In this sentence makeover, we start with an overcrowded sentence that is trying to do too much work on its own. We break it down into three distinct sentences, each with its own, manageable task.
This “Before” sentence comes from a client’s draft, and I flagged it for revision before the paper was submitted for publication. My marginal comment was, “I have no idea what this sentence is saying. Can I use it for a sentence makeover?” The client promptly rewrote the sentence beautifully, and I understood the “After” version easily. (The “After” version presented here is my adaption of the client’s work.) When we look closely at what changed between the two versions, we can recognize some general tips about writing and revising dense academic sentences: know each sentence’s reason for existence.
Before
Many hold that the moral reasons that apply to market participants can be derived from the very values that justify the use of markets as a social instrument.
After
Many political philosophers endorse the “implicit morality of the market approach.” This approach identifies the values that scholars have used to justify the use of markets as legitimate instruments for allocation, and it claims that the moral duties of market participants derive from these values.
The original sentence was not that long (at 28 words), but it was overcrowded. It needed to be expanded, so a reader can clearly see who is doing what. This “Before” sentence followed a transition sentence like, “There is a second theory that could explain X phenomenon.” It was the first sentence introducing a new theory to the reader—and in this particular case, the theory is likely unfamiliar to a large portion of the author’s readers.
The sentence’s location goes a long way to help us determine the reason for the sentence’s existence: introduce the new theory. But in the original version, the author tried to introduce the new theory and explain its main idea in just 28 words. While sometimes it is possible to write both clearly and densely, this sentence did not achieve that feat. The author also omitted some things that he should have included. In the context of the paper, stating who exactly holds the view is an important point. The paper moves from a theory in another part of philosophy to this one, which comes from political philosophy.
Looking at the “After” version of the sentence, I can generate a list of things that these sentences are doing:
- introducing (and naming) a new view
- telling the reader who holds this view
- explaining what the view says about the source of the moral duties of consumers
- to explain this, the sentence must also:
- introduce the idea of justifying markets as good for society (and tell us who does this activity)
- define the relationship between those values and market participants’ moral duties
- to explain this, the sentence must also:
The last bullet point is where the author is headed: it’s the main point the author needs for the rest of the argument. The question is whether it is a good idea to try to do all of these things with one sentence. What is gained by this density? What is lost might be the readers’s ability to follow what you are saying.
This “Before” sentence is a typical product of an author’s attempt to get their thoughts down into words. The author was focused on getting to the core idea: what is moral for consumers depends on whether our markets are moral. But when I prompted him to revisit the sentence and really read what it says, the author realized, “moral reasons that apply to market participants” was 1. a vague phrase, and 2. not what he meant to be discussing at all. The “Before” draft was him trying to tell himself what he was saying. The “After” version was written with a reader in mind. The author paid attention to presenting the information a reader needs to follow his train of thought.
Verlyn Klinkenborg describes a strong sentence: “It says the very thing it comes into existence to say….It doesn’t help the next one up or the previous one down. It doesn’t wave to its friend in the audience or pause to be acknowledge or applauded. It doesn’t talk about what it’s saying. It simply says its piece and leaves the stage” (Several short sentences about writing, pg 3, line breaks omitted in this quote). This description directs us to know why each of our sentences comes into existence. One way to edit and revise is to ask these questions of ourselves, “Why is this sentence here? What is it doing? What do I need it to be doing?”
Klinkenborg also describes our temptation to make a sentence do too much work. Can we relax and let our ideas span multiple sentences? Why do we need to jam in all our nuances, qualifications, explanations, and justifications before the period?
Most overcrowded sentences can be broken apart easily.
They became overcrowded because the words and phrases and thoughts they contain
Somehow seemed to belong together
In the shelter found to the left of the period,
The writer huddling words and phrases together into a single long sentence.Related ideas coexisting side by side in two or three short sentences
verlyn klinkenborg, Several short sentences about writing, pg 29
doesn’t seem to be good enough:
They must live together in the same ramshackle sentence.