John Green Gets Us

     Youtube is a platform for video content. What any channel choses to do with that platform is up to them. Content ranges from Make-Up tutorials, vlogging, how-to videos, and even educational videos. John and Hank Green started a channel in 2011 called Crashcourse dedicated to educational video-series in both the humanities and sciences.  In 2013, Crashcourse US History started tackling a breakdown of important US events. The style of these videos tends to be informal and upbeat but keeps an educational tone.  Enthralled with the idea of the use of plain language style education, I wanted to discuss how this can be an effective method of ‘edutainment’. By combining some aspects of academic tone with simple language, the writers communicate complex ideas in an easy to digest package.

            Having the benefit of being able to interact and understand their viewers, John and Hank have been able to tailor their content to match the viewer’s intellectual levels.   Going into the start-up of the channel, the Green brothers kept their established audience in mind. Their main channel, Vlogbrothers, started in 2007 and currently has 1.5 million subscribers, many of whom also watch Crashcourse.  A survey done of the Vlogbrothers’ viewers in 2013, where over 100,000 responses were tallied, showed that the majority of their viewers fell in the high school to college age range.  This age range is subsequently where the level of comprehension is held within the educational videos.

With the use of a readability score calculator, the average grade level of the video was found to be 11.3, or about a high school junior.  If the viewer’s reading level ranges 9-16, keeping the readability near the low end is a good choice.  The writers, John Green and Raoul Meyer, keep the grade level high enough to not over simplify the challenging topics, but low enough so that even their outlier audience would be able to grasp what they are talking about.  The average American adult reads at a 7th grade level, shown in a 1993 the National Adult Literacy Study. This video falls above that, but not an unreachable amount. However, readability and grade level aside, the blended use of official and plain style is what makes this video an effective method of communication.

               "But certainly the most prominent effects of the slave-based economy were seen in the South. The profitability of slaved-based agriculture, especially King Cotton, meant that the South would remain largely agricultural and rural. Slave states were home to a few cities, like St. Louis and Baltimore, but with the exception of New Orleans, almost all southern urbanization took place in the upper South, further away from the large cotton plantations. 

And slave-based agriculture was so profitable that it siphoned money away from other economic endeavors. Like, there was very little industry in the South. It produced only 10% of the nation's manufactured goods. 

And, as most of the capital was being plowed into the purchase of slaves, there was very little room for technological innovation, like, for instance, railroads. This lack of industry and railroads would eventually make the South suck at the Civil War, thankfully."   -Crashcourse US History #13 Slavery 

     This quote from the video shows the variety of styles employed by the writers.  There are few multisyllabic words and even fewer that are only used once. This allows the viewer to hear any unfamiliar terms in a multitude of sentences and understand them based on the context provided. Most of the sentences are of medium length, but even the long ones refrain from using multiple prepositional phrases which can easily become confusing. Green keeps his audience engaged by not speaking above their level of understanding, but also by not underestimating what they can understand.
      The least formal writing is shown in the starting of the last two paragraphs. The writers started sentences with a conjunction, allowing for a more steam of consciousness approach to the information conveyed. In the very last sentence, a viewer would hear a typical jarring sentence. The thoughts move from a very educational topic, industrial revolution and trains into an opinion of John Green.  Even the word choice is informal “suck at the Civil War”.  The colloquialism “like” is strewn throughout the video.  This filler word, often found in teenage girl’s everyday lexicon could be a habit of Green’s or it could be an attempt to mirror his audience’s speaking patterns in order to communicate with them effectively.

R.R. Watson

When Plain is Best

When one wants to just get an idea across to an audience, the plain style will most likely be used. Short, sweet and to the point. This style, when properly used, can be informative without the fluff of the official or creative styles. The key features for categorizing a piece as plain style are active voice in simple sentences (subject, verb, object), clear subjects and low levels of abstraction. This news article, found on the Fond du Lac Reporter, has used the plain style to clarify changes in the educational system of the district. There have been more and more of these changes in the educational system recently: most important being the shift to more of a teaching approach for problem solving learning style. The changes are to help improve Wisconsin’s scores on standardized tests. The article is for everyone to know and be able to understand how the changes will impact each own’s life. Because the article is for everyone in the community, it is written in a very clear, simple voice successfully.

The author of this article, Terry Kaldhusal of the Fond du Lac Reporter, wants to give the facts and remain unbiased in the activity system. With the use of the plain style, Kaldhusal can be successful in accomplishing this writing for parents, students, teachers and others involved in education. These new changes could be interpreted to be either worthwhile or a waste of time; one never knows how news will be taken by the masses. Because of this fact, the article is written without taking a side on the matter. The elements of plain style that are used to do all of this are: active voice, simple sentences, quick sentence opening and informal voice.   

Kaldhusal takes responsibility of the entire Reporter community and says, “this is neither a political issue nor a union issue. Our view is based on our students’ needs.” By stating this it is vital to note that the only thing care for the reporter in printing the article is to take our children’s best interest and future into consideration. These two sentences are very simple and get straight to the point that wants to be made. There is no slow opening or trying to soften the facts to be said.

The simple sentences and active voice of the text seem to produce easy reading and understanding within an article with such a wide audience. The sentences are all very basic and do not hold any unneeded or extra information. The article is purely used to get the details about the updated curriculum out to the public; so that, they know what questions to bring up and what to expect their children to be learning. Kaldhusal does this when explaining the changes about the learning style, “it demands that our students be able to read a complex text and understand it. It demands that our students learn to understand a problem and then use the skills necessary to solve it.”  There is never a way to please everyone when it comes to the creating a standard of teaching in a district; arguments will always come up. With this in mind, Kaldhusal is very meek in the explanation of the change.

This text is very effective, because there is little to no room for confusing about what is now happening with the changes being put in place. The writer wants the parents and others impacted in Wisconsin to understand what the children they are raising will be learning from this point on in their educational career, and this is achieved. Kaldhusal never slows down to say if the changes are good or bad; states the facts and leaves it at that. The plain style is a simplistic way of getting an idea across while being able to remain unbiased on a matter.

~E. West

The Power of the Plain Style

On August 28, 1963, history changed forever. In Washington D.C., Martin Luther King Jr. inspired Americans with his “I Have a Dream” speech, given in front of the Lincoln Memorial. This year, on the anniversary of the event, President Barack Obama delivered his own speech on the same spot where King’s oratory touched the hearts of thousands fifty years prior. Also speaking at the Lincoln Memorial were two past presidents: Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. “Honoring King’s Dream,” an article written by Abby Abrams and Glenn Greenberg of Time for Kids magazine, focuses on the remembrance and celebration of King’s ideals through President Obama’s presentation.

            Abrams and Greenberg’s article is clearly written in the plain style, earning a Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease score of 68.2. With an average grade level of 7.5, this article falls right in the reading ability range of the average American citizen. As expected for an article written in the plain style, fewer words are employed per sentence. In fact, each sentence uses an average of only 12.8 words, indicating the presence of short, simplistic sentence structure. Jargon is essentially nonexistent in this piece, and if a word is unclear, the authors define it immediately.

            Distinctio, or the practice of clarifying word meanings, makes an important appearance in “Honoring King’s Dream.” In this sentence, “in the early 1960s, segregation, or the separation of people by race, was accepted in many parts of the U.S., particularly the South,” (Abrams, Greenberg 2013) a critical piece of history is defined. Segregation, which occurred before and throughout the Civil Rights Movement, is a term that may not need to be explicitly defined for most readers. However, the inclusion of its meaning provides increased clarity and focus for the article’s audience. Simplification of ideas and well-defined understanding form the basis of typical plain style writing.

            Recognizing the intended audience for this article will also illuminate the reason as to why plain style was used. “Honoring King’s Dream” appears in Time for Kids magazine, which is intended for young readers in the upper grades of elementary school. In sixth grade, I actually read Time for Kids weekly in class. The format of the magazine is unpretentious, with news, feature articles, and cartoons spaced evenly throughout its eight-page spread. As can be imagined, Time for Kids forms an offshoot of Time magazine, which provides news with a more adult-focused informative style. I did a little investigating about the specific contributors to the article, Abrams and Greenberg. Abrams, who does not work for TFK anymore, currently serves as deputy news editor for the Columbia Spectator, a student-run newspaper at Columbia University in New York. Abrams studies at Barnard University, which is a liberal arts college for women also located in New York City. Greenberg’s resume proves much more intriguing. He works as a freelance writer and senior editor for Time, Inc. currently, but has written for Scholastic, Inc., Simon and Schuster, and Marvel Entertainment.

            Although both authors are adults, they each have a strong connection to magazine journalism. Writing for children, however, requires a certain level of patience for the simplicity of the text. Abrams and Greenberg’s motive seems clear: detail a Presidential event commemorating Martin Luther King Jr.’s speech. They do not appear to have ulterior intentions or hopes to corrupt their audience. As is expected in all writing, several rules and divisions guide the presentation of the article. Abrams and Greenberg hold a position of authority over the reader, but do not give the impression that they wish to stifle or provoke exasperation. Their brief, informative language places the reader in a status similar to that of a teacher and a student. Abrams and Greenberg serve as the instructors, while the audience plays the role of the student. This give-and-take relationship is voluntary and non-obtrusive. Something important to consider is that Abrams and Greenberg are not the ultimate authorities on this subject, though they have established some level of authority. Neither specifies whether or not they attended the event, so the audience is left to decide for itself to trust the authors. Positive wording throughout the article guides the audience towards an optimistic perspective while reading the article, which could be viewed as a subtle form of coercion.

            Like a teacher would, Abrams and Greenberg apply a couple different strategies to clarify their instruction. Exemplum, giving examples, presents itself accurately. The following sentences demonstrate this strategy by showing examples of segregation: “Black people and white people could not attend the same schools, sit next to each other on buses, or even use the same water fountains. Businesses often refused to hire people based solely on the color of their skin” (Abrams, Greenberg 2013). By defining segregation with the use of distinctio and following up with exemplum, the authors provide the audience with a strong understanding of the concept presented.

            “Honoring King’s Dream” also utilizes similar sentence structuring to make ideas easier to follow. This approach is called parallelism, and manifests itself in the example excerpt below.

“Obama told a crowd of thousands, ‘We rightly and best remember Dr. King's soaring oratory that day, how he gave mighty voice to the quiet hopes of millions.’ The president also said, “What King was describing has been the dream of every American’” (Abrams, Greenberg 2013).

            By using the same sentence structure of following the subject with a verb right away, such as the phrase “Obama said,” the authors set up a pattern for the reader to comprehend. Several other quotes in the article also use the subject as the first word in the sentence, followed by the verb. Such simplistic structuring makes comprehension of the sentence much quicker and cleaner. Using parallelism also allows Abrams and Greenberg to reduce the inclusion of passive verbs in favor of active verbs. It would be an interesting to further analyze the influence of this article if passive verbs were more prevalent, and contemplate what lead the authors to select active verbs to keep the article moving. News articles are notorious for using the passive voice, most likely because it is easier for audiences to understand versus more complex language. The authors of this article know their audience, but still encourage active involvement while reading.

            Abrams and Greenberg have a relevant, inspiring story to convey, and choosing the plain style over a different style seems to work to their advantage throughout the article. The celebration of a timeless speech by Martin Luther King Jr. requires the right amount of significance and clarity to bring across a positive, appropriate message. Such presentations like King’s can be influential to vast groups of people, and it is crucial for the speaker to understand the scope of the speech. King’s eloquence ended up contributing to a massive civil rights movement, ultimately leading to the elimination of segregation and inequality for African-Americans. Abrams and Greenberg grasp the intensity and integrity behind King’s speech, realizing that their audience depends on them to deliver an accurate, strong story. By relying on literary elements that define and elucidate the theme of the story, the authors’ ability to connect with their audience increases exponentially. “Honoring King’s Dream,” like King’s oratory itself, is a compelling example of the power of words.

By Danielle C.

Here's my Classroom, Plain and Simple

In the educational field, the importance of a developed relationship between parents and teachers has been growing. For the best student results, it is believed that the channels of communication need to be open between these two groups. And while there are several parent-teacher conferences throughout each school year, this type of interaction is too infrequent to make a difference in the everyday life of a student. Therefore, it is important for teachers to immediately establish contact with parents, and set up several channels of communication, including email, telephone, and personal letters. Many teachers believe that sending a letter home with students on the first day of class, addressed to parents, is the best way to establish this immediate contact.

          If a teacher chooses to write a letter to the parents of their students, they have multiple considerations to make. Their goal should be to come across as both professional and approachable, while also writing in a readable, yet intelligent manner. Striking this balance in writing can be extremely difficult, and failing to meet these expectations, especially for new teachers, can start off a school year on the wrong foot. And it’s not only teachers who must consider this balance while approaching a writing task, in many writing situations, including fields such as business, personnel management, and health, you are dealing with readers of varied skill who are expecting your writing to come across in this manner. In these cases, certain measures must be taken to ensure that your writing is accessible and clear. Generally speaking, writing in what is known as the plain style is one way to create this writing persona. Despite running the risk of sounding simple, it often seems that using certain elements of the plain style correctly enables a writer to find this balance between accessibility and professionalism.

However, if a beginning teacher is struggling with these types of situations, they have resources that they can rely on to assist them. For example, the Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC) website includes a “sample letter to parents” that teachers can use as a template. There were several different versions of this letter on WEAC’s page, and each one uses similar techniques and writing styles, and could be adapted to multiple different classrooms. Focusing on one example, we see the way these sample letters utilize the plain style to maintain readability, while also maintaining a level of intelligence and professionalism, make them an effective tool for new teachers to draw from for their own use.

         Studying this letter shows where three different levels of community in the educational system are interacting. On one side, we have an interaction between veteran teachers and new teachers, and on the other is an interaction between parents and teachers. These are both highly important relationships in an educational context. WEAC’s website is the artifact that creates the interaction between teachers, as it is a resource designed by veteran teachers for the use of other teachers, and they are pooling resources that are shared across the community. The sample letter itself is where we see the interaction between teacher and parent, as now the artifact that has been created is being used for its intended purpose, communication across two separate communities.

When studying the interaction of the veteran and new teachers, we gain a sense of collaboration and shared purpose. The letter is posted on the new teacher resources page on WEAC’s website, which demonstrates the way veteran teachers are collaborating with new teachers; they are making their experience-proven tools available for use by others. On the WEAC website there is a large amount of resources that a new teacher can access, including ideas for sample lesson plans, classroom management, and classroom organization. When a new teacher chooses to use these resources, they are aligning their goals and purpose with those of the veteran teachers. The fact they would be approaching their role in education in the same manner, through using other teachers’ techniques, implies this mindset of shared goals.

          Turning from the context behind the letter, and focusing on the artifact itself, we see that the way that teachers and parents interact in an educational setting is tough to explain, because each parent and teacher interact differently based on multiple factors. It can be assumed that the socio-economic class of the family, the educational history of the parents, the past relationships with teachers, and the student’s performance can shape each interaction in a different way. Considering this, we can never predict the relationship between a teacher and parent prior to the first actual contact, and each relationship will be different. Despite the nature of a parent-teacher relationship, every single parent has the right to be as active in their child’s education as they wish to be. To allow for that, it is important that any communication between the teacher and parent is done in a clear, professional manner. As we can not assume the educational level of any parent, a complexly written, jargon-filled letter would be of no use, as it would be denying some parents access to a role in their child’s education. The way the “sample letter to parents” uses techniques of the plain style, like active voice, concise sentence structure, and parallel sentence structure demonstrates how to write a letter that would meet the needs of all parents and students, and is an example of writing that would be clear and effective.

          Looking at the “sample letter to parents,” the first thing that is noticeable is the constant use of the active voice throughout. For example, examine the style the second paragraph is written in:

Psychology is a very demanding course. We will cover 19 chapters in 18 weeks. There will be homework assignments almost daily. Each student will need a single subject notebook, a pocket folder, blue or black pens and pencils. These materials should be brought to class every day. We cover a lot of material in one class period so locker passes will not be issued.

Each sentence utilizes only active voice, keeping the verb of the sentence directly to the right of the subject. By keeping the subject near the action of the sentence, the reader is easily able to interpret what goal the sentence has. In other words, the reader will know who is doing what in each sentence, and there is no ambiguity in the interpretation of the sentences. The paragraph avoids using techniques like appositives, participial phrases, and absolute phrases, which are ways to delay a sentence start, and add complexity and ambiguity to writing. By keeping the sentence structure simple, and active, there is no chance of losing the meaning in the sentence. Considering the parents who may be reading this letter, it would be a wise choice for a teacher to write in such a manner, because this creates a better opportunity for those with lower literacy levels to interpret the intended message of the letter.

          A second important aspect of this paragraph is the clear, concise sentences that it employs. The writer of the letter sticks to one idea per sentence, and one verb per sentence. One of the easiest ways to confuse a reader is to include multiple ideas subordinated and embedded in a sentence, which only confuses the meaning and purpose of the sentence. A standard method of embedding these ideas is through the usage of multiple verbs, either all relating to the same subject, or relating to a newly introduced subject. While these techniques can be used effectively, in a letter like the “sample letter to parents,” it makes more sense to keep your sentences simple, so that each point being made is done so in a clear way. Writing these concise sentences also helps keep the letter moving as the reader goes, and doesn’t force a reader to pause while reading to decode meaning in a sentence. In doing this, the writer is ensuring that all levels of readers are able to access the text. In the various writing situations an educator may be faced with in their career, being able to communicate clearly to all readers is the most important consideration, and using techniques that keep their writing in a more plain style makes this possible.

The letter also demonstrates effective use of parallel structure, as these techniques of the plain style hold throughout the entire letter, and only one sentence deviates away from standard subject-verb-object construction. The beginning of one paragraph uses a sentential adverb, “hopefully,” to begin a sentence, however it immediately introduces the subject after the sentential adverb. While perhaps the letter may seem overly plain due to its repetitive sentence patterns, by maintaining a similar structure, the writer again could be comfortable assuming that the message carried in each sentence is being expressed clearly. And in this instance, a clear and concise message would be valued over stylistic flair, especially considering the varied reading levels of the parents reading the letter.

          However, while the writing style is in the plain style, the letter maintains a certain level of professionalism. The writer’s obvious grasp over what they hope to say, and the explicit, clear manner it is laid out provides the sense of an author who has an understanding of their task. Based on these qualities, this “sample letter to parents” is a tool that new teachers would be wise to take advantage of as a framework to build their own letter. While I wouldn’t suggest simply cutting and pasting the information for your class into this template, I would suggest utilizing similar prose strategies in writing a letter such as this. As a writer, I would consider the ways in which all writers can use styles of plain language to make their message more clear and accessible that are presented in this letter, and consider how to adopt those strategies for my own needs. In writing situations that ask you to establish a connection with an audience of varied reading levels, higher precedence should be given to the clarity of your message, rather than creating technical, stylistic writing. However, by simply replicating what is on this sample letter, a teacher may fail to develop a letter that appropriately captures their intentions and that presents their persona as an educator correctly. And yet, for a teacher, keeping a letter in a plain, concise style, as demonstrated by this letter, will ensure that all parents reading their correspondence will be able to access the information and use it as they see fit.

By: Brandon N.

Works Cited

"Section 6: Sample Letters to Parents." Wisconsin Education Association Council, n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2013. <http://www.weac.org/professional_resources/new_teacher_resources/beg_handbook/letters.aspx> 

Jenga: Simple Rules for a Simple Game

Jenga: a highly popular and simplistic game night essential. It is likely that you’ve played whether you own it or not, and you could probably play right now without being told the rules. You probably don’t remember the first time you played, and you probably don’t remember ever reading the rules of Jenga. Maybe you never did. There are, however, official rules to Jenga. They are a great example of Plain Style in use.

            The activity systems in action in influencing the production of the rules of Jenga include the Hasbro Company and a vast range of players. The thing about Jenga is that it is a universal game truly “fun for all ages.” The box states that the game is for “ages 8 to adult.” This means that their rules need to be readable by players as young as 8 year-olds, but they still must appeal to an older audience. This creates an initial conflict in activity systems. It is difficult to imagine other situations where an author would be writing to such a diverse range of ages. This speaks to the versatility of the game, but would likely be a nightmare for the rule writer. If the rules are written down to eight-year-old intellect and this becomes obvious, older players may be deterred feeling that they are not meant to be playing this game. The secret to the success of Jenga is its simplicity. No one wants to read directions. We are a society focused on instant gratification. When we decide to play a game we want to play immediately. Hasbro however is interested in making sure that we are playing the game that it is intended and so written rules become a necessity. Even inside the company there may be conflict. The makers of the game may prefer a more specific and concrete set of rules, whereas marketing might say there is not room for that in their design of the box. Thus, there is a conflict among activity systems. A plain style that does not condescend is the effective compromise that Hasbro makes to reach the entirety of their audience of player of all ages. This same style delivers the necessary rules as efficiently as possible to avoid stealing too much time from the aforementioned instant gratification lifestyle.

The compromise reached by Hasbro is an effective Plain Style with minimal embellishment to hold the attention of readers of all ages without being overly robotic and monotonous.

            Jenga rules begin with an object (after listing the contents): “Remove one block at a time from the tower, and stack it on top. The last player to stack a block without making the tower fall wins the game!” Simple enough. This bulleted statement uses coordination, but not to complicate the sentence, only to combine sentences to avoid an overly choppy objective. In this objective we also see the repetition of the word block. If the authors of this rule set were more concerned with creating a creative or official style they may have tried to vary the ways they referenced the wooden Jenga blocks, calling them “bricks” or “pieces” or “prisms.” Well, maybe not prisms.

            After the object, the Jenga rules contain directions for set up. The first of these directions reads, “Empty wooden blocks onto a flat surface.” This statement is nothing but plain. It is a set of directions . In terms of “who is kicking who” it is implied that you are the kicker and you are emptying blocks. It may be unnecessary to include this direction as it seems obvious, and this raises questions about writing instructions like these. When is it okay to exclude what you perceive to be obvious?  The writers might have considered leaving this out to respect the intelligence of older players, but is it perhaps beneficial to the 8 year-old portion of their audience?

            The first rule in the next section titled “Gameplay” is as follows, “The player who built the tower goes first. Play passes to the left.” This is an even better example of a clear, active, who kicked who sentence. The player is doing the action of going first.

            The rules continue on like this maintaining simplicity and straightforwardness. The only way that the rules seem to veer away from a strict Plain Style is in the addition of additional information. One gameplay rule states, “As play proceeds and the weight of the tower shifts, some blocks become looser than others and are easier to remove. You can touch other bricks to find a loose one – but if you move a block out of place you must fix it…” Anything before “You can touch other bricks…” is extraneous regarding how to play. Hasbro may have considered leaving this out if there only intention was to present exclusively streamlined Plain Style information. Similarly, there is an entire additional section of the instructions titled “Game Variation – Solo Play.” Here, no new information is presented and the rules do not change except for the fact that only one person takes turns. Also under this section is included a bullet point which asks, “How tall is too tall? Find out when the tower falls!” Again this is unnecessary in terms of communicating the rules of Jenga, but after all it is a game.

            Hasbro does an excellent job finding a happy medium for broadcasting the rules of Jenga, their household favorite to a wide range of audiences while keeping their rules brief and palatable. This compromise involves a mastery of plain style but not a strict utilization thereof. Some extraneous information is added for embellishment. This avoids the monotony of too much text in textbook Plain Style and may be necessary to keep a reader from extreme boredom as caused by plain style even in a brief text. These deviations can be accounted by the massive variety of readers particularly ages.

            So then is there ever a place for an entirely plain style? The variations from a straight plain style in this essay seem to give the rules personality. Writing entirely in plain style would be entirely sterile. The only thing that comes to mind might be a set of precautions, but even then, is a personality-less plain style the best way to get people to listen? I would bet more people could tell you how to play Jenga than what the precautions are on an oven that they use more often than they play board games. I believe there would be some value to talking to people responsible for writing such texts. Much of this discussion is based on inferences about their motives in writing.

View full rules here: http://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/jenga.pdf

Spencer A

The Plain Twenties

Lists are a popular attraction in modern-day media. Websites, magazines, Facebook - they all have lists, because when a complex or difficult topic can be simplified into a list of top ten it suddenly becomes manageable. The current generation is not willing to commit a lot of time to reading an article. A list provides the option of simply skimming the bullet points and not reading the details. Huckabee, the author of “20 Things Every Twentysomething Should Know How To Do,” is aware of this. He is a managing editor of a magazine specifically geared towards people in their twenties, so he is certainly familiar with the techniques that work and those that do not.

The magazine Huckabee writes for, RELEVANT, also has a large presence on their website. Huckabee’s list of twenty things was featured on the magazine’s website near the beginning of October, 2013. At the time of writing this critique, several thousand people had viewed the article.

There are many actors involved within the activity system of this online article: Huckabee (the author), the readers of the article (older people trying to understand younger people, younger people trying to understand older people), the intended readers of RELEVANT (presumably twentysomethings), people who have not done much in their twenties, and the people who have done a lot of things in their twenties. Many people could be affected by Huckabee’s article, but judging by the title and the short introductory paragraph the intended audience are twentysomethings who haven’t done much with their lives.

Huckabee’s purpose is evident early on in the article. He begins by encouraging people that it is alright if they haven’t published a book or gotten married by the time they are thirty. So he doesn’t come across as harsh. But then he ends the paragraph (right before the list begins) by saying, “That said, there are a few things every twentysomething should know how to do.” So his purpose is to give an encouraging kick in the pants to many twentysomethings who apparently don’t know how to do much. It is a simple objective, but one that could easily be difficult to convey had not the plain style been used.

To accomplish his goals, Huckabee uses several tools that are typical of the plain style. He keeps the sentences short and less complex, with about 13 words per sentence, and 1.4 syllables per word. The Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease is 74.4, and the average grade level is 7.3. Overall, this piece is quite easy to read. Minimal jargon, little redundancy, and use of the second person help Huckabee keep the article simple and easy to read. But Huckabee doesn’t stop there. To further clarify, simplify, and minimize distraction Huckabee repeatedly uses the rhetorical devices of exemplum and metabasis throughout his article. It is the hope of Huckabee that by using these devices the reader will be the least distracted, thus receiving the most possible from the article.

One of the rhetorical strategies Huckabee employs is that of metabasis. Metabasis is simply stating what has been said and/or what will follow. It is often used to provide a summary of previously discussed topics. In the case of this article, however, metabasis is used to inform the reader what will come next.

Before the list begins, Huckabee writes that, “there are a few things every twentysomething should know how to do.” This statement tells the reader what the list is going to be: a list of things every twentysomething should know how to do. Throughout the list metabasis is further used. Each item in the list is titled, and then described. The first item, for example, is “1. Make a Great Breakfast.” This sentence is an example of metabasis, because it is telling the reader that the paragraph underneath this subheading will be describing how or why to make a great breakfast.

Huckbee uses metabasis in this list-style for a few different purposes. First, it keeps the writing clean, organized, and manageable. If there are too many words it is easy for millennials to lose interest or get lost in the fog. It helps to clarify and minimize distraction so that the reader will retain as much information from the article as possible. It also provides a means for someone to “read” the article without actually reading it. They can skim through the list, choosing to read the detailed explanation of any listed items they find particularly interesting, but not being forced to read every word to understand the main point of the article. The ability to do this makes the article all that more appealing. In Huckabee's mind the article is required to be appealing, along with accessible, if it is going to be memorable.

Perhaps one of the simplest and most common rhetorical devices is providing a specific example, known as exemplum. Examples help to bring concepts down to earth and make the points of the author tangible. It helps the reader relate, and makes the author's point more clear.

Huckabee's writing is full of examples, since every one of the 20 listed items are examples. Each subheading is an example of a thing every twentysomething should know (Parallel Park, Limit Your Online Life, Tip Generously), but there are further examples within the paragraphs under the headings. One listed item that may not be extremely clear is “17. Be Alone.” The reader may read the subheading and wonder what exactly the author means by being alone. Fortunately, Huckabee provides examples in the explanatory paragraph when he writes, “Be able to sit quietly – reading, writing, praying or listening to the silence – and use that time to truly evaluate how your spirit is.” By using examples Huckabee helps the reader relate to what he is trying to convey, and it is his hope that this will ensure the reader retains some of the message of the article.

Huckabee tries to reach a relatively difficult demographic in his piece, “20 Things Every Twentysomething Should Know How to Do.” College-age young adults who are media-conscious and may or may not be in the “real-world” yet. It is clear that Huckabee believes that most of his potential readers do not know how to do most of the listed items, otherwise he would not have written the article. Judging from the context and the activity system of which RELEVANT magazine and Huckabee are a part, it appears that the purpose of the article is to rouse unexciting or disinterested millennials into doing more with their lives. The article then is a response to the negative criticism that is often directed towards current-day twentysomethings. Often depicted as lazy, spoiled, and unproductive Huckabee writes a call-to-arms. Essentially he is saying, “Listen folks, people say that this generation is lazy and we don't know how to do anything. Let's prove them wrong. Here are 20 things you need to know how to do to start the campaign.”

This message is important for many reasons, and has a personal significance to Huckabee since he is a twentysomething. Therefore it is very important that his article is easy to take in, clear, and memorable. Huckabee uses the rhetorical devices of exemplum and metabasis to create an easy-to-read and easy-to-remember article. Most would consider him successful since the article has been shared on Facebook almost 121,000 times.

-M.C. Reynolds

Troubled

The 1990 book Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity by Judith Butler creates an influential notion of gender performativity. It is considered a canonical text of postmodern feminism and queer theory. A professor suggested the reading as part of a research project on postmodern theory. Throughout my analysis, the Official Style plays a role, more generally, through the use of jargon which relates to postmodern theory. I will provide sentences containing this, as well as analyze the syntactic ordering along with the semantic meaning of what this jargon entails. In similarly written texts concerning postmodernism you will find this jargon as well. This is due to the fact that the postmodernist’s activity systems aim to achieve authority not over the reader, but over the meaningful methods of performance introduced in their writing. In effect, the jargon functions as an establishment of knowledge about the methods of performance evident in the subject discussed. I will go into more depth with this later on.

This text is directed toward a higher education audience exploring gender and identity in a postmodern setting. What is meant by postmodern, according to dictionary.com, is the appeal to fantasy and allusions to traditional historic styles, as opposed to the demand for utility of standard modern theory. Further, the text generates a sense of imagination for the reader that provokes the interpretation of a natural concept of the female and gender in general. Traditional feminism is questioned and ultimately led to the broader idea that gender is a social performance rather than an expression of a reality prior. Butler’s rhetorical style used in order to develop her ideas seems to me to be of creative credibility. What I mean by this is that she chooses her words carefully and creatively in order to structure her language in such a way that makes her ideas seem more credible and convincing than they might actually be. From this, Butler simulates a confidence which I would consider to be, in this context, ‘performing confidence’. I do not mean for this term to be negative in connotation. I mean for it to be critical of how we use the word ‘confidence’. I also do not mean for this term to be applied to Butler herself, but rather be applied to the writing itself. Similarly then, the text is performing professionalism in the sense that the methods introduced create their own kind of unique profession to be engaged in.

I consider this confidence produced by Butler’s writing to be ‘performed’ because of the lack of rhetorical clarity. For instance, there exists a difficult wordiness that can be excessive and unnecessary at times, almost as if she can’t quite choose which word she wishes to use. It is demonstrated in this sentence: “Her argument makes clear that maternal drives constitute those primary processes that language invariably represses or sublimates” (Butler 56%). The fact that she uses the word “or” can mean many things, including the assumption that the reader, a person interested in, or introduced to postmodern studies, can choose whatever word they see fit. As if they can use the word “represses” or “sublimates”. I think this causes the sentence to allude to either the theory of repression or the theory of sublimation. It generates the option of two different theories to be considered in her text. Does she mean for a person to abide to the theory of keeping under control or to the theory of diverting completely? At this point, the choice could completely be up to the reader.

Another thing that sticks out to me is the difficulty of her word choice. The excerpt I chose to critique is written at a grade level of more than 16, almost a graduate school level. This difficulty also applies to the creative credibility I discussed earlier. Again, Butler chooses her words carefully and creatively, yet she may have over-accessorized her careful choosing. In Chapter 3 of her book, she poses a good, yet difficultly worded question, “What grounds, then, does Kristeva have for imputing a maternal teleology to the female body prior to its emergence into culture?” (Butler 56%). What Butler is posing here is the question of whether or not Kristeva has successfully hinted at the self-realization of the female body in a prior reality. A reality which existed before society had a chance to have an effect on oneself. A lot of reading beforehand and after the sentence is needed to understand this concept. The rhetorical strategy in effect by her as a postmodernist writer then, is allusion. Further, maybe even study outside of the book itself is needed, especially to understand what teleology in fact is. I think that she has chosen her words to be professional in order to further engage the reader through introduced methods, such as the method of performance.

To continue with my idea of the performance of confidence that is displayed in Butler’s writing, I will point out that throughout the entire book sentences such as the ones I have quoted are continually written in the ways which I have described. This makes me question the validity of her ideas. The ambiguity obfuscates the meaning of her sentences. The wordiness and using “or” allows for the reader to choose different meanings of the text. Overall, I think the person interested in, or learning about postmodernism is forced to continually clarify her meanings with simpler words that may not be sufficient. The meanings due to this could even be lost. This is troubling. At the same time however, I think that Butler meant to be professional. I also think that Butler meant to exercise her authority not over the reader, but over the idea of traditional feminist claims. And so, the performance of confidence shines through the writing when exercising her authority. Whatever the trouble may be, the style of this writing most likely suits those passionate about understanding what a new theory consists of, whether it consists of anything that needs interpreting at all.

In conclusion, I have discovered that jargon might need to be incorporated in the writing of a newly developed theory. Its need would lay in the attempt to provide some kind of knowledge base about the theory. This leaves us with the question, does this form of writing provide a real knowledge base, a tangible, physical, substantive knowledge about what is truly being discussed, or is it a work in progress toward real knowledge?

By Mariah

The Vicious Cycle of the Official Style

            Capitalist countries are always concerned about how to make their way to the top of the “food chain.” There is a continuous and vicious cycle of individuals trying to show off talents and their acquired wealth. One way to discover the intelligence level according to our culture, is to examine their writing. The western countries in particular place a high value on being able to write piece that only those with the proper knowledge in that area are able to comprehend. I have examined an excerpt from Neighbourhood risk factors for Common Mental Disorders among young people aged 10–20 years: A structured review of quantitative research co-authored by seven separate people.

The article is aimed at those interested in learning more about contributing factors to common mental disorders in teens. Just by reading through the title, I knew I was going to embark on a journey deep into fascinating and thorough research. The language already being used is weeding out those not educated enough to be able to ‘understand’ the research that has been thus far discovered. Without prior knowledge of conducting research, readers would already be confused  in the introductory paragraph when the author says they are focusing on quantitative research, but take into account qualitative research as well. The author uses language such as “A structured review of quantitative research” and have already excluded those who do not understand these types of research paradigms. The question becomes, is this a bad thing? Is it right for people who have not been exposed to this type of language to not be able to connect with the findings of researchers and be left out of the conversation?

People who may be seeking out the outcomes of the research could be those who are predisposed to high-risk environments that are tested. This could help predetermine if their children, or they themselves will develop a mental disorder due to their surrounding environment. These people may be concerned about the risks they are exposed to and curious about the detrimental effects it could have on their family. The language of the article could quite easily confuse anyone who is not practiced in understanding the official style of academic writing.

            Academic writing is a hierarchy forever lengthening the gap between those who are highly educated and those who are not. Word choice and sentence structure is subjective to each author. Many academic articles contain multiple authors creating the need for compromise among each individual author. Sentences such as:

These question whether more should be done to protect them from risks they may face in their local communities during the life stage when they become increasingly independent of their parents and begin to experience their neighbourhoods through independent, unsupervised activities as well as through more ‘structured’ activities managed by adults.

This excerpt uses repetition to add emphasis with the word independent. It also uses slow sentence openings to prolong what the sentence is implying.

Also, this one sentence has 51 words. Whether this is due to the authors wanting to sound more intelligent or compromise among the authors, 51 is an absurd amount of words for something that could have been dealt with more concise manner. The main point of this sentence is to question whether or not adolescents should be watched more carefully when they begin to venture out and play without parental supervision. They are gaining their independence from their parents and discovering themselves. The authors are only questioning whether or not kids today are getting too much freedom to early.

            The authors also mention having more ‘structured’ activities managed by adults. This sounds as if the young adults at question are partaking in activities that are inappropriate. Since the study in question is concerning young adults with common mental disorders, it may in fact not be the activities that are creating these issues, but the actual mental disorders themselves. By wording the sentences like this, it helps to create a more concrete argument that without more ‘structured’ activities common mental disorders are likely to develop.  Without more supervised activities, the adolescents are at risk. It uses language to give the impression that these risky activities are leading to an increase in mental disorders. Although, the authors do later recognize the other variables contributing and do not claim a direct correlation, they do state:

More extensive and sophisticated use of longitudinal study designs is necessary to help to disentangle the complex and reciprocal causal pathways involved in the links between ‘neighbourhood’ risk factors and adolescent CMDs, which develop over the lifecourse, starting before adolescence.

The authors again use proper language to say their results are not conclusive and more evidence is needed to make a concrete claim. This section contains the counterargument to their hypotheses, which is possibly why the author chooses to use even more complex language than before. There are “be” verbs and sentential adverbs. The author uses more redundancy along with another slow sentence opener. This article is a perfect example of the official style because it has continuous examples.

            The language used in this text is sophisticated and intended for an audience that practice in this particular field. Academic writing used jargon such as ‘to disentangle the complex and reciprocal causal pathways involved’ to sound more credible. The sacrifice this makes is excluding the general population from reviewing this information with an understanding of what they authors are trying to say. The issue becomes is it ethical establish credibility while simultaneously relinquishing the average person the opportunity to expand their own knowledge. Is this the way that academic writing should be? Should we praise those who can make such complex sentences that a majority of the audience who reads it can barely understand it? This is the type of behavior that is expected in academic writing and wanted from professors and teachers alike. Our culture seems to want to lengthen the gap between those more highly educated than others.

            Is there a way to overcome the vicious cycle of academic writing? Is it something to be concerned with? If those who are writing the pieces don’t have the power to change their writing style, who does? The authors must write in the official style so they have the chance of being published and respected by their peers. One of the few ways an author can establish credibility is by using the extensive language of the official style, but is there a way to overcome the official style and create a new kind of style that doesn’t exclude other audiences, is considered credible, and creates a unity of all types of readers?

Kelsey Jackson

The Confusion on Contracts: Bureaucratic Style Critique

Margaret N. Kniffin, the author of  “Conflating and Confusing Contract Interpretation and the Parole Evidence Rule: Is the Emperor Wearing Someone Else’s Clothes?” is a professor of Law at St. John’s University School of Law. Her article, written for the Rutgers Law Review, was intended for an audience who is interested in political science and economics. Moreover, those who are interested in understanding the confusing aspects between “contract interpretations with the parole evidence rule.” She laments about the “injustices that occurs in the courts, as well as, eminent scholars” in drafting and designing these documents. This sounds like a noble cause, and through her prose style creates a piece that has reasonable readability scores. (See Table 1) However, in attacking others for verbose definitions, she inadvertently uses the official style and fails in bringing any greater comprehension to the issue. Kniffin writes a piece, influenced by bureaucratic prose, to appeal to academic standards of scholarly research.

Her first strategy is to provide clarification on the issue of contract law and the parole evidence rule. Confusingly, she introduces her essay with extended metaphors and confusing images. One reoccurring motif seen in her article is that of the Emperor and his new clothes. She uses that story to bolster her definitions of contracts and parole rule. However, she takes a spin on the story and adds a co-protagonist. She describes both an emperor and an empress.

            “Let us assume that the Emperor and an Empress share power equally. Each one     can         represent, therefore, either contract interpretation or the parole evidence rule,   two currently and historically distinct concepts...”

It’s essentially the same childhood story, but with a twist. Both individuals or concepts act in the manner of the original protagonist of the story. This extended metaphor is not needed. It is a stylistic choice that creates unneeded confusion. Would the “average American reader” understand that references? Yes, her intended audience would, but others would not. Essentially, if the reader doesn’t understand the metaphor, the rest of the essay is useless.

            Evidence of official style elements rears its ugly head throughout Kniffin’s essay. In this piece, this strategy is used to establish ethos, and satisfy an unwritten law of academic writing. This law states: the only way to sound intelligent is to write using high-grade word choice. An example from the text is: “Those courts that have conflated or interchanged the two processes have, as a result, in many instances excluded evidence that otherwise would have been admitted or, conversely, admitted evidence that otherwise would have been excluded – thereby producing injustice.” Simply put this quote says: “From time to time, the court has confused contraction interpretation with the parole rule.” Using the official style adds two times as many words, leading to more chance of confusion. In this example, a sentential adverb, unneeded modifiers, and unneeded coordination aid in bringing misunderstanding.  Ironically, her purpose is to bring understand, however, within her prose she uses euphemism and jargon that confuses readers. The expected use of the bureaucratic prose style, in academia, shrouds the simplicity of this meaning in a verbose sentence.

Academia clings and praises the bureaucratic prose style. This can be seen through Kniffin’s excessive use of this style of prose. She uses this style because as a member of this community, she must project this ethos. Academia primarily uses official style to convey credibility, intelligence, and superiority upon its audiences. In acknowledgement, her intended audience is not the mythical “average American reader.” Rather the activity system most active and influential in her audience is one born and christened in the art of the official prose style. Caught in a conflict between individuals who expect her to write one way, and her goal off bringing enlightenment on the issue, she concedes to the former. As an academic scholar writing for a Law Review, certain elegance is expected in word choice, diction, and overall syntax. Through use of this style she alienates other readers. Specific, and learned strategies of the official style are evident in Kniffin’s essay as well. These learned strategies are byproducts of expected academic work. In appealing to this intended audience, she causes a dissonance with other activity systems. Communities of individuals who seek knowledge on the issue, “average American readers” and, arguably those who even hold prerequisite knowledge still leave unsatisfied. At what point does one criticizes her own crusade as being ironically the same thing she despises.

Academia is a huge proponent of the official style, however, intentional confusion is not part of the ideals. Greater specialization in academia breeds specific and obscure words. These specific and obscure words are then used in essays and other academic texts. In certain instances these specific words are needed. However, in other instances it inhibits understanding. In some instances this strategy is imperative, however in the vast majority it is not. Reaffirming journals, which only accept bureaucratic style, feeds this mentality. In the end, the bureaucratic style remains because it symbolizes intelligence and specialization. Kniffin, in her essay is appealing to these roles. False myths affirm that authority figure must articulate in this capacity. She does not understand that the use of this language is not needed. Greater understanding would be achieved by using a simpler strategy. This would truly result in truly bringing understanding to the parole evidence rule and contracts.

Table 1. Readability Statistics for Kniffin Text

Measurement	Unit of Measure
Flesh-Kincaid Reading Ease	29.0
Flesh-Kincaid Grade Level	14.8
Smog Index	13.6
Average Grade Level	14.8
Words per Sentence	22.5

E. Clyford