Plainly, the Name is Bond, James Bond

Vol. 12, No.17 of LIFE, a registered trademark of TIME Inc.

http://life.time.com/?iid=lf|tn

James Bond is back.

 “50 Years of James Bond” was published on September 14th, 2012, and the 112 page special will be on the stands until 12/14/12.  As an avid fan of the film series, having started watching Bond at 13 during the Spike TV holiday marathon, I of course snatched up one of these bad boys when they came out, the oh-so-classic image of Sean Connery encouraging me to be “On the Run with 007, from Dr. No to Skyfall.”  I was curious as to what I would find in terms of prose style for this adventure.  The Ian Fleming novels were dense, intense, description-rich blocks of text; the films ranged from Roger Moore’s one-liners to Daniel Craig’s cold blooded, unsmiling license to kill.  In this featurette on the world’s favorite spy, you can relish plain style prose that narrates the epic history of the world’s favorite spy.  With glossy pictures, bullet-pointed facts, “Life Magazine’s traditional journalistic style,” (quoted from http://borg.com/2012/09/26/life-magazine-looks-at-50-years-of-james-bond-from-dr-no-to-skyfall/), and trivia aplenty, this Pussy Galore style romp is a display of the simple sophistication that is the Bond legacy. 

The viewers of James Bond movies are typically of a male majority, old and young, and tend to be fans of spy/action films, the occasional classic film buff taking a seat in the audience.  As this quote from page 184 of The James Bond Phenomenon: A Critical Reader by Christoph Lindner reveals, though, defining the viewing demographic of the Bond films is not as simple as it seems. 

“...in the 1960s, the audience for the Bond films had consisted, in the main, of adolescents and young adults’, whereas by 1979, ‘the audience consisted mainly of parents and pre-adolescent children.’  While this may well be true, that parenthetical ‘in the main’ covers a multitude of exceptions.”

(http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=x9-1QY5boUsC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=audience+of+james+bond+movies&ots=EPhDpdDf6P&sig=0nToa2wWpJA5kTfw_ORM8PHcTfg#v=snippet&q=audience&f=false\)

The Bond audience is far-reaching, not just in terms of viewer demographics, but also in terms of geographic and generational expanse.  Opening worldwide, celebrating its 50th year, and dividing its release between MGM and Sony, James Bond needs to be prepared for the entire world to take a peek inside of this magazine. 

(http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2011/04/sony-and-mgm-finalize-bond-co-financing-partnership.html). 

LIFE also has a readership to be aware of.  “Life magazine was one of the most important magazines published in the United States. One study revealed that in a given thirteen-week period in 1950, ‘about half of all Americans, ten years and older, had seen one or more copies’ of the magazine” (http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=7096).   

“James Bond is back.  It’s a slogan as old as 1963, when the second film in the famous series, From Russia with Love, opened, and it is being voiced again to welcome Skyfall to your neighborhood IMAX.  Bond fans, of which you are one, exult, and others marvel that the superspy is still with us; 50 years after Dr. No opened, 23 moves in all.  (Well, not quite all, as will be explained in our pages: There were two “unofficial” feature films made, plus a television adaptation of a Bond novel, Casino Royale, that aired way back in 1954.)”

Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease: 76.6

Average Grade Level: 7.0

Word Count: 100

Words per Sentence: 16.7

At precisely the average reading level of the United States, the first paragraph of “50 Years of James Bond” presents itself as clear and concise, using metabasis to encourage readers to move past the first page.  There’s no wordy introduction, there is no skirting around the facts; there is just cold blooded statement.  The first sentence  “James Bond is back” is aschematiston in Bond fashion.  In terms of Bond trivia, it’s important to know that “James Bond will be back in...” was the screen flashed at the end of (almost) every Bond film (that, or “James Bond will return in...”)  So, this simple opening plays directly into the activity system this article was written for.   Another important reason to put it out there and lead with the fact that “James Bond is back” is because 2012 saw the release of Skyfall.  MGM needed the world to know that “James Bond is back” so that they could sell enough tickets to pay for their multi-million dollar movie. 

The article promptly shifts into a informal “you,” addressing the readers directly.  “...Bond fans, of which you are one...”  The article uses Skyfall and IMAX theaters as exemplum of how and where you, yes you, will find yourself being a Bond fan.  This shameless promotion is effective in getting the reader to visualize themselves heading to that theater, buying a large popcorn, reclining in their IMAX seat, and living the newest Bond installment, and it also familiarizes the reader, making the reader feel chummy with the LIFE featurette and comfortable with the publication’s plain prose. 

In terms of punctuation, there appears to be some looser construction within this opening paragraph.  “Bond fans, of which you are one, exult, and others marvel that the superspy is still with us; 50 years after Dr. No opened, 23 moves in all.”  The semicolon usage in this sentence does not connect two independent clauses, and it is is not serving as a “super comma” within a list.  But will LIFE readers and Bond fans notice?  Probably not.  (http://theoatmeal.com/comics/semicolon).  This semicolon sentence is swiftly followed by parenthesis.  Both of these things contribute to the plain style of the piece, and cater to the audience’s desire for a fast, entertaining read akin to the gritty, frothy Bond flicks they love. 

Concluding the parenthesis is the phrase “way back.”   For younger readers and Bond fans, this serves as casual language; for older readers and Bond fans, this serves as hyperbole and sarcasm.  “Waaaay back in 1954.”  Some Bond fans were becoming parents in 1954; 1954 feels like yesterday.  “Way back” is a reminder of where Bond has been, but also an emphasis on how present Bond still is in today’s life.

All of these things add up to create an opening paragraph that is conversational, accessible, and tends to the old and young readers alike, mimicking the style of the Bond films themselves.

“If the movie was, ummm, stupid--and it surely was--many of its lead actors and other personnel were anything but.  One of its five credited directors was John Huston, who back in the early 1960s had wondered about making a Bond movie starring Cary Grant.  Woody Allen not only acted as one of the ersatz Bonds, he also contributed some (uncredited) writing, as did Huston and Orson Welles, who also costarred.  Niven, at left with Angela Scoular and above in the white suit with Joanna Pettet in the foreground, was an Oscar winner.  We have mentioned Deborah Kerr, and then there was Peter Sellers and Jacqueline Bisset as Giovanna Goodthighs and William Holden and Burt Bacharach’s music and...”

Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease: 54

Average Grade Level: 10

Word Count: 120

Words per Sentence: 20

Flush with exemplum, this excerpt explores the celebrity attached with the Bond films--even that of the unloved bastard parody.  I chose this part of the magazine to look at almost explicitly for the line “...the move was, ummm, stupid...” which for Bond fans is a bit of apodixis.  It is unlikely that anyone watching the 1960s Casino Royale walked away thinking, “Now there was a great Hollywood classic!”  Following the “ummm, stupid,” the writer launches into the film’s extensive cast, intimating that the film should have been better, yet somehow tripped and tumbled down a hill, coming to a stop in the land of poorly executed parody.  I think this excerpt is important in catering to the older Bond fans and LIFE readers, because it explores an event from “way back”  in the 1960s, and lists celebrities from an older generation. 

“Was Q quitting?  It seemed he might be when the MI6 quartermaster, played for the 17th time by Desmond Llewelyn, introduced Bond to a somewhat younger man he was training, played by John Cleese.  ‘If you're Q, does that make him R?’  The question is never answered, but Llewelyn was killed in the aforementioned automobile accident shortly after wrapping the film, and Cleese played the Q--or R-- role in the final Brosnan film.”

Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease 68.2

Average Grade Level: 9.1

Word Count: 75

Words per Sentence: 18.8

This blurb opens with the anthypophora of “Was Q quitting?” It then jumps into the Bond archives to discuss the nuances of Q (or R) and the death of Desmond Llewelyn.  The notion that Cleese was “R” is a bit of assumptio on the writer’s part.  Who qualifies as Q?  Was John Cleese allowed to be Q officially, or was Desmond Llewellyn the one, true Q, yet to have a successor?  I chose to look at this passage because the presence of Q within the film is vital to this year’s Skyfall; not only “James Bond is back,” but “Q is back” too.  The sentence “a somewhat younger man...played by John Cleese” caters to the Bond culture as well; in the newest film, Q is played by an actor in his 30s, and is presented throughout the film as perhaps even younger than that. (Here it’s suggested that “Bond purists” will be upsetted by the introduction of a Q younger than Bond, a deviation from the original Fleming works: http://screenrant.com/james-bond-skyfall-cast-ben-whishaw-kofi-141185/). The prose in this passage subtly hints at the discussions within the Bond community about Q and Q’s role within the franchise.  It’s things like this that delight the Bond fan in me.  The reference is simple and simply put, but the allusion to the fact that Skyfall is debuting the first “official” Q since the Brosnan era is important and relevant to the fact that “James Bond is back.”

50 years and 23 films later, I think this LIFE featurette is doing a fair job of appealing to the established audiences at play, Bond fans and LIFE readers, while drumming up interest in the newest installment.  As I had hoped going into it, the prose is like the films: simple, fast-paced, and direct.  The piece is effective at introducing nuances of the Bond franchise in an understated way, and it doesn’t crowd the piece with unnecessary words and explanation.  Ultimately, the prose used within “50 Years of James Bond” is like the man himself: a blunt instrument.  James Bond is back.

~Kali Brokaw

Organic Plain Style

Beginners’ guides are everywhere on the internet. They give us the support we need as we venture into an unknown world of a new hobby. For many beginner guides, they try to break things down for you step by step, so that you don’t run into any confusion. The “Urban Garden Magazine,” which has now stopped printing after 3 years due to unexplained circumstances, provided various beginners’ guide style articles about gardening when you have no room to garden. They had a unique situation in which the members of their magazine community could submit and publish articles through the magazine. With names like “Grubbycup,” various members of this gardening community expressed their knowledge on certain topics within gardening.

 Within this magazine we can see a few activity systems at work. The first is the community of gardeners who read this magazine. These gardeners range in skill level from beginner to expert, but come together to share a common interest. Those who read the magazine participate in the shared activity of gardening. Since gardening is very much a science, this community sticks to common guidelines and rules. The magazine acts to inform this community of those guidelines. Furthermore, these gardeners stick to certain types of gardening: hydroponic and urban. Hydroponic simply means gardening by substituting water for soil. Urban gardening is gardening in a small space, which is necessary in large cities when the gardener does not have a backyard.

The next activity system we see deals with the publication itself. As a community produced magazine, the staff allows gardeners who read the magazine to also publish articles. This creates a more intertwined relationship between the publication and the readers. It strengthens the sense of community for the reader, knowing that it is gardeners like them writing and practicing the topics expressed in the publication. However, the magazine seems to have run into conflict with another activity system. While the staff never expresses why the publication was ended, it could not have been from lack of articles or material. New discoveries about better ways to garden are always coming to light, and the community surrounding the magazine seemed to support it full heartedly by leaving many complimenting comments. Whether it was because another system acted to shut it down, or the staff ran out of resources to keep it in print, the magazine ran into problems with some other activity system which caused its demise. While the publication has stopped, the articles still remain on the website for others to use and learn from. In the end, this was the true purpose of the magazine.

The article I will be focusing on, “Beginners’ Corner: Labels and Logs,” focuses on only one specific part of the gardening process. As a beginners’ guide, we would expect to see terms explained and a more plain style of writing. The author of this article does this, but often assumes that you have already read up on some other things such as “ebb and flood trays” and “induc[ing] photoperiod-sensitive flowering.” Such terms usually are not in a person’s everyday common knowledge, unless of course you’re a plant biologist. These terms do not push the article over the edge of the official style, but can make it a bit more difficult when attempting to understand a new concept. 

Aside from the unusual terms and use of slightly more flourishing vocabulary, such as “acquire” and “improving yields,” the author of the article uses some interesting sentence combining strategies. This not only allows him to put more ides into his sentences, but also brings out fluidity within the writing. He is not choppily trying to describe how to label and log your plant data, but instead is entertaining you while informing you about the process. He often uses the method of parentheses when describing certain things in order to give just a little bit more information. 

For example, in the sentence, “Acquire some plant labels, a plant label pen (usually a permanent, waterproof marker), and something to write in...” he gives useful information that while not exactly necessary, would definitely help a beginner with their plant labeling. He uses an appositive again to add in a little bit of data later on in the article in the sentence “Also make sure you list major events...seeds purchased, etc - anything that you might want to refer to so you can make better informed decisions in the future.” This information is, again, not exactly necessary, but might give the reader a little bit more understanding towards what they should be focusing on. 

While the sentence combining is a little bit more complex than your average list of steps, the author is able to keep his overall reading ease grade level around a 10. Generally, things written for the general public are said to be around a 7th grade reading level. The author hits that goal in certain places, but his use of complex terms and longer sentences while explaining details pushes the level up a bit. This higher level may put the content over the heads of the completely new gardener, but for some they may have some background knowledge to clear up his lack of definition for the terms. This leaves it up to the reader to explore the topic in more depth if they did not understand the information right away. Yet, for the beginner who has already learned some of the basics from previous articles, it may not be as difficult to follow. It is clear that the author does keep in mind the audience he is writing for, giving some helpful extra bits of information throughout, and tries to keep it interesting. 

The author uses elements of informal speech, directly addressing the audience by using “you” throughout the article and giving entertaining quips of “Now I’m picturing thousands of you scribbling ‘Not to self: write stuff down’” and “Still not convinced?” This breaking of the wall between author and reader helps greatly to bring the text down to the level of the reader. He does this in an attempt to keep it personal and interesting. Often times he slips into speech that is appropriate when a seasoned gardener is talking with another well-seasoned gardener, but all and all it is clear that he is writing to an audience with only a basic knowledge of gardening. Sometimes it seems that he is writing more as an educated mentor that is guiding the reader gently through the steps. This in one sense could seem slighting condescending, but in another, be very helpful and comforting. It is a fine line which the author seems to tread with certain comments that assume the worst in the reader such as, “in either case, allow me to expand” which brings about a combination of plain style with official by using a word like “expand” when he means explain. 

All in all, the author is able to communicate to the beginners the necessary steps for labeling and keeping logs in a language that most of them will understand. Sure, a few terms might need to be looked into, but that’s true for most hobbies that you’re just starting. Eventually, the beginner will learn enough of the terms that when they look back at the article, everything will make perfect sense. “Grubbycup” is able to keep his informality until the end by signing off with a “peace and happy growing.” They style of writing that he uses allows the reader to feel a sense of community with those who garden and use the articles. The informal sign-off is repeated in many different articles by others on the site, which makes one believe that it is a salutation that is common to this particular community of gardeners. 

-- Rachel Gerlach

The Article: http://urbangardenmagazine.com/2009/09/beginners-corner-labels-and-logs/

Politics Put Plainly

Politics Put Plainly

Political commentator Matt Taibbi’s outward skepticism and apparent bias are refreshing in today’s world of supposedly objective journalism. There are facts and there are lies, and to report on each as if they were both legitimate shows fear of being attacked as “biased”. In his blog at the Rolling Stone magazine website, Taibbi published an article titled “The Vice Presidential Debate: Joe Biden Was Right to Laugh” where he comments on the debate as well as political punditry in general. He makes the argument that debate moderators and journalists have a duty to ask harder questions of political candidates and call them out when they are lying which, in today’s misguided political atmosphere, is somehow seen as unfair, slanted, and even rude. This argument has been made time and time again, but the way that Taibbi makes it brings light to something very important about journalism in general: If journalists stop asking questions, stop drawing attention to falsehoods, stop reporting as if they are actually human, then journalism’s official style will be the doom of the medium as it repeats the things that its subjects say without reporting on the truth or validity of said statements plainly. Before we go there, however, let’s get some background.

For the citizen casually interested in politics, this article is quite accessible and despite its simple style I do not find it to be dumbed down or insulting to the reader. Taibbi does not bother giving us all the details behind every point he makes, which makes readers feel comfortable and because he doesn’t need to for his audience. The people who read this blog get their news elsewhere, and this blog is meant to be a supplement to it (more on that later). Furthermore, since this article is editorial, it goes slightly beyond the ‘plainest’ style as the reader needs to realize that there is an explicit bias present. As far as credibility is concerned, the article draws quotations from the debate between Vice President Joe Biden and nominee Paul Ryan, giving it a solid platform of information to critique. It does slightly distort some information due to the author’s clear political opinions, but this doesn’t detract from credibility — in fact, according to Taibbi’s theory, subjectivity adds credibility. One can imagine sitting across from the author having a discussion that sounds alot like the way that he writes. This authenticity that does not mask meaning is very accessible and, basically, it works in the context of political commentary. Finally, Taibbi’s blog succeeds because he knows his audience and uses that knowledge to make allusions to familiar culture, state his opinion, and, get his point across.

As I’ve mentioned before, Taibblog (the name of Taibbi’s syndicated column in Rolling Stone) is in most cases not a primary news source. Rather, it is an editorial column for the author to express his opinion on current events. His readers will most likely read an article from the New York Times or Washington Post, then move to Taibblog to discover Taibbi’s opinion. In other words, Taibbi answers the “So what?” question that accompanies typical news stories. Furthermore, Taibbi uses his column to call out these other typical news sources for their apparent lack of interest in the stuff they are reporting on. If they really cared, wouldn’t they too laugh in the face of Paul Ryan when he makes claims of a twenty-percent tax cut for everyone? Taibbi’s answer to this question reads, “We all should be doing it. That includes all of us in the media, and not just paid obnoxious-opinion-merchants like me, but so-called "objective" news reporters as well.” Here, Taibbi directly addresses the fact that he is an “obnoxious-opinion-merchant”. In other words, his blog has a bias, and he isn’t afraid to show it. Using the word “obnoxious” to describe himself draws attention to his ample use of sarcasm and keeps the reader from taking him too seriously. This type of meta-discourse would not fly in the official style, which seeks to hide meanings and opinions under the illusion that it is “objective”, but by using the plain style, Taibbi can says what he wants to say and provide a report that is true and meaningful rather than true but dry.

So what makes Taibbi’s blog so stylistically different from others? First of all, it is his colloquial language that brings him closer to the reader and, more specifically, his use of expletive phrases. For example: “But man, did he get it right in last night's debate, and not just because he walloped sniveling little Paul Ryan on the facts.” “But man” is an  example of the many expletives that Taibbi uses in his blog.  Later in the article,  we find another example of this technique: “Think about what that means. Mitt Romney is running for president – for president! – promising an across-the-board 20 percent tax cut without offering any details about how that's going to be paid for.” Again, Taibbi uses an expletive phrase to bring himself closer to the audience while also adding emphasis to what is important about his article — his disgust at the lies of the now irrelevant Romney/Ryan presidential ticket. This use of expletive phrases helps the reader imagine sitting down with the author and talking politics, debasing the “top-down” mentality of journalism where the source of news is above a blissfully ignorant audience.

Along with his colloquialisms, Taibbi uses a deep understanding of his audience and purpose to his advantage. Rolling Stone magazine highlights popular culture and liberal politics from its publishing office in New York City. Although it is a national publication, it can be safely assumed that Rolling Stone is read by young, urban, liberal New Yorkers. Taibbi makes use of this knowledge by bringing familiar allusions into his work. For example, he says, “So much of the Romney/Ryan plan is so absurdly junior league, it's so far off-Broadway, it's practically in New Jersey.” Taibbi gets fancy here by using catachresis — mixing a metaphor, often with unusual grammar or syntax. In this case, he mixes a metaphor with both an unusual grammatical structure and allusions to nearby institutions. For the East Coast audience that Taibbi writes for, this metaphor really drives home as it makes reference to baseball, Broadway, and, of course, New Jersey, all things that East Coasters love.

Finally, and most importantly, Taibbi uses irony to drive his points home. For us “post-modern-Generation-Y-types”, irony is practically a second language featured in entertainment of all kinds and even our everyday speech. It isn’t hard to imagine some Milwaukee style hipster sarcastically saying to his friends, “Oh yeah guys, I can’t wait for the Ke$ha concert tonight . . .” Taibbi taps into this cultural phenomena of rampant irony for two reasons: satire and emphasis. Ripping on Romney’s high-headed promises, he says,

“If you're going to offer an across-the-board 20 percent tax cut without explaining how it's getting paid for, hell, why stop there? Why not just offer everyone over 18 a 1965 Mustang? Why not promise every child a Zagnut and an Xbox, or compatible mates for every lonely single person?”

This passage is a perfect example of satire often found on political blogs like Taibbi’s. The author here is obviously not being serious. He is, however, offering a serious perspective on the bold claims made by Paul Ryan by comparing them to other frivolous, optimistic promises that could be made but obviously not kept. By using irony, Taibbi does what other reporters are afraid to do — laugh in the face of politics-as-usual. Even better, he does it all in unambiguous, plain language. Tired of translating the pundits on national networks like Fox and MSNBC? Head over to Taibblog.

~Michael Gibson

Cosmolicious: Career Advice from a Once-Monthly Sex Almanac

Usually, there’s nothing wrong with simplicity.  I myself prefer writing that adheres to a “get to the point” basis, which not only allows you to get through a lot of information in a quicker way, but also gives you a sense of accomplishment, should you choose to read a multiple of similarly written sources.  The particular article that I wish to draw attention to is one that came from the popular and revered women’s magazine, Cosmopolitan (Cosmo for short).  Usually a magazine written for younger adult women and those more inclined to fashion and sexual exploration, the content that can be expected from such a publication can hardly be regarded as trivial.  I don’t mean that in a negative way, but as opposed to other factually based magazines like Time and National Geographic, it is generally understood that Cosmo is sold as a form of scintillating entertainment. 

The one educational gem I was able to glean from Cosmo’s webpage was an online article aptly titled “How to Deal with Difficult People at Work” by Korin Miller.  Though my expectations were not high to begin with, I determined with astounding clarity that this piece was more akin to a child’s picture book than an actual article.  The format and sentences were simple (to its own detriment), thus classifying itself as a perfect example of Plain Style writing.

The first point of interest comes simply from the aesthetic experience the reader gets while breezing through this article.  The formatting and layout is incredibly well done, both pleasing to the eye and easy to navigate.  Where most articles are just one page text blocks with a title, author and maybe a picture, this editorial took sentencing and image arrangement to a whole new level.  The amount of informative content is small... yet somehow stretched out through eight unnecessary pages, complete with “next” buttons and the occasional ad to which viewers are forcibly subjected.  Each page consists of maybe three sentences at most. Illustrating each brief bit of prose is a massive picture that is supposed to reflect on what each small stipend said.  I say “supposed to” because the photos are as unnecessary to the functioning content of the article as an appendix is to a human body.

Here’s a fun example:

The screenshot I included is from the middle of this piece, articulating the importance of listening to coworkers.   The editors obviously must have thought that the brief three sentence blip wasn’t enough to explain what was already so plainly written, including a picture that dwarfs its accompanying literature in size and interest.  Obviously that seductively glamorous woman staring expectantly at you is supposed to demonstrate what effective listening actually looks like, just in case you were confused.  Comparable to a child’s book, there is way more illustration here than actual writing which transforms the article into just a bunch of spaced-out captions.  This format draws attention from the content and suggests that the main point is actually the pictures.  Though this is mostly just a hunch, I’m willing to bet that the magazine layout manager, the model and the photographer probably got paid more than Ms. Miller did for writing the article in the first place.

According to the author’s prelude, it consulted two published professionals on work-related issues, yet the writer could only sparsely fill eight pages worth of content.  It’s so dumbed down that it severely lacks credibility.  Ms. Miller establishes that her information comes from legitimate and published sources, but she hardly does justice to the integrity of those works when she restates them in a flashy slideshow. 

Furthermore, she does herself no favors in regards to reliable source material when she leads off her article with “Rumor has it…” and elaborations on celebrity gossip.  As much as I’m sure everyone wants to hear about Nicki Minaj and Mariah Carey’s catfights on American Idol, this inclusion has little to do with the work relationships that a normal person would have at a normal job.  Anyways, since when has gossip ever been considered credible?

The voice Ms. Miller uses when she writes suggests that she writes how she speaks.  She breaks up her sentences in the same way regular people break up their speech, placing in unnecessary words like “um…” to give off the impression of more informal writing.  Here’s some attempts the author makes when she tries to sound relatable to the reader:

“How to work with someone who is, um, difficult.” By reading this, you can almost hear her know-it-all voice in your head.  “Um” especially has a connotation to it that suggests the speaker is trying to politely downplay what she hasn’t even said yet.  Just that small written sound insinuates that she initially meant to type “bitchy” instead of “difficult,” but decided to show her own self-correction to make a point.  It indicates a certain level of intelligence; she portrays herself as someone who can restrain their usually non-publishable thoughts, and can instantly formulate a more appropriate variation of what was originally intended to be said.  Also here is the recognition of our own social standards and what language is appropriate in print versus what is unacceptable. 

“Something about this chick drives you completely nuts, and she's pushing your buttons.”  Just one cliché acceptably denotes unoriginality… but two clichés in one sentence?  There is overemphasis here that (to me) is unnecessary; the title of the piece already indicates that someone at work really makes you, the reader, angry.  Allow me to insert another cliché to comment further on clichés: Ms. Miller’s restatement of two identically-themed idioms beats the proverbial dead horse into one badly bruised, decaying carcass. 

The article’s subtopics start out with some valuable pieces of advice, but the actual suggestions that follow up are so ridiculously flimsy that they cannot possibly expect to be helpful.  It was especially amusing to me that a publication known for headlines like “50 Ways to Own His Orgasm” would really publish career advice.  No person with actual work-related problems would instinctively page through Cosmopolitan for guidance, especially when the content on the very next page caters mostly to sex addicts and fashionistas.  

This piece is the epitome of everything that I would consider Plain Style, as its presence’s only purpose is mostly visual appeal.  There are plenty of beautiful people out there that have nothing going on between their ears; now there is literature that perfectly suits this particular audience.  The fascinating part of all of this is that Cosmopolitan is one of the most popular and highly circulated women's magazine subscriptions in the nation.

By Shelby Phillips 

 The original article can be found here:

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/advice/work-money/how-to-deal-with-difficult-people-at-work#slide-3

Pussy Riot

Flip on the television. Go to your local NBC news channel, and observe the news anchor. Notice how excited they are, how they seem to care about what they are reporting on. Now read an article on NBC’s website, notice the difference? It is plain style journalism at its finest, and its most boring. The punk rock band Pussy Riot were recently sentenced and sent off to prison to serve a two year sentence. Their crime was performing an anti-Putin song in the Russian Orthodox Cathedral.  The article “Pussy Riot members sent to far-flung prisons, lawyer says,” lacks all of the flare of sensational journalism, but does it also lack its agenda? Could it be that this article exists to reaffirm the American ideal of free speech? Is it condemning the Russian government for trying to muffle our ideal with a black cloth saturated in chloroform? 

Plain style is much more suave than the Official Style, subtle as it conveys its point through construction instead of word choice. The last portion of the article is a statement from one of the members of the band, Pussy Riot. It states: “I don’t like the fact that they did not acquit me and the other girls … and I want to challenge that before the European court. Sadly, the Russian courts have not shown objectivity or fairness.” It is ironic that a crucial last statement is on the subject of objectivity and fairness when this quotation was most likely chosen by editors and carefully placed in its current spot for the greatest effect. But what gives them the right to judge something that is not their own?

The author’s stance is evident in the sentence: “Two members of the Russian punk group Pussy Riot convicted of protesting against President Vladimir Putin in a cathedral.” NBC clearly sides with the band, believing they were solely protesting Putin, while the Kremlin believes that it was sparked by religious hatred, seen in the charges of “hooliganism motivated by religious hatred.”  The states side is only represented in the previous passage and one that shows Putin’s support of the sentence of two years to “protect the feelings of the faithful.” Other than these two admissions of their being another side to this story, the article is all Pussy Riot and possible cruelties of the Russian judicial process.

I would bet that Americans reading this feel much different from the Russians that experienced it. They could have very well been appalled by Pussy Riots antics at one of the Cathedrals, maybe finding it tasteless. Others could possibly have felt the intended effect, disgust with the Putin run government. The band was being disruptive and I do not know many people who like disturbances. A loud punk band shouting an anti-Putin song in a Cathedral probably sits just as well with the general Russian public as the Westboro Baptist Church members picketing a soldier's funeral sits with Americans attending the funeral. However, I digress, I was not in Russia, so these are merely guesses. But, this article does make the American high horse grow even taller as the authors condemn the way the Russian government does things regarding an ideal that is not their own. Should a country be held to other’s standards? American journalists have yet again thrown themselves into others’ contexts and tried to apply their own.

 This style appears just as sterile as the Official Style, its polar opposite. It leaves little room for an authorial voice, most likely because it has to reach a large audience, and thus must be easily understood. Maybe this sterility, this lack of a voice helps to sell what is being said as the Truth. It is easy to see that someone reading an article with no artistic flare, no power words that give off the scent of bias, could think, “well they are just reporting the facts,” and accept it as Truth. The following passage exemplifies this: “The women's lawyers said they had tried to argue they should be allowed to remain in jail in Moscow, saying it would have permitted them to be closer to their small children. They had also cited health and safety concerns at far-flung penal colonies.” It is strictly a summation of a conversation, just the facts, only what was said and no spice. But, and it is a large one, it is also only what was said on one side of the fence. We are raised with another idea and that is that each story has two sides. This piece of journalism, as we all should have known (and they would have gotten away with it if it weren’t for you pesky kids), speaks for the one side, the anti-Putin side, only. The way plain style is used in this article reminds me of hypnotic suggestion or subliminal messages. Watch the clock swing back and forth, the plain style, and listen attentively as the journalists whisper, “the Russian government is wrong,” in your ear.

--Chad Nickerson

London Calling: A Beginner's Guide

With the 2012 Summer Olympics, Queen Elizabeth II’s Diamond Jubilee, and a burgeoning tourist population, London, England has established itself as one of the most popular cities in the world. Especially in the blogosphere—a virtual universe of interconnecting public opinions—discussion on most any topic is possible, making it simple to access information at a search engine’s notice; with this, blogs on all things British have been created to reach any fans or hopeful travelers to the country. A web developer originally from Belfast and a new London resident, Luke Blaney’s blog: “Living in London: a beginner’s guide” aims to serve as such, sharing tips and advice he believes will be useful to any visitor to London; practically speaking, the blog serves a purpose particularly to new, beginner American travelers, or those specifically searching for a basic guide to London. For the scope of this article, I will be focusing primarily on the blogger’s specific language, and how it functions—or fails to function—within the context of newcomers to London.

With this focus, it is interesting to first note how the author seems to make overall assumptions about the knowledge of the implied readers; that is, the relevant activity systems involved include beginner (or any) travelers visiting London, as well as those interested in moving to London. The blog’s title, for example, claims to be a “beginner’s guide” to London, yet his diction assumes the readers have knowledge of British language and other things that could only function within the context of other British readers and native Londoners. Before I delve into analysis of this “plain style” approach to writing, I will note how the blog’s structure is divided into various sections, each with subtitles for each topic to be discussed; this structure made the blog easier to read and clearer to distinguish one topic from the other, both elements of this “plain style.” Now, let’s analyze this first excerpt, with the subtitle “Dodgy areas”:

“Growing up in Belfast, I learnt the tell-tale signs of a dodgy area: flags, murals, bunting, painted kerbstones, burnt-out cars etc. So far, I’ve only found one area in London with  any such indicators; it’s known to Londoners as “The Mall”. It has a Union Jack on every lamppost, a high army presence, regularly has police road blocks and most of its residents are reliant on state handouts (though some of them are clearly “doing the double” as it’s know in Belfast).”

This excerpt functions as a sort of “warning” to London visitors, sectioning out the seedy areas of the city; note how the overall diction of this excerpt is written with the assumption that the reader knows some elements of British slang. For example, the words “dodgy,” meaning risky or unreliable, and “learnt,” the British spelling of “learned,” may seem foreign to those outside of the United Kingdom. Within the diction, the excerpt “warns” newcomers to London by using sentence combining strategies such as appositives, using a colon to describe the “tell-tale signs of a dodgy area: flags, murals, bunting, painted kerbstones, burnt-out cars etc.” This list fits well within the “plain style” approach to writing, for it is written in an active, linear sentence pattern. Within the context of the article—though the style the excerpt is written in reaches a broad audience in terms of accessibility—it seems to fail to function with beginners to London, those who are foreign to specific British terminology.

Further, though most of this excerpt uses “plain style” elements of active voice, parallelism, and minimal scholarly jargon, the last sentence shifts to a more passive voice, saying how many residents from “The Mall” area “are reliant on state handouts.” This change in tone might reveal the blogger’s personal opinions on those residents or the area, for there are shifts like these throughout the blog. However, since the overarching tone of the blog is rather informal—using “I” to communicate topics and experiences—the tense shifts are understandable. With a reading ease level of 62.1 and a reading grade level of 9.9, this blog excerpt surely indicates a less formal, less scholarly, more accessible approach to writing.

Let’s look at a second excerpt of the blog to explore how Blaney’s language does nearly the same thing in terms of making assumptions to the reader, with the subtitle: “London Underground (aka the Tube)”:

“Getting on the tube is so much fun. You’ve got trains, tunnels, history, strategy and hidden shortcuts. The key to enjoying the tube is simple: don’t use it to commute. Lots of Londoners make this mistake and as a result they hate the tube...[t]alking of last tube trains: these are even more fun than normal because you get to see the men with green torches. Each platform has a person standing on it with a walkie talkie and a green torch. When the last tube arrives, they check with the people upstairs to make sure that noone is running to catch it. When they get the all clear, they shine the green torch at the driver who then knows they’re good to go. Isn't that so cool?”

Though I give Blaney credit for giving the tip that the Underground is called the Tube (helpful for any newcomer to London), the language in this excerpt functions much like the first one—it assumes readers know British terminology, or, at the very least, are interested in knowing it. Still, these assumptions seem risky. Not only does the excerpt seem more of a digression than a guide, but also some of the language might seem unfamiliar. Note how the word “torch” is used a number of times throughout the paragraph—for “beginners” to London, readers (the addressed activity systems of beginner travelers, etc.) may find themselves trying to translate and make sense of the word. While non-native Londoners use the word “torch” as a source of fire, the British form of the word “torch” is what we call a flashlight. Again, Blaney makes some assumptions about his implied readers; the word “noone” is also an unfamiliar spelling of “no one,” which, again, may seem out of place.

Moreover, Blaney discusses how the Tube is “so much fun” particularly because of the last tube trains and the “men with green torches,” but he fails to explain why, or tell the readers (travelers, etc.) how to navigate the Underground if they wish to use it to commute in the city, not just “have fun” in. The blog fails to give specific maps or timetables to guide his readers; it only gives some links to London landmarks’ websites, but nothing “extra.” To its strengths, this excerpt does reach a broad audience and is widely accessible; at a reading ease level of 73.5 and a readability grade level of 7.4, this excerpt accomplishes using “plain style” elements with simpler words and more accessible language. However, because of its muddled messages and unfamiliar language within the context of its readers, Blaney often misses his mark.

Through Luke Blaney’s personal blog, the art of plain language is certainly utilized, though his piece generally fails to function within the context of newcomers to London; still, plain language is still used overwhelmingly in most any blog, and for good reason. This raises the question: was Blaney’s language in his blog wrong? Perhaps not. With any blog, it is a form of communication, a human expression of thoughts and opinions that hope to resonate with readers. Similar blogs like Blaney’s function in the context of their targeted audiences, but Blaney’s piece is still effective, and with this, each individual blog succeeds in creating a virtual blogosphere rich with interconnecting opinions. The overarching idea of self-published blogs, in all their simplicity, are very public and impressionable, read and followed by millions across the world. Plain language, then—in this blog and all others—is very appropriate and successful in this sense, for it is attainable, conversational, and focused.

By: Jessica Haugen

For more information on Luke Blaney’s article, click here.