Why are we putty in a storyteller’s hands? The psychologists Melanie Green and Tim Brock argue that entering fictional worlds “radically alters the way information is processed.” Green and Brock’s studies shows that the more absorbed readers are in a story, the more the story changes them. Highly absorbed readers also detected significantly fewer “false notes” in stories–inaccuracies, missteps–than less transported readers. Importantly, it is not just that highly absorbed readers detected the false notes and didn’t care about them (as when we watch a pleasurably idiotic action film). They were unable to detect the false notes in the first place.
And, in this, there is an important lesson about the molding power of story. When we read dry, factual arguments, we read with our dukes up. We are critical and skeptical. But when we are absorbed in a story we drop our intellectual guard. We are moved emotionally and this seems to leave us defenseless.
Web writing is all about emotional impact. We’ve already said web writing is a direct selling environment. (WWUP #1) To attract and retain readers, we must get to the point quickly. But the point we get to cannot be intellectual. It must be emotional. When I use the word emotional, I don’t mean the writing should be cheesy or sentimental. I mean it should be emotionally authentic. It should build trust, not violate it.
For example, consider this web copy: “When you buy from Company XYZ, you receive personalized service.” That is obviously an empty promise—dead and wooden. It doesn’t build trust. What if we approached it from the point of view of the customer: “Our service representatives have fans. One customer calls her rep, ‘Mr. Trustworthy’ because he always shows up when she calls. Once, he returned her call while he was getting ready to attend his son’s wedding. Mr. Trustworthy returned her call and made sure her problem was handled.’” Do you see the difference? In just a few words we create emotional impact by relating a success story.
So, how do you create emotional impact? Particularize. Tell a story about satisfied customers. Get real about how you create delighted customers. Deliver that impact.
What if you’re a new business and you don’t have any success stories you can call on? What if you company business process isn’t there yet, generating quality success stories.
Just use business language instead of abstracted, intellectual sales talk.
An example: “Smaller grocery chains are being inadequately serviced by large food marketing organizations. Company XYZ solves that problem.”
Improved: “As far as the large food marketing organizations are concerned, your grocery chain is not even on their radar screen.”
You could argue using “radar screen” is a cliché. Perhaps you don’t like it. My larger point is to suggest you should use language that delivers the emotional impact without beating around the bush. That kind of language creates trust, keeps people reading your web site and ultimately contributes to making a sale.
The most important words on your web site are not the ones you wrote. Here’s my thinking on this and tell me if you don’t agree: The most important reason people do business with an organization after looking at their web site has to do with trust. They believe the organization is presenting itself truthfully. And, of course, they want what the organization is offering. As you may know, the whole issue of trusted relationships on the web is very current, being discussed by security and work collaboration experts. How do you create trust on the web? There are many ways, but in my opinion, the most effective way to create trust is to include customer/client testimonials throughout the web site. They don’t have to be lengthy—just a few sentences will do. Many organizations will have a page devoted to client testimonials. That’s good, but what I’m suggesting is that you sprinkle those testimonials throughout the web site. The welcome page can have rotating testimonials. Every page thereafter should have at least one testimonial towards the bottom of the page. The point is this: You can’t go on any page of that web site without reading at least one testimonial—people who paid you a compliment and are willing to let you use their name on your web site. They’re going to bat for you. And that communicates trust. So think about it: The most important words on your web site are not the ones you wrote. They are the words your clients or customers wrote about you. Do you agree?
Here’s a universal principle that frames the experience of writing for the web: “Form ever follows function.” Those words were first written by Louis Sullivan early in the 20th Century. What does designing a department store or any large public building have to do with writing for the web? And what could an architect who lived so long ago have to say to us about writing web content? Or designing web sites? Everything.
Just as no building architect today would design a building without taking into account how people are going to use it, likewise, no web site architect should ever consider designing a web site without thinking about how visitors are going to use it.
We talk about usability—a word that would have seemed strange to Mr. Sullivan—but aren’t we talking about the form of the web site reflecting the way people use it? And when it comes to writing content, aren’t we likewise trying to make the content as readily available, as comprehensible and effortless to read as possible? I think so. That thought frames everything I know about writing for the web.
So, based on “Form ever follows function,” and the way people use web sites today, let me suggest three thoughts as a guide to web writing: chunk, light, tuna.
Chunk. People don’t read on the web, they scan. Break your story into bite-sized chunks. Make your writing compact and succinct. A few short paragraphs on one page and you’re done. Bullets and subheads improve readability. Keep it simple.
Light. Keep the writing light. Avoid self-serious or ponderous prose. Focus on benefits. Tell how a product or service improves peoples’ lives or adds value. Tackle serious subjects and be real, but do it in a highly readable way.
One example from a white paper I wrote: “Digital asset management systems can generate a healthy ROI, yet few do. Why? Three important reasons: Planning. Planning. Planning.”
Keep it light, but avoid humor which can easily backfire on the web.
Tuna. This is not a reference to a losing Cowboy coach. By tuna, I mean give people substance. Tell people what they want to know: What you’re going to do for them. Give them benefits. Tell how they’re going to feel after they’ve used your service or product. Most importantly, prove it with testimonials from real customers•statements that carry emotional impact.
Write “chunk light tuna,” and you’ll be writing the way people use the web today.If Louis Sullivan were alive, I bet he would agree.
If this is indeed the year of reading more and writing better, we’ve been right on course with David Ogilvy’s 10 no-bullshit tips, Henry Miller’s 11 commandments, and various invaluable advice from other great writers. Now comes John Steinbeck — Pulitzer Prize winner, Nobel laureate, love guru — with six tips on writing, culled from his altogether excellent interview it the Fall 1975 issue of The Paris Review.
- Abandon the idea that you are ever going to finish. Lose track of the 400 pages and write just one page for each day, it helps. Then when it gets finished, you are always surprised.
- Write freely and as rapidly as possible and throw the whole thing on paper. Never correct or rewrite until the whole thing is down. Rewrite in process is usually found to be an excuse for not going on. It also interferes with flow and rhythm which can only come from a kind of unconscious association with the material.
- Forget your generalized audience. In the first place, the nameless, faceless audience will scare you to death and in the second place, unlike the theater, it doesn’t exist. In writing, your audience is one single reader. I have found that sometimes it helps to pick out one person—a real person you know, or an imagined person and write to that one.
Read full article via brainpickings.org
Are you a deluded writer? Stop! Before you answer that question, let me tell you about Brian Wansink and the bottomless bowl of tomato soup.
Wansink is a scientist who holds the John S. Dyson Endowed Chair at Cornell University where he is Director of the Food and Brand Lab. He’s also the author of the 2006 book Mindless Eating: Why We Eat More.
In one of his most famous studies, he rigged up “bottomless” bowls of tomato soup. (Researchers kept the bowls filled by hidden tubes that imperceptibly kept adding more soup while the subjects ate). Wansink then compared the eating habits of people faced with a normal bowl, versus those given a “bottomless” bowl. The results were astonishing.
People who had a normal bowl ate, on average, nine ounces of soup. But people who ate from the rigged bowls averaged 15 ounces — 73 percent more! And most amazingly, the subjects at the self-filling bowls did not rate themselves as any more full than the subjects at the normal bowls.
All of which goes to show, we are terrible judges of ourselves.
This principle applies to our writing, too. Are our carefully thought-out words lucid, moving, and compelling? Or are they boring, self-indulgent, and banal? Who knows? The problem is, we’re not very skilled at analyzing ourselves.
I won’t lie to you. The verb “to lie,” meaning “to recline,” is not the easiest verb in the English language. For that matter, neither is the verb “to lie” meaning “to tell a falsehood.” I sometimes see the present participle of both verbs spelled “lieing.”
Now either you were horrified by the title of this piece and thought Ranly has finally lost it completely, or you have come to accept the misuse of the verb. Is it really so bad? Doesn’t the language change? Shouldn’t we just accept that few people will use the verb correctly?
For more than three decades I have been trying to teach writing and editing, and even though I sometimes doubt that I can teach writing other than to encourage good writing when I see it (“Hey, that’s good. Do some more of that!”), I have thought that I could teach editing. And all I have tried to teach is what some call Standard American Written English.
People speak colorfully and certainly in ways that we would not find acceptable in accepted print publications. I was listening to a local talk show the other day, and an officer of a bank, I think he was the president, was discussing how quickly the new bank had been completed. “If you had drove past here just two weeks ago, you would have saw a lot of work still to do.” Now that’s just great. He may be a helluva banker, but should he speak in public?
Standard American Written English. I’ve been stewing about this “lie” verb for some time now, and then this past week I started reading a packet of articles sent to me by an absolutely outstanding young writer by the name of Justin Heckert. Justin was hired right out of undergraduate J-school here at Mizzou by ESPN The Magazine. Well, he just couldn’t stand it there because they wouldn’t really let him write. So he went to a magazine that would, an outstanding city magazine, Atlanta.
Now I’m reading this wonderful personal story of his, and I come upon this sentence: “The first day of tests I had to lay flat on my back while the doctors drew a sufficient amount of blood to test.” My student wrote that! (His mother is an English teacher.) And the editors, good editors, did not change it. Damn. Well, maybe the battle’s over.
But then I read another piece by Justin, and I came upon this sentence: “… Skip (Caray, the Atlanta Braves announcer) had just been sitting there, at the table, transfixed by all that lay outside the window….” Damn again. They do know the verb! The least they can do is be consistent!
The hospital scene reminds me of a story about a former professor here that is so good it just might be true. He was a fanatic about “lie, lay, lain,” and being around doctors and nurses who regularly told him to “lay back” nearly drove him out of his mind. Well, the story I tell is that he was literally on his deathbed when a nurse told him to “lay back.” He bolted straight up and shouted at the top of his voice, “Lie back!” and he lay back and died.
Another story that’s almost true that I love to tell my students is about my dog, Rosie, who will just look at you if you tell her to “lay down,” but she will recline immediately if you tell her to “lie down.”
My granddaughter was 4 when I asked her what she did with the TV remote. She told me, “I lied it over there.” Seemingly she had heard me lecture enough about the use of “lie” not to ever use the word “lay” in any of its forms. But how do you tell a 4-year-old that “to lie” is intransitive; it cannot have an object. You meant, sweetheart, to say that you “laid” it over there because that’s the past tense of “to lay,” a transitive verb that requires an object. You see transitive verbs do things to things. Intransitive verbs cannot do things to things. You cannot “lie” something.
But neither is the remote “laying” over there. It’s not doing anything to anything. It’s just “lying” there. Is that really so difficult?
If you are a reader who always uses these verbs correctly, I salute you. If you want more explanation, read on.
The past tense of “to lie,” meaning “to recline,” is “lay.” The past participle (we use past participles along with the helping verb “to have” to form the present perfect, past perfect and future perfect tenses) is “lain.” So here’s how it works:
“At midnight I thought I would lie down. I lay there an hour before I turned off the TV. I had lain there another hour before I finally fell asleep. I don’t know how long my puppy was lying beside me.”
Now the past tense of “to lay,” meaning “to place down,” is “laid.” The past participle is also “laid.”
“I always lay the remote next to me on the bed. I’d swear I laid it there last night, but I couldn’t find it. I thought I remembered laying it there. Perhaps I had laid it on the stand by my bed.”
Remember. After I “lay” something down, it’s just “lying” there. It’s not doing anything to anything.
Is the battle worth fighting? Shall we let sleeping dogs lay — or lie?
Or would you rather just email me?
A couple of readers have asked me about making “email” a verb. I’m a little surprised they didn’t ask about taking out the hyphen in email.
Well, as I wrote in my piece about verbyfying nouns, some of our strongest verbs were once nouns. Linguists like to trace when nouns first became used as verbs, and I suppose some words were used as nouns and verbs almost from the beginning.
Take the word “work,” for example. I have no idea. Was it first a noun or a verb?
It certainly didn’t take long for “email” to be used as a verb. At least the form of the word remained the same, and we did not “ize” it. Wouldn’t it be awful if we “emailized” people?
All I know is, one day I made a momentous decision. I decided on the same day that I would never again put a hyphen in “email” and that I would lower-case (notice that verb!) “internet.”
So, OK, “email” me. But for heaven’s sake, don’t “copy” me!
Refined Wisdom: Here’s what I think about making verbs into nouns. Usually, there are so many better, simple words that we can use.
It seems months ago by now (and it is) that, strangely enough, I found myself listening to Condoleezza Rice testifying before the special committee investigating the events surrounding 9/11. Not once, but several times Rice said various people “were tasked” to do something, and I’m quite sure she also said “we were tasking” that at a certain point in time.
Then I read this quote from Richard A. Clarke in The New York Times: “All 56 F.B.I. federal offices were also tasked in late June to go on increased surveillance.”
So, there was a lot of “tasking” going on. So also was there a lot of “verbyfying” nouns, to use the word Edwin Newman coined for the phenomenon. Well, it might have been William Safire.
I looked up the word in Webster’s Third, quite confident “task” was never a verb, but I was wrong again. The first meaning listed is “to tax,” but it says that usage is obsolete. “To impose a task upon,” it says in the second meaning, and then it quotes John Dryden using it that way. The third meaning, also obsolete, is “to reprimand.” And the fourth meaning is “to oppress with great labor.” I was just with a staff of a software company in North Carolina, and a sharp copy editor there defended the use of the word in the passive — “was tasked.” Sounds like cruelty to me.
Well, it does bring up the whole question of turning nouns into verbs. There’s no disputing that many verbs we now use were once nouns (was “progress” first a noun or a verb?), and some would say, what’s the big deal anyway? We have verbs such as “maximize” and “minimize,” so what’s wrong with “parameterizing”?
(I once had a phone conversation with the father of a student whom I had failed in a magazine-editing class. The father assured me that he and his daughter “now had matters parameterized.” I almost told him that I would never have failed her had I known she had been paramaterized.)
Here’s what I think about making verbs into nouns. Usually, there are so many better, simple words that we can use. Even if it takes a few more words to say something, it’s better than appearing pompous or pretentious with overblown, made-up words. In the end, it comes down to clarity.
Why would we want to “utilize” something when we can just “use” it? I like to say that if we don’t stop “utilizing” the English language, we’re going to “finalize” it. I don’t really believe that, but if you or your boss is verbyfying nouns, stop it already.
Let’s rein in reign!
Have you noticed how often you see these two words confused?
Here’s a sentence from Dan Brown’s best-selling The Da Vinci Code: “Chartrand rushed forward, trying to reign in the camerlengo.”
From a sports-page headline: “Walsh might seize reigns as president.” That’s former 49ers coach Bill Walsh, rumored to become president of the 49ers.
From the National Catholic Reporter in a story about Deal Hudson, publisher of Crisis magazine: “While Hudson was taking over the reigns at Crisis, Cara Poppas consulted an attorney.”
In scholar John Merrill’s wonderful book, Existential Journalism, in which he describes the existential journalism professor: “He will insist on personalism, not impersonalism; he will encourage diversity in his students, not conformity; he will try to give free reign to creativity, not imitation.”
And in a column in the Columbia Missourian in which Merrill is condemning the “No child left behind” program, he writes: “What we need is an emphasis on ‘No child held back,’ or ‘Give free reigns to the gifted child.’”
I think we should not only rein in “reign,” but we should also rein in “rein.” It’s used so often and so needlessly. Besides, I wonder how many people really understand its roots. Once when a graduate student of mine used “reign” in place of “rein,” he asked me what in the world a rein was.
As a former farm boy whose father still had a team of horses, I think I can describe reins without looking the word up in the dictionary. I can still see those long strips of leather that dad held in his hands to get the horses moving or to get them to turn right or left (“gee” – right, and “haw” – left, he used to shout) and to get them to stop. If the horses were going too fast, he would pull on the reins that went right to the harness over their heads and to the bits in their mouths. He would tighten the reins. If he wanted them to trot, he would loosen the reins (give them free rein?). And if he wanted them to stop, he would pull hard and rein them in.
Granted, the word has also come to mean “a restraining influence, a curb or a check.” But again, it’s so overused, and it’s so often replaced incorrectly with “reigns.”
At least think twice before you use “rein” or “reins” again!
This is a bibliography of writing books I recommend in my seminars:
Remember when Robert Novak (surprise, surprise) became upset with something James Carville said, blurted out the word “bullshit,” and stormed off the set?
Well, I’m no friend of Novak’s, but I was amused at what reporters were saying he said on that occasion. Few dared to use the actual word, “bullshit.” My, how inappropriate for our sensitive readers. One writer got it pretty close. He said Novak used a barnyard term. Not bad.
But others said he cursed. Swore. Used obscenities. Even used profanities. I don’t know whether anyone wrote that he used vulgarities.
Now as a person who has taught general-semantics for a couple of decades, I know perfectly well that words can mean whatever you want them to mean. Nevertheless, normally we do expect people to use words in their generally accepted meanings.
For eight editions of News Reporting and Writing by the Missouri Group (I’m a co-author), I’ve struggled to make some distinctions in the following words in a chapter on using quotations and attributions:
* When people curse, doesn’t that mean that they want someone to go to hell, usually by damning them? I admit, most of the time people just “damn it,” whatever “it” is.
* Swearing involves taking an oath or calling upon the deity or at least someone regarded as sacred to witness to the truth of what we’re saying. We’re expected to swear in court though I’m not sure why, other than if we lie in court, we can be convicted for perjury.
* An obscenity is a word or a phrase that usually refers to sexual parts or functions in an offensive way. Most people can’t imagine, for example, using the “f” word in an inoffensive way.
* A large number of people are always offended by profanity. There’s a commandment about that – taking the name of the lord in vain. Using a word or phrase referring to the deity or to beings regarded as divine, even if only done carelessly and thoughtlessly, is regarded as sacrilegious.
* And then there are vulgarities. I like to call them “bathroom” words. We’re talking about excretory words or phrases used in a less-than-polite way.
Does all of this make sense? There are some words that I don’t know how to classify. “Hell” is one of them. I once asked a person, “What the hell does that mean?” And she said, “Well, you don’t have to start cursing.”
So often we use words in all of the classifications above because we can’t think of anything else to say. So often they demonstrate our real dearth of vocabulary. You know, it’s cold as hell; it’s hot as hell. What the hell do those statements mean?
But who can deny that sometimes a good “damn” just feels right. And so does a good “bullshit.”
So, all you writer and readers, get off Novak’s case. You’ve all said much worse in similar circumstances. And if you want to attack Novak, there are much better reasons.
Sorry, Emerson, being consistent is not the hobgoblin of small minds.
Of course, if I have it right, Emerson said, “Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.”
Being consistent is one of my Seven C’s for good writing that I have lectured about for decades. Actually, I developed the Seven C’s for my editing class, and for years I tried to teach students that they need to have a reason to change a writer’s copy. Editors should not change copy out of some whim or because they like their words better than the author’s.
My first class in editing I always wrote in big letters on the board “Editor is God.” (My daughter made me a large and beautiful stained class window with those words in it that hangs here in my study.) I wanted to impress upon the students that they were the final arbiter, the final judge of how copy would appear forever. Writers are a dime a dozen, I would tell them; editors are rare. Writers win prizes; editors remain anonymous. Editors create writers, make them look good, save their butts regularly — and get none of the credit and lots of abuse.
Nevertheless, editors should be able to explain WHY they changed the copy. And that’s why I gave my students seven reasons to change it: To make copy correct, consistent, clear, concise, coherent, complete and creative.
I probably should start in the beginning, but I want to start with the need to be consistent. You need to be consistent for one simple reason: If you aren’t, you look incorrect. You need to be consistent as a writer (and if you aren’t, an editor must see to it that you are) on two levels.
The first level might be called technical. You must be consistent in:
*spelling. How obvious you say. But I regularly find editorial offices in which there are three or four different dictionaries lying around. That’s not a good idea. You should choose one, and that’s for the simple reason that dictionaries sometimes differ in their spelling of words — at least in the preferred spelling of words. And for the sake of being consistent, why not have your staff agree to choose the first spelling of a word. Webster’s III International is a solid final appeal, but a excellent dictionary for most to have is Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th edition, the official dictionary of the Associated Press. And by the way, most of us don’t even know what dictionary is in the spell-check in our computers, and I think it’s true that spell-checks allow more than one spelling. What good is that?
*grammar. Again, how obvious. It is surprising again how few editorial offices have standard books they can refer to for grammatical questions. An excellent, most practical choice is “Working With Words,” by Brooks, Pinson and Gaddy Wilson, published by Bedford/St. Martin’s.
*style. You must be consistent in what you capitalize, what you abbreviate, in how you use numbers, in how you punctuate, and in whole lot of other matters. To do this, you need a stylebook. Most newspapers, magazines and newsletters use the Associated Press style; some use the Chicago Manual of Style; others have their own stylebooks. I’m regularly told by staffs that they use several stylebooks. What nonsense! Having more than one stylebook defeats the purpose of having one. Choose one! That’s difficult enough. And make sure that everyone has a copy within arm’s length.
Of course, your publication may have its own particular set of rules in addition to the stylebook that you adopt. Additional rules, yes, but it’s probably foolish for you to attempt to compile an entire stylebook of your own. Leave that to large publications such as “The New York Times” and “The New Yorker.”
If you are a writer, you need to know the stylebook of the publication for which you are writing. Some formal journals do have some particular rules that they wish to have followed.
The second level of consistency concerns our writing style in a nontechnical sense. Now, please, I don’t want to throttle your creativity. You can do wonderfully bright writing with similes, metaphors, analogies, examples, change of pace, establishing a mood, using voice, etc., and still be consistent in some basic things.
For example, you must in the beginning decide on your approach to a piece. Will you write in the first person “I” or the second person “you” or in the third person? Don’t start writing in the third person, and then half way through or toward the end suddenly insert yourself or suddenly address the reader directly. There’s nothing wrong with a first-person piece — if you can’t easily stay out of the piece. I would avoid, however, the use of “we” because readers don’t know who that “we” is. Wasn’t it Mark Twain who said, “Save ‘we’ for God, kings and people with tape worms”?
By the way, I like leads, even news leads, that have the word “you” in it. Using “you” forces the writer to get to the WIIFM
(What’s In It For Me?) quickly. Once you begin with “you,” you can stay with it. You’d be surprised how much easier it is to avoid the passive voice of the verb when you do that.
You should be consistent in the use of your verbs. Especially watch the tense of the verb, and, of course, keep those verbs in the active voice. Make your verbs do things to things. Make them transitive; avoid the verb “to be” as much as you can.
Try to establish a tone, a mood, a flavor, and then try to maintain it. Often a piece starts out with a flash and then just peters out. Some happy stories have a somber mood, and worse, some sad stores seem to have a snappy, happy pace and tone. If you are friendly and personal in your opening, stay that way.
So — if you’re a writer, try to be consistent. If you’re an editor, your job is to make the copy consistent both inside the piece itself and with the publication in which it will appear. And more than that, if you are an editor of a publication, you probably want the whole publication to have a consistent look and feel and tone about it. I rather like the word “attitude.” Establish an attitude, and for the most part, stick with it.
Refined Wisdom: Sometimes editors get bad design because they keep asking for something different, something “creative.” One designer told me, the editors bring it on themselves and should share the blame. But the fact remains, editors are too often intimidated by designers.
It must be a decade ago, and I don’t know where, but I was addressing a large group of writers and editors. Somewhere in the middle of my address, I said: “We editors must get control of our publications again.”
There was a roar from the crowd as if a winning, last-second touchdown had been scored. My, how they wanted to hear that.
No, I was not talking about getting more control from the publisher or corporation. No, I wasn’t talking about escaping pressure from advertising. I was talking about regaining control away from designers who use design for the sake of design, who obscure text by reversing it or printing red over black, and who do little if anything to enhance the message of the text.
I know that I should be talking about writing, but what is the point of writing if people insist on making the text illegible? There are really only two reasons to kill trees for print – legibility and portability. Most people still prefer reading words on paper over words on the screen. I’ve read that one can read print on paper 25 percent faster than words on the screen. And it’s certainly easier to carry paper around than a laptop.
Regardless of how many studies show that readers turn away from reversed type, many publications I see have pages and pages of it. Why? Black on white is easy to read, and so is black on yellow. But why put dark colors behind print? Or worse, why put images behind print?
When I get mean, I say that I once met a designer who could read. And – that I once met a designer who actually did read the copy. I once said that to a group of writers, editors and designers at the Meredith Corporation, and after I finished, the head of design there came up to me and said, “Here at Meredith, we insist that designers read the copy.” Well!
Perhaps the problem is the words “design” and “designer.” Jan White, the best there is in graphic presentation, told me that once a young woman came up to him and said, “Mr. White, I, too, am a designer.” “That’s OK,” Jan told her, “Some day you will grow up to be a journalist.”
I do not do design, nor do I do design workshops. But I know this: Whenever a design calls attention to itself rather than to the message of the text, it is bad design. A photography professor at Missouri said it nicely some years ago: “Suppose you had a lovely painting in your home. A guest looks and it and says, ‘Oh, what a nice frame.’” Would you be pleased?
I prefer the word “presentation.” Everyone — writers, editors, photographers and designers — (I confess, I don’t know what other word to use here), must be concerned with the presentation of the ideas. And by far the best time to begin doing that is before the article is written. If designers and photographers are brought into the editorial process from the beginning, there is much less change for bizarre and disintegrated pages.
I wish I could count the times that editors have told me that they try to tame the designers, but the designers tell them editors know nothing about design, and they should tend to what they know. Besides, designers win prizes – awarded to them by other designers. I think we should stop awarding prizes for design and instead award them for presentation.
Well, it doesn’t take a genius to look at a page to see whether all of the type is easily legible. It doesn’t take years of training to see when artwork on the page has nothing to do with the text except to distract the reader.
Sometimes editors get bad design because they keep asking for something different, something “creative.” One designer told me, the editors bring it on themselves and should share the blame. But the fact remains, editors are too often intimidated by designers.
Isn’t it time editors got control of their publications again?
(Everyone should read “Editing By Design,” by Jan V. White, New York: Allworth Press, 2003.)
The other day, I found myself thinking about all the ways we use words. Scratch “all!” Let me start over: The other day, I found myself thinking about the ways we use words.
Is the word “all” necessary?
Consider:
How do I love thee? Let me count all the ways.
How do I love thee? Let me count the ways.
Would we find Elizabeth Barrett Browning’s poem as memorable with “all” in the first line?
Consider these:
Arrest all people who break laws.
Arrest people who break laws.
Color in all the blank squares below.
Color in the blank squares below.
All people have their good and bad sides.
People have their good and bad sides.
The above sentences without “all” are stronger and more respectful of the reader. Their attitude is calmer, less preachy and more appealing because they’re missing one little word. Notice I chose not to write “all because.”
Look: There may be a place for “all,” for example, when you’re giving instructions and you want to make certain the person understands: Color in all the blank squares below. However, if I wanted to be emphatic, I would write, Color in the blank squares below. Check your work and make sure you don’t miss any. I think it’s far more respectful when you use a separate sentence to express that thought.
Getting even with “even.”
Even you have faults.
You have faults.
Everyone is trying harder. Even he is.
He is trying harder, just like everyone else.
He collects everything, even pennies.
He collects everything, including pennies.
Even when Jim applied himself, his output was average.
When Jim applied himself, his output was average.
Even if you’re extremely lucky, your chances are not very good.
If you’re extremely lucky, your chances are not very good.
My point? “Even” is another one of those words that act as the moral equivalent of a blinking neon sign. Yes, it can be used to express surprise about an unlikely event; however, invariably, I prefer alternative sentences that avoid using the word.
Delete “just”
I want just the facts!
I want the facts!
Just because you’re intelligent doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try hard.
You’re intelligent. Does that mean you shouldn’t try hard?
We got there just in time.
We got there in time.
You get the point.
Write without “that”
I think that you’re intelligent.
I think you’re intelligent.
I say that a person is only human.
I say a person is only human.
I believe that all men are created equal.
I believe all men are created equal.
This is the gift that we give each other, the gift of love.
This is the gift we give each other, the gift of love.
Some sentences require the word “that;” however, it is often unnecessary. When it is, leave it out!
“All,” “even,” “just” and “that:” I am not suggesting you never use those words. I am suggesting that each time you want to use them, you see if you like the sentence better after you rewrite it without that word. Give it a try!
It’s just better writing.
Scratch that. It’s better writing!
The second most frequently asked question I receive is “Where can I find good humorous material?” (The most frequent question I’m asked is “May I please see your driver’s license, sir?”)
Anyway, my answer used to be a list of books, magazines and newspapers. It was a long list that required a trip to the library unless you wanted to spend a fortune on subscriptions to a lot of publications. Then the Internet came along and almost changed the situation. Instead of recommending a long list of periodicals, I started recommending a longer list of web sites.
The problem was that if you liked a site, then you’d bookmark it. And that was the kiss of death. Because how often have you gone back to view the sites in your bookmarks? Be honest now. Not too often, right? In fact, if you’re like most web surfers, you’ve got a bookmark full of sites that you’ve never looked at since book-marking them. Let’s face it. Book-marking a website has become the high-tech version of taping something on your VCR. (But I really am going to watch that tape of the C-SPAN special on the history of politics some day. Uh-huh.)
Here’s the good news. As an old motivational guru once said, “When faced with a problem, make it into problemonade.” So here’s what I’ve done. As a special service to anyone interested in using humor in oral or written communication, I’ve created a super site. (Not the polluted kind!) It’s a web site packed with thousands of links to incredibly great sources of funny material. Here’s a guided tour.
Start by surfing to http://www.museumofhumor.com. That’s the homepage. Along the bottom of the page you’ll see a button labeled “For Clergy.” This section of the museum contains over 700 links to sermons about laughter, joy, humor and happiness, as well as links to humorous material appropriate for use in sermons. If you’re worried about finding material that’s in good taste, it doesn’t get more appropriate than this. Click on some of the sermons to see how clergy have used quips and jokes to make various points. You may be able to adapt them for your own purposes.
Now go back to the homepage. Along the left side of the page, you’ll find a button labeled “Resources.” Click on that and you’ll come to a page divided into three sections: News, Tools and Material. Under “News” you’ll find links to offbeat news stories. These can provide fabulous topical material, especially if you look at them on the day that you’re scheduled to give a speech. They’re great for developing a humorous opening to your presentation.
The “Tools” section provides links to variety of web sites that can provide material for your presentation or help you write it. For example, “Today In History” and “Those Were The Days” give you lists of events, birthdays and other things that occurred on the day that you’re speaking. The “Lexical Freenet” is a great word association tool for brainstorming ideas and phrases to use in your presentation.
The “Material” section is what you want to see especially if you can’t tell a joke. Instead of dividing material by subject-matter (the traditional way), it groups material by type of humor. Categories include “Anecdotes & Jokes,” “Carnac,” “Definitions,” “Goofups,” “Insults & Comebacks,” “Laws & Lists,” “One Liners,” “Quotes,” and “Topical Humor.” Click on the type of humor that you feel comfortable using. You’ll be transported to a page with lots of links to your desired humor type.
Below the “Material” section is a section labeled “Cartoons.” Cartoons are a fantastic and yet overlooked form of oral humor. Why? Because even if you can’t tell a joke, you can probably describe a cartoon. (I’ve never met anyone who couldn’t.) That means you can make a point by describing a cartoon, just as you would make a point by telling a joke. The links provided will allow you to peruse thousands of cartoons until you find one that makes your point. (Tip: look for one that’s easy for your audience to visualize as you say it.)
OK, let’s go back to the homepage. On the left you’ll see a button labeled “Library.” Clicking it takes you to – here’s a big surprise – the library. You will be most interested in the middle section labeled “How To.” It includes links to a wide variety of how to articles ranging from “How to Make Meetings Fun” to “How to Write a Humorous Speech.”
Let’s return to the homepage one more time. On the left you’ll see a button for “Exhibits.” Click on it. Then click on “Talk Culture” and then click on “Talk Wine (New Style).” What you’ll find is a funny analogy generator. Although I’ve set it up to generate analogies for wine, you can use the analogies to describe anything. For example, I just clicked the button and got: This wine is like “watching Gilligan’s Island for the first time, not quite humbling but close.” Well, that’s a good analogy for lots of other things you might be writing or speaking about. Just keep hitting the button on the analogy generator until you get something you can use. They’re not prewritten. The computer combines phrases to keep generating new ones.
Want to help support the museum? Visit the gift shop and buy someone a present. Or become a museum member.
And that’s no joke!
###
Malcolm Kushner, “America’s Favorite Humor Consultant,” is an internationally acclaimed expert on humor and communication. A co-creator of the humor exhibit at The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, Kushner is the author of several books including Public Speaking For Dummies which has sold over 100,000 copies. He has been profiled in Time Magazine, USA Today, The New York Times, The Washington Post and numerous other publications. His television and radio appearances include CNN, National Public Radio, CNBC, “Voice of America” and “The Larry King Show.” Prior to becoming a humor consultant, he practiced law with a major San Francisco law firm. A popular speaker at corporate and association meetings, Kushner is based in Santa Cruz, California. For more information, and lots of humor you can use in your next presentation, check out http://www.museumofhumor.com.
Can’t tell a joke? No problem. Use simple types of humor that don’t require any special comic ability. There are lots of them available – analogies, quotes, definitions, one-liners. They’re so short that they don’t require comic delivery. Anyone can use them successfully.
As always, the key to success is analogizing your humor to a point. Funny analogies are perfect because they’re automatically relevant. (Otherwise they wouldn’t be analogies). And they’re so short, they don’t require comic delivery. They’re easy to deliver and highly effective.
For example, let’s say you want to make the point that some proposed course of action is illogical. You might say that the proposal doesn’t make sense. It’s like the fellow who heard that 90% of accidents occur within ten miles of home so he moved twenty miles away.
Anyone can deliver that line. It’s not hysterical, but it’s not supposed to be. It’s mildly amusing and it highlights a point. Remember, the goal is simply to communicate the fact that you have a sense of humor.
Funny quotes also provide a simple way to add humor to a presentation. They are easy to find. They gain immediate attention. And, if selected with panache, they make you sound quite erudite.
For example, let’s work with a quote from one of America’s most famous astronauts:
I believe it was Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the moon, who was asked if he had been nervous before he went into space. He said, “Of course, who wouldn’t be? There I was sitting on top of 9,999 parts and bits — each of which had been made by the lowest bidder.”
This is excellent for client presentations explaining the justification for premium pricing — the old you get what you pay for argument. You could also use it to make points about quality, government spending, pessimism and bravery. But that list just scratches the surface. You can analogize the Armstrong quote to almost any point if you think about it long enough. Most important, anyone can use the quote — it doesn’t require comic delivery.
Here are a few more examples.
Let’s say a rival is bragging that his just completed report is a classic. You might add: “Well as Mark Twain once said ‘A classic is something that everyone wants to have read and nobody wants to read.'”
Or your opponent, the windbag, has finally finished a long, flowery argument during a company meeting. You can say: “Will Rogers must have been thinking of that when he said ‘In some states they no longer hang murderers. They kill them by elocution.'”
Or some miscreant has the audacity to ask what you do for exercise. You affect your best
withering stare and say: “In the words of Fred Allen, ‘I like long walks — especially when they are taken by people who annoy me.'”
But you don’t have to wait for specific situations to arise. Many quotes can be easily dropped into casual conversations — particularly if you want to wax philosophic. Here are a few of my favorites:
Martin Buxbaum: “If you think you have someone eating out of your hand, it’s a good idea to count your fingers.”
Fulton J Sheen: “The big print giveth and the fine print taketh away.”
Woody Allen: “I think crime pays. The hours are good, you travel a lot.”
Lily Tomlin: “If truth is beauty, how come no one has their hair done in a library?”
Lucille Ball: “The secret to staying young is living honestly, eating slowly and lying about your age.”
Where can you find appropriate humorous quotes? Just go to http://www.museumofhumor.com and click on “Resources”. Under a heading titled “Material” you’ll find a list of simple types of humor including quotes, definitions and one-liners. Click on the type of material that you want and you’ll be taken to a goldmine of links. And that’s no joke!
Malcolm Kushner, “America’s Favorite Humor Consultant,” is an internationally acclaimed expert on humor and communication. A co-creator of the humor exhibit at The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, Kushner is the author of several books including Public Speaking For Dummies which has sold over 100,000 copies. He has been profiled in Time Magazine, USA Today, The New York Times, The Washington Post and numerous other publications. His television and radio appearances include CNN, National Public Radio, CNBC, “Voice of America” and “The Larry King Show.” Prior to becoming a humor consultant, he practiced law with a major San Francisco law firm. A popular speaker at corporate and association meetings, Kushner is based in Santa Cruz, California. For more information, and lots of humor you can use in your next presentation, check out http://www.museumofhumor.com.
Instead of checking email continuously and from multiple devices, schedule specific email time during the day while you are at your computer. All other time is email vacation time.
We are most efficient when we answer email in bulk at our computers. We move faster, can access files when we need them, and link more quickly and easily to other programs like our calendars. Also, when we sit down for the express purpose of doing emails, we have our email heads on. We are more focused, more driven, wasting no time in transition from one activity to another.
I bulk process my email three times a day in 30-minute increments, once in the morning, once mid-day, and once before shutting down my computer for the day. I use a timer and when it beeps, I close my email program.
Outside my designated email times I don’t access my email — from any device — until my next scheduled email session. I no longer use my phone for email unless I’m away from my computer all day.
When the urge to check arises — and it arises often — I take a deep breath and feel whatever feelings come up. And then I focus on whatever I’m doing, even if what I’m doing is waiting. I let my mind relax.
Here’s what I’ve found: I don’t miss a thing.
In fact, it’s the opposite. I gain presence throughout my day. I am focused on what’s around me in the moment, without distraction. I listen more attentively, notice people’s subtle reactions I would otherwise overlook, and come up with more ideas as my mind wanders. I’m more productive, more sensitive, more creative, and happier.
Humor is a powerful communication tool. It can gain attention, create rapport, and make ideas more memorable. It can also relieve tension and put things in perspective. In today’s ultra-competitive, high-pressure workplace, a sense of humor is an indispensable tool for success.
Scoring Points With Humor
Your first step in harnessing the power of humor is to use it for a purpose. Irrelevant humor is usually perceived as a distraction and time-waster. Whether you’re speaking to one person or one hundred, humor is more effective if it makes a point.
A good example comes from Robert Clarke, a former U.S. comptroller of the currency. Speaking to the National Council of Savings Institutions, he discussed how regulatory tools could be used to promote a sound banking system.
A friend of mine, an honors graduate of Texas Agricultural and Mechanical University, an “aggie,” spent the first half of the 1980s lusting for a car phone. Finally, he convinced himself that it was a necessity, not a luxury, so he bought one. The day he bought it, he called me from his car to tell me the news. And I didn’t hear from him again for about a month. Finally I saw him on the street and he seemed really down in the dumps. I asked him what was wrong and he said it was the car phone. “What do you mean?” I asked, “You wanted that phone more than anything you ever did.” And he said: “Yeah, but it’s wearing me down having to run to the garage every time it rings.”
Regulations — like telephones — are instruments. They can be used effectively. They can be used adequately. Or they can be misused….
The story is effective because it illustrates a key point — that regulations are merely tools. But note that the story could illustrate other ideas. It would be equally effective for making points about office automation, productivity and training. In fact, the story can be used to illustrate any point to which you can analogize it. The process is only limited by your imagination.
Is it worth taking a few minutes to analogize your humor to a point? Absolutely. The biggest cause of “bombing” is starting a presentation with a joke that has nothing to do with anything.
Here’s why: Relevance reduces resistance. A basic tenet of audience psychology holds that people resist humor if they think you’re trying to be humorous. They put a comedy chip on their shoulders. Think of the last time you saw a comedian stride up to a microphone. Your first thought was probably “You think you’re funny — prove it!”
When humor is used to make a point our reactions are quite different. We recognize that the speaker is using humor primarily to make a point and only secondarily to be funny. We’re more open to accepting the humor. Most important, even if we don’t think it’s funny, the humor still makes a point and moves the presentation forward. The speaker isn’t left in the embarrassing limbo called “bombing.”
Create a Positive Image
Managers, executives and professionals who use humor in presentations with clients and colleagues come across as more approachable. Numerous social science studies verify this effect — a little humor can increase your likeability a lot. And it’s easier to maintain morale and enthusiasm by showing you have a good sense of humor.
This is particularly true of self-effacing humor. Staff workers, as well as clients, are delighted when executives poke fun at themselves. They’re also astounded because it’s such a rare occurrence. That’s why it’s so effective. In a world of big egos, posturing, pompousness and arrogance, poking a little fun at yourself is a competitive advantage. It reflects confidence and security. It also creates rapport with your audience who enjoy learning that you’re not a stuffed shirt.
We would all do well to imitate the example set by the late Fred Hoar. A veteran Silicon Valley advertising and public relations executive, Hoar knows that his name has an unfortunate connotation — particularly when linked with his profession. In order to counter the negative meaning and show his sense of humor, he made fun of the situation. He begins his presentations by saying, “My name is Fred Hoar. That’s spelled F, R, E, D.” His audience was instantly won over.
One caveat: Don’t go overboard with self-effacing humor. If you use it too often or make it too personal, then you will appear neurotic. No one wants to hear you barrage yourself with putdowns about your weight or other physical traits. Your quips should be designed to put people at ease, not to make them uncomfortable.
Anyone Can Use Humor
What if you can’t tell a joke? What if you’re not “naturally” funny? Are you sentenced to life imprisonment in the lawyer stereotype — cold, gray and heartless. Not at all. In fact, you can parole yourself at any time.
You don’t have to be a professional comedian to use humor successfully. If you can’t tell a joke, you can still slip a light remark into a speech or conversation. Fred Hoar’s line about his name is a perfect example. It’s not a joke per se. So it doesn’t require comic delivery. Anyone could deliver that line effectively. (OK, anyone who’s name is Hoar.)
My point is that there’s a big difference between being funny and communicating a sense of humor. No one expects you to be hilarious. And it’s not professionally desirable to emulate Bozo the Clown. Your goal should simply be to show that you possess a sense of humor. It’s a trait that is universally admired.
Start Today
There’s an old joke about a managing partner who hated procrastination. So he hung up a sign that said: “Do It Now.” Within 24 hours, his paralegal quit, his secretary took a vacation, and his junior partner stole the firm’s biggest client.
Despite these risks, I’m going to advise you to “do it now” — start communicating your sense of humor today. Hang a cartoon on your office wall. Tell a joke that makes a point. Start looking for opportunities to institutionalize humor in your workplace.
Make humor a habit. It will make you a more effective professional. And that’s no joke!
###
Malcolm Kushner, “America’s Favorite Humor Consultant,” is an internationally acclaimed expert on humor and communication. A co-creator of the humor exhibit at The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, Kushner is the author of several books including Public Speaking For Dummies which has sold over 100,000 copies. He has been profiled in Time Magazine, USA Today, The New York Times, The Washington Post and numerous other publications. His television and radio appearances include CNN, National Public Radio, CNBC, “Voice of America” and “The Larry King Show.” Prior to becoming a humor consultant, he practiced law with a major San Francisco law firm. A popular speaker at corporate and association meetings, Kushner is based in Santa Cruz, California. For more information, and lots of humor you can use in your next presentation, check out http://www.museumofhumor.com.
2. Always prefer the plain direct word to the long, vague one. Don’t implement promises, but keep them.
3. Never use abstract nouns when concrete ones will do. If you mean “More people died” don’t say “Mortality rose.”
4. In writing. Don’t use adjectives which merely tell us how you want us to feel about the thing you are describing. I mean, instead of telling us a thing was “terrible,” describe it so that we’ll be terrified. Don’t say it was “delightful”; make us say “delightful” when we’ve read the description. You see, all those words (horrifying, wonderful, hideous, exquisite) are only like saying to your readers, “Please will you do my job for me.”
How are you gathering data and intelligence from your employees, peers and bosses to make smart decisions?
In other words, how well do you listen?
It’s a skill all of us can work on. Once you’ve mastered the fundamentals, there are a number ways to raise the bar. Follow these steps to become a better listener:
- Approach each dialogue with the goal to learn something. Think, “This person can teach me something.”
- Stop talking and focus closely on the speaker. Suppress the urge to multitask or think about what you are going to say next.
- Open and guide the conversation with broad, open-ended questions such as “How do you envision…” or “Help me understand how you’re thinking about this.”
- Then, drill down to the details, where needed, by asking direct, specific questions that focus the conversation, such as “Tell me more about…,” “How would this work?” or “What challenges might we face?”