What would you say in a conversation?
What should you write on paper? How is it the same and how is it different?
Take Out the Say-Nothings
Here, rock musician Keith Richards was asked how he feels about the politics of England and whether he’s at all political.
No. I watch it, you know. It’s the height of cynicism for me to watch that whole power play go down. Just to see such hams get away with such a bad act over and over again, you know. I mean, it’s an ongoing soap opera of the worst kind, but people still watch it.
-Keith Richards interview in Rolling Stone Magazine
What happens if we strike out the filler words—the spoken frills and decorations? What happens if we pay attention to the clichés (bold added) and weak verbs and nouns (italics added)?
No. I watch it,
you know. It’s the height of cynicism for me to watch that whole power play go down. Just to see such hams get away with such a bad actover and over again,you know.I mean, it’s an ongoing soap opera of the worst kind, but people still watch it.
Nonverbal Words
In writing, extra tonal phrases such as, “you know,” “I mean,” and other fillers are meaningless. Any words which you’d read or say using tone of voice, a shrug of the shoulder, or a glance or a gesture have no meaning without those nonverbal supports.
To give them meaning in writing, one must plunge into the world of fiction technique, which has ways to convey understanding through characterization. In non-fiction, we specifically want to avoid imposing our own characterization on source materials.
Clichés
Whose cynicism is he talking about? His phrasing makes it seem that cynicism is some universal state that he partakes of under certain circumstances. This is a non-evident assertion, a dismissal of the particulars of current affairs.
Which power struggles is he referring to? What about it specifically? He gives no context. He has dismissed the topic with a cliché.
He thinks politicians are akin to amateur stage actors, or hams. This is a fairly universal sentiment. But what is the “bad act?” Is it just poor self-presentation? In what way is politics similar to a bad soap opera? Is it in terms of policy direction, the system of debate, or just the low entertainment value?
And, finally, who are the “people” who still watch politics? Why do they still watch it? Is he trying to lump himself in with British society in general, or is this another handwave at the state of the world?
The Result: Meaninglessness
Richards is extremely skilled at not saying anything of substance that would alienate his audience, and sounding cool about it. His statements are deliberately vague, so that anyone can insert their preferred meaning.
Your professors are not going to do that. Delving for your meaning and intent is not their job. You must provide it by being clear and specific.
How?
Saying Something
Do not write student work like Keith Richards. He’s not that cool, as it turns out.
Why?
- Richards is asserting his worldview without foundation. Does your worldview of your topic have a foundation?
- Richards uses plenty of casual filler slang. All it does is take up room on the page.
- He uses clichés to avoid and skim over the details of the matter, suggesting that he’s not particularly well-informed. Are you feeling ill-informed? Are you failing to inform yourself on your assigned topic?
- He uses vague descriptions in the hope that readers will apply their own assumptions to his generalizations. Your professors are specifically trained not to do that.
- He makes broad, vague assertions about groups. Politicians are all hams, “people” watch their show anyway. This is normal in friendly conversation, but in academic writing, we’re expected to define, explain and support such statements.
Clichés avoid giving information. See how dismissive Richards appears? Clichés can signal how seriously I don’t take my topic. They beg the question of why I didn’t inform myself further and write down specific, focused information.
That’s not what I want my professors to ask when reading my paper.
In talking to friends, clichés are a way to keep things light, keep your real opinions private, and affirm generic popular perspectives. In academic writing, they’re a form of disrespect for my professor’s time and knowledge-sharing.
I’m expected to provide analysis of the knowledge sets assigned, and, in some cases, to present an informed opinion.
Filler words and clichés fail to provide that informational content.
Put in the Information Words
Here are some steps for replacing clutter with content.
- Wherever I remove filler words, I’ll pause and look for the action word (verb) and the “thing or person” word(s) (nouns) in the sentence.
- I’ll make sure the sentence focuses on nouns and verbs. Clean sentences have the verb close to the start.
- I’ll pause and check whether I can use a more specific verb.
- I’ll check whether I can use a more specific noun.
- I’ll try to keep the sentence no longer than 15 words.
- I’ll put the extra ideas into separate sentences if I’m over 15 words. They’re probably the separate details that follow the main idea. That makes them part of a paragraph.
- Whenever I remove a cliché, I’ll pause to check what picture is in my mind. What am I actually thinking?
- Why does this common phrase relate to my thoughts? How does it fail to fit the picture in my mind?
- I’ll write down what I’m actually thinking instead.
It’s completely fine to write a first draft of a student paper with the usual language—fillers, common phrases, and all. To level up, use those fillers as signposts to find the way to your own unique thoughts. Replace them in your second draft.
That way, your paper is complete, and you’re also digging in deeper as much as your deadline time allows.
Word count: 900 | Time to read: 5 min | Time to write: 3.5 hours