Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
PZ links to this open letter by Brian Diaz, the president of the College Democrats at Liberty University, which the college recently pulled all recognition from. Diaz is now transferring, which is probably a good idea (I can't imagine why anyone would want to go there in the first place). But what jumped out at me about the letter, which was published in the student newspaper, was how badly written it is. I mean really, really bad. Full text below the fold:
"My time as President of Liberty University College Democrats has been a great and enjoyable experience.I learned how to work together with my counterparts, the College Republicans, I also learned the asset that is patience, and I learned a little bit about something called trust.
Throughout my term as President I have spent numerous days and hours working to make a difference on the Liberty University campus.
I established a Faith caucus within the Virginia Young Democrats, a caucus of which I now chair. I worked closely with a number of campaigns, candidates, and issue based groups to bring parts of the democratic platform to the students at Liberty University.
Our club received the "Up and Coming club of the Year" award while I was President, as well.
Although I have put in a tremendous amount of work this past year, I believe that based on the dismissal of Maria Childress as our club sponsor, as well as an email from the administration to me stating that, "You are distorting the truth, and you know it. You have no credibility with me" forces me to resign as club President and look for other educational opportunities by the means of transferring to a new institution.
I do not wish to speak badly about the Liberty; I only wish to be apart of an institution that fosters diversity within its student body. I am deeply saddened by this decision but I feel that with the present administration the Liberty University College Democrats cannot be effective.
I hope that I can transfer to an institution this coming fall that will continue to help me develop my education, bipartisanship, and leadership skills. I will be applying to a number of schools including Virginia Commonwealth University, Randolph College, and a number of other universities across the Commonwealth.
I wish all the best to the Liberty University College Democrats, and I hope that this situation will not hinder anyone but will encourage political involvement, and standing up to what youth believe in."
Do they not teach composition at Liberty University? If you turned this in for a high school English class you'd most likely get a bad grade, and quite deservedly so. The writing is absolutely awful.
Politics
Comments
Obviously the problem is that he didn't complete his education at Liberty. That's why he's still missing the random capitalization, excessive punctuation, and has only one misspelled word.
Posted by: BobApril | June 21, 2009 9:26 AM
huh?
Seriously, what's so wrong with it? Sure, he's obviously not a professional writer, but we've all seen much worse.
Ed, I think you're the only person I've found who is focusing on his writing skills instead of the content of his letter.
Posted by: doctorgoo | June 21, 2009 9:54 AM
I agree, doctorgoo. I've seen the papers that get turned in in my kids' high school...this would not get a bad grade.....
Posted by: Boudica | June 21, 2009 10:08 AM
doctor goo stated:
When I followed PZ's link and read Mr. Diaz's letter that was also my first impression. Probably because I first evaluate how cogent an argument is before I consider the position advocated.
bobapril stated:
I wonder when they drop the use of paragraphs. Perhaps that isn't taught until grad school.
Posted by: Michael Heath | June 21, 2009 10:18 AM
Actually, Ed, I noticed the same thing -- a number of the sentences are so awkwardly constructed that I stumbled over them at first read. The sad part is that doctorgoo and Boudica are no doubt correct that this is hardly unusual for a student at this level, regardless of university, and not a specific indictment of Liberty...
On the other hand, I suppose we should be grateful that it wasn't completely written in LOLspeak or l33t.
Posted by: Squiddhartha | June 21, 2009 10:32 AM
Eh.
I agree, it's poorly written. But it is comprehensible. And that makes it better then most these days.
The writing skills (and presumably reading skills, since it is hard to be a bad writer if you are well read) of the general public are atrocious. Frighteningly, Mr. Diaz's letter is probably above average.
Posted by: PennyBright | June 21, 2009 10:34 AM
His writing is stilted, redundant, and grammatically depressing. It's not a trainwreck, and in fact probably par for the course among most university students not focusing on their writing skills. That doesn't, however, speak highly of the skills of most university students.
Posted by: Gretchen | June 21, 2009 10:36 AM
I learned how to work together with my counterparts, the College Republicans, I also learned the asset that is patience, and I learned a little bit about something called trust.
I would have thrown some more periods in there. (I'm not exactly an expert though.)
Posted by: 386sx | June 21, 2009 10:45 AM
As an English major, I'm like Ed in the sense that faulty grammar and awkward language really grate on me. I know that focusing on people's grammar is often petty, since grammar alone is really not an accurate gauge of intelligence or momentousness of argument (let's face it: lots of highly intelligent, educated people never fully master grammar or spelling). Everyone makes mistakes now and then. But I'll be damned if part of me doesn't always feel the urge to grab a red pen and mark up incorrect writing. And I will admit that consistent, dogged use of incorrect grammar, language, and syntax has a net effect of making me take people less seriously (or their arguments, in any case).
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | June 21, 2009 10:50 AM
It's not great by any means but it's really not THAT bad. I've seen and edited much worse writing at my job. The worst writing I've had to edit has always come from upper management.
Posted by: Adrienne | June 21, 2009 11:16 AM
doctorgoo wrote:
I guess I don't see much in the way of substantive content. The entire letter could be reduced to "they were assholes so I'm leaving now." That seems obvious enough and it's certainly justified.
As for the suggestions from many others that the writing is actually average, or even above average, that's a bit frightening. It may well be true, however. Perhaps if I was more regularly exposed to the writing of students -- or at least ones at universities like Liberty -- the godawful writing of this letter would not have jumped out at me quite so much.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | June 21, 2009 11:29 AM
I just want to congratulate Mr. Diaz for making a good decision and for showing some grace as he leaves Liberty behind.
Posted by: Dr X | June 21, 2009 11:38 AM
Sadie Morrison, I agree completely. I think proofreading, like penmanship, is becoming a quaint relic. At the same time, when I see commenters here and elsewhere on the internet correcting or criticizing another's spelling or grammar, the pedantic attitude seems even more horrible than whatever is being criticized.
I wonder, though if Liberty University can really be blamed for this student's inability to put thought to paper. Isn't it more likely that, having given no attention to English classes through high school, he was unable to gain admittance to any real university?
Posted by: John Swindle | June 21, 2009 11:43 AM
I just finished TAing an online course to first year undergraduates (small western public university), and I have to agree that the writing of Mr. Diaz isn't in any way unusual.
Posted by: dogscratcher | June 21, 2009 11:48 AM
I'm more surprised by the apathy of the commenters than the grammar of the letter. I teach college students, and while they're surely not where they should be grammatically, they are much better than what was written by Mr. Diaz. Maybe his introductory composition courses will not transfer when he transfers colleges. That is quite common and would do him well. I do find it strange that everyone is blaming the college though for his lack of grammatical prowess. I never had any course in college that focused on grammar and structure in writing. All of my composition-like courses were taught by faculty outside the English department in Heritage studies courses. In fact, I did not have a grammar course after Freshman year of high school. I think Mr. Diaz's grammatical issue go back much further than Liberty U.
Posted by: Ben | June 21, 2009 11:59 AM
While this certainly isn't good writing, I agree with the other commenters who are reluctant to blame this on Liberty. My experience with students at a large, public university was that plenty of them wrote this poorly.
Posted by: yrif | June 21, 2009 12:20 PM
I don't know about anyone here but I had four years of writing and composition in High School prior to hitting college. So I think its a rather cheap shot to blame Liberty for the average writing style of a student. Now shutting down a student club? That is something you can put down Liberty for.
(btw - Kevin Roose wrote a book about spending a semester at Liberty - very interesting read)
Posted by: yoshi | June 21, 2009 12:27 PM
It is very badly written, but I teach at a legitimate university, and I've seen much worse. Unfortunately, critical writing skills are not very common. What's worse, I've had students get offended when I failed them because of poor writing. A student of mine once handed me a 5 page paper which contained 54 grammatical errors, a plagiarism, and completely missed the point of the articles she was purportedly writing about. When I gave her an F, she threatened to go to the grade appeals board!
So, anyways, I don't think the bad writing necessarily reflects on Liberty. The suppression of contrary ideas, however, does.
Posted by: Wes | June 21, 2009 12:47 PM
"a caucus of which I now chair" is pretty bad.
Posted by: Taz | June 21, 2009 12:52 PM
IRL Ragequit.
But I don't blame him.
Posted by: James Taylor | June 21, 2009 1:04 PM
During my tenure in publishing, as an editor of science text books, I hired or rejected many applicants who hoped to be editors. We used a three-page editing test, loaded with about 100 errors of all kinds, to determine if an applicant, all of whom were college graduates, had the necessary skills. We considered a score of 80 or above to be acceptable for a copy editing position. For those seeking a content position, which required knowledge of the sciences, we considered 70 or above acceptable. Only about 20% of applicants managed a score above 70, which I found depressing. Appallingly, only about 10% of high school English teachers who wanted to escape the classroom could make the 80 cutoff to be a copy editor.
Having to read the correspondence I had with high school teachers and college faculty was even more jarring. I can't begin to count the number whose letters included no complete sentences and were riddled with errors. I was always grateful for those few writers who could actually write standard English with a minimum of errors. Not because they knew how to be correct but they knew how to express themselves and be understood, which is the whole point of error-free writing.
Posted by: Keanus | June 21, 2009 1:12 PM
Looks pretty bad to me, which is probably about average for undergraduates these days.
Dali once remarked about artists who try to be groundbreaking before they have learned the basics (something about not being able to paint an apple). I see a lot of that in phrases like
"I also learned the asset that is patience,"
It's not just that it is awkward, but that it is pretentious.
Posted by: BaldApe | June 21, 2009 1:49 PM
My grader for American Thought and Language at MSU would have red-penciled the heck out of that and given it about a C. I thought I learned grammar and some composition in high school, but I learned the finer points in ATL at Michigan State. (I got a C on my first paper, but an A in the course.) We had a style text (not The Elements of Style, but something similar) which covered most of the problems in the letter. I guess great basketball is not all they teach at MSU. He should transfer there.
(Not that I think my writing is all that great - just that we all have a tendency to write by throwing a bunch of familiar phrases together, and a tough college grader will beat that out of you.)
Posted by: JimV | June 21, 2009 1:49 PM
I teach writing, both on-line and brick-and-mortar. His essay wasn't that different, that poorly constructed, from many of the students I've taught.
I'm the first to admit I have only "moderate" English skills, despite having earned two Masters degrees. I rely a great deal on spell-check, grammar check and on-line dictionaries and guides to make sure everything is right.
And -without- all that checking, I'm consistently better than the 18-year olds I teach at a top tier university.
Posted by: Jody | June 21, 2009 3:18 PM
There seems to be quite a few people with a lot of English teaching experience in the comments here, generally saying that letter is poor. Could someone maybe take apart a paragraph or two and more thoroughly explain what is wrong and how it could be improved? I read a lot of the biology blogs and generally they'll quote some creationist and say how they're wrong and what is actually correct. I'd help me follow here if someone would be so kind, I don't see these grammar errors in the original letter. In fact, I wouldn't have thought anything was wrong with it at all, and I DID pay attention in HS English, but this kind of thing wasn't taught.
Posted by: ELR | June 21, 2009 3:26 PM
I don't do the "grammar nazi" thing, well, ever. But I do understand the impulse. Grammar and spelling are there for a reason: so we don't have to parse every little thing for the writer's intent. It's jarring and irritating to have to decode what the meaning of the text is, like when this writer says "...and standing up to what youth believe in." (he means the polar opposite of what he writes)
Posted by: Brian | June 21, 2009 3:59 PM
ELR,
One that jumped out at me is
Strip the sentence down and you have something more clearly ungrammatical: "Based on the dismissal as well as an email forces me to resign."
In other words, the phrase "based on" has no business at all being there. It's like he started out with a different statement in mind but got lost along the way.
Posted by: Michael Hoaglin | June 21, 2009 4:06 PM
ELR asked for a breakdown of some of the specific examples of bad phrasing and grammar in the letter. I had considered doing that in the original post, but I frankly assumed that those problems were obvious enough that it was unnecessary. Here are a few examples, with explanations:
1. There should be a period after "College Republicans" instead of a comma (leaving aside the fact that the College Republicans are not his counterparts but the counterpart to the College Democrats; he could have said "my counterparts in the College Republicans").
2. It's bad style when making a list to keep repeating the subject after each comma; that's the whole point of having a list like that at the end of a sentence, to not have to repeat the entire sentence just the concluding clause.
3. "I also learned the asset that is patience" is not grammatically incorrect but it is stylistically godawful. Ditto for "I learned a little bit about something called trust."
"Of which" is grammatically incorrect. The part after the comma could have been written "a caucus which I now chair" or "a caucus I now chair" or, even more succinctly, simply "which I now chair" (since he's already called it a caucus in the first clause there's no need to call it one again in the very same sentence).
This whole thing needs to be rewritten. He's simply trying to shove too much into a single sentence and committing multiple grammatical errors in order to do so. It should be something like this:
Although I have put in a tremendous amount of work this past year, I believe that recent events compel me to resign as club President and look for other educational opportunities at a new institution. Those events include the dismissal of our club sponsor, Maria Childress, and an email I received from the administration saying, "You are distorting the truth, and you know it. You have no credibility with me."
That would at least be grammatically correct. In reality, I would get rid of the entire phrase "look for other educational opportunities at a new institution." This is another matter of bad writing style rather than grammar. It sounds as though he's deliberately trying to use lots of big words to make the letter sound more authoritative. A much better wording:
I believe that recent events compel me to resign as club president and transfer to another school."
And I would probably add a reason at the end, like "...where they more consistently respect the rights of students to advocate their beliefs."
The "the" in the first clause is unnecessary. It should be simple "about Liberty" or "about Liberty University." And "apart" should be "a part." "Apart" means separate from, which is the opposite of what he is attempting to say. You can be "apart from" something or you can be "a part of" something, but you cannot be "apart of" something.
When you stand up to something, you are opposing it; he intends this to mean standing up for what youth believe in, but again his actual phrasing says the exact opposite of what he intends.
That's just a quick run through. I'm sure a real English teacher could find many more.
Is it a coincidence that I've spent the last three months being the interim managing editor of the Michigan Messenger? Probably not, though I don't really do all that much editing of stories. I hate being an editor and don't really have the skills to do it, but bad writing just screams off the page at me.
It's probably even less of a coincidence that I just finished reading Christopher Buckley's Losing Mum and Pup, a book about the deaths of his parents, William F. and Pat Buckley. Christopher Buckley is, like his father, an exquisite wordsmith. Regardless of what you think of their politics, it was a joy to read a book that was so well written. Both Buckleys had (have, in Christopher's case) not only near-perfect grammar but a keen understanding of the rhythm of language as well. There is a fluidity and a verve to their writing that makes one -- well, me, at any rate -- jealous. I can come close to that kind of writing at my very best, but that is something I achieve far less often than I wish or would like to believe.
And no one asked, of course, but here is the answer: My single favorite writer of the American English language is HL Mencken. He sets the bar higher than I could ever achieve, I'm afraid.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | June 21, 2009 4:40 PM
AH! I think I see now, thank you. So it would probably be better to say, "I am forced to resign based on the dismissal as well as the email"? That way, you'd get something more like:
I believe am forced to resign as club President based on the dismissal of Maria Childress as our club sponsor, as well as an email from the administration to me stating that, "You are distorting the truth, as you know it. You have no credibility with me."
This is very helpful, I just had a scientific manuscript rejected, and I have little to no worries about addressing the scientific questions raised. I'm quite a bit more worried about the extent to which one reviewer commented on the writing style.
Posted by: ELR | June 21, 2009 4:42 PM
One ironic note: Another superlative writer of American English is the elder Buckley's lifelong nemesis, Gore Vidal. I've not bothered to read his novels (or virtually anyone else's, for that matter) but his essays are nearly perfect in terms of grammar and style.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | June 21, 2009 4:48 PM
I would opt for semicolons, personally.
Posted by: Azkyroth | June 21, 2009 5:22 PM
While proofreading is valuable...
...let's not even discuss what passes for skills in forming hand-axes from flint these days.
Posted by: Azkyroth | June 21, 2009 5:25 PM
Even beyond that, the use of "which" is incorrect. It should be "a caucus that I now chair." This is a restrictive clause, since it specifies the particular caucus.
Posted by: Dave | June 21, 2009 5:36 PM
Agreed, Mr. Diaz is not a great writer. And?
We're looking at a young man who has made a difficult decision and has found himself the focus of national attention. Hooray for us secularists who are jumping on his writing style and taking part in an attack with little or no purpose. Let's use other reasons to mock LU and cut this kid a break.
Posted by: Bomias | June 21, 2009 5:57 PM
Keanus:
I got me an idea. In a post a few days ago, Ed said he was looking to raise some money for his friend Connie's medical expenses.
Howzabout you put a copy of that test somewhere where we can find it and as many of us as want to can take it. Set a mark, say 100%, and then get a donation--some amount per point for the test taker's score subtracted from the ideal. Hey, I'm just spitballing, here.
Posted by: democommie | June 21, 2009 6:30 PM
I think the writing is ok, and I failed to notice some of the mistakes pointed out by Ed. Oh, and English is not my first, or regular, language.
Posted by: Danny | June 21, 2009 6:54 PM
I'm not sure which I find more depressing - the fact that Mr. Diaz wrote such a poor example of the English language, or that so many people either couldn't find the numerous errors or didn't care about them.
*sigh*
I'm now starting to think that LOLcats are written using acceptable grammar and spelling.
Posted by: CanadianChick | June 21, 2009 8:30 PM
The rising generation seems to be deaf to that shibboleth of illiteracy, "Me and..." as in, "Me and Fred updated that project plan" instead of "Fred and I...." That's something to avoid.
Look up books on English usage instead of grammar and you'll get straight to the finer points of meaning and clarity. Find the works of Theodore M. Bernstein, if he's not out of print. His books include The Careful Writer, which is a dictionary of usage, and Miss Thistlebottom's Hobgoblins,, which addresses the rough-and-ready rules we learned in elementary school, such as "you can't split an infinitive."
For an example of elegantly clear and correct writing, you need look no further than science writer Carl Zimmer, lately of Scienceblogs.
Posted by: Monado | June 21, 2009 8:50 PM
Rules about whether that or which should be employed in various relative clauses are schoolmarm edicts with no basis in evidence or the history of the English language. Insisting that grammar is all about such prescriptions reduces the study of how words operate in combination to a set of stupefyingly dull etiquette lessons, mastery of which is completely useless in any situation save, perhaps, applying for a job as a professional killjoy.
Caring about how good writing is taught? Thou art doing it wrong.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | June 21, 2009 9:03 PM
I didn't see Ed's comments before. Several of them amounted to me thinking something like "How extremely stupid not to have thought of that." I know the difference between "apart" and "a part" and don't know how I read through it before without noticing. I appreciate the effort. I think I've often been guilty of trying to cram too many ideas into a single sentence. I've got a lot of editing to do.
Posted by: ELR | June 21, 2009 9:43 PM
I don't see the point of criticizing this kid's writing. He clearly just threw some thoughts up on the student news site. It's not like this is a real essay or paper. He obviously needs to brush up on the basics of composition, but until you get a peak at something that he turned in for a grade in a class, or some other more definitive measure of his writing ability, the criticism here seems unjustified. (Take this comment, for example. I'll give it a quick proofread for spelling, but I don't care if it is composed in the best way. Just getting a point across)
Also, some have commented on the formatting of the post. Really? There's no indication that the kid posted this himself. It's probably an email reply to the students that run the site.
Come on everybody, this isn't reflective of some greater trend in poor writing among today's college students.
Posted by: Ben Saunders | June 21, 2009 10:44 PM
""My time as President of Liberty University College Democrats has been a great and enjoyable experience."
------------------
useless sentance.
use the preamble to do some work... I have enjoyed my times as President of Liberty University College Democrats but now I realized the people who run this 'school' are batshit crazy and I've got to get out"
----------------------------
I learned how to work together with my counterparts, the College Republicans, I also learned the asset that is patience, and I learned a little bit about something called trust.
-----------------
another portion of slop.
"I've learned about my fellow College Republicans, about patience, and about trust. Sadly, with all my patience I find nothing to trust about the facist pigs that will lead us all to ruin... (Oh wait they already did that.)"
-------------------------------
"Throughout my term as President I have spent numerous days and hours (AND HOURS!!!) working to make a difference on the Liberty University campus. (I realized I've failed)I established a Faith caucus blah blah blah..)
----------------------------
I think this will ensure that he will not get accepted anywhere! hah ahahaaa
Posted by: Kevin (nyc) | June 21, 2009 10:45 PM
I've learned about my fellow College Republicans, about patience, and about, oh, a little bitty something called, that's right folks, love it or hate it, wait for it...., wait for it..., ladies and gentlemen, I give you: TRUST.
Posted by: 386sx | June 21, 2009 11:17 PM
Whoops. "Peak" should obviously be "peek". Shit, does this mean I'm a terrible writer?
Seriously, breaking down this guy's post sentence by sentence is ridiculous. Please do the same with every random college student internet post. You'll come to the conclusion that no one can write.
Posted by: Ben Saunders | June 21, 2009 11:30 PM
I've had a couple of beers, but what is the misspelled word? Apart is not misspelled; it simply should be two words.
Posted by: Dan McPeek | June 21, 2009 11:58 PM
The rising generation seems to be deaf to that shibboleth of illiteracy, "Me and..." as in, "Me and Fred updated that project plan" instead of "Fred and I...." That's something to avoid.
Oh my god. One of my very best friends has the most cringe-inducing habit of saying "Me and___" instead of the proper "___and I." She's an otherwise highly intelligent person, which makes this grammatical faux pas all the more baffling. It seems to stand apart from other errors, for some reason, probably because there's something immature and childish-sounding about "me and__."
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | June 22, 2009 1:13 AM
I forgot to add that I just turned twenty-five, and I've always been taught that "me and__" is a linguistic taboo somewhere on par with uttering the word "ain't" in one's everyday speech. My friend (mentioned above) is twenty-seven, so I'm not sure what accounts for the difference other than location, perhaps (I was raised in Wichita, KS, she in West Virginia).
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | June 22, 2009 1:16 AM
If I were asked to list all of Diaz's errors I wouldn't know where to start. All I know is that it doesn't read very well. My writing and critique of other people's writing is based on what I think sounds correct. I think I have a pretty good ear based on the high grades I've received for my essays. But quite honestly I know what a noun and a verb are, but little else. Probably why I'm such a slow writer.
Posted by: Muhr | June 22, 2009 3:02 AM
Sadie #46
Have you explained to her why using "Me and___" is wrong? I know it can sometimes be difficult to correct friends, but to not do so makes you partly responsible for her continued error, IMHO.
Regarding the letter of Mr Diaz, do we know that his first language is English? If it isn't, surely it would mitigate the poor grammar?
Posted by: XD | June 22, 2009 3:09 AM
Regarding my comment at #49, "… surely it would …" should have been "… surely that would …".
Posted by: XD | June 22, 2009 3:19 AM
"I hope that I can transfer to an institution this coming fall that will continue to help me develop my education, bipartisanship, and leadership skills. "
Ugh. You can tell this guy is a wannabe career politician. What normal person goes to university to learn bipartisanship? Hell, in what sane world is bipartisanship an end in itself, rather than a means?
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | June 22, 2009 6:09 AM
The single sentence of Mr. Diaz' letter that I found most jarring was the one containing:
Specifically, I boggled at the relationship between "administration...me". I would have preferred to see something like:
The phrase "from the administration" makes the email sound like an official and relatively impersonal communication, but "with me" has the opposite effect.
A couple of metacomments: First, I was pleased to see that Blake Stacey (#39) linked to Geoff Pullum's evisceration of the pseudo-rule requiring "that" instead of which for restrictive relatives. I thought of commenting on Dave's (#33) post, but Geoff did it much better than I would have.
Second, I would also like to note Monado's comment in #38 to the effect that:
Unfortunately, what I seem to be finding much more often is the opposite: hypercorrection of "Fred and me" to "Fred and I" as in "Please send copies of that report to Fred and I." Bleah! I don't know anyone who would say "Please send it to I."
Paul
Posted by: prn | June 22, 2009 6:47 AM
The writing here is awful! How can you not see it?
In my high school, at least, you would fail for handing in a piece like that (and, I remember, a few people did). Seriously, who lets something liek this slide? Even in my science classes I would have been looked at askance for writing like that!
Posted by: Valhar2000 | June 22, 2009 7:24 AM
@Keanus #21:
I'm sorry, I just can't resist...
Hmm; number doesn't match. "Whom" is plural (the use of "all of" and "were" demonstrates that); but the reference is to "an applicant" which is clearly singular. Better would be to use "applicants" instead of "an applicant".
You didn't however misspeel (obligatory error) anything.
Posted by: Robin Levett | June 22, 2009 7:59 AM
"Fred and me"? Ha!,;--I ain't never falled in that trap!
Seriously, the real problem with the letter is that it is not written in such a way that it is easy to understand. It also seems more than a bit affected and pompous.
Posted by: democommie | June 22, 2009 8:03 AM
English major he might not be, but compared to all the other letters to the editor than I usually see I'd say this is about par for the course.
Feel free to point out grammatical mistakes in this comment.
Posted by: MarkusR | June 22, 2009 8:51 AM
ELR said
"In fact, I wouldn't have thought anything was wrong with it at all, and I DID pay attention in HS English, but this kind of thing wasn't taught." (emphasis added.)
And there you have it.
Also, Robin Levett said
" 'Whom' is plural..."
Nope, "who" is used in the nominative case (similar to the use of "I") and "whom" is used in the objective case (as in the use of "me").
Posted by: BaldApe | June 22, 2009 9:36 AM
Should one really critique another's style in a post with a sentence ending in a proposition, a misplaced apposition, a superfluous "which is", a superfluous "which was", a jarring parenthesization, a sentence beginning with "But", and a sentence fragment?
(Apologies for omission of proper grammatical terminology: I'm barely awake, and it's been decades since I received a check for copy editing. I can't even remember whose law it is that online kvetches about grammar must contain at least one error...)
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | June 22, 2009 9:48 AM
... sentence ending in a preposition, damnit!
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | June 22, 2009 9:50 AM
It strikes me as something written, not badly, but half-heartedly, by someone whose heart really wasn't in what he was writing. He could have done better, but either he was in a hurry, or he really didn't want to write what he wrote, or he was under pressure to write something he didn't feel.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 22, 2009 9:54 AM
Insisting that grammar is all about such prescriptions reduces the study of how words operate in combination to a set of stupefyingly dull etiquette lessons, mastery of which is completely useless in any situation save, perhaps, applying for a job as a professional killjoy.
I suspect that's one reason we have so many crappy writers, not to mention underachievement in a lot of other important subjects as well: we think rules are bad, therefore we refuse to learn any of the basic rules and pretend we can be knowledgeable, and express ourselves and our boundless spirits, without bothering with all those spirit-crushing rules and homework. Then we grow up and realize, too late, that learning basic rules doesn't crush the human spirit nearly as much as ignorance and half-assed articulation.
Diaz's halfhearted attention to proper composition resulted in a text that didn't express any real spirit at all. Out here in the real world, it's the basic steps and rules that combine to form a great and useful whole.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 22, 2009 10:10 AM
To those carping about Ed's carping about the grammar and style:
Would you prefer that Ed simply make the same points that everyone else has already made?
To those who say the writing is not really that bad:
Two weeks ago, I spent an entire afternoon helping a friend polish up a cover letter. Before I touched it, the letter was already ten times better than Mr. Diaz' piece. Nevertheless, I believe it would have reflected poorly on my friend, due to awkward style and graceless flow.
Feel free to criticize the style of this comment.
Posted by: xebecs | June 22, 2009 10:15 AM
Pierce R. Butler:
It is quite simple to tell the difference between those sentences that end with a propostion instead of a preposition. The latter will tend to lead to ones being ridiculed as a maroon. The former will tend to get one's face slapped.
Posted by: democommie | June 22, 2009 11:38 AM
Somewhat off-topic:
http://www.liberty.edu/index.cfm?PID=18495&MID=8434
"Ski slope sees first action as workers perform test runs"
Yep, Liberty University is building a year-round ski slope.
"As rain fell on Thursday, several personnel tasked with building Liberty University’s year-round ski slope decided to take a break from the construction. Instead of grabbing a quick snack, the workers, who are also European freestyle skiers and snowboarders, took turns testing out the artificial incline. Beginning at the slope’s cornice drop, the freestylers barreled downhill, catching huge air off the kickers and tabletop."
LU is also building a new stadium... And renovating the dorms. Could it be they have a recruitment problem?
Posted by: Chris Winter | June 22, 2009 11:47 AM
English major he might not be, but compared to all the other letters to the editor than I usually see I'd say this is about par for the course.
Feel free to point out grammatical mistakes in this comment.
Sure, no problem. I think you meant "that" instead of "than"?
Posted by: Stu | June 22, 2009 12:02 PM
"Do they not teach composition at Liberty University?"
Really? It would actually be one of the few courses I would expect them to get right. Of course, you have absolutely no evidence from this text that they have no such course. Only that the author either did not take the course, failed the course, or forgot much of what he learned in the course.
Posted by: BAllanJ | June 22, 2009 12:06 PM
Stu - I think the second sentence in your post should have been italicised. It's not a error in grammar, you'll note, but a formatting error. - Helpfully DJ :)
Posted by: Dingojack | June 22, 2009 12:09 PM
Posted by: xebecs | June 22, 2009 12:46 PM
Eh. I'm a grammar/punctuation/spelling snob, and this doesn't strike me as particularly awful. It won't win any Pulitzers, but what he's saying is clear throughout; I see worse writing virtually every day on the job...
Posted by: FBI Regional Bureau Chief GORDON COLE!!! | June 22, 2009 12:46 PM
Actually, I'll admit to being a little disappointed; truly awful writing is a great source of entertainment (even more so when written by ideological opponents), and this piece didn't deliver.
For truly pants-pissing, knee-slapping, coffee-on-monitor-spewing examples of what I'm talking about, see the collected works of Kaye Grogan, who writes like an 11-year old.
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/grogan
Posted by: FBI Regional Bureau Chief GORDON COLE!!! | June 22, 2009 12:51 PM
@BaldApe #57:
"Whom" is indeed the accusative case of "who" - and can be singular or plural. In this instance, since Keanus used it with a plural verb ("were") and pronoun ("all"), he is using it as plural, or he's got other problems...
Posted by: Robin Levett | June 22, 2009 1:02 PM
Cole: I just looked at the blog you cited, and the first thing I noticed was that she hasn't posted there since 2007; the second thing I noticed was the prominent "TERRI" ad. If that fruit-bat is still stuck on Terri Schiavo (as several other ads for Terri-related books stronly imply), then I really need to stay away from that kind of madness. Thanks for the offer though...
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 22, 2009 1:03 PM
Raging Bee--
Grogan's been inactive for a while, and obviously she's a wingnut to put other wingnuts to shame (but isn't that a good thing for entertainment purposes?), but you owe it to yourself to peruse her archives.
Just the headlines give an idea of what's to come:
"Smoking mirror...or a Real Firestorm?" Uh..."smoking mirrors?" Sure you don't mean "smoke AND mirrors," Kaye?
From the column itself: "We already have an enormous problem with the diversity of religion and other cultures trying to interfere with the Judea-Christians' practice of "freedom of religion." Can we or should we be expected to handle more religious diversity?" "Judea-Christians." Awesome. And that's without even getting to the substance--this is in the context of a screed against Mexican immigrants, the vast majority of whom are Christian (I know, I know--wingnuttia's preferred brand of Christianity doesn't consider Catholics Christians...).
This piece, alas, isn't a particularly good example of Kaye's random, "use" of punctuation, specifically randomly, "placed" commas "and" quotation, marks. But really, picking one's favorite Kaye Grogan column is like picking one's favorite Bob Dylan album--most of them are sublime in their own way, and for different reasons.
Posted by: FBI Regional Bureau Chief GORDON COLE!!! | June 22, 2009 1:20 PM
Geoffrey Pullum takedown of The Elements of Style:
http://chronicle.com/free/v55/i32/32b01501.htm
Posted by: 386sx | June 22, 2009 1:37 PM
I like this piece as well:
http://ling.kgw.tu-berlin.de/lexicography/data/MAVENS.html
Posted by: FBI Regional Bureau Chief GORDON COLE!!! | June 22, 2009 1:51 PM
democommie @ # 63 - Yeah, I was typographically distracted by thinking of a newspaper commentary from many years ago about a notorious murderer doing life in the pen, who was killed by a fellow inmate distraught by a sexual come-on:
"A classic example of ending a sentence with a proposition."
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | June 22, 2009 2:07 PM
What do you think of their original press release... http://www.lucd.org/release.pdf
Posted by: Jason Jones. | June 22, 2009 2:25 PM
What do you think of their original press release... http://www.lucd.org/statement.pdf
Posted by: Jason Jones. | June 22, 2009 2:27 PM
This reminds me of when I was in school.
Our teacher grumped in, obviously irked, and announced:
"Today we are going to do grammar."
Much groaning from students ensued before he continued "Does anyone know what a preposition is?"
I immediate stuck up my hand* and said "Something you never end a sentence with?" We looked at each other and exchanged wry smiles, amongst the stony silence. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 22, 2009 2:52 PM
Sorry - posted accidentally. Forgive the errors. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 22, 2009 2:55 PM
This kid could get a job editing our local newspaper. Over the past five years we've been treated to headlines like these:
Man Killed by House on Snowmobile
Boy on Tracks killed by train wearing headphones
Study shows homicide victims rarely speak with police
Posted by: dean | June 22, 2009 3:10 PM
That was an exercise in laziness.
Writing is hard work and students don't really apply themselves these days. It's a complaint I hear from academics all the time.
It's just good enough that another draft or two would produce a fairly readable piece.
Posted by: Geoff | June 22, 2009 3:38 PM
If I had written that, I would have started over again.
Posted by: Geoff | June 22, 2009 3:40 PM
I used to teach business writing at the local community college (I'm now safely ensconced in technical writing, amen). That particular kind of overwrought, awkward writing is what you see when mediocre writers are trying much, much too hard to sound formal and (dare I say it) professional. I think I spent much of the first several weeks of classes trying to get my students to relax, simply so they wouldn't sound like they were trying to articulate around the giant sticks up their rumps.
Granted, since the author of this piece went to LU in the first place, it's likely he'll never shed that particular stick...
Posted by: Interrobang | June 22, 2009 3:48 PM
Ed,
But you'd still pass. The poor darlings aren't allowed to fail anymore because it would bruise their fragile egos.@ Ben 41:
I beg to disagree. Your writing in a public forum provides an insight into your thoughts, and how well-crafted they are. Whether or nor there is a grade on the line is irrelevant. You are stating a case for your actions and your writing should be scrutinized as if it WERE being graded. The better you write, the more your arguments will be taken seriously.(And I'm sure I made goofs in that above paragraph. Ed forgive me).
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | June 22, 2009 3:55 PM
The unasked question in all of this is, what sort of Democrat would be going to Liebetter U? I can imagine a sorta Father Coughlin anti-semite Cath-O-Lick but beyond that I'm sorta lost. What's next a Log Cabin Republican's chapter at the school?
Posted by: democommie | June 22, 2009 5:29 PM
That's odd. I'm not sure how I did that. I am the master of the blockquote...
Posted by: xebecs | June 22, 2009 7:13 PM
Of course, there's the counter of the "Me/I" grammatical error, where people have been taught so well not to use "me" in the subject that they don't use it in the predicate either.
As in "My mom gave money to my brother and I" instead of "My mom gave money to my brother and me".
Posted by: Jessa | June 22, 2009 8:40 PM
I was struck by the fact that he chairs one of the caucuses of a faith caucus. How many levels do these things have?
(I accept that "to chair" is a verb, these days, ugly as it is. But I just can't help it: it makes me want to chair the writer in the face).
Posted by: Paul Murray | June 23, 2009 3:25 AM
Most people are bad writers. It's as true today as it was 10 years ago, 25 years ago, 50 years ago, 500 years ago, and for as long as writing has existed. Writing is hard. It's not something that people do naturally; it's something that takes years of practice and training, and most people simply don't have the inclination to put in the effort necessary to become good (or even mediocre) at it. Why is it OK for someone to be bad at, say, calculus (which is no harder than writing well frankly), but when someone is bad at writing it's reason for sky-is-falling kids-these-days clothes-rending and tooth-gnashing?
Posted by: lylebot | June 23, 2009 11:59 PM
If someone put his or her poor calculus skills on display here, there would be those who would find fault.
Posted by: xebecs | June 24, 2009 10:29 AM