cardimon, Craig" <ccardimon -at- m-s-g -dot- com>
Cc: Odile Sullivan-Tarazi <odile -at- mindspring -dot- com>,
techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com


See Joseph M. Williams's STYLE: TEN LESSONS IN CLARITY AND GRACE. He
includes a discussion on concision.

Pat

On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 5:25 AM, Cardimon, Craig <ccardimon -at- m-s-g -dot- com>wrote:

>
> Well said. I enjoyed reading your "rambling."
>
> Craig
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Odile Sullivan-Tarazi [mailto:odile -at- mindspring -dot- com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 6:51 PM
> > To: Pinkham, Jim
> > Cc: Cardimon, Craig; techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
> > Subject: RE: Concision?
> >
> >
> > True enough. We've all seen writing that overreaches. Sometimes the
> > writer hasn't fully mastered the material, sometimes the writer
> > hasn't fully mastered (yet) the trick of writing, sometimes whoever
> > did the writing isn't actually a writer. And in our world, of
> > course, time is often a factor.
> >
> > For me, though, the tip-off is the lack of control over the level of
> > diction. Rather than holding steady and true, it wavers. There's
> > seldom just one word out of place: sentences aren't measured,
> > passages don't flow, the language careens between slang, jargon,
> > informality, formality, pomposity. Well and sometimes, particularly
> > on the Internet, the language is just plain pompous. That's when you
> > want to head in with a machete.
> >
> > But if the writing is clean and crisp and clear, if it's good, one or
> > two unusual words don't throw me. They must fit though. They must
> > be the right words, in the right context, for that particular
> > thought. If they best convey what is to be conveyed, they ought not
> > to be tossed out in obedience to some misapplied, or misapprehended,
> > edict.
> >
> > I'm speaking in general, and about writing in general. I know that
> > we must be more cautious in technical writing about introducing
> > unfamiliar words, unless we intend to introduce and explain a
> > particular concept. What's familiar has all to do with audience of
> > course. "Concision" is a word well familiar to me, and so I was
> > puzzled by the response. I'm pretty sure you'd not argue to replace,
> > in a like piece of writing, "precision" with "preciseness."
> >
> > As for steering clear of the expensive words, as I said, for my own
> > part I notice this particularly when the writing isn't even, when it
> > doesn't maintain a steady level of diction. What jars on my ears is
> > the piece of technical writing that reaches out to me in the familiar
> > second person, that employs an informal style, a seemingly casual
> > tone, and then suddenly comes a "thus" or a "therefore." Not unusual
> > words, in and of themselves, but terribly out of place.
> >
> > And when this is the case, it's seldom one oddball word that
> > constitutes the entirety of the problem. Entire phrases of odd
> > construction (frequently overly convoluted, abstruse, pompous) call
> > attention to themselves, needing very much to be shaken out and
> > brought back down to earth.
> >
> > Well, anyway, I ramble. Just thinking aloud.
> >
> >
> > Odile
> >
> > p.s.
> > I've not read any Southey, but that's a nice quote.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > At 11:44 AM -0500 10/29/08, Pinkham, Jim wrote:
> > >Points well-taken, Odile, and I agree, even to your thoughts on
> > >Southey's quote. Don't puzzle overmuch: I'm not saying "concision"
> never
> > >has merit. It just jarred my ear a bit. Sometimes we get lost in the
> > >50-cent words when the cheaper ones will do as well or better. But
> not
> > >always.
> > >
> > >Jim
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Odile Sullivan-Tarazi [mailto:odile -at- mindspring -dot- com]
> > >Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 11:22 AM
> > >To: Pinkham, Jim
> > >Cc: Odile Sullivan-Tarazi; Cardimon, Craig;
> techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
> > >Subject: RE: Concision?
> > >
> > >
> > >Ah, but context, context is all. There is a time to be terse, pithy,
> > >bare. And a time to be concise, to convey eloquently with concision.
> > >
> > >The writer's ear must always be sensitive to context. The words have
> a
> > >sound and a feel, as well as a sense. They have a rhythm.
> > >
> > >I was more puzzled, than anything else, to see a perfectly good word
> > >slashed for no good reason. In your quote below, you will notice
> > >Anglo-Saxon words mixed with Latinate terms to good effect.
> > >
> > >
> > >Odile
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >At 11:01 AM -0500 10/29/08, Pinkham, Jim wrote:
> > >>I'm sure they do. I'm chuckling now a bit that you're taking this so
> > >>seriously. No offense.
> > >>
> > >>Sorry, but when I read concision, the next word that came to mind
> was
> > >>"circumcision," and there, perhaps, I'd go for the Latin formation
> and
> > >>avoid some blunter Anglo-Saxon alternative, if such there be.
> > >>
> > >>But, generally, I agree with Orwell: Use words that convey images.
> Keep
> > >
> > >>it simple and direct. Use the good, crisp, clear Anglo-Saxon words.
> > >>Don't seek concision. Be concise. Better yet, be brief. Terse.
> Pithy.
> > > >
> > >>Jim
> > >>
> > >>*********************************
> > >>"If thou wouldst be pungent, be brief. For it is with words as with
> > >>sunbeams: the more they are condensed, the more they burn." --
> Robert
> > >>Southey.
> > >>
> > >>-----Original Message-----
> > >>From: Odile Sullivan-Tarazi [mailto:odile -at- mindspring -dot- com]
> > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 10:45 AM
> > >>To: Pinkham, Jim
> > >>Cc: Cardimon, Craig; techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
> > >>Subject: RE: Concision?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>But why? It is not archaic. Its meaning in the sense of a cutting
> up
> > >>or off is archaic. Its meaning as the quality or state of being
> > >>concise is not. And in AH, the order of those two entries is
> > >>reversed: concision as the quality or state of being concise is
> listed
> > >>first.
> > >>
> > >>The second book I cited, _Style: Toward Clarity and Grace_, is put
> out
> > >>by the University of Chicago Press as part of their guide to
> writing,
> > >>editing, and publishing series. These guys know a little something
> > >>about word choice.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>Odile
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>At 9:57 AM -0500 10/29/08, Pinkham, Jim wrote:
> > >>>I think the New Oxford Guide editors should go back to Orwell's
> > >>>"Politics and the English Language" and dispense with words such as
> > >>>"concision" altogether. But I have no wish to start a dictionary or
> > >>>style skirmish. This was, as I said, just a good-natured tweak.
> > >>>
> > >>>Best,
> > >>>Jim
> > >>>
> > >>>-----Original Message-----
> > >>>From: Odile Sullivan-Tarazi [mailto:odile -at- mindspring -dot- com]
> > >>>Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 9:46 AM
> > >>>To: Pinkham, Jim
> > >>>Cc: Cardimon, Craig; techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
> > >>>Subject: Re: Concision?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>No, I think he meant "concision," a more precise (and concise) word
> > >>>than "conciseness."
> > >>>
> > >>>See, for instance, _The New Oxford Guide to Writing_ or _Style:
> > >>>Toward Clarity and Grace, the latter of which devotes an entire
> > >>>chapter
> > >>
> > >>>to concision.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>Odile
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>At 8:40 AM -0500 10/29/08, Pinkham, Jim wrote:
> > >>>>"Concision," huh? I thought you meant "conciseness," and I had to
> go
> > >>>>look the two up.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Merriam-Webster dates "concision" back to the 14th century, but
> its
> > >>>>first listed rendering is archaic, "a cutting up or off," and then
> > >>>>the
> > >>
> > >>>>second rendering, of indeterminate origin, gets at conciseness.
> > >>>>"Conciseness," on the other hand, dates to around 1590 and has the
> > >>>>definition I suspect you meant: "marked by brevity of expression
> or
> > >>>>statement."
> > >>>>
> > >>>>So accurate, brief, clear -- that's what we value. Hmm...and
> someone
> > >>>>just suggested law?? :)
> > >>>>
> > >>>>OK, enough tweaking...back to work.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Respectfully,
> > >>>>Jim
> > >>>>
> > >>>>-----Original Message-----
> > >>>>From: techwr-l-bounces+jim -dot- pinkham=voith -dot- com -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
> > >>>>[mailto:techwr-l-bounces+jim.pinkham<techwr-l-bounces%2Bjim.pinkham>
> =voith -dot- com -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com]
> On
> > >
> > >>>>Behalf Of Cardimon, Craig
> > >>>>Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 8:15 AM
> > >>>>To: techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
> > >>>>Subject: RE: Career transition away from tech writing
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> I'm thinking about leaving the field of technical writing
> and
> > >>>>> I'm
> > >> >very
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> interested in learning about the jobs other technical
> writers
> > >have
> > >>>>> transitioned to. Project management, training, and user
> > >>>>> experience
> > >>>>seem
> > >>>>> to be the more common transitions, but are there other areas
> you
> > >>may
> > >>>>> have ventured into?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Thank you.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>I would bet this comes up more often than one might think. How
> about
> > >>>any
> > >>>>field that values concision, clarity, and precision. To these I
> add
> > >>>>attention to detail and the ability to organize one's thoughts.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Craig
> >
> >
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> > Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.5/1755 - Release Date:
> 10/29/2008
> > 5:27 PM
>
> *****************************************************************************************************************************************
> Information contained in this e-mail transmission is privileged and
> confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this email,
> do not read, distribute or reproduce this transmission (including any
> attachments). If you have received this e-mail in error, please
> immediately notify the sender by telephone or email reply.
>
> *****************************************************************************************************************************************
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> ComponentOne Doc-To-Help 2009 is your all-in-one authoring and publishing
> solution. Author in Doc-To-Help's XML-based editor, Microsoft Word or
> HTML and publish to the Web, Help systems or printed manuals.
> http://www.doctohelp.com
>
> Help & Manual 5: The complete help authoring tool for individual
> authors and teams. Professional power, intuitive interface. Write
> once, publish to 8 formats. Multi-user authoring and version control!
> http://www.helpandmanual.com/
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as
> capdev -dot- communications -at- gmail -dot- com -dot-
>
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> techwr-l-unsubscribe -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
> or visit
> http://lists.techwr-l.com/mailman/options/techwr-l/capdev.communications%40gmail.com
>
>
> To subscribe, send a blank email to techwr-l-join -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
>
> Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit
> http://www.techwr-l.com/ for more resources and info.
>
> Please move off-topic discussions to the Chat list, at:
> http://lists.techwr-l.com/mailman/listinfo/techwr-l-chat
>
>


--
Patricia Egan
P. O. Box 194391
San Francisco, CA 94119-4391



--
Patricia Egan
P. O. Box 194391
San Francisco, CA 94119-4391
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

ComponentOne Doc-To-Help 2009 is your all-in-one authoring and publishing
solution. Author in Doc-To-Help's XML-based editor, Microsoft Word or
HTML and publish to the Web, Help systems or printed manuals.
http://www.doctohelp.com

Help & Manual 5: The complete help authoring tool for individual
authors and teams. Professional power, intuitive interface. Write
once, publish to 8 formats. Multi-user authoring and version control! http://www.helpandmanual.com/

---
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
techwr-l-unsubscribe -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
or visit http://lists.techwr-l.com/mailman/options/techwr-l/archive%40web.techwr-l.com


To subscribe, send a blank email to techwr-l-join -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com

Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit
http://www.techwr-l.com/ for more resources and info.

Please move off-topic discussions to the Chat list, at:
http://lists.techwr-l.com/mailman/listinfo/techwr-l-chat


References:
RE: Concision?: From: Pinkham, Jim
RE: Concision?: From: Pinkham, Jim
RE: Concision?: From: Pinkham, Jim
RE: Concision?: From: Cardimon, Craig
Re: Concision?: From: Patricia Egan

Previous by Author: Re: Concision?
Next by Author: RE: WebHelp File Names: Upper/Lower Case & Underscore
Previous by Thread: Re: Concision?
Next by Thread: RE: Concision?


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:


Sponsored Ads