Plain styles of writing are often thought of as opposites to official styles, which include dense academic, legal, and governmental texts. Often plain styles of text are thought of as more clear and approachable, and overall a better choice for reaching a large audience and for making sure all the information is easy to understand. There are even movements for increased requirement of plain style use, and current regulations like the Plain Writing Act of 2010, which requires clear communications in plain styles from federal agencies. However, does the plain style actually provide these supposed benefits? Is it always better than the official style’s dense, wordy text and heavy use of citations? To answer these questions, I’m going to critique a sample from a blog written in the plain style.
The sample I will critique is a blog post about why you should work out, written by Rob Sulaver, the CEO and Founder of a company called Bandana Training. The website for Bandana Training comes across bold and intense, and as a program that appeals to men who want to get in shape. Contributing to this effect, Sulaver describes himself as “your personal bandana-wearing lean muscle sherpa”, which is rather pretentious and self-aggrandizing, and probably supposed to appeal to men who wish they were like that. The website also depicts body images that would unattainable for most people and advertisements for supplements. The website I found this post on is called Greatest, and it is separate from Bandana Training, featuring Sulaver as a guest author. This website’s slogan reads, “Live a little healthier every day”. Greatest likely appeals to both men and women who want to incorporate healthier habits to their existing lifestyles. The audience is likely made up of people who lead busy lives and want to look for smll ways to live a healthier lifestyle.
Sulaver uses many plain style strategies in his post. These include short sentences and paragraphs, first and second person, the active voice, an informal tone, minimal use of jargon, and a list structure with several step by step instruction sections. Take this section of Sulaver’s post for example:
"Being stronger, leaner, happier, and more capable can make for a better life. Case in point: Your boss needs you to lift that heavy box? Yes, ma'am, you can. Your neighbor needs help rearranging furniture? Damn right, buddy, you'll move that couch. Your friend needs to be carried home from the bar? Saddle up, cowboy.
Training increases your capabilities. That's the law of progressive overload—lift something a little bit heavier each day, get a little bit stronger. Run a little faster each day, get a little bit, um, faster"
The plain style is evident in this excerpt. Phrases like “Damn right, buddy” and “get a little bit, um faster” are obviously very informal, and when combined with sentences written in first person like, “Your boss needs you to lift that heavy box” it creates a conversational tone that suits an audience looking to get information quickly. In addition to this casual tone, this post includes minimal instances of jargon. The most jargon-esk example is in the excerpt above, where Sulaver mentions the concept of “progressive overload”. However, the impact of this term is negated by the super approachable definition provided directly following the term. Throughout the rest of the post, Sulaver sticks to non-jargon words, using easier alternatives like, “feel-good hormones”, which once again make the post more accessible for general audience, but may also be too reductive and detract from the overall credibility of the post. The list structure and parallelism between all six sections of the post also make it more approachable. The first title reads, “Because it makes you happy”, and each subsequent title follows the same “Because it…” structure introducing the next point. These titles make it possible for a reader to get all six of the post’s main points without reading each individual section and as a time-saver, would likely appeal to the website’s target audience.
The downside of these strategies that make this post quick and easy to comprehend is that it is reductive. In his first point, Sulaver mentions two studies that support his argument, but does not elaborate on what form those studies took or what kind of data was found as evidence. Leaving this type of information out is a plain style strategy, because the author eliminates unnecessary technical information and instead states just the conclusion from the study that supports his argument. This omission aids the ease of comprehension and accessibility of the text for someone with limited time who can’t read the study themselves or who couldn’t get through a dense text like that, but it also eliminates detail that could enrich the Sulaver’s point, provide important background information, and increase his credibility.
Another thing Sulaver leaves out is any discussion about how to stay safe while working out. While the goal of this article is to promote frequent exercise as a lifestyle, it doesn’t even hit this topic, which is a vital aspect of any new workout regimen. Furthermore, this piece targets people who don’t already work out, and most of these people likely to have little background or formal training that would help them work out safely. For this audience, general safety information, learning how to correctly do different types of exercise, and knowing how to choose intensity or duration of the exercise, is critical. Without this type of information, a beginner is much more likely to overwork themselves, use equipment wrong, or even hurt themselves.
In one sense, Sulaver almost seems to encourage unsafe practices; in the introduction section Sulaver asks, “Why do they [people who love the gym] suffer through injuries, through misery?”. This question glosses over and oversimplifies injuries that occur while working out. While injuries do happen at the gym and shouldn’t keep people from exercising, someone new to working out could read this question and conclude that injury is normal and that they should “suffer through injuries”. This type of reduction is typical of the plain style, and could potentially have negative effects on its audience, in the form of physical injury. This shows that the plain style is not necessarily a better option than the official style, and that while there are definite benefits to the plain style, it is not always a better option than official styles.
Overall, the use of the plain style is partly effective here. On one hand, strategies like short sentences and paragraphs, first and second person, the active voice, an informal tone, minimal use of jargon, and the list structure create a conversational tone and makes the information presented quick, accessible, and easy to understand. These benefits exactly match the target audience, who are likely people with limited free time and busy schedules. However, the success is only partial because the article ultimately is too reductive in its word choice, evidence, and discussion of key aspects of the topic such as safety considerations. These issues show that although there are movements with widespread support in favor of plain styles, the plain styles themselves are not without their own weaknesses that can have considerable effects on its audience.
Link to Bandana Training: http://www.bandanatraining.com/
Link to Greatest: https://greatist.com/
Link to Blog Post: https://greatist.com/fitness/6-convincing-reasons-start-working-immediately-today
-Maria Dresen
No comments:
Post a Comment