By Mike Feinsilber
Harry Levins was a senior writer and writing coach at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. He dispatched daily emails to colleagues, critiquing the paper. His targets were stories from the Washington Post, New York Times, and Los Angeles Times news services as well as stories from the Associated Press and the Post-Dispatch.
“Wedgies” is what he called incidental information (nonrestrictive clauses, if you want to go formal) that were wedged into a sentence between subject and predicate and that could, just as easily and much more clearly, stand alone in an independent sentence.
When it does stand alone, shorter sentences result. And nothing makes copy lively as easily as making the sentences short.
Writers seem to fear short sentences; they think their copy will take on a see-Jane-run quality. That’s not likely unless every sentence is blunt. Readers read for information, and if we give it to them clearly they’ll keep reading.
Wedgies are anti-clarity. Here’s one of Harry’s wedgies in a story concerning President Clinton’s late-hour pardon of millionaire Marc Rich:
“The U.S. Attorney in New York, whose office had charged Rich and his partner, Pincus Green, in 1983 with tax evasion and trading with Iran while Americans were held hostage there, has started a criminal investigation of the pardon.”
Wrote Harry: “Wedgies pile complexity onto our sentences. The wedgie above dumps a mid-sentence snarl of four commas and 25 words onto readers. No wonder more and more of them set the paper aside.”
His cure: “The U.S. Attorney in New York has started a criminal investigation of the pardon. In 1983, that office charged Rich and partner Pincus Green with evading taxes and trading with Iran while Americans were held hostage there.
—–
With apologies to Jack’s longtime employer, here’s a wedgie from the Washingtonian with a caveat that this is from an article—about the legal problems of the author known as Zane—that undoubtedly was edited by lawyers as well as journalists:
Stewart, for his part, said in filings that he was “manipulated” in the marriage “for the convenience of [Roberts] since she is a famous author of pornographic material and has mothered three prior children—from three different men, out of wedlock and in which none of them are in their children’s lives.”
There’s a lot of trouble in that sentence beyond the wedgie (the phrase beginning “from three different…”).
Let’s do an autopsy:
—The quotation marks around a single word, “manipulated.” Single-word quotes are almost always unnecessary, give undue emphasis so the single word quoted, and act as a stop sign to the reader. Take the quote marks away and what changes? Nothing? Then be shed of them.
—The brackets around [Roberts]. I suspect they confuse readers, who don’t understand why they are there. The way to avoid them: begin the quote later in the sentence, after [Roberts], making it read: …said in filings that he was manipulated in the marriage for Roberts’ convenience “since she is … etc.”
—And the word “from.” I’m pretty sure the expression is mothered three children by three different men … etc.
Here’s a way to fix that sentence:
For his part, Stewart said in filings that he was manipulated into the marriage for Roberts’ convenience since she is a famous author of pornography and had mothered three children by three different men. He said all three were born out of wedlock and, he said, none of their fathers is involved in their lives.
—–
Maybe it’s unfair to make an issue of wedgies that are written by a non-professional writer, but here are two that make the case against wedging all too well. They were written by Charles A Birnbaum, president and CEO of The Cultural Landscape Foundation, and appeared in the Huffington Post in June under the headline, “Can Parks and Memorials Happily Co-Exist?”
Wedgie #1:
As we approach the July 21, 2015 design application deadline, what responsibilities does the multitude of stakeholders—members of the World War I Memorial Commission and its judges, landscape architects and related professionals who would compete for this commission, critics, and the general public—have to the design by Friedberg and Oehme van Sweden?
When 32 words separate the noun that’s the subject of a sentence (“responsibilities”) from its verb (“have”), it is sure that a wedgie has wormed its way the sentence.
Here’s one way to fix it:
Holding stakes in this competition for a new design are members of the World War I Memorial Commission and its judges as well as landscape architects and related professionals who would compete for this commission. Critics and the general public are also stakeholders. The deadline for submitting applications is July 21, 2015. As it approaches, they all should consider their responsibilities to the design by Friedberg and Oehme van Sweden.
Wedgie #2:
While it is a fraught process that requires approvals from numerous agencies and advisory panels, including the Commission of Fine Arts and the National Capital Planning Commission, when well managed with clearly articulated goals, the results can be impressive.
This wedgie (“including the Commission…”) carries a wedgie within (“when well managed…”).
Here’s one way it could be unwedgied:
It is a process fraught with pitfalls. It requires approvals from the Commission of Fine Arts and the National Capital Planning Commission among a number of agencies and advisory panels. But when the competition is well managed and has clear goals, the results can be impressive.
Mr. Birbaum: These are monumental wedgies. They wedge their way between the reader and his understanding of what you’re saying. Take the pledge: Think short. Give the comma key a break and hit the period key more often.
———-
Mike Feinsilber spent a quarter century with UPI in Pittsburgh, Columbus, Harrisburg, Newark, New York, Saigon and Washington and a quarter century with AP in Washington, with a spell as assistant bureau chief and a stint as writing coach. He was a deskman, reporter, and editor and he covered Congress and 18 political conventions.
Speak Your Mind