How to write and edit

As was earlier stated, words are the bricks language. We use them to build sentences. Sentences in turn are the building blocks of paragraphs. Short sentences are better for the same reason that short words are better than long ones. A sentence should ideally contain a single thought, have a subject and a verb. Consider the following statement written in an engineering procedure.

This statement lacks a verb. The sentence is without meaning, for reader has no idea what is required or what is required to be done. The repetitious use of 'initiating', 'appropriate' and 'change' is obviously intended to impress, but not to enlighten. 'Appropriate' as a verb means 'to take possession of' ; as an adjective it means 'suitable'. 'Initiate' as a verb means' start' or 'begin'. The writer probably meant to say:

The revised sentence is shorter and easy to understand. It has a subject, 'applications for design changes', a verb, 'signed', and a subordinate clause, 'such as those listed in Section 5'. By changing a few words and deleting redundant words, the passage is transformed. Consider another example, one from a health care quality assurance guide:

The statement is wordy and the style passive. There is redundancy of phrasing: either 'a number of mechanisms' or 'various mechanisms' (meaning?) may be mentioned, but not both. In the context of the statement, 'mechanisms' is jargon. Only in the broadest sense is a quality assurance (QA) programme conducted. One conducts an audit, writes a programme. 'Quality circles' is the name given to a management practice that includes hospital employees in QA discussion. A more precise statement of the writer's intent is in this revised version.

The two passages quoted are from different industries to show that the form, style and structure of writing apply regardless of the discipline served. Clear sentences are not built of fifty-pound bricks; nor is it necessary to cover every nuance of meaning. Long sentences, even if grammatically correct, can behave like the knight's horse in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass, prancing off in all directions. Express your thoughts in a logical order, making sure that all the pieces fit.

As in a jigsaw puzzle, the common weakness of technical writing can be the curse of the missing piece. If there is a logical connection between one sentence and the next, or one paragraph and the next, make sure you provide it for the reader to follow. Do not expect the reader to draw conclusions that seem obvious to you from the facts you present: interpret them. Remember that you, not the reader, are the expert on what you write. The reader expects to read and understand perhaps in minutes the massive report on which you have slaved for hours.

Break your work into manageable paragraphs and sentences. You can do this by preparing a writing outline, which is discussed in a later session, How to organize a document.

The act of writing is a solitary occupation. Editing is equally solitary unless it is done by committee, which is sometimes a fact of corporate existence, though not necessarily the most productive. Editing by committee frequently produces a less than satisfactory document as in the case of the nuclear quality assurance standard earlier referred to in a previous session with its 32 'appropriates'.

Whether you have to produce a large report, a procedure, or technical specification, the steps earlier described are the same. Only when all the preparatory work is done - outline, research and note making - can you begin writing with confidence. It is then up to you to set to work with pen in hand or keyboard at the ready and turn ten naked pages of notes into twenty well-dressed ones. Once organized, you ought to be able to write quickly.

To maintain momentum, write without interruption. This means finding a quiet place free from ringing telephones, visiting colleagues, and social chats that disrupt your concentration. Isolation, if this is possible, is the best atmosphere in which to foster the unity of thought wherein one idea leads naturally to the next. This sounds like mundane advice because it is obvious, yet it is surprising how often the obvious is ignored.

When writing a first draft, write without concern for the words you use. If 'auditization' comes to mind, use it and get on with the writing. Stick to your plan of producing a visible script.
Your schedule (see the next section, 'Getting Started') should include time for a re-write; in effect, the self-edited effort. This is the time to remember and think about the matters discussed in the earlier sections on language. Adopt a cheerful attitude of ruthlessness toward your work.

If you find an abrupt transition, insert a statement to make the connection. Use a pair of scissors and tape to re-arrange the copy is a good way some find to work. Cutting and pasting is what a control engineer would recognize as feedback adjustment in a closed loop system.

Voltaire said that the best is the enemy of the good. Be realistic; keep the schedule in mind, for there is a limit to what is possible. The result of your self-editing and the rewrite should be that you say what you meant to say.

It is often useful to see what you have changed or crossed out, especially on big projects. If you use a word-processor, keep the original text on file for the time being, or print a spare copy. On large projects, such as manuals, keep a copy of every revised draft copy until the work is complete.

Anyone who proof-reads his or her own writing and someone else's knows that it is much easier to see errors in another person's work. When we read our own work we see the masterpiece we intended to write rather than the imperfect thing we actually wrote. Ask a colleague to read you copy.

It is one thing to write well. It is quite another to edit. There are elements to editing as there are to writing: phraseology, polishing and paring, reducing a piece of writing to its essentials. Although, without doubt, some writers produce work that has no need of editing, editors are often in the position of trying hard to make sense of copy that comes across their desks. The answer is often found in an editorial rim.

The editorial rim is a feature of many journals, newspapers, and publishers. The rim, so called, is formed of one or more editors and writers who meet to dissect and edit a writer's work. Anything goes in a rim session: form, content, conformity to the house style, syntax. The writer is put in the position of defending his or her work. The process is a healthy one that ultimately works to the benefit of the reader, the enterprise and the writer. Professional writers get used to being criticised, questioned and having to answer tough questions. It is a subject well worth exploring further.

Writers of every degree have to understand eventually that writing well has a lot to do with accepting criticism. This can be hard on those not used to it. Every time you write something for others to see, you feel you're exposing your soul. Beginning writers who have to produce reports are sensitive about criticism. Time, effort and anguish have been spent putting the words together. If the reader doesn't praise them, some writers think they are somehow inadequate. If colleagues find errors, start tearing the work apart, say this or that is badly expressed or the punctuation is incorrect, some writers are devastated.

Anyone who aspires to writing has simply got to put that kind of thinking away. Every writer has to submit work to an editor. At first, most writers feel apprehensive if not awkward about their work when submitting copy it to an editor. That is only natural, but in time all good writers get used to it. They have to.

Writers sometimes react to reviewers and proofreaders as though being personally attacked. The difference between the amateur writer and the professional - and anyone who writes technical copy is a professional - is in reaction to criticism. Full-time writers deal with editors simply as part of the business of writing. Each has a job to do, so the writer accepts criticism without feeling being put down.

Be careful. This is not to say play dead when your work is criticized. On the contrary, a writer must learn how to defend what he or she has written. They must know why they wrote their copy one way or another and be able to defend what they have written. The rim could be wrong, so defend your work and do not let the criticism daunt you. The prestige and reputation of the enterprise is at stake, so a properly conducted editorial rim provides an essential method of providing the printer or management or a conference first-rate work.

For the writer with no one turn to for help, editing is hard. It requires self-discipline and good sources of reference. The most important reference is a dictionary. There are others. They include: a thesaurus; Fowler's The King's English; Fowler's Modern English Usage; a dictionary of English etymology; a dictionary of synonyms and antonyms is also useful. The Authors & Printers Dictionary is a gem for checking the correct form for such abbreviations as i.e., e.g. and Latin tags such as et al that may be used and not fully understood or to be found in more common dictionaries.

In large government departments or enterprises in the civil sector, one is more likely to have the benefit of peer opinion and proof-reading than one finds in small organisations. It is therefore worth reiterating that when heart and soul have gone into a piece of writing criticism is difficult to accept. Criticism is a word preferred to critique, which is also criticism, but one applied to poetry or literary work, not texts produced in the applied sciences. Nor is there need to exalt criticism of technical writing with the word constructive, as in 'constructive criticism'. The more professional the writer the more easily he or she accepts censure. This is fact, not a fiction to make readers feel better when someone tears their work to shreds.

Writing is easy. Editing and re-writing is hard. Writing requires inspiration, editing and perspiration. Asked how he wrote such wonderful plays, G. B. Shaw said, 'It's one per cent inspiration and ninety-nine per cent perspiration.'

In many organisations, in addition to editing, important documents have to be approved before publication or being placed in the public domain. Important reports and documents reach the board of directors if they are intended for publication in journals, to be read at industry conferences and symposia, or for submission to government. Many large corporations guard their image and subject major documents to careful scrutiny. That image is not to be impaired by careless writing. One thing however is certain. He or she whose name is on the by-line of a document is ultimately responsible for its content no matter who edited, proof-read and approved the publication for circulation.

Proof-reading is not editing. A proof-reader looks for typographical errors, spelling mistakes and errors in punctuation. An editor looks for clarity, continuity, consistency and phrasing.

The best advice for any technical writer is that if a reviewer, editor or proof reader does not understand what is written, rewrite the offending passage whatever opinion the writer may hold. This is an important rule to bear in mind. Many benefits accrue from having others read one's work. Some are obvious; others less so.

Writers have the same problems with sentences as they do with words when they allow themselves to become mesmerized with wordy phrases. Such phrases cloud thinking and clutter a text with excessive timber. Overused phrases deaden writing and add to its weight like ballast in a ship. Hackneyed phrases are the sluggish ballast of technical papers and reports: 'In the event of' for 'when'; 'In the majority of instances' for 'most; 'The quality assurance review process' for 'QA review'.

In the same way that speakers use fillers with the spoken word – 'you know', 'if you will', 'like I said' – writers use written fillers from their ragbag of clichés to pad out a text. Padded reports, obvious to professional editors, are unnecessary. There is a difference between the written and spoken word.

In normal conversation, the speaker can say "I do that on a regular basis' or 'I recognize the importance of calandria levels' or 'I take a drink on the odd occasion.' In writing, we want to be concise because excess verbiage takes up space, so we write, 'I do that regularly', 'I know how important calandria levels are' and 'I drink occasionally.' Experienced writers correct such lapses when rewriting copy by cutting redundant words and phrases.

To illustrate the point on redundancy, consider the statement, 'Last night I decided to go to the theatre because I had nothing better to do.'

That you went to the theatre means you decided to go, so why to say so? 'I had nothing better to do' explains the decision to go without need for the 'decide'. Looseness in the spoken word is acceptable, but not in the written word. Short statements reduce the words needed to give the same information: 'Last night I went to the theatre. I had nothing better to do.'

One of the most frequently asked questions from those who attended our courses on writing had to do with editing. We used a passage from the nuclear industry to illustrate what could be done. The text concerned auditing in a nuclear power plant.

This is a 35-word statement. There is nothing about it grammatically at fault. It is however written in the passive voice. Here are three editorial observations.

Rewritten, the passage reads, 'Work groups do not know which completed work plans to return to the planning section. The auditors confirmed this by sampling additional work plans.' (24 words as compared with 35 in the original statement.)

top	Delta Tech Systems Inc HOME PAGE		top
	Delta Tech Systems Inc HOME PAGE
	Duke of York's Royal Military School Royal Hibernian Military School Reminiscences of a Queen's Army Schoolmistress World War I - The war to end all wars Books and Militaria	Publications and Papers Wellington on Waterloo Correspondence Related Links Contact
© A. W. Cockerill 2005 Site Map Contact me