To follow up some secondary points,
‘in order to’ is certainly overused, where ‘to’ would suffice, but it is necessary when the logical connection (‘X was done in order to Y’) is not obvious.

Equally, the passive voice has its place. In your example, the focus is on the participants, who are receiving the instruction, so to use the passive puts them properly at the centre of the sentence. I assume that the context conveys that XYZ Inc. is doing the asking.

The fact that so many people want to debate about what the original sentence really means simply reinforces this point. A long, obscure sentence may sound official but wht use is that if no-one knows what it means? Had the original writer followed your all-too-sensible advice, we would all know what they meant. And after all, the meaning is the point of the exercise.

I agree with you absolutely that rewriting in the active voice is a powerful tool. So is the complementary skill of choosing positive words that clearly state what you do mean instead of negating something else. “Significant” instead of “not insignificant”, “choose active verbs” instead of “avoid passive verbs” for example.

I try very hard to do it, and I’m constantly amazed at how hard it is to do it consistently!

The point of this piece is that if you’re trying to clarify or tighten a sentence and you’re stuck, a good place to start is to examine and strengthen the verb. That’s the point — some practical advice.

All the side issues being quibbled over in comments here are a matter of editorial opinion, and thus very subjective. There is never any single “correct” or “best” way to edit any sentence. For instance:

1) Is “in order” superfluous? Yes, often. However, do many sentences sound choppy or awkward without it? Yes. The phrase is optional. In this case I took the option. Your mileage may vary.

2) Did I misinterpret the sentence? Possibly. Did you? Possibly. The actual “correct” meaning of this sentence is not the issue. The issue is the technique I am explaining. Therefore, I picked an interpretation and edited accordingly. And in the article I acknowledged that it was not the only possible interpretation. So that discussion is irrelevant here.

3) Should I have used an em-dash or an en-dash? Yes, I know what the grammar books say. They were all written with print media in mind. However, the web generally lacks precise controls over font and display. I’ve fount that in most fonts used in web browsers, en-dashes (–) display at a size comparable to how em-dashes look in print. In contrast, in a web-browser an actual em-dash (—) often displays at an uncomfortably long size. It’s awkward, even jarring, and it disrupts the visual flow too much. Therefore, in web content my editorial preference is to use an en-dash in most situations where an em-dash would be required in print. I think it’s easier on the reader. Again, this is a subjective matter, and your mileage may vary.

…And yes, I know from ample past experience that my approach on this minor, minor point will elicit cries of “Heretic!” from some editors and grammarians. So be it. In my opinion, the presentation (including the punctuation) should suit the medium. Again, your mileage may vary.

…And no, I’m not saying that there should be no rules of grammar or punctuation. I’m just saying that as media evolve, communication practices and conventions evolve too. Don’t believe me? Then go back to spelling and punctuating according to Samuel Johnson’s dictionary.

For more on this, see: Grammar and Punctuation for the Web: What’s Proper?

Sorry if I sound a little exasperated on this. I’ve just dealt with this odd brand of editorial tunnel-vision too many times.

- Amy Gahran
Editor, CONTENTIOUS

One other point (unrelated but I can’t help it): Amy, you’re using the wrong symbol for your dashes. A dash is properly known as an em-dash in typography. You’re using an en-dash, which is used between numbers (as a minus sign, or between dates, for example) or to show an equal relationshop between entities.

One question about your sentence: are the different planners there to tackle different segments of the event, or to handle specific groups of participants? That would be my first question to the client before re-working this sentence.

In the first case, “Invitation respondents were asked by XYZ to contact a specific planner focused on their interests.” Change the word ‘interests’ to ‘personal needs’ for the second case, IMHO.

I just wanted to say there are interesting points here, but was wondering your thought about essays on political/econmic/social subjects. Those topics often require indepth discussion of alternatives, variations, etc, rather than just the point. This requires longer articles, which is then harder to read on the web. What do you suggest? The pyramid approach with lots of headings and subheadings that are linked to at the top? I have seen this work on a few sites and I find myself coming back to long articles more than ones without this approach…

Keep up the good work.

Andrew.

Personally I disagree with you about the main message of the example sentence — which goes to show how subjective this process is. Since the rest of your specific criticisms flowed from that interpetive difference, I don’t think it’s useful to keep hashing through the details of this sentence.

You’re right about this: A fundamental problem with this sentence was that the writer tried to imply too many things without stating any of them clearly. That is a very, very common problem in writing, and one reason why I chose this example sentence.

To sum up, I’d like to clarify these points. When it comes to tightening sentences:

1. Shorter (fewer words) is not always clearer.

2. “Tight” means first of all CLEAR, and secondly EFFICIENT. In that order. (Hence, point 1 above.)

3. Passive verbs do indeed suck. They are a crutch for lazy, fuzzy thinking. They usually obscure action, which is why I encourage writers and editors to always try to eliminate them.

4. Verbs are, indeed, a productive place to start when tightening up a sentence.

5. Your mileage may vary in this as in all editorial matters.

Thanks,

- Amy Gahran
Editor, CONTENTIOUS

Well… no. Your version is actually longer. It isn’t really clearer. Though this isn’t your fault – you picked a pretty tough example.

What’s the main message? I submit it was this:

“Participants were asked to help plan the event.”

Normally I would not use the passive sense – “were asked” – because it adds length and increased vagueness. So, for example, I might say:

“XYZ Inc. asked participants to help plan the event.” But it wasn’t the company doing the asking, it was some anonymous invitation writer within the company. And (a) we don’t know who it was, and (b) even if we did know, this person isn’t the focus of the sentence, the request is (actually, it turns out that they are the focus of the sentence, but let’s go the other direction first).

What’s more important is the chopping I did. Gone is the whole verbiage surrounding the ‘invitation’. Presumably participants were invited, therefore, the use of ‘invited’ is redundant.

Gone as well is the process – ‘to respond to the planners’, ‘in order to make this event easier to organize.’ That’s because these whole phrases don’t actually say anything. What does it mean to say, ‘to respond to the planners’? Is there some other way to help that doesn’t involve responding? And why would they respond?

You may say that I’ve changed the meaning of the sentence. And I admit that I have. The reason this sentence was so awful to begin with is that the writer wanted to couch a half dozen different (and implied) messages in the single sentence – possibly without even knowing it.

Like what? Like this:

- this even is so exclusive participants were invited
- it was so posh, actual invitations were distributed
- it was organized (by ‘organizers’)
- The organizers were in control (they ‘directed’ participants; participants merely ‘responded’; the decisions were made by ‘the planners’)
- it was organized (by the planners)

What’s wrong with this sentence isn’t so much the sentence (though it’s pretty awful); it’s the message.

What the author really wanted to say is this:

“Our event is first class. It is so exclusive; you have to have an invitation. It is very well organized by professional planners. The planners even asked particpants to help plan the event.”

So, the planners are the focus of the sentence after all. But only once we see the context and make the message clear. Of course, no company would actually write this. It’s too clear. So while bragging about their event they make it seem like a minor point – the participants’ planning – is the main point. They hide their intent behind misleading prose.