|
Come
back Harold Evans
From Ruth
Devlin, medical editor [ref Spring 2001
edition]
'I've written to
you before about Harold Evans's excellent textbook
Newsman's English. This time, it's to say how much
I agree with Wynford Hicks who wrote...about the inferior
new edition. Can't somebody persuade Harold to come out
of semi-retirement and revise it himself? There's a whole
bunch of journalists in training who need him
badly!
'Failing that, maybe the
original publishers could reissue the original edition.
Ok, it's a bit old-fashioned in parts but the bits on use
of language are unsurpassed by any other textbook I've
read. I'd advise anyone to ignore the new edition and try
to get hold of the old one in the used books section of a
certain online bookstore. That's where I got mine, and
I'm not lending it to anyone...'
NHS managers need a 'linguistic
revolution'
From Roger
Silver, Taunton [ref Spring 2004
edition]
'Tim Kelsey calls
for "a linguistic revolution" in the NHS (Short
Words, Spring 2004). He advocates banning the word
"patient" and suggests "person" instead.
'Is he being serious? Has
he, in his revolutionary zeal, thought through the
consequences of killing off "patients"? It will be tough
on managers whom he berates for being out of touch with
"real people". But it will be no less tough on
communicators - like him and other
journalists.
'Our local newspaper had
a story this weekend, headed "Patient power impresses".
Clear and understood.
'In the 200-word piece
that followed, the word "patient" or "patients" appeared
eight times - each time with a purpose. For example:
"Patients and their families...concerns of
patients...speaking up for the patient...seeking
patients' and visitors' views...some patients have
difficulty feeding themselves...".
'Substitute "person" or
"persons" and see the vague nonsenses you end up with:
"Persons and their families". What people exactly?
"Concerns of persons". Concerns of families? Concerns of
visitors? Concerns of people in bed?
'No, Tim Kelsey cannot be
serious.
'But he is, for he tells
us: "The language of the patient is the language of the
top-down monolithic institution." (What on this earth
does that mean?) He adds that it is "a language
that cannot embrace the simple and vital fact that we are
all different and individual".
'Why can't it? When I use
the NHS, I am using it as a patient. As when I see the
solicitor, I'm a client. Or when I'm in the men's
outfitters, I'm a customer. Or when I'm on the bus, I'm a
passenger.
'Of course, I'm a person
throughout all these relationships. But when I'm a
patient, or a customer, or a passenger, I am in a special
relationship with the supplier - and I want to be a
patient in relation to the health professional, even a
dependent one sometimes, just as I am dependent on the
solicitor to give me good advice or the bus driver to
deliver me safely to my destination.
'Being a person
anonymises me even more than being labeled a patient.
Being a patient suggests that I am the focus of a
dedicated service - and, when I'm not, ceasing to call me
a patient won't revolutionise my care and make it more
individual.
'One other thing: I know
I shouldn't take Tim Kelsey's cry for revolution too
personally - or even patiently - but I would like him to
know that I for one don't trudge in and out of our GP's
surgery. I go in and out with a lively skip and a
jump.
'The day I trip over,
post-revolution, I'll expect nothing less than individual
attention at the hospital, whether in the in-persons
department or the out-persons department.'
BMJ style improvements
From a reader
[ref Jane Smith's article on the BMJ's move towards
readability]
'My suspicion is
that the badly edited English that gets published in
medical journals is taken as a model for good writing and
editing by editors of journals that are produced in
countries where English is not the first language. It's a
self-perpetuating cycle of mediocrity. It can be
difficult to convince editors of journals produced in
other countries that "show" is perfectly acceptable "good
scientific English style", when the editor insists on
"demonstrate" because it "sounds more scientific".
Polysyllabic words rule! Passive voice rules!
Frustrating, as the editors, publisher and translators
all share the same goal: wide international
readership.'
Tautology
From Dr Trevor
Roberts, Norwich [ref Spring 2003
edition]
'I think that some
of your criticisms of tautology are a little harsh, and
there is one case which is actually misleading and
incorrect.
The term 'Past Medical
History' has a specific meaning which differentiates it
from 'Present Medical History' - more usually called
'History of Present Complaint'.
If you come to me
complaining of a pain in your neck I need to know the
history of this present complaint, e.g. it started six
weeks ago when you fell over after having had a few
drinks, it has since spread down your right arm, and a
week ago your hand started to go numb. I also need to
know about any medical problems you have had prior to
this one - that is your 'past medical history', in case
there is anything relevant to the present complaint or
the treatment thereof, e.g. you have had a heart attack
and might be a surgical risk.
Some of the examples of
tautology are surely legitimate uses of a second word for
emphasis, e.g. 'close proximity' means very close to
something, not just close to. (How about 'distant
proximity' meaning not very close!)
You
are not alone
From a reader
[ref Foggy Bottom, Autumn 2002]:
'Thanks for sending
me a copy of your newsletter. Thoroughly enjoyed
reading it. Reassuring to know that I'm not the only one
having difficulties in understanding the NHS "Shifting
the Balance of Power" report.'
Another reader
writes:
'I was just thinking the other day how long it
had been since I had read Short Words when a copy
landed on my desk. It always provides a good read and
acts like a breath of fresh air in an increasingly
claustrophobic and jargon dependent NHS world.
'It never fails to reinforce the message that good
communication needs to be targeted at the intended
audience and should not rely on jargon, buzz words and
techno speak.
'What can we do however about the 'jargon junkies'?
These are people who desperately need their daily 'fix'
and who show real signs of physical and psychological
distress if asked to explain a point or to speak in plain
English.'
Poor presentation and foggy writing
From Denys
Wheatley, editor-in-chief Cell Biology International and
Cancer Cell International:
'Liz Wager has had
her rant (Short Words, spring 2002, page 2) - 'I
blame everybody!' - and I feel a rant does need a
response.
'Two comments are worth
making.
'First, editors must
surely be the most blameworthy, since they are the ones
who determine what is said and how before any copy goes
to press. I would prefer to read some comment in Short
Words about the difficulty of treading that delicate line
between what the author has written and what the editor
prefers. The big issue here can often be one called
"style", even if it is bad and jarring. People want their
words published, not the editors. How can we best address
this issue? Can anyone come up with some ideas or
guidelines on the most diplomatic way to handle such
situations? How do you tell German or Japanese authors
that they have a very fine piece of information to
communicate, but their English is appalling?
...
'Second, mistakes can
often be made, and if you proof-read your own writing,
you are liable to remain blind to them. I recently set
out a list of the works to be played at an orchestral
concert for a poster, and went on to produce it assured
that I had written Overture to The Magic Flute. It was
pointed out to me a week or two later that I had written
Overture to The Marriage of Figaro! I think the situation
is called "mind-set". Frank Chapman, an entrepreneur who
sends out many brochures, gets his staff to read each one
before it goes to press and offers £50 to any person
finding a genuine mistake.
'Moral: always get
someone else to proof-read your "final"
manuscript.'
Will the BMJ really look like
Cosmo?
From Neville
Goodman, consultant anaesthetist,
Bristol:
'Richard Smith, among many others, (Short
Words, autumn 2001, page 1) has been talking for some
time about what's going to happen to medical publishing.
He speaks from the protected position of editor of the
BMJ, protected because the BMJ will survive
for a long time yet. I can't believe he really thinks
that medical journals will look like Cosmo. I
mean, is that just in appearance? Or is it also in
content? What needs to happen is for many journals just
to pack up and go home, because they don't publish
anything that's worth reading anyway. And it's nothing to
do with style; it's because they have nothing to say.
Richard picks a poor comparison in Brain, which at
least publishes papers of substance (and, yes,
Brain could do with a style makeover, but not to
make it like Cosmo).
'I'm surprised Douglas Carnall didn't warn against the
common habit of copying e-mail when replying to it. You
then end up with endless lines prefixed by
>
>
>
>
and even
>>
>>
>>
when e-mails are already copies of e-mails.
You'll note that I hyphenate e-mail, despite the
Grauniad (typo intended) and the COD. The reason
that I prefer e-mail is that it is pronounced ee-mail,
and the hyphen indicates it. Otherwise, surely it should
be pronounced as evince, evict, eject - with the stress
on the second syllable. A hyphen also enables
e-address.'
Emails:
use the subject field wisely
From Tony
Horrocks, Managing Director, Synergy New Media,
London:
'I was reading Douglas Carnall's excellent
article (Short Words, autumn 2001, page 2) on how
to write emails and wanted to add to it a bugbear of mine
which is the proper use of the Subject field.
'How often have you got an email (a) without any
subject at all or (b) written so vaguely that you have no
idea of what the content of the email might be?
'Douglas's advice is to copy the original sender's
email subject in your reply, but if it is badly written
in the first place then you initiate a thread of
conversation which no one can follow properly.
'So always try and make the subjects rather like a
headline, giving a good indication of what the email
contains. And if I respond to an email with a badly
written subject, I rewrite the subject.
I think the other thing to mention is attachments to
emails. If you do add an attachment to an email, always
say in the body of the email what sort of attachment it
is - ie Excel, Word etc. This doesn't half help the
receiver who doesn't have to spend half an hour guessing
what application to use.'
10.03.04
|
