Hit ‘em between the eyes

Followers of fashion

It’s funny how certain words or phrases become fashionable. I’m not talking about obvious mots du jour like groovy or wicked, but more discrete verbal fashions. Iteration, last month’s word of the month, for example, seems to have been popping up all over the place in the last few months, as people presumably try and find a more high falutin’ way of saying version.

Take fit for purpose. Ever since John Reid, then Home Secretary, condemned the immigration service as ‘not fit for purpose‘, it’s become a phrase of choice for everyone from politicians to small business owners. A quick Google throws up, among millions, Sequence diagramming that’s fit for purpose and a cover sheet for small guest accommodation businesses to use as checklist when applying to be ‘Fit For Purpose’. We’ve even received press releases about ‘fit for purpose compost’.

Now, we’re all for rediscovering new words and improving our vocabularies, but it does become a bit annoying (not to say cliched) when everyone suddenly starts using the same phrases. Not to mention that there are numerous single words that could make the same point more concisely and just as, if not more, clearly.

Spoonfed is the longest word with its letters arranged in reverse alphabetical order.

Archived in the category: General musings, Writing tips
Posted by: Gareth Chadwick on Friday, May 30, 2008

Clear or cloudy?

Clear or cloudy?

No, not a comment on the weather, but one of the main considerations for anyone trying to tighten up their writing.

Good writing is all about clarity - getting your message across clearly and concisely. But in the wrong hands, words can often cloud, rather than clarify, the intended message.

Have a read of what reader Julian Critchlow had to say in a recent letter to The Times:

Sue Whiting, a “retired special educational needs co-ordinator”, asserts in her letter (Oct 10) that “there are likely to be 20 per cent of children in any classroom with specific learning differences”.

My initial reaction on reading this was that, surely, all the children would have learning differences: that is the human condition. However, on closer analysis I deduced that what was stated was not what was actually meant. Surely Ms Whiting’s unadorned meaning was that 20 per cent of the children would, for one reason or another, have learning difficulties.

Orwellian usage of this kind debases the language as a tool for expression. It leads, at best, to lack of clarity and, at worst, it is downright misleading and stifles legitimate debate. It needs to be rooted out.

Julian Critchlow, Savage Club, SW1

Hear, hear for Mr Critchlow. It’s not always easy to be honest in your writing. But if you can manage it, you’ll usually be rewarded with better understanding and more engagement from your readers.

PS We’ve no idea what the Savage Club is, but shall be applying for membership immediately!