IF IT IS POSSIBLE TO CUT A WORD OUT, ALWAYS CUT IT OUT.

Economy in style is important. Deleting unnecessary words and phrases, which do not carry
ideas forward but merely clog up the reader’s thoughts, is essential if your writing is to be concise
and effective.

Again, Q offers a useful example: “Has a Minister to say „No‟ in the House of Commons? Some
men are constitutionally incapable of saying no: but the Minister conveys it thus—„The answer to
the question is in the negative.‟ That means „no.‟ Can you discover it to mean anything less, or
anything more except that the speaker is a pompous person?—which was no part of the
information demanded.”

Applying this rule generally enables simpler, cleaner, and less cluttered writing, but many writers
see simplicity as undesirable, preferring to present more rather than less, in case their writing is
deemed simplistic and therefore insubstantial. In this respect, the approach of the renowned
architect Mies van der Rohe is appropriate—Less is more—he counselled, and he was right.
Some think simplicity will betray them, leading their readers to conclude that their work itself is
simplistic, only because they are explaining it simply. In fact, most modern readers appreciate
simplicity. It was Leonardo da Vinci who said, “Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication,” although
admittedly he did say it in mirror writing and in code. If you prefer your inspiration a little less
esoteric and a little more up to date, Coco Chanel said, “Simplicity is the keynote of all true
elegance.” In other words, when it comes to editing, think: little black dress.

One final thought here concerns our pet peeves. It was William Faulkner who said, “In writing,
you must kill your darlings.” Every first or second draft contains the author’s favourite sentence or
phrase simply because he or she thinks it is beautiful, charming, or erudite. Pet peeves are
particular (or so-called) mistakes which cause people to feel particularly aeriated and write letters
to the press, beginning Sir, am I alone in thinking…? Such phrases often do little to advance the
ideas and, although painful, should be excised.

UNFUSSY PLURALS & ABBREVIATIONS

It was once common to see Members of Parliament written as MP‟s in newspapers, but most
papers these days prefer MPs as being tidier. Doing away with the apostrophe here is good
practice, as long as no ugliness is involved. CDs, Ps & Qs, and AGMs are fine, but some may
feel fellows of the Royal Society look better as FRS‟s.

The danger here is we often assume knowledge our readers may not have. In a newsletter for
your own small group of enthusiasts, it may be safe to write ADCS, certain that they’ll recognise
this as the acronym for Afghan-Dachshund Crossbreed Society. But if there’s the slightest doubt,
you should give the name in full when you first use it, with the initials in brackets, e.g. “Our FRS‟s
visited the Loamshire District Health Authority (LDHA) to express our concerns. LDHA advised
us not to worry.”