9 strong, 1 weak

The September Writers Digest Magazine is designated the “Big 10” issue, featuring a plethora, an abundance, myriad Top Ten lists by various writers. It features a lot of good stuff.

But one thing irritated me. So naturally I’ll concentrate on that.

One list, on pages 64-65, is called “Brush Up On Your Style in 10 Minutes Or Less.”

In the opening paragraph, the author, Brandon Royal, says, “Everyone can benefit from the occasional reminder of the principles of strong writing….”

Then he lists his list. Good stuff here, like “Use Straightforward Language,” “Trim Long Sentences,” and “Avoid Redundancies.” Meat-and-potatoes advice for punching up your prose. It’s well thought out and useful. Just the sort of thing young writers (especially but not exclusively) need to learn, to produce publishable manuscripts.

Until you get to Tip # 10. Here’s how it starts:

10 Avoid the Masculine Generic. The masculine generic refers to the sole use of the pronoun he or him when referring to situations involving both genders. As much as you can, make an effort to avoid using he when referring to either a he or a she, and using him when referring to either a him or a her….

He goes on to appeal to fairness, and the need to avoid putting off female readers.

Now I can understand promoting gender neutrality in your writing on the basis of making your work more saleable. I can understand it as a justice issue (though I bridle at that characterization). I can understand it as an appeal to self-interest, and the obvious dangers of making half the population mad at you.

But this bit of advice has no place on a list giving tips on strong writing. “He/she” or “him or her” is not stronger writing that “He” or “him.” “Humankind” is not a stronger word than “mankind.” “Chairperson” is not a stronger title than “chairman.”

Everybody knows this. But I’m saying it here.

And that, friends, is the strongest writing of all. When you say what you really think, rather than what you’re expected to say.

7 thoughts on “9 strong, 1 weak”

  1. Anytime I see that kind of advice, I think of what Madeleine L’Engle once said:

    “[The] generic his and he, [is] not exclusively masculine. I am a female, of the species, man. Genesis is very explicit that it takes both make and female to make the image of God, and that the generic word, man, includes both…Therefore I refuse to be timid about being a part of mankind …Nor do I want to be stuck in the vague androidism which has resulted from the attempts to avoid the masculine pronoun…language is its own creature; it evolves on its own…it does not do well when suffering from arbitrary control. Our attempts to change the words which have long been part of a society dominated by males have not been successful. Instead of making language less sexist they have made it more so…To substitute person for man has ruined what used to be a good, theological word, calling up the glory of God’s image within us.”

  2. The ironic thing is that Royal’s push for politically correct language will end up being at least as “offensive” as the gender-inclusive “he” — only to an entirely different audience.

  3. My question is the word Woman sexist? It does contain the word man. To be correct for the PC people this should be changed. May I suggest Woperson. Or maybe Wofem? Just how far do we take the destruction of the English we speak, and wright, to please the ego of some so called guises? Personally, I like Women, and think a Wofem might be something I might stay away from : )

  4. Whatever may be the advantages of gender-neutral style (and despite being a feminist, I’ll have nothing to do with it), it does not make writing strong. It makes it flabby.

  5. And THIS is why I am proud to say Lars Walker is my second cousin once removed! BOY! That kid can speak the mind!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.