Photo by victoriapeckhamSince she makes a living from her writing, perhaps we should listen to what she has to say--perhaps.
Trunk says:
"There is a new economy for writing. The focus has shifted toward taking risks with conversation and ideas, and away from hierarchical input (the editorial process) and perfection.
As the world of content and writing shifts, the spelling tyrants will be left behind."
It's All About Excellence
I doubt it. Nor do I agree with disparaging people who advocate correct spelling as "spelling tyrants." Correct spelling, punctuation, and overall grammar reflect on one's commitment to professionalism and competence. Period.
You can throw up all the protestations you want that the most important thing is getting your well-formed ideas out there and that the grammar you use to do so doesn't matter nearly as much as your great ideas, but the micro commitment to excellent grammar is a macro commitment to excellence overall. I'll take excellence across the board every time.
As well, clear grammar use derives from clear thinking; the more coherent and precise one's grammar, punctuation, and spelling, the more likely one's argument is to be well thought out. To me, the more intelligent and thoughtful people also have some of the best grammar around.
Trunk gives five reasons "why complaining about typos is totally stupid and outdated," and if she had just left it at complaining about typos in blog comments, she'd have a valid point. But she goes beyond that, essentially saying that typos and incorrect grammar are okay in all types of writing, including resumes.
Typos In Resumes Are Okay, Too?
She says, in the comments section,
"I actually think that a few typos in a resume are fine. It’s too hard to not have typos if you’re customizing your resume to every job. And, it takes such insanely careful proofreading to catch typos in your own resume, that maybe an error-free resume is a sign that someone is an obsessive-compulsive and not a good hire. Just a thought."
She's a career expert and she's suggesting that someone who puts together an error-free resume might not be a good hire because they're committed to excellence?
Trunk's five reasons why carping about typos in blog comments are passé are sound, and I actually agree not only with her point on that (blog commenters should focus on the issue being raised and interact with that rather than trying to find some small "gotcha" to harass the author with) but I also agree with some of her five points. The problem is, she extrapolates from this valid argument to an invalid one about how excellent writing just doesn't matter.
Trunk's Five Reasons
1. Spellchecker isn’t perfect. Of course not; that's why you should thoroughly proof your own work on top of spellcheck. If it's important enough to publish, it's important enough to proof.
2. Spelling has nothing to do with intelligence. Maybe, maybe not. But, that doesn't excuse incorrect spelling.
3. You don’t have unlimited time, so spend it on ideas, not hyphens. All time should be used wisely, both time spent on forming an argument and time spent on presenting it.
4. Perfectionism is a disease. There's legitimacy to this--if you're so hung on getting everything perfect every single time, you may not accomplish much at all. But...one shouldn't equate "perfectionism" with excellence. Perfectionism may be a disease, but excellence isn't.
5. Use the comments section for what matters: Intelligent discourse. I agree with this one. I'm a proper grammar enthusiast, but I don't waste anyone's time with carping comments on their blog about a misspelled word.
Appearance Matters
Like I said before, if Trunk simply argued that commenters on blogs shouldn't worry about correcting the author's grammar, I'd be in her corner. But, she took this legitimate argument and ran with it to an unattractive and dangerous place, namely that it's okay to use incorrect grammar in most kinds of writing because the only thing that really matters is the argument.
As a career advice columnist, Trunk certainly has to know the importance of a job interviewer's appearance and presentation. A candidate may be highly qualified (similar to a strong idea) but if he doesn't present himself very well (similar to a post with several grammar typos), then he's hurt his chances at getting the job (similar to people ignoring your great idea because they're distracted by your typos).
Bottom Line
When Trunk says, "So stop wasting your time in the comments section parsing grammar and start contributing to the discussion," she's absolutely right.
When she says, "Writing without typos is totally outdated," she's absolutely wrong.
I've Moved--Please Read
My new blog is Robust Writing, at robustwriting.com/blogSign up for the new feed at:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/RobustWriting
Related Posts
Choose Your Words Carefully: Your Reputation Depends On It
Bad Grammar and Punctuation in Emails Can Hurt Your Career...or Worse
13 comments:
Writing without typos IS outdated.
I didn't read the link yet. You expanded her statement to include grammar.
I doubt that she said grammar wasn't important. Grammer is an important part of communcition. Typos aren't.
Don't forget many business communications are made from laptops in awkward positions under difficult situations. Forget about those tiny keys on phones and pdas.
Typos on resumes? That depends on the job. If its for a position that isn't about writing, then what's the big deal.
But there is a limit to acceptable typos on resumes. That limit is and individual decision. I agree that if candidate that is DQ'd because of a typo, that could be a big mistake.
But HR people will make such arbitrary decisions.
Your argument for excellence across the board would eliminate ideas generated by sloppy penmanship!
Would you apply the same criterion to the well shaped numbers and mathemetical symbols?
You did her a disservice by changing her assertion that a typo free resume, might indicate OC behaviior. YOu changed that to say that person would not be committed to excellence.
YOur position on the matter would lead one to conclude that the quantity of and quality of words is more important that the thought, which leads to overly long and pompous sentences like this one.
Words count, typos shouldn't.
goinglikesixty,
I'll agree with you that writing without typos is outdated for those who think it is; for those of us committed to excellence, and especially those of us who write for print publication, writing without typos is the law.
You accuse me of the following (while acknowledging you didn't even bother to read the article I was critiquing):
"You expanded her statement to include grammar.
I doubt that she said grammar wasn't important."
Well...she included grammar several times in her post, which you would have seen if you read it before accusing me of distorting her words.
Ms. Trunk said (my emphasis):
"Everyone knows that Spellchecker misses some words. And everyone knows that sometimes we think we are making a stylistic choice when we have actually made a grammar error."
"I am extremely knowledgeable about grammar. I can parse any sentence. I can sign the preposition song in my sleep. So I feel fine telling you that there are great writers who don’t know grammar."
"[T]here’s a reason that people who have amazing ideas get paid twenty times more than people who have amazing grammar: Ideas are worth a lot more to us."
She certainly implied if not outright said that grammar is not that important. Again, you're so concerned that I represent her words accurately (and I believe I did), yet you accuse me of distorting what she said before you even read what she said.
If you're going to charge me with taking her words out of context, then do me the service of reading what she wrote before you just decide that I was wrong.
goinglikesixty,
You also accuse me of "changing her assertion that a typo free resume, might indicate OC behaviior. YOu changed that to say that person would not be committed to excellence."
I didn't change anything--I simply remarked that what she may consider OC behavior (an error-free resume), I consider a commitment to excellence, a trait that speaks well of a job candidate.
It amazes me that there are people (you and Ms. Trunk seemingly are two) who think that there are all these great ideas out there that people just have to publish as fast as they can--no time to proof or edit!
It's as though you all think that life in the 21st Century moves so fast that spending a little time double-checking your work is just way too much of a delay.
Just how does taking a few minutes to go over your work before you hit publish impede the development of ideas?
It's a false dichotomy you two are tossing out there--you don't have to choose between coming up with a wonderful idea and presenting it well, as though you can have one but not the other.
You should take the time to develop a great idea and take the time to present it well, as error-free as possible.
If something is worth publishing, I say it's worth proofing.
I think there are two sides to this, Jesse. On one hand I agree with you that we should aspire to correct grammar and good spelling - as aspects of overall excellence.
On the other hand I get vexed by people who are only interested in spelling and who don't value a piece for it's ideas.
Here is an example from your blog:
On 1.24.2008 you wrote an outstanding article, called "One Simple Trick to Writing More Concisely".
In the comments, one guy had only this to say:
"mr. writer do you know how to spell? you should proof read your copy before you post...you wrote "you" instead of what should have been "your" in "thank you for YOU time yesterday"
Isn't that a pathetic response?!
Oh, I get it, you were being sarcastic. LOL, sorry I was so dense as to not get your point. Your comment clarified it.
Thanks
Mary,
I do agree that people who basically ignore a piece's substance and instead point out typos here and there are missing the point. That's nitpicking.
I'm not into that.
Ha. You're right about that guy who just mentioned a misspelled word--that's the type of nitpicking that is a waste of time.
My big thing is this--it's one thing to have some occasional typos; it's another to routinely have several because a writer isn't interested (or believes they don't have the time) to proof their work before they publish it.
There's always time to think up a good piece, to write it, and to proof it before one finally publishes something.
Life in the 21st Century moves fast, but not so fast that there's no time to double-check one's work.
goinglikesixty,
Glad I could clarify things.
Thanks for your participation.
I got a response from my new best friend, Penny Trunk.
neener, neener, neener.
Goinglikesixty.com,
I think you're lazy. If you are publishing a post/article/paper to be read by others and it's more than just a personal journal, you should make sure your copy is clean.
It's funny, because I just saw a broadcast on ABC tonight about how this guy travels the country picking out typos on road and business signs.
I guess typos extend far beyond a simple blog post...
Mary,
I noticed you were referring to me in an earlier comment. What
s with the hate?
I will do my best - even multiple edits after the initial post - to keep my posts free from typos. I have that luxury. Those of you who read in RSS see some of my worst writing style. Incomplete sentences, typos, bad grammar, the whole nine yards. You know how it goes, you read and re-read, hit publish and a big ole mistake poops out at you.
is an excerpt from my post about this topic.
Jesse:
Great post. It's completely asinine for someone who prides herself on giving out career advice to give people an excuse to be lazy about first impressions. I'll agree with her that typos in blog comments aren't a big deal, but they ARE a big deal in resumes. If you can't get it right then, when will you get it right? There's no harm in having someone else proof your resume, but there's a lot of harm in not proofreading it just because you don't feel like it. Is it fair that accuracy matters? Maybe not. But that doesn't mean it's untrue. My guess is that Trunk is either a. just trying to win points with the slackers who want to believe what she says, or b. just trying to get attention by saying something controversial. We'll she's probably achieving both of those objectives, but at the expense of any credibility with people who actually make hiring decisions.
goinglikesixty,
So we actually agree.
You said, "I will do my best - even multiple edits after the initial post - to keep my posts free from typos."
Glad you finally came around. ;-)
---------------------------------
Anthony,
Great points.
You say, "I'll agree with her that typos in blog comments aren't a big deal, but they ARE a big deal in resumes."
Yeah, my main issue is that it is a big deal if you choose not to thoroughly proof your work before your publish it, especially in resumes or other written work that you want to be seen by many people, sometimes influential people.
Yes, but I won't be anal about it. ;-)
Post a Comment