Death to answers-by-questions.
written by Julie R. Neidlinger 3 comments link this postI cannot stand the latest trend in defensive discourse. It's one where a person speaks and/or writes using questions that he or she answers immediately. Here's an example from a post over at my Lone Prairie Studies blog:
We CRAVED the word of God. WE CRAVED the preaching of the gospel. We were starving and wasting away spiritually.... Was it difficult to leave? Yes. Were we sad to leave our brothers and sisters? Yes. Did we have to go? Yes. And the Lord has made up for all that we had to leave behind.
You see this all the time. Politicians, interviews, bloggers, online forums -- everywhere. Instead of all the rigmarole as seen above, the entire paragraph could have been stronger and less defensive by simply stating:
It was difficult to leave. We were sad to leave our brothers and sisters. We had to go.
The only reason I can figure that people use this technique, now, is because:
- Laziness.
- They think they know the questions that will be raised from whatever they are talking about, so they put those questions into the writing, and answer them, to save time and effort.
- They want to effectively avoid certain types or depths of questions, so they include a bastardized version of the question that really doesn't ask anything in depth but appears to have answered it, thereby shutting up the people who want to ask something similar.
- Everyone else does it, and it is so rampant, that people think it is not only acceptable but also some form of intelligent writing. (It isn't.)
- The writer is defensive and wary of attack. This could be part of his nature, or it might be because he has an inkling that the position he's holding to isn't very strong, or at least, as strong as he would like. He has to come out with all the bases covered to head off any foreseeable attacks before they can even start.
For example, a politician might say: "Was it wrong to have relations with that woman? Yes, no question." This makes anyone who later asks any question that ponders the rightness and wrongness of the situation seem silly. "I already answered that." Though it is true that the simplest, barest version of the question was answered, it really wasn't answered.
It's as bad as using "I think" in front of declarative statements. Of course you think that. You're saying it. The only reason a person uses "I think" in front of it is to leave himself an out if someone proves the statement wrong.
"Well, I never said it was true. I only said that's what I think."
One of my favorite essays of all time is George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language." I've read it countless times. I have a feeling that somehow, if he were still around, he'd agree with me on this topic. At the very least, he'd unflinchingly point out the excessiveness of the technique, if not fully despise it as I do.
Is there a better way to write? Yes there is. Have I ever done something similarly annoying on this blog? Very likely. Am I the world's best, most flawless writer? Not by a long shot. Does this still irritate and annoy and drive me to near insanity when I see it?
Absolutely.
Labels: blogging, rant, writing
Copyright (c) Julie R. Neidlinger 2/20/2008 07:37:00 PM
Like this post? Subscribe to the feed.
Help support this site.
Facebook |
Stumble It! |
Del.icio.us |
DiggIt! |
Technorati |
Blinklist |
Furl |
reddit |
Newsvine
3 Comments:
While you are correct when you fix that lengthy example and cut it down to the nub of what it's really saying, such edits aren't necessarily better.
When I write for businesses, my work is always terse. It doesn't pack in the fluff. But when someone is writing to appeal to the emotions, terse isn't always the best approach. I write to the emotions on my blog quite a bit. It makes my posts longer, but it also pumps up the passion.
One well-known example of this is Churchill's speech known as "We Shall Fight Them...":
"...Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail.
We shall go on to the end,
we shall fight in France,
we shall fight on the seas and oceans,
we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be,
we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the hills;
we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."
Now it's very possible to edit those words down to their essence, but in doing so, the passion is eliminated. The emotion is clipped. What makes that speech stirring is lost.
You're right that most people write lazy works, especially online. However, I'm willing to forgive people that tendency when they're writing for passion and emotion.
By 
DLE, at
21/2/08 09:53
This isn't a post on general slice-and-dice editing, just on the technique where the writer asks a question and immediately answers it.
I agree that there are times that paring and editing down writing weaken it (as your example shows). This wasn't really a post positing a blanket statement on editing or terseness. So, I agree with your comment, but don't know that it is specifically in conflict or addition to the specific technique of writing I'm addressing.
Churchill's powerful speech successfully utilized repetition, creating a kind of verbal alliteration or sing-song effect. There are other similar methods that go against editing "rules" but -- and this is my point -- the ask-answer technique isn't ever powerful. It might have been the first couple of times, but it has become odious and weak.
In fact, if everyone started writing like Churchill did in the example you gave, that, too, would become abhorrent.
By 
Julie R. Neidlinger, at
21/2/08 18:35
You should add reason number six:
"Perhaps the person trained to do FEMA press conferences."
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1677166,00.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/29/fema.newser/
By , at
23/2/08 01:40
