Writing to be underdstood
-
Recently a gentleman by the name of Anthony Lee Mui Yu has been contributing regularly in the Online ST forums. I have been following his writings rather closely, not because of its content, but because I do not have a clue what he is writing about, even after I have gone through the passages twice. I have included two of his articles below. The first one is taken from the ST Online forums today.
I fully acknowledge Mr. Lee's spectacular command of written English. I will also admit that and my own English linguistic skill and vocabulary is vastly inferior to Mr. Lee. However, no one ever has to read my emails 20 times to understand that I am sending out an invitation for a house warming party... At the end of the day, it boils down to the reason one writes; to impress, or to communicate?
I will probably keep all his writings for my children. When they are old enough to write essays I can show these to them as examples of how not to write.Chineseness: Culture is a continuum
'WHAT does it mean to be Chinese and Asian?' (Online forum, April 20) is Mr Wong Hoong Hooi's perennial worry of 'wannabes coalescing around a Western cultural core'.
A romanticised Chineseness of Confucian-Taoist intellectuals rivalling calligraphy under willows - or reality? The writer recommends education - without 'drilling our children on tradition' - 'to personalise the issue of ethnicity for the individual and empower him to make a difference in the space spanning chauvinism and deculturalisation'.
Chineseness ranges from older dialect speakers to dialect-English speakers of my generation and today's Mandarin-English savvy globe-trotters - some in China. Unifying under Mandarin evolved dialectal culture into Mandarin-speaking Chineseness that provincial China still resists.
Presuming an Adam-and-Eve genesis, I define culture as: constant adaptation that evolves societies recognisably distinct. Hence, China-Chineseness, Malaysian-Malayness and Indian-Indianness - spawning Singapore Chineseness, Malayness and Indianness. And their continua.
Switzerland had seven centuries to consolidate its proud Swiss Germanness, Frenchness and Italianness - without perfidy. Brazil took a century plus to meld a European, African and Amerindian potpourri into unapologetic Brazilianness. We are a decades-old infant starting on a Swiss-like, Brazilian-like or whatever transformation - what's the hurry?
Mr Wong disclaims commenting on 'issues of cultural integrity in the other communities'. Would he keep mum if a mounting Indian presence overarches our ethnicities? Or protest an Asianising West that 'hijacks' Chinese or Indian Asianness?
He insinuates accusations of bigotry on 'any Chinese Singaporean who incorporates race as part of his identity'. It's his diatribes against amorphous 'anglophiles' and 'westophiles' - not racial incorporation per se - that alarmed, a la white-supremacists' stridency in Western societies.
Couldn't he sense our minorities' insecurities? Switzerland would replicate tensions should a Swiss-German Mr Wong suddenly harangue his own ethnic community - a Swiss majority - for 'cultural betrayal'.
Resisting soft power inroads is like the Dutch boy's finger plugging a leaking dyke. Culture is fluidly malleable and not a zero-sum game. With 'good old days' nostalgia, Mr Wong's grandkids may presume he enjoyed a 'purer culture' like his current wistfulness harks back.
Deculturalisation is impossible as cultures transform in a continuum - quicker with globalisation to adapt - outdating atavistic comparisons. Try telling Brazilians their faceted hybrid is adulterated culture! Or deride 'unity without uniformity' Swissness - you might get an arrow in your apple.
Anthony Lee Mui YuThomas Lee Zhi Zhi's letter, 'Condo success: What's faith got to do with it?' (Online forum, March 3) decries that Newton One's developer attributes - on signage - faith to its sales. He finds that it threatens our multi-religious orientation.
This is redolent of a former colleague who ascribed little successes to Him as in, 'He has blessed me in doing such-and-such' which, ad nauseam, grates.
I'm not areligious. But if I reserve coarse speech for all-guys carousing, shouldn't religious spouters save it for co-religionists? In the wrong contexts, language imposes and discomforts. It's worse if it is a gambit to proselytise.
Similarly, religious paraphernalia shouldn't obtrude. Commendably, some establishments secrete their staff's altars in the rear while some retail premises display their figurines or altars - of whatever faith - prominently.
There's a barber whose premises look like a shrine - his co-believer competitors shake their heads bemusedly each time he loses a customer to them. Is he announcing: 'For fellow-believers only'?
In secular contexts, manifesting your freedom to worship shouldn't presume on others' comfort zones. Even a home that looks like a shrine is incongruous, let alone business premises that exude worship. If religion defines your business, great! If not, don't unnerve and confuse your prospects!
Religiousness should raise empathy for those of different faiths or none. Self-misleading adherents do humanity, their faiths and co-believers a great disservice. Faiths should unite, not divide people - now especially.
Anthony Lee Mui Yu -
I think he is trying too hard to impress his audiences, too many unnecessary modifiers lah. Same goes for writing poems.
Imo, my one-line summary for
Article 1
Culture is fluidly malleable and not a zero-sum game.
Article 2 Faiths should unite, not divide people. -
I found all that too tiresome to read. Too long winded.
If you have to resort to using "big words" in attempt to impress, you'll probably fail anyway. Not that you shouldn't use them, but that you should use such words sparingly, wisely so that their impact can be felt. When there one "big word" after another, it actually looks pretentious and ridiculous. -
I think those people from the civil service write like that too, full of clichés, standard templates and big words.
-
Until LKY did warn someone not to use his bombastic English in Parliement.
-
I don't get what you mean.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Until LKY did warn someone not to use his bombastic English in Parliement. -
The 'big words' of my youth are common words today with better and higher education. Each word denotes/connotes differently as there aren't exact synonyms - they aren't just 'smaller', or 'bigger' to impress. Someone with a smaller lexicon would find the usage of another - whose lexicon is broader - 'full of big words'.Originally posted by Bluesky_Liz:I found all that too tiresome to read. Too long winded.
If you have to resort to using "big words" in attempt to impress, you'll probably fail anyway. Not that you shouldn't use them, but that you should use such words sparingly, wisely so that their impact can be felt. When there one "big word" after another, it actually looks pretentious and ridiculous.
I enjoy using words to convey precisely what other words can't. English is wealthy with vocabulary. Why not learn and use them instead of confining yourself to the trite and boring? Life and writing shouldn't plateau but rise with maturity and experience. I recommend www.onelook.com for dictionary definitions and usage examples. Subscribe to a-word-a-day e-mails like from dictionary.com, etc. to enrich your lexicon.
With more 'big words' under your belt, you can choose the level of precision that simple and concise expression demands - then they won't remain 'big' to you. -
I appreciate your honesty and humility about Mr Lee. You can't be 'following his writings rather closely' and trying to decipher him without interest in his content - it's an oxymoron. He wasn't writing a housewarming invite but something sociological about culture and Chineseness.Originally posted by Beyond Religion:Recently a gentleman by the name of Anthony Lee Mui Yu has been contributing regularly in the Online ST forums. I have been following his writings rather closely, not because of its content, but because I do not have a clue what he is writing about, even after I have gone through the passages twice. I have included two of his articles below. The first one is taken from the ST Online forums today.
I fully acknowledge Mr. Lee's spectacular command of written English. I will also admit that and my own English linguistic skill and vocabulary is vastly inferior to Mr. Lee. However, no one ever has to read my emails 20 times to understand that I am sending out an invitation for a house warming party... At the end of the day, it boils down to the reason one writes; to impress, or to communicate?
I will probably keep all his writings for my children. When they are old enough to write essays I can show these to them as examples of how not to write.
Have you read his letters on animal welfare, customer service or the latest on better oral English (Online Apr 27)? They were extremely readable - it depends on the topic's demands. The 400-word limit for each letter forces compact writing that 'big words' facilitate on abstract topics. Writing thus requires readers to have a similar frame of reference. You would be in the loop if you had - in the past decade - followed Mr Wong Hoong Hooi's (who writes convolutedly) attacks on those like Mr Lee for 'forsaking Asianness'.
The ST obviously feels 'big word' letters are comprehensible enough after editing for publication. They have to cater to a diverse readership from students to professors - students especially need their lexicon challenged. -
You seem to have problems understanding my post, perhaps I was being too simplistic, slipped into my homely Singlish. I apologize. I suppose writing too simply can cause misunderstandings too.Originally posted by Prolix:The 'big words' of my youth are common words today with better and higher education. Each word denotes/connotes differently as there aren't exact synonyms - they aren't just 'smaller', or 'bigger' to impress. Someone with a smaller lexicon would find the usage of another - whose lexicon is broader - 'full of big words'.
I enjoy using words to convey precisely what other words can't. English is wealthy with vocabulary. Why not learn and use them instead of confining yourself to the trite and boring? Life and writing shouldn't plateau but rise with maturity and experience. I recommend www.onelook.com for dictionary definitions and usage examples. Subscribe to a-word-a-day e-mails like from dictionary.com, etc. to enrich your lexicon.
With more 'big words' under your belt, you can choose the level of precision that simple and concise expression demands - then they won't remain 'big' to you.
I'm all for using words appropriately. I didn't say you shouldn't utilize words you've picked up through "higher or better education", nor did I say that you shouldn't enrich your word power. In fact I think your post would demonstrate the use of "big words" sparingly and wisely, and probably put forward better what I was saying.
And we are talking about writing to be understood, it is my opinion that using too many difficult words can turn people off, distract them from the message which could be made clearer with fewer words.
Anyway, I like the points you've made although I think you've misunderstood my intentions. Thanks for sharing them. -
Hmm, interesting. Technically speaking, Lee has committed one glaring error. While his lexicon is obviously suited to more formal or academic writing, he takes some liberties with his grammar, starting sentences with "and" and "or", and "it's" instead of "it is" in writing. There seems to be an inconsistent applicaton of standards here.
Then again, that point is academic (pardon the pun). Prolix says, "I enjoy using words to convey precisely what other words can't". Well and good, but that applies only upon the condition that "other words can't". In the case of Lee's writing, the same message can be precisely conveyed in much simpler language.
This brings us to Beyond Religion's point. There's no doubt that the Engrand is very powderful, but is the Engrand too powderful? Personally, I believe it is, especially if the objective is to clearly convey a message, as Prolix proposes.
Eight years of university drove me in the direction of never saying something in ten words when it could be said in five, but the objective there was to fit as much information as possible into a non-negotiable word limit. These days, writing in that manner would not be acceptable, because my clients do not have my training - they want the message expressed as simply and as clearly as possible. Hey, for a hundred grand a pop, I'd write it in Swahili if they wanted, but I digress.
At the risk of sounding corny, let's not miss the forest for the trees here. The aim of language is communication, plain and simple - and Beyond Religion's simple and clear title, "Writing to be understood", could not be a more clear example of this. Extended lexicon is garnish, or at best a condiment. If you're writing to express a point of view, it defeats the purpose if the point is expressed in such a way that the reader would go, "Huh?". -
at the end of the day, the point is getting the message across.
-
I've always frowned upon my fellow peers who would spend hours going through list of high-level bombastic English words while being unable to get their basic grammar right. The way I see it, if you don't know how to walk, then don't try to run.
I mean, it totally defeats the purpose of using words like 'salubrious' and 'garrulous' when they keep using non-existent words like 'alot'. And half the time, they use such high-level words in the totally wrong context.
I've never believed in trying to be bombastic when simple words would suffice - I'm a lot more concerned with getting my point across and arguing my stand. -
Thanks for the civil response. Peter Singer oversimplifies philosophical arguments to incomprehensibility using lay language that lengthens expression. Sprinkling strategic jargon would have helped - with dictionary handy.Originally posted by Bluesky_Liz:You seem to have problems understanding my post, perhaps I was being too simplistic, slipped into my homely Singlish. I apologize. I suppose writing too simply can cause misunderstandings too.
I'm all for using words appropriately. I didn't say you shouldn't utilize words you've picked up through "higher or better education", nor did I say that you shouldn't enrich your word power. In fact I think your post would demonstrate the use of "big words" sparingly and wisely, and probably put forward better what I was saying.
And we are talking about writing to be understood, it is my opinion that using too many difficult words can turn people off, distract them from the message which could be made clearer with fewer words.
Anyway, I like the points you've made although I think you've misunderstood my intentions. Thanks for sharing them.
Example : "It's his diatribes against amorphous 'anglophiles and westophiles' (Mr Wong's coinage) ... that alarmed, a la white supremacists' stridency"
'Diatribes' connotes the bitterness that 'attacks' and 'criticisms' don't. 'Amorphous' fits like a glove unlike awkward and ambiguous 'shapeless', 'formless', 'fuzzy', etc. 'A la' shortcuts 'in the manner of' as does 'white supremacists', 'Caucasians who feel racially superior'. 'Stridency' encapsulates 'harsh/loud/shrill or grating protestations tightly.
A bombast batters with 'big words', a 'precisionist' edits with choice terms for conciseness. -
Commas, full stops and other punctuation devices were invented for a very good reason. Unfortunately, not everybody chooses to use them.Originally posted by Prolix:Thanks for the civil response. Peter Singer oversimplifies philosophical arguments to incomprehensibility using lay language that lengthens expression. Sprinkling strategic jargon would have helped - with dictionary handy.
As for "precisionists ", you may have a mobile telephone that uses the latest technology, sending out signals in 7.1 surround sound, using phase-modulated signals to eliminate atmospheric interference, and if you're lucky it will even dice your vegetables for you. What good is it if the phone network in your area doesn't support the phone, and even if it does, your receiver only hears you in mono?
While you can present the two as discrete classifications, an overlap between them can exist. Without knowing Lee's intention, you cannot rule out his falling within that overlap.Originally posted by Prolix:A bombast batters with 'big words', a 'precisionist' edits with choice terms for conciseness. -
The ST Forum accomodates diverse writers and readers from students to professors. If unchallenged 'lexiconly', how would students evolve into professors? What about unambitious/lazy writers and readers? I would love to write like Catherine Tan who gives as good as she gets from all comers. Next to a writing course, The Forum (with free editing) gives me practice in that direction.Originally posted by Gedanken:Hmm, interesting. Technically speaking, Lee has committed one glaring error. While his lexicon is obviously suited to more formal or academic writing, he takes some liberties with his grammar, starting sentences with "and" and "or", and "it's" instead of "it is" in writing. There seems to be an inconsistent applicaton of standards here.
Then again, that point is academic (pardon the pun). Prolix says, "I enjoy using words to convey precisely what other words can't". Well and good, but that applies only upon the condition that "other words can't". In the case of Lee's writing, the same message can be precisely conveyed in much simpler language.
This brings us to Beyond Religion's point. There's no doubt that the Engrand is very powderful, but is the Engrand too powderful? Personally, I believe it is, especially if the objective is to clearly convey a message, as Prolix proposes.
Eight years of university drove me in the direction of never saying something in ten words when it could be said in five, but the objective there was to fit as much information as possible into a non-negotiable word limit. These days, writing in that manner would not be acceptable, because my clients do not have my training - they want the message expressed as simply and as clearly as possible. Hey, for a hundred grand a pop, I'd write it in Swahili if they wanted, but I digress.
At the risk of sounding corny, let's not miss the forest for the trees here. The aim of language is communication, plain and simple - and Beyond Religion's simple and clear title, "Writing to be understood", could not be a more clear example of this. Extended lexicon is garnish, or at best a condiment. If you're writing to express a point of view, it defeats the purpose if the point is expressed in such a way that the reader would go, "Huh?".
There shouldn't be a self-imposed apartheid of lexicon 'flaunters' and the humble/coy/ diffident. Is there a self-deprecating cultural deterrence? Language is topic-driven - loftier issues require commensurate word choices to not short-change nuanced understanding. Most of Lee's letters are on civility, animal welfare, customer service and better speech (Online April 27) - straightforward and easy reads. -
All of the above is well and good, but what is the raison d'etre of the ST Forum? I would argue that it is a space provided for readers to present their views to be read and appreciated by other readers. Given the wide demographical range of ST's readers, Lee's phrasing of his points defeats that purpose as far as at least 95% of the reader population is concerned.Originally posted by Prolix:The ST Forum accomodates diverse writers and readers from students to professors. If unchallenged 'lexiconly', how would students evolve into professors? What about unambitious/lazy writers and readers? I would love to write like Catherine Tan who gives as good as she gets from all comers. Next to a writing course, The Forum (with free editing) gives me practice in that direction.
There shouldn't be a self-imposed apartheid of lexicon 'flaunters' and the humble/coy/ diffident. Is there a self-deprecating cultural deterrence? Language is topic-driven - loftier issues require commensurate word choices to not short-change nuanced understanding. Most of Lee's letters are on civility, animal welfare, customer service and better speech (Online April 27) - straightforward and easy reads.
It's a forum, not a writing class. As I've said before, let's not miss the forst for the trees here. However, if you proposed that the ST Forum could be conceived as vanity press, Lee's writing would not be out of place. -
Don't underestimate Forum readers' interests and reading aspirations/abilities - they may surprise you. That the ST has heavier writing by senior writers and academics parallels its Forum's accomodation.Originally posted by Gedanken:All of the above is well and good, but what is the raison d'etre of the ST Forum? I would argue that it is a space provided for readers to present their views to be read and appreciated by other readers. Given the wide demographical range of ST's readers, Lee's phrasing of his points defeats that purpose as far as at least 95% of the reader population is concerned.
It's a forum, not a writing class. As I've said before, let's not miss the forst for the trees here. However, if you proposed that the ST Forum could be conceived as vanity press, Lee's writing would not be out of place.
Simply re-write Lee's Chineseness piece under 400 words using 100% lay terms (Sec One level?) - without adulteration of nuances and you'll prove your point! -
Okay, go to a news stand and ask the first twenty readers what the words "perfidy", "atavistic" and "unapologetic" mean. If nineteen of them can provide you with a correct definition, I'll say I stand corrected. My bet is that at least a handful will tell you that unapologetic means, "never want to say sorry, lor!".Originally posted by Prolix:Don't underestimate Forum readers' interests and reading aspirations/abilities - they may surprise you. That the ST has heavier writing by senior writers and academics parallels its Forum's accomodation.
Okay:Originally posted by Prolix:Simply re-write Lee's Chineseness piece under 400 words using 100% lay terms (Sec One level?) - without adulteration of nuances and you'll prove your point!Mr Wong Hoong Hooi's article 'WHAT does it mean to be Chinese and Asian?' (Online forum, April 20) reflects his constant worrying about 'wannabes coalescing around a Western cultural core'.
The above weighs in at 332 words compared to Lee's 383. Obviously, given the subject matter, there were limits to the extent to which "Sec One level" English could be applied.
In his article, Mr Wong has presented an idealistic, “good old days” view of “Chineseness” instead of a realistic one. The Mandarin-speaking, Confucian-Taoist intellectual image of Chineseness does not apply to all Chinese people - villagers in China still speak dialects instead of Mandarin, many modern Chinese mix English with Mandarin. These Chinese don’t fit Mr Wong’s description of Chineseness, but does this mean they are not Chinese?
Mr Wong recommends that we should educate our children and let them make up their minds about their ethnicity. Look at how Chinese villagers still resist the government’s efforts to unify China under a Mandarin-speaking culture – do you think it will work?
Culture evolves instead of staying unchanged. For example, China-Chineseness, Malaysian-Malayness and Indian-Indianness have become Singapore Chineseness, Malayness and Indianness in Singapore. Because cultures evolve, deculturalisation is impossible. Also, comparing oneÂ’s culture to that of oneÂ’s ancestors does not make sense because cultures are transformed over time.
Cultural evolution also takes time. The Swiss have taken seven centuries to incorporate their German, Italian and French communities into a Swiss culture, without betraying any of the three original cultures. Similarly, Brazilians have blended European, African and Amerindian sub-cultures into their culture. Both peoples are proud of their culture – just try telling them that their culture is diluted! Singapore is only a few decades old and should not rush things.
Mr Wong’s claims he is against bigotry, but his rant about 'anglophiles' and 'westophiles' (which are vaguely defined) reflects what white supremacists say in white countries to an alarming degree. His idea of Asianness is based on Chinese culture and excludes other Asian cultures - couldn't he sense our minorities' insecurities? If Mr Wong was Swiss-German and attacked Swiss-Germans for “cultural betrayal”, the accusation would create tensions between the majority Swiss-German community and the minorities.
Given how each of us has a vested interest in the judgement of how well the above expresses Lee's points, I would suggest that we get the other forum members to read it and provide their verdict.[/quote] -
My complaint would be that he sprouts a lot of "assertions" without backing them up... he thinks we should simply accept what he says like it is the word of God or something?
-
An essay, a poem, or any type of writings, works only when it speaks to you. If it doesnÂ’t, then it simply doesnÂ’t work for you. In another word, you are not the intended audience. Take for example the following joke,
"What did the sign on Pavlov's lab door say?
Please knock. DON'T ring the bell."
If you do not have any Psychology background, you might not get the joke. I donÂ’t know, maybe those particular articles were meant to be read by professors, senior editors, etc. Personally I prefer GedankenÂ’s version. -
but if you write w/o jargon and obscure references that does not mean that prof and editors cannot understand... furthermore it is in a newspaper... and ST is not FT
-
This reminds me of an ex-classmate. He simply refused to use proper references in his assignments. And when the lecturer penalized him for that, he made a complaint to the school authority.
-
The ST Forum imposes a 400-word limit and this isn't an academic assignment or dissertation. Even if Lee backs up assertions with references doesn't guarantee a monopoly on 'rightness' - nothing does.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:My complaint would be that he sprouts a lot of "assertions" without backing them up... he thinks we should simply accept what he says like it is the word of God or something? -
We are not talking about "rightness" are we? We are talking about readability and understandability "by the newspapers readers" are we not? In a way, I "write for a living" and I struggle with this daily. My complaint as you pointed out might be "out of scope" - that is because I think I understand what he is saying... except that I don't buy it.Originally posted by Prolix:The ST Forum imposes a 400-word limit and this isn't an academic assignment or dissertation. Even if Lee backs up assertions with references doesn't guarantee a monopoly on 'rightness' - nothing does. -
Congrats! You've proved your point even though you excluded the para : 'Mr Wong disclaims......or Indian Asianness'.Originally posted by Gedanken:
Still, that's your style, not Lee's whose intent you agreed we can't fathom. I'm sure the Forum respects freedom of style/complexity by finding Lee's expression 'publishworthy'. If your version were an option, would they have published it instead? Why don't you write on such topics - if they interest you - and find out? Beyond Religion needs writers like you.
Should easy reading force Forum writers to pander to the lowest common denominator - whatever that is? The Forum may not be high-brow but neither is it 'low-brow' judging from publications. The final arbiters are its editors, not readers whose digestion won't stretch beyond plain dishes - stagnation doesn't bode well.