Inside Zadie Smith's Writing

“Creative Style” Critique:  Zadie Smith

            Creative style is far different than its companions, official and plain, solely, in my opinion, because of its freedom, its infinite vision, particularly when paired with the fictional novel.  There really are no significant or harsh boundaries required of the creative style, similarly with fiction literature, and it is free to incorporate all styles into one; an exquisite example of this use would be in the writing of White Teeth by Zadie Smith.  Her story mainly follows two families, the Joneses and the Iqbals, as they navigate the contemporary world of living as a human being.  There are a handful of perspectives that are presented throughout the novel, but they all connect in the very end, both literally and figuratively.  This freedom allows Smith to share her message or story in a way that she finds most effective.  She intelligently chooses which styles to use, where, and how.  This is what leads Smith to spread her message; she can speak to anyone who picks up the novel and reads, simply through her book.  Smith takes on the challenge of using creative style, so she can teach and delight, the foundation of literature studies.

            For our view, we will begin with readability statistics to get a formal, albeit superficial, basis for Smith’s writing.  There were two specific excerpts from separate sections of the book that were analyzed, and they can give us a workable range of readability to get a sense of the novel overall and where Smith’s writing can stretch.  The Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, also known as SMOG, offers approximate required years of education in order to comprehend the reading; White Teeth’s excerpts scored 11.02 to 16.78.  As for the Flesch Reading Ease, it scores between 0 and 100—the higher values indicate an easier read while the lower values imply higher difficulty.  Smith’s Ease score fell between 35.13 and 60.12.  These arbitrary numbers actually give us some insight into how readers will take to the novel.  For instance, the SMOG results show that Smith’s work could be taken well with High School to College-educated individuals, and the Ease score shows a standard to difficult comprehension. 

            A deeper dive into Smith’s language shows her use of all three styles in various ways.  For example, she has a fantastic way of distinguishing characters and their development.  Some characters, like the Chalfen family, are known as intellectuals and can be picked out easily by their dialogue.  They use a lot of official style strategies like longer, more complex sentences with a large, sophisticated vocabulary, like specific botanical terms or science strategies.  In addition, when Smith starts detailing a memory, or flashback, or even a background description, she tends to write in a more official to plain style, sort of like a news or blog article.  However, when Smith starts exploring more creatively, readers start to become more engaged.  The creativeness is what is real to readers and what truly speaks to them.  There is a plethora of figurative and creative language such as diazeugma, expletives to catch attention and for emphasis, epithets, appositives, similes, and so on.  This kind of language is what sets creativity apart.  Official and plain styles follow guidelines and seem to retain less emotion or humanity; they are monotone.  Creativity lets humans express themselves in a way they see fit.  It is colorful, it is raw, it is honest.

            There is a true beauty to creative style; it can attract so many people, readers, and writers alike, and offers just as many insights and evaluations.  Official and plain styles may get to the point faster, if you will, and are professional or universal to a point where it may be masking a writer’s unique voice and visions.  With creative styles, there is the potential to be limitless in understanding and influence.  It becomes a more intimate experience between audience, text, and author, and it never stops growing—the creativity, the discourse, the ability to reach more and more people each in their own way.

The Creative Reach of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

The first thing that comes to mind when I hear “creative style” is a well-written novel where I can get lost in a world different than my own. The Harry Potter series, a favorite of mine, is the best-selling book series in the world, and for good reason. This series transcends age and is truly a magical journey for any reader. This is a unique part of J.K. Rowling’s writing of the Harry Potter series. 12-year olds love it, 30-year olds love it. It is hard to capture such a wide-ranging audience with the same story, having to be sophisticated enough for the adults but simply imaginative enough for the younger readers, but Rowling’s version of creative style in Harry Potter does just that.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is the third installment in the Harry Potter series and often regaled as one of the best books of the series. Rowling churned out the third book in about a year, directly following the release of the second novel, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. Despite being one of the shorter books, Azkaban delivers a story of depth and growth, as the writing evolves as Harry gets older.

The first few pages of a book often establish the pace and style in which the rest of the writing will follow. In the beginning of Azkaban, Rowling manages to convey the longing and sorrow a child has for their friend over the summer break from school, while also bringing in sophisticated emotion in Harry’s struggle with his non-nurturing family and the gut wrenching feeling you have when your life is so tragic, even you forget your own birthday.

The biggest anomaly to me is Rowling’s ability to capture attention across multiple generations. Perhaps it is a mixture of relatability to Harry as he endures common adolescent troubles that everyone can either look back on or look forward to combined with the mature experience of agony Harry feels after facing death and abuse.

Rowling’s first unique use of creative style is when she includes an excerpt from Harry’s magical textbook. Instead of just telling the reader Harry is reading a textbook, the reader gets to look at the words as well, as if they are in Harry’s Place.

“The quill paused at the top of a likely looking paragraph. Harry pushed his round glasses up the bridge of his nose, moved his flashlight closer to the book, and read:

Non-magic people (more commonly known as Muggles) were particularly afraid of magic in medieval times, but not very good at recognizing it. On the rare occasion that they did catch a real witch or wizard, burning had no effect whatsoever. The witch or wizard would perform a basic Flame-Freezing Charm and then pretend to shriek with pain while enjoying a gentle, tickling sensation. Indeed, Wendelin the Weird enjoyed being burned so much that she allowed herself to be caught no less than forty-seven times in various disguises.”

Within this excerpt and as well as in the other writing Rowling uses distinction often to provide the meaning of some words, especially when they are specific to the magical world. This helps the younger reader in understanding things that may still be confusing to them but may also aid the older generations of readers who are focusing more on the story and less on the wizarding world vernacular.

This small example of Rowling’s writing of the Harry Potter series shows a variety of rhetorical strategies. A small example of scesis onomaton is used in her description of Harry’s attempt at being discreet in doing his homework in the dark when he “slowly and very carefully” opens his ink bottle. By saying he is slowly opening the bottle implies he is also being careful, but the repletion of the idea truly emphasizes the care he must take in order to complete a simple task. The emphasis on Harry’s attention to keeping his magical activities on lock and key comes later in the example when he puts his things away. Instead of providing his actions in one sentence separated by commas implying he is doing things simultaneously or right after the other they are separated by semi colons.

“He replaced the top of the ink bottle; pulled an old pillowcase from under his bed; put the flashlight, A History of Magic, his essay, quill, and ink inside it; got out of bed; and hid the lot under a loose floorboard under his bed.”

This gives the idea that each step he takes to put his things away is a separate move, as if he has to pause carefully after each movement in order to maintain the silence that is expected of him.

The Harry Potter series is loved by decades of people and it is due to J.K. Rowling’s ability to write in a way that appeals to that large of an audience in a successfully creative way. Her words and use of rhetorical devices are precisely the reason so many find her world just as magical as Harry finds his.

Noelle H.

Plain Style to Unite Audiences

The world of media is a lot more complex than some may realize, navigating billion-dollar acquisitions, company mergers, and network ownership. Knowing who controls the media you consume is important for a wide audience because of the impact ownership can have on content biases, particularly in the news realm.

Journalists must relay this kind of information not only to the general public, but also to other media outlets not involved, stock market enthusiasts, and business moguls. They do this through plain style.

Interestingly, this NPR article about the Disney/Fox merger popped up in their business section, not entertainment, iterating the importance of the financial effects of this deal over the effect on content now that Disney owns iconic, and sometimes raunchy, characters like Homer Simpson and Deadpool. This emphasis on financials is the reason it is more integral to the business world but is also the reason it is written in plain style.

The article utilizes many plain style strategies in order to make this topic accessible to a wider audience, however its readability statistics would tell you otherwise. Where the typical reading level for a standard audience to understand is seventh grade, this article clocks in at almost 13th grade! This could be due to the quotes that are included, increasing the sentence length, as well as the frequent mention of money and numbers from the financial aspect of it.

Coleman Liau index:12.11
Flesch Kincaid Grade level:12.98
ARI (Automated Readability Index):12.96
SMOG:14.77

The most glaring plain style strategy is the use of short and concise paragraphs, each containing one topic. Quotes are used to further explain topics while giving the audience the chance to contextualize what they are reading in the sense of who is being affected by this deal. Creative language is thrown in as occasional descriptors. This is probably to ease the financial heavy language of numbers and networks in order to keep readers more interested in the impact of their media engaged. The author dubs Disney an “entertainment behemoth,” references Disney “flirting with the idea,” and even begins the entire article by referencing two major characters from each empire. The initial sentence that introduces the merger to its audience is perfect:

“Homer Simpson probably won't become the newest member of the Avengers, but anything's possible now that Disney owns 21st Century Fox.”

The image of Homer Simpson on a life-threatening mission with the Avengers is ridiculous, but this descriptive, straight-forward sentence puts the Disney/Fox merger into context for those not as well versed in media acquisition but also exemplifies the impact it will have on content going forward in this new landscape.

Using plain style is further supported in this article when tweets are used to provide credibility instead of convoluted sentences. Tweets from Simpsons writer AI Jean and Ryan Reynolds, aka Deadpool show support and excitement in the simplest way. The additional use of tweets helps break up the places of jargon without taking away the importance of the subject matter or dumbing it down too much.

Plain style in this piece of writing is essential because of the audience it is targeted toward. What makes it credible isn’t the ability to explain the topic in a convoluted way like official style, but the way in which the author can write in a way that is understandable to the masses, despite the higher-grade level.

Noelle H.

Plain Style in Healthcare: too plain or not plain enough?

First aid: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) 

Presented by Mayo Clinic

Proper health literacy is critical to the vitality of the patient as well as the formality of communication between healthcare workers and the public. Healthcare is a complicated mix of both scientific fact as well as communicational ethics. Complication arises when healthcare professionals and experts try to relay information to the public. This information must be simple enough so that the patient and/or the average person can comprehend the definitions and explanations being provided. In order to avoid detrimental confusions and avoidable mistakes, plain language must be incorporated effectively. With extensive science backgrounds and knowledge, it can be difficult to “dumb things down” when many textbooks and medical/nursing schools often teach and expect their students to use official style in both their written and spoken language.

A big thing I have seen others do, and have even done myself, is immediately run to WebMD searching for answers to their symptoms. Most of the time the internet diagnosis is cancer, death, or some disease name I have never heard of. It is very likely that this internet diagnosis is wrong and a real doctor would say the same. This is because the internet is either too plain in its style choices or too official. Health websites usually use scientific language that common users are unable to understand. These websites are also very vague in their descriptions of symptoms, oftentimes, giving too large of a list or too short of a list leading people to fit the mold of the condition too easily. The same idea goes for health websites that offer instructional advice and/or guidelines. If the instruction is too plain, readers might oversimplify their actions and if the instruction is too official, readers might not be able to understand it, leading to confusion.

            Mayo Clinic Health System has been ranked the #1 hospital in the nation and is top-ranked in twelve specialties (MayoClinic). People trust Mayo Clinic in their accurate medical diagnostics and procedures because of their well-established and kind-hearted nature. If Mayo Clinic is able to provide exceptional in-person assistance, are they able to do the same on an online platform?

            To determine the effectiveness of Mayo Clinic’s online platform, I analyzed their first aid webpage concerning cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). On this website, created by Mayo Clinic staff, guidelines and instructions are given for techniques behind the basics of CPR (First aid: CPR).

In doing a basic reading of the webpage, there were numerous style strategies that stuck out to me. I noticed that the webpage information was split up into multiple short paragraphs, keeping information brief, yet, informative. In the beginning paragraphs, Mayo Clinic provides advice given from the American Heart Association (AHA) on steps to take if you are untrained, trained and ready to go, or trained but rusty. Providing information from the AHA installs credibility and trustworthiness that the material provided is valid and up-to-date. The website is also organized with the use of bolded headers to section off particular sets of information. The

Chest compressions

titles of these headers are parallel with the second word being a verb, for example, “Breathing: Breathe for the person.” These headers also go in an instructional order. Mayo Clinic advises that you remember to spell “C-A-B,” consequently, the headers go in this order too, “Compressions: Restore blood circulation, Airway: Open the airway, and Breathing: Breath for the person.” The webpage also displays illustrations of actioned instructions to help guide readers through the motions. These images, like the one on the right, provide specific examples, exemplum.

Additionally, I noticed some aspects of the webpage that could use improvements. The guidelines for an untrained individual states that 100 to 120 chest compressions should be performed per minute. How do you time this out? Trying to figure out the rate to perform each compression is not an easy task, and this guideline does not simplify it for the reader. The guidelines also state, “To learn CPR properly, take an accredited first-aid training course,” however, it also later states, “If you are untrained and have immediate access to a phone, call 911 or your local emergency number before beginning CPR.” There are two sets of instructions being given, which can lead to uncertainty in a reader. Another issue I found was the information lacking on the age ranges that differentiates a child from a baby. The vagueness of the ages provided can lead to mistakes, instead, a specific age range for both a baby and a child should be given so the reader is able to easily differentiate the two if attempting CPR. These were the most relevant features of the website I noticed in just my first read through.

            To analyze the website further, I explored the plain style strategies used in the excerpt that follows.

 “Breathing: Breath for the person:

1.     With the airway open (using the head-tilt, chin-lift maneuver), pinch the nostrils shut for mouth-to-mouth breathing and cover the person's mouth with yours, making a seal.

2.     Prepare to give two rescue breaths. Give the first rescue breath — lasting one second — and watch to see if the chest rises. If it does rise, give the second breath. If the chest doesn't rise, repeat the head-tilt, chin-lift maneuver and then give the second breath. Thirty chest compressions followed by two rescue breaths is considered one cycle. Be careful not to provide too many breaths or to breathe with too much force.

3.     Resume chest compressions to restore circulation.

4.     As soon as an automated external defibrillator (AED) is available, apply it and follow the prompts. Administer one shock, then resume CPR — starting with chest compressions — for two more minutes before administering a second shock. If you're not trained to use an AED, a 911 or other emergency medical operator may be able to guide you in its use. If an AED isn't available, go to step 5 below.

5.     Continue CPR until there are signs of movement or emergency medical personnel take over.”

The numbered steps give organization to the writing, giving the instructions in a step-by-step manner that can be easily followed in order. I have highlighted the present tense action verbs in yellow. These action verbs promote instructional action within the reader to act now. The sentences are giving the reader a simple, straightforward command to follow. The instructions are given a header title which acts as a form of metabasis to state what will follow. There is also parallelism evident in the text. The steps are given equal importance by having the inclusion of commanding action in each. The excerpt also provides examples, exemplum, for the reader to have a better understanding of what is being said. The examples, highlighted in green, give additional information to the reader by explicitly noting what an open airway means, what kind of breathing should be done, and how tightly the person’s mouth should be to yours. Without knowing this, the reader might not fully understand what having an open airways means and/or might not effectively assist the person with breathing, leading to possible complications. Distincto is also found in the example reading, “With the airway open (using the head-tilt, chin-lift maneuver,” because it tells the exact meaning of open airway to the reader. Another form of distincto is given when the text provides the full definition as well as the acronym for an automated external defibrillator (AED). This prevents ambiguity because some people may know one term but not the other. The portion of the excerpt, highlighted in blue, is where plain style is necessary but is lacking. Upon reading this sentence, the question arises, how many breaths are too many and how much force is too much force? This sentence is oversimplified and fails to provide the reader with necessary information. If exact information cannot be provided, information on how to tell if you have given too many breaths or used too much force should have been specified, instead.

            The use of plain style, in this situation, simplified the purpose of the writing and presented the information in an organized fashion. A readability test seemed to agree on this.   

Average # of words per sentence	Gunning Fog Index	SMOG	Flesch Reading Ease
15.23	10.94	10.75	63.19

 

Since the average U.S. adult reads at the 7th-grade level, this was obviously intended for a broader audience. The Flesch Reading Ease deems this writing as a standard style with an estimated 83 percent of U.S adults who could actually read and understand this (Principles of Readability). Even though it was graded as standard, the plain style being used is still not plain enough for all U.S adults to comprehend. The question arises, why isn’t this good enough and what were Mayo Clinic’s intentions in writing this article?

            Mayo Clinic’s presentation of first aid CPR is categorized under a tab labeled “Basics.” The article states, “The American Heart Association recommends that everyone — untrained bystanders and medical personnel alike — begin CPR with chest compressions.” Mayo Clinic’s hope is for the general public to educate themselves on the CPR techniques and the importance of it so that everyone is able to perform it in a given emergency. The AHA provides Mayo Clinic with standard protocols to follow and through this, Mayo Clinic is able to expand this knowledge to their staff and to the general public. The general public is expected to follow the instructions of medical experts and 911 operators and have a sense of awareness for the situation. The AHA, Mayo Clinic hospital systems, the staff/medical workers, the 911 operators, and the general public are all intertwined and expected to work together in medical emergencies.

            The expected role of the general public is to help as much as they can. They are not licensed to perform any significant tasks, however, until medical professionals can arrive, the job is in the hands of the general public. Mayo Clinic’s website article on first aid CPR was created to inform the general public as a learning experience, but not as an instructional guide to follow during a medical emergency. I understand that information is provided in a step-wise fashion, however, some sections of information are formatted into paragraphs that cannot be quickly read in an emergency. The article states that a person can die within 8 to 10 minutes after the heart stops beating, yet, it took me a little over 7 minutes to read this article. By this time, the person is likely to be brain dead. The information is accessible and in chronological order, however, the reading time creates an issue for someone in a situation of panic. If Mayo Clinic would intend this article to be used as on-site guidelines, the article should be made more accessible to a greater percentage of people and it should be more concise in its readability.  

Carly K. Baumann

Shortcomings when Condensing Science? A critical analysis on Plain Style

Public participation in scientific endeavors is one of the many benefits brought with the advent of the internet. One of the most infamous side-effects of misinterpreted or skimmed science is blatant misinformation that can continuously spread from person to person until public passively disregards the original information. This often happens at various levels and through degenerative stages of condensing the original point of a complex experiment to an often unnuanced headline. In this blog, I will be dissecting the layers of information condensation that takes place when information is sent out into the wide fields of the internet. To complete this analysis, I will be looking at two contexts of communication:

-        - The title of a Reddit post from “r/Today I Learned”

-        - The article from Stanford News that presents the findings of the research form the paper titled "Give Your Ideas Some Legs: The Positive Effect of Walking on Creative Thinking"

More specifically, I will be using an article from the Stanford News and attempting to see if the article properly translates the points of the original paper both in content and intent. This blog article is a study into the translating abilities of the Plain Style and ethical accountability of communicators, journalists, and writers alike.

Though we live with constant access to sources of information, many people often absorb small bites of information without considering the context of its origin. In this case, the initial contact with information comes from a Reddit post with the title:

TIL (Today I Learned) walking before solving a problem improves your creativity by an average of 60%.

For the average reader, new discoveries can dull the mind’s critical thinking: “Oh, that’s neat! Maybe I’ll take a stroll the next time I need to do homework.” This line of thinking is incomplete, as the study explains that walking or other minor exercises do not affect focused thinking. Most of the context surrounding this study is missing from this headline, leaving the reader with only a small piece of the puzzle. This lack of context would perpetuate a Misleading Vividness fallacy, in which a person jumps to a conclusion based on an anecdote or small piece of information as the basis for their knowledge: “Well, I can’t seem to figure it out. I’ve been taking walks for the past week but still can’t comprehend this mathematic proof…”

This cognitive dissonance could be caused by the placement of “creative” behind the subject  “problem-solving”. The reader will internalize the message as: “I can now solve problems more creative by walking” compared to “I can solve problems centered around creativity by walking”. Though the difference is subtle, the implications of the Stanford Article are missed in this third level of condensation.

We should then look to see if the Reddit patron was misled by improper translation on the part of May Wong from Stanford News. The article opens by dropping the names of Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg, two high-status celebrities who are used to create a sense of prestige and validity outside of the hard science. However, Wong hedges her introduction by directing the reader’s attention to the scientific paper in question in the next paragraph. This brings the reader’s back into the conversation of scientific inquiry and critical thinking that is necessary to understand the nuances of the subject. Quotes directly from the researcher explaining nuances and their thoughts on the study add validity and personality to study, a detail spared in the monotony of the Official Style.

Additionally, Wong appears to consider the audience she is writing for. This can be seen in the structure of information: the specific findings of the research are summarized in the first section, an explanation for the experimental methods in the second section, and the further context in the final section. This falls in line with the standards of hierarchical writing in news organizations, with the most important and pressing information at the top with extenuating circumstances and future research near the bottom. The Plain Style is only further solidified by the passive observation of a natural line of questioning: 1) What did the scientists find? 2) How did they find it? 3) What else can be said about this experiment?

Adherence to the Plain Style’s ability to translate appears throughout the article:

“Divergent thinking is a thought process or method used to generate creative ideas by exploring many possible solutions.”

This is a quick, accessible definition of a seemingly esoteric topic. This is further followed by an equally easy explanation of the experiment to test the presented psychological process. Rather than rely on the statics-centric vocabulary to feign authority, Wong cuts as much technicality from the paper in favor of a clear narrative structure for the reader; rather than simply laying out a detailed plot, Wong provides a satisfactory story. Wong’s clean and pertinent definitions are in clear opposition to the Official Style, which aims to obscure information behind a veneer of expertise and extenuating context. This opposition can be seen further into the article, where Wong relays the statistically insignificant correlation between walking and focused thinking. While these details are important form an academic perspective, the difference between the two cognitive processes has already been defined by the explicit citing of “creative thought” throughout the initial introduction. 

While I would like to claim that I have found an instance of poorly written science, I can only say that a thin layer of condescending information is found in this instance. A layer of miscommunication was presented at the onset with a catchy, but an inaccurate headline from a Reddit user. I would like to criticize this patron a little more, but the work done by May Wong does an excellent job of presenting not only factually accurate information for average readers and provides the context in a very accessible format. Not only does the Stanford News article counter-act the Official Style, but it also allows Plain-Style articles to actively bridge the gap between the scientifically inclined and the average reader looking to learn on their own.

Relationship of the Official Style and Communication Context: EPR Implementation Proposal

The communication of new medical procedures is a common hurdle faced by the medical field. Terminology can obscure the basic procedures and dense vocabulary at break-neck speed can confuse the general public. These features of the Official Style deserve criticism. However, certain circumstances call for this precision and restrictions of language. I will be exploring how the Official Style can be useful by critiquing the writing of a system's proposal for the newly developed Emergency Preservation and Resuscitation (EPR) developed at the University of Baltimore, with the research and implementation of the system being led by Dr. Samuel A. Tisherman. In the paper “Development of the emergency preservation and resuscitation for cardiac arrest from trauma clinical trial”, Tisherman and his colleagues describe to administrators and other medical professionals how the experimental  EPR system will be implemented for use by emergency services like trauma surgeons EMTs and military combat medics. 

While the remnants of the Official Style are present in this paper, the remaining rhetorical features appear to serve only as a means of keeping tonal evenness with the technical aspects. One aspect that is often criticized of the Official Style is the consistent use of technical information or round-about language used to describe the subject of communication. However, I believe that the context of this paper requires a certain amount of distance and precision of language. This can most accurately be seen in the introductory paragraphs when the reader is presented with two details:

 - Medicine’s current cardiovascular procedures are time-consuming and often fatal. 

-  Historical precedent has been set and should be recognized as an area medicine should improve. 

The emotion and dire straits are clear: “People are dying from excessive bleeding and the medicine does not have a solution; lives are being lost but we have a highly certain solution that should be tested”. When a possible solution to a problem is presented, emotions could obscure flaws or shortcuts in the procedure; the emotion and personal connection that helped drive the production of a new life-saving system can be the same emotion that will be called into question when the procedure is proposed to veterans of the trade. The medical field is an especially methodical field when it comes to implementing new ideas. It appears that the team writing this proposal has considered the emotional balancing act of both public communication and medicine. To mitigate the emotional stakes of the proposal, the doctors deliberately wrote about the fundamental shortfalls of the modern surgical doctrine and the casualties of Vietnam (pg. 803). Though it is presented in a quantitative state, the allusion to the events and casualties of the Vietnam War adds a neutral layer of ethos to the piece that would make the most skeptical administrator take another look at this proposal. While it may seem callous for medical professionals to manipulate language, it is appropriate for their station in the medical community. These doctors need to present themselves as levelheaded and through as the board of directors or contemporaries they serve with if this new technology is to be implemented. I would count this stylistic move so early in the paper as an ultimately successful, as the system has successfully been used on a patient in late 2019 and will most likely be seeing large-scale implementation in the near future. 

Technical knowledge can also unintentionally obscure information from the general public. This can be seen at a base level with the use nearly archaic medical terms such as “exsanguinating” in place of “heavy external bleeding”. You could also point to the Laboratory Studies section on pages 803-804, with a dense and technically eloquent explanation of the methods used to prove the concept of EPR. While I am not in the medical field, I would only assume that the complex functions of the human body require a deep understanding to properly navigate. With the nature of a newly devised centered around the cardiovascular system, accuracy must be used to properly convey the procedure to the medically literate audience. I believe that this stylistic choice is mirrored in later sections of the proceeding sections of this paper, including the sections for FDA approval, Conflicts of interest, Institutional Review (pg. 805), Community Consultation, Data Security and Training Lessons (pg. 806). These sections were written not for the benefit of the doctors reviewing the procedure, but for administrators questioning the legitimacy and political safety of EPR. There are some telltale signs of the style, such as removing the first person form a paragraph (FDA Section, pg.805) and the noun substitution used to change the perspective of study participants (Institutional Review, pg. 805). 

The technical framework of the Official Style is not without its faults. In the Community Connections section, it is stated that it “may be difficult to reach (them) during the community consultation and public disclosure process” (pg. 806). This quote only functions to define an obstacle for administrators and public officials to take care of without providing a solution. I believe this is an instance where the Official Style does begin to obscure the real message of the writing. I have not done a bunch of research, but I would assume that the difficulties would be centered around a patient’s fear of being a failed iteration of an experiment, especially with an untested system such as EPR.  While the mentioning of African American men is a relevant detail (since this is being implemented by the University of Baltimore), the vague nature of “communication difficulties” is suspect and should be defined more clearly.

The task of translating years of clinical practice and medical knowledge would be difficult for anyone. However, I believe that Dr. Tisherman and his colleges have used technical language and the Official Style to find a happy medium between the dense language of science and the general public’s minimal medical knowledge. It would be foolish to approach stylistic critique without considering the difficult situations writers are often found in.  If this were released to the general public in a press release or as part of the mentioned community outreach, the sideways eloquence and unnecessary medical vocabulary would confuse the public as to the nature of EPR. However, the rhetorical situation and stylistic context of this paper are clearly designed as a proposal for the medical community and administrators concerned with the details and methods of the procedure. This would also be a primary source of information for journalists looking to translate the paper into a more digestible format for the public. I believe that the partitioning of the technical and obscure from the systems and public-oriented writing of the paper is an appropriate use of the Official Style with a few minor hiccups that should be addressed.

The Difficult Nature of Philosophical Writings: a method to Gorgias’ madness

Gorgias (483-375 BCE)

Some of the best examples of official style usage can be found in the early forms of philosophical writing. The Encomium of Helen was written by Gorgias and edited and translated by Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg in The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present, second edition. This text was founded in my Introduction to Writing and Rhetoric Studies class, English 333. Gorgias was a Sophist who used Helen, the Queen of Sparta, as an example to debrief on the foundation of truth through paradoxologia. He argued that truth is an illusion, therefore, the truth of Helen could never be known since meaning is constructed through the use of paradoxical terms and their absents. Gorgias’ extensive use of official style has made the interpretations of his writing more challenging.

In order to give reasons to the difficulty behind Gorgias’ writing style, I further analyzed some of the official style strategies he used. Combining strategies are often used to avoid choppy and/or unrelated sentences within a writing. In particular, Gorgias’ writing used a fair number of these strategies for the purpose of combining multiple ideas. However, his use might have caused more confusion, adding to the overall difficulty of his writing. The following excerpt from Gorgias’ writing was used to analyze the most relevant strategies being used.

“To understand that persuasion, when added to speech, is wont also to impress the soul as it wishes, one must study: first, the words of astronomers who, substituting opinion for opinion, taking away one but creating another, make what is incredible and unclear seem true to the eyes of opinion, then, second, logically necessary debates in which a single speech, written with art but not spoken with truth, bends a great crowd and persuades; <and> third, the verbal disputes of philosophers in which the swiftness of thought is also shown making the belief in an opinion subject to easy change. 14.”

It is astonishing that this excerpt is only one sentence. The sentence is almost seven lines long and contains twelve commas (highlighted in red) and, still, with all the words being used, the main point is not entirely clear or understood. This sentence could have been broken into three or more single sentences. Particular strategies aided in the creation of the overall length and confusion of the quoted sentence, however, some strategies also served to provide clarity. The relative clauses that are present within this sentence lengthen the overall ideas by using the relative pronouns who, that, and which in conjunction with a subject and verb. In the second line of the sentence, who is used to connect the subject (astronomers) to the verb (make). This relative clause is hard to identify because it is sandwiching two appositives (highlighted in blue), separating the subject and the verb. The first appositive stating, “substituting opinion for opinion,” and the second, “taking away one but creating another,” are consecutive. The use of two consecutive appositives lengthens the sentence by including two forms of non-essential information, interrupting the flow of the main idea. However, even though the information is non-essential, it does add a sense of clarity to the subject (astronomers). By including these appositives, the reader becomes aware of how astronomers use words for the purpose of persuasion.

            If the sentence was not long enough, Gorgias decided to use forms of coordination to further elongate his thoughts. His use of and and but, combined multiple ideas to give them equal emphasis. Using this strategy, Gorgias was able to prolong the use of a period. This sentence also presents the strategy of subordination to deemphasize some of the complete thoughts. When is used as part of an appositive within the first line of the sentence. This deemphases the appositive reading, “when added to speech,” to indicate that it is not the main idea, however, it is necessary to strengthen the main idea. This is also an example of an appositive that adds clarity to the sentence. Without knowing that the sentence was discussing persuasion in speech, a reader could make different interpretations. This sentence also includes the use of an infinite phrase that enhances both the length and the clarity of the text. By using the phrase to understand, the sentence is given a purpose in finding how to understand as the text later lists the things one must study (first, second, and third) in order to understand how persuasion impresses the soul.

The quoted excerpt is slow in its opening which creates an unclear platform. The sentence’s overuse of commas, appositives, connection of clauses, and use of multiple nouns and verbs has split the main idea of the sentence in a puzzling manner. The steps listed (highlighted in yellow) in the sentence have been separated from the main idea of understanding persuasion in speech. The complex word choice used in this sentence is not one that is commonly used in spoken or written word. In the first line it reads, “is wont also to impress.” What does that even mean? I initially would believe that to be a typo. This word choice is distracting and difficult to tongue. However, we must keep in mind that this is a translation and every language has its unique origins, roots, structures, and cultural expressions. Due to the differences between languages, not all words and phrases translate accurately.

The use of official style, in this situation, overcomplicated the purpose of the writing and hid the main points from clear understanding. A readability test seemed to agree on this.

Number of Words	Gunning Fog Index	SMOG	Flesch Reading Ease
101	25.74	18.97	22.40

Since the average American adult reads at the 7th-grade level, this was obviously not written for the average reader. The Flesch Reading Ease score deems this excerpt as a very difficult style with an estimated 4.5 percent of U.S adults who could actually read and understand this (Principles of Readability). The question arises, who was Gorgias writing to?

            Gorgias’ Encomium of Helen was written to persuade his Sophistical position with outcomes of examining the power of persuasion. To do this, he shows that he is able to both defend Helen from her blame and convict her of blame all by the use of his words. Gorgias’ rhetorical reasoning involves his influencers who taught him: Parmenides, Zeno of Elea, and Empedocles, the Sophists who served as his discourse community, other rhetoricians, and Plato who was his biggest critic (Gorgias). His argument that truth is an illusion and all meaning is fabricated counters that of Plato’s. Plato believes in absolute truth through discovery of the soul. Therefore, Gorgias’ writing is meant to satisfy the arguments of other Sophists alike and bring new elements to conversation and it is meant to counteract Plato’s arguments for further debate. Gorgias’ need to impress his influencers and debate with Plato were the likely causes of his extensive usage of official style. Gorgias needed to be exact in his meanings, using multiple, detailed words to explain his intricate thoughts in order to close loopholes Plato might desperately search for. His tendency to overexplain himself likely resulted in his use of multiple appositives and lengthy sentences. Appositives provide extra information that a normal reader might deem unnecessary, however, Plato would have seen the lack of information as an opportunity to find error in Gorgias’ argument. I understand where someone could argue that Gorgias’ official style usage could more likely be due to differences in the formalities of the language between eras, however, I would argue that official style is used with specific intentions. Whatever Gorgias’ purpose, his usage of official style creates difficulties in the interpretations of his work, this is also why I do not believe his work was meant for the average citizen. His style choice aims to create thought-provoking arguments concerning rhetoric. Could his writing be rewritten using less official style to ease the troubles of comprehending his thoughts? Yes, but would it really be his thoughts, then? There are millions of ways pieces could be written differently, but changing the style of the author takes away from the originality of the piece. I will leave you with this last question, if philosophical writings, such as the one being discussed, were written more plainly with explicit explanations, would it be as enjoyable to read and learn from? Think about it.

Carly K. Baumann

The Official Style of Chiara Quaranta

“Official Style” Critique:  Chiara Quaranta

            Chiara Quaranta is a doctorate student of Film Studies at the University of Edinburgh, under the supervision of Dr. David Sorfa.  Quaranta has also acquired a bachelor’s degree as well as two masters’ in similar studies.  In such high-education institutions and research, it is only fair to assume individuals like Quaranta have been long exposed to the “Official Style” and how to effectively use it.  In order to affirm this notion, I have chosen to explore an excerpt of Quaranta’s research article, “A Cinema of Boredom: Heidegger, Cinematic Time and Spectatorship” (2020).  It is a piece for the highly academic world, so it was only necessary, in this view of Quaranta’s environment and goals, that she also work with a language and writing style that was of similar professional standards and for her fellow peers to observe.

            The initial focus of the critique combed through textual evidence.  What sort of style strategies were being utilized to indicate an “Official” theme?  Or, what makes the piece sound “Official” and convinces us, readers, that the writer is knowledgeable on the topic?  Beginning with some stability was also a goal, so to build some foundations, I collected a few numbers of data from a general readability calculator that reads as follows:  Gunning Fog Index (17.43), SMOG (16.14), Flesch Reading Ease (35.13).  The two former data indicate an estimated grade level of education needed to understand the article; the latter represents a level of complexity—lower-scoring numbers being more challenging to read.  Thus, from small data research, we can form a preliminary hypothesis that Quaranta’s writing qualifies for the “Official Style;” The numbers show that Quaranta’s article requires a higher level of education for better comprehension of the writing. 

            Now, what about specific, detailed evidence?  How can we conclude an individual’s writing style to be official based upon solely numbers?  As for textual evidence, Quaranta provides a lot for the general understanding of the “Official Style” such as, simply put, longer and more complex sentences and structure.  But specifically, the writing utilizes a lot of examples of “Official Style” key strategies.  In the introductory section alone, there were several relative clauses, prepositional phrases, many appositives, and various conjunctive adverbs, just to name a few.  In addition, the article was sanctioned off by various ideas for better, “Official” organization and had interesting diction choices like “counterintuitively,” “etymology,” and more. 

            Quaranta’s article was published by the Edinburgh University Press, in the February 2020 edition of Film-Philosophy.  Directly from the press’s website, they state that the journal “is an open access peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the engagement between film studies and philosophy” and are “interested in the ways in which films develop and contribute to philosophical discussion” (EdinburghUP). This information, alongside Quaranta’s own education, provides an indication of what kind of sphere of human activity the writing operates in.  The subject of philosophy tends to complicate things for many right off the bat, however, this topic can also insinuate why Quaranta writes in the fashion that they do.  For example, the heavy use of conjunctive adverbs makes a connection to logical arguments, namely conclusions, in philosophy.  Quaranta presents ideas, or premises, but often indicates when they are connecting ideas and creating a flow of thought.  This logical current resonates more effectively with those that may be familiar with philosophy, and some of the content resonates better with individuals who are familiar with Heidegger, film theory, or specific ideas like “horror vacui” (3).  This also gives the readers a chance to manifest and evaluate their own questions as if participating in the article or the philosophy of the argument.  The downfall, however, comes from readers who cannot or do not dig deeper with their thoughts and ideas.  Some readers will have more questions than others regarding Quaranta’s piece and may find it even more difficult to engage with the text and other resources.

            The average adult can comprehend reading at a level around the seventh grade; therefore, pieces that portray an “Official Style” tend to be more complex and harder to evaluate and consider.  Chiara Quaranta, a student of higher-education and many years of professional and higher-lever writing exposure, is just the individual to follow an “Official Style” to operate within their specific sphere of activity.  Quaranta’s writing is from a professional for other professionals, and it perpetuates the need for a specific style.  It does not indicate that we ought to write in a certain way, but it nevertheless creates a separation of understanding between people.  In Quaranta’s case, many people may be left out or isolated from the values of the writing because they may lack the education, among other variables, needed for full comprehension and involvement.

Brittany Estes