ESSAYS ON CIA WRITING

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78-00915R001400200001-3
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 59
• Document Creation Date: November 11, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 18, 1998
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: August 1, 1962
• Content Type: REPORT

Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
ESSAYS ON CIA WRITING
AUGUST 1962
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : ~IAAPP78-00915RO01400200001-3
Essays on CIA Writing
25X1A9a by
I.
Introduction: that Is Wrong
~
IIo
Anyone Can Write
Lt
III0
Taste, Authority, Prescription
IO
No
VI0
Jargon or Less Is More
The Right Word and Literature
Farewell "Tell"I or Abandoned Words and the New Jargon
In
IS'
VIIL
More Jargon
)9
VIII0
Coherence in Composition
26'
IX0
Format
2g
Xa
Capitalization
32
XI?
The Passive Voice
4.0
XII,
Writing, Editing, and Hack Writing
I}3
XIIIw
XIVG
A Miscellany of Grammar and Style
A Program for Improvement
54
August 1962
Sanitized - Approved For a ease : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
Essays on CIA Writing
Io Introduction: What Is Wrong
It is the purpose of these few essays to look at some of the
practices of CIA writing, to relate them to writing in generals especially
to the best writing, and to suggest improvements Most of the things
this first essay says the later essays will develops but there is not
time to say all things fully; some things can only be said and then left
for the reader to develop in his own mind and in his own way. And the
topics the essays cover do not exhaust CIA writing; the writer has taken
up those topics that seem most to need attention or about which he has
something worth saying0 A good deal of writing, in CIA and outside,
perhaps one-fourth to one-half, needs no comment and deserves none, it
is neither good nor bad; it is more or less satisfactory: But there is
very little distinguished writing anywhere, and what these essays are
interested in is the practices that prevent distinguished, or even goods
writing in CIAO
Is there such a thing as CIA writing? In the sense that we do a
lot of writing, there is, clearly enough But what about the sense of
distinctive writing--is there CIA writing with qualities of its own?
Probably so, although CIA writing shares many of its qualities with
other governmental writing and even with writing in general in the
United States today: Are the distinctive aspects of CIA writing good or
bad.? They are bad: So too are the aspects that are not distinctive, the
aspects that are true of most governmental writing: Are the aspects
intended or accidental? Some are the one and some are the other but
all together the aspects seem accidental because there is no intention
wide enough or constant enough to be worth the name; the attempts to
write well-whatever the result-are few and occur here and there in
CIA with almost no relation to the other parts of the agency: There
are several submerged intentions, however,, that are widely felt; these
are less explicit than implicit and they are almost below the level of
consciousness: They come from speeds cautions and a vague sense of
professionalism:
There is a peculiar relation between intelligence in the sense of
information secretly obtained and the writing that expresses that intel-
ligence or comments on it or uses ito If the intelligence is not
expressed in words or other symbols,, it does not exist for use A plan,
an intentions a decision may exist in the mind of a foreign official but
until we have that decision in words we do not know it. We know intelli-
gence only in the words that express ito In one sense the intelligence
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved For Re[ease.j1C -RDP78-00915 R001400200001-3
and the words do not exist apart from each other; they are one and the
same things This relation between intelligence information and the words
that express it is no different in essence from the relation between any
idea or happening and the words that express it, but it is peculiar because
intelligence information is critical or obtained at some risk. If the
words bearing it are inadequate, a great deal of effort may be injured or
wasted and many harmful consequences may follow. With some frequency the
understanding of an intelligence information report from a station abroad
depends upon one word or phrase; if only, we say, the case officer had
said clearly what must have been in his mind, if only he had anticipated
what questions we would ask.
In whatever way we assess or state this close relation between infor-
mation and the writing that contains it, we all have some feeling and
respect for it. The wonder is that we do not have more, or, perhaps, that
our respect does not produce a better result, for the evidence is that a
good deal of CIA writing is unsatisfactory. It talks constantly about
clarifying (a fond cliche) this or that but it lacks one of the elements of
clarity---terseness. And although it deals, by occupation, with information
that is, by its own assertion, vital (another cliche) to the United States,
the vitality is enfeebled by poorly chosen or unnecessary words. Even in
cables where long words and extra words cost money, there is often a full-
ness, sometimes a richness, that is at war with both economy and clarity.
This overwriting, this excess of verbiage, this hodgepodge of jargon,
cliches, and euphemisms, is the worst sin of CIA writing and is almost
entirely verbal-not grammatical at all in the meaning of syntax, inflec-
tion, and spelling, Another sin, related and significant, is the
riotous capitalization and the profligacy with space that seem, on the one
hand, to result from the same apathy to shortness, precision, and clearness
that produces the wordiness, and, on the other, to result from an imita-
tion of the practices of advertising. We may yet see an QCI daily or
weekly summary in which one sentence of intelligence information is
placed all alone in the center of one long page like the diminutive Volks-
wagen centered in the vastness of white space, with the caption not "Think
small, tt but "Look big, to
The effect of all this profusion-in words, in capitals, in space-
is just the opposite of inviting the interest of an intelligent reader; it
repels him. It seems intended to attract, or, if not to attract, to serve,
the person who cannot read or has no time to read. Intentionally or not
it insults an intelligent reader because it assumes he cannot read without
an abundance of paragraphing, a lavish use of space, and several times the
number of words needed0 He is given no credit. On the one hand, nothing
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
is left for him to decide; he is not supposed to know what words mean; he
is not supposed to take affront or to take the wrong meaningo He is not
expected to keep an idea in mind through five, eight,, or ten sentences of
a paragraph but is spoonfed a sentence or two at a time; On the other hand,
he is expected to penetrate the plethora of words and come out with a
meaning, to jump his eyes from one hill to another over the valleys of space,
to have his eyes knocked out with surname after surname in solid capitals and
many common nouns improperly capitalized, and to digest a thick repast of
would-be professional language and not be sick,
Such writing does not expect an intelligent reader, The truth seems
to be that it does not expect any kind of reader,, and this is one reason
why the bad writers write this bad way: they have no sense of audience
or they have a very wrong sense-they are writing for themselves or others
like themselveso This is likely true and leads us to the next questiono
What can we do about this kind of writing? We must first realize what this
writing is,, recognize it for what it i8o At the same time we must realize
that such writing is written for others who write the same wray'-it is a
fraternity of professional writers who sanction each other8s writingo Once
we have recognized what is wrong with CIA writing, the next step, of
improving it? will follow almost inevitably from the first step; if we
start looking at what we have written, start tasting it, savoring it (some
of this is bound to be uncomfortable), and then go on to finding what is
wrong, we shall, almost willy- nL11y, start writing bettero There are two
things, however, that will be necessaryo One is the understanding that
there is an art to writing and that speaking English as our mother tongue
does not by itself qualify us to writeo The other is the intoler-
ance of supervisors for bad writings As long as the next higher person
accepts bad writing, he will get ito When he recognizes, or learns to
recognize, some of the differences between good and bad writing and then
refuses to accept the bad., one-half of the battle will be over.
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved For R - pace - r.IA-RDP78-00915ROO1400200001-3
Essays on CIA Writing
II. Anyone Can Write
Before we look further at CIA writing to find out what is wrong
with it and what to do about it, we must deal with the widespread,
though usually unexpressed, belief that anyone can write. This
belief seems to be as common in this agency as is the assumption in the
army that anyone can teach. Yes, anyone can write, and anyone can
teach, in a way, in a sense. But really to write, or to teach, is
something else, and being born and raised in an English-speaking
country does not itself qualify us to write well. None of us would
argue that anyone can design a house, install an electrical system,
teach advanced algebra, or fire an eighty-one millimeter mortar. Why,
then, do we assume that a person can write for publication, for others
to use, can write professionally, without any professional training?
Harold Ross, the editor for many years of the New Yorker, did not
assume this. James Thurber tells us that when he interviewed Ross
for a job, Ross asked, "Do you know English?"" and when Thurber replied
that he thought he knew English, Ross replied, "Everybody thinks he
knows English, but nobody does."
Many of us refuse to admit that any particular training or skill
is necessary. We say, "I don't care how it is written, only what it
says." This is a critical statement, for the answer to it is that how
it is written and what it says are inseparable, they are the same thing.
An example of this indifference or confusion is the number of persons
in CIA who talk about "substantive things,'' meaning operational things,
in the narrow, DDP sense, as over against the often unexpressed but
clearly intended reportorial or non-operational things. This attitude,
almost contempt, towards what "substance" means (how can such persons
make any sense out of "and, like this insubstantial pageant faded,
leave not a rack behind"?) is a part of the larger attitude towards
the relation of form and content, for to such persons content has
substance but form does not and of course we need concern ourselves
with only substance.
The idea that a person is not necessarily qualified to write
English for reason of having been born in this country and of having
graduated from high school or college is intended here not to eliminate
from our writers those who fail to meet some standard of competence
(there is of course no chance yet of applying any such standard) but
to induce our writers, at whatever level, to recognize that writing
is an art and needs cultivation. If writing is of no importance, if
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved For _ _ ___ -RDP78-00915R001400200001-3
only the substance of an intelligence information report counts, if
it makes no difference how a directive or a dispatch is written as
long as it has got the facts in it, then anyone can compose our reports,
directives, and dispatches, as indeed anyone today does. But if writ-
ing is important, if content and form are related, if it makes a
difference how a report or anything else is written,then we must recog-
nize, admit this.
Learning to write is like learning any other art--it cannot be
taught only by a textbook or a workshop, It is much more a matter of
inclination, of a personts bent. If a reports editor or an analyst is
an amateur of writing, he will learn to write with or without a text-
booko No one can be an amateur, let alone a professional, of writing
until he sees that writing is an art, that it is not something that
all of us do equally well because we are all literate, that it requires
interest or concern, first, and, next.. practice, coaching, training.
Any intelligent, college-educated, or even high-school educated, person
can learn to write well for CIA purposes who wishes to learn to write
well. And if he does not wish, no number of textbooks or workshops
can teach him, And he cannot -vrish by an act of will alone, there must
be some spark, there must be at least a little passion. And there
must also be some encouragement.
These essays are intended for such persons, for persons who have
some idea of the difference between good and bad writing, who have
some wish to write well, who get some pleasure out of a well-written
sentence; intended for such persons and for their supervisors. Anyone
can edit an intelligence information report or write a directive to be
read by hundreds of persons without batting an eye or opening one. But
eventually we shall require our writers to be as professional as our
case officers (on operations) or our TSS men. It is still a curious
thought that we should require our writers to be able to write, to
be interested in improving their writing, to be able to discuss writing.
These essays are meant to make that thought less curious.
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
Essays on CIA Writing
III. Taste, Authority, Prescription
Any question of style, whether it is one of selecting a word, spacing
sentences, or putting a summary first instead of last, is finally a ques-
tion of taste or authority or prescription. Taste means someonets
personal decision; authority means some commonly accepted judgment such
as a dictionary or a book on usage; and prescription means an instruction.
Authority and taste are the same except that authority is more widely
accepted than taste, but any authority that does not assert prescription
is arguable, for only prescription, although it is based upon someonets
taste in cIposing among authorities, has decided and has issued an
instruction: you will do it this way. In the absence of prescription
anyone may assert his taste and invoke authority, just as anyone may
quote the Bible to support his point. The recent controversy over the
revised edition of Websterts New International Dictionary by the G.
and C Merriam Company cenEered in is question o as e, au?t,hority4
and prescription. The critics of the dictionary condemned it as
avoiding decisions of taste and of being tasteless; they wanted the
dictionary to be an authority4 The Merriam company answered that
making such decisions would be prescription and that the job of a
dictionary is to record and not to prescribe. The fact that both sides
were right is an example of what this essay is trying to say: in
matters of style the final judge is taste. In the lack of a national
academy of American English, anyone may speak or write as he pleases.
Usually he will be controlled by some prescriptions., whether of a
publishing house or a governmental office, and ulually he will pay a
good deal of attention to usage as expressed in one authority or
another; but prescription is often not thoroughgoing and it is often
questionable,, since the prescribers too must make personal decisions;
and, of courses, authority, unless it is backed up by prescription,
can be appealed.
The purpose of this series of essays on writing is to present some
principles about writing for the consideration of those writers who
want to take a second thought about their writing. Nothing here is
prescriptive unless someone chooses to make it so, but some quarrels
cannot be avoided where prescription has already acted. The authority
for the essays is good English usage as practised by the best writers
and as discussed in H. W. Fowler' s A Dictionary of Modern English Usage
(to name one authority and the best) and the writer's own taste. Since
choosing the best writers and deciding what English usage is good and
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved For up- anQe - riA-RDP78-00915R001400200001-3
what is bad are personal decisions, one cannot avoid one's own taste.
A question of style is always, finally, a question of taste unless some-
one has prescribed what we are to do, This license is, of course, more
seeming than actual, for we are all. bound by conventions--of spelling,
of punctuation, of sentence structure, and of diction. What these
essays try to do is to give the principles or sense behind the conventions,
to make decisions when conventions conflict or offer a choice,, and to
repeal conventions that have worn themselves out,
The underlying idea of the essays is that prescription without
explanation is unsatisfactory: persons who earn their living by writ-
ing, in whole or in part, need to get to the bottom of things, to look
at their writing professionally* Prescription by itself is easy for many
of us because it does not require us to understand. We write this way
or that because we are told to, and this is enough. Thus our typists
all skip two spaces after typing the paragraph number and the period
because the typing schools taught them so, and none of them is inter-
ested in why two instead of one, why not threes why, indeed., not six.
This cosmetic attitude about space needs to be corrected by the attitude
that asks why. Why, for example, do we skip a space between words and
is one space enough? All these questions are a part of the writerts
job. He should leave nothing to chance and nothing to typistse Based
upon whatever authority he chooses and obedient to whatever prescription
there is, he exercises his own taste, his own decision, where he can.
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved For. 2 g & " - .Ia0DP78-00915R001400200001-3
Essays on CIA. Writing
IV. Jargon or Less Is More
The chief and the worst aspect of CIA writing is the failure to
let words say what they have to say, to use simple words and let them
alone. The result of this failure is a thick paste of words, a conglom-
eration of jargon., cliches, and euphemisms, of redundancies, pomposities,
and irrelevancies, that instead of accomplishing more accomplishes less.
The dominant characteristic is too much. This is true of words and
of everything elseo It is true of space, which we use lavishly.
Apparently a study that takes up twice as many pages as it needs is
twice as well written or impressive. It is true of the subjects or
titles of our dispatches and information reports. We have given up
the old idea that a subject should be as short as possible and consist
of a noun and a few modifiers. Now we try to say in our subject all
that the dispatch or report has to say. (00-B-3,228,697,26 June 1962,
has a subject of ten lines containing eleven units separated by slashes.)
It is true of our fondness for itemization, of breaking up a sentence of
two or three lines into a sentence of one line or so followed by three
or four items of a few words each and indented as sub-paragraphs and
double spaced. It is true of our passion for numbering the items as
though we were writing for imbeciles who cannot count up to three or
keep three items separate. Thus, we would not write "Please go to
the store and get a loaf of Brea d,a quart of milk, and a few apples,"
but "Please go to the store and get (1) a loaf of bread, (2) a quart
of milk, and (3) a few apples.," It is true most of all of words.
In this refusal to use space modestly, to itemize only when doing so is
needed, to number only reasonably, and to let words say what they
have to say,, CIA writing is like bad architecture. There are lines
going every which way,, a wall that serves only as a shell is think
enough to withstand naval bombardment, space is eccentric, and you
open what you take to be a pantry door and fall into the basement. The
answer in writing is Mies van der 1ohels answer in architecture--less
is more.. If we let the skin and bones show in our writing, we shall
attain what Mies van der Rohe attained in his architecture: "He has
eliminated so much that seems irrelevant that what is left stands forth
with unexpected significance."
CIA writing, in refusing to let words say what they mean, is no
different from the writing in the other governmental agencies or in the
rest of the country. It is a refusal common to writing in the United
States today. The difference that concerns us is that in government
the refusal has flowered as it has in no other place save among professional
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
educators, who, like the professional jargoneers in government, are able
to speak in words that seem intended. to produce not understanding but
a vague assent or euphoria.
The refusal to let words alone, to let words say what they can say,
to use simple and fresh words, has several. names but the best name,
the one that includes most of the worst aspects, is jargon. In the basic
sense jargon means unintelligible words, gibberish. In the narrow sense
jargon means the unintelligibility resulting from the special vocabulary
of a business or profession?-canto In the broad sense jargon means the
unintelligibility resulting not from true business, profession al,or
technical words but from a thickness, a circumlocution, a redunaancyo
This is the meaning Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch gave the Ord in his famous
essay ttInterludeo On Jargon" in On the Art of 6ritin and is the meaning
intended here. Quiller-Couch said that the two parents of jargon are
caution and indolence. Thus out of the one or the other the minister
in the House of Commons does not say "no" but t"the answer is in the
negative,"" and thus we in CIA take refuge in the passive voice and write
""it is believed that!" instead of we believe that."" The two main
vices of jargon, according to Quiller-Couch, are circumlocution and
wooly abstract nouns instead of concrete ones. Both show in the chest-
nut "he expired in indigent circumstances" for "he died poor," and
in "natal anniversary" for ""birthday.!" And both are evident in this
letter from the Veterans Administration: t"Reference is made to your
letter of September 14,, 1954, relative to your insurance. The remittance
of $195.00 tendered November 4, 1.953, has now been associated with your
account. . . It is regretted that you were advised that your insurance
had lapsed.!! Four passive voices, ""relative to" for "about," "!advise""
for !"tell!l and the two masterful. strokes !!tendered" and "associated"
may bring a laugh to any reader, but a C:CA reader who laughs had better
cover up first the papers on his desk, for such circumlocutions and
pomposities are common with us.
The opposite of jargon is the simple or plain word, the active voice,
the terse sentence. Here less is more; words are allowed to say what
they have to say; and the result is clearer and stronger English than
the cautious, fuzzy, roundabout, and plethoric English that is jargon or
governmentalese or gobbledygooke
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
Essays on CIA Writing
V. The Right Word and Literature
A chapter in Barrie's Sent,irgntal Tongs tells of Tommyts losing
out in a contest because he bogged down in the middle of his essay trying
to think of a single Scotch word for the number of people in a church..
"Pucklett was too few, et zy" meant a swarm and the kirk was not buzzing.,
"mask" would mean the kirk was crammed, "flow" was not enough, and neither
was "currana" "Middling full" was accurate but Tommy wanted a single word.
Only after the contest was over and lost did Tommy recollect the right
word, the word he wanted; it was "hantle."
Tommy's devotion to the right word at the e ense of a prize may
dismay those of us who have a cable or dispatch deadline to meet, but it
will take some of that devotion to force us loose from our addiction to
pompous or wornout or slovenly or imprecise words. We write about "prior
planning" and warn a station not to take action without the "prior approval"
of headquarters when obviously "planning" and "approval" are enough, and
similarly we write about "preconditions".and about a case officerts meeting
his agent by "prearrangement." Adding an unneeded ttpriortt or "pre" is one
of the many ways we have of refusing to let words alone, of refusing to
let them speak for themselves. This is the commonest and the worst of all
our sins against simple, clear English. Sometimes we go a little further
and seem to have no idea of what a word means, as when we use "vis-a-vis"
not to mean "face-to-face" but "on"--"What are the station's views vis-a-vis
the new Chinese Communist embassy?tt But even this kind of illiteracy
results less from plain ignorance than from the desire to look elegant, to
talk professional. We are less interested in the right-word than in the
pretentious or pseudo-professional word This desire seems to be responsible
for the virtual disappearance of "ontt in cables; no case officer worth his
salt uses anything but "re" ("instructions re liquidation")-we may not
have mastered English but we have mastered the professional lingo and if
ttrett does not prove it we shall toss in "modus operandi" or tacaveat."
Whatever the cause--ignorance, would-be professionalism, caution, indolence,
or something else--.such writing is bad writing and shows no devotion at
all to the right word. It ignores also the warning attributed to Mark
Twain that the difference between the right word and the almost right word
is like the difference between lightning and the lightning bug.
Some readers are sure to object at this point that CIA is not
writing literature and that all this talk about less is more and the right
word is literary talk and irrelevant. But this idea is as false as the
idea that anyone can write because his native language is English or he has
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
been to school. In writing the only example we have that is worth
following is the writing of the best writers. And writing of whatever
kind that achieves excellence is literature or near to it. We cannot
learn to improve our day~by-day, chiefly expository writing in CIA unless
we apply the lessons of the expert writers to our own tasks. And the
difference between what we call creative writing and the writing that we
do is not entirely, perhaps not largely, a difference in kind but in
degree: The hack architect will not learn from another hack; he may learn
from Mies or Wright or Le Corbusier: In one sense all of us who write
in CIA are hacks but the less hack writing we do for CIA the better it will
be for CIA and also, surely, for ourselves. We need the example of the
best writers, and we need to write as well as we can.
A discouraging thing about the writers in CIA is that many of us
seem to have no professional interest in our writing: Several signs
show this, One is the lack of discussion about writing: There is a good
deal of shop-talk about how to conduct an operation, about whether the
reports from Source-1 are any good, about the Sino-Soviet conflict, and
about the health of Mao Tse-tung. But there is little talk about how to
write a contact report, an intelligence information report, a dispatch,
or a study: This sign is a part of the belief that anyone can write and
also of the belief that form and content are different things and that if
you take care of the content the form will take care of itself: Another
sign is the lack of interest in literature: as writers we do not read
other writers, especially the creative writers; or, if we do read them,
we do not learn from them, there is no application to our own writing.
We do not examine even such writings as the New York Times and the
New Yorker. We read that newspaper and that magazine and others, but
we do not read them critically, observantly, for the benefit of our
writing: If we have read James Ageels A Death in the Famiily, we have
liked it but we see no relation between that novel and our writingo And
yet, surely, persons who earn their living in whole or in large part by
writing cannot be said to take their writing seriously, professionally,
if they do not do what any baseball player does, study the hitting and
fielding of the other and better players for tips, for learningo
One thing other writers can teach us is to get something out of
words: We can get something out of words by letting them alone. This
is not what the person did who wrote "Mr. X showed that he was visibly
disturbed." Usually "show" does not accompany "visibly," as in the
sentence "McKechnie rat Cooperstown -7 was visibly choked with emotion."
Whether it does or not, "visibly" is unnecessary: The writer will not
trust the reader to understand that when a reporter observes that the
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
 Sanitized Approved For R ? A-RDP78-00915R001400200001-3
I3.
baseball old-timer was choked with emotion the choking was visible.
To say tthe showed he was visibly disturbed" commits two redundancies
instead of one. It is flabby writing. Letting words say what they can
say is only one part of the job but it is basic also to the other parts.
Another part is using words close to their etymology. Thus, if we
learn from Fowler or our own dictionaries that the root of "meticulous"
means to fear (the walked along the parapet meticulously"), we won't use
the word to mean ttculate, " "scrupulous," or "punctilious," as
Graham Greene does/t% first page of !Le u,iet American ("he was very
meticulous about small courtesies"). If we are going to let words say
what they can say and discriminate among words, we must pay some attention
to original meanings. Another example is "paramilitary." The Greek
prefix "paratt means beside, alongside of, beyond; the Latin prefix "para"
comes from the word 1tto defend." Thus a parachute is a defense against
falling but a paramilitary unit is one that is beside the regular military
unit and thus an irregular unit. The Freikorps troops in Germany in 1919
were paramilitary troops, existing alongside of, or outside of, the
regular military troops. Today, however, a paramilitary outfit is
likely to be understood popularly as a special but nevertheless regular
outfit. We may choose to use "paramilitarytt in the original sense or in
a later sense but whichever we choose we should choose knowingly.
Similarly "hallmark," meaning originally the mark made on gold or silver
articles at Goldsmith's Hall in London as a sign of purity, is scarcely
apt as a figure of speech when we mean "badge" or "criterions" And,
finally, we might let go of "expedite" if we learned that it meant
originally to free someone caught by his foot,
We may, in the third place, in order to get terseness or freshness
into our writing, use old words anew. This may be as modest as returning
to the simple words being replaced by pretentious wiordso This is almost
a rediscovery of a word's meaning, as it is with the more complex word
"meticulous. tt Thus we may use tisay, tt Ihell, tt or "answer" instead of
"advise" or "apprise" when we make a statement or request one, and we may
save ttadvisett for statements giving advice and "apprise" for a learned
sense of ttinformntt Or this use of old words anew may mean returning
to an earlier, less common, almost forgotten meaning, "Inspiration" in
the sense of encouragement has almost displaced the earlier, more literal
meaning of breathing (still retained in calisthenics) but we may call
upon that earlier meaning at will, even combining the two meanings ("Standing
next to tJlbricht as he spoke.. Khrushchev inspired the words on Stalin's
excesses"), The same is true of "speculate" in the sense of to contemplate
or to ponder a subjecto Or we may pick up a word that few persons ever
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved For R DP78-00915R001400200001-3
/3
use any more and freshen our writing with it. "Factitious" is such a
words
In the fourth place we may make new words out of old ones, put
together new phrases, I'Carpetbagger," "chain gang," "back talk,"
ttgerryrrmander," "pu: syfooter," "sltyscraper," and "brain trust" are
exampios of thio. So too are the more recent "iron curtains" "bamboo
screon,t$ and "crypto Communist,," `Je need this fourth way and even the
other three less than the poets, novelists, and journalists need them,
but we cannot be indifferent to them all of the time simply because we
write e2position or argument instead of poems, fiction, or journalism.
And the poets, novelists, and journalists are there to excite us with
the right words new or old.
Some CIA writers object to this kind of talk, saying, "I am not a
writer* I am a researcher (or a reports officer or a case officer or
an analyst) first and a writer only second and incidentally."This~ is a
defensive, amazing, and wrong-headed remark, for the research, the
report, the analysis appear only in the writings The remark is as though
Faulkner had asserted that he was first of all. a researcher into the
annals of Yoknapatawpha County and, only in the second place, a writer,
Anyone can write a novel about Oxford, Mississippi, or any other place in
the United States or elsewhere; and anyone can write an account of the
22nd CPSU Congress; and, of course, the novelist must get his people
straight and the analyst must get his facts straight; but, in both
the novel and the study, the writing is as important as the people or
the facts, Indeed, it is more important since the thing that distinguishes
either the novel or the analysis is the way it is written, is the style,
is the presentations Take a building instead of a novel or a studyo Any
architect and likely any contractor can design and see built a three bedroom,
two bath residence in Bethesda with or without gables,, with or without
shutters, with or without a central hallway, or an office building for
States GSA, or CIA, but who will enjoy looking at this house or building
or living or working in it? It will dos as most of our writing does,
But four walls, some rooms,anda roof become good, meaningful, enjoyable,,
rewarding, excellent only to the extent that Wright, Mies, Le Corbusier,,
or some other architect worth the name has designed themo The same is true
of the novel and the study.
Our writing in CIA is as far from Faulkner or Agee as our split-
level in Bethesda is from Wright's Robie House-trued But let us read
Faulkner and Agee and all the other kinds of writings between them and us,
and let us show some effect in our own writing of the reading, If we do
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved For DP78-00915 R001400200001-3
IIf
so9 we shall write better for CIA. There is no reason for CIA writing
to be painful to read, no reason save bad writings To avoid jargon,
to find the right word, to accomplish more by seeming to say less is
not the whole story but it.is a large parto And other and better
writers will help us hereo
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved For RetDP78-00915R001400200001-3
Essays on CIA. Writing
VI. Farewell "Tell"o
or Abandoned Words and the New Jargon
These essays have already suggested that the parents identified
by Sir Arthur Quller-Couch as the producers of jargon,, namely.,
caution and indolence, are not enough to account for the jargon in
CIA. To those parents we must add a, third,, would-be professionalism.,,
and probably a fourth, pretentiousness,, although it is arguable that
whenever we try to sound professional we fall into pretentiousness
and that whenever we are pretentious it is a vague sense of pro-
fessionalism that stirs use Whether the reason is caution,, indolence,,
professionalism, pretentiousness, or something else., CIA writers have
embraced a whole new list of long,, fuzzy., and elegant words and,
in doing so,, have killed off certain older and simpler words.
These: deaths would excite no grief at all if the reason for the
killing were not suspect. But suspect it is and worse-the reason
is guilty, for it seems to be a part of the refusal to let words
speak for themselves, of the contempt for simplicity, and of the
preference for the long word over the short, the high sounding over
the low sounding, the euphemism over the plain word, the pretentious
over the humble, and the ambiguous over the certain. Thus we
prefer "component" to "part" and when we have hit our stride we
write., in elegant. redundancy, "component partso"" We do not ask a
station chief abroad to answer us but to advise us., and we do not
tell him of an operational lead but apprise himo Iongfellow in CIA
would have written,, "Apprise me not in mournful numbers." Occasionally
the less talented among us suffer a little confusion and appraise
the station chief of what we want to tell himo
Nothing comes out or appears., not even information in the press,
it emerges, like Venus Anodyomene from the waveso We do not start or
begin a plan,, a project", or an operation; we initiate it. Like
royalty on its way from Winchester to Windsor we and our plans do not
go ahead but proceed. And we have more designs in our heads than a
devil or an architect., for our projects do not intend to accomplish
an objective but are designed to do so ("x is organizing a political
movement designed to counteroooo"")o An informant does not say or
assert that a certain hostile embassy is subsidizing students but
claims it,, and the station abroad does not send the informant's
report home but forwards or transmits ito At home our files do not
show that the informant has a dubious background but indicate it or
reflect it, and the several traces that show this are not many but
n-r A T
IS'
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved For Release :: CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
multiple, and the members of the embassy concerned are not persons
but individuals or personalities9 and they are not ordinary members
of the embassy but ranking members. We do not ask the station to
report regularly or from time to time on the embassy but to report
on a continuing basis,, In this kind of writing no one asks a
question but poses it; we do not talk about someone's stand or position
on an issue but about his posture ("the PKI was angered by Sul ,rno's
posture on the Indonesian-Chinese Communist dispute"); and all
cores are hard, never more so than when the cores are Comsnunist4
Leaders are not simply leaders", they are top leaders,, And if we do
not call them top leaders, then we prefer "leadership." OOne writer,,
not CIA, has achieved the combination "top cored""
We refuse to say that now Mr. X is the prime minister and also
the legal adviser; we insist on saying that currently he is the one
and concurrently the other,, We have just about killed "before" and
"after;"" for some reason ""prior"" and "subsequently" have the right
professional flavor ("we plan to see him subsequently to the publicat-
ion of his four booksx"). "More"" is another short word that we cannot
bring ourselves to used In the sentence "the Viet Cong have mounted
increasingly successful ambushes...." it is impossible to decide
what "increasingly" means-each ambush more successful than the
preceding one so that the first ambush of all was some ten degrees
less successful than the tenth, or the last few ambushes more
successful than the earlier ones? Whatever it means, how does it
differ from ""mare""? "Increasingly,""inten?sify," and ""progressively"
have become professional cliches with many of use t'Coordinate"" is
now so common and so loose that there is no longer any hope that
we shall ever again use "concur," ""approve,," or "accept.," and we
have given up the three-letter word "use" for the unctuous ""utilize.""
The holds of these new professional words is so strong and the
appeal of the shorter, older, simpler words is so weak that if anyone
dared to ask a station to answer at once he would certainly find
someone up the line changing his request to "Advise soonest." This
last word is a good example of the deterioration in thought and
language, for I'soonest"" has come to mean "when you get around to it. "
Similarly "speed" and "speed up" have fallen before ""accelerate"
and "hurry" before ""expedite."" The fact that all haste has gone out
of expedition does not bother-:the jargoneers among us anymore than
does the fact that we talk about first. priority objectives and
second priority. objectives,, Probably this most abbusect word of all is
"potential.,,"" We do not ask what an agent can do for us but what his
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved For io-2co ? r_'A_RDP78-00915R001400200001-3
'7
potential isg security leaks are not known or possible but known or
potentials, and the "potential utility of this questionnaire can be
illustrated by. o ott
We are not content with a few old standbys so familiar and so
convenient that to stop using them would mean to stop breathing
("coordinate,"t "expedites," "accelerate")s but in our zeal to make our
writing sound. pretentious and professional we are adopting new
oneso One of these is "viable" and the day is coming close when
none of us will assert that an.economy will live or endure or that
a plan will work but that they are all viableo Another recent
addition is ttcounter-productivegtt and a wayward attempt to exploit
the Sino-Soviet conflict would not fail or rebound or hurt us-it
would be counter-productiveo The latest newcomergused so far only
by our first-class jargoneerss, is "escalated" This is not something
you do to get from the first floor in Woodyts to the second,, but
what owners of weapons systems do when theyraise the anted
A list of some of these examples of jargons with the dead or
dying words in parentheses,, follows.
advise (tell ansreinfor2n)
apprise (tell)
approximately (about)
appraise (grades rate)
accelerate (speed up)
claim (say, assert)
component (part)
concerning (on)
concurrently (also., at the same time)
continuing basis (regularly
coordinate (ap roves, accept
currently (noww)
design (intend)
emerge (come out)
expedite (hurry)
forward (send)
increasingly (more)
indicate ( show)
individual (person)
initiate (start)
intensify (increase)
leadership (leaders)
LAI
limited (small)
launch (begin)
multiple (many)
pose (put)
posture (position)
potential (strengths
prior (before)
possible)
priority (orders importance)
proceed (go)
reflect (shows, say)
requirements (needs)
role (part)
subsequently (after)
substantial (large)
transmits, transmittal
utilize (use)
viable (workableg
(send -ing)
practical)
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved For -Qk&RDP78-00915R001400200001-3
Essays on CIA Writing
VII. More Jargon
This essay is a companion to the preceding essays "Farewell, ?Tell"
or Abandoned Words and the New Jargon." The difference between the
two lists of words is that the words in the earlier list are replacing
older and simpler words (".multiple" for "many" and "advise"t
for ""tell't) whereas the words in this list are used incorrectly or
needlessly, or are over used and, so have become meaningless cliches.
Some words in this list are on their way to replacing simpler words;
others have already replaced words or phrases that we can scarcely
recall. t?dhatever the differences, all the words in the two lists
have one thing in common., they are jargon because they are unnecessary
or pretentious or fuzzy or would-be professionals they are smooth
and rounded and have no cutting edge They are not peculiar to us
but our use of them is peculiar to our work-they have the caution,
sonorousness, ambiguity, or gloss that is stamp and unction to us.
Anyone can write "speed up", we write "accelerate'? (earlier list).
And only we have the excuse of duty to.write "infiltration" (this
list) whether there is any filtering going on or not,,
What shall we do with these words? The best thing is to stop
using them. What shall we do instead? Replace them with something
simpler, something less ambitious, something a little more particular.
This will take thought, and effort, for these words are familiar and
convenient to use We shall feel tongue-tied for the first few times
we try to avoid them. But if we think of what we mean,, of what we
are trying to say,, if we push our thoughts, demand that we know in
detail, in the furthest sense, what we want to say, we shall find
good alternatives. Take "across the board." The metaphor in this
word is dead to almost all of us, and because it is most of us use the
expression vaguely. It is a good rule to drop all figures of
speech as soon as we stop thinking of the figure in them, of the
comparison they originally called to mind. In Mr. Mitchellts sentences
below, "everywhere" will do, but we cannot be sure what word to
use because we cannot be sure what Mr. Mitchell meant-in all jobs? in
all governmental agencies? in all crafts and industries? We do not
know; '?across the board" does not tell use
The evil of these words is that the reader reads them as glibly
as the writer writes them; there is little thought., little appreciation,
by either. When we use many of these words in a memo, dispatch, or
regulation, the reader scarcely understands what he reads without
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved For .RDP78-00915ROO1400200001-3
lq
study and guessing. An example from work different from ours and yet
somewhat similar to some of the work that we produce is this para-
graph from ",The Parameters of Social Movements: A Formal Paradigm,"
which Daniel. Bell wrote as a parody, as a hoax, but which several of
his learned colleages took seriously. Why shouldn't they? They had
been reading such stuff for a long time. "The purpose of this scheme
is to present a to nomic dichotomization which would allow for unilinear
comparisons. In this fashion we could hope to distinguish the relevant
variables which determine the functional specificities of social
movements, Any classificatory scheme is, essentially, an answer
to some implicit other schemed In this instance, it is an attempt
to answer the various hylozoic theories which deny that social categories
can be separable.'?
It is possible to write several equally convincing paragraphs
of our own by a liberal use of "across the board,"" '?cognizant, "
ttframe of reference,," lon a continuing basis,'" implementation, "
I'modus operandi," and almost any other words in the preceding list
or the following one. It would not hurt, of course, to get in a few
uses of ""strateg" aand ""tactics.""
across the ward,. ""We must improve individual competence,
present and prospective, across the board. . . ."(James P. Mitchell,
former secretary of Labor, in the Washington Post, 7 Jebruary 1960).
alley. The original meaning is declaration as if under
oath or affirmation without proof. This is too serious or heavy for
us. We should use "say. "
~utgMaticalls. "Monthly progress reports...are automatically
routed through the CE Section." The word means self acting. Usually..
as here, the context denies the sense of the word; the reports are
routed by schedule or custom or they are routed regularlyo
c os col boration. "The field worked in close collaboration
with. Commo." The field worked with commo, or worked closely with commo.
cognizant. ""We have nothing on record of a derogatory nature re-
garding Source-1 and are cognizant that what information we do possess
is far from complete." We have nothing derogatory on Sourced and
what we have is far from complete.
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved Fo' D Q"DP78-00915R001400200001-3
comparatively. The attempts of the KPD to transform their
huge "organization into an illegal movement were so clumsy that
Hitler found it comparatively easy to ban the party...." Omit
"comparatively." Words of size, difficulty, and so forth involve
comparisons or relations in their meanings; there is always abase
or standard involved. Thus "he is tall" means in comparison with
the rest of use The only time we need "comparatively" is when we
have a particular base in mind and express it,. 'tin comparison to the
efforts of Ebert, Hitler found it easy to banoeee"
aq=oJ?,date,. "The outstanding feature of Soviet internal policies
e.ehas beenooothe further consolidation of Khrushchev's positiono"
Pro-Communists appear to be making steady progress in their program
of consolidating strength in Singapore"s labor movement and in Chinese
schoolso0oo"" (OCI, weekly summary, 1.9 May 1960).: What does "consoli-
date" mean-to make solid? If so, what about further consolidation?
"Consolidation" is as wornout as "coordinate." In the first sentence,
use "strengthening"; in the second use "winning."
cores "Each commune is run by a hard core of Communists....I'
"Manifestly the linkage of Mao and Stalin destroys a core plank in
the original 'Maoist' thesis" (the China Quarterly, October-December 1960).
If "core"" is used accurately, it does not need "hard." In the first
sentence omit "hard"; in the second change "core" to "basic."
counterrroductiueo "Believe any attempt fabricate latter info
for psych exploitation would be counterproductive"" (Dir--21052,
17 January 1961). Would fail or hurt use
ems _alatea The USA does not ""vrant to jump into Laos in any such
obvious manner as would get the Soviet Union back up and force it
to escalate its existing military aid to Pathet Lao rebels" (Wash-
ington Post, 27 March 1961). Use "increase" and omit "existing."
frame of refergUeeLterms of eferne Think of the figure
of speech in "frame of reference." The original meaning of "term"
is limit; terms of reference define the scope of an inquiry, It is
better to avoid these phrases than to use them glibly. It is best
to say what we mean simply.
funt~tna. ""X collates information functionally on a continuing
basis on all facets of activities of...." It is impossible to
decide what the word means here; the word has become almost a meaningless
counter for rounding out a phrase or adding a little .flavor.
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved For R 1 41 1 DP78-00915R001400200001-3
'LI
25X1A2g
,. "Sometime before 16 May 1961 USSR privately assured
government of India that Soviets will support India in border difficulties
with Communist China" This expression,
whether written out or as initials, has become an affectation. Here
"India" is right by itself just as "USSR"" is. It has long been an
accepted trope to use a part for a whole or a whole for a part,
and in "the United States signed the charter of the United Nations
Organization" the meaning, of course, is the United States government.
Is it only time until we get "GOUS"?
implement. Fulfill, execute,, effect, put into actions See
"in terms of,"" below.
i,nfltrateo ""So-and-So infiltrated legally to Canton by train
on 26 November."" ""X was infiltrated into Indonesia by smuggling
methods."" If the figure of speech does not apply (it does not in
the first sentence) or if it is expressed in another word (it is
in the second sentence), we should avoid this word. In the first
sentence, t'So-and So entered Canton legally by train"; in the second,
""X was smuggled into Indonesia." 25X1A2g
instrument. "The Related Missions Directive(RMD) and the Annual
Assessment of Progress Report constitute the basic management in-
struments by which...."Constitute
the basic management instruments'? is a rich,, full-bodied, sonorous
expression but what does it mean? Only that the directive and report
are the means by which etc.
1 .era.7 bilatera1
unilateral. Often unnecessary. If we
mean onesided why not say so? "Unilateral operations'? means our own
operations.
eadershxpv csee the last page.)
locale 'In 1958 the Chinese Communists asked Communist
leader 'sin local latin American countries...."" Omit. ""Focalt' is
almost a pure example of our using words for ritual and not for mean-
ing. We use it when we do not need ito
msx-g1? }ale t'Information of more than marginal valuet' and "only
of marginal interestst' Use "little."
M_a2LMi.z,e4 ""In order to maximize savings and investment for
future growth." "Ten to twenty is the outside maximum." In the first
sentence use ""increase""; in the second use ""limit.""
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved For -RDP78-00915R001400200001-3
modus operandi. This Latin expression is no more professional
than the English. Method of operating, operational methods,
? "The U.S.A. and Cuba should hold each other in mutual
maLtu
esteemm" "Mutual" is unnecessary. See Fowler, Modern English Usage,
po368o
o;vve ;fie '"`T?he increase in over-all industrial production is..."
(OCI, weekly summary, 21 July 2.96O)o unit (as understood) or use
"total, is
"Our estimate of his security ea r se is adequate.
However, he might become compromised through other operations to
which he is linked." If he might become compromised, this is a part
of his security,, Better, "He himself is secure enough but he might,..."
;~?9onnele "Following is personnel assessment of Mir, So-and-Soot'
Omit0
, ,lea; ,,. "It is believed that X would have no trouble in pin-
pointing Agent Z as the source of the information." This word
long ago lost its force from overuse and misuse. Here it is mis-
used for "identify,"
prec ditio,e "Russia.. when the Soviets came to power, had
more favorable preconditions for industrialization than exist in
Asia today," No "prep"
R Use "press" for the verb, Use something else for the
.tagarea noun-weight, force, compulsion.
progressively. "As the time of the outbreak of World War II drew
nears ISH activity was focused progressively on espionage and
sabotage" - - t as meaningless or use
"more and more ?211
5X1 A2g 25X1A2g
rAU~,t o "X met General X upon latter's request be put in
touch with ranking Z official" "like every
Soviet leader, he Suslov was...." OCI, weekly summary,
other r
an 1
28 July 1.960. In the first sentence replace "ranking" with "top";
in the second omit it because it is redundant with "leader."
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
25X1A2g
25X1A2g
=. "Instructions re liquidation." On. (In "Re
1're"" means reference*)
x? t .ve~. Unnecessary, omit its See "comparatively," above?
je, ? ?te d. a "kho e-tung reportedly told an American journalist
last autumn that the average Chinese peasant currently was lucky
to receive 10000 calories in food a day" (OCI, daily digest, 1 May 1961).
This word has become a great convenience but it is seldom needed or
apt. Many statements in a newspaper article or an information report
or an analysis of news are the statements of someone or other, and
unless we qualify every statement we should not qualify only one or
two0 The ""reportedly"" here is likely telling us that the American
journalist.said that Mao made the statement but that there is no
confirmation from Mao. But this goes without saying, doesn't it?
If we drop out ""reportedly"" we get the same meaning. Like much else
in our writing "reportedly" is extra,, it is interference.
represeito "It is of special interest to us because it represents
an indication of the PPC role in performing a FCC function on Taiwan."
""Source-1 has represented one of the most likely channels through
which...."" l'bre often than not misused, as here, because no repre-
sentation is involveds Replace with "is" in the first sentence and
"has been" in the second.
jagct_qr~ "The problems in the agricultural sectoro..were manifold
and serious" (Esau II). Padding. Say, simply, 'win agriculture."
bstant ves "Substantive issues."? "This fusion of operational
substantive information is an expression of our view. s.. ff
"Substantive'? means independent or
77777 spe a tion may or may not be substantive.
Some parts of our agency,, in contrast to the sentence quoted here,,
use "substantive" to mean operational. It is best to throw this
word awayo
in terms of s "In my experience it has been relatively easy to
implement the border agreement in terms of the population of the
areas which changed hands. ."" I'In
terms of his impact on the you g _-- --,-- 25X1A2g
Hsun..owas the most powerful figure in modern Chinese letters"
(the China Quarterly, December 1960). In the first sentence use "on"",
in the second use ""in.""
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved Fo -RDP78-00915R001400200001-3
7, q
3d?-a-vis. "We had several discussions vis-a-vis those subjects.""
""Phoumi also believes that Captain Kong le is having second thoughts
about Kong Lets position vis-a-vis the Communists."" Use "ono""
leadershiD. "Communist influence on X is considerable,, especially
at the leadership level." Especially among the leaders.
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved For 78-00915R001400200001-3
Essays on CIA Writing
VIIIe Coherence in Composition
The arrangement of the words in a sentence,, of the sentences in
a paragraph., and of the paragraphs in a composition-the relation of
the parts to the whole-depends upon the material and the intention
of the writers The intention of the writer includes his idea of the
reader This is. true whether the composition is a poemfi, a novel$ a
play, an essays, an editorial., a report,, or an analysis. There are
some rules or conventions but these allow a good deal of v?ietyo
There is,, for example, the convention that any piece of writing must
have a beginning., a middle., and an end. But the beginning need not
begin with the first thing (in chronological or logical order) but
in the middle Thus the Odysse
does not open with the beginning of
Ulysses? ten years of adventure but with the last years, and the
_LULd does not begin with the start of the Trojan War but with the
end; and the earlier action is taken care of after the two epics have
got under way. In stories,, of course., the writer is interested in
suspense, climax, and denouements But these things are the concerns
not of the story writer alone but of almost all other writers,
creative and otherwisef, in some way or another. They are less the
concern of the expository writer, than of the fiction writer but
they come into all writing. In other words, each writer arranges
his material to produce the effect that he wants. At the same time
the material has something to say about this, for some material is
easy to handle one way but hard another,, even impossible. And there
is more than one ways, arrangements, of securing the same effect.
when our material is little and our intention simple, we may
write.. "Dear Sir: Please send me one ream of your bond paper number
seven," or 'We enclose two copies of our comment on the study you sent
us," or "Here lies John Doe." But when there is more than a little
to say and there are several ways to say it and our intention becomes
complex, we have problems? Shall we say at the outset what we are
doing and why? Or wait until we have done something? Shall we run
through the house fast, one room after the other, and then go over
the house again, slowly and carefully, or shall we walk up to the
front door and take each room as it comes once and for all? You come
home from work tired, and at dinner your wife starts telling you about
the visit of the inspector from the Chesapeake and Potomac Gas
Light Company, who came out to set the thermostat. You are impatient
and want to hear the end first-did he or did he not succeed in
correcting the fault? Your wife, who has had a weary day of another
iffik?YnT AT
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved For DP78-00915 R001400200001-3
24
kind,, without all the quickening and profitable talks and interruptions
that you have had, wants to tell her story in her own way, which is
one step forward and two steps backward. This is a good way to tell
a story, but there are other ways; and readers will not agree on
which is best?
There is no right way to tell such a story or to write an essays
There are some ways more conventional (customary) than others; there
are some ways more startling (less customary) than others; there are
always new ways, or new combinations of old waysp to find. The writer
decides according to his material and his intention just as an
architect designs a house according to the lot, the needs of the
clientp materials, climate., and so forth. Two persons asked to design
a theater for the same lot will produce different plans. So two
several writers on the same subject.
There is, therefore, no one way to write a paper on evaluating
the reports of Source-l9 or on the development of the All Asian
Trade Union Conference, or on the tensions between the CPSU and the
CPC. There are usually several, ways, even a dozen ways. And the
reader or audience is only one part of the problem and probably less
important than the material and our own minds. If someone orders
us to underline all the important names in red so that he can find
his way along the route.. or print the important phrases in capital
letters so that he can tell what is important, or just to put
down the conclusions and omit the argument,9 we may obey and write this
way. But usually there are no such instructions and usually there
is no one reader or even one group of readers to write fors but
several readers or several groups. Shakespeare may have put the
porter scene into r>beth for the sake of the groundlings9 but did
he believe that the gentlemen would not laugh too,, and for whom did
he write the sleepwalking scene?
The emphasis here that the material and our intention decide the
arrangement is like the slogan in architecture that form follows
function. The architect will design a building according to the
job it has to do and the materials he has to build with. The writer
will look for an arrangement inherent in the material or in a com-
bination of the material and his intentions
There are two basic kinds of arrangement-the logical and the
artificial. If we arrange according to logic., the logic may be
chronological, based on time; or geographic, based on space. Or the
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved For P78-00915R001400200001-3
17
logic may be based on size (we move from the small to the large) or
on complexity (we move from the simple to the complex). Or the
logic may be based on association, with one thing or point suggesting
another. Or the logic may be based on importance, and we move from
the less important to the more, These logical ways of arrangement
are the common ones for most of the writing that we doa In the
artificial or fabricated kind of arrangement we impose an arrangement
chosen for some emotional or aesthetic effect upon one or more of
the logical ways. Thus the Iliad and many other epics begin in the
middle of things and then go ahead according to time but with
interruptions to get in the earlier action. The flashback is a part
of this technique. In fiction Conrad's 12rd Jim and much of Faulkner
are examples of a complicated, even tortured,, time schemed In this
kind of writing time is broken up and arranged for the effect of
belief, acceptance, by the readers
The question in our writing of where to put the summary (first
or last or in both places) is a question both of logic and our intent,
the effect we want. Logically, if we begin at the beginning, the
summary belongs last. But we may choose to summarize before we
begin. The normal or most common place is last, but there is no rule.
We may put the summary where we please.
Whether, then, we begin at the beginning or in the middle or
at the end depends upon us, our purpose, and what we have to write
about. The only sure thing is that we must begin somewhere.
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved For R 78-00915R001400200001-3
Essays on CIA Writing
Questions of format are questions of logic and appearance, of
pleasing the eye and the mind without indulging or abusing either.
Paragraphing, for example, should look logical to the eye and be
logical to the mind, and the width of the left-hand and right-hand margins
should be enough to make reading easy, to keep the eye from falling
off the page, and not anything more. Excessive space is a waste of
paper. As soon as we start to beguile our reader with more space
than he needs, he will treat us as an advertisement; he will not read
us but will start grabbing and skipping. Some of our pages present
more whiteness than blackness, more space than typing. This is good
for the paper companies, for the weight of our studies if we judge
them by pounds, and for readers whom we expect not to read but to sample.
It is bad for readers who are expected to read. Here the principle is
the simplest, most sensible, most uncluttered page possible. The
less extra space, the less underlining, the fewer quotation marks, the
fewer indentions, the fewer blocks, the fewer headings, the better.
Unless we engage in billboard writing we are not trying to shock or
surprise the reader; we are trying to invite him. We want to enlist
his mind; we want him to read us attentively and smoothly. We do
not invite him to skip or to give up or to put down. We may help him
to skip or to go ahead and then return; but we do not encourage him
to do these. Here, then, in format, we follow a few basic things that
we are used to, that are easy to understand, and that are pleasing
to the eye.
The rule for headings is the fewer the bettor, the less capitalization
the better, the less underlining the better, and the shorter the better.
When a paper has only one heading and that is the title, only initial
letters need be capitalized--it is conspicuous enough by the setting
and spacing. We may, of course, capitalize all the letters of the
title and we may then underline the title, but these devices are
unnecessary; the reader cannot miss the title because it comes first,
is set off by extra space, and is centered. Excluding the title, we may
need one, two, or three levels of headings. The more complicated the
paper, the more headings, the more aid we try to give the reader in
going and coming, stopping and pondering, taking a breath and going on.
It is a nice question at what point headings hinder instead of helping
the reader. And it is possible to gain the benefits of headings and
at the same time avoid cutting up our paper with them by relying on
transitional expressions at the beginnings and endings of paragraphs.
But some papers lend themselves to headings and are helped by them.
--is-
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved For R DP78-00915R001400200001-3
21
The way, one way, to handle several levels of headings is
explained in A Manual for Writ s of Dissertations by Kate L. Turabian
(the University of Chicago Preas)o This manual is an example of
how someone's personal taste becomes an authority. Although intended
for the writers of dissertations at one university, the manual has
been adopted by other universities and by some non-academic offices,,
A similar thing is true, in printings of the same university's A
Man nj of S'tyle) Miss Turabian recommends that if you have.three
levels of headings,, in addition to the title of the paper, you
capitalize and center the first level (chapter headings, for example),
center the second level. with capitalization of initial letters only,
and underline and paragraph the third level Usually we require only
two levels of headings in addition to the title of the paper. If so,
the second and third of the three levels given above will do. If we
use these (a centered heading with initial letters capitalized for
the first level and an underlined heading set into the paragraph for
the second level), we have the choice of numbering paragraphs. If
we number the paragraphs, each paragraph should have an underlined head-
ing. If we do not numbers then an underlined heading will apply to all
the paragraphs below it until the next underlined heading occurs"
With numbered paragraphs,, whether we also use headings for them, we
may use sub-paragraphs with letters,
Whether we number our paragraphs depends,, as do headings, on
the kind of paper we are writing and the impression we want to make,
Usually numbering alone cannot hurt a paper and may help it. For one
thing numbering the paragraphs helps in referring to the paper or
discussing a .to Numbering also is likely to help prevent the writer
from turning out many short paragraphs; we are more likely to consider
a paragraph traditionally (a topic sentence with some sentences of
development) if we number it, Numberings like indention, emphasizes
the units of a composition. In a fairly long and complicated paper,
numbering the paragraphs and using headings of one or two levels are
likely to help the reader, His eye will skip the headings and the
numbers if he wishes, This means that ordinarily the paragraphs should
be written as though the headings and numbers did not exist, so that
the composition can be read easily and intelligently without them.
They are added and not essential.
There are two main questions about paragraphing, One is whether
to use indented paragraphing or block paragraphing. Indented
paragraphing is commoner, pleasing to the eye., and easy to follow. The
other question is whether to indent the second and succeeding lines of
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved F P78-00915 R001400200001-3
a sub-paragraph to the right of the left-hand margin. The answer
is no, There is no reason for moving sub-paragraphs to the right;
this makes sense for outlines but not for compositions, So, indent
each paragraph five spaces and carry al1 succeeding lines to the
left-hand margin, and indent sub-paragraphs under the first word
of the main paragraphs and carry all succeeding lines to the left-
hand margin, Lists of items are something else. One easy and logical
way to handle them is start the list where the paragraph starts and,
if an item runs to more than one line,, indent the second and succeeding
lines three spaces to the right of the first linen
The use today of the slant line (or slash) instead of the
hyphen has gone so far that a discussion here can hope only to check
the slant, not return the hyphen, Two things make the slant suspicious
on sight, One is that the slant is, riotous where other bad practices
are riotous, in governmental writing, Another is that the slant is too
conspicuous for what it does, Until governmental offices began using
the slant in place of the hyphen, the chief uses were to separate
lines of verse when run into the text, to replace periods in abbreviations
(km/sec), and to separate corrections in proofreading, It is clear
from these conventional uses that the slant meant separation only
and did not imply a relation, This is Fowlers use in his book on
usage; the slant separates sentences used as examples to show that
the sentences are not related. The most frequent uses of the slant,then,
have been in extraordinary writing where the need to be clear and
at the same time to save space is great. There is, therefore, no need
to use the slant in ordinary writing. In fact, since the slant is a
kind of shorthand and needs interpretation, the use of it discourages
reading and encourages skipping. There is no need to write CC/CPSU
for CC of the CPSU unless we are writing a kind of shorthand through-
out, any more than there is any need for writing ""T went to the store
and bought a bottle/milk," Except for the conventional uses there
is nothing the slant can do that the hyphen or ""and"" or some other
short word or two cannot doe WH-Arg for the Argentina unit of the
Western Hemisphere office is as clear as WH/Arg and better looking;
the slant in DD/P is unnecessary; and "and" is clear where the slant
is not in 'the will be held for debriefing/ultimate disposition," The
question of shorthand is important for use When we are pressed for
space and engaged in unconventional writing, anything that will save
space and at the same time be clear is welcome, But in ordinary writ-
ing we should write things out because this is the way the reader reads
them and because this way gives pleasure. Some magazines, as a
point of style, write out numbers for this reason, thus five hundred
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved For ,- -r 4-RDP78-00915R001400200001-3
thousand dollars instead of $500,000m If we choose the slant or
any other device as a short way, along with other devices, there
can be no objection--this is a special kind of writings But in
ordinary writing to use the slant in preference to the hyphen or to
avoid writing out "of the" is not sensibleo
The most common use of the slant is in the expression "and/or"
("A and/or B"), which offers three alternatives (A, B, A and B)
Despite this offer, there are two objections to ito One is that it
is shorthand and is better written out when the three alternatives
are really intended and need being made explicit ("you may take the
candy or the cigar or both," instead of "you may take the candy and/or
cigar") and the other is that it is often unnecessary,, Here it is
as bad as "if, as, and when." Let us choose one of the three in "if,
as, and when"., it will dos Let us choose "and" or "or"a one will
usually dos Thus in the statement that heredity or environment decides
our character we do not rule out that both decide it, and it would
be silly to write "heredity and/or environment."
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved For 9Q.- . -DP78-00915R001400200001-3
Essays on CIA Writing
X. Capitalization
Capitalization is an interesting subject to write about because
the underlying principles are clear yet the confusion is great and
because almost no one feels sure that he knows what he is doing.
Capitalization, even more than the other subjects these essays have
treated, is bound up with taste, authority, and prescription, dealt
with in an earlier essay, for in no other subject is there the great
difference between principle and. practice that there is in capital-
izationo In other words., taste and the authority of the press
(newspapers and magazines), which is a combination of the taste
of the press and the convention which that taste both follows and
creates, have played loose with the basic principles. This is true
also of the practices in CIA, for we exercise our taste in the face of
other authority (or convention) and in the face of logic. Thus
we capitalize "agency" when it refers to CIA and "bureau" when it
refers to the FBI, and thus we capitalize "division" when it refers
to one of the area divisions and are likely to extend this courtesy to
other parts of CIA, including stations abroad. Another and different
example of our taste is our capitalizing of titles when they do not
stand before the name of the persona Thus we almost always write
25X1 A6a "He is the Chief of nstead of ""chief" al-
though we would never write "She is the Clerk Typist of
2&X1A6a There is no written prescription about such capitalizings
but we do them so often that apparently we feel the force of some-
onets will. Perhaps all we feel is the pull of prestige with the
upper case elevating some words up out of the common run of lower-
case nouns.
We are free, of course., to capitalize as we please,, just as
we are free to dress our sentences in all the ,jargon that we please.
But the question is whether our taste is any good, whether we know what
we are doing, and whether we have thought the matter out. Here, as
in jargon or format or coherence, we must try to start with some
principles. The most this essay can do is to propose a simple and
clear set of rules with fidelity to a few principles but in violation
of many of todsyf s practices.
There are two principles to follow in capitalization. One is
the sight of the page. This means the fewer capital letters the
better; the less a page is broken up with capitals or anything else
(slant marks., quotation marks, underlinings, and so on) the better.
The reason is that the page both looks better to the eye and reads better
25X1A6a
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved Fo P78-00915 R001400200001-3
33
to the mind or earn We write in words and we ask our reader to read
wordsm Unless we are writing an advertisement our emphasis is on
words and not on marks or typography. This is the reason why some
experimental writers have given up capitalization and even punctuation,
They want their readers to read., to join them in what they have
written., created. They know there is a special pleasure when the
reader reads the lines or sentences on his own, the way the writers
have intended and with no aids other than the words themselves., Thus
Eo Eo Cummings writes his own name and his verse without capitals
and with the sparest punctuation.,
next to of course god america i
love you land of the pilgrimsw and so forth oh
say can you see by the dawna's.early my
country etis of centuries come and go
The second principle is the basic convention in Englishg we
capitalize only proper nouns and only in the full., exact name. The
trouble comes from defining a proper noun and from handling short
names, alternatives, and substitute names. By adding the first
principle (the fewer capitals the better for the benefit of eye
and ear) to the second (upper case for proper nouns only) we come
out with a narrow definition of a proper noun and a rejection of
short names (unless they are substitutes) and alternatives.
A proper noun is one that distinguishes an individual., a
particular, person or thing from others of the same class; it needs
no limiting modifier. Thus, we capitalize "Jane" because it is
the name of one of Mr. Broown'1 s daughters but we do not capitalize
"girl" or student" even when. these words refer to Jane o We say,,
meaning Jane, "This girl was a student at Michigan State University.
After she graduated from the university., k-he was employed by CIA., She
has worked for the agency since 1960,11 Here we have almost all the
examples we need, When we name the individual, the one singular and
particular person or thing., with her name (Jane) or its name (Michi-
gan State University or CIA), we capitalize the name; when we do not,
we don't----we do not capitalize words that refer to or designate the
individual person or thing, but only the words that nammeo This is
a simple rule, easy to understand and, easy to apply, Why don't we apply
it?
One trouble is the capitalization of common nouns when they are
used as titles and precede the name of a person. Since we capitalize
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved For DP78-00915RO01400200001-3
3'f
the title when it is a part of the name ("Jane's father, Major Brown,,
received a Purple Heart"), we are led into capitalizing it when it
is not ("Jane's father was a Major during the war"), and we capitalize
military ranks? especially, with fervor. But if we think of some less
exalted and less martial titles (janitor,, foreman, policeman, cook.,
shoe-shine boy) and try to imagine our capitalizing them ("Jake,, the
Janitor of our building, and his son Jim,, the Shoe-Shine Boy in Mike's
Barber Shop18 -all capitals are wrong save in Jake, Jim,, and Mike), we
shall get another view of what we are doing with military and other
titles., The rule, of course., is to capitalize a title only when it
precedes the name and thus is a part of the name.
The magazine Tim has added to this problem of titles by writ-
ing titles of all kinds and lengths in front of the name instead of
after,. "Chairman of the State Economic Commission Pc I.po,,t" IlUniver-
sity of ..California Economist Neil Ho Jacoby." and "Child Psychologist
Anna Freud," instead of "Po I-po, the chairman of the State Economic
Commission?" "Neil Ho Jacoby, an economist at the University of
California,,"" and "Anna Freud, a child psychologist." This has
likely caused some of us to capitalize such titles regardless of where
they occur. Some of us have also begun to imitate e and are writ-
ing such sentences as this., "The police twice arrested President of
the Executive Committee and Vice President of the Ad Interim Stand-
ing Committee Malachi Jonesott We are out of breath and indifferent
by the time we find out that-Jones is the person the police arresteds
and there is no reason not to write "The police twice arrested
Malachi Jones, the president.,.,.," save.a kind of smartness or an attempt
to make.the person important,, even portentouso
A minor point is that some of our writers are ignoring the
difference between a title and an appositive by omitting the article
before the appositive and thereby making the appositive a title yet
without capitalizing the title as accompanying the rmn e In "Speaking
at a Moscow disarmament conference on 9 July,, chief Chinese delegate
Mao Tun asserted e.o"" we need a "the" before "chief" and a comma
before and after "Mao Tune" or capitalization of "chief Chinese delegate.,""
The use of the article. and the comma is, of course,, better., This
example serves to make another point., if we go on writing -like this
we shall change the language-we shall kill old conventions and
beget new ones* The question in such killing and begetting is whether
there is a gain., All of this has some bearing also on our rather silly
and lazy habit of using the word "subject," often with a capital, in-
stead of the person's name when we are writing about an informants, an
r
-0-1 X-CAI
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved For R DP78-00915R001400200001-3
-4s
agent,, or a person we have interviewed, and, in doing so, omitting
the article before ttsubject,tt so that we get a childish or half-
literate effects "Subject said.a.I told. Subjecto.o.Subject reported
that.aom"
When we put Mr. Kennedy's title before his name and write
"The two senators who talked with President Kennedy were Senators
Mansfield and Humphrey.'" we are following an old convention and one
that is a part, of the single basic principle in English capitalization-
the use of capital letters for proper nouns, for the names, including
titles,, of individual persons or things. But when we do not put the
title before the name there is no reason for capitalizing "president,"
"senator," or "director" anymore than there is for capitalizing
"superintendent," "teacher," or "undertaker." Thus the upper and
lower cases in the following sentence are correct and according to
the basic rules "The senior senator from Illinois asked the president
whether he had discussed the matter with the director of the Central
Intelligence Agency, President Kennedy said not with the director of
that agency but with Mrs Hoover., the director of the Federal Bureau
of Investigation." The same thing is true of "prime minister."
There is no reason except courtesy, respect, or prestige. Most
newspapers and magazines capitalize "president" when it refers to the
president of the United States, and most CIA writings capitalize
"director" when it refers to the director of CIA, for rea?sons*
apparently, of courtesy, respect, or prestige. But this is a poor
reason because there is no way of telling where to stop. If we are
going to decide capitalization of occupational or vocational labels
according to degree,, where are we going to draw the line? We can
discriminate in favor of the president and the senators of the United
States and against charwomen, janitors, clerks, and even baseball
managers and coaches, but what about the presidents of real-estate
companies, commanders of armies., directors of funeral parlors,, and
pastors of churches? It seems sensible to stick to the basic distinction.
A university dunning an alumnus for a contribution will capitalize the
word "university" throughout the dun when it refers to his university
but never when it refers to any other; and the advertising man will
capitalize whatever words he pleases to impress his product on us. But
there is no reason to impress us with the president of the United
States or the director of the CIA; their offices are impressive enough.
And the courtesy seems uncalled for, since it is misleading and allows
or induces hundreds of other honorable capitals.
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved For DP78-00915R001400200001-3
In addition to the problems of capitalizing titles there are the
problems of alternatives for names, short names, and substitutes for
names. When the word is a true substitute, capitalize it. Thus we
capitalize "Dad" and "Mother" when they take the place of the name
but not otherwise ("Jane asked Dad about vacation plans* she did not
ask her mother"), and we capitalize "Old Hickory" as a substitute for
Andrew Jackson. This last covers nicknames, including "Old Nick" for
the Devil We do not, or should not, capitalize "administration" when
it refers to the Kennedy administration. The word is not a substitute
for President Kennedy or for the Cabinet; it is an alternative,, a
synonym, and is no different from referring to Casey Steng"1 and his
assistants as the coaching staff. The same thing noes for "government"
when it means the government of the United States (the context will tell
us) or of a state or city. The same thing goes also for "our nation's
capital," usually written "our Nation's Capital." The rule here is not
to capitalize alternative or short forms unless the short form amounts
to a substitute. Thus we may capitalize "State"" as a substitute for
Department of State (but not ""department" for Department of State
unless we belong to State and like to pretend there is only one department)
and "Army" as a substitute for the United States Army (in both, State
and Army are the important words in the full name), but not "party" when
referring to a certain Communist party ("Chou is a member of the Communist
Party of China; he has been a member of the party since his student days
in France")o
A knotty problem here is what to do with short forms of ministries
and with the title "minister." The title "minister" is no different
from any other title (colonel, steward, salesman, case officer, typist)
and should not be capitalized save when it is used as a part of the
person's name. When we give the name of the ministry in full and
accurately, we capitalize it. When we do not give it so, we may either
capitalize it or not. We should capitalize it if we feel that the part
we use stands for, substitutes for, the full name; we should not
capitalize it if it is only an alternative. Thus we should write "Mr. X
is an official of the Ministry of Education; he is the vice minister of
education (Education). He used to be the minister of foreign affairs
(Foreign Affairs)." The two ministries are the Ministry of Education and
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. When we use only "education" or
""foreign affairs" we may use the lower case as simply referring to the
work of the office or the upper case as a substitute for the full name.
The phrase "the Minister of Welfare"" is short for "the minister of the
Ministry of Welfaret' and the omission of "Ministry of" probably causes
the capital in'Minister."" Here, then, ""minister of welfare (Welfare)"
is all right.
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915R001400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved For RIMM DP78-00915RO01400200001-3
67
There is another point we should recall here, a point that many of
us have forgotten: we may, whenever we choose, treat the name of a
thine not as a name but as a description. Thus, if Mro X is the chief
(or head or minister)of the Bureau of External Affairs (this is the
formal name) we may say "Mr. X is the chief of the Bureau of External
Affairs" or "Mr. X is the chief of the bureau of external affairso""
We cannot do this with the names of persons, for the only alternative
to the name of a person., outside of a nickname,, is some other words
since names of persons are not descriptions but unique and peculiar,
almost arbitrary. Thus,, for "Robert Lo Brown" we must write "Jane"s
father" or "the major"" or "nor next-door neighbor" or the "winner of a
Purple Heart."" When we know what the correct,, formal name is, we
should use it and capitalize it, but when we do not know or when we
are in doubt, we need not capitalize.
The capitalization of all the letters in surnames in dispatches
is another matter. This is sensible if it is done for the benefit of
clerks in files, but the practice has got out of hand and many writers
or typists today are putting all surnames completely in capital letters,
including the names of CIA employees, other Americans, and foreign
officials like President de Gaulle. This widespread practice suggests
that the complete capitalization of surnames serves no purpose save
when it picks out the surname from several names, as in Chinese names.
Two principles should apply here: how the page looks to the eye and
how it reads to the ear and mind, and whether the capitalization makes
carding easier.
What this essay recommends, then, is that we use capitals only
for names (proper nouns), for clear substitutes for names, and for
titles written as a part of names; that we do not capitalize out of
courtesy, respect, or prestige; and that we do not capitalize
alternatives, references, or synonyms. When in doubt, don't capitalize:
you are likely to be right if you do not capitalize and your page will
look better with as few capitals as possible.
The following is an outline summary of the points for handy
references
1. The principleso
ao The sight of the page and the reading of the page: the
fewer capitals the better. When in doubt, no. This is like the
fewer the better for other things: words, punctuation marks, quotation
marks,, underliningo
bo The basic rule: only proper nouns and usually only in the
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved For RcI i--.CJs-RDP78-00915 R001400200001-3
full., exact named (A proper noun is one that distinguishes an
individual, a particular., person or thing from others of the same classo)
try Alternatives for proper nouns, noo
ao He graduated from the University of Washington. He attended
the university only three yearso
bo An address on Massachusetts Avenue; the avenue wasoooo
co The Communist Party of China; a member for years of the
Chinese party.
3o Short forms of a name, no, unless a substituted
ao He sent a letter to the Department of State. He never
received an answer from State,, o:ra he never received an answer from
the departmento
bo He works for the National Police Agency. He was first
employed by the agency inoooo
co You're in the Army nowo (If you mean the U. So Arroyo)
do There were several hundred representatives at the Fifth
National Congress of the World Federation of Clerical Workers. It
was a crowded congress. Rafael Juston, general secretary of the
federation,. addressed the congress. Many of the delegates had attended
the fourth congress but none the first. At the fifth congress there
was lessoooo
4o Titles or job labels' nog unless used before the person's
nameo
ao The French ambassador asked to see Ambassador Thompson.
The ambassadors met at the .American. embassyo ("American embassy" is
not the name of the embassy.)
bo The manager of the hotel said to the charwoman,. "Now.,
Charwoman Mordaunt,q what...."
ca The coach of the Little League team..oool wrote to Coach
Robinson of the Bethesda Blues,. a Little League teamo
do Please see the chief of Division XooooAre you in Ci k
Brown's division?
eo He wrote to the director of the Nation's Capital Savings
Company. The director ansreredoo.o
fo The advisers informed President Kennedy that.... The
advisers left the president at five o'clock. The administration
then issued a statementoo..
go Here is the information that the chief of the station
requested. Please send a copy on to the 25X1A6a
Stationo
ho The Senate is one part of the Congress of the United States.
Each state has two senators. Jane once called on Senator Douglas, but
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved For P78-00915 R001400200001-3
she missed seeing Mro Dirksen, the other senator from Illinoiso Kira
Sam Rayburn was a member of the House of Represertives; he was a
representative for a long time; he was the speaker of the House?
5o Made-up or unofficial nameso no. If you are in doubt whether
a name is official or not., noo
ao The satellite countries,, the Sino?Soviet bloc.. the
Communist conspiracy, the international Communist movement, the iron
curtain0 (The last may be capitalized for s t'Ung like persanificatim.)
bo The United States government, the government of the United
States,, the Burmese government, the government of India, the Russian goer
ernmento (Before the birth of "GOI" persons said India when they meant
the government of India, a synecdoche of long standingo)
co The United States consulate in Hong Kong,, the American
embassy in Karachi,, the Indian embassy in Washingtono (The official
name of a USA embassy abroad is Embassy of the United States of American
We may choose to consider "American embassy, or "United States embassy"
as a substitute for the official name and capitalize each word, but it
seems more sensible not to,, for once we accept unofficial names for
the official names we lose hold on what a name is-it is formal, official
or nothing-and we do not bother to learn and use the official name)
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved For -RDP78-00915R001400200001-3
Essays on CIA English
XI* The Passive Voice
Next to jargon the worst aspect of CIA writing is the passive
voice, When we use the passive voice needlessly we are, indeed, writing
jargon since this voice is usually longer than the active and usually
indirect, often cautious, and sometimes ambiguouso We seldom need it but
we often use it because it assures and protects use Like "tends" ("the
African National Congress tends to be Communistic") the passive voice
gives and it takes away-, it says whatever the writer decides, after the
fact, he intended to sayo There is a way outo "It is believed that
Khrushchev will be succeeded by Brezhnevo"" Who believes this? If the
sentence is to make sense, all, persone,or.virtual.ly all persons, believe
this, But if this is so, why not say it? Well, we can be caught up on
thato But if not all persons, then who? Well, some experts on African
Who are they? Wells, uho Finally, why don8t you say ou believe it? You
do believe it, don"t you? Y-a-e-"s, but I can't, you know, insert myself;
I can't appear, can I? Why not? You wrote it. So it goes-, And not one
passive voice in that short sentence but two* The first one comes from
the caution that is one of the parents of jargons The second one comes
from the other parent, indolence, ore perhaps, like the first, from a
vague feeling that ""K will be succeeded by B"" is less of an assertion
than that ""B will succeed K,"" a feeling that we didn't gaite say its
There was no passive voice in Old English and Old English did not
need it since Old English could say ""this pleases me" or "I please myself
(instead of "I am pleased")o One historian of the English language has
said: "It was long before the speaker was able to imagine an action
without an objects" (The object in the active-voice sentence becomes the
subject in the passive-voice sentence,, and the subject of the active-voice
sentence is suppressed or tied on with a "by"": "Khrushchev denounced
Albania during the 22nd CPSU Congress;"" t'Albania was denounced during the
22nd CPSU Congress (by Khrushchev)o"") The passive voice developed later
by means of compounds (two or more verbs-one of them the intended verb
and the other, an ,auxiliary, ""become" or ""to be"")o? "the book became written"
turned into "the book was wrs?itten," and ""the house was building""': (from "the
house was on building," f1the house was a-building") into ""the house was
being built," None of this tells us whether or when to use the passive
voice except to suggest that the development of the passive voice was a
move towards complexity. Today using the passive voice is largely a
question of style-of taste and intento For the most part the passive voice
is long, roundabout, hard to get hold of, and even ambiguous-, For uses
of courtesy, caution, and indirection it is naturals Like much jargon,
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved For R-1--- - (Ln,RnP78-00915R001400200001-3
I"/
the passive voice sounds big,, it sounds professional, it costs more,
and it allows several ways out; it is safer than the active voiced But
it is no voice for us if we wish to write simply,, clearly., and directly.
There are some good or acceptable or unavoidable uses. One of these
is when the actor (doer, effecter) is unknown ("that house was built in
1907") or when the actor is impersonal (-1rdsooewhich have been divested
of their proper signification"-have been divested by history). Another
is when the actor is unimportant or we prefer the emphasis on the action
or result (the object in the active-voice sentence), not on the actors
The following three sentences illustrate this use: "Widespread
malfeasance among local supervisors in China is disclosed in documents
brought out by a defector" (contrast., A detector brought out documents
that discloseeooo); "Most American furniture is made in Grand Rapids,
Michigan"; and "The deciding ballot was cast by the smallest state-
Rhode Islandott A third acceptable use is when the actor is general or
diffusedo In the sentence "At the same time, the Chinese have done nothing
that can be considered a calculated step to aggravate tensions with
Moscowstt we may accept "that can be considered a calculated step" as being
generally true ("that can be considered a calculated step by anyone") or
prefer the active voice ("that we can consider a calculated step"); and
in "Perhaps never before in peacetime has one of our Array divisions
attracted as much attention as has been focused in recent weeks upon the
32nd Infantry Division," the passive voice may be as pleasant as the
active-voice alternative,, "as much attention as the public has focusedot4,
The other uses of the passive voice are questionable or bade The
purpose of one of these uses is to avoid the appearance of egotism'. the
actor hides out of effacement or courtesy. (This often comes close to
ambiguity or avoiding responsibility.) An example is "it was noted
earlier," where the writer avoids "I or we) noted earlier." Another
questionable or bad use occurs when the writer does not quite know who
the actor is and passes this ambiguity on to the reader. When we read
the sentence "Whatever the Soviet intent may have been, the developments
of 21-2.3 October were probably unanticipated," we ask unanticipated by
whom? The third bad use seems to be an avoidance of responsibility or
a passion for indirection. The criticisms of the sentence ttIt should be
emphasized that the difference is only one of method" are two. First,
the writer ought to state who should do the emphasizing. Second, the
?iter ought not to waste words saying the difference should be emphasized
but should make the emphasis. A similar expression is "X (a person or a
possibility) should not be underestimated." This one is a cliche., a
filler,, a piece of padding that some of our writers use regularly in
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved Forte r"-00915 R001400200001-3
LFI.
their writing. Usually there is no danger of anyone's underestimating
Ko The writer knows this but he shies away from saying either "I
believe Communist China will invade Matsu"" or "I do not believe Communist
China will invade Matsu9't and so writes "The possibility of Communist
China's invading Matsu should not be underestimatedo"" Another example
is "It is in this context that Khrushchev's ironic remark at the end of
the congress must be viewedo"" Must be viewed b whom? Let us say "It is
in this context that I (or we or you the reader must view K's ironic
remark."" And another example of this avoidance of responsibility or
passion for indirection is the sentence "We feel that although no
immediate conclusions can be drawnoo00" The writer has written "we feel""
instead of "it is felto" Good0 But let him write also "although we
cannot draw any conclusions.""
A review of these uses of the passive voice suggests that we should
never use it unless we do not know who the actor is or unless we consciously
prefer it as rhetoric, for its effect. Nine times out of ten we use the
passive voice out of indolence or caution; we are either too lazy to find
the active-voice phrase or we are too cautious to risk ito There is no
good reason to write "It is requested" to a field station or the FBI instead
of ""We (the division or CIA)requesto"". The passive voice is infectious and
it breaks out from an occasional use for politeness, impersonality, or
caution and infects sentences that need to be only clear, direct, and
straightforwardo It is one of the cachets of bureaucracy, as the letter
from the Veterans Administration, quoted in the fourth essay, shows. It is
certainly co in CIA,, And since it is both common and often unwitting
it will take/ac s to get rid of it: recognition and will power.
Writing in the active voice will produce clarity, directness, and
sharpness. We have used the passive voice so often that we may feel un-
comfortable with the clarity, directness, and sharpness of the active
voice. There is no refuge with the active voices The emperor is naked
and everyone sees that he is naked. This is the way the sculptor wants
the human body. This is the way the writer of exposition should want his
prose.
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved For Rijop"m DP78-00915R001400200001-3
Essays on CIA Writing
XII. Writings Editing, and Hack Writing
Some of the trouble with CIA writing comes from a confusion of
writing and editing and from what amounts to group writing. There is
too much interference in our writing--there is too much rewriting by
others and not enough by the original writers. The result is colorless,,
hack writing; no one is responsible. We should not have group writing.
There are two sinners here. One,, the original writer who does not care what
anyone else does with his paper and takes little pride in it; the other,
the person who rewrites ito Analyst A will write a study that Boss B
(or Editor E) will edit so much that it ends up something that k cannot
feel responsible for or take pride in; on the other hand, B is not
responsible since all he has done is to revise A. Or Boss B will give Ats
study to three or four other analysts or editors or some combination of
the two and then take a final turn at it himself. The production is a
team product in form and content. It is a compromise or a potpourri or
both. The team is responsible. This kind of writing works-it gets done..
it is correct in facts and in grammar, it is cautious$ it diffuses responsi-
bility,, it brings down no blamed But it has no distinction as writing and
it gives no one who has taken part in it any pleasure in the writing.
It is the lack of enjoyment in writing that is the worst aspect
of hack writing. Enjoyment and responsibility go togetherg and if we
prepare data for someone else to write up or suffer the data we have
written up to be rewritten by someone else, we cannot feel either enjoy
ment or responsibility. Some editing and some rewriting are usually
necessary but we commit more of each than we need to,, and in the wrong
ways because we do not take writing seriously enough.
The job most of us have to do as writers calls for three things:
imagination or ideas, facts or data, usually requiring some search,, and
writing. For the most part we are not divided into researchers and writers;
for the most part the same person does both jobso Thus the case officer
on the desk looks up the data, finds out the answers, and writes the
cable, memo,, or dispatch (file traces done by persons specializing in
them may be an exception); and thus the analyst keeps up with a certain
subject and from time to time writes an analysis. Of the three things the
ideas or insights are the most important and go hand. in hand with the
writing9 The facts,0 though the largest element,, are the least important-
they are there for anyone to dig up, see reads stated By the Titing, by the
way the insights and facts are presented, or, by the way the imagination
pre sen.tsthe facts., the facts will have a meaning,, make an impact. Over
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915R001400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved For Re!e.ag.; U1A-RDP78-00915 R001400200001-3
and over again in our studies there is a chronological statement of
what occured, sometimes with a summmary, also chronologically arranged.,
that is long enough to be a study in itselfo This does not do much for
use, The writer did not do much himself but look up the factso He was
unable to enlist his own imagination and so failed to enlist ourso
Sometimes facts enough or are all that we can dos but just as often
and likely more often there is something else to do if it amounts only
to the way we write up9 present, arrange the facts. In some way we
must impress ourselves on the facts, we must see the facts in some kind
of light and then express this light. We can scarcely do this unless
we are encouraged to do ito And we cannot be encouraged if the editing
and rewriting are improperly handledo
Editing and rewriting are not the sameo The editor brings the
paper into agreement with routine or mechanical things--spelling,
punctuation, paragraphing, the conventions of the office or agency
concernedo He enforces the style manual of the agencyo (What style
manual?) The less of this he does the better, and waywardness in these
things-is better than the loss of flavor or originality. The editor
also calls the writerls attention to any gaps, mistaken interpretations,
and questionable judgments, and he suggests whatever improvements he
pleasesc (.Some editors may not be capable of any of theseq) But he returns
the paper to the writer for the writer to revise.
The rewriter goes beyond editingo He takes the paper of another
as raw material or defective material and rewrites it in his own way.
He fills. in the gaps, corrects the interpretations, changes the judgments,
and brushes up the diction, sentence structure, and grammar. If, then,
the rewriter submits the rewritten paper to the original writer, there
isnpt much the original. writer can do but accept ito The alternative of
rewriting the rewritten paper is too much for him. This way of handling
the job of getting a paper out is the wrong way for two reasons.' it
takes the pleasure out of writing and it takes the voice out of the paper--
such a paper speaks with no voice at all or with several voices; it
has no timbre of its owno
(This essay does not deal with the editing or rewriting done by
supervisors or others who are not capable of either. Some of this goes
on, and it is disheartening to a writer to have a supervisor who knows
less than he does about the subject and who can write less well make
changes to assert his prerogative, to prove that he is a supervisor.
This occurs in cables, dispatches, memos, analyses, and studies. It is
bade But it is less common than, and not as bad & so the indifference of
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved For RDP78-00915R001400200001-3
ti
supervisors to the bad writing that they pass, and this is where the
emphasis of these essays lieso)
The insistence here that papers needing rewriting go back to the
original writer for the rewriting may meet the argument that some writers
are not capable of writing a satisfactory paper in the first place and
not capable,, therefore,, of rewriting an unsatisfactory oneo This is trued
But the cure is not to rewrite the unsatisfactory paper of these writers
but to get better writerso If a writer is not capable of improvement,,
it is wasteful to keep on letting him write and keep on rewriting him; it
is also joylesso If a writer is capable of improvement, he will improve
more by doing his own rewriting than by having someone else do ito He
will also get some pleasure out of his wcrko
Perhaps this is the place to make the point,, implicit in the other
essays, that taking the pleasure out of writing-and this kind of
editing and rewriting does more than that; it induces us to write in
the same way and to stock everything we write with the same illiteracies,,
jargon, and. professional cliches-is not good for us either as an agency
or personso One of the evils of bureaucracy is just this group-think,
group-write businesso It is true that we have a problemo A study meant
for outside use cannot be only Mro A the writerte study; it must come
from Mro A!s office and the agencyo But, on the other hand, this does
not mean that Mro A's study must read as though it had been written by a
machine which had rolled out all of Mro A's ideas and mannerisms and at
every other stroke had hit the levers ttviable," "counterproductive,tt
ttconsolidateg" "Subject," ttre,," "vis-a-vis,tt "strategical," "it is
believed," and ttreportedlyott We live in houses of different designs and
yet they are still houses,, not the creation of an eccentric architect
and likely to collapse at any moment,, and none of us speaks well of the
identical houses, row after row,, that stand like cutouts on some of the
nearby landscaped We need not write such identical prose or, if we
do,, speak well of i.to
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved For 111 ODP78-00915R001400200001-3
Essays on CIA Writing
XIIIa A Miscellaney of Grammar and Style
This essay takes up some miscellaneous points that bother some of
our writers: Some of the points appear in the earlier essays but appear
here in another context; other points are new. All of the points are
fairly rudimentary and the treatment here is not novel or exceptional
but is intended to refresh those writers who want to be aware of what
they are doing: In many of the points there is the kind of jargon that
the earlier essays have discussed: Jargon,., in one form or another, is
the worst trait in our writing: In some of the points there is simply
a refusal to realize ghat words say: we write nonsense but do not see
that we are doing soo The points add up to this., we need to look at
everything in our writing-word., masks,, grammar-with a constantly
clear eye but at words most of all The arrangement is alphabetical.,
subjects first and then words.
Conjunctive adverb; Position: not first. The following
sentences are examples of the better placeo
ac Five Japanese attended the meeting: There were , two or
three Burmese present:
b. The Orioles have won more games at home than they have lost.
They haves moreoverq done well on the road:
co The Korean Communist party., nevertheless., sided with China at
the Moscow conference.
-Qonnecting ex cessions. Get rid of them or make them simples
ao "Note that.,t' "it should be noted.," "it must be stated:"
(1) "Despite these points of friction., it must be emphatically
stated at the outset that the Sino-Soviet relationship continues to be
marked byooso" (Problems of Communism., March April 1961). Omit the
entire expression or say "we emphasize thato.os"
bo "Should not be discounted,." "should not be underrated:"
(1) "oo.the likelihood that X is linked to the current Sino-
Soviet dispute should not be discounted." Better to say "X is likely
linked to" or "X may be linkeds"
(2) "As of 26 Dec? 1959, the possibility of such a meeting
having taken place could not be discounted on the basis of information
available in Bangkok or HK press circles" Re- 25X1 A2g
written'. By 26 Dec 59 there was no information to confirm or deny the
meetings
co s'In respect top" "in reference too" Use "on" ("X did not
commit himself on the Sino-Soviet dispute").
_ q6--
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved For I e4pas -:-- MA-RDP78-00915 R001400200001-3
41 ~
do "As of." Use "by"" or some other single word,
e. "According to the available information."" This goes without
saying. Cf "She is the most beautiful woman in the world, according to
the available information,"
f. "tAs far as X is concerned,"" We can usually shorten this to 'tin"
or "on" or in some other wayo
(1) "Albania, as far as her relations with the USSR are con-
cerned, will.00."" Revised, Albania, in her relations with the USSR,
willoooo
(2) "As far as per-diem vouchers are concerned, the instruction
requires that,..."" Revised-. the instruction on per-diem vouchers requires
hens with adverbs and participles, When the adverb and participle
come after the noun they modify, they do not need a hyphen (a book
strikingly designed; an employee well trained), When they come before
the noun the only logical test is whether they modify the noun together,
become, in effect, a unit, or the participle modifies the noun and the
adverb modifies the participle. The trouble with this test is that
we sometimes feel two words as a unit when they may not be so in sense.
The trouble does not occur with adverbs ending in ""lyo" The examples be-
low are correct, are acceptable,
ao The queen was beautifully dressed, the most beautifully dressed
woman of all the women at the receptiono
b. An exhaustively delayed game; a softly chanted song,
co A slow-moving wagon; a well-tanned face; an ill-timed remark;
the below-quoted examples. (In each of these we may omit the hyphen with
the argument that the adverb and participle are not, a unit.)
Initials for nameso Example: DPIK for Democratic Party of Iraqi
Kurdistan. Use the full name or use a short form of the full named Use
the initials only when you refer to the organization frequently and, then
put in the full name every page or so. It is unnecessary, though fixed
in CIA, to follow the first use of the full name with the initials in
a parenthesis. If the full name alone occurs in the first sentence and
the initials in the second or third, any intelligent reader will solve
the initials, Sometimes we put the initials after the full. name and then
do not use either name or initials again.
Noun on noun, A new development (or, rather, a continuing development)
in English, common inside and outside of CIA, is the use of a noun to
modify a noun("action program") where the earlier way was to place the
modifying noun after the modified noun by the use of "of" ("program of
action")o There is nothing wrong here but some of the expressions are
heavy, and the earlier way sometimes seems better-the more important
noun comes first and the "of" phrase reads easily. Perhaps the chief
question here is euphony--how the phrase sounds to use The following
examples show the new trend and, in parenthesis, an alternative,
ao A sermon series (a series of sermons).
b. The coexistence policy (the policy of coexistence),
co Their main aid effort (their main effort in aid) o
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
do Moscow's detente approach (Moscow's approach for a detente)o
ea Envelopment tactics (tactics of envelopment)o
f. Report of the peril points and pa?bab]e moves in the cold war
(report of the points of peril and....).
go Significance of Soviet weapons developments (significance of the
developments in Soviet weapons).
Paraphrase, copying and ack:iowledging, plagiarismo
a. Ordinarily it is plagiarism if we copy more than a few words in
succession from another writer without acknowledgement. If we do not
want to quote, then we must paraphrase and also acknowledgeo
ba 'Ordinarily we must acknowledge that we are using someone else's
thoughts, writing. We may do this by quoting or by attribution with
paraphrase. If we have made the thought of another person our thought and
we do not want to bring him into our paper by quotation or paraphrases,
then we must express the thought in our own words, here we must go further
than paraphrasing the other writer.
ca When we are restating what someone else has said,, using paraphrase
in five or more sentences, we may state in our first sentence what we are
doing and let this sentence control the rest of the paragraph.
Quotation marks-when to quote a passage and when noto
a. Do not quote two or three words of no extraordinary significance
that can just as well stand without quotation marks. Iamplefl The court
found X's actions within the limits of "allowable criticism.." The writer
of this sentence may argue that the court used the words "allowable criticism"
and that he wants the exact words. The answer is that the reader will take
those two words as the court's words and does not need the quotation
marks to do soo
bc, To quote a word to question it is a recognized use of quotation
marks, but a little of this goes a long way and some CIA papers are
disfigured by the device. Two rules to follow are these: when you have
quoted the word once, do not quote it again--the reader will understand
that the question still applies; and do not quote it at all when the
context makes it clear that you are using the word in someone else's
meaning. This second rule applies to most of the Communist words and
phrases that occur in our papers: proletarian internationalism,
revisionism, people's democracy, national liberationo
co As a rule do not quote a long passage (three sentences or more)
to illustrate a point. The reader will not read the passage (because
it is our job to explain things and not to give the reader the undigested
lumps) and,, if he does,, he may not agree that the passage illustrates
what we say it does. Instead of quoting, paraphrase the passage, combine
quoting and paraphrasing.
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
49
25X1A2g
da In speech ("and I quote") this is a part of not letting things
alone; it is pretentious; it is unnecessary. We should show that we are
quoting by inflection and pause.
eo Rely upon the context instead of upon quotation marks,
Subiects and titles4
ao Confusion: we try to put the thesis or a summary of the whole
paper into the subject,, the title,, and we confuse the subject with what
we do to ito
bo This is far from the old idea of a subject or title as a noun
with a modifier or two (The Old Curiosity Shop, Hamlet., The Canterbury
Tales,, A Farewell to Arms, The Sound and the Fury, The Village Blacksmith,,
Henry Esmond)o Today in CIA "A Farewell to Arms" would be "An account of
a young American ambulance driver in the first world war who fe11' in love
with an English girl and lost her when she died in childbirtho"
c, Exmpleso
(1) "Comments on JCP document in Moscow Meeting0"" The
subject is not our comments; the subject is the JCP documents What we
do is to comment on ito Omit "comments ono""
(2) "Transmission of a Request from SMOTH0"" We are trans-,
mitting the requesto The subject is the requests Omit "transmission ofo""
(3) "Attitudes of Employees of
the Foreign Languages Press Peki Toward Conditions in China and
the November 1960 Moscow Declarations"" Revised: Attitudes in the
Foreign Languages Press,, Peking,,
(4) "The Anti-Military Apparat of the Nambo Regional Committee
of the Lao Dong Party in South Vietnams"" Revised: An Anti-Military
Apparat in South Vietnam, or,, The Lao Dong Party's Anti-Military Apparat
in South Vietnams
do Titles within sub jectso A title that is a part of a subject
must appear as a title or be changed to merge with the rest of the subject;
it cannot logically do botho In the following sentences the first two
are correct; the third is incorrecto
(1) The analyst gave a talk on the defense of Matsu and Quemoy.
(2) The analyst gave a talk "The Defense of Matsu and Quemoy""
(or,, a talk entitled "The Defense of Matsu and Quemoy")o
(3) The analyst gave a talk on "The Defense of Matsu and Quemoy."
tvand so forth"t after ""eogo"" In ""eogof, As, B, C,, etc."' the "etco""
contradicts the "leg."" (which means "for example") just as it contradicts
""such;?as"" in another exammplee Omit ""etco"" When you give an example be
content to give a few and stop.
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
fi4i.
25X1A2g
""co do"" The questionable., or even silly., use of ""could"
exampled below occurs often in articles on sports., probably because
sports writers have got into the habit of hedging their predictions
(Teats.A will win tomorrow if it scores more runs than Team B); but
it occurs elsewhere tooo The point against "could" in these sentences is
this: anything could happen; the question is what.will happen or will
likely happens and, it is the job of the sports writer and other experts
to tell use Will Mro Nugent wind up in the pro ranks or won't he? (He
eo d do any of a number of thingo) Will the Soviet office be given
increased importance or will it not`? If we don't want to say one way
or another, we should use ""may"" or let the question alp ; we should
not put on the seer's mantle and then refuse to seeraayo The Hodges
statement is the best ex mpleo What kind of a business expert is
this who says the economy could start upward? Of course it couldo And,
it could start downward and it could stay put.
ac ""It is entirely possible that the imaginative. disciple of wide
open football, Tom Nugent of Maryland 7 could wind up in the pro ranks
after this seasono"" (Washington Post, 2 Dee 1960)
bo ""While the office of head of the Soviet state has heretofore
been little more than a ceremonial sinecure,, it could be given increased
importance under the direction of an energetic party careerist." (OCI,
weekly summar?y,, 2 June 1960)
co "Secretary of Commerce Luther Ho Hodges said today 'I think
we've hit the bottom' of the recession, and the economy could start to
move upwardo"" (NY Times., 13 March 1961)
""lo"" First., there must be two terms and only two and the terms
must be parallel; second., do not use I'latter"" when you can state the
second term in a word or twoo
ao "Western public opinion does not clearly understand the im-
portance of Yugoslav revisionismo The latter is preparing the ideological
base forooco" Only one term since ""western
public opinion'? is not parallel with ""Yugoslav revisionism.," Here instead
of "the Latter" we must repeat ""Yugoslav revisionism" or say "this
revisionism."
be "The Chinese communists as, pointed Liu Shao-ch'i and Chou En- lai9
the latter wasomuo"" This is correct but better to use ""Chou instead of
"the latter. ""
"" ?" When the items that follow ""Like"" are the only examples,
items., or almost the only ones,, "like" is inepto
ao ""Revolution has succeeded, even when faced by stronger forces.,,
only in countries like China, Vietnam,, and Cuba., where the peasants
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
.61
25X1A2g
had been mobilized by the Partyt omit
"in countries like" and write "o y n na.d..
'I=*" The trouble with "may" in the sentences below is a word
that precedes it: "suspects.," "signs," "believed." With those three
words "may" is redundant; they have already expressed doubt. So the
sentences should read that Sarit suspects some of his underlings are plot-
ting again., that there are signs the economy will begin, and that it
is believed (here is the passive voice, of course) he will retiree If
we want to use "may" then we must omit other words of doubt and say
simply that once the agency is installed in its new quarters Mro Dulles
may retired
a. "Sarit apparently suspects that some of his underlings in the
ruling military group may be plotting again." (OCI, weekly summary,
30 June 1960)
be "ooothere are signs the U.So economy may begin shaking off
the recession next month..." (Secretary of Labor Arthur Goldberg in the
Washington Post, 9 March 1961)
co "It is believed that once the agency is installed in the new
quarters he may retired" (NY Times, 5 June 1961)
(1tlargest of any." This is common but nonsensical. The sensible
phrases are "largest of all" ("the largest apple of all the apples in the.
orchard" hand "better than any other." The "other" must be expressed
since a thing cannot be better than itself.
' spect ve o" There must be two or more pairs. (See Fowler.,
Pa 5000
ad "The debriefing of X occurred on 28 December 1954 and 20
January 1955 respectively." Incorrect; omit "respectively."
be "The debriefing of X and. Y occurred on 28 December and 29
December, respectively." Correct; X on 28 December and Y on 29 December.
"sue I_As*" This phrase means examples are to follow (11X speaks
all kinds of Chinese dialects, such as Cantonese and Fukienese") but it
occurs often where "including" is called for or where the examples are
not examples but the only items.
a. speeches were translated simultaneously into thirteen
languages such as English, Russian, Spanish, French, German, Chinese,
Polish, Rumanian., Arabic and Indonesian" (Amcongen Madras Desp No* 202,
15 Dec 60)o Use "including.l'
be "JCP active in many front groups and has achieved dominant
influence in such organization as Gensuikyo, Zengakuren, Japan-Soviet
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
Society.o.etco" (Amemb Tokyo Tel No. 1654, 8 December 1961).
"Such as" implies that the JCP is dominant in organizations other than
those named, and names the ones it does as exatnpleso But are not the
ones named either all the organizations or the main ones? The "etco,"
furthermore, destroys the "such as" (if we give examples,; we do not
name all but a few examples; to conclude with "etco" is to violate what
we started out to do--give examples)o Better to write "dominant
influence in A, B, C. and Do" We may add "and some other organizations."
"vt `t" and ch."" The only distinction between these two relative
pronouns s to use "that" with restrictive clauses and ""which't with non-
restrictive. Commonly the two words are interchangeableo (See Fowler,
who uses "defining relative clause" for "restrictive relative clause?"
page 635.)
""ou,co" This word, belonging to the subjunctive mood, is
conditional; there is an ""if" clause involved though this clause is
usually understood rather. than expressedo But we use "would" when."*
do not mean condition, when our meaning is indicative. To test this,
express the "if" clause that this use of "would" usually suppresses. In
the first sentencep below, Senator Humphrey is saying "I would not want
to receive the voteo..if anyone should bring up this issue" but he means
that he does not want to receive such votes whether anyone brings up the
issue or not. His use of the conditional is his way of speaking, an
indirect, a courteous wayo And in the second sentence Senator Kennedy
means that it is appropriate,, not that it would be appropriate if someone
should ask himo In the third sentence OCI will welcomes comment but
modestly says she would welcome it if she should be allowed to express
her desireso In the fourth sentence there is no sense at all to "would
appear"-a, good chance either appears or it does not; and the "may define"
after ""appear"" is sillyo The correct sentence is "There appears to be a
good chance that Qasim will define...." These uses of "would"" result
from some feeling of modesty or courtesy or some fear of risk, of asserting
oneself (caution again). They do not belong in simple, straightforward
writing.
a. "I would not want to receive the vote of any American because
my opponent or opponents worship in a particular church whatever that church
may be.t' (NY Times, 22 April 1960, Senator Hubert Ho Humphrey)
bo "I have decided, in view of current press reports, that it would
be appropriate to speak with you today about what has widely been called
the 'religious issuer in American pol.iticso"" (Dittoo Senator John F.
Kennedy)
co "The Sino--Soviet Studies Group would welcome comment on this
paperer"" (OCI, "Mao Tse-tung and Historical Materialism," 10 April 1961,
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved For Release CIA, RDP78-00915R001400200001-3
93
preface)
do "There would appear to be a good chance that Qasim may so
define the conditions of party activity as to restrict it considerably""
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
Essays on CIA Writing
XIV. A Program for Improvement
The trouble with CIA writing is much the same trouble that there
is with other governmental writing and with writing generally in the
United States,, All over the United States parents,, graduate schools,,
and business houses complain about the inferior writing of high-school
and college students,, CIA.ts problem is unique only in the relation of
our profession to our writing but this relation is important., for it
lends itself to bad writing and if we do not write well we risk losing
valuable information and wasting dangerous efforts CIA writing is wordy
and it is full of jargons, of would.-be professional languages, of cliches;
it is even opaque, It is not clear,, simple,, and terse. Grammatical
correctness,, punctuation., and capitalization are of less concern, although
when we put all of these things together we got writing that has no
distinction at all save a few bad ones
There are many -ways to improve CIA writing but any thoroughgoing
way must be based upon two premises,, One is that there will be no
sizable and lasting improvement until supervisors refuse to accept bad
writing,, This is the single most significant fact about improving CIA
writing: supervisors accept bad writing so often that they encourage
writers to do again what they have done badly before It is only in a few
things,, especially those written for the directorTs office, that care.,
exceptional care, is given to the writing,, Some supervisors and some
writers assert that there is nothing one can do about CIA writing because
of the squeeze on GIP, writer-so There is some squeezing, of course,,, but.,
with the exception of a cable now and then that must be written without
almost any rethinking or rewriting,, most CIA writing has the time for some
revisions And there is :less speed necessary in DDS, than in either DDI or
DDP and yet DDS writing is likely the wor?st of all,, The instructions
DDS issues give the reader the impression that DDS believes that it is not
responsible for the thick paste of jargon, cliches,, and business cant
because the instructions stay inside CIA and fall into the category of
business matters,, which fall outside the practices of good English. The
supervisors in D.DS,, therefore, have a harder job to do than those in
DDI and DDP to educate both themselves and others,, Despite this the
problems in DDS are the same in kind as the problems in DDI and DDP, and
if we are going to do something about improving CIA writing we should
improve it throughout the agency., make everyone aware of it,, and the
supervisors first of all, A writer may know that he is not writing well
but, if his supervisor accepts that he has written, he will not make
himself take the pains to write better0 Some supervisors know good
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved For 'gill 78-00915R001400200001-3
56
writing when they see it and others do note If we encourage those
who do to insist on good writing, and if we encourage those who do not
to find out what good writing is, we shall take a long step forward.
The second premise is that good writing requires constant attention.
Almost all of us recognize this. It is easy to become slipshod. It
is easy to forget what we learned in high school or colleges It is
easy to attribute our careless writing to emergencies and to the kind
of work we doe And yet,, on the other hand, the occasional course,
lecture, or workshop is not going to accomplish much. These are
shots in the arm that will jerk the student into attention for a
few weeks or a few months,, but when the stimulant wears off or the
student returns to supervisors who do not enforce the same standards,
the student will fall back into his old ways. We know from the accounts
of professional writers that writing is often painful. If these men
who earn their living by writing find writing laborious, we can
scarcely expect to turn out a well-written dispatch, directive, or study
without some pains ourselves. This second premise says that our
painstaking must occur over and over again, that It is not a matteronly of
a seminar,, an essay, or a lecture.
If we accept these premises, what do we do next? It seems to the
writer that we have our choice between something thoroughgoing and
something piecemeal. The importance of writing to our job of gathering,
reporting, and analyzing intelligence information justifies a thoroughgoing
effort. So too does the importance of writing to pride in our work. The
following is a plan for such an effort. it a person in the inspector
general's office or the director's office in charge. Make this person
responsible for the inspiration and guidance throughout the agency. Put
a similar person in each of the three main parts of the agencyo Make each
of these persons responsible under his deputy director for the writing in
his part of the agency and responsible under the person in the central office
for carrying out the principles good for all three parts. Request these
three persons each to prepare a manual of style for his part and then let
the four decide whether to put out separate manuals or just one. (There
is much to say about a manual of style and what it should try to accomplisho)
Expect OTR to do much as it is now doing in developing and giving courses
at the request of the different parts of the agency,, and expect it to
help in writing any manual of style; and strengthen OTR by the help of the
four personae Request OM to prepare a course in the principles of good
writing for all employees of the grade GS-14 or over. (There will be
other courses; the idea here is to reach the supervisors and writers in
the highest grades.) Request OTR to develop a writing test for all or
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved For Release...CJA-RDP78-00915R001400200001-3
certain newcomers to the agency and for retesting them from time to time.
These proposals do not intend that the persons mentioned above
give their major attention to the mechanics of good writing, to grammar,
the length of subjects or titles, spelling, punctuation, capitalization,
and so forth. These proposals intend that they give their major attention
to the major problems. These major problems are words and the number of
words. These problems are concerned with cutting afifty-page study or
directive down to fifteen pages and with writing it in simple and clear
English. How much of the work of the four persons will be prescriptive
and how much of it will be permissive will depend upon them, and how
things work out. The emphasis should be upon inspiration and guidance
and not upon regulations. Persons will write well not simply when they
take care to follow rules that someone has laid down for them, but
when they are encouraged to fulfill what they have learned and respected.
Here again the supervisor plays the critical part. Although there is
bound to be a certain amount of rather scholastic debate over the agree-
ment of subject and verb, capitalization, and like subjects, the major
interest of the supervisor will be in the words and the thought, whether
the paper before him is written carefully and even forcefully and in the
fewest words possible. If the supervisor looks for and demands good
writing and if there are clear standards in every oness mind and if
there is constant, almost continuous, interest throughout the agency in
good writing, CIA writing will improve. It will improve to the extent
that there is a clear and forceful program to improve it.
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01400200001-3