how do i write clearly and succinctly ?

[iamsofunny112]

any tips will be greatly appreciated!!

thanks in advance : ))

[achre]

Maybe an annoying answer: practice.

[Splash-Tackle-Flail]

In my opinion there are a few things keep in mind (and this is a "do as I say, not what I do" kinda thing-I waffle like crazy  ):

-In writing succinctly, you need to know what you want to say. In terms of essay lingo, this means having a clear, structured plan in your head, on how to tackle the prompt, and what you want to argue/discuss. Often when people just respond to a prompt head first, before considering the prompt's implications, and what the assessor wants from you, they tend to waffle, and as a result, they end up with a longwinded essay, and an ambiguous contention/argument. So tl;dr: have a clear idea in your mind what you want to say.

-Another tip is to have an idea on how you want to say what you want to say. Usually this step would be pretty easy once you know what your argument/message is. If you are doing poetry, then consider which poems would best substantiate what you want to say. If you are doing a novel/play, consider appropriate quotes. Your means of conveying ideas should be taken into account, if you really want to write as tight as possible. And at this stage (assuming you're in year 11), I wouldn't worry about time constraints; just really work on writing better and better.

-The final thing I wanted to add was to reread past essays you have written, and pick up any phrases or sentences that either digress from your main point, or don't add anything new. For example, in your topic, in most (if not all) cases, 'clearly' and 'succinctly' really convey the same thing. Of course there are nuances (imo succinctly also implies saying something short and to the point, while a 'clearly' written essay could be quite long, although it would be hard to do-and not recommended), but the main thing to say is that often when rereading what you have written, you can pick up on parts of paragraphs that don't really improve what you want to say. If you still need help with this, perhaps post an essay up and I'll try have a look, see what I can do (no guarantees my feedback will hope, but the offer is there ).

[99.90 pls]

A few quick tips for writing clearly and succinctly:

1) Every time you finish an essay, or even a paragraph, a good exercise to start off with is try to halve the word count without losing meaning. Every three or four words you write, see if you can cut that down to one or two. After doing this for a bit, you'll find yourself using less words to say more.

2) Be precise. This might mean having to think deeply before each word or sentence you write, but start doing this early, so you can practice in non-timed conditions. That way, when SACs and exams come around, it'll be second nature to you.

3) Often people will use convoluted phrases or words for the sake of seeming 'sophisticated', but only use these words when they express exactly what you want to say. I'm not saying don't use big words; feel free to pepper your essay with some nice vocab here or there to give it some 'zing', but way too many people write essays jam-packed with unnecessarily flamboyant language, thinking that it'll mask their lack of original thought and ideas. Teachers see right through it and they score very lowly even though their essay 'looks' impressive. Don't be one of those kids. Ideas come before language. Always.

[heids]

Great (and more concise ) answers above, but might as well link you to Want to improve your expression and vocab?  Some tips!, which from (shaky) memory says something along these lines at some point.

[iamsofunny112]

Thanks everyone for all the help!! I'll try to keep in mind all these tips the next time I write.

In my opinion there are a few things keep in mind (and this is a "do as I say, not what I do" kinda thing-I waffle like crazy  ):

-In writing succinctly, you need to know what you want to say. In terms of essay lingo, this means having a clear, structured plan in your head, on how to tackle the prompt, and what you want to argue/discuss. Often when people just respond to a prompt head first, before considering the prompt's implications, and what the assessor wants from you, they tend to waffle, and as a result, they end up with a longwinded essay, and an ambiguous contention/argument. So tl;dr: have a clear idea in your mind what you want to say.

-Another tip is to have an idea on how you want to say what you want to say. Usually this step would be pretty easy once you know what your argument/message is. If you are doing poetry, then consider which poems would best substantiate what you want to say. If you are doing a novel/play, consider appropriate quotes. Your means of conveying ideas should be taken into account, if you really want to write as tight as possible. And at this stage (assuming you're in year 11), I wouldn't worry about time constraints; just really work on writing better and better.

-The final thing I wanted to add was to reread past essays you have written, and pick up any phrases or sentences that either digress from your main point, or don't add anything new. For example, in your topic, in most (if not all) cases, 'clearly' and 'succinctly' really convey the same thing. Of course there are nuances (imo succinctly also implies saying something short and to the point, while a 'clearly' written essay could be quite long, although it would be hard to do-and not recommended), but the main thing to say is that often when rereading what you have written, you can pick up on parts of paragraphs that don't really improve what you want to say. If you still need help with this, perhaps post an essay up and I'll try have a look, see what I can do (no guarantees my feedback will hope, but the offer is there ).

Here's a body paragraph from one of my language analysis essays. The ideas aren't there (since this was my fist ever LA essay), so please don't judge  

Orange argues that public dissections are educational for Danish children. Orange’s argument appeals to his audience, of parents who are against public dissections, parental responsibilities. His audience’s initial reaction is to disagree with the author, as they believe such abhorrent behavior will negatively affect children and in no way educational. However, when juxtaposed by evidence that public dissections are educational, his audience is made to question their stance on the issue. Orange then uses anecdotal and factual evidence to persuade the reader to think pubic dissections are educational. For example, Orange uses the anecdote of when a zoo worker bought “out a lion’s skull and demonstrates how the teeth adapted to puncture and rip the skin of its prey”. The use of the words “demonstrates” and “how” indicates to the reader that something is being explained and taught. Orange also uses scientific terminology like “adapted”, giving credibility and validity to his evidence. Both of these examples indicate to the reader that public dissections are educational. Furthermore, Orange uses anecdotal evidence to suggest to the audience that public dissections are not just educational, but better than traditional forms of education. He implies that they give the full learning experience. For example, Orange says “the children in front of us cover their noses”. This implies to the audience that there was a strong smell. In contrast to traditional education in the classroom, children would not have been able to smell such smells Also, the reader infers that the dissections have the children’s full attention. The reader then feels that public dissections are better than traditional education methods, as one of the biggest problems with traditional education is keeping children’s attention. After being shown how educational pubic dissections are, the reader is positioned to believe that they should not criticize the public dissections, since they did not they were educational.

[Splash-Tackle-Flail]

Feeeeeeedbaaaackkkkk! I'd work on your ideas (like you said haha) first, because once you get your ideas sorted (i.e a clear cut idea of what you want to say), then you can really improve aspects like expression and flow! But you're doing well (trust me)!

[The Raven]

Orange argues that public dissections are educational for Danish children. Orange’s argument appeals to his audience, of parents who are against public dissections, parental responsibilities. His audience’s initial reaction is to disagree with the author, as they believe such abhorrent behavior will negatively affect children and in no way educational. However, when juxtaposed by evidence that public dissections are educational, his audience is made to question their stance on the issue. Orange then uses anecdotal and factual evidence to persuade the reader to think pubic dissections are educational. For example, Orange uses the anecdote of when a zoo worker bought “out a lion’s skull and demonstrates how the teeth adapted to puncture and rip the skin of its prey”. The use of the words “demonstrates” and “how” indicates to the reader that something is being explained and taught. Orange also uses scientific terminology like “adapted”, giving credibility and validity to his evidence. Both of these examples indicate to the reader that public dissections are educational. Furthermore, Orange uses anecdotal evidence to suggest to the audience that public dissections are not just educational, but better than traditional forms of education. He implies that they give the full learning experience. For example, Orange says “the children in front of us cover their noses”. This implies to the audience that there was a strong smell. In contrast to traditional education in the classroom, children would not have been able to smell such smells Also, the reader infers that the dissections have the children’s full attention. The reader then feels that public dissections are better than traditional education methods, as one of the biggest problems with traditional education is keeping children’s attention. After being shown how educational pubic dissections are, the reader is positioned to believe that they should not criticize the public dissections, since they did not they were educational.

I see STF has already commented above me but a few things regarding clarity

• 'explained and taught' / 'credibility and validity' Try to avoid this kinda of double descriptor, especially when they mean the same thing.
• 'Both of these examples indicate to the reader that public dissections are educational.' This sentence is largely redundant
• 'This implies to the audience that there was a strong smell. In contrast to traditional education in the classroom, children would not have been able to smell such smells'  Think of how these two sentences could be combined into one shorter sentence. Eg: The suggestion of a powerful smell, traditionally out of place in classrooms, demonstrates etc...
  Notice how you can make the sentences into shorter clauses, and in doing so, give you momentum to talk about their effect - a vital part of languages analysis
• 'abhorrent behavior will negatively affect children and in no way educational' This kind of strong language (abhorrent) should be backed by specificity, avoid using blanket generalisations like 'negatively', 'positively' etc

The key for language analysis is that evidence from the text will be able to make your writing more concise. If you're talking about generalities, your writing will also feel more vague and less specific. As STF said, specificity is the key to language analysis. Of course there is lots to like about this piece - great insight on the ideas being presented, use of specific words 'demonstrates' /  'adapted', acknowledgement of the reader, specifically the parents. So while my feedback above may seem a bit harsh, you are well on your way to doing well in this subject! 

Here's an example that I quickly wrote up using the quotes and ideas that you brought up. Try to combine sentences together making them into shorter clauses as that will make your writing more concise and fluent:

Through his appeals to parental responsibility, Orange contends that public dissections perform a vital role in educating Danish children. Contrary to some parents’ beliefs that dissections are a crude, outdated form of teaching, Orange instead suggests that dissections are not only educational, but also engaging when compared to traditional class-room teaching methods. Echoing the empirical language commonly associated with scientific education, the didactic tone of ‘demonstrates’ and ‘how’ support the authors contention that dissections are based on educational purposes, while the scientific terminology of ‘adapted’ may hint at the need for Orange’s audience to appreciate the flexibility of scientific education in Denmark. However, the author contends that dissections can be even more powerful educational tools than traditional classroom teaching; his anecdotal example that ‘children in front of us cover their noses’ demonstrates an interaction between the students and the material being taught. In contrast to the stereotypical image of students bored in lecture style classes, Orange presents a convincing example of how dissections link the theoretical with the physical in an engaging way. By expounding on the scientific basis of dissections combined with their appeal to students, Orange ultimately allays the readers’ fears that public dissections are uninformative and wasteful.

[iamsofunny112]

Feeeeeeedbaaaackkkkk! I'd work on your ideas (like you said haha) first, because once you get your ideas sorted (i.e a clear cut idea of what you want to say), then you can really improve aspects like expression and flow! But you're doing well (trust me)!

I see STF has already commented above me but a few things regarding clarity

• 'explained and taught' / 'credibility and validity' Try to avoid this kinda of double descriptor, especially when they mean the same thing.
• 'Both of these examples indicate to the reader that public dissections are educational.' This sentence is largely redundant
• 'This implies to the audience that there was a strong smell. In contrast to traditional education in the classroom, children would not have been able to smell such smells'  Think of how these two sentences could be combined into one shorter sentence. Eg: The suggestion of a powerful smell, traditionally out of place in classrooms, demonstrates etc...
  Notice how you can make the sentences into shorter clauses, and in doing so, give you momentum to talk about their effect - a vital part of languages analysis
• 'abhorrent behavior will negatively affect children and in no way educational' This kind of strong language (abhorrent) should be backed by specificity, avoid using blanket generalisations like 'negatively', 'positively' etc

The key for language analysis is that evidence from the text will be able to make your writing more concise. If you're talking about generalities, your writing will also feel more vague and less specific. As STF said, specificity is the key to language analysis. Of course there is lots to like about this piece - great insight on the ideas being presented, use of specific words 'demonstrates' /  'adapted', acknowledgement of the reader, specifically the parents. So while my feedback above may seem a bit harsh, you are well on your way to doing well in this subject! 

Here's an example that I quickly wrote up using the quotes and ideas that you brought up. Try to combine sentences together making them into shorter clauses as that will make your writing more concise and fluent:

Through his appeals to parental responsibility, Orange contends that public dissections perform a vital role in educating Danish children. Contrary to some parents’ beliefs that dissections are a crude, outdated form of teaching, Orange instead suggests that dissections are not only educational, but also engaging when compared to traditional class-room teaching methods. Echoing the empirical language commonly associated with scientific education, the didactic tone of ‘demonstrates’ and ‘how’ support the authors contention that dissections are based on educational purposes, while the scientific terminology of ‘adapted’ may hint at the need for Orange’s audience to appreciate the flexibility of scientific education in Denmark. However, the author contends that dissections can be even more powerful educational tools than traditional classroom teaching; his anecdotal example that ‘children in front of us cover their noses’ demonstrates an interaction between the students and the material being taught. In contrast to the stereotypical image of students bored in lecture style classes, Orange presents a convincing example of how dissections link the theoretical with the physical in an engaging way. By expounding on the scientific basis of dissections combined with their appeal to students, Orange ultimately allays the readers’ fears that public dissections are uninformative and wasteful.

Thank-you both for the valuable feedback!! : ))

[KEAEducation]

Constantly proof read your work. Every time that you proof read, you pick up redundancies in your phrasing. A good tip would be to print out the essays that you type, and read them over in pen. If you've written them, then that's even easier. Also, leave the piece of writing that you've done and proof read it the day after, and then the week after. You'll find that as time goes by between when you wrote it and when you read it, you'll be able to distance yourself more from what you wrote and therefore more able to pick up errors and messy and congested phrasing.

Look at essays and writings that you consider excel in being concise. An author who celebrated quick, short and sharp language was George Orwell. Study them. Note the way they use active forward phrasing that is more direct and to the point. Note their exclusion of certain words and inclusion of others than improve their clarity whilst decreasing their word count. Study others and learn from them.

Also, simply ask yourself the question: do I need this word? And play around with the phrasing by simply re-arranging the words. It is merely a matter of practice and recognition of language patterns that are efficient and work best for you.

All the best