Over the years, I have developed some rubrics for writing that I try to follow without exception. They are not the standard editing rules (which I also respect), but rather a set of idiosyncratic conventions that I impose on myself for the sake of self-discipline. Violating these rules does not result in bad writing. Others ignore them all the time — because, why not? they aren’t really rules — but I find it helpful to have a set of (nearly) unbreakable conventions as an exercise in self-control, even if no one else would even notice them. They keep me alert to small details and aware of alternative phrasings:
Never begin successive paragraphs with the same word.
Never begin any piece with “I,” even if it is a memoir, an opinion, or a personal observation. Find some other phrase to introduce it.
Never use two quotes back to back; always have some original text in between.
Do not use a person’s name in successive sentences. Alternate proper names with pronouns, but never substitute pronouns more than two sentences in a row.
Never begin successive sentences with the same introductory conjunction, especially “although.”
Never end a sentence and begin the next one with the same word.
Never begin a sentence with “however,” which should always be placed after the subject. It is, however, okay to begin a sentence with other conjunctions such as “and” or “but” or “because.” (Yes, I added an unnecessary “or” to separate the quote marks.)
Along with keeping adverbs to a minimum (as all style books advise), never use the words “mere” or “merely.” Find some other way of minimizing or downplaying. Same goes for “clearly.”
Do not use “of course” more than once within roughly 1000 words (500 on either side).
Does anyone else follow self-imposed conventions? And if so, why and what are they?
NOTE: This post has been edited to correct a typo in the first sentence. I try to follow my conventions without exception.
This is a very interesting and helpful list of rules. Might I add one? Parts of speech should be used correctly. The word "quote" is not a noun in the sense in which you are using it. The noun form is "quotation."
I have a list of linguistic pet peeves, of which this is one. Another is the use of "disinterested" to mean "uninterested." It does not; "disinterested" means "objective." Yet another is the use of the word "impact" to mean "affect." The only things that can be impacted in the sense in which many use this word are teeth.
And don't get me started on the common use of the word "seasonable" by weather forecasters!
Thanks, Ellen. May I quote you on that?
Also, as I should have noted, the rule against successive quotations does not apply to dialog.
I have found in the last few years that student law review editors are constantly moving "however" to the beginning of the sentence.
I hate it when people use "alternately," when they mean "alternatively."
I like these (and am going to share them with my budding-writer teen-ager). I would add: 1) Limit (if not eliminate) the use of adverbs and 2) if a word can be both a verb and a noun, use the verb form.
Place modifiers as close as possible to the words or phrases they modify. Thus:
"I prefer as strongly as possible to place modifiers close to the words they modify."
Not — law review editors take note! —
"I prefer to place modifiers close to the words they modify as strongly as possible."
On avoiding adverbs — remember Tom Swifties? From the Fun with Words site:
"I need a pencil sharpener," said Tom bluntly.
"I only have diamonds, clubs and spades," said Tom heartlessly.
Stephen King: "The road to hell is paved with adverbs."
Great guidelines. I am going to share them with my students and post them on my wall!
1. Never use 2 words when you can say the same thing with one. Editing is the attempt to say more with fewer words.
2. Never use a complex word when a simple one accomplishes the same thing. Legal writing already is complex enough without adding layers of Latin, jargon, nominalizations, and other designed-to-impress language on top of it.
Great writing advice, Steve. I agree with all of your rules. However, like Jennifer, I find that law review editors usually move the word "however" to the beginning of sentences. It has become so frequent that I have preemptively begun doing it myself.
Thanks, Tony. I wonder how law review editors collectively came to such an odd and unjustifiable conclusion. But I urge you never to yield, as they seldom understand what they are doing. I am not sure I have ever encountered a law review editor who understood the distinction between "which" and "that."
In my experience, law review editors will always relent (as well they should).
Please explain the distinction between "which" and "that" … in simple terms.
The typical discussion (restrictive/nonrestrictive) is always confusing!
Reply to Anon (3:42PM): use “that” when there is no comma; use “which” only after a comma.
Example:
That: From a practical perspective, it was not the formal enactment of the Thirteenth Amendment that eradicated this peculiar institution. Rather, it was the blood spilled in such costly battles as Bull Run, Chickamauga, and Gettysburg that settled the festering constitutional question of slavery once and for all.
Which: From a practical perspective, it was not the formal enactment of the Thirteenth Amendment, which was enacted in 1865, that eradicated this peculiar institution. Rather, it was the blood spilled in such costly battles as Bull Run, Chickamauga, and Gettysburg that settled the festering constitutional question of slavery once and for all
Anon, the comma rule will trip you up, if you don't know proper punctuation rules. And Enrique is focusing on a different use of the word "that." The trick is to master the restrictive/nonrestrictive inquiry. Think of it this way: "an A that/which is B." If there are other types of A as well, use THAT. If there aren't, use WHICH.
The cow that I own is purple.
Cows, which are bovines, are ungulates.
Erika
That is GREAT … very cool formulation.