Top 10 Tips for Great Writing
Published on September 21, 2007 - 43 Comments
As an expert in writing - okay, I just made that up (count how many times I break my own rules below) - I thought that I would write a list of the top 10 ways to improve your writing. These rules apply to writing on paper or for the internet. You can be sure that you will see a dramatic improvement in your writing by following these simple rules. In no particular order: (yes - I know that isn’t a sentence).
By avoiding the use of passives in your sentences, you can give strength to your words. Passive verbs include “is”, “were”, “was”, “could have”, “would have”, and so on. Take this sentences for example:
The mouse was eaten by the cat (”was eaten” is in the passive voice). A better sentenced would be:
The cat ate the mouse (”ate” is in the active voice).
You can remember this difference easily by recognizing the subject and object of the sentence: the cat is the subject, the mouse is the object. If the subject is “doing” the verb (in this case “to eat”) then the sentence is in the active voice. If the subject is not the actor, it is in the passive voice. Unfortunately for us English speakers, we have almost lost the clear differentiation between subject and object that other languages have, so you must think harder to determine the subject and object. The difference does remain in a few words, for example who (subjective) and whom (objective), I (subjective) and me (objective).
You should avoid index works whenever possible. Index words are “this”, “that”, “these”, etc. Here is an example that better illustrates the point:
The American colonials went to war with England. They hoped to achieve independence through doing this.
The sentence above would be better rendered:
The American colonials went to war with England. They hoped to achieve independence on the battlefield.
I realize that the sentence above is not the finest prose around, but it illustrates the point. The second sentence is stronger than the first.
This may be a controversial point, but I strongly believe (as do many people) that, whenever possible, you should avoid the use of words that have come from the Romance languages (languages that have their roots in Latin - Spanish, French, Portuguese, Italian, and Romanian). Our language grew over the years by taking bits and pieces from other languages - some Romance, and some Germanic; in fact, most Romance words have a Germanic counterpart. Germanic words tend to feel stronger and give more weight to your writing. Here is an example:
The British attempted to destroy the Colonial uprising in America. (Attempt, and destroy both have romance origins.)
A better sentence would be:
The British fought to crush the Colonial uprising in America. (Fought, and crush are both germanic in origin.)
The second sentence is much stronger than the first. Sometimes it can be difficult to find a Germanic equivalent, but you can normally do so with a good thesaurus in hand.
Sometimes a sentence misbehaves - it just doesn’t seem to fit, or feel right. When this happens, take the sentence and re-arrange it. First off, mark the important points of the sentence, then rewrite it so that you don’t lose the core of what you are saying. For example:
Machiavelli mentions having common sense, being practical, and he talks about appearances being important in that one should look a certain way but not necessarily act that way.
You can make this sentence much better by re-arranging it:
For Machiavelli, the “Qualities of a Prince” include: having commonsense, being practical, and constructing proper appearances.
The sentence becomes much stronger (like the examples in the previous items) and your readers can grasp the meaning without trouble.
This is similar to point 4, but rather than just re-arranging, we are removing all the unnecessary weeds. It is important to practice this skill because it will come in handy when we get to point 10. Here is a badly written sentence:
The last thing Machiavelli mentions is that one should always be ready to take on arms. He means ready to take arms as in a physical manner. A physical manner meaning with guns and fighters who are ready for battle.
Yuck. While you can understand the sentence, it uses far too many words to get its point across. How about this alternative:
For Machiavelli, one should always be ready to take on arms, to do battle physically.
If your sentence has a complex structure, it can be difficult to read. When you find yourself skimming text, this is probably the cause. Take this example:
Machiavelli’s essay demonstrated what the qualities of an effective ruler should be, however, he forgot about how the common people would react to these qualities.
Here is an improved sentence:
Machiavelli’s essay demonstrated what the qualities of an effective ruler should be, however, he neglected the common people’s reaction.
Like the plague, avoid sentences that are dead before they even begin. Here is an example:
It is often said that……., and how about:
It can be…, and
We can surmise…
Sentences like this put you off immediately. Your readers will simply not want to go on when they come up against these brick walls. How do you fix this?
It can be advantageous to take an umbrella when visiting London.
Fixed, this sentence might read:
When you visit London, take an umbrella.
when you read the second sentence, it is like a breath of fresh air compared to the first!
Keep your sentences short. Long sentences are boring. Short sentences keep your readers interested. Short sentences promote clarity. Clarity is vital in a good sentence. Okay, that was taking it to the extreme, but the facts remain, shorter sentences do tend to promote cleaner writing, and cleaner writing promotes happy readers. Remember, you should not consider these rules to be absolute; some great writers have broken all of these rules to great effect. Here is a famous breach of this rule:
She had got up with these last words; she stood there before him with that particular suggestion in her aspect to which even the long habit of their life together had not closed his sense, kept sharp, year after year, by the collation of types and signs, the comparison of fine object with fine object, of one degree of finish, of one form of the exquisite with another–the appearance of some slight, slim draped “antique” of Vatican or Capitoline halls, late and refined, rare as a note and immortal as a link, set in motion by the miraculous infusion of a modern impulse and yet, for all the sudden freedom of folds and footsteps forsaken after centuries by their pedestal, keeping still the quality, the perfect felicity, of the statue; the blurred, absent eyes, the smoothed, elegant, nameless head, the impersonal flit of a creature lost in an alien age and passing as an image in worn relief round and round a precious vase. [Henry James, The Golden Bowl, 165 words.]
If you think that is bad, you should check out Book IV of Proust’s In Rememberance of Things Past, which has a sentence with an incredible 958 words. Having said that, don’t do it.
please” Use: correct’ punctuation in. you’re Sentences!. Check Your Spelling Too! Bad punctuation can ruin brilliant writing. Always capitalize correctly (and don’t bother mentioning Cummings - he knew the rules before he broke them). The internet is the worst place for this crime, but you do see it in the written word too. You should start off with a spelling checker on your computer, and then revise with your own eyes. Only your eyes will pick up errors in “its,” “it’s,” “to,” “too,” and other grammar horrors of English.
Have you noticed that many of these examples have been about reducing the amount of text you have written? They are all leading to this final point: revision. In fact, it should be “revise, then revise, then revise again”. You must revise at least three times. More is better. Every time you revise, you should remove something. D. H. Lawrence once said that for every 100 pages he writes, 90 are junk. If you write a 1,000 word essay, the chances are that at least 3/4 of it can be removed. This is the same for fiction and non-fiction. Sylvia Plath pored over her poems for hours with a thesaurus and dictionary, removing anything but the essential parts of her work.
If you work on a computer, do your first revision on screen. You should then print your work and do the second revision on paper. Use a pen to mark the problem areas. After you have read the text in your mind and made your marks, go over it again but read it out loud and make extra marks. Now make the changes to the original and reprint it. Re-read it (in your head, then aloud) making more marks if you need to. Repeat this process until you do not need to make any more changes. You will be amazed at how much junk you find. No one writes perfectly in the first draft (except maybe William Burroughs, but then one can easily debate the meaning of perfect in relation to his writing).
Technorati Tags: writing
Related Lists40 Quotes of Oscar WildeTop 10 Tips for Self-Improvement Top 10 Stain Removal Tips Top 15 Tips for Spotting a Liar |
SubscriptionsLike this article? Subscribe to the RSS feed to keep 'em coming, or subscribe via email: |
If you find this site helpful, please leave a donation so you can enjoy the spirit of giving too.
Email This Post




1. evan - September 21st, 2007 at 7:15 am
ahh Machiavelli’s The Prince, love that one.
2. Jackie - September 21st, 2007 at 7:22 am
Great list Jamie. I am an awful awful writer and often struggled writing papers in college. Rule #2 would have been especially helpful for me, I think I do that a lot.
3. jfrater - September 21st, 2007 at 7:25 am
evan: I must confess to not having read the whole thing - I do own a copy though, so all is not lost!
Jackie: Thanks
I break these rules all the time!
4. Bill - September 21st, 2007 at 8:16 am
i think you spelt spelling wrong
5. jfrater - September 21st, 2007 at 8:21 am
Bill: Isn’t it ironic? Don’t you think?
6. RobS - September 21st, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Yesterday, I couldn’t even spell author.
Now I are one.
7. Che - September 21st, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Interesting point about romance/germanic languages.
Not sure I agree though.
Sounds too didtactique to me.
8. jfrater - September 21st, 2007 at 12:59 pm
RobS: I am sure there is rhetorical trope that allows you to say “I are” - which reminds me - I must do a list of the top 10 rhetorical tropes!
Che: you have to agree. It is simply not allowed to disagree with me!
9. ben - September 21st, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Another good one is always use sensory details(what you hear, taste, smell, feel, and see), but no more than a couple in a sentence. And no more than 3 adjectives in a sentence close to each other is what my LA teacher always says.
10. Cyn - September 21st, 2007 at 3:43 pm
argh! this should have been prefaced w/ ‘only applies to thesis or professional papers or writing.’ not in blogging or commenting. if i had to actually write coherent, literate sentences in my blog or in these comments…i’d scream.
LOL come on, where would we be w/out netspeak? w/out butchering English, sentence structure and damning capitalization to hell? LOL
and yeah…i am soooo lazy. assbackwards revenge on all those papers i had to write just so back in highschool, college and even grad school..yuck!
but yeah…we …er…i really should try to write more better. *yawn*
11. Chris - September 21st, 2007 at 11:07 pm
Oh god, the internet will absolutely kill your writing skills if you let it. Its funny, but there’s always something to be said for intelligent writing.
As for Machiavelli, very good book. Bought a copy a few months ago and had several people comment on it being “an evil book”. Or something to that effect. I think most of the people who say that haven’t actually read it.
Good list.
12. Vicky - September 22nd, 2007 at 7:19 am
I think this is the best list for writers, I have been writing for years now, and I agree with all the suggestions, with the exception of the short sentence. If you fill your story with short sentences, it can become very tedious.
For example.
He strode towards the pillar. He unsheathed his sword with determination. He waited for the enemy to reveal themself. He was ready for the kill.
That can also be very boring. Keep in mind, if you are a gifted writer, you can and will get away with a long sentence. If it is good, then it will not be boring.
13. jfrater - September 22nd, 2007 at 8:12 am
Vicky: thanks
I do agree with the short sentence comment you made - I think the point is to generally make sure that you don’t put more than you need in each sentence.
14. Evan - September 22nd, 2007 at 11:02 am
You can’t even spell “spelling” correctly.
15. jfrater - September 22nd, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Evan: are you joking or are you the brunt of dramatic irony?
16. yaurt - September 27th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
you should avoid the use of words that have come from the Romance languages (languages that have their roots in Latin - Spanish, French, Portuguese, Italian, and Romanian).
I’m from Romania, do you really use words that have their roots in Romanian ?
17. jfrater - September 27th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
yaurt: there will be works that have come to us from all of the romance languages - I guess the point is to not use words that derive from Latin or any of the Latin based languages.
18. TMo - October 5th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
“Machiavelli’s essay demonstrated what the qualities of an effective ruler should be,* however, he neglected the common people’s reaction.”
*Sorry to be a b*tch, but that comma should be a semicolon. However’s not a conjunction.

19. jfrater - October 5th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
TMo: Bitch as much as you wish - perhaps you can write a top 10 correct uses of punctuation for us? Read this.
20. Bob - January 24th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
What a crap list. Keep that Strunk and White nonsense to yourself.
Short, chopped, journalistic sentences are for those who think small. Long, flowing tapestry sentences are for those who have subtle and profound thoughts. Just look at the writing of older ages, times when people thought for more than ten seconds at a time, and compare such writing to the numbskull junk we plop out today without any attention to which hole it originated from.
21. ittsybittsy - April 3rd, 2008 at 12:10 pm
I guess when you’re writing for yourself, you can write any way you please, but this list, as far as I understood it, was tips for writing for the modern-day audience. However unfortunate some may find it, the vast majority of the population, especially us Americans, are very easily distracted and bored, so short, chopped, journalistic sentences are gaining preference.
So, in short: Take a chill pill.
22. Tempyra - June 20th, 2008 at 3:30 am
Why so few comments? Is the internet populated by people uninterested in learning great writing skills?
23. jfrater - June 20th, 2008 at 4:33 am
Tempyra: alas it would seem so
24. Tempyra - June 22nd, 2008 at 1:19 am
Oh well, I am and I enjoyed this list :-).
The real world has lots of terrible writing too - I saw a sign at a hairdressers a few weeks ago advertising a ‘free’ product for $47. This is more of a punctuation error than the last, which was just confusing, but I once saw a supermarket bargain bin with a sign saying, “Ass products”!
25. MPW - June 22nd, 2008 at 1:27 am
I once saw a sign that said “antiques made daily”
26. Tempyra - June 22nd, 2008 at 1:45 am
Haha… oh and what about all the eBay listings in the antique section that are proudly advertised as being ‘Brand New’?
Another supermarket screw-up - Weight Watchers’ frozen dinners advertised as ‘2 for $0.00′. You’d think people would have been stocking up but no-one seemed to notice. I actually took a photo of the sign. No Weight Watchers for me though, eww.
27. Saïx - August 4th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
My two cents~
I’m sorry but i have to disagree with the ‘not using words from romanian origin’. It -really- depends on the type of writing. I am a translator, and all of our teachers at university taught us that English words with romanian origin are fancier and usually used for professional or literal writings. Considering this, I believe that using such words is quite fine when writing novels, essays and the likes. I do agree however that for the every day life, it might be best to avoid them.
As an example, I think that the sentence ‘He respired anew, commencing the confection of the dessert; a chocolate mousse’ sounds prettier in a novel than ‘He breathed a second time, starting the preparation of the dessert; a chocolate mousse.’
28. jfrater - August 5th, 2008 at 1:28 am
Saïx: your teacher taught you wrong. (Oh - and it is “romance” not “Romanian” incidentally
)
Even if fictional writing we should strive for clarity and strength - not fancy writing. Any editor or good author will tell you that when you write a book, you need to write at least 3 times as many words as you will have in the final book - because you cull everything that does not have a reason for being - and making something pretty is not a reason to keep something.
As for your example - the first line you gave was clumsy and ugly and sounds like it was written by someone trying to mimic a romance novel of the 1800s. No author today would write like that. It sounds ridiculously pompous. A better phrase would be:
“He breathed again as he started making pudding”. I think you have superfluous words, however, and would say this instead:
“He breathed as he started pudding”.
All of those words are germanic root words. Additionally, I removed waffle. The final sentence is clear immediately and has impact.
Perhaps English is not your first language, but seriously - your first sentence is utterly over the top and ridiculous. It is ridiculous in fiction - and would get you fired in business or non-fiction.
And one final example of what good writing is - it is the first stanza of “Daddy” by Sylvia Plath - a meticulous writer who is, of course, very famous. I have marked romance and germanic words (I have also referred to words with Old English origins or Middle English origins as germanic, as English naturally is a germanic language - even without import words).
You [g] do [g] not [g] do, you do not do
Any more [g], black [g] shoe [g]
In which [g] I have [g] lived [g] like [g] a foot [g]
For [g] thirty [g] years [g], poor [r] and white [g],
Barely [g] daring [g] to breathe [g] or Achoo [g].
Notice that only ONE word has romance origins? And the likely reason? It adds assonance when read with “more, foot, or” - Plath uses the romance word when it has more impact than a germanic word or when no germanic words fit the number of syllables. I can’t come up with a germanic root word that is not two or more syllables that is synonymous with “poor”.
Anyway - I hope this clears the issue up once and for all! And if you want to read the rest of the stunning poem, you can .
29. Tempyra - August 5th, 2008 at 1:54 am
supperfluous? Got food on your mind JFrater?
“He breathed as he started pudding”
30. Tempyra - August 5th, 2008 at 1:55 am
Gah… most of my first comment disappeared.
“He breathed as he started pudding”
31. Tempyra - August 5th, 2008 at 1:56 am
“He breathed as he started pudding” - that looks weird to me because the ‘ing’ on the end of pudding makes it look like a verb (in this example anyway). It kinda leads you to think something like this, “He breathed as he started running” is what is meant and then the noun comes as a surprise. So yeah, I would have left the “making” in that sentence for clarity.
By no means is my own writing stellar though
32. Tempyra - August 5th, 2008 at 1:57 am
Does having “
33. Tempyra - August 5th, 2008 at 2:07 am
I give up… gah!
34. henry o - August 5th, 2008 at 3:14 am
“He respired anew, commencing the confection of the dessert; a chocolate mousse”…
“He breathed as he started pudding”…
Surreal!
35. jfrater - August 5th, 2008 at 3:42 am
Tempyra: it is not appropriate to use “dessert” because that is a cheese or fruit course - whereas a chocolate mousse is a pudding. But you could add the “making” if you wanted to. I still think it is superfluous if pudding is understood in its proper English context - coupled with the fact that there is no such thing as a verb “to pudding”
henry o: it is - and I think it shows clearly why editors remove so much text and why authors try to kill 3/4 of what they write when revising. Find a brilliant English novel and I guarantee that you won’t find a word that doesn’t need to be there.
Oh - and to complete the original sentence (with Tempyra’s addition):
“He breathed as he started making pudding - chocolate mousse.”
The semi-colon was incorrect in Saïx’s original; a semi-colon separates two complete clauses. “A chocolate mousse” is not a complete clause.
36. Tempyra - August 5th, 2008 at 4:02 am
I know it (pudding) isn’t a verb but it just looks like one to me, even though I know what the word means. I use it often - much to the puzzlement of Australians; lots of them seem to think that dessert = pudding.
Was that a correctly used semi-colon?
I posted about my commenting issues ^^ in the forums.
37. jfrater - August 5th, 2008 at 4:15 am
Tempyra: that was a correct semicolon
And thanks for posting to the forums - I will check it out.
38. ciunas - August 5th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
jfrater: You’ve got your work cut out trying to make many sense out of that bizarre sentence. Without meaning to be rude to Saïx, whose nationality I don’t know anyway, I’d say that a lot of speakers of Romance languages — particularly Italians — are unaware of how stilted & overly ornate their written prose seems to native English speakers until they inject some Germanic words.
I was surprised by your precise definition of dessert. Just checked a bunch of online dictionaries & all of them define it primarily as ‘the sweet course at the end of a meal’, with only a couple giving your definition as secondary in Brit English. I’ve always regarded dessert as being a faux-refined version of pudding. Have you come across U & non-U & all that in the UK? Betjeman’s poem ‘How to Get On in Society’ is a good primer, with pudding genteelly referred to as sweet. All of which, oddly enough, goes to back up your preference for the word pudding.
Choosing Plath’s most famous poem was an interesting way to make your point. A lot of the vocab & phrases in ‘Daddy’, title included, are indicative of a furious little girl trying to express herself. She is, that is to say, deliberately using unsophisticated language in the stanza you quote. Agreed, poets by & large prefer Germanic words to Latinate words (including words derived from Norman French & Greek) — they are usually more concrete & forceful. But this is a generalization with plenty of exceptions: it isn’t difficult to find a poem with a more Latinate vocabulary. I know you’re a fan of Ginsberg. Here’s the first line of ‘Howl’:
‘I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked…’
Ignoring the article & the pronouns & prepositions, there are 5 Germanic words & 4 Latinate words.
Your list of rules is very valid but I’m glad you state that they’re not absolute. As regards Rule 3 I’d say that a balance between Latinate & Germanic words in ordinary non-technical writing is ideal. Too many Germanic words & you sound dim-witted; too many Latinate words & you sound pseudo-intellectual or affected.
BTW, there are a couple of typos in Rule 1!
39. ciunas - August 5th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Gah — ‘many’ sense should be ‘any’ sense!
40. jfrater - August 6th, 2008 at 12:35 am
ciunas: I have come accross “U” and “Non-U” - though in the writing of Nancy Mitford rather than Betjeman. As for sounding dim-witted with excess use of germanic words - I beg to differ! If you are going to use one or the other you should use germanic - however mixing is better than an emphasis on the romance languages - so on that we agree
41. jfrater - August 6th, 2008 at 12:42 am
Actually I just looked up U and Non-U on Wikipedia and was interested to see a mention of “pass away” instead of “die” - Fowler of Fowler’s Modern English also explains that one should never use “pass away” - and I think he is right - even if for no other reason than the fact that it is a euphemism and euphemisms must be avoided always!
42. jfrater - August 6th, 2008 at 12:46 am
Oh - and also interesting is that the dictionaries I just checked show “dessert” as an American term that encompasses both pudding and dessert - whereas the British form is consistent with what I say. This may perhaps be because of Upper Class Britain where people still have the two as separate courses - not so common in America where three courses is likely to be the most you would see in a meal.