Blog Posts

Phrases to quit putting in characters’ mouths

9/29/2020

Screenwriters and playwrights, please be advised that use of any of the phrases listed below will henceforth be deemed an admission of lack of imagination:

“This isn’t over.”
“Look at me.”
“You don’t have to do this.”
“Let’s split up.”
“Who else knows about this?”
“The evidence points to him, but he swears he didn’t do it.”
“This isn’t you.”
“This isn’t who we are.”
“We’re not so different, you and I.”
“I’m nothing like you!”
“We are nothing alike.”
“There is no ‘we.’”

Also deemed an admission of lack of imagination:

Walking calmly away with an explosion behind you
Stealing a car thanks to a key stored on the visor
Bringing back the same bad guy death after death
Escaping through a ventilator shaft

Kindly suggest additions by clicking COMMENTS.

3 Comments

How not to sell your writing service

8/28/2020

0 Comments

Prelude

From an email blasted to my inbox:

“After skimming through your website, I strongly believe that you could greatly benefit from our high-quality blog writing service.”

My thoughts

Dear Sender:

Where to begin?

I have no interest in a would-be vendor who skimmed through my website. I want one who pored and emerged with specific, useful recommendations.

But then, I doubt that you even skimmed. I suspect you obtained an email list and clicked SEND with no further thought. Else, you would have known that, right or wrong, I fancy myself a writer. Armed with that information, you might have thought better of “you could greatly benefit from our high-quality blog writing service,” anticipating that it could come across as something of a slap.

If you didn’t skim, then you lied. I loath misleading statements from people trying to sell. Of course, not having skimmed, you couldn’t be expected to know that.

But suppose I’m wrong and you really did skim. In that case, you score abysmally low in the empathy department. That’s a problem for any writer, for good writing begins with knowing your reader.

All of which argues against the alleged high quality of the writing you hope to sell me.

I must reluctantly conclude that I could not benefit in the least, much less greatly, from your high-quality blog writing.

Postlude

Note to readers: I didn’t email this reply. If the hapless vendor wishes to read it, he’ll have to skim my website.

0 Comments

Not even Melville was immune.

8/18/2020

0 Comments

You don’t have to be a writer to appreciate this wonderful tribute to writer’s block from Gary Larsen. In deference to Larsen’s copyright, I have masked most of the image here, but you can view it au complet on his website by clicking anywhere on the box below or by clicking here. Enjoy.

0 Comments

If the shoe doesn’t fit, what’s your gripe?

7/29/2020

0 Comments

In his letter to the editor in the August-September 2020 issue of Free Inquiry, one Sheldon F. Gottlieb, PhD, accuses me, along with three other columnists, of unfairly criticizing Trump.

Funny thing, that. Nowhere does “How We Vote,” my alleged offending column, name “Trump.”

Perhaps Gottlieb was referencing this:

… dangerously incompetent, petulant, uninformed, xenophobic, despotic, anti-human-rights, Dunning-Kruger-Effect-personifying buffoon of a candidate whom only morally bankrupt or utterly misinformed voters would support …

If so, he seems to have overlooked the rest of the sentence:

… please know that I’m speaking hypothetically and that no such person really exists.

This is not the first time readers have accused me of criticizing while not naming their hero, at the same time insisting that said criticism in no way applies to said hero.

I am left to wonder why Gottlieb assumed the shoe I described belongs to Trump if, as he seems to allege, the shoe doesn’t fit.

Unless, of course, deep down he thinks it does.

I have high regard for Benson, Drury, Menendez, and the late Doerr. I’m rather flattered that Gottlieb included me with them in his complaint.

0 Comments

Being born someplace is no accomplishment

7/1/2020

0 Comments

My July 4 musings, published three days ago in The Salt Lake Tribune, may be a sure way for me to lose friends, second only to letting them get to know me. You can read the article by clicking here or on the image below.

0 Comments

Why must there be rhetorical questions?

6/29/2020

0 Comments

Rhetorical questions aren’t really questions. They are statements in question form. And while they serve a purpose in dramatic literature, when invoked in matters of fact they signal a closed mind.

Shakespeare used the rhetorical question well when he penned for Juliet, ”What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” Note that the bard didn’t follow up by having an etymologist, a botanist, a cognitive psychologist, and a taxonomist walk onstage and set her straight. His aim was to express Juliet’s inner turmoil.

But in argumentation, the rhetorical question can be a dishonest device. I can think of no better example than the widely-invoked, would-be refutation of the Theory of Evolution: “If we come from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?” To be sure, some who pose that question really are interested in an answer, and good for them. But those who “ask” with the intent of dismissing the matter might as well say, “I reject evolution, and I’m not interested in being disabused of my ignorance.” If you don’t believe me, watch them tune out or simply await their turn to jump in with “yeah, but ...” as you attempt to explain ancestry, geographic separation, and geologic time.

Some people try to frame a dishonest rhetorical question with, “It’s okay to ask questions, right?” That, too, is rhetorical—and dishonest—in that its goal is justification, not enlightenment. Nevertheless, the answer to “It’s okay to ask questions, right?” is: Not if you have already resolved to reject any answer.

“I’m not interested in being disabused of my ignorance” is intellectually irresponsible, but at least it’s honest.

0 Comments

Non-sexist language: A brief how-to

6/8/2020

2 Comments

I was pleased to see that yesterday’s post on the importance of non-sexist language attracted some attention.

A good friend commented, “Then there’s the how do I avoid the he/she, his/her slash writing. We need a nice, neutral but polite pronoun without being so non-personal as it/its. And can't do the they/their because most times not plural. As always, man, thanks for your wisdom.”

Setting aside his generous use of “wisdom,” I’ll point out that would-be neutral pronouns are vying for acceptance as we speak—like ze, hir, and zir—but they have yet to catch on. Meanwhile, here’s a slightly edited excerpt from a how-to I posted on my Response Agency blog. To read the original, click here.

Usually (not always), his/her is the lazy writer’s default. You can often do better with a little thought and skill. Here are some suggestions.

The Nix the Possessive Pronoun Technique: Instead of the everyone took his or her seat, how about everyone took a seat.

The Find the Neuter Word Technique: Instead of mankind and womankind use humankind. Instead of workman use worker. Instead of chairman use chair.

The Make It Plural Technique: Instead of the typical customer likes his or her sandwich made fresh you can say customers like their sandwiches made fresh.

The Break Down and Rewrite Technique: For that matter, you can say the typical customer likes fresh-made sandwiches.

The Let Go of Your Favorite Cliché Technique: I don’t care if you grew up saying old wives’ tale. It is sexist and then some. Try nonsense, untrue, fiddle-faddle, claptrap, questionable, baloney, myth, hogwash, bull...**

Sexist expressions are good at taking writers unawares. It takes vigilance to recognize them and root them out. When in doubt, find a with-it slightee and ask, “Is this wording sexist?” Don’t argue with the answer.***

Better yet, when in doubt, rewrite. All you need is a little creativity. You’re a writer. Finding better ways to say it is, or should be, what you’re about. Oh, and don’t pout about having to do it. Pouting is unbecoming.

—Steve Cuno

*There is no shortage of ways to brand yourself a sexist dinosaur. A friend asked me to review an early draft of a marketing book he was writing. To illustrate the importance of incentive offers, he attempted a humorous take on the Old Testament story of Saul’s having offered a daughter to David as an incentive to kill Goliath. I advised my friend that joking about women being awarded as property was offensive. He retorted, “I hate that politically correct crap.” Hate it he may, but readers who feel otherwise are free to express their ire by not buying his book or retaining his services.

**When my goal is humor and irony, I render it indeterminate-aged significant others’ tale.

***Speaking of rewriting, I originally wrote that sentence, Don’t argue when they answer. But that didn’t agree with the preceding “with-it slightee,” which is singular. And the last thing I wanted was Don’t argue when he or she answers.

2 Comments

Non-sexist language: More important than difficult

6/7/2020

3 Comments

Wrapping up a recent article, I typed the word middleman. Then I paused, because it’s sexist. But, I wondered, does anyone say middleperson?

I googled it. Style manuals weren’t of much help, but no shortage of indignant armchair commentators expressed indignation at the very suggestion, assuring the world there’s nothing sexist about -man.

Every one of said armchair commentators was male.

In the end, my reasoned, professional opinion was: Screw it. I’m going with middleperson. We are now well past the article’s publication, and not one reader has protested.

Getting sexism out of language is more important than it is difficult.

—Steve Cuno

3 Comments

What any fool knows ...

6/1/2020

0 Comments

Click to enlarge, or click the link in the paragraph at left to open the image in a new window.

There is no shortage of armchair experts—and the “facts” they spread are not always harmless. That’s the subject of my new piece for The Salt Lake Tribune, which ran yesterday. Click the image at right to enlarge, or open it a new window by clicking here .

0 Comments