C.R.I.S.P. — The Core of the Style Revision Method (1.) — Letter C for CLARIFY
Regarding my acronym C.R.I.S.P., the first three “letters” or techniques / tactics / actions are the main elements of the method. The goal is to achieve Maximum Meaning in the Minimum Number of Words. The last two points of the method — the “S” and the “P” — are a bit more advanced and have the ultimate purpose of creating Maximum Effect in the Optimal Number of Words. We’ll later see why “minimum” is not always “optimum.”
So, with the letter “C” for CLARIFY, I noted in a previous posting this means, essentially: DELETE; as Strunk and White proclaim, “Omit needless words!”; get rid of the verbiage that does not serve your purpose or intent. As with all of the parts of this method, there are several specifics to consider in this clarification process. This “step” need not be a “step” at all — in the sense of the beginning of an actual process or procedure: “first this, then this.” But, it seems to me that it might properly be usually done before the other tactics of the method. So, specifically, you should delete from your (not necessarily horrendous, but likely more unwieldy than it need be) rough sentence the following:
- Things that the Ideal Reader already knows — in other words, insults to the intelligence of the Ideal Reader (the one to whom, in your “Mind’s Eye” you are imagining as your readership[I don’t like “audience,” since it implies hearing rather than reading]). In almost all cases, this reader would not be reading your stuff at all if they hadn’t already brought something — maybe a great deal — “to the table.”
- Redundant elements: accidental repetitions or paraphrases that add nothing to your communication of your purpose.
- Irrelevant elements: anything that is tangential at this point or, perhaps, entirely off-topic.
- Violations of the “Rule of Opposite [Antonymic] Modifiers,” as I call it. With all of the adjectives and adverbs used, ask yourself if the antonym makes any sense in the same context. A good example would be “close scrutiny.” There are no “distant scrutinies!” The Latin scrutinare has “close” built right into it: “to examine closely or minutely.” “Future plans”….I guess we could make “past plans,” but it’s a bit late.
- Most references to yourself as the writer. The First Person voice does have uses (especially in narrative writing, it letter writing, in ones diary), but — especially in exposition or argumentation — it wastes the reader’s time. If your draft has lots of “I thinks” or “in my opinions,” etc. — these add nothing and might even detract a bit from a firmly stated position.
- Anything that might limit or confine the scope of your readership. This is especially true in exposition or argumentation. Don’t write — “It is my intent/thesis/purpose….” Just get to it and state your case. Write as if ANYONE who might be interested in your content is a potential reader. So, “It is my purpose in this research paper of at least 15 pages and presenting at least five secondary sources to suggest that….” — is OUT!
- Most unassertive elements and hedges, such as “perhaps” and “might be possible” — write things LIKE YOU MEAN THEM. To use a nifty chiasmus: “Say what you mean and mean what you say.”
