Borrr-ing

Should I be worried about my mental capacity or brain pan size if, in studying for a masters degree in technical writing, that I find some of the readings we're assigned to be, well, boring? Should I worry that other people in my classes seem much more thoughtful about varying technical subjects, ranging from Web 2.0 to psychology? All I can offer is a litany of Holocaust literature references, a narrow smattering of 1970s television culture and the goings-on at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex, or at least the mundane goings-on I'm privy to? And should I be worried I'm just about to bore you with a page-long discussion on sentence length?

Probably. But here goes.

(For a little context: We were asked to critique the USU Professional and Technical writing web site. I argued some of their sentences were a bit long and dull. This is a continuation of that discussion.)

We’ve had an interesting discussion on sentence length, with a lot of back and forth on why they may be good or bad.

I do not agree that long sentences are necessarily bad. If they’re well-written – this includes word choice, phraseology and punctuation – they are perfectly acceptable.

The following example is a sentence of 55 words:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Why this sentence works:
Rhetorically, it is broken into short “chunks” that are constructed in a parallel fashion (verbs are all in the present tense, verb, noun, verb, noun).
Rhetorically, it has cadence and rhythm. While this is not possible (or desirable) in every rhetorical situation, such cadence makes reading and comprehending longer sentence easier.
Difficulties with this sentence:
Spelling and capitalization are unconventional. This is, however, from a 200-year-old document.
One might argue that the first phrase and last phrase are split, and might be better as follows: We the people of the United States, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America, in Order to . . But that messes with the cadences.

Then we have an example of a sentence of 77 words:

Students take classes in two areas: first, they build a theoretical foundation in rhetoric so that they can assess any writing situation and adapt their writing to the context as audience-aware, self-aware, self-confident writers; and, second, they learn about writing in a variety of contexts using the most up-to-date tools of technology so that they know both how to write and why they are writing, thus preparing them for the ever-changing job markets of the twenty-first century.

This sentence shares in common with the first its parallel structure, though it is more complex, tossing in a lot of pronouns that make the sentence wordy. Word choice throughout just makes the sentence too long. Here’s a re-write that keeps the parallel structure and general tone of the sentence (which is just fine) but eases the wordiness:

Students study in two areas: Rhetoric, where they build a theoretical foundation to assess writing situations and confidently adapt as writers who are audience- and self-aware; and Contextual Writing, where they learn both how to write and why they are writing while using up-to-date technology.

The sentence is now 45 words long, an economy of 32 words. More importantly, the sentence conveys the desired information in a clearer fashion. It also clarifies the two areas in which students are taking classes. (The bit on preparing them for the 21st century feels like fluff to me. Obviously, the program isn’t preparing them for the 18th century.)