10 creepy writing things

August 24th, 2009

In software development, it’s called “feature creep.” Here’s how it’s defined in Wikipedia:

Feature creep is the proliferation of features in a product such as computer software. Extra features go beyond the basic function of the product and can result in baroque over-complication rather than simple, elegant design.

Increasingly, the equivalent of feature creep is invading our written communication. It comes in the form of annoying traits that have embedded themselves like killer algae in our text. Here are my 10 creepy things in no particular order. I’d love to hear yours.

1. Those annoying quotation marks everywhere. Thanks to Lynne Truss for telling the world about this in Eats, Shoots & Leaves, and to Seth Godin for reminding us recently.

2. Improper use of apostrophes (thanks again, Seth).

3. Turning nouns into awful verbs. Don’t incent me, please.

4. Avoiding the active voice.

5. Misleading headlines and hard-to-identify jump heads.

6. Typos – they’re everywhere despite (or probably because of) spellcheckers.

7. The 50+ word sentence and 20-line paragraph.

8. Indirect sentences stacked up like planes at LaGuardia.

9. Excessive adverbs and exclamation points.

10. Jargon-filled corporate speak that only insiders understand.

When organizations let these things happen – in brochures, on web sites, in press releases, blogposts and tweets – one can only surmise that they don’t care whether people think they are stupid, careless and insensitive. You are what you communicate.

18 Responses to “10 creepy writing things”

  1. brent on 24 Aug 2009 at 4:52 pm

    This is a great list, Bob. I propose adding the inverse to #3. Why is it that we now must keep an eye on our marketing spend? I always thought we were supposed to that eye on the marketing spending. But, hey, what do I know?

  2. brent on 24 Aug 2009 at 4:55 pm

    *…to keep that eye…

    Leave it to me to introduce a typo in a comment while responding to a blog post that decries typos.

  3. bobc on 24 Aug 2009 at 5:30 pm

    Thanks Brent. Good idea re: the inverse to #3.

  4. Michael Gury on 24 Aug 2009 at 5:48 pm

    This is all interesting and certainly more crimes such as these ought to be reported to the writing police.

    I do take issue with the Wikipedia assertion that “baroque” is “over- complicated” versus “elegant”.

    That’s pretty creepy writing to me.

  5. bobc on 24 Aug 2009 at 6:05 pm

    Good point about Wikipedia definition, Michael.

  6. Melissa on 24 Aug 2009 at 9:46 pm

    I’m particularly irritated when people don’t follow their modifying phrases with the item, person or action they are modifying. I see this all the time.

    I also hate the use of cliches and the phrase ‘if you will,’

    Interesting list. Thanks for sharing.

  7. Kathy Hubbell on 24 Aug 2009 at 10:24 pm

    Great list, but I’ve got another one for you from my university students: mixing up singular and plural verbs and nouns. For example, “The company didn’t like the outcome, but they decided to use the information for themselves anyway.” I have more trouble convincing my students that a “company” in that use is a single entity. Come to think of it, I have trouble when reporters do the same thing.

  8. bobc on 25 Aug 2009 at 9:36 am

    Thanks Melissa and Kathy. Illegitimate second cousin to “if you will”: per se. Or the lazy, “etc., etc.”

    Sadly, Kathy, that mixing of singular and plural has almost become accepted, just as the distinction between “like” and “such as” eroded about 5 years ago.

    I’m not wanting to be a strong arm about this stuff, but it’s not a good thing to diminish language — or art, or music.

  9. Mike Jamieson on 25 Aug 2009 at 12:40 pm

    Bob,
    It’s hard to mix Public Relations writing with art and music. The latter two are about creativity and breaking the rules is almost required. Public Relations writing is about communication and I agree with you that good communicators are increasingly hard to find. As for creative writing, some of our best writing is about breaking rules as well, rules that can in fact stand in the way of the art form. I just finished reading “The Shipping News” and I am sure that the Pulitzer Prize winning novelist, E. Annie Proulx would have failed hish school English had she submitted that book as a term paper.

    I would also like to add my own pet peeve; the often whiney “you know what i mean?” If you have to ask, you should already know the answer.

  10. Paulo Nery on 25 Aug 2009 at 2:37 pm

    Excessive adverbs? Hadn’t noticed that one. I’m frequently moaning about the tendency to use adjectives in place of adverbs in speech. For instance, “I’m doing good” in response to “How you doing?”

    Perhaps there’s a recoil action where the adverbs people withhold from spoken conversation start popping up in written communications.

    I like to say that grammar is a set of guidelines, not a straight-jacket. But then, I write marketing copy, so what do I know. I will highly recommend though, “Mother Tongue” by Bill Bryson for anyone interested in dry humor and the English language.

    Thanks for sharing this fun list.

  11. bobc on 25 Aug 2009 at 2:40 pm

    I know what you mean Mike.

  12. bobc on 25 Aug 2009 at 2:43 pm

    Agree, Paulo, that grammar is a set of guidelines; nothing should be strictly by the book (whatever that book might be), no matter what you’re writing.

  13. asmoore on 25 Aug 2009 at 4:13 pm

    I would love to see the regeneration of the capital I – I am sick to death of students using “i.” Please forgive the quotation marks.

  14. AmyK on 26 Aug 2009 at 1:42 am

    One of my biggest creepy things is in your article heading: dates shown as ordinals when they should be in the cardinal figures.

  15. MargaretL on 27 Aug 2009 at 8:59 am

    Regarding #3–I’ve heard an even worse butchering of that noun on more than one occasion, from more than one client: incentivize. “We need a new program that will really incentivize our sales force.” Have you also noticed the use of the term “on board” in all sorts of new contexts beyond the maritime: “we need to get everyone on board with this project.” “This website will be used as an on-boarding tool for new staff…” It makes me, and my Roget’s, want to jump overboard.

  16. Elliot Nedas on 28 Aug 2009 at 6:43 am

    This situation is untenable. My fury is raging deep within the volcanic bowels of my cerebellum. Desperately I reach for the plateau of least linguistic transgression, yet, again and again we are drawn into the mire of twisted linguistic geometry. Then again, language is not physics therefore if we change the rules slightly the systems still functions. All be it at a annoying capacity…

  17. bobc on 28 Aug 2009 at 11:47 am

    I’m laughing, Elliot, laughing to keep from crying.

  18. Pamela Lacey on 04 Sep 2009 at 6:09 pm

    I’d love to meet the person who invented the term “value-add” to replace “benefit.”