<---

Removing Fluff

A general guide to composition is to “be concise”. What does that mean? We can be more concise in two ways:

1. omit any words or phrases while preserving our meaning
2. rewrite sentences while preserving our meaning

Omitting Words

With respect to (1), Alexander Bain wrote that if we are following the principle of “attaining ends at the smallest costs, it is a virtue of language to be brief” (p.27). More concisely, William Shrunk Jr. (1918) says to “omit needless words”:

“A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts.” (p.21)

Let’s consider a few examples of sentences with “needless words”. Consider the following sentence:

“Her story is a strange one.”

This sentence is concise but we can make it more concise by eliminating two words. Can you see which ones?

“Her story is a strange one.”

Another example from Shrunk Jr. is that we can eliminate the fact from sentences:

1. Tek was unaware of the fact that the earth is a sphere.
2. Tek didn’t know the fact that the earth is a sphere.

Here is a third example. Bain writes that we sometimes use two words where one will do. That is, we can eliminate the other word when it is practically equivalent to the other, or when the difference of meaning between the two is not important. Here is an example:

“it was the privilege and birthright of every citizen and poet, to rail aloud and in public.”

This sentence may be simplified as follows:

“it was the privilege of every citizen to rail in public.”

Try to simplify the following sentences:

1. Tek’s mind is the sharpest and keenest
2. Tek’s plan was pure and simple
3. The politician provokes and incites
4. The idea fades and vanishes
5. I was stocked and astonished to hear

Rewriting sentences

Rather than removing words, another way to remove fluff is to rewrite the sentence. Our discussion of how to simplify sentences revolves around the following “Master Rule”:

Rule 1: Substitute words for phrases.

Consider the following sentence:

• “Tek is turned a blind eye to Liz.”
• “Tek is turned a deaf ear to Liz.”

If we mean to say that Tek intentionally disregarded Liz, we can rewrite this sentence by substituting a single word for the highlighted phrase:

• “Tek ignored Liz.”

But what about if Tek’s disregard of Liz is unintentional? For example,

• “Tek did not pay attention to Liz”.
• “Tek took no notice of Liz.”

The above sentences may be rewritten as follows:

• “Tek overlooked Liz.”

Consider scenarios in which the Master Rule might be applied. One common scenario is when a phrase says something is not the case.

Rule 1.1: Check whether there is a single word that captures the meaning of a negative phrase (phrases where something is denied of something else).

Consider the following example:

• “Tek did not have confidence in his abilities.”

The negative phrase in the sentence above may be replaced as follows:

• “Tek distrusted his abilities.”

Another example:

• “Tek was not paying attention during the lesson.”

The negative phrase in the sentence above may be replaced as follows:

• “Tek inattentive during the lesson.”

Another common scenario for when the Master Rule might be applied is when phrases are used to soften sentences (see Gowers, The Complete Plain Words, p.69). Suppose you ask for a raise. You receive the following response:

• “The Company is not prepared to approve your request for a raise.”
• “The Company is not in a position to approve your request for a raise.”
• “The Company does not see a way to approve your request for a raise.”

The above can be rewritten as follows:

• “The Company rejects your request for a raise.”
• “The Company denies your request for a raise.”

The former group of sentences is probably more polite (albeit potentially dishonest), while the latter is more direct.

Philosophical Fluff

Let’s pick out one piece of philosophical fluff often found in philosophical essays. Beginning writers are often uncertain about their claims and so they use language to express that uncertainty. Let’s consider an example. Suppose Tek is tasked with arguing that theory T is true. He provides several arguments that theory T is true. However, he concludes his paper as follows:

“Therefore, from my point of view, theory T seems like it is true.”

There are two pieces of “fluff” in this sentence. The first is that it is irrelevant for Tek to say that theory T is true “from my point of view”. It is irrelevant because the truth of the theory and the reasons presumably are independent on the author’s point of view. Tek’s sentence can thus be shortened as follows:

“Therefore, from my point of view, theory T seems like it is true.”

The second piece of fluff is the use of “seems”. Tek was tasked with arguing for showing that “theory T is true” not with “theory T seeming to be true”.

“Therefore, from my point of view, theory T seems like it is true.”

References

1. Strunk Jr., William. 1918. The Elements of Style. Ithaca, NY: Privately Printed.
2. Bain, Alexander. 1887. English Composition and Rhetoric. Enlarged Edition. New York: D. Appleton and Company.