Avoiding deathly prose – for the most part

I’ve finally read the much-talked-about-in-communications-circles Death Sentences: The Decay of Public Language by Don Watson, who makes a convincing case for avoiding the awful prose we encounter so often in the corporate world: win-win, impact as a verb, in terms of, core anything. You know what I mean.

But Watson’s wonderfully clear prose reminded me of a story I heard from a well-known editor who teaches and lectures widely. At one of his editing workshops, he said that clarity can sometimes work against you. He cited the example of one of his students, who followed his advice to the letter: shorten sentences, deflate fat words, activate the passive voice, etc. When this student submitted a paper to her professor, he remarked that the writing was “unacademic” and lowered her grade accordingly. In other words, the eager student had forgotten to write for her audience, the old-fashioned (and verbose) prof.

In my own 20+ years in communications, I have occasionally met those who are not convinced that brevity is the soul of wit or that an active sentence beats a passive one hands down. More than once, internal editors have butchered what I thought were perfectly lovely and simple sentences by adding a liberal sprinkling of corporate-speak. I suppose it boosts their comfort level and sounds more “professional.”

The bottom line (oops – Watson doesn’t like this phrase) for us consultants is that we have to know our audience. And some audiences need to be educated before they can appreciate that clear copy is more effective than muddled jargon-filled prose.