Hello again, Reader-Student. Welcome to the second “installment” (Stage 3-b) of the third and final stage of my “Activated Writing Method.”
In the six essays that comprise Stage 1, we explored in depth what “makes” a sentence – that is, what constitutes the sentence’s “essence.” I refer to the sentence’s required (in order to stand as a complete sentence) main clause (aka independent clause), which consists of a subject (S) and its predicate (P).
These foundational terms of grammar may seem simple, but our close look revealed that a writer can (and must!) choose from endless possibilities, in first “naming a subject” and then asserting something that (in the writer’s view) this named subject is being, having, or doing (the three options for the subject’s predicate).
Not all predicates are created equal
Remember, the first two of these options, being and having – both of which, I classify as “passive” – offer to the predicate-chooser only that single verb. In their “infinitive” (most universal, not case-specific and “conjugated”) verb forms, we add “to” and thereby call them “to be” and “to have.” (You might consider, as sibling words in their “families,” “to exist” and “to possess,” but these quasi-synonyms offer very little as alternatives).
In marked contrast, our third option, doing, includes many thousands of “active” verbs, such as to write, to explain, to articulate, to lay out, to present, to formulate, to reveal – my goodness, we can “do” things in so many ways! Or . . . we can (as is most common!) merely “be” or “have” something. Hmmm. More to come on that topic, very soon!
Let’s complete our quick review of how we made it to this present stage, the final one in my system of teaching activated writing. With the sentence’s “essence” (its main clause) defined, we next explored (across Stage 2) the prospect of including, along with our required MC, additional sentence parts.
Thusly, we can embellish our sentences with further information, whether we put this info prior to the MC, as the new start of the sentence, “inserted” somewhere inside the sentence, or “tacked on” as the new end of the sentence.
Such “add-ons,” included with the sentence’s “essential” S and P, might even come in the form of one or more additional main clauses (thus, making for a compound sentence). The six essays of Stage 2 explored in depth many options for adding such material (MC or not) to the original MC.
As an important theme of both Stage 1 and 2, we placed importance on sentence variety, in structure and also length. We mocked the flimsy (although commonplace) advice to “keep your sentences short,” as if one size (of a sentence) fits all (ideas to express).
Metaphorically speaking, we don’t want to serve up mere cookie-cutter sentences; we want to blend up custom cupcakes, featuring a variety of tastes and textures (text-ures?), some simple and elegant, some complex and sophisticated.
Now, for the main event!
Whereas Stages 1 and 2 interpret for you, indeed, a number of hand-chosen “grammar rules/resources,” these basic rules can be found (though perhaps in less depth and usefulness) in many places, in print and online.
Now, in Stage 3, you will learn what I consider the most important “resource” (I prefer the term resource to “rule“) offered via my “activated” writing method. I consider Stage 3 (in its explanations and many options) the most original (and powerful) element of my whole method
Indeed, many available “writing/grammar guides” can reliably (if blandly) define terms like subject, predicate, and main clause – and they do. We want — and need — more. So let’s move on, from the known to the new!
From grammar “terms, tips, and rules”
to writing transformation
Obviously, I did not invent the grammar terms and rules from the two preparatory stages of my system. I’ve just re-interpreted these rules and blended them into my own recipe for teaching the “essential” elements of sentence structure.
Now, we’re moving into the most innovative material unique to my system – the part that, as I say, “activates” my method.
I am no longer re-interpreting and re-formulating for you what’s already out there in some form or other; I am, in Stage 3, proposing a new way of thinking about (and talking about) the world around you – to help you move away from the ultra-common (and weak) perspective of “what is” toward the less common but more powerful (and valid!) viewpoint of “what’s happening.”
Let’s get started, beginning, as usual, with a little pre-quiz.
put quiz here
The subjectivity of it all
In Stage 1, where we explored the essential nature of the Subject (S) and Predicate (P) I proposed that the observer – let’s say the writer (or speaker, or silent thinker!) – “invents” these sentence parts, each and every time!
Consider these contrasting “utterances,” each one showing a possible way of reponding, in words, to an unpleasant event that occurred in traffic. Notice the variety of “available” subjects (in bold) and predicates (in italics) in these seven examples.
1. That moron cut me off!
2. I can’t believe that idiot just did that.
3. Did you see what that fool just did?
4. What was that for?
5. Some people are so stupid.
6. Get a frickin’ life, Jerk.
7. Where the hell is a cop when you need one?
Contrary to the whole notion of “just the facts,” no sentence inherently “exists,” until someone “names” a subject and assigns this subject a predicate. Consider those seven fairly typical responses to the same traffic event. Each utterance differs in both subject named and predicate assigned.
Always say it the best way – ha ha
Which of my seven prospective responses (to a rude driver) would you call the best one? Hmmm. What would “best” even mean, here? Should we judge by “most truthful“? Most courteous? Most civil? Most helpful? Most engaging? Most deserved? Most humorous? Most therapeutic?
Let’s get down to practicality: which of those comments, if you were just cut off in traffic, should you say? Should you stick with “just the facts?” If so, which “facts” to relay? Or should you even say anything, at all?
I think you are getting my point: there’s no “one right answer” to any of these questions, except maybe a universal ackowledgement: “it depends.”
And let’s not forget that I provided only seven alternatives – among truly endless possibilities. Clearly, the person with “something to say” can choose from a great many subjects and predicates, not to mention unlimited additional sentence parts to include, if desired. For example, any of my seven alternatives could have begun with “Oh my god . . .” or some other introductory phrase.
So many options! What to say?
At this point in my system of teaching my activated writing method, I hope to have successfully led you, step by necessary step, to the productive realization that – as a universal truth – there’s no such thing as “just the facts.”
When I hear someone make reference to wanting “just the basic facts,” I will sometimes tease them, pointedly, and ask, “But which facts do you want, the facts that benefit you or the facts that benefit me? I’ve got “facts” galore. Which facts do you want?
Of course, some communication contexts narrow our focus to specific – more or less “factual” – things, such as timing or quantity: “When does the game start?” How much do tickets cost?” Who will be riding with you?”
The “simple facts”?
I use these simplistic examples both as an admission that not everything we write or say comes with unlimited choices, but also as a complication: even “just the facts” . . . may come with some “extras.” What if those simple questions of fact, proposed above, elicit the following answers?
“The game starts at 7 p.m., but the gates open at 5.” The tickets start at $25 and run up to $150, but I might be able to get us in for free, if my ex-GF is working the gate.” “Who said I was driving? Why do you always assume that? That’s how you take advantage of me.”
Now that we’ve “covered” the simple facts, we can start arguing about who takes more advantage of whom . . . unitl, soon enough, “the game is off!” Well, the game, itself, is not exactly “off,” but . . . “you know what I mean!” Maybe. See my point? Even “just the facts” often come with “while we’re on the subject . . .” or other extras.
Good news on the horizon
With that mayhem underway (see where “just the facts” can lead?), let me lighten the mood with some wonderful news to provide you a legitimate basis for gaining major confidence in your ability to transform your writing from acceptable (I hope) to excellent (I know!).
I’m not talking about feel-good marketing hype, like, “You’re such a wonderful person, of course your writing will soon amaze everyone . . . now, if you’ll just sign here.” I’m talking about a legitimate reason for you to gain confidence, as you move forward with my method.
Getting there may take some time (really, not that much!) and effort (yes, plenty of that), but, if you’ve made it this far, then you have already learned a lot and can, therefore, learn even more as I make the revelation I’ve been leading you toward this whole time.
I will, therefore, soon conclude this essay with the revelation that anchors the Zizzi Activated Method and validates my faith in your ability (even though I may not know you, personally) to uplift your writing skills, high above your present skill level, wherever that now stands, and higher and higher above our societal norms. But first . . .
Don’t forget about Writing Lesson #1!
Without question (to me, anyway), your most immediate and most noticeable improvement as a writer will come as a product of what I present on this website as Writing Lesson #1 — namely my admonition that you avoid the ultra common (especially online) mis-deed of writing messages “all in one chunk.”
Now, that monumental improvement is only one keystroke away, namely the hitting of your keyboard’s “return” (or “enter”) key.
Reader-student, please break up your long paragraphs (or any “longish” “para”) into smaller and vastly more readable chunks! As I explain in that essay, each time you do this, you call attention to both the first line of your new para and the last line of your now-split para.
Practicing what I preach
Please observe the relative (to usual norms) brevity of my paragraphs throughout this website, Reader–student, and take a (big) hint! I am both telling and showing you just how to do it.
Start today, and your writing immediately improves – probably a lot. All day long, I receive messages (sometimes long ones!) that show up “all in one chunk.” No more of that, for you!
If you’re in the minority of writers (I’d say about one in ten) who already do this – with intention and care – then . . . congratulations to you.
Maybe, indeed, you already break up your paras out of some blessed instinct; maybe, beyond that, you’ve been well taught (and you’ve learned especially well!). Or maybe you received this paragraph-chopping enlightenment right here on Up-Wordz.com, and you are already converting “Writing Lesson #1” into writing reality – yours!
Anyway, that fix, you can make right away, assuming you’ve read Writing Lesson #1. If not, read it the minute you finish this lesson. I’ve given you the “thesis” – go read the details and the theory behind them.
That fix requires very little preparation (covering things you need to learn first); however, I would not necessarily call the improvement “transformative.” (For the worst offenders, yes, this lesson might prove transformative, indeed.)
But the wider transformation I’ve been promising does require the solid foundation I have presented to you in Stages 1 and 2 and reinforced here, early in Stage 3. If you’ve read your way up to this point, big check mark for you!
With that now in place (I hope), I will now present the simple “fact” that, by itself, may not seem all that monumental. You could read it in many grammar-related places, though none of these sources interpret this “mundane fact” for you, as I will now do, expressly to illuminate the “major flaw” of most writing (including a great many published things, even “award-winning” writing) and offer you your clear and accessible path to my promised land of writing transformation.
Your “factual” basis for writing transformation
Remember how I have defined the predicate as what the subject is being, having, or doing? Well, in our culture (for present purposes, let’s generalize American culture, including our dominant language of English), we writers routinely lean – and I mean heavily – on the two weakest of all verbs: the “passive” verbs to be and to have.
In other words (drumroll, please), we speakers of English rely on, as our most common verbs (including for our predicates), the two weakest (and least valid) verbs available in our entire dictionary!
Again and again and over and over, we bypass the thousands of active verbs available to us for our predicates – instead, merely “proclaiming” what is and/or what something or someone has.
Sadly, neither of these two most common verbs in our language does anything! They just “is” and/or “have” certain stuff (or so we claim). But here comes the good news.
Turning our “sad fact into great news!
No, as a lifelong communication theorist, teacher, and advocate, I don’t generally consider that “sad fact” as good news! I worry about numerous problems caused by weak writing, and I regret the prospective improvements in society that don’t materialize, “thanks to” weak (or absent) self expression and related “verbal” (in words, written or spoken) interaction. So far, to me anyway, my claim represents bad news!
But, in the context of your developing skill as a writer, speaker, and thinker, my claim offers a rock-solid basis for optimism and growth in just three words: the competition sucks!
That nasty claim about our “competition” comes from a “sad fact” that you can verify in mere seconds. Anyone can quickly, especially nowadays, ascertain “the most common verbs in English.” If you check it out, you’ll immediately find that first place goes to “to be,” with “to have” in second place. No revelation there, at least not to types (like me) who would bother to look up such a thing.
On the other hand, my following argument, regarding the ramifications of this fact, you will not read elsewhere. Aided by countless students and never-ending experimentation, I have figured out, on my own, this compelling dynamic. I constantly investigate the grammar sites and books – it’s not there.
Well, it’s here – now. I will next explain and argue for my “activated writing” theory and show you exactly how to utilize its potential. I hope you find great enlightenment in the essays and their lessons, starting with the next “installment”: Stage 3-c: “Something Happened.”