Skip to main content

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 "the trudging prose, compound-complex sentences that allowed the eye no rest..."

The worst of academic writing has a lot in common with the worst of legal writing. Take these typical blunders:

>Misused words: "penultimate" for "ultimate," because "penultimate" apparently means "really, no kidding, ultimate." Or "utilized" for "use" because "use" is apparently a boring word. Fail.

> Confusion between the use of "which" and "that." I once read a bank contract that never used "that," the author apparently thinking that "that" was always the wrong choice for a conjunction. But some authors like to skip using "that" entirely as in "I knew the candidate was the wrong choice," instead of "I knew that the candidate was the wrong choice." Fail. 

> User of "filler" words that add nothing, e.g., "as well," "prior to" (use "before") and "a 30-day period." Or especially for lawyers, "hereby," "witnesseth," "therefore" or even worse, "therefor," and "herein." Fail. 

> Waterfall paragraphs. Because in academic as well as legal writing, the author must really know the subject if they write in long sentences embedded in long paragraphs with a lot of words ending in "ize." Fail.  

I don't have a good solution for poor writing. With the advent of the internet, where anyone can write and publish anything within seconds without editing, the problem is rife - and likely to grow. And folks' attention spans seem to be declining; we want our information (credible or not) in short bursts. Prolonged reasoned discourse is in short supply. 

Does sloppy writing reflect sloppy thinking? Or is it the other way around? No matter, they incite each other, whether in the field of law drafting contracts or in academia producing scholarly works.  

But (spoiler alert) good triumphs over evil in Fairy Tale, so perhaps more good writing reflecting critical thinking will emerge over time. We can all do our part by calling out the abuse of the written word where we see it!   

*****************
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. And my email address is busklaw@charter.net. Thanks!  

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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....

The BUSKLAW May Newsletter: Another Trump NDA Bites the Dust!

  In my August 2020 newsletter, we discussed lessons from the New York Supreme Court's rejection of the Trump family NDA. Drafting lesson #1 is the need to specifically describe the information covered by the NDA rather than vague references.  Unfortunately for Trump, this lesson wasn't learned, as evidenced by a recent New York U.S. District Court decision in the case of  J essica Denson v Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.   Plaintiff Denson was employed as a national phone bank administrator for the 2016 Trump campaign. Before she was hired, she signed the standard Trump employment contract containing broad non-disclosure and non-disparagement provisions. Confidential Information was defined as: ...all information (whether or not embodied in any media) of a private, proprietary or confidential nature or that Mr. Trump insists remain private or confidential, including, but not limited to, any information with respect to the personal life, political affairs, and/o...