Fixed That For You

Some professor over here says in his course outline, "The Strunk and White dictum to “omit needless words” will guide our work on writing. Students interested in crafting streamlined, energetic prose and prepared to rewrite may find this class especially congenial. Along with prose composition, students will also receive instruction and practice in researching topics in the humanities."

And then goes on to his course descprition:

The literature and film we will read and view in this course all share the theme of deception. As we encounter narrators who both flaunt and conceal their unreliability as well as those in the act of discovery, we will examine the pressure this theme exerts upon narrative form. How do works about or narrated by liars lend themselves to ever less determinate modernist and postmodernist innovations? We will consider how would-be deceivers’ inventions inevitably reveal as much as they conceal; how social norms motivate deception; why and in what way lies can be said to victimize; and to what degree deception is a necessary component of human life. We will also investigate the way artistic invention and other types of fabrication overlap. For instance, is the liar a figure for the author? Is there an aesthetics of lying? And to what degree is the tendency to lie the same as the impulse to experiment? From the other side, how does readerly credulity mirror the participation of the deceived in their own deception?

Which is 173 words. I give him a C- because in about two minutes I dropped that chunk to 142 words.. That's about a 20% reduction.

Mr. Strunk and White would be proud.

The literature and film in this course focus on deception. We will encounter narrators who flaunt and conceal their unreliability, those in the act of discovery, and examine the pressure this exerts on narrative. How do works about or narrated by liars lend themselves to ever less determinate modernist and postmodernist innovations? We will consider how would-be deceivers’ inventions inevitably reveal and conceal; how social norms motivate deception; why and how lies victimize; and to what degree deception is necessary. We will also investigate the way artistic invention and other types of fabrication overlap. For instance, is the liar a figure for the author? Is there an aesthetics of lying? And to what degree is the tendency to lie the same as the impulse to experiment? Alternately, how does readerly credulity mirror the participation of the deceived in their own deception?

Of course a real re-writing could do much more, but I can't be arsed...

And I suppose the real question is why do I care/bother? ;-)