Skip to main content

The BUSKLAW May Newsletter: Is There a Moral Imperative to Plain English? Part 1 - Examples


"The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed." 

Thus begins Stephen King's epic story of the gunslinger, Roland Deschain, and the popular Dark Tower series of novels describing his adventures. But King didn't have to write this sentence that way; he could have consulted with the typical lawyer, politician, or company PR department first. Had he done so, the sentence may have appeared so:

"The bad hombre who was dressed mostly in dark clothing and running fast across an arid land was pursued by a multi-armed, extremely dangerous, and notorious vigilante."

The difference in these two sentences is clear. King's concise short sentence creates an image that grabs the reader's attention and raises provocative questions. Who is the man in black? Who is the gunslinger? Why is he after the man in black? But the Bizarro World Stephen King sentence - with its ethnic slur, passive voice, ambiguity, suppositions, and superfluous adjectives -  will likely cause the reader to check the number of pages in the book and decide whether it's worth the time. 

 Now let's consider the typical introduction to a big-law-firm-drafted ("BLFD") business contract:

"THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is dated as of the ____ day of _____________, 2017, by and between ABLE CORPORATION [address] hereinafter "BUYER," and BAKER CORPORATION [address] hereinafter "SELLER."
RECITALS
WHEREAS, BUYER engages in the retail sale of widgets which, among other things, include springs (the "Components") manufactured by SELLER; and
WHEREAS, SELLER is interested in selling the Components to BUYER; and 
WHEREAS, BUYER is willing to buy the Components from SELLER;
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is acknolwedged by SELLER, BUYER and SELLER, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows:...................................................................."

Even though a business contract doesn't tell a story, this introduction has undesirable elements in common with the Bizarro World opening to The Dark Tower:
  • Superflouous and archaic words or phrases:  "by and between," "RECITALS," "WHEREAS," "AGREEMENT," the entire line about consideration, "NOW, THEREFORE," and "hereby."
  • Ambiguous words or phrases: "as of," "hereinafter," and "among other things."
  • Unnecessary words in capital letters and underlined: every one.
  • Poor grammar: "which include..."
  • Use of the passive voice: "manufactured by SELLER..."
  • Poor font: Times 
  • Underlining to show emphasis
Whoever is stuck reading this contract probably wishes they made a different career choice (or not, if they can bill by the hour). Consider this plain-English makeover:

"This Agreement, dated ___________________, 2017, is between Able Corporation [address] ("Able") and Baker Corporation [address] ("Baker"). 

Able manufactures springs (the "Springs") that are suitable for use in Baker's widgets. Baker wishes to buy Springs from Able. Able is willing to sell the Springs to Baker, so the parties agree as follows:........................................"

Like King's actual opening sentence, we have a clear and concise plain-language statement of what is happening. Gone are the elements that make the BLFD contract a nightmare. And the truly amazing news: the plain-language contract is "just as legal" as the BLFD document! 

Bureaucratese is the cousin to legal jargon. Consider the following examples:
  • The Trump Administration's lies are "alternative facts."
  • United Airlines' forcible removal of a seated, ticketed passenger is a "re-accommodation."
  • A company that lays off employees is "rightsizing." 
  • The result of rightsizing is the "new normal." 
  • Genocide is "ethnic cleansing."
  • Civilians killed in a military action are "collateral damage." 
  • If your medical plan is with an HMO, you have "a narrow-path health product." (No link on this one; actually experienced.)
So we've visited a spectrum of gobbledygook: Bizarro World Stephen King to tediously-drafted BLFD contracts to institutionally-broadcast deceptive terms of art. But does rejecting legalese and bureaucratese for plain English make any positive difference for society? That's the question for examination in the June issue of the BUSKLAW blog. Stay tuned!    
__________________________
If you find this post worthwhile, please consider sharing it with your colleagues. The link to this blog is www.busklaw.blogspot.com and my website is www.busklaw.com. Thanks! 

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The BUSKLAW 2021 Year in Review - Brit English Sums It Up!

  I'm at a loss to describe 2021 using American English, sorry. AmE has grown tiresome. Don't believe me? Just turn on your local TV news and listen for how many times the news people use "prior" instead of "before" and pepper their speech with "as well," frequently tacking it on after using "also" in the same sentence, as in "It will also rain tomorrow as well." How can all be WELL when every other sentence ends with AS WELL? Warning: don't play a drinking game to count the number of  AS WELLs or you'll be pished (as they say in Scotland) in 10 minutes. Which reminds me of why we should be thankful for Brit English to describe 2021: it was another year that we good guys got knackered .   Consider: Covid continues unabated - now improved with variants (get your booster, wear a mask)! The peaceful transition of the U.S. government after the 2020 presidential election almost didn't happen (can you say "insurrectio...
Post a Comment
Read more

The BUSKLAW Halloween 2022 Post: Stephen King's Asides on Poor Writing in Fairy Tale

  Having just read  Stephen King's Fairy Tale in time for Halloween, it's appropriate to examine his asides on poor writing included in the book. (BTW, Fairy Tale is a good read with King's typical well-executed character development, plot, and a great finish to the story. But you have like the whole Grimm fairy tale genre before you read his take on it.)  Stephen King doesn't tolerate anything less than crisp prose. When the story's hero, Charlie Reade, tries to read a book about the origins of fantasy and its place in the world matrix ("what a mouthful"), he can only scan it because: It was everything I hated about what I thought of as "hoity-toity" academic writing, full of five-dollar words and tortured syntax. Maybe that's intellectual laziness on my part, but maybe not. Later on, Charlie tries to focus on a particular chapter in the "origins of fantasy" book about the story of Jack and the Beanstalk but is put off by "t...
Post a Comment
Read more

The BUSKLAW May Newsletter: The Foolhardy Practice of Using Faux Terms of Art in Your Contracts

  Most lawyers draft contracts. That's what lawyers do. And they use perceived terms of art ("TOAs") because they want to be paragons of contract-drafting precision. But here is where the canker gnaws:  the words that lawyers insert in their contracts as TOAs are actually not, potentially causing problems in clarity and interpretation. And as I've said time and again, these problems lead to disputes, and disputes lead to litigation, which is always time-consuming and expensive for the parties involved.  Let's first define TOAs in the legal context. According to Professor Bryan Garner in his Dictionary of Legal Usage , TOAs have specific, precise meanings that are "locked tight" and based on legal precedent. But then there are the faux TOAs, "whose meanings are often unhinged." Expert contract drafters, Garner says, know that clear, simple drafting is less subject to misinterpretation than using TOAs that are nothing more than "mere jargon....
Post a Comment
Read more