The Colinments of Style: "The media with its hellish ideas"

Ben Casnocha wrote to suggest that the excerpts I've edited so far have been a bit too inept, and thus not particularly instructive for writers who have spelling, grammar, rudimentary organization and the ability to feed and dress themselves pretty much down. I agree. This, however, is what they call Crappy Version One of my editing-in-public project; I should be iterated well away from it soon.

However, I do need additional pieces of prose to make that shift. So if you stumble upon any 100-700-word samples of prose that hit that magic spot of not-particularly-awful-but-not-particularly-sparkling, send 'em to me, with no author or source information, at colinjmarshall at gmail. Some Metafilter people suggested that my fodder include fanfiction, copy from .gov sites, and the better class of Amazon reviews, and these are all solid ideas, but I'd like to minimize the effect of my own selection filters, recognized or unrecognized. (Fanfiction is a particularly good recommendation, since I've always wanted to make Harry the power bottom, not Ron.) I want to be hit with text from odd, unexpected angles.

All of this, of course, is mere run-up to Bad Writing Example the third (and last):

Within our society, there is an individual. An individual with individual thoughts and actions. But who determines whether or not that individual is correct in their choices? Are our thoughts brain washed through the media with it’s hellish ideas or our closet friends that try to direct us in the right direction? No one may ever know what is right or wrong.

So what is ethical relativism anyway? And who is behind all of the madness of ethical relativism? It is my understanding that relativist’s are believed to think that relativism is true. Ethical Relativism is of a mind to say that whatever one’s culture says is right is the right thing for him or her to do. This world we human beings live in is not without a variety of many different and diverse cultures with different cultural practices and hence different moralities. Studying ethics from a philosophical point of view, ethical relativist’s might conclude that your wasting your time just like philosophers have always wasted they’re time.

I'm beginning to wonder what sort of assignment, specifically, these were written for. Casual remedial philosophy term papers? Like, real casual remedial philosophy term papers? At least there aren't many misspellings or serious syntactical abuses; perhaps that should be a baseline excerpt selection criterion from now on. (The breathtaking juvenility, however, is another matter entirely.)

The writer first makes the perilous choice to open grand:

Within our society, there is an individual. An individual with individual thoughts and actions. But who determines whether or not that individual is correct in their choices?

Madelaine and I have a joke about this sort of leader, calling it the "Through the annals of time..." maneuver; it's about one rung up the great ladder of rhetoric from opening with a definition from Webster's dictionary. I've got a feeling that, were it my job to revise undergrad papers, I'd make de-grandification the first phase of the routine. That means 86ing many words and all pronouncements about "society":

Who determines whether the thoughts and choices of individuals are correct?

And as we all know, if you open grand, you'll want to follow with uncritically reconstituted proclamations:

Are our thoughts brain washed through the media with it’s hellish ideas or our closet friends that try to direct us in the right direction? No one may ever know what is right or wrong.

Leaving mostly untouched this second layer of handwaving, now about the "media" and its legendarily "hellish" brainwashing, we can at least make the statement less confusing. This, however, is a taller order than at first it seems. I think the writer meant to write "closest friends," though closet friends might have proven more interesting. It is between these friends and the hellish-idea'd media that he sets up a dichotomy: which controls our minds? Surely one must. (Funny how many papers are written from the perspective of the only conscious human in a world of sheep.) "Brainwashed," I submit, is a bit too heavy to apply to both. The jump from there to "no one may ever know what is right or wrong" is unfollowable, but there's little we can do to improve it; the writer's intention isn't clear enough.

Are our thoughts influenced by the media or by our friends? No one may ever know what is right or wrong.

Then, oy, the writer keeps making with the rhetorical questions:

So what is ethical relativism anyway? And who is behind all of the madness of ethical relativism?

PROTIP: If dropping question after question after unanswered question doesn't work for august French cultural theorists, it's unlikely to work for you. I'd like to work more rhetorical questions into my own writing, admittedly, but here I've got an object lesson in what happens when you bang the VUs doing so. Condensation will help thin the barrage:

What is ethical relativism, anyway, and who is behind the madness of it?

He's undermined the question by calling the thing questioned "madness" — clearly, his made-up mind seeks no answer — but I dare not corrupt his underlying points with an overzealous red pen.

What comes next is a classic case of misreading Strunk and White's cardinal rule as "include unnecessary words":

It is my understanding that relativist’s are believed to think that relativism is true. Ethical Relativism is of a mind to say that whatever one’s culture says is right is the right thing for him or her to do.

Fine, proverbial red pen; get zealous:

It is my understanding that relativist’s are believed to think that relativism is true. Ethical Relativism is of a mind to say dictates that whatever one’s culture says is right is the right thing for him or her to do, is.

I should thank the writer: "It is my understanding that relativist’s are believed to think that relativism is true" is, in this context, possibly the perfect example of a meaningless phrase. It's your understanding? Implied by the fact that you're stating it. Relativists believe relativism is true? Implied by the word "relativists." I once thought understatement the great pitfall of writing; now I know it's overstatement. We're left with this:

Ethical relativism dictates that whatever one’s culture says is right, is.

A similar malady afflicts the following:

This world we human beings live in is not without a variety of many different and diverse cultures with different cultural practices and hence different moralities.

"This world we human beings live in?" You mean, this Earth? The one I'm on? And that you're on? And that we're both human beings on? The very same? The Earth that bears not just one culture, but many? Different cultures, yes. But diverse, too? Really? Because on the Earth I'm talking about, there are a variety of many different and diverse cultures — which have not just different and diverse practices, but different and diverse cultural practices — and it doesn't just have them; it's not without them. But if you think we're talking about the same world, well, I suppose I'll take your word for it. Thought I'd make sure. One never knows. Can't assume these things on faith.

This revision won't help you reach word count, but it sure saves the reader's brain cycles:

This world's cultures have different practices and, hence, different moralities.

Ah, the home stretch. Unlike the rest of the paragraph, most of the final sentences are right out of the grammar book. Apostrophe confusions, that sort of thing:

Studying ethics from a philosophical point of view, ethical relativist’s might conclude that your wasting your time just like philosophers have always wasted they’re time.

Nevertheless, the old signal-to-noise ratio still isn't exactly heartening. I divine that the writer means that ethical relativists think studying ethics, and philosophy in general, is a waste of time. A bold statement to be sure, but it's hard to tell that upon first, tangled read. Rearrangement is job one, reduction job two:

Ethical relativists might conclude that, in studying ethics from a philosophical point of view, you're wasting your time.

Here's the reassembled paragraph:

Who determines whether the thoughts and choices of individuals are correct? Are our thoughts influenced by the media or by our friends? No one may ever know what is right or wrong.

What is ethical relativism, anyway, and who is behind the madness of it? Ethical relativism dictates that whatever one’s culture says is right, is. This world's cultures have different practices and, hence, different moralities. Ethical relativists might conclude that, in studying ethics from a philosophical point of view, you're wasting your time.

And here's what we get with slightly less mercy:

Who determines whether the thoughts and choices of individuals are correct? The media? Our friends? No one may know what is truly right or wrong. Ethical relativism dictates that whatever one’s culture says is right, is. As different cultures have different practices and hence different moralities, an ethical relativist would consider the study of ethics from a philosophical point of view to be a waste of time.

Well, that... isn't anything, is it? But I suppose that's the beauty of brevity and clarity in writing: it communicates your point more efficiently, but it also reveals when you don't have one.