Today’s sentence makeover comes from an author who used “because” to create long compound sentences in almost every paragraph. (She told me that she developed this habit under the tutelage of her dissertation advisor). I worked with her to evaluate this writing habit: when did she really need the “because,” and when could she cut it? Our analysis asked her to consider what she was really saying in her sentences, and what she needed to be saying in light of her overall text. Here is the example we used to think through this issue.
- From an existential perspective, while we are animals, we are also our intentions and projects, and for our relationships to be reduced to instinct is a deteriorating expression of our humanity because it renders conscious choices and higher order decisions obsolete.
It is quite easy to cut this long sentence into three, at the natural breaks of the sentence. We can first insert some periods:
- From an existential perspective, while we are animals, we are also our intentions and projects. For our relationships to be reduced to instinct is a deteriorating expression of our humanity. It renders conscious choices and higher order decisions obsolete.
I also quickly cleaned up the second sentence, cutting the passive voice and choosing a more accurate verb. I swapped “deteriorate” for “erode” to accurately express who is acting upon what.
- From an existential perspective, while we are animals, we are also our intentions and projects. To reduce our relationships to instinct erodes our humanity. It renders conscious choices and higher-order decisions obsolete.
When the author asked me why I cut “because” almost everywhere it appeared in her writing, I looked closely at these sentences, where I felt the “because” was clearly unnecessary. I gave her three reasons to eliminate “because:”
1. A strategic reason: how can you most effectively reach your reader?
2. A literary reason: what is the effect of two shorter sentences together versus one long one?
3. A Writing is Thinking reason: what is the difference in the meaning of the two versions, and which precise meaning do you need for the sake of your overall argument?
First, I advocated for shorter sentences as a way to improve the reader’s experience with her text.
It’s easier for a reader to understand shorter sentences, and shorter sentences make the sentence’s core claim stand out. Following Verlyn Klinkenborg, I encourage writers to be very deliberate about long sentences. There are good reasons to use long sentences sometimes, but each long sentences should be able to answer the challenge: why are you here? Why use a long sentence when multiple shorter sentences could do? The “because”s and “and”s and other conjunctions are very easy places to cut. Which leads to the next reason to eliminate the “because.”
Why do these ideas need to be in the same sentence?
Klinkenborg suggests that when you use short, tight sentences, you can play with the relationship between them. The separation of a period can produce different effects. (To play with these effects, you could try things like reversing the order of two sentences or cutting out transitional phrases like “however,” “next,” and “furthermore.”)
Klinkenborg depicts the energy of sentences working together. He writes, “A single crowded sentence means giving up all the possible relations among shorter sentences— the friction, the tension, the static electricity that builds up between them.” The genre of this author’s work was especially suitable for experimenting with the literary possibilities.
Klinkenborg also urges authors to trust their readers to make connections between sentences. He describes authors’ urges to write overcrowded sentences: “Related ideas coexisting side by side in two or three short sentences doesn’t seem to be good enough… A crowded sentence betrays the writer’s worry that the reader won’t follow the prose if parted by a period.” He reminds us that an interested, engaged reader can supply the connection between sentences if you give them idea 1 and then idea 2.
Based on this perspective, I suggested that my client play with the literary effect of two sentences versus one sentence in every place she used “because.” I suspect that in her case, “because” functioned as hand-holding for the reader in most places where she used it. But the ability to make this judgment depends on a deeper Writing is Thinking analysis.
How does cutting or adding “because” change the meaning of the sentence?
Take another look at our example sentences that were linked by “because:”
- To reduce our relationships to instinct erodes our humanity.
- It renders conscious choices and higher-order decisions obsolete.
Is the second sentence evidence for the first sentence? Or does it simply elaborate the first sentence’s claim? If the passage had been about what it is to erode humanity and all the ways we might do so, then perhaps the “because” would need to stay. In that case, this sentence would be making a specific claim about the particular example of reducing our relationships to instinct. The author would be explaining why and how this phenomenon, among others, can erode our humanity.
But given where this passage fits in the author’s text, I judged that these sentences can work together as separate sentences (and separate claims). They function to warn us about the dangers of dismissing the importance of our human activities as mere instinct. It is not crucial for the author to establish some kind of causal or evidentiary relationship between eroding our humanity and the importance of conscious choice. And since it’s not crucial, there are many reasons to remove the “because.” There are the strategic and literary reasons I’ve discussed, but there are also philosophical reasons.
It is typically much easier to argue or give evidence for the truth of two sentences (A is true and B is true) than for the compound sentence that expresses the relationship A because B. And “because” can be vague in philosophical terms (Are you just giving one reason to think something is true? Are you describing a causal chain? Are you naming a person’s intentions/reasons?)
I did not analyze every “because” in this author’s text with this level of detail. But for the ones I cut, I was doing some quick, intuitive assessing: is this “because” necessary for your point? Do you just need the reader to see A and B, or do you want them to understand and accept “A because B”? What started as simple sentences revisions led to deeper thinking about the author’s ideas and arguments. As an editor, I queried the client, “There are two possible claims here, and they are importantly different. Which one do you mean to say here?”
