Maverick sentences

Mavericks are those who do not follow accepted rules, who zig where others zag. Fairly recently, the term's positive connotation (a person disregarding rules to advantage) has been exploited in politics, alas not at all successfully. In writing, too, kicking over the traces is not a ticket to success – if we agree that success means to be coherent and clear.

To investigate the life of the "eponymous hero" Samuel Maverick, Philip Dodd traveled to Texas where “At certain times the mosquitoes away from the water’s edge were thick in the air.” This sentence lacks coherence because material is inserted between the subject and the predicate. A prepositional phrase (at certain times) is followed by the subject (the mosquitoes), which is followed by a prepositional phrase (away from the water’s edge), followed by the verb (were) before the sentence ends with another prepositional phrase (in the air). The sentence becomes stringy and hard to follow. Reorganizing the parts and simplifying the vocabulary improves the sentence’s coherence: Away from the water’s edge, the mosquitoes were sometimes thick in the air.

Incoherent sentences often fail to establish a precise relationship between their parts. "I had realized how vulnerable the Gulf Coast was to extreme weather conditions flying in, or trying to, the night before." What this sentence actually says is that weather conditions were flying in during the night. Again, reorganizing the parts clarifies who was flying: Flying in, or trying to, the night before, I had realized how vulnerable the Gulf Coast was to extreme weather conditions.

A similar case of confusion about who is doing what occurs when Dodd recounts that "In 1942 Dr. Lewis A. Maverick confirmed that it was the cowboys who herded the cattle who had spread the term 'maverick' as they moved on to other jobs and thought the word was disseminated during the big cattle drives from Texas up to Montana and the northern states." Apparently, the cowboys moved to other jobs and did some thinking on the way. However, the person thinking about the dissemination of the word was Dr. Lewis A. Maverick: In 1942, Dr. Lewis A. Maverick confirmed that the cowboys who herded the cattle had spread the term “maverick” as they moved on to other jobs and that the word was disseminated during the big cattle drives from Texas up to Montana and the northern states. The insertion of a simple that ties the second part of the sentence to its main verb confirmed. (Philipp Dodd, "Samuel Maverick")

But what the heck is William Sanders doing? "William Sanders, a statistician studying Tennessee teachers with a colleague, found that a student with a weak teacher for three straight years would score, on average, 50 percentile points behind a similar student with a strong teacher for those years" (Elizabeth Green, "Building a Better Teacher"). Whether this is a groundbreaking discovery or not, the sentence suggests that this researcher studies teachers who have a colleague. In fact, he is a statistician who together with a colleague is studying Tennessee teachers.

Maybe those weak teacher who drag their students down studied under one of those “methods professors [who] have never set foot in a classroom or have not done so recently” (Green). Those who never set foot in a classroom, didn’t do so recently. That’s pretty obvious. But those who haven’t done so recently not necessarily have never done it. We evidently deal with two sets of methods professors, and a sentence not mangled by ambiguity should clearly distinguish between some methods professors who have never set foot in a classroom and others who have not done so recently.

Cheese is always the perfect last course. So how about "slicing some pecorino for a simple lunch of crusty bread, foggy green olive oil and a bottle of rosso di Montalcino. The cheese was decidedly creamier, akin to the difference between Greek yogurt and the nonfat kind" (Danielle Pergament "Tuscany Without the Crowds"). The incoherence of this sentence is caused by its illogical connections. The cheese is not creamier than the rosso di Montalcino but probably creamier than the store-bought kind, and it is more akin to Greek yoghurt than to the nonfat kind, not to the difference between the two.

Winter of discontent

Like a veritable Logo-calypse, loaded words and phrases were coming down together with the snow in reports about the blizzard that pulverized the region (Wash.Times). Although this Snowmageddon still has a long road ahead of it with several major cities picking up large amounts of snow (The Weather Channel), it already left a wake of damage (CBS). The storm even canceled flights in several cities (CNN), with wind gusts creating nearwhite conditions (The Weather Channel). Halfway across the chasm [sic] of winter, the storm charged over the Appalachians (NYT) as this was becoming an increasingly dangerous winter storm forecast complete with high snowfall rates and blinding snow. (The Weather Channel).
Some journalists, maybe in an attempt to fight off the bitter cold, obviously went into overdrive, some slipped badly, and some simply lost sight of where they were going.
The NYT reported that “downed trees and power lines blocked the Capitol Limited, stranding and infuriating passengers" (NYT). For support, a train passenger is quoted saying, “Nobody can do anything about the weather, but be truthful, keep us informed.” Although the first sentence suggests otherwise, what infuriated the passengers were not the downed trees and power lines but rather the Amtrak’s officials who neglected to tell the travelers that their snowbound train wasn’t going to go anywhere soon.
After fifteen hours of waiting, another passenger complained that “No one’s cleaned up the bathrooms, and I’m worried about the germs my kids could get.” But “Amtrak reached out to a local Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant.” Were its employees coming by to clean the bathrooms? Far from it. They “supplied dinner for the passengers,” most likely only making the bathroom problem worse.
Then, in a blizzard of information, the fact that “The National Guard was deployed to assist the police and people trapped on roads” precedes but seems to be in no way connected to the story of “a father and son, who had stopped on I 81 [in Virginia] to help a motorist [and] were killed Friday when a tractor-trailer struck them.” The National Guard and all its efforts disappeared without a word from the scene – probably snowed under.
If ideas do not smoothly merge into one another, connect logically and thus allow the reader to follow a clearly paved path, an article quickly resembles a giant snowball fight with the reader’s head as the pitiable target.
Transitional tags can help organize ideas and establish a relationship, such as, e.g., the conjunction while to emphasize the difference between two ideas: Most roads were closed while trains still operated.
Timely enough, Thomas Friedman sent a postcard from some warmer region, reporting that in Yemen, “more than 70% of government income comes from dwindling oil exports, while 70% of Yemenis are illiterate and 15% of kids are not in school.” The connection - or difference - between the dwindling oil resources and illiteracy – if it exists – remains for the reader to figure out.
Worse than making no connections and leaving the reader stranded in the middle of nowhere is making false connections that insult one’s logic. New Albany Citizens campaigned in favor of finally making it legal to buy a bottle of beer. They argued that “the city, whose population is about 8,000, would never grow without restaurants, and nice restaurants would never arrive if they could not serve alcohol.” Their opponents, not seeing the logical fallacy (post hoc, ergo propter hoc = questionable cause-effect relationship) in this argument, paid them back in their own coin, calling this “a bunch of baloney” since other cities do allow alcohol but “are not exactly flourishing” either. Another New Albany citizen would say that this rebuttal is “Pointless... like giving caviar to an elephant” (W. Faulkner) because the teetotalers falsely assume that because two things occur together, they must be causally related; correlation, however, is possible without causation.
Really insulting, though, is a writer who expects the reader to swallow a red herring, used to throw hunting dogs off the trail of the prey – or unsuspecting readers off the real issue. “Record snowfall illustrates the obvious: The global warming fraud is without equal in modern science” (Wash. Times). That one area of the U.S. has been blanketed with snow is not evidence to support such a sweeping conclusion, and to welcome the recent Snopocalypse as proof that we don't have to rethink the way we live now is nothing but a snow job.

Here is a list of some useful transitional words:

to add: again, also, and, and then, besides, equally important, finally, first, further, furthermore, in addition, in the first place, last, moreover, next, second, still, too
to compare: also, in the same way, likewise, similarly
to make a concession: granted, naturally, of course
to contrast: although, and yet, at the same time, but at the same time, despite that, even so, even though, for all that, however, in contrast, in spite of, instead, nevertheless, notwithstanding, on the contrary, on the other hand, otherwise, regardless, still, though, yet
to emphasize: certainly, indeed, in fact, of course
to exemplify or illustrate: after all, as an illustration, even, for example, for instance, in conclusion, indeed, in fact, in other words, in short, it is true, of course, namely, specifically, that is, to illustrate, thus, truly
to sum up: all in all, altogether, as has been said, finally, in brief, in conclusion, in other words, in particular, in short, in simpler terms, in summary, on the whole, that is, therefore, to put it differently, to summarize
to indicate time sequence: after a while, afterward, again, also, and then, as long as, at last, at length, at that time, before, besides, earlier, eventually, finally, formerly, further, furthermore, in addition, in the first place, in the past, last, lately, meanwhile, moreover, next, now, presently, second, shortly, simultaneously, since, so far, soon, still, subsequently, then, thereafter, too, until, until now, when

To avoid excessive usage of transitional tags, consider
• to refer to the main idea of the previous paragraph and begin the next one with a reference to this topic: insult one's logic → Really insulting
• repeating key words in each paragraph that help the reader to see the connection: The connection - or difference - between the... → Worse than making no connection ...

Failed to connect the dots

Sharp and sarcastic as usual, Maureen Dowd commented last week on the president’s statement that Christmas Day’s almost-disaster was not due to “a failure to collect or share intelligence,” but rather to “a failure to connect and understand the intelligence that we already had.” She wonders why everybody was so surprised by the perpetrator’s Yemeni nationality and expresses this in the following paragraph/sentence:
“Even though Russ Feingold, who is on the Senate Intelligence Committee, has been pointing out since 2002 that we need to focus on Yemen — ‘It’s the ancestral home of Osama bin Laden and the place where Al Qaeda blew up the U.S.S. Cole and we lost 17 people,’ he impatiently notes — the president said that the intelligence community was caught off guard by the attack planned by the Qaeda affiliate in Yemen, even though ‘we knew that they sought to strike the United States, and that they were recruiting operatives to do so.’”
To understand the intelligence conveyed here requires a second (third?) reading – or an intelligence analyst – because the interposed, rather lengthy quote makes it unnecessarily difficult for the reader to connect the information. Less collecting would allow for clearer intelligence. Moreover, the entire sentence becomes so long that the writer easily loses control. Since the sentence begins with even though, another even though clause cannot be tagged on. Not throwing "dots at us like 3-D asteroids" would help avoiding inner disconnection: Russ Feingold, who is on the Senate Intelligence Committee, has been pointing out since 2002 that we need to focus on Yemen. “It’s the ancestral home of Osama bin Laden and the place where Al Qaeda blew up the U.S.S. Cole and we lost 17 people,” he impatiently notes. Nevertheless, the president said that the intelligence community was caught off guard by the attack planned by the Qaeda affiliate in Yemen, even though “we knew that they sought to strike the United States, and that they were recruiting operatives to do so.”
Terrorism is scary, maybe because most of us can hardly understand what can lead a person to believe that anything is worth it to blow up himself and dozens or hundreds of others. In a highly interesting article about “The Terrorist Mind”, Sarah Kershaw explains that “Paradoxically, anxiety about death plays a significant role in the indoctrination of terrorists and suicide bombers – unconscious fear of mortality, of leaving no legacy, according to a new research.” Not only is the phrase “according to a new research” tagged on helter-skelter but also the explanation of the terrorists’ death anxiety unnecessarily far removed from the phenomenon it attempts to define. A reader will easily fail to understand a sentence when related information or thoughts are not kept together but interrupted by phrases or clauses. It would be much safer to organize the points top to bottom: According to a new research, a significant factor in the indoctrination of terrorists and suicide bombers is, paradoxically, anxiety about death – an unconscious fear of mortality, of leaving no legacy.
Kershaw also points out that people like Ted Kaczynski are an exception because only very few terrorists act alone. “The Unabomber was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, while most terrorist groups weed out the mentally unstable, experts say; they even prefer to select those with higher status for the suicide missions, in the belief that sending those with the most to lose will raise the credibility of their cause.” The two sentences connected here with a semicolon concern two very different concepts, one being a particular person’s mental disorder, the other being a typical terrorist’s status in a group. These two ideas should be clearly separated by a period. Far more confusing, however, is the first part of this quote. While functions to show a difference between two situations, but the Unabomber being diagnosed with some mental condition cannot be compared to groups weeding out the mentally ill. The information about those groups’ preference for mentally stable members should be connected to the second sentence instead: The Unabomber was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. Most terrorist groups, however, weed out the mentally unstable, experts say. They even prefer to select those with higher status for the suicide missions, in the belief that sending those with the most to lose will raise the credibility of their cause.
Kershaw then refers to a play by Albert Camus to explain the moral dilemmas a terrorist might face. Camus’s The Just “tells the true story of the assassination by a revolutionary group in 1905 of a grand duke in Russia.” The assassination and its victim here are placed at two different ends, which - although it would have been of utter advantage for the grand duke - makes this statement simply hard to read. What belongs together should be together: It tells the true story of the 1905 assassination of a grand duke in Russia by a revolutionary group.

If words and information are properly connected, the risks that “The intelligence fell through the cracks” (John Brennan, deputy national security adviser) are much slimmer.