
This will be the first of many "Sentenced" posts, in which we'll zoom in on actual samples of real-life prose. Today's dissects a recent car review from the New York Times auto section. Beneath the tortured pun of a headline, "New-Age Mutant Ninja Wagons," we read:
MUTATIONS drive evolution. Say you're born with six toes on each foot around the time that an epidemic of the Five Toed Virus sweeps the planet and wreaks havoc on the normal-footed populace. From then on, you and the other six-toed people will have the upper hand, and your offspring will wonder how anyone got by with only five little piggies on each foot.
In the second paragraph, the author gets to the point: high oil prices (the epidemic) are culling thirsty SUVs (the five-toed victims) from the herd. Gas-sipping luxury wagons (the six-toed mutants) have an evolutionary edge.
Never mind the painful metaphor that gives six-toed people "the upper hand." The real problem with this paragraph is that it's there at all.
The best writing advice I ever got came from a Swedish art director named Tom Roth. "Dave," he said on reviewing a bloated ad I'd written, "you must kill your darlings."
It's safe to say most—more likely all—Times readers are familiar with the concept of natural selection. Why explain to people what they already know? My guess: the writer fell so in love with his silly opening analogy that he couldn't chop it off (like an extra toe, I'm tempted to add, but won't). Or worse, an editor thought it up and tacked it on. Either way, the article is far more engaging with the offending darling slain.
To put it in evolutionary terms, the bloated, irrelevant preamble is doomed to be selected out.



