In my line of work I review a lot of papers and briefings. The primary purpose of these papers is to advocate for something, or to recommend a course of action. Maybe it is just my style to cut through the issues to the heart of the matter but I see an increasing use of passive voice and big words that just obscure the writer’s intent.
For example, we have a style for the papers that calls for a structure where you state the purpose of the paper, give the background of the issue, and then discusses the issue and finally make a recommendation. Here is a typical example I see.
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to address the problems the contractor has found with the radar system, what has gone on to this point and how they think they will propose tentative solutions which would need the commander to consider before he is to approve.
I think the same information can be condensed to:
Purpose: To provide the commander with an explanation of problems with the radar system and what the contractor intends to do to resolve them.
What is frustrating for me is my inability to convey the importance of clear, simple writing when you are trying to persuade someone.
Ah well, maybe it is my outgoing demeanor… Perhaps I shouldn't start the critique with a question about how they got into college in the first place?
4 comments:
You truly are old fashioned... this is the dawning of the age of obfuscation...the age of obfuscaaa-tion...obfuscation. If you sing this several times to the tune of "The Dawning of the Age Aquarius" it will cool your jets and you will be down to speed, so to speak.
I wonder if these kinds of things don't go in cycles. After all, Hemmingway's sparse prose was only so in comparison to that which people were used to.
Just glad I haven't been working on any radar initiatives lately... But I am still tempted to remove random vowels to condense content... :-)
LL, 'ky jst b crfl. for lack of a vowel you can easily confuse shot for shit.
Post a Comment