Last year’s version: Good writers don’t waste words or write meaningless sentences. They know that flabby sentences are tiring to readers, and that vagueness frustrates understanding. They want each sentence to compel their readers to advance toward the conclusion without carrying a lot of baggage or meandering from the path.
Good writers pack light for even the longest trip. They feel the weight of every word, and carry no more than they need. Readers following along appreciate shortcuts, especially when climbing, and are delighted not to be asked to lug anything. Remember those readers when you write; keep things lean, avoid detours and double-backs, and post signs for others to follow.
Last year: Verbosity and vagueness might not be catastrophic for audiences that already agree with the writer’s point of view, but when readers are antagonistic or just reluctant to be convinced— which is most of the time—no writer can afford to waste their time or underestimate their intelligence because, whether or not they understand why, readers who feel disrespected will find something else to do. And when they stop reading, we’ve lost the argument.
But mostly, have a worthwhile destination. Readers who agree with you will follow only if you show them a new route. Readers who disagree will try to push you onto every side street. Keep your eye on the mountaintop and climb up with every step. If you waste your readers’ time, or ask them to carry you, they will find another guide.
Do not make your readers carry you.
Problem 1:
Packing the bag with dead weight.
The author of this article has a lot to say about the nature of the current economy and how it is affected by international competition.
- The writer neglects to say anything about the economy.
- The writer neglects to say anything about international competition.
- The writer neglects to say anything about the author’s opinion.
Solution 1:
Use the essentials
Author Kennedy believes the current weak US economy and high unemployment are the direct result of having to compete more with other countries.
We could defend the dead weight by claiming that it is merely an introduction that will be rescued from vagueness by details to follow about the weak economy and global competitiveness, except that no reader is obligated to read our next sentence. but that would be like requiring mountain climbers to run in place before starting their climb. Readers need the details when they do the most good. Every promise of information to come is another waste of energy, another piece of luggage to carry. Once their arms are full and we start loading up their backpacks, they will find another guide.
Problem 2:
Running in place.
Ever since the events of 9/11, our government and the country we live in have been very much impacted by what we all experienced that day.
- The writer neglects to say in any way what events occurred on 9/11.
- The writer neglects to say whether the government and the country changed in the same way or in different ways.
- The writer neglects to say whether the changes have been positive, negative, or a mixed bag, the same for all, or better for some than for others.
- The writer neglects to say whether what we experienced is the same as the events of 9/11 or whether our experience of the events is the impact.
Solution 2:
Make every step count
The unprovoked violence of 9/11 struck such fear into Americans that our government felt obligated to impose a series of severe, sometimes intrusive, security measures on its own citizens.
Please note that writing purposeful, resourceful sentences is different from writing short sentences, different from editing to save words. Brevity may be an additional benefit of your editing (like a lighter pack or blisterless feet), but the primary benefit is the direct path toward your meaningful conclusion. In this class we climb for the mountaintop, not the scenery.
Problem for you to solve:
After spending weeks with veterans and their families, Mac McClelland thinks there are many important effects that war can have on the children of soldiers even though the kids don’t actually go to war.
In-class Exercise: Use your reading of “Is PTSD Contagious” as your source material for a sentence that, unlike the one above, says something. Write your sentence as a Reply.
Assignment Update
So far, I’ve received and responded to Replies from:
- John Gross
- Taylor
- Marcus
- Benjamin (but not Ben)
- Drew
- Angela
- Stephen
- Josue
- Luke
- That’s not 20.
- Where are the rest of these?
- If you haven’t posted one yet, now’s the time, before we get snowed in again.
alwaystired247
AnonymousStudent
azntaco
beforeverge
BigBabyBaller
bitagaming
breakingbad1820
Caravan
cinderella1013
davidbdale
Yankeelover18
fatboy489zt
giantsfan224
glacierfreeze21
gobirds17
green0728
gymrat230
Gir
jerseymikes1106
jesusisking1738
jetsfan806
Kenneth Alex Krug
manipulator66
mercythyhealer14
McCormick Karner
mochaatrain
oni
powerranger
peanut2348
pinkcottoncandy4
princess01430
redbird1123
rubes1256
shxrkbait
sillyinternetperson
soulpond47240
spatel8267
stingingcrib5
tacotyphoon
thepersonindisguise
usmnt23
worldofjuice999
xephos1
Counterintuitive Fall 2022 
PTSD may not be an air borne contagion, but it can certainly bring similar anxiety upon those who interact with it regularly.
Good effort, John, but not technically correct. You can’t call anything “a contagion.” It’s a noun like “contagiousness.” It’s a little hard to picture someone “interacting” with PTSD too (although we could certainly interact with a family member suffering with PTSD). How do you feel about: “PTSD may not be a contagious physical disease, but it can certainly infect those who are exposed to it with anxiety as intense as a case of PTSD.”
A person can develop symptoms of PTSD, even having not gone to war, if he or she repeatedly comes in contact with it.
Nice work, Taylor. You haven’t heard me rant against “he or she” yet, but you will. Try to avoid it in the meantime, just for practice. The easiest, most economical, and most communicative was to avoid imprecise pronouns is with very specific nouns. How about: Noncombatants can develop symptoms of PTSD by repeatedly coming into contact with it.
Although the families of PTSD victims don’t physically go to war, they can suffer from similar symptoms as the veterans that served.
Your fine sentence illustrates a grammar problem I’m going to try to work out the long way for my own sake (and maybe yours). Phrasing the similarity economically is a challenge.
Technically we should be saying: “they can suffer symptoms similar to those suffered by the veterans who served.” It would be wonderful to be able to eliminate the clunky and repetitive: “suffer symptoms similar to those suffered by.”
But your version, to be economical, makes the mistake of equating symptoms and veterans, so we want to avoid that too.
We could start with the symptoms and give them a more active verb: The same symptoms of PTSD afflict both veterans who serve and their families who don’t go to war.
Or we could start with the veterans and make them the culprits: Soldiers returning from war pass on their PTSD symptoms to their families who stayed home.
Or maybe we can stay with the families you started with: Families of returning veterans can suffer the same PTSD symptoms their loved ones come home with.
In no case did we have to resort to A suffers symptoms similar to those suffered by B. What do you think?
—Watch
Victims of PTSD can spread their symptoms to members of their family due to such close contact and interaction with them.
This is very nice, Benjamin, despite my one quibble. Although it’s often misused, “due to” actually means “caused by” not “because of.” Make the substitution in your sentence and you’ll hear how wrong that would be. To avoid any such difficulty, I recommend avoiding “due to” entirely.
In the case of your fine sentence, I’d suggest: Victims of PTSD can spread their symptoms to members of their family through close contact and interaction.
Families of soldiers who return from war with PTSD should be wary of such symptoms, for they are at risk of experiencing similar behaviors.
This is a novel approach, Drew. The “should be wary” and “are at risk” are a nice pair. I misjudged for a moment and thought “they” were the symptoms, as in “for they are extremely dangerous.” I wonder if only I will be so confused. I don’t think you want to save “experiencing similar behaviors” because it doesn’t communicate what you want, that the family members will begin to exhibit such behaviors, not experience them. Very nice work.
PTSD is possible for non-war veterans to develop due to the constant interaction and fear of being around a person who was previously diagnosed with this disorder.
You have a knack for finding my pet peeves, Angela. 🙂 You’ll have to decide for yourself whether to humor me or ignore my personal preferences in favor of your own. But give me one chance to discourage you.
Let’s get rid of the indirect and clumsy “is possible to develop” in favor of something more direct like “can develop” and then maybe lose that too.
Now to decide whether PTSD develops in non-veterans, or whether non-veterans develop PTSD. I’d vote for the second in a heartbeat.
Now, if they “can” develop PTSD, then many “do” develop, so: Non-war veterans develop PTSD due to the constant interaction and fear of being around a person who was previously diagnosed with this disorder.
Now, you can’t combine the grammatically different “interaction and fear of being around” a person. You’d have to say “interaction WITH and fear of being AROUND” a person. So: Non-war veterans develop PTSD due to the constant and frightening interactions with a person who was previously diagnosed with this disorder.
Now, a person who was previously diagnosed with this disorder is a PTSD sufferer. So: Non-war veterans develop traumatic stress symptoms due to constant and frightening interactions with a PTSD sufferer.
Finally, “due to” actually means “caused by” not “because of,” though it’s often misused. Find a substitute to avoid the problem.
So: Constant and frightening interactions with a PTSD sufferer cause non-war veterans to develop traumatic stress symptoms.
There’s the menu, Angela. Take as much advice as you like.
Families are in danger of experiencing PTSD-like symptoms that are given from an affected close relative.
This gets a lot right, Stephen. Experiencing symptoms is slightly different from having them (since you can “experience” them in others). “Given” is a little odd (since it sounds as if we might be able to refuse them). So, just a couple tweaks if you like them:
Families are in danger of developing PTSD-like symptoms from living with an affected close relative.
Reoccurring thoughts of losing a loved one along with knowing that they will never be the same again can be considered Traumatic events by themselves, so it makes sense that families can develop PTSD like symptoms from veteran family members.
That’s terrific, Josue. I hope my admiration for it will demonstrate that I don’t necessarily want to suck every last word out of a sentence. This one has a strong balance between idea count and word count (what I suppose we could call claim density). The “can be considered” invites debate, which seems appropriate when we’re trying to decide on a diagnosis. You come close to answering the question of whether PTSD is contagious, but back off concluding it is by calling the symptoms “PTSD-like” instead of symptoms of PTSD. So your conclusion is clear and nuanced, not evasive. Very reasonable.
You do use a pronoun in a way that is still “considered” an error. Your “a loved one along with knowing that they will never be the same again” treats that loved one first as a single person [a loved one] and then as a group [they will never be the same]. Plurals are the best way to avoid this conflict.
Very nice work.
Families and loved ones are faced with the possibility of experiencing PTSD-like symptoms upon veteran family members returning home and their interactions with them..
This is good, Luke. You draw the subtle conclusion that the family members probably wouldn’t be diagnosed with PTSD though they exhibit some symptoms.
I’m hoping to infect everyone with my own symptoms: a preference for active verb constructions and fewer pronouns.
Active Verbs: Facing a possibility is already pretty passive, but BEING FACED WITH a possibility is total victimhood. Actively phrased, those family members “risk developing symptoms.”
Fewer Pronouns: You’ve got families, loved ones, symptoms, veterans, and family members to account for in this sentence so your “their interactions with them” takes time to unpack. You could pack lighter.
Everyone in the household risks developing PTSD symptoms when the veteran returns home.
Your thoughts?
I like the critique and am still getting used to the less is more idea. I completely agree the “their interactions with them” is a bit long.