Actions and verbs

One reason why so many students write opaquely is that a lot of the models they encounter aren't very good. More than a few academic writers become so burdened by the terms and concepts they wish to use that their writing becomes a frozen slurry of actionless nouns piled one atop another. Here, for example, is a piece of published academic writing, on philosophy:

　　Indeed dialectical critical realism may be seen under the aspect of Foucauldian strategic reversal—of the unholy 　　trinity of Parmenidean/Platonic/Aristotelean provenance; of the Cartesian-Lockean-Humean-Kantian paradigm, of foundationalisms （in practice, fideistic foundationalisms） and irrationalisms （in practice, capricious exercises of the will-to-power or some other ideologically and/or psycho-somatically buried source） new and old alike; of the primordial failing of western philosophy, ontological monovalence, and its close ally, the epistemic fallacy with its ontic dual; of the analytic problematic laid down by Plato, which Hegel served only to replicate in his actualist monovalent analytic reinstatement in transfigurative reconciling dialectical connection, while in his hubristic claims for absolute idealism he inaugurated the Comtean, Kierkegaardian and Nietzschean eclipses of reason, replicating the fundaments of positivism through its transmutation route to the superidealism of a Baudrillard.

　　It's hard to find any action in this monumental sentence. There's that early may be seen and a few more verbs, even a few subject-verb cores like Hegel served to replicate and he inaugurated. But there's no sense of any action in the passage. Its lack of clarity is so profound that whatever brilliant insights it may have are Greek to us. I'm not sure even Nuts and Bolts could fix this, but if we tried our initial tack would be to have fewer labels and more clauses built around active verbs and clear actors doing something.

　　If professional scholars can produce stuff like that, it's no wonder students learn to avoid saying things plainly. Here's an example of a student reluctant to say something in the plainest, most natural way. This is the first sentence of an essay and I think she was reluctant to start too plainly. So she ends up with something that the reader has a tough time understanding:

　　　　Machiavelli best supports republics in The Discourses.

　　The reader stumbles over best supports. What does best mean here? How does Machiavelli support republics in The Discourses? The answer takes a while to figure out, and only if you know the inside story. One idea the student was struggling to express was that Machiavelli praises republics in The Discourses, but not in his more famous book, The Prince. That explains the best supports. But of course this is only clear to those who know Machiavelli well, and even those people don't get any hint from the sentence that they're supposed to compare these two works.

　　As we mull over ways to clarify this, we realize that rather than explaining this mostly hidden contrast between The Discourses and The Prince we can just eliminate it, because it's not the point of this essay. With the implicit contrast between the two works not something we need to preserve, we can work on finding a better verb than supports:

　　　　Machiavelli praises republics in The Discourses.

　　The rest of the original opening paragraph shows a similar reluctance to say things plainly:

ORIGINAL REVISION
Machiavelli best supports republics in The Discourses. His favorite republic is ancient Rome. He explains and supports his admiration in this work. The two major aspects that Machiavelli discusses are that the Romans were a great empire and that they had a powerful army.
Machiavelli praises republics in The Discourses. Above all he praises the Roman republic, because it had a powerful army and conquered and

　　The revision gets rid of constructions like best supports, explains and supports, two major aspects and that Machiavelli discusses. Formal, clanky constructions like this are fatal lures for students. They sound so dignified and collegiate: but in fact they undermine what you could have said more plainly and effectively. Note that the revision relies on good, strong verbs: praises （twice）, had, conquered, and held. Compare these to the much more inert verbs in the original.

　　Finally, note that the two passages have the same basic ideas, but that the revision reorders and expands a key part of the argument. The original version had given as a list of major aspects （whatever exactly that means） that Rome was an empire and had a strong army. The revision flips the order of these around, since having a strong army allowed Rome to acquire the empire. And while the original merely says the Romans were a great empire, the revision turns this identity into an action, or rather two actions, conquered and held. Using these two active verbs helps us think of Rome as an actor—very much in keeping with Machiavelli's action-oriented thinking. And splitting the action into two parts helps us plan where we're going to go with the argument.

　　Here's an instance of something similar—gaining clarity by breaking a sentence into easier-to-understand pieces:

ORIGINAL REVISION
Today, society is witnessing the steady progression of women towards equality with their increasing presence in the working world and in government and their gradual move outside the home.
Today, society is witnessing women's steady progression towards equality. Moving beyond the limits of the home, women are claiming new and increasing authority in government, business, and other historically male-dominated areas.

　　The basic idea of the revision is to build grammatical units around logical units by putting actions into verbs and actors into subjects. In the original, women was the logical actor, but grammatically it was the object of a preposition: of women. In the revision, women becomes the subject of the verb in the second sentence: women are claiming. The revision then builds its argument around that core subject-verb clause.

　　True, the revision is longer, but in and of itself that's not very important. It reads more easily, has some rhythm, and lets the reader pause: a much easier-to-read opening. （Note that the first sentence of the revision is simple and general, and the second starts developing the detailed argument. That's a pattern good writers use a lot.）

　　Failing to attach verbs to real actors happens all the time in student writing. Here's a weak-verbed original discussing Machiavelli, and a stronger revision that makes Machiavelli the grammatical subject:

ORIGINAL REVISION
Machiavelli's view of Christianity comes from a political standpoint. Morality is taken into little consideration when he speaks of religion.
Machiavelli judges religion from a political rather than a moral standpoint

　　Let's diagnose the changes a bit. The original flip-flops its point of view. You don't feel that you're standing on solid ground when you read it; it feels as if you're being yanked now here （a view is coming）, now here （someone or something is taking morality）, now there （he speaks）. The original also treats actions as abstractions divorced from their doers （view comes from and morality is taken leave us fuzzy on that key question, who is doing what）.

　　By contrast, the revision holds a consistent point of view and builds around a real subject performing real action （Machiavelli judges）. Not coincidentally, the revision compresses the original from two sentences of twenty words to one sentence of eleven words. More importantly, it leaves us wanting to hear more, unlike the repetitive and inert original.

　　Here's an instance where the original sentence is adequate but unexciting. The revision sharpens things by using a stronger verb:

ORIGINAL REVISION
This secrecy becomes very damaging to Hamlet.
This secrecy cripples Hamlet.

　　The logical actor here isn't a person, but a concept, secrecy. The guiding principle remains the same, however: figure out who （or, as here, what） is doing something, and then write a sentence emphasizing that: the actor as the subject, and the action as the verb.