Making Great Use of the Official Style and The Life of Pi

By M. Thomas

In day-to-day conversation, we often determine our impression of a person’s intelligence through two things: the size of the words they use and the complexity of their ideas. However, there are plenty of people who present complex ideas in simple terms, simple ideas in complex terms, simple ideas in simple terms, and also complex ideas in complex terms. Translated into written form, any idea, simple or complex, communicated through the use of complex language is considered to be written in the official style. Long sentences, appositives, prepositional phrases, and big words are all common in the world of a writer who chooses to write in the official style. Often, official style is long and wordy, but there are plenty of examples out in the world of the written word that make great use of official style.

I found an exemplary example of this in a paper written about Yann Martel’s infamous novel Life of Pi: an amazing fictional story about a boy and a tiger surviving and coexisting in the middle of the ocean on a lifeboat. With the popularity of the novel, it is correspondingly popularly interpreted and discussed on an academic level. June Dwyer, one of those academics who enjoy discussing Life of Pi at a higher and more metaphorical level, wrote an article titled Yann Martel’s ‘Life of Pi’ and the Evolution of the Shipwreck Narrative. Dwyer is a highly experienced professor at Manhattan University and published this piece in an academic journal titled: Modern Language Studies, volume 35. In her thirteen-page analysis, Dwyer talks about the reinvention of the shipwreck narrative, which she explains is a common theme in children’s narratives that involves something that she calls: the “domination paradigm” (Dwyer, 11). While this statement sounds, albeit, a little confusing, Dwyer uses a specific technique in her academic analysis of Life of Pi that makes her version official style writing increasingly comprehensible:

Yann Martel's prizewinning novel, Life of Pi (2001) addresses this shift. It provides a new paradigm, reversing the trend toward human dominance over animals that develops in children's literature involving shipwrecks and the already established pattern of human dominance in the shipwrecks of adult literary history. In terms of children's literature, animals have traditionally been treated as equals — friends, even — but as the readers and the protagonists grow older, the affinity dwindles, and the dominance of human over nonhuman animal emerges. However, with Life of Pi, the domination paradigm is replaced with a more ecologically acceptable one of respect.

            Firstly, there are several incredibly common features of official writing used in this block of text. In the first sentence, an appositive is already used as well as large words such as “prizewinning” and “addresses”. Dwyer uses that big vocabulary in order to imprint the importance of Life of Pi on the reader while also permeating an academic/official tone to the entire sentence. The appositive identifies Life of Pi as a prizewinning novel and is also employed to accomplish that same goal of establishing an aura of intellect. Dwyer had most likely predicted that her audience would mainly be fellow academics, and in order for any of her readers to see this article is credible, it quickly became imperative to publish a piece radiating with techniques commonly associated with the official style.

            While Dwyer’s work shows lots of those tired complexities endlessly present in any writing done in the official style, she ensures that there is an earlier given definition to certain terms which she uses in her writing. The term “domination paradigm” might sound confusing on its own, but once you learn that June Dwyer kindly wrote out the full definition of what this means earlier in the piece, it can be difficult to not know what Dwyer means when she drops yet another sample of her favorite Life of Pi-related buzzword, “It provides a new paradigm, reversing the trend toward human dominance over animals that develops in children's literature involving shipwrecks and the already established pattern of human dominance in the shipwrecks of adult literary history.” That sentence is a lot, but you never have to read it again because for the rest of the article, Dwyer replaces that three-line sentence with two words: “domination paradigm”. Those two words function as a synecdoche does: a single part represents a whole. While Dwyer’s trick of defining a term and then making her piece several pages shorter than it has to be, she was most likely able to do this because her writing uses more than just the official style. The long, listy, and wordy world of official style exists around the ideas of both lengthy and complex ideas and diction. A pure example of the official style cannot exist without those two things, and Dwyer’s strategic shortening of a three-line sentence defies that pure example.

            And while that little trick, along with several variations of it, make a hefty portion of Dwyer’s writing far more accessible than it would have been otherwise, there are still plenty of devices familiar with the official style within even just the block of text shown above. The very last sentence reads, “However, with Life of Pi, the domination paradigm is replaced with a more ecologically acceptable one of respect.” This sentence contains countless complexities, and while that sentence can be turned into something like: However,  in Life of Pi the theme of man and animal becoming friends has been replaced with a more realistic theme of respect between man and animal”, there is a concrete and unarguable reason for which Dwyer does this: credibility. The credibility Dwyer sought after while writing her piece is not something to confuse with the credibility linked to accessibility; it is credibility linked solely to the opinions and thoughts of her peers. Her word choice and syntax throughout her piece uses those things such as hefty diction, appositives, introductory phrases, and the like in order to communicate her knowledge on Life of Pi and its retelling of the shipwreck narrative as credible and something to be trusted. A common argument against using the official style is often about wordiness, but an introductory phrase such as, “In terms of children's literature…” (Dwyer, 11). allow Dwyer to specify. That specificity is what makes her writing credible in academia. While there is a plethora of examples in government texts and incomprehensible papers written by a diverse pool of people who have attempted to write in the official style, Dwyer has provided an example of one way to properly use official style without butchering a reader’s interest.

Official Style: Friend or Foe?

By Maggie Marks

Often during college courses, the texts that are required for us to engage with and learn from are written in a way that is difficult to comprehend during the first read through. I find myself not fully comprehending the meaning until the second or third time through (or in some instances I need to hear someone explain pieces of it in words that aren’t horrifically dense). If you can think of a time that you have felt like this reading for school, then you have most likely read something in official style. Official style is a complex tool that can be used to show the sophistication and credibility that an author holds within their field. However, there are times in which using this style can hurt more than help the efforts of the piece.

The case study Incorporating Community Grant Writing as a Service-Learning Project in a Nonprofit Studies Course was written by two University of Washington Tacoma employees, William Towey and Ruth Bernstein. William Towey is the Senior Director of Business Development, and Ruth Bernstein is an Assistant Professor in Nonprofit Studies. The case study was published in the Journal of Nonprofit Education and Leadership, section Teaching Case Study. The purpose of the case study was to analyze the relationship between university students seeking to become grant writers and nonprofit organizations; and how this relationship can improve to best benefit both parties. To do this, students are paired with local Washington nonprofits in a service-learning structure to provide students with real-life experience, and consequently improve the nonprofit’s ability to produce grant proposals.

I found this case study while browsing the good ol’ Google Scholar for articles written about grant writing for nonprofit organizations. Considering the place the case study was published, and who the authors are, the article seems to be written for educational purposes. However, the reason for using official style feels as though it is persuasive in nature. The complex sentence structure and hefty vocabulary used provides credibility and portrays confidence in the evidence that was accumulated during the case study to convince their audience, both the students and the nonprofits, to reframe the way that they structure their relationships.

The question of whether or not official style is a friend or foe in this instance is best understood when looked at through both the lenses of the university and the nonprofit organizations. I stated my analysis by thinking like the college student that I am.

“Observing students and their nonprofit community partners build relationships rooted in the excitement of mutual learning and benefit was demonstrated clearly throughout the class as students became increasingly informed and passionate about their partners and the staff from the community organizations became equally excited about their increased ability to write a great grant.” (pp. 309)

Sentences such as these demonstrate the type of official style writing that students are accustomed to when learning in a university setting. The most notable aspect should be the fact that this passage is one sentence when it could clearly be divided up in smaller and easier to digest sections. This causes us to see a much more bureaucratic and verbose strategy being utilized. We as college students are fairly comfortable dissecting the meaning and nuance behind official style texts and feel welcome in this sphere. We have a mutual agreement between us students and higher education officials that this is the type of writing that we use to communicate with each other. To display convincing information this is the unspoken rule that needs to be followed to correctly communicate within the world of higher education. This is an example of official style being a friend to the university and the individuals connected with it. We see official style for its intention: a persuasive and effective tool to display the authors solid grasp of the concepts to the point of superior knowledge and understanding.

            On the other side of the coin there is another player who is being written about in this case study. Individuals who work for nonprofits differ from college students in the way that there is a potential for higher variability between the type of individuals involved. More often than not, nonprofits are underfunded and stretched thin. There is no guarantee that the individuals involved have an equal level educational background. Additionally, writing to them in this style could cause an unfair presumption that these people have time or resources to decipher the information being thrown their way. A service-learning approach that is being proposed to these nonprofits may truly be a beneficial choice, however the way that the information is displayed to them could be more effective in a clear and simple matter.

“Effective service learning based on a reciprocal outcome model provides a platform upon which secondary benefits of broader community engagement and participation may emerge for students, nonprofits, university, and community that extend the operational horizon of all participants. Deeper and potentially transformative experiences for learners occur as they enjoy the benefits of seeing their work support a cause in which they believe while gaining satisfaction from helping those in need (Cress et al., 2013).” (pp. 302)

This section is a very good example of a slow sentence opening, the point of the sentence doesn’t reveal itself until around the second half. Which begs the question of whether or not the first sentence is needed at all. There is also an impersonal or passive nature to all of the “action” that is being proposed/ talked about within this passage. It is difficult to decide what the main point of this section is, and because of this it feels exclusive against the nonprofit individuals. This is especially harmful considering this “Literature Review” section is all about reviewing what previous knowledge exists about nonprofit interactions and how they can improve. It seems to me like the nonprofits should be an equal part of this conversation. With this style of writing though, we can see how they are considered to be that.

            To wrap things up, the official style usage in this passage isn’t as clear cut a question as originally thought. It is not as easy as whether it is a friend or a foe. It should be more about the role that it plays when considering the audience that it is reaching. Official style is a regular occurrence in the world of higher education, while it can still exclude and be a hassle to decipher at times, there is a more minor chance for full exclusion of individuals. The nonprofits are where the use of official style can become advantageous or not welcoming. The irony comes especially when the main purpose for the article was to create a mutually beneficial relationship between the two parties. There should not be an opportunity for this level of disconnection. Because of this the use of official style is both helpful and harmful in this case study. 

The Downfall of an Argument through Official Style: Race and Postcoloniality

By Jon Brueggeman

Introduction

            In The Routledge Companion to Critical and Cultural Theory, an unfamiliar reader would have trouble finding a comprehensible sentence—sort of like finding hay in a proverbial needle-stack. No chapter exemplifies this needless complexity quite like Chapter 12: Race and Postcoloniality. For a subject so crucial to both literary analysis and culture within our society, it is discouraging to see the official style overshadow the important themes within the chapter. Rather than expand the audience of the subject or provide a clear lens to view literary works, the chapter distorts its message through convoluted language. The chapter hits the ground running with unnecessary wordiness in its opening sentences:

            Like all other fields of study and/or modes of critique in contemporary humanities, ‘postcoloniality’ and ‘race’ defy easy definition or summation. Whether conceived of singly or in tandem, each term holds together, in sometimes uneasy if not confidential co-existence, a diverse range of critics working from a vast array of theoretical, ideological, aesthetic, historical, and regional perspectives. What I present here is a particular partisan argument in the full knowledge that someone working in the same field(s) would, in all likelihood, present the argument differently, if not present a different argument altogether. (Amoko 131)

            What this entire opening paragraph says is essentially: “Race and postcoloniality are heavily debated topics. This is my opinion; it is not necessarily fact.” But the use of the official style purposely clouds the intention of the opening paragraph—making it difficult for the audience to understand what the argument is or why it is being made. Further, in that entire paragraph, we do not know what the argument being made is. The author never states it. By using the official style, the author conceals his argument to the benefit of no-one, except those who deem the paper itself credible because of the style alone.

            Don’t take my word for it, though. The author knows this as well. In fact, the final line of the opening paragraph deftly summarizes the excerpt above: “In short, I want to convey the sense that postcoloniality and race are sites of contestation and debate rather than clearly defined and readily summarized fields” (Amoko 131). Amoko summarized the entirety of his opening paragraph in one sentence, a sentence that is much more cohesive and direct than the opening paragraph before it. So, why does he still include the opening paragraph if only to summarize it better later on? This is the official style at its absolute worst. Fancy words and subordinate clauses that add (essentially) nothing to the grand scheme of the argument but are included nonetheless because they add superficial credibility to the argument. Complexity does not equate to depth.

Race and Official Style

We don’t have to look far for another detrimental use of the official style. This chapter has a tendency to introduce a compelling idea and then over-complicate it or in reverse order. Take the upcoming excerpt, for example. This passage intends to establish that: race is a socially constructed, dated concept that is ironically still involved in every moment of everyday life. Seems like a fairly simple concept. Let’s see how Amoko describes this idea:

Race turns out to be a false idea that has had, and continues to exert, powerful global consequences even after its fundamental falseness has been recognized.

Okay, this is wordy, but I’m with you so far.

There can be no question that race (that is, the belief that human beings can be divided into a limited number of morphological categories) and racism (that is, the discrimination on the basis of race) remain two of the principal forces organizing the modern world.

The added parenthesis here make this passage a maze to work through, and they add absolutely nothing to the overarching sentence. They simply define race and racism—things that were already defined earlier on and are most likely common knowledge to the audience members. Try reading that sentence without the added definitions. It still repeats information seen before it, but it does not sacrifice readability in its redundance.

(Race is a necessary condition for, but at least in theory not an inevitable cause of, racism.)

To me, this statement is contradictory. Race doesn’t cause racism? But…you just said that race is a necessary condition for racism? How can race be necessary condition but not a cause? It would seem to me that the act of placing people into races causes racist ideologies. This idea leaves me with questions that are compelling, but the author does not address this statement again. I do not understand the inclusion of the statement besides adding to the word count—it is a sentence that is guilty of muddying the waters and not much else. Perhaps I am just not understanding the sentence…maybe that suggestion speaks for itself.

In much the same way that everyone is thought to ‘have’ a gender, sexuality, and nationality, everyone is thought to ‘have’ a race.

Makes sense to me. Although, the comparison between nationality and sexuality/gender is unfounded because nationality is a defined characteristic (where someone was born) whereas sexuality and gender are fluid characteristics. Nonetheless, this is a succinct claim that everyone reading can understand and agree with. Notably, it is also the sentence with the least amount of official style strategies used.

For a long time, this way of thinking about race was validated by mainstream intellectual opinion; to deploy the sexist vocabulary of a bygone era, the ‘races of man’ were for more than two centuries thought to constitute a legitimate science. But the consensus of intellectual opinion today, both in the humanities and the sciences, seems to be that race is an irredeemably dubious concept: its boundaries are notoriously unreliable and its identity categories (‘white’, ‘black’, ‘brown’, etc.) are internally incoherent.

In a terribly roundabout way, Amoko is saying: we think of race as socially constructed today, but, in the past, we thought of race as biological. There is quite a bit of jargon and wordiness sprinkled in the quote to dilute its central message. The added words and distorted clarity have the benefit of seeming more credible but have the adverse effect of making the passage nearly unreadable. This is how the passage concludes:

Race is socially constructed… [despite this] everyone is still thought to have a race.

If you’ll recall, this section began with the idea that Amoko’s passage is trying to say: race is a socially constructed, dated concept that is ironically still involved in every moment of everyday life. It took all of those quotations and complex descriptions before we finally arrived at the idea he is trying to address. As I mentioned, this is the official style ruining an otherwise compelling subject. Instead of focusing on the content of the essay, the reader is so focused on trying to decipher what the author is trying to say that the concrete message is lost in the weeds. In my opinion, there is nothing, in terms of content, within this passage that justifies its use of official style. This passage could be rephrased in plain style, and it would be better for it. Nothing besides semantics would be lost in the translation. The needless complexities would be removed and the significant, central message could rise out of the revision like a phoenix from the ashes.

Conclusion

            In text examples aside, let’s get to the root of the problem with official style in this piece. The problem is: the use of official style discourages potential audience members and clouds the message the author attempts to convey. It is no question that every person deals with race on a day-to-day basis. The concept may not be apparent to some people (or more apparent for others), but everybody deals with race and its repercussions in all situations. This is the reason that the official style’s use in this essay pains me. I can imagine the diverse and infinite audience that this piece could relate to, but, sadly, those people will never get the chance to read this or interpret its true meaning because of the language that it uses. The ideas of race and postcoloniality transcend critical theory. This is a topic that could apply to everyone, but most people do not have the academic proficiency to decipher the message within. It’s sad because the message is universal in its content but completely exclusive in its execution.

            It’s important to note that I don’t believe Amoko’s intention was to maliciously exclude audience members. I assume that most uses of the official style come from a place of familiarity with the material and wanting to establish credibility. He attempts to analyze the complexities of race and post coloniality to the degree that he is familiar with the subject. It would be more effective to increase the audience appeal of the content because of the importance of the information. By using numerous prepositional phrases, intense jargon and drawn-out sentence openings, Amoko limits his audience to a select few members of his field when the piece is much better suited to introduce critical theory students to the realm of race and postcoloniality as well as its significance to the realm of literature.

 I’m sure he could find a way to say basically the same claims as stated in his essay in the plain style, but, realistically, it would be harder for his ideas to be published. This is the downfall of official style. When the style your ideas are conveyed in becomes the focal point rather than your ideas themselves, your argument folds in on itself. Not for a lack of merit, though. Official style pieces have merits of their own and significant uses of the style that enhance their message. It is important to not lose track of your central idea for the sake of being deemed “credible”.

Official Style: Ain’t No Style o’ Mine?

By Branden Schultz

Official Style catches a lot of flak for being full of sentences crammed with too many words, phrases, and terms (half of which are incomprehensibly complicated), and little time to breathe in between, let alone process the information you’re cramming down your throat. The style gets discredited for being exhausting, and at times downright unhelpful to its audience. To make things worse, sometimes the topic isn’t even complicated- but how the author handles it sure is. However, this style is not the useless mountain of garbage that some decry it to be. No, official style can be used to raise one's professional appearance- to raise their persuasiveness and eloquently raise points in ways that the plain and creative styles would not be able to. The truth is that the official style is not the enemy- it is a simple tool that is useful in the right contexts, and has pitfalls and tropes that its writers may fall into, just like any other style .

            The context of a text changes so many aspects of its quality- how can a text be judged if its: effective, clear, persuasive, informative, entertaining, enjoyable, popular, or credible, without understanding why, when, and where it was written for whom? Is the text a persuasive essay asking the city to install more benches, or a fictional short story of a cat trying to find its milk? Will the President of the United States be reading this, or a Kindergartener? In 1801, or 2016? Obviously, the tone, word choice, and exact subject matter will change depending on the answers to each of these questions. Without context, there is no answer to the quality of a text. There may be an inherent personal bias towards a specific style, but this is not an objective assessment of the text’s value.

            But it’s easier to believe it when you see it, I know. So let’s look at an example. Fundamental Undemocratic Values in Robert A. Heinlein’s Starship Troopers: How to Make Upper Secondary School Students More Self-aware of Their Fundamental Democratic Values by Sebastian Forsman, a student at the Stockholm University, shows an effective use of the style. And once again, the context behind this text shows why it is an effective use of the official style.  Forsman wrote this to the administrators of the English department at Stockholm University. He hoped that the thesis paper would convince the administrators to add Robert A. Heinlein’s Starship Troopers to the department’s list of required books for students. Forsman wanted to raise awareness of fundamental democratic values within the student body. His audience (the administrators) is a busy, intelligent group. Stockholm University has an acceptance rate of only 24%- this is not an easily accessible university. They need a compelling argument to change the school's curriculum- a simple “please and thank you” approach just won’t do. Also, this is a group of people that Forsman is writing for- they have separate ideologies and beliefs that must all be appeased. But it is also a small group of people, meaning that Forsman is not reaching for wide reaching circulation, but instead is trying to convince a specific and niche audience. The more detail that Forsman can elaborate on quickly and concisely, the better.

Admittedly, I was hesitant about the title’s length at first. With twenty-three (23) words, I thought it was a sign of excessively worded passages to come. But the title is perfect for Forsman’s audience, because it is exactly what his argument is. Robert A. Heinlein’s Starship Troopers stresses undemocratic values that upper secondary students should be aware of, to raise their understanding of the democratic values that should be preserved. What is the best way to raise the understanding? Add Starship Troopers to the school’s curriculum. ‘Fundamental’ is used twice in the title alone, creating repetition and stressing the absolute necessity of the values that Forsman touches on throughout the paper. Even the title is employing devices to help persuade his audience.

In the paper itself, Forsman speaks plainly, despite using prepositions and stringing clauses together within one sentence. He also maintains a clear organization throughout his thesis, helping the reader maintain a sense of direction while reading the piece, and also helping navigate through it for specific details- exactly what his intended audience would want. There is a table of contents, there are headers, and quotes receive their own margins for emphasis. The thesis paper looks incredibly presentable and official, again catering to his audience’s expectations. Complicated terms are given their own sections. They are broken down and explained, before being used seamlessly to expand on the importance of his thesis paper- why Starship Troopers should be part of the curriculum.

Forsman also speaks in a sequential manner. He relies on previous elaborations to carry new arguments ahead. Forsman writes, “Since Starship Troopers has been chosen as the teaching material to achieve the aims above, the first step would be to analyze its didactic potential. This concept is borrowed from Malin Alkestrand and her doctoral thesis on how fantasy novels could be used to problematize fundamental values in school (67-76)” (Forsman 11). A lot of information is conveyed in just these two sentences. “Since Starship Troopers has been chosen,” emphasizes that this novel specifically will “achieve the aims above,”. Here, Forsman calls back to pre-listed aims of his article, which he examined earlier. Finally, Forsman moves forward, stating “the first step would be to analyze its didactic potential.” Forsman, knowing that ‘didactic potential’ is likely a foreign or otherwise complicated concept, he elaborates on the concept’s origin (and its creator’s credibility in one concise move). The rest of Forsman’s paper is written in a similarly sequential matter- relying on past information to move forward.

Forsman’s paper has a Gunning Fog Index of 15.5, and a Flesch Reading Ease Score of 39.28. Each word has about 5 characters to it, while each sentence has about 23-24 words to it, on average. These are longer sentences (ironically each being about the same length as his title), but the language inside is only complicated if you haven’t read Forsman's earlier passages- in no small part due to his sequential style of elaboration.

In short, don’t hate the game, hate the player. Words never wanted to be complicated; they can’t want anything. They’re words. Instead, look at the author. Look at their purpose in reading. And look at who they’re writing to. Understand where they came from, and what they tried to make of their text. And then, stop hating the player. You just might not have been the original audience, and that same original audience might have thought that it was one hell of a read. There’s a time and place for everything, and even though official style isn’t the style of mine,  it is a style of mine.

The Importance of Grants and How to Write One

By Caitlin Olson

Many people believe that grants are just “free money” which is essentially what it is, but they are also so much more than that. They require a lot of preparation if an organization wants to receive one, and grants allow people to pursue projects they wouldn’t have the chance to pursue otherwise. Writing grants give organizations a chance to improve their facilities, provide educational opportunities, social programs, research, and so much more. For example, Darrell R. Jones submitted a grant proposal to the Ohio Office of Criminal Services (OCJS) trying to increase the public safety of the City of Summerville by improving the overall physical fitness of the officers of the Summerville Police Department. The Summerville Police department is experiencing a high incidence of cardiovascular and musculo-skeletal problems among its sworn officers, resulting in fewer officers on the street. The use of official style is evident throughout this whole proposal where it starts with a slow sentence opener as well as it continues to us passive voice. “It is proposed that a fitness center be developed where Summerville officers can regularly exercise” (Summary) Throughout the grant proposal it talks about what the problem is, the objectives they wish to complete, the project description, and their budget so that the funder can dictate what their organization is about. The use of passive voice is crucial so that that there is no emotional connection between the grant writer and the reader so that the main points of the argument are clearly stated.

Some important advantages that a grant provides are that they are an investment when other sources of capital are unavailable to initiate or expand programs, products, or services. Additionally, unlike loans, grants do not have to be repaid and it enhances brand prestige, visibility, status, and credibility. In the objectives section of the proposal they used a lot of jargon so that the writer seems more credible to the topic as well as showcase the overall necessity to pay attention to the issue at hand.  If the City of Summerville receives the funding, they are asking they will complete the following objectives: Reducing the use of employee sick leave for cardio-vascular problems by 20%, reducing the use of employee sick leave for musculo-skeletal problems by 40%, and lower the average resting pulse of unfit employees by five beats per minute. If they succeed in receiving this grant it will increase the health and fitness level of the officers as well as reduce their time off of work which is inevitably good for the department and community.

Unfortunately, many businesses do not end up getting funded. Common mistakes that organizations make are value inflation, no go-to-market strategy, the grant is too long or too technical, etc. As far as value inflation, investors will judge whether your organization is valuable. They want you to lay out the facts such as the problem, your solution, the market size, how you will sell it, and how well you will stay ahead of competitors. When it comes to not have a market strategy it could inevitably doom your organization all together. Investors want you to explain the sales, marketing, and distribution strategy of your company. You must explain how you have already generated customer interest and how you will leverage this experience through a cost-effective go-to-market strategy. Investors want to know exactly who they are giving their money away to and determine whether they have a plan. Lastly, investors are very busy and they read multiple grant proposals a year. They favour grant writers who demonstrate the ability to convey the most important elements of a complex idea in the least amount of words possible. Also, grant proposals are typically filled with technical details and investors only care about technology when it solves a big problem that people will pay for, can be implemented on a reasonable budget, and can be protected through patents or other means. So, using this information the Summerville police department used a lot of jargon as well as complex sentences to help them seem credible to the investor.

The Summerville police department did not get funded because of the magnitude of the project that they were asking for. However, the funder can fund the maintenance of the project once the major objectives have been accomplished. In consequence of not receiving funding to help increase the health of the Summerville police officers the chance of illness increases as well as the chances of criminal victimization increases when the officers are off work. Another possible consequence of being understaffed for health-related reasons is that the remaining officers at work are less likely to be able to handle the assigned calls causing the community to be in danger. One Study (Fisk, 1988) shows that the response time for police-relate 911 calls is significantly longer when shifts are staffed at below recommended length. In the most extreme cases, this could even be an issue of life or death.

The real point of grants is to rally the necessary resources to help an organization fulfill its purpose. A grant is a tool organization’s use to address issues within the community. While grants impact the organizations they disperse to, they will more significantly affect community as a whole. The Summerville police department grant is crucial because it affects the whole community and not just the health of the police officers. If the grant writer explains that they would be safer if they received funding, people would be less likely to be scared to leave their homes. Grants are an important tool that could benefit any organization and even impact the whole community. When written correct grant proposals could provide educational opportunities, improve facilities in the community, and even help communities be more prepared in emergency situations.

Supreme Court Case Analysis

By Matthew Nelson

      The official style is ever present in the scholarly literature that we have become accustomed to reading and writing for college or for our professional lives.  Some areas of literature have come to expect a higher degree of intensity from the official style than others.  The official style is a key aspect of writing in professional settings because it helps generate credibility and authority through linguistic manipulation and diction.  The legal community for example, is often more official in the texts that are produced than writing areas where less intensive diction is acceptable and does not detract from the credibility of the literature itself.  US v. Lopez is a Supreme Court case analysis I wrote to examine the positions of both the dissent and majority and then align myself with the side that I felt best represented the intentions of the Constitution.  In this case review I used an extensive degree of official strategies for the same reasons that the official style is so prevalent in education and professional settings, because it made me appear more credible than if I were to explain all the same points I made in a way that everyone could understand.

          In the case review, as I had mentioned, I use a number of the official style strategies that one would expect from a document pertaining to the legal formalities of constitutional law.  Below is an excerpt from the case review that I fell best represents the overall diction and style used in the paper.

“It is my position that in this case the majority was correct in their interpretation of the Constitution and in particular the Interstate Commerce Clause.  While the dissent did make a logical argument about the connection between education and interstate commerce and the relationship between firearms and education, far too much speculation was involved in their reasoning.  Had there been empirical evidence in United States v. Lopez to conclude that by bringing a gun to class Alfonso Lopez had substantially affected the education of his peers and that in turn damaged the economy of the area there may have been a case to be made.  As it stood however, I feel the majority made the correct decision.  One particular area that I felt to be especially compelling was the discussion about the possibility of the substantial effects doctrine to get out of hand.  I agreed wholeheartedly with Justice Thomas that such a liberally interpreted doctrine when compounded with the aggregation principle could enable Congress to significantly impose on state legislative jurisdictions and violate the principle of federalism.”

From reading this it is fairly easy to discern that I was writing with the intention of implementing official style strategies, or at least attempting to.  To kick off the excerpt, for example, I began with the strategy ‘slow sentence opening.’  At the time I was far less familiar with the nuances of the official style than I am currently, so the implementation of this strategy was likely an attempt to extend my paper to fit a page requirement.  The page requirement itself though is a way of encouraging the use of official strategies like that in practice.  Another official style strategy that I had found myself using to a high degree in this case review was the complex sentence structure strategy.  The example from the text that stood out was the single sentence “In accordance with the parameters set for Congress as they saw them the majority was able to rule the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 as unconstitutional and reserved that right for the states.”  It would have been perfectly acceptable to substitute that entire phrase for one that simply stated that Congress felt the Act was a decision for the states to make, but that would not have captured the essence of the official style and the inherent credibility we associate with it in quite the same way.  This quotation provides a not entirely uncommon example of my writing incorporating more than one official style strategy in one sentence.  In the case the other strategy, alongside the complex sentence strategy, is the verbose/bureaucratic strategy where a sentence drones on and is accomplished using more words than are necessary or efficient to convey the information.  Just like the complex sentence strategy this could have been to elongate my writing and for the purposes of the assignment’s guidelines, but I also believe that it gave me an opportunity to include a level of diction and verbiage that allowed me to present the information in a format that would, to anyone familiar with the topic, appear more credible and trustworthy.

          While I have explored the unnecessary nature much of my writing has, I think that it also helps to answer the question of the significance of this style as well and it pertains to the motive behind why I wrote this text and the purpose of the verbiage involved.  While it can appear tedious it helped me accomplish the goal of the case review itself, which is not only to explain my position on the case US v. Lopez, but also to demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the source material. 

By reflecting much of the language used in the actual Supreme Court position, which was written in perhaps the most tedious and complicated official style I have ever encountered, I was able to inexplicitly convey to my professor that I had a comprehensive grasp of not only the case, but also constitutional precedent as it applied to the case.  While the official style is a powerful tool in specific settings, the exclusivity of it to the niche communities that it is tailored for can make it seem almost like a foreign language to people that are not privy to the jargon or stylistic cues that are uniquely developed in the official styles of specific professional communities.

Philosopher Speak: A Stylistic Review of John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism

 By Draza Kolpack

When first reading Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill you might find yourself going back to read paragraphs multiple times in an attempt to grasp what the man is trying to argue or define, much like I did. It is hard to contextualize how this piece became so wildly popular in 1861 London, where only two thirds of men and half of women were literate at all, when we ourselves are trying to understand the content and implications of his lengthy sentences and use of evidently educated diction. I would argue that his jargonistic writing and flowery academic language was used simply because that style was expected in philosophical circles, but the issue of Utilitarianism being published in a popular London magazine calls to question if that was Mill’s true intended audience. With this in mind, it is my belief that this work was published for three reasons: to clear up misconceptions and provide counterclaims to other philosophers in the field, persuade the educated elite that had opportunities to incite change within the government and support new policies reflecting Mill’s views, and to garner support from the greater public following the principle of ‘I don’t understand this but I trust it’ by playing to his credibility through the use of the official style. However, this is not the only context in which this piece is viewed or understood; because modern philosophers and academics are taught Mill’s works alongside various other historical philosophers, we must also take into account this modern context.

To truly contextualize the contexts at play, however, I feel that it is best to have a greater understanding of the official style of writing this piece employs. The official style, often found in academic and bureaucratic writing, is characterized by the use of passive or impersonal voice, complex sentences, slow sentence openings, shapeless or ‘unspeakable’ form, excessive use of jargon, a bureaucratic tone, and higher levels of abstraction alongside a number of other nuances. Mill’s makes use of a number of these tools when writing Utilitarianism; I will exemplify these strategies and illustrate the implications of such stylistic choices by providing passages from the text. Furthermore, I will provide readability statistics that may grant a better frame of reference for the difficulty of the text.

Passage One:

“A PASSING remark is all that needs be given to the ignorant blunder of supposing that those who stand up for utility as the test of right and wrong, use the term in that restricted and merely colloquial sense in which utility is opposed to pleasure. An apology is due to the philosophical opponents of utilitarianism, for even the momentary appearance of confounding them with any one capable of so absurd a misconception; which is the more extraordinary, inasmuch as the contrary accusation, of referring everything to pleasure, and that too in its grossest form, is another of the common charges against utilitarianism: and, as has been pointedly remarked by an able writer, the same sort of persons, and often the very same persons, denounce the theory "as impracticably dry when the word utility precedes the word pleasure, and as too practicably voluptuous when the word pleasure precedes the word utility."”

This excerpt provides a great example of how the author tends to utilize slow sentence openings, essentially employing a long windup into an even longer and more complex sentence. These drawn-out sentence openings and the subsequent complex sentences utilized by Mill may just reflect the writing style expected of philosophy and academia in his time period, but these strategies serve to exclude the average reader; not only the diction but the addition of multiple concepts per sentence lends itself to unnecessarily complicated text that is not easily understood by those not in academic circles.

Passage Two:

“Utilitarianism, therefore, could only attain its end by the general cultivation of nobleness of character, even if each individual were only benefited by the nobleness of others, and his own, so far as happiness is concerned, were a sheer deduction from the benefit. But the bare enunciation of such an absurdity as this last, renders refutation superfluous.”

There are countless examples of shapeless/unspeakable writing in this piece, of which the passage above is one. While this writing style was and continues to be common with philosophical works it still calls to question how the meaning on this work is understood by different audiences and what information is lost in translation.

Readability Statistics: (Pulled from a longer segment of passage two as listed above)

(Gunning Fog Index: estimated grade level required to understand text / Flesch Reading Ease: scale from 1-100, 1 being most difficult to read and 100 being the easiest)

Now that the groundwork has been set, we must discuss the significance of the strategies within the contexts, and the spheres of human activity, in which Utilitarianism is found. The first that I would like to focus on is the original context; Utilitarianism was a piece published in three issues by Fraser’s Magazine in 1861 aiming to explain what utilitarianism is, to show why it is the best theory of ethics, and to defend it against a wide range of criticisms and misunderstandings. The primary audience for this piece must have been other philosophers, Jeremy Bentham (another utilitarian philosopher) in particular, in order to provide criticisms to Bentham’s ideas and detail the “misconceptions” surrounding Utilitarianism. Mill’s use of the official style suits the purely academic nature of this piece well, but because this work was published in a public London magazine the audience, and consequently the implications of Mill’s style of choice, grew at an incredible scale. While it seems clear that this work was not meant for the eyes of the generally illiterate public, instead with the focus of countering Bentham’s ideas and persuading the educated elite that had the power or opportunity to incite change within the government regarding support for new policies reflecting Mill’s views, Utilitarianism became largely prolific with the masses as an articulation of liberal humanistic morality. The easiest implication of this to pinpoint, and a trend that I feel parallels but is not as prevalent in modern contexts of this piece, is that the use of the official style can effectively gatekeep information from a massive majority of the readership. While it is true that the arguments of Jeremy Bentham and other utilitarian philosophers may have been adequately countered and that the political elite may have been swayed by this presentation of ‘proper’ ethics, the public also played a massive role in this context; the recently formed republic in Britain at this time was meant to represent the will of its constituents (the public) through its policy. From a perspective outside of academia, a perspective shared by nearly all of the general public at this time, writing in this style would likely portray the author as intelligent and credible even though the content would be difficult for them to consume- support for these ethics based on the rule of ‘I don’t understand this but I trust it’ had a very real impact. As a double-edged sword of sorts, half rebuttal half persuasive argument, Utilitarianism accomplishes each goal through the establishment of perceived credibility to its numerous audiences.

Now we must discuss Utilitarianism’s modern context; in that scholars and philosophers have not stopped studying the work of John Stuart Mill even to this day. The sphere of human interaction in which this piece is consumed has changed to a degree, though the implications largely stay the same. The main difference lies in the fact that Mill’s work is not presented outside of an academic setting today, and beyond that, the persuasive element of this piece is not nearly as applicable in a modern setting (in that there are no century old British elites and citizens to sway). Once again, we face the fact that the official style gatekeeps information from those outside of academic circles, but I find that it has a very diluted impact; while the average reader would certainly have difficulty reading this piece, they also have very little opportunity to make the attempt. The gatekeeping element created by the use of the official style is of course still present but academic institutions are now becoming the focal point for this issue- this in of itself has implications. Because of the close ties between academic writing and the official style, Mill’s proposal for a whole branch of governing ethics goes largely unseen by the public; the constituency that had so much pull as support for this work grew in 1861 Britain is not reflected by members of the public in this modern model. One may argue that no one wants to read the work of an age-old philosopher regardless, but I find it important to recognize the official style and the strategies it utilizes to contextualize the true goal of an authors work and the implications that has on the applicable audiences.