I am often asked by clients to write things in the style of The Economist. Sometimes, when I deliver the work, they give me feedback saying that it isn’t formal enough. A couple of times, they have actually come back and said that it isn’t in the style of The Economist because of some turn of phrase that I’ve used.
When you actually read The Economist it is surprisingly playful and often uses informal, arresting language to make its point. In fact, this is exactly what makes it distinctive.
Here is an example from last week’s issue, gleaned at random:
“One reason … [is that] … subspecies just do not carry as much political clout. The other is that upgrading subspecies into species simultaneously increases the number of rare species and … augments the biodiversity of a piece of habitat”
Most of my clients wouldn’t let me get away with using ‘clout’ or ‘upgrade’ in this sense. Too informal. Here’s another example.
“Along with his recent schmoozing of Algeria and Quatar, this threatens to exacerbate Europe’s energy insecurity, kyboshing the hope of importing large quantities of Central Asian gas without Russian involvement.”
Schmooze and kybosh are words you never see in case studies but they’re perfectly good for an Economist editorial about President Putin.
Obviously, there’s more to The Economist’s style than the odd bit of fizz and ginger (see my review of their style guide, for example), but these examples show that there is room in serious, formal writing for the right word, even if it is colloquial. In fact, it is better for it.
Technorati Tags: The Economist, style, writing
Related posts:
{ 1 trackback }
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
The Economist does an excellent job of making dry subjects more interesting by varying the language it uses. I usually get a few laughs out of each issue.
Or even ‘…better for it.’
I agree entirely. Reading the odd colloquial word in a serious context is not just more entertaining, and therefore engaging, but demonstrates self-confidence by the writer. Cool.
I reckon you’re right “The Economist it is surprisingly playful and often uses informal, arresting language to make its point.” I did quite a few science stories many years ago, and always the brief was to bring in some kind of personal spin that would make the article as you describe. I try to do the same with my Sciencebase ramblings to this day, although the Flesch-Kincaid grading (or one of those things) tells me my words are closer to Newsweek!
db
Writing in the most formal register is like wearing a suit and tie.
The difference between The Economist and one of your clients is that The Economist has nothing to prove, so it can loosen its tie. Maybe even let itself be spotted in designer jeans and a turtle neck. (Think “photo captions”.)
Business writing is unique in the field of science writing. It is distinguished from other forms of composition as a whole emphasis on the opportunity. The centre of gravity of the composition of a business unit should be effective to the offer in writing and as precisely as possible to a central objective in the area covered by the justification of this goal, and that the appeal to the sentiments of your listeners.
How a custom business writing can help business. I know that a good writing can grow a business. But till now i dont understand actually what is a business writing. I heard a lot about the effective , business plan writing etc..