The headings pull you in. Then, too quickly, the body disappoints with tales that twist in the wind. As you read, you wonder: what’s missing, clarity? Brevity?
Well, in good writing the two are Siamese twins. Take out brevity and, sure as sunrise, clarity vanishes. And good writing is dead as a dodo.
Take a look at recent stories where they killed brevity.
- Daily Nation, May 5 – “Baby Sagini case reveals deep family feud”, by Ruth Mbula:
The intro said: “A Kisii Court hearing the gouging out of Baby Junior Sagini’s eyes has been told that the boy’s grandmother, Rael Mayaka, was not on good terms with her daughter-in-law over the death of her son, Richard Ochogo Mayieka, two years ago.”
The next paragraph repeated the same info:
“Ms Mayaka told the court that she was not in talking terms with Pacificah Nyakerario because she was suspected of having killed her husband, who was Mama Mayaka’s son, back in 2021.
“Talking terms” is the same thing as “good terms”. “Mama Myayaka’s son” is the same “her son”. And “2021” is the same thing as “two years ago”.
The full story had 17 paragraphs. If nobody caught these glaring repetitions in the first two grafs, who wants to bet that they chiseled out fat from all the other 15 grafs?
- People Daily, March 16 – “I’ve had enough, Ruto tells Raila on series of demos”, by Irene Githinji, Noven Owiti and Kepher Otieno
Paragraph 1 said that President Ruto warned Azimio leader over planned nationwide demonstrations, saying he, the President, would not allow Raila to hold the country to ransom.
The story would repeat the President “warning” Raila three times. “Nationwide demonstrations,” “countrywide demonstrations,” or in one county and the other, repeated eight times.
Paragraph 2: the President warns Raila that the latter is not “above the law.” This would be repeated 11 times, three times in paragraph 2 alone.
“Above the law”, “outside established laws”, “submit ourselves to the laws”, “no two sets of laws” “protest within the law”, “another set of laws” – all mean the same thing.
Then, to “hold ransom” and to “blackmail” mean the same thing. Still, “blackmail” is repeated in paragraph 13, just in case the reader didn’t hear “ransom” in paragraph 1 and the first “blackmail” in paragraph 3.
The story had 31 paragraphs. Readers wouldn’t lose anything if it were told it in half.
- The standard, March 12 – “How pro footballer Michael Olunga and lover nearly lost Sh67 million in fake land deal,” by Paul Ogemba:
This story meandered with lofty words that add little value for 21 paragraphs. If Olunga wasn’t the “sharp shooting striker”, he was a man with a “glorious playing career” or a “goal poacher”.
Readers are told twice, in paragraphs 4 and 11, that after the footballer and his girlfriend paid millions under contract for a property in Nairobi, the vendor “refused to honour its end of the bargain”.
Seven times, in paragraphs 4, 6, 11, 12, 15 and 17 (twice), the story repeats that the vendor “refused or “failed” to “transfer” the land to Olunga.
Meanwhile, many sentences ran for over 60 words.
Rule of thumb for good writing: every sentence should provide fresh information.
