But what is poor writing?

In case the last example didn’t make it obvious about what comprises good writing, this post will define good writing by showing what it is not.

The point would we. I have not know us to do that if it was our error. Now that the client has done this we would collect the fee and hope they would not notice. Not right.

This text was an entire e-mail a senior manager sent at a large consulting company to about a dozen recipients. It leaves more questions than it answers. That’s not good.

And going back to my reasons for why not to write poorly, his reputation suffered and, as the e-mail was forwarded to me for my enjoyment, yes, people laughed at him.

One is unique; two are unusual

Last night I caught myself on the cusp of making a common writing mistake: I was about to use “unique” when I meant “unusual.” The difference? According to the New Oxford American Dictionary, 2nd edition (on my iBook), “unique” means “being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else.”

I was referring to The Inn at Easton, a great restaurant in Easton, MD, that serves kangaroo and barramundi. While it’s not typical for an Inn on Maryland’s Eastern Shore to serve such Australian fare, I’m not sure if it is the only establishment that does so. Hence I opted for “unusual.”

The Economist is unsure whether enlightened government is bad or not bad

Here’s a letter to the editor I sent to The Economist:

Sir—I’m confused. In the print edition, your leader about Daniel Ortega’s election (“Dealing With Daniel.” November 11th) stated, “Enlightened government of the left, combining market economics with effective social policy, would be a bad thing.” The online version of the article claims that it “would not be a bad thing.” I mostly read the print edition; does The Economist tell its online readers that it considers Guantanamo Bay a lovely getaway for suspected Taliban, the demise of the Doha trade round fantastic, and Silvio Berlusconi the best thing to happen to democracy since Thomas Jefferson?

Since long-time editor Bill Emmott left the paper earlier this year, the quality of the copy has slipped. I read about a quarter of the magazine each week and usually find at least one mistake. Prior to Emmott’s departure it was close to flawless.

Speaking the English

This afternoon I went to the post office to mail The Columbia Poetry Review, a Moleskine notebook (I love mine), and a book about selling poems to my friend in Iraq. I’d packaged them in an Amazon.com box I had lying around my apartment. I’d crossed off the company’s name on the sides of the box, but by the time I got to the post office the ink had dried and Amazon.com was visible.

When the woman behind the counter saw it, she told me that I needed to be more thorough next time. The words on the package could confuse a foreigner working in the Army mail room because “they don’t speak the English that good.”

Washington Nationals get their prepositions on

Two weeks ago I saw the Washington Nationals host the Chicago Cubs in their first home series since the All-Star break. The Nationals have been breaking out a slew of marketing promotions and slogans in an attempt to boost attendance (winning probably would help, but it seems that’s not possible).

Anyway, one of the myriad of catchphrases stood out: “Get your red on” (referring to the team’s colors).

I guess this post is the one where I turn into an old fuddy-dud, but the school system in DC is abysmal. Does the baseball team need to reinforce bad grammar too?