Words matter.

I want to write better descriptions. For example, when I wrote

...treating it as the kind of fact that always has been...

the "kind of" was kind of weak. I changed it to "sort of" but that was sort of weak, too. And they were both ambiguous: Did they mean "actually quite" or did they specify a type of fact? I went back-and-forth between kind of and sort of a few times, then suddenly settled on type of:

...treating it as the type of fact that always has been...

John Madden used to talk about "the red zone". And then everybody was talking about "the red zone". Except one announcer, who kept talking about "the red area".

It was just so wrong.

Area is a soft and squishy word with too many syllables. Too many vowels for football. Zone is a fast word, one syllable: you're in, you're out. It's perfect for the game.

Word Jumble (2): Parentheses as a formatting tool

Given this sentence:

"I'd rather have it and not need it than not have it and need it."

This is better, I think:

"I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it."

The first one is the way it comes out of my head. The second one is from a practical person I know, who probably never thinks about writing or organizing his words.

I compare having to not having. That's my style of logic.

The practical guy compares having to needing. That's clarity.


If it was just "having" versus "not having" that would be fine. But it's "having (and not needing)" and the alternative.

"Not" is a complication. It requires the reader to interrupt himself to do a logical test. It's better to put the "not" off to the end, where it becomes less important.

I'd rather have it (and not need it) than not have it (and need it).

Oh my god it came out that way again! But yeah, with parentheses it is easier to see the better form:

I'd rather have it (and not need it) than need it (and not have it).

Word Jumble

This comes up a lot at my work. Which phrase is better: 1) ... will help save you time. 2) ... will help you save time. Imagine each phrase as more than a 5-word sentence, and assume the "..." part must be important or those last five words would not be included. So you are concentrating on every word as you get to it. Which phase is better? I like number 2 because it says it will help me. I don't like number 1 because it says it will save me. So then I start thinking religious things, and that does not help me understand the page of instructions I'm trying to read. The thing of it is, I never even got to the last word. My mind was trying to shape meaning from the words as I read them. I don't know if everybody reads as I read. But for me, it helps to have the words in order so that I can understand what I read so far without waiting until I get to the last word.

Third Fourth Time's the Charm

If you don't know where to start, maybe the idea is too big. Consider breaking it up into two or three posts. If they have to go together, post 'em on the same day, an hour apart or something. I'm gonna go try breaking it up.

Secrets of a master

I've said it before: People don't just like Paul Krugman or dislike him. They love the guy or hate him. His writing evokes strong responses, because his writing is so effective.

I try to write that well, of course.

Krugman offers a few thoughts on his writing style in yesterday's But, And, Why.

1. informality.

2. "One thing that helps, I’ve found, is to give the writing a bit of a forward rush, with a kind of sprung or syncopated rhythm, which often involves sentences that are deliberately off center." (I don't know what that means.)

3. "as conversational a tone as I can manage."

"My bible in all this," he writes, "is George Orwell’s Politics and the English Language."

Okay.

Take it out!

Sometimes you can add one sentence, and take out a whole paragraph. Do it.

The organization of it

Developing a new post for the economics blog. I've seen a few links lately, saying debt is an inefficient tool for growth -- that a dollar of extra debt produces less than a dollar of extra output; less and less as the years go by. I want to write about that idea and those links.

I collect the links into a new post on my development blog. Nine links. Maybe some duplication; I'll work that out later.

What to do with it? No idea. I turn off the computer and watch The Social Network again. No particular relevance to the choice of movie; it wasn't even my choice.

After the movie, thinking about those links. What to do with them.

I can find interesting excerpts in each of them, all saying pretty much the same thing, I expect.

But everybody has a different resolution to the problem.

That's it: Two parts.

Part One: General agreement, everybody says the same thing.

Part Two: Different solutions. Organized somehow to make mine stand out.

Definitely, group all the general agreement stuff first, and then group all the solutions stuff next. Definitely not, statement-and-solution for each.

This will make an effective presentation, I think.