Clarity In The Art Of War By William Zinsser

Good writing is writing with simplicity. It is taking out every word that adds no meaning, every verb that’s too abstract, and every sentence too full of clutter that it lost it’s meaning. Some may believe adding extra fluff to your paper makes it sound more sophisticated, but William Zinsser, in his article “Simplicity”, argues quite the opposite. He does not see it as fluff, but as fuzz- fuzz that only clogs up the machinery. If we learn how to stay simple yet powerful in our writing, we would be making the job of the reader much easier and more enjoyable.

On the other hand, writing can turn ugly if they don’t care about what words they use and rush through the writing process. The idea is that ugly writing impedes communication whereas positive writing allows for clear communication. Positive writing serves the purpose of communicating clearly and concisely. It allows for the flow of imagery from the writer to the reader. In contrast, ugly writing does something else. It can be crowded with meaningless phrases and fillers. People need to prevent bad habits from spreading by consciously guarding against them.

Importance of Writing Badly,” depicts the intensity of the topic as each line and paragraphs are

shows that Machiavelli views the concept of truth not as something that is necessary among all men, like Socrates does, but as an action that should sometimes be avoided by a prince, because it often

Machiavelli demonstrated a great knowledge and insight regarding politics through his writings but more importantly he displayed a man who went through great effort to pay attention to details. Nowhere else is this fact more evident than in the advice and instructions that he imparted to less experienced government officials. His own advice states to “…write to those with whom you do business so clearly that when they have a letter of yours they may think they are there-in such detail it describes the thing to them”(Gilbert 1961, 123). Not only does this apply to his beliefs in documentation, but also encourages them to pay close attention to details in order to supplement those writings. This type of statement was far from uncommon, in a large quantity of his letters to less experienced diplomats he advised them to “’go to the extreme of writing too much rather that too little” (Gilbert

Writing is different for everybody. After reading the first part of On Writing Well by William Zinsser my perspective toward writing changed; starting off by the fact that he admitted that “writing is indeed hard” (12). This author, with humorous stories and anecdotes, explained several principles that help one understand how to write efficiently. First of all, be yourself! Zinsser emphasizes the fact that you should be true to yourself and your writing in order to engage a reader in your piece. Other essential principles are: Be precise and avoid clutter. He claims that “the secret to good writing is to strip every sentence to its cleanest components” (7). As I read, I noticed how important engaging a reader becomes to an author but Zinsser reminded me how my writing was made to “please myself first” and then an audience (25). The last but not least rules to follow are: to “avoid clichés” (Zinsser, 35) and “separate usage from confusing jargon” (Zinsser, 45). It is important to maintain your reader active by expressing clear thoughts and avoiding typical sayings that only make a literary piece

Writers must avoid obvious content because it will help them project their own voice and keep the material fresh. In order to be distinct and voice their opinions, writers must “sum and dispose of the trite and

Learning how to effectively grab my audience’s attention is a big task for me to tackle this semester. As previously learned in week one’s archived workshop “The Hallmarks of Effective Writing,” the basic components of what effective writing strives to convey are “awareness of purpose, audience, and form” (Hood, 2012, slide 5). For example, if I am writing a paper for a topic that would be intended for children, I cannot use sophisticated vocabulary that the audience may not understand. If the audience is unable to decipher the vocabulary words in the essay, they are more likely to lose interest in reading the paper. Sentence structure, grammar, and learning how to effectively reach my audience have affected my ability to communicate effectively in the past due to the difficulty involved in maintain proper writing etiquette and keeping the reader’s

As students begin school, they can begin collecting words in a notebook to create awareness that words are like treasures. Revision of words can transform a piece of competent writing into writing that is memorable and deeply moving. According to the author, the words writers choose reflect their thinking, beliefs, and feelings. If we use simple words, we will get to the point, but we won’t move the reader. When writing, we must be specific because we want our readers to feel, experience, hear, taste, and smell the same way we do it.

Paul McHenry Roberts wrote an article 70 years ago that is still relevant for writing student’s today because the major issues he elaborates on are concepts most young writers need to improve on today – stance, content, and word choice. He begins by explaining the importance of taking a proper stance. A problem with writers today is that they will take the side that requires the least work, usually filling the space with overlapping information. Mr. Roberts promotes a solution: take the less obvious side. While many today wish to avoid extra work, by taking a stance that isn’t the most common, finding information that isn’t overused is much more accessible.

Niccolò Machiavelli was an activist of analyzing power. He believed firmly in his theories and he wanted to persuade everyone else of them as well. To comment on the common relationship that was seen between moral goodness and legitimate authority of those who held power, Machiavelli said that authority and power were essentially coequal.9 He believed that whomever had power obtained the right to command; but goodness does not ensure power. This implied that the only genuine apprehension of the administrative power was the attainment and preservation of powers which indirectly guided the maintenance of the state. That, to him, should have been the objective of all leaders. Machiavelli believed that one should do whatever it took, during the given circumstance, to keep his people in favor of him and to maintain the state. Thus, all leaders should have both a sly fox and ravenous wolf inside of him prepared to release when necessary.10

In writing, as in other kinds of production, the process directly affects the quality of the product. If we prepare a meal quickly, assembling poor ingredients without much thought or attention, we aren’t likely to end up with a tasty dish. The best chefs, like the best writers, refine their methods and think carefully about what they are doing, with close attention to detail to

In writing it’s important to have an understanding of what you’re trying to convey for your audience in addition to how you you will present your ideas. Effective communication extends beyond having well organized writing expressed in complete and coherent sentences. The style, tone and clarity of writing must also be considered, as they are constantly changing relative to the audience. Again, analyzing one’s audience and purpose is essential to successful writing. Appropriately, when choosing the most effective language, it is important to consider the document objective as well as the reader. In essence, this idea of effective use of language has been the overarching theme of this online English course. Each writing assignment

“Give War a Chance” is an article written by the American economist, historian and military strategist Edward Nicolae Luttwak in 1999, in the American magazine Foreign Affairs. It make an easily understandable “buzz”, since its main assumption is that most kind of peacekeeping or humanitarian operations are, in an objective point of view, a bad thing for the peace, and that it tends, paradoxically, to slower its establishment. We will analyze here the main hypothesis that Luttwak is developing among the article, the first one being the destruction of the legitimacy usually accorded to peacekeeping operations, led by the UN or by other military organizations, and the second one being the obstacle to a durable peace establishment, created