Amstel Review

pottssteve

A short piece wot I wrote:

http://www.cyclingnewsasia.com/en/road/ ... -and-story

Feedback always welcomed.

Steve

skylla

pottssteve wrote:

A short piece wot I wrote:

http://www.cyclingnewsasia.com/en/road/ ... -and-story

Feedback always welcomed.

Steve

Nice job Steve and it shows you know the route rather well. One question: what are Machiavellian roads?

DeadCalm

A good read. Thanks.

pottssteve

skylla wrote:

pottssteve wrote:

A short piece wot I wrote:

http://www.cyclingnewsasia.com/en/road/ ... -and-story

Feedback always welcomed.

Steve

Nice job Steve and it shows you know the route rather well. One question: what are Machiavellian roads?

Thank you for the feedback.

To answer your question:

Machiavellian: "characterized by subtle or unscrupulous cunning, deception, expediency, or dishonesty" (Dictionary.com)

Meaning the roads are twisting, subtle, deceptively simple. Arty, innit?!

Steve

calvjones

Very nice writing indeed. I think Machiavellian roads is a tad egregious though as it implies knowing cunning and we can't go anthromorphosizing everything!

[/pedant]

BikingBernie

I know that when people say 'feedback always welcomed' they rarely mean it. But for what its worth (I have spent a number of years teaching writing skills to under-graduates) I would say that the piece uses far too many clichés and so comes across as being rather unimaginative and as 'trying too hard' to be 'smart'. I would look to eliminate or re-write the following phrases in particular:

beings from another world
Immaculate in team livery
nonchalantly pushing
feather light machines
mill around
just before the starting gun,
gentle rain falls
slick stones.
resplendent in white
so it begins,
most prestigious
roaring crowd
Machiavellian roads
strewn with
looks sharp
coaxed out of hibernation
paper thin
like confetti
familiar…script
played out.
buffeting wind
a string of pearls
tortuous path
an abortive effort
savage …climb
tremendous effort
in vain
dying…light
thick grey cotton wool skies
a tunnel of noise
slope took its toll
a three horse race
enthusiastic amateurs

I always used to encourage my students to read ‘Politics and the English Language’ by George Orwell, from which I derived the following:

Orwell’s rules of good writing.

1) Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
2) Never use a long word where a short one will do.
3) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
4) Never use the passive where you can use the active.
5) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
6) Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

Then again, much of what the professional 'journalists' who produce stuff for sites such as Bike Radar come out with writing that is much, much worse.

Tusher

Thanks for that, Bernie. I shall cut and paste in preparation for writing up a thesis.


PS I enjoyed your piece, Steve.

pottssteve

BikingBernie wrote:

I know that when people say 'feedback always welcomed' they rarely mean it. But for what its worth (I have spent a number of years teaching writing skills to under-graduates) I would say that the piece uses far too many clichés and so comes across as being rather unimaginative and as 'trying too hard' to be 'smart'. I would look to eliminate or re-write the following phrases in particular:


Then again, much of what the professional 'journalists' who produce stuff for sites such as Bike Radar come out with writing that is much, much worse.

Bernie,

On the contrary, I wouldn't ask if I didn't mean it, and I defer to your greater knowledge of the literary arts.

You may have guessed that writing is not my primary profession! As a result, and due to the short deadlines involved in cycle-race reporting, I do use rather a lot of cliches. However, professional cycling is, in my opinion, built on just such these cliches, which are used to reinforce the majesty and heroism of the sport. I use many of them on purpose for that reason. Also, if I removed these I'd be left with about nine words.....


and as 'trying too hard' to be 'smart'.

And I'm a smart-arse.

BikingBernie

Tusher wrote:

Thanks for that, Bernie. I shall cut and paste in preparation for writing up a thesis.

I assume that you are just being sarcastic, but helping people to write an academically credible thesis is (or rather was) my job. Below is a section from one of my summary handouts which I feel covers points that most writers should take note of. I hope that it makes sense without the original formatting.

• In academic writing you should always strive for clarity, honesty and precision.

• Use the active voice rather than the passive whenever possible. For example, write ‘Bloisi and Hogel (2008) found that the bullying of kitchen staff by chefs is common’, not ‘It has been found that the bulling of kitchen staff by chefs is common’.

• The main aim of academic writing is the clear communication of ideas. In order to do this the use of words that require additional ‘decoding’ or which can lead to a lack of precision or clarity should be avoided. These include the use of:

• Inappropriate jargon in all its forms - consider the target audience. Examples include:

• ‘Management speak.’ (Also see Newspeak, jargon and puffery. Examples include ‘rightsizing’, ‘synergy’, ‘think outside of the box’ etc.)

• ‘Newspeak’. (‘Collateral damage’, ‘Friendly fire’ etc.)

• ‘Postmodernisms’. See http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/ for some examples of such language. Also relevant is the book Intellectual Impostures by Alan Sokal, Jean Bricmont (2003). A review of this book is available at: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/824

• Literary devices such as metaphors, irony and symbolism.

• Idioms. (‘Red herring’, ‘The bee’s knees’ etc.)

• Neologisms. (Newly created words, often having a limited lifespan.)

• Euphemisms. (For example, saying ‘passed away’ instead of died.)

• Colloquialisms. (Informal everyday expressions such as ‘loony’ or ‘nutcase’, meaning ‘mentally ill’.)

• Clichés. For example ‘it all boil it down to’ and ‘in a nutshell’.
(See http://www.suspense.net/whitefish/cliche.htm for many more examples.)

• Anthropomorphism. Writing about inanimate objects of non-human animals as though they had human characteristics.

• Rhetoric. That is, attempting to win one’s argument by means of the form of the language used, rather than the evidence presented. For example, by choosing words intended to produce an emotional reaction in the reader. Also, avoid first asking, and then answering, a question.


• Avoid using words that can introduce bias:

• ‘Puffery’. (‘Excellence’, ‘prestigious’, ‘world-class’, ‘leading’, ‘famous’, 'fantastic opportunity', etc.)

• Contentious labels. ('Terrorist', 'cult', etc.)

• Editorialising. ('Interestingly', 'obviously', 'notably'.)

• Synonyms for said. ('Claimed', 'revealed', 'pointed out', etc.)

The following is a good source of information on academic writing: http://www.uefap.com/

Of course, writing well in a literary style is another skill altogether and in this case the use of 'Literary devices such as metaphors, irony and symbolism' is often central to the whole process.

greasedscotsman

Give him a break Bernie, he does come from Manchester!

pottssteve

BikingBernie wrote:

Tusher wrote:

Thanks for that, Bernie. I shall cut and paste in preparation for writing up a thesis.

I assume that you are just being sarcastic, but helping people to write an academically credible thesis is (or rather was) my job. Below is a section from one of my summary handouts which I feel covers points that most writers should take note of. I hope that it makes sense without the original formatting.

• In academic writing you should always strive for clarity, honesty and precision.

• Use the active voice rather than the passive whenever possible. For example, write ‘Bloisi and Hogel (2008) found that the bullying of kitchen staff by chefs is common’, not ‘It has been found that the bulling of kitchen staff by chefs is common’.

• The main aim of academic writing is the clear communication of ideas. In order to do this the use of words that require additional ‘decoding’ or which can lead to a lack of precision or clarity should be avoided. These include the use of:

• Inappropriate jargon in all its forms - consider the target audience. Examples include:

• ‘Management speak.’ (Also see Newspeak, jargon and puffery. Examples include ‘rightsizing’, ‘synergy’, ‘think outside of the box’ etc.)

• ‘Newspeak’. (‘Collateral damage’, ‘Friendly fire’ etc.)

• ‘Postmodernisms’. See http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/ for some examples of such language. Also relevant is the book Intellectual Impostures by Alan Sokal, Jean Bricmont (2003). A review of this book is available at: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/824

• Literary devices such as metaphors, irony and symbolism.

• Idioms. (‘Red herring’, ‘The bee’s knees’ etc.)

• Neologisms. (Newly created words, often having a limited lifespan.)

• Euphemisms. (For example, saying ‘passed away’ instead of died.)

• Colloquialisms. (Informal everyday expressions such as ‘loony’ or ‘nutcase’, meaning ‘mentally ill’.)

• Clichés. For example ‘it all boil it down to’ and ‘in a nutshell’.
(See http://www.suspense.net/whitefish/cliche.htm for many more examples.)

• Anthropomorphism. Writing about inanimate objects of non-human animals as though they had human characteristics.

• Rhetoric. That is, attempting to win one’s argument by means of the form of the language used, rather than the evidence presented. For example, by choosing words intended to produce an emotional reaction in the reader. Also, avoid first asking, and then answering, a question.


• Avoid using words that can introduce bias:

• ‘Puffery’. (‘Excellence’, ‘prestigious’, ‘world-class’, ‘leading’, ‘famous’, 'fantastic opportunity', etc.)

• Contentious labels. ('Terrorist', 'cult', etc.)

• Editorialising. ('Interestingly', 'obviously', 'notably'.)

• Synonyms for said. ('Claimed', 'revealed', 'pointed out', etc.)

The following is a good source of information on academic writing: http://www.uefap.com/

Of course, writing well in a literary style is another skill altogether and in this case the use of 'Literary devices such as metaphors, irony and symbolism' is often central to the whole process.

Bernie,

Once again you dazzle us with an embarrassment of literary riches!

However, I would like to take issue with a couple of points, even though your second posting was primarily aimed at Ms. Tusher. Namely:

1. My article is not intended as an academic thesis and therefore should not be bound by the conventions of such.
2. Putting a " " at the end of a lecture doesn't make it much more light-hearted.
3. As the greasedscotsman points out, I am indeed from Manchester and therefore the fact that I am literate at all must surely be a feat worthy of some note. (Inserts ironic )

BikingBernie

pottssteve wrote:

I would like to take issue with a couple of points, even though your second posting was primarily aimed at Ms. Tusher. Namely:

1. My article is not intended as an academic thesis and therefore should not be bound by the conventions of such.

No, not all of the conventions. ( I specifically mentioned the use of literary devices). However, most of them do apply to all styles of writing, and many also mirror what Orwell argued constitute 'good' writing.

pottssteve wrote:

2. Putting a " " at the end of a lecture doesn't make it much more light-hearted.

So, you take what I said as being 'a lecture', presumably in the pejorative sense. As I said, "I know that when people say 'feedback always welcomed' they rarely mean it".

pottssteve

BikingBernie wrote:

pottssteve wrote:

I would like to take issue with a couple of points, even though your second posting was primarily aimed at Ms. Tusher. Namely:

1. My article is not intended as an academic thesis and therefore should not be bound by the conventions of such.

No, not all of the conventions. ( I specifically mentioned the use of literary devices). However, most of them do apply to all styles of writing, and many also mirror what Orwell argued constitute 'good' writing.

pottssteve wrote:

2. Putting a " " at the end of a lecture doesn't make it much more light-hearted.

So, you take what I said as being 'a lecture', presumably in the pejorative sense. As I said, "I know that when people say 'feedback always welcomed' they rarely mean it".

But you addressed your lecture to Ms, Tusher, not me.

Also, what I was responding to was not, strictly speaking, feedback on my modest article, rather a series of literary guidelines....

BigTree

Steve. Enjoyed your piece. Thanks. Everyone else seems also to have enjoyed it. That was presumably the objective. Cheers, mate.

pottssteve

BigTree wrote:

Steve. Enjoyed your piece. Thanks. Everyone else seems also to have enjoyed it. That was presumably the objective. Cheers, mate.

You are welcome. I'm just trying to wind up Bernie - we Mancunians are notorious for it.

Steve