FA+
Shop
Bad Writing Habits #4
11 years ago
Have you ever read a written article that quotes another person's words selectively? They do this in newspapers, magazines, and even on Wikipedia!
Take for example the paragraph recapping negative reviews for The Hunger Games: Catching Fire. I shall copy the relevant bits here. Pay attention to the quotation marks.
... Sophie Monks Kaufman ... criticised the "dilution of the ingredients that made The Hunger Games so gripping." She also found fault with the "lumbering" plot, the "hamminess" of President Snow and Plutarch Heavensbee and the "lacklustre and unconvincing script culled from a dramatically difficult book". David Denby ... argued that the premise "doesn't make a lot of sense". He praised the "impressive" first act and Jennifer Lawrence, for "project[ing] the kind of strength that Katharine Hepburn had when she was young." However, he found the second act "attenuated and rhythmless" and criticised the "incoherent" finale that "will send the audience scurrying back to the book to find out what’s supposed to be going on".
The problem is that selective quotes like this have the same literary appearance as scare quotes. Although actual quoted opinions are (hopefully) more common on Wikipedia and professional newspapers, one can't be too sure in a tabloid or casual essay.
I want to give you a demonstration. Let's take an excerpt of something that's pretty straightforward and factual, such as Wikipedia's article about the Atmosphere of Earth:
The atmosphere of Earth is a layer of gases surrounding the planet Earth that is retained by Earth's gravity. The atmosphere protects life on Earth by absorbing ultraviolet solar radiation, warming the surface through heat retention (greenhouse effect), and reducing temperature extremes between day and night (the diurnal temperature variation).
The common name given to the atmospheric gases used in breathing and photosynthesis is air. By volume, dry air contains 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.039% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases. Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1%. Although air content and atmospheric pressure vary at different layers, air suitable for the survival of terrestrial plants and terrestrial animals currently is only known to be found in Earth's troposphere and artificial atmospheres.
Now, behold as I make you doubt the value -- nay, the very existence -- of the air you breathe!
Wikipedia reports that the atmosphere of Earth is a "layer of gases" that "surround[s]" the planet Earth and is "retained" by Earth's gravity. The atmosphere "protects" life on Earth by "absorbing" ultraviolet solar radiation, "warming the surface" through heat retention (also called "greenhouse effect"), and reducing temperature "extremes" between day and night (also called "diurnal temperature variation").
Wikipedia goes on to say that the "common" name given to the atmospheric gases used in "breathing" and "photosynthesis" is "air". By volume, "dry" air contains 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.039% carbon dioxide, and "small amounts of other gases". Air also contains a "variable" amount of "water vapor", on average "around 1%". Although air content and atmospheric pressure "vary at different layers", air suitable for the survival of "terrestrial" plants and "terrestrial" animals currently is only known to be found "in Earth's troposphere and artificial atmospheres".
I think I've made my point. This has really gotten out of hand.
So STAHP.
Take for example the paragraph recapping negative reviews for The Hunger Games: Catching Fire. I shall copy the relevant bits here. Pay attention to the quotation marks.
... Sophie Monks Kaufman ... criticised the "dilution of the ingredients that made The Hunger Games so gripping." She also found fault with the "lumbering" plot, the "hamminess" of President Snow and Plutarch Heavensbee and the "lacklustre and unconvincing script culled from a dramatically difficult book". David Denby ... argued that the premise "doesn't make a lot of sense". He praised the "impressive" first act and Jennifer Lawrence, for "project[ing] the kind of strength that Katharine Hepburn had when she was young." However, he found the second act "attenuated and rhythmless" and criticised the "incoherent" finale that "will send the audience scurrying back to the book to find out what’s supposed to be going on".
The problem is that selective quotes like this have the same literary appearance as scare quotes. Although actual quoted opinions are (hopefully) more common on Wikipedia and professional newspapers, one can't be too sure in a tabloid or casual essay.
I want to give you a demonstration. Let's take an excerpt of something that's pretty straightforward and factual, such as Wikipedia's article about the Atmosphere of Earth:
The atmosphere of Earth is a layer of gases surrounding the planet Earth that is retained by Earth's gravity. The atmosphere protects life on Earth by absorbing ultraviolet solar radiation, warming the surface through heat retention (greenhouse effect), and reducing temperature extremes between day and night (the diurnal temperature variation).
The common name given to the atmospheric gases used in breathing and photosynthesis is air. By volume, dry air contains 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.039% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases. Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1%. Although air content and atmospheric pressure vary at different layers, air suitable for the survival of terrestrial plants and terrestrial animals currently is only known to be found in Earth's troposphere and artificial atmospheres.
Now, behold as I make you doubt the value -- nay, the very existence -- of the air you breathe!
Wikipedia reports that the atmosphere of Earth is a "layer of gases" that "surround[s]" the planet Earth and is "retained" by Earth's gravity. The atmosphere "protects" life on Earth by "absorbing" ultraviolet solar radiation, "warming the surface" through heat retention (also called "greenhouse effect"), and reducing temperature "extremes" between day and night (also called "diurnal temperature variation").
Wikipedia goes on to say that the "common" name given to the atmospheric gases used in "breathing" and "photosynthesis" is "air". By volume, "dry" air contains 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.039% carbon dioxide, and "small amounts of other gases". Air also contains a "variable" amount of "water vapor", on average "around 1%". Although air content and atmospheric pressure "vary at different layers", air suitable for the survival of "terrestrial" plants and "terrestrial" animals currently is only known to be found "in Earth's troposphere and artificial atmospheres".
I think I've made my point. This has really gotten out of hand.
So STAHP.
2 extra points spent just to get a better habitation rating on those few planets with no atmosphere? Everyone not anaerobic is bad at colonizing them anyway. I don't see the payoff.
*dies from lack of breathable air*