Really bad writing in an invitation

I recently had an invitation to a workshop on climate change, and although I could not attend - I was going to different meeting - I treasure the awfulness of the writing in this invitation.

The invitation was to a "Workshop on the development of a Climate Change Risk Assessment Tool" (original capitals).

For a start, the structure and content of the first paragraph did not say what it was that participants would be expected to do. Work it out from this:

"The development of a climate change risk assessment tool aims to provide a climate change risk matrix that is understood and relevant to natural resources management stakeholders in the south west region of Western Australia."

I guess you can see that it makes hard work for the reader to unravel this. There is no subject: Who was going to develop the "tool". Well I also guess that it was to be the workshop participants, although that is proved incorrect later in the invitation. As it turns out, the "climate change risk assessment tool" IS the climate change risk matrix - I think. There is no active verb.

There are many definitions of the word 'tool', but it's use and misuse had become a mantra (see Joe Roy's blog). 'Matrix' almost falls into the same category, and 'stakeholder' certainly does. Perhaps the sentence would have been easier to understand - and more relevant - if it was "Workshop participants will refine a climate change risk matrix that is to be used by south-west Western Australian natural resource managers."

The second sentence was no more help: "The risk matrix will then be applied as the basis of a selfguided tool for SWCC to enable a process for (and a standard in) climate change risk assessments throughout the region." Ouch!

More later.

Verbs - active, passive and 'nominalised'

I was Googling around to see what was being said about the use of active verbs, as one does on a quiet night after a few glasses of wine, and was gobsmacked to see the number of university sites defending passive verbs. Even worse, the authors were advising students, for some purposes, to remove all personal pronouns, as this was more formal and academic.

Are there other universities doing this? Are schools still teaching this style? I am horrified to think so, but my experience with adult, tertiary educated writers seems to bear this out. I have seen non-critical readers accept this formal style, and be impressed with the learnedness of the character that wrote the article. On the other hand, I have heard critical readers immediately ask "Who did it? What did they actually do? And who or what did they affect?"

So, is there a case for not using personal pronouns, and a case for not using active verbs? If there is, then it needs to be made each time it happens.

How about this from an agricultural show booklet - all the capitals, line breaks and punctuation (or lack of) are from the booklet:
"Directions for Public access to Showground Office prior to Woolorama
Entry from Kitchener Street at Pony Club entrance into showgrounds.
Drive into trotting track and park in front of Recreation Centre."

Could this be "You can reach the showground office before Woolorama by entering the Kitchener Street Pony Club entrance, driving onto the trotting track and parking in front of the Recreation Centre. The office is on the left of the Recreation Centre looking from the trotting track."

I deduced that last part from the map, which did not have Kitchener Street or the trotting track marked.

Cathy Moore's blog -"WELL...DUH!"

If you read or edit or write, you have to visit this site. I often think "How am I going to tell this author that they are stating the obvious, telling their grandmother to suck eggs, being insultingly simplistic to people that know better, and so-on. Well, Cathy Moore has the answer. Say "WELL...DUH!"

The presentation is a gem of brevity and humour, and the very next bit of work I picked up to edit had me rolling off my chair saying out loud "WELL...DUH!"

Web sites that make me think "Don't" #1 (Steve Kruger re-arranged)

How often do you get deflected from an online search by 'death sentences'--a triumph of bad style over potentially good content. I use the worst of the worst to keep my disgust fresh--thanks to Don Watson for this term and his marvelous book Death Sentence: The decay of public language. Bye the way, if you know the origin of that saying--keep my disgust fresh--please tell me.

For this exercise, I will choose badly written web sites that have a lot of people and resources behind them, and also expect their web sites to be read and elicit a response. I will point out what many well experienced authors have done before me, which is to show how good English usage and good writing for the web will work, when sloppy and bureaucratic language will turn people away. Home page and first writing on the page:

"Welcome to the website of the Environmental Protection Authority of Western Australia.

The EPA was established by Parliament as an independent Authority with the broad objective of protecting the State's environment.

This is undertaken through the process of providing overarching environmental advice to the Minister for the Environment through the preparation of environmental protection policies and the assessment of development proposals and management plans, as well as providing public statements about matters of environmental importance."

More is on http://www.epa.wa.gov.au/

• "Welcome to the website..."? I know where I am, and that I do not feel welcome
• I really do not want to know how the EPA was established, but I DO want to know what information and other resources I can get from this large and important Department.
• That second paragraph could grace the pages of Death Sentence, On Writing Well and any other author's book that shows us salutary examples of bad writing. "overarching environmental advice" is probably important, as are the other activities of the Department, although it is hard to see how those activities lead to the "broad objective of protecting the State's environment."
• So who was the audience for this site? Well, I know that some people need to get, read and comply with Government policy, and they can to some extent do that from this site. But, the overwhelming impression is that this is a 'brochure-ware' site--a convenient way of dumping a lot of publications and other text.

I guess you know that usability testing for web sites is a recommended process, so it was with some joy that I found an Interim Industry Consultation Guide to Community Consultation on the site, unfortunately dated December 2003, and it is in its own right worth a read--that is, if you are an editor and want to ply your trade.

Trust us, we are from the Government: GM crops

How many odd FAQs have you seen? Worse than frequently asked questions that no sensible person would ask, are the answers that do not answer the intent of the question. FAQs on Genetic Modification (GM) often fall into this error. Many people consider the subject of GM to be a lot more than a concern about the science --so a sensitive FAQ writer may have tried to pose and answer questions about worries, concerns, and dealing with problems that arise.

"Q: What assurances can be given to farmers who want to remain GM-free?
A: As a condition of allowing the trials the GM crops will need to be grown using Best Management Practices. Harvesting and transport of the canola will be undertaken in such a way as to prevent seed loss outside the sown area. The Roundup Ready canola will be delivered to specific delivery points in the CBH system where it can be segregated and monitored." There is more, but you can check that out yourself.

I could have imagined myself a farmer concerned about GM contamination, or even asked a few farmers about the questions they would ask, then answered in a way that they may have felt was sufficient. So a good FAQ (but not the answer) is:

"Q: Will the government consider a strict liability regime?
A: The Government is not considering the introduction of strict liability legislation. Australian and international reports have concluded that common law is sufficient to deal with any issues that may arise from growing GM crops."

How would you work with the author of this set of FAQs to improve the writing?

West Australian lead para 3 Jan 2009

I will put the paragraph as a quote, then add comments and alternatives. I have fun doing this, and would like to hear from any of you that also have fun working with flabby text.

"Perth's property market is set to post its worst performance in 20 years, with the head of WA's peak real estate body warning that figures out later this month were expected to show prices plunged by about 11 per cent last year."

I liked the image of the head of a peak body, but then got confused about the tense: warning that figures out later this month, expected to show, prices plunged, last year. And "...plunged by about 11 per cent..." is weak.I didn't even mention that a property market cannot post anything, much less use the weak verb form "is set to post". So what are some of the options?

1. The head of WA's peak real estate body said that average property prices dropped by 11 per cent in the last 12 months. This is the biggest drop for the Perth property market in 20 years.
2. Perth property prices dropped by 11 per cent last year, according to the head of WA's peak real estate body. Name, president of REIWA, said that this was the worst price drop in 20 years.

It was only later in the article that the real estate body and its head were named.