In my ongoing attempt to record all known laws of communication, I share this one, from my favorite Chicago columnist, Sun-Times smartass Neil Steinberg, about readers and mistakes:
"And permit me to let you in on a secret, something I've learned through 25 years of professional journalism and believe in my heart of hearts: The more upset a person is by a supposed error, and the greater the compressed zeal released in leaping to correct this 'error,' the higher the likelihood that it is not an error at all, and that the complaining person is actually wrong."
What are your wise communication laws, readers?
Comments (14)
Here's a couple, off the top of my head:
* The more big organizations communicate about the importance of employee engagement, the less likely they are to do anything meaningful to actually engage their employees.
* The greater the number of reviewers of a piece of corporate journalism, the less understandable the final product will be.
Posted by Ron Shewchuk | December 18, 2007 12:35 PM
Posted on December 18, 2007 12:35
I like something that legend has it Faulkner said: "Kill your precious darlings." If there's a phrase, sentence, or paragraph that you think is particularly gorgeous, give serious thought to ditching it. It's probably a distraction from your purpose.
Posted by Jane Greer | December 18, 2007 1:09 PM
Posted on December 18, 2007 13:09
And then we have Strunk and White: "When you say something, make sure you have said it. The chances of your having said it are only fair."
Posted by David Murray | December 18, 2007 1:18 PM
Posted on December 18, 2007 13:18
Jane, I had a writing instructor who held to that as well. She made it a little less painful by advising us to keep a document on our hard drives dedicated only to things we edited out that we just couldn't bear to part with. Her reasoning: first, if you aren't really destroying it forever, then it'll be easier for you to cut it and thus focus your attention on improving the piece you're working on; and second, if you're ever truly out of inspiration, go through and read all those snippets of edited-out "precious darlings" as they might provide just the inspiration you need during a bad bout of writer's block. Now I see the sterling source of her advice! Thanks for passing that on.
Posted by Joan Hope | December 18, 2007 1:33 PM
Posted on December 18, 2007 13:33
Why, just last week, I had a bunch of our readers -- including one chap who I happen to know is a member of Mensa -- jump down my throat over a headline in which we declared that an associate was getting his "just deserts" by being appointed to a company Hall of Fame. A dozen or more readers gleefully clubbed us for leaving out the second "s" in the middle of the last word. I explained to each one that "deserts" in this usage derives from "deserve," ergo only one "s."
So I guess the relevant communications law would be something like this:
Before you attempt to correct professionals outside your realm of expertise, make damn sure you're right.
It occurs to me that the "just deserts" expression would fit rather well into a response to your earlier post about language we just don't hear any more, David.
Posted by Greg Marsh | December 18, 2007 1:58 PM
Posted on December 18, 2007 13:58
Greg, that is one delicious desert.
Posted by David Murray | December 18, 2007 2:00 PM
Posted on December 18, 2007 14:00
Joan, I do that, too: keep my precious darlings in a separate file. And do you know what? Most of the time they're unusable crap. Love really IS blind....
Posted by Jane Greer | December 18, 2007 2:34 PM
Posted on December 18, 2007 14:34
Jane, you can't know how reassuring I found your last post. I did the same thing--for awhile (kept the precious darlings). And had the same experience--it was all just junk. And here I've kept this to myself, trying not to let anyone know what a fake I must be, holding myself out to be a communicator, when in truth I've demonstrated what a truly dismal writer I really am, to write and then save such drivel, ever thinking it was good. Thank you yet again!
Posted by Joan Hope | December 18, 2007 3:09 PM
Posted on December 18, 2007 15:09
http://www.snopes.com/language/notthink/deserts.asp
Posted by Diane | December 18, 2007 4:08 PM
Posted on December 18, 2007 16:08
Thanks for the Snopes link, Diane. I'll save that, and just send the link to those who question the usage, rather than forging an explanation myself. Merry Christmas, all!
Greg
Posted by Greg Marsh | December 22, 2007 5:51 PM
Posted on December 22, 2007 17:51
Given more time I'd have used fewer words.
Posted by Fred from Canuckistan . . . | January 5, 2008 8:32 AM
Posted on January 5, 2008 08:32
When working for busy egomaniacs in high pressure jobs the rule is: "silence is praise". They'll let you know if they don't like it and if you don't hear from them then well done.
Posted by matt | January 5, 2008 9:28 AM
Posted on January 5, 2008 09:28
The little darlings file is an interesting idea. I like the way it tries to fool itself, it fails, and it's a bit dumb, but I like it. It could be the place to put those fantastic sentences that are pure brilliance, too brilliant in fact, they completely confuse the idea being presented. And yet...
Posted by bour3 | January 5, 2008 12:58 PM
Posted on January 5, 2008 12:58
I forgot, I worked at this place that was in the practice of beginning memos, "In order to improve service," the reader was guaranteed by that sentence that the following sentence would reduce some service.
Posted by bour3 | January 5, 2008 1:01 PM
Posted on January 5, 2008 13:01