Novelist Ian McEwan doesn’t like the fact that you can post your opinion of his books on Amazon.com.

“I don’t have much time for the kind of site where readers do all the reviewing,” says McEwan in an interview with Time magazine (6/18/07, p. 6).

“Reviewing takes expertise, wisdom, and judgment,” he says. “I am not much fond of the notion that anyone’s view is as good as anyone else’s.”

Which do YOU value most — a thoughtful review by a professional reviewer or writer in the New York Times Book Review, or reader reviews on Amazon.com?

Do you think McEwan is right — that reviewing takes expertise and should be done only by professionals, and not by amateurs?

Do you — or don’t you — think that, as Amazon.com and other review sites seem to believe, anyone’s view is as good as anyone else’s?

A recent radio commercial selling land in Florida informs us that “monthly payments are as low as $300 a month.”

It’s clear and factual. But of course, it’s redundant. If the payments are “$300 a month,” you should call them “payments” and not “monthly payments.”

It’s a small matter, but as a professional writer, I tend to notice — and am bothered by — these little mistakes.

But are you? More importantly, are your prospects?

Does inferior writing convey an impression of an inferior company selling an inferior product?

Or are readers today too busy and illiterate to care?

In the March 2007 issue of Training & Development magazine, the bio of one of the contributors reads as follows (full name not used to protect the innocent):

“CZ provides results-focused learning solutions aimed at providing employees with the essential skills that enable them to optimize their performance and achieve measurable business results.”

I don’t like the jargon (”learning solutions”) even though I have been doing training part-time for decades.

Also don’t like the fancy words (”optimize”) or lack of specifics (”essential skills” … WHAT skills?).

After reading CZ’s bio, I still have no idea what she really does.

I also conclude that she does not communicate very well — not a good sign for someone in the training industry — and that perhaps she is a bit of a stuffed shirt.

Do you agree that CZ’s bio is stiff and unfriendly?

Or do you think she is really speaking the reader’s langauge and getting them excited about her offering?

What specific edits can you suggest to CZ so she can rewrite the bio to make it stronger?

A local gym recently mailed a postcard to attract new members.

It features a stock color photo of an attractive woman working out, with some brief copy, the closing of which read: “Call today. Summer is comming.”

When I pointed out to the owner that “coming” is spelled with one m, he shrugged it off.

“It doesn’t matter,” he said dismissively. “The picture of the hot chick exercising will pull ‘em in.”

I have no doubt that the photo will get people to stop and look.

But is he right about the spelling?

Do people care if there’s a typo on your web site or in your mailer, ad, resume, or cover letter?

Or is concern about proper spelling and grammar an old-fashioned, archaic belief that people no longer have?

In USA Today (2/23/07), wine writer Jerry Shriver recommends a 2005 Barton & Guestier “Bistro Wine” Pinot Noir.

He says: “The fruit is restrained, the texture is soft, and there’s a smidgen of that ethereal ‘Sideways’ character lurking in the bottle.”

Now, is it just me, or is this an example of terrible writing?

To me, it seems meaningless: what specific information does a reference to a movie character communicate to the reader about the taste of the wine being discussed?

It’s even less meaningful if you, like me, haven’t seen the movie and don’t know what it’s about or who the character is.

So Jerry’s writing strikes me as unclear and uninformative.

But I don’t drink wine — or see many movies.

How would YOU rate this little bit of wine criticism by Jerry — good, bad, or terrible?

And why?

A few months ago, I was teaching a class in business writing to a group of managers and engineers at a large manufacturing company.

I was talking about how good business writing is conversational, and how you should avoid jargon, overly formal language, corporate-speak, and the like.

This angered a gray-haired fellow who I judged to be in his 60s.

“I was taught to write in a proper, formal style, and that’s how I’m going to keep on writing,” he said.

“But modern writing is conversational,” I replied.

“Oh, yeah?” he challenged me. “Prove it!”

What would you have done in this situation if you were the instructor?

I mean, I’ve been a professional writer for a quarter of a century, with hundreds of published articles and 70 published books.

But actually PROVE to a skeptic that good writing is conversational writing?

How?

Let me ask you….

Do you agree with me that good writing is conversational writing?

And if so, what proof is there that conversational writing is more effective than the old-school stiff, stilted, formal business writing that was popular half a century ago?

E.B. White and others have suggested that specifics — facts — good information — are the keys to good writing.

But that was pre-Internet, when good information was difficult to find.

The writer’s job would be to ferret out information the reader didn’t have access to — and then organize and present it in a clear and entertaining fashion.

But today, thanks to the Internet, everyone theoretically has instant access to the same set of facts and information — and the supply is massive.

More and more authors today are writing thinner books, and huge reference books are a vanishing breed.

In their place, are short, quick-reading books focusing and explaining a single important idea.

So, is the hallmark of good writing good ideas … good information … or both?

If both, which one is more important — the factual content or the exploration of a new idea?

The other day I heard a radio commercial that began: “If you have a car you no longer need or have little use for….”

Would you, like me, delete the phrase “or have little use for” as being unnecessary and redundant?

Along the same lines, grammarians point out that the popular copywriting phrase “free gift” is redundant, because all gifts are by definition free … and these grammarians urge copywriters to just write “gift.”

Do you agree with them? Or will you stick with “free gift” in your promotions? Why? (I’d ask “Or why not?” but grammarians insist that the “why not” option is implied when you ask “why.”)