A Brief Review of Richard Lanham’s Revising Prose
Writing Clearly and Directly - It’s a Concept
While those who have previously read two or more Heck Of A Guy posts will find it suspect, I have been reading a book, Revising Prose by Richard Lanham, devoted to purging literary excesses, improving clarity, and, most of all, eradicating what the author disdainfully labels “Official Style.”
The Bad News
1. This technique hasn’t – yet – had a dramatic effect on my final copy. My revisions, in fact, tend to expand rather than condense my pieces, which would, I’m certain, appall Mr. Lanham. Were he to zealously apply his “Paramedic Method” to this post, for example, the reader would have completed today’s Heck Of A Guy blog entry by now.
2. The first two chapters, Action and Shape, are interesting, immediately useful, and even inspiring – the rest, not so much.
3. Although the writing style advocated is economical, the book is expensive – the Fifth Edition (in paperback) is $42.50 this morning at Amazon1
The Good News
1. I have already eliminated a few of my most flagrant verbiage violations and am working on a few others.
2. The strategy is appealing, appears valid, and, because it is rule-driven, can be learned (or taught).
3. There are many used copies for sale (for as low as $10 for the Fourth Edition) and the first two chapters, the ones that appear most beneficial, are, according to reviewers, little changed from the Fourth to the Fifth Edition so those on budgets may opt for whichever edition is less costly.
Lanham’s Paramedic Method2
[Note: In this shorthand format, the rules are of minimal use. Each is expanded in the text of Revising Prose. I've included them here only as an indication of the type of issues Lanham addresses]
1. Circle the prepositions.
2. Circle the “is” forms.
3. Ask “Who is kicking who?”
4. Put this “kicking” action in a simple (not compound) active verb.
5. Start fast–no mindless introductions.
6. Write out each sentence on a blank sheet of paper and mark off its basic rhythmic units.
7. Mark off sentence lengths.
8. Read the passage aloud with emphasis and feeling.
The Titillating Example
This excerpt from Chapter 1 is one of several examples Lanham uses to explain his technique:
Where’s the action in “physical satisfaction is the most obvious of the consequences of premarital sex”? Buried down there in “satisfaction.” But just asking the question reveals other problems. Satisfaction isn’t a consequence of premarital sex, in the same way that, say, pregnancy is. And, as generations of both sexes will attest, sex, premarital or otherwise, does not always satisfy. Beyond all this, the contrast between the clinical phrasing of the sentence, with its lifeless “is” verb, and the life-giving power of lust in action makes the sentence seem almost funny. Excavating the action from “satisfaction” yields “Premarital sex satisfies! Obviously!” This gives us a Lard Factor of 66% and a comedy factor even higher. (You find the Lard Factor by dividing the difference between the number of words in the original and the revision by the number of words in the original. In this case, 12-4 = 8; 8 ÷ 12 = 67%. If you’ve not paid attention to your own writing before, think of a Lard Factor (LF) of one-third to one-half as normal, and don’t stop revising until you’ve removed it. The comedy factor in prose revision, though often equally great, does not lend itself to numerical calculation.)
By how else do we revise here? “Premarital sex is fun, obviously” may be a little better, but we remain in thrall to “is.” And the frequent falsity of the observation stands out yet more. Revision has exposed the empty thinking. The writer makes it even worse by continuing, “Some degree of physical satisfaction is present in almost all coitus.” Add it all together and we get something like “People usually enjoy premarital sex” (LF 58%). At its worst, academic prose makes us laugh by describing ordinary reality in extraordinary language.
The Afterglow
The thesis of Revising Prose is that a writer should present information as clearly, directly, and economically as possible. Anyone who agrees with that premise and who writes as part of his or her job or avocation, whether the field is business, education, science, medicine, or blogging, will find this a worthwhile manual.
Footnotes
