When it comes to writing, I have a rule I made up a long time ago that's worked to perfection over the years, so I thought I'd pass it along.
It's very simple, and you wordsmiths out there might already employ it subconsciously.
I had a perfect example just the other day, which prompted me to write this piece. I had written in a post:
Try telling it to the F.C.C.
I pondered whether it was a common enough acronym to leave out the periods, like 'NASA' and 'NBC', but I knew it was one of those things the 3-Notice Rule would catch, so I left them in. This was the first 'notice'.
I finished up the post and hit the 'Save' button, then the 'Preview' button to proofread it. I got to the above line and hesitated, thinking it might look better without the periods, then read on. This was the second 'notice'. I knew what was coming, but rules are rules.
Then I posted the article and gave it one more proofread (the actual Web page is wider than the editor, so things look a tad different) and noticed it again — that is, the sentence just didn't flow like it should have — and that was it.
I popped open the editor and changed it to:
Try telling it to the FCC.
Then I read it through again and this time I flew right through the line without hesitation.
I guess you could say I'm quantifying a bit of common sense here. By making it a 'rule', though, you're forced to stop at that third 'notice' and change the damn thing, no matter how trivial it is. In other words, yes, it's a pain to open the editor just to change one tiny little thing, but this is about readability — which overrides everything else — including our own inherent laziness. So, if the 3-Notice Rule catches it, you're obligated to fix it right then and there — or throw the damn rule out.
More examples below the fold.
Here's another example from the same post. I had first written:
I hadn't played the game in a while, so I thought I'd take it out for a spin.
When I proofread it, I wondered if I should leave in that 'breath comma' (a comma where you'd pause if you were speaking it out loud, but doesn't belong by the rules of English), and the third time I hit it I said, "That's it" and removed it.
I hadn't played the game in a while so I thought I'd take it out for a spin.
And the main point is that the converse could also have been true. I could have left out the comma originally (following the rules of English), then, every time I read it afterward, it might have seemed like there ought to be a slight pause there and, after the 3rd notice, I would have put the breath comma in. I normally don't like breath commas, simply because they're not 'correct', but every now and then a sentence just works better with one. That is, you want that little pause there so the reader can get mentally caught up and thereby receive the full import of the second half of the sentence.
And here's another example:
No more than one washer load of clothes can be kept available
I had first written it "washerload", but the spell-checker said it was mixspelled so I dutifully changed it to the above. Then, after the third time I noticed that it looked a little awkward, I went over to Google and:
"washer load" = 633, 000 hits
"washerload" = 2,670,000 hits
I changed it to "washerload" and told the spell-checker to "Get with the program, buddy."
Another example. Catch this subtle difference:
...then they have to be either thrown away or put in a box in the attic.
After the 3rd notice, I changed it to:
...then they have to either be thrown away or put in a box in the attic.
I guess you could say that both are right, but the flow is everything.
To sum up, let the 3-Notice Rule be your guide. If you hit a hesitant moment like in the above examples, just type it out one way or the other and rely upon the 3-Notice Rule to sort things out later. If you're still catching it on the 3rd 'notice', it's changed.
Screw the rules of English, and screw what the spell-checker says. In the real world of conveying a thought, readability is everything.
Tracked: May 31, 11:28