Editing is the calm after the storm. It’s when the survivors pick through the wreckage, making a semblance of a life again. A little dramatic, perhaps, but it’s apropos. Writing is the storm that messes everything up, throwing words, punctuation, and grammar here and there…and editing cleans it all up.

While the chaos of writing can be beautiful in what it creates, that very chaos can make an editor tear out her hair. “What was he thinking?” she might say, clutching tendrils between her knuckles. Or, even worse: “I don’t even know what this is trying to say.”

Of course, our writers are leaps and bounds beyond that type of writing, but let’s just say this editor has seen some things.

Which leads us to one of the more annoying editing clean-up duties: ditching archaic/useless writing. English is an amazing language in that it changes constantly, ever flowing with the times—and allowing dictionary publishers to remain in business. And yet there’s a few little hangers-on that this editor would love to see go by the wayside.

Amidst, amongst—they’re a couple of those tired, old words that make this editor cringe. They’re not necessary; among or amid work just fine and with fewer letters. The latter two are also cleaner and quieter when spoken. In fact, one rarely hears the -st in speech; why must they persist in writing?

They may be seen as more “intelligent” writing, perhaps, but from a journalistic standpoint, the opposite is true: Cleaner, simpler writing is smarter writing.

Where does this intelligent argument come from? Maybe it’s the Brits. No, really. These two and their ilk seem to be used more across the pond. Maybe us Americans like to copy their use to sound better on paper. Either way, let’s stop.

Speaking of smarter writing…

Let’s also do away with an extra S whenever we can, such as when using backward or toward. While the extra S in these cases and others isn’t necessarily archaic, it’s, again, cleaner and easier if it’s just not there.

Further on the smart writing trail, always take a look at your audience when deciding formality. And don’t just use something because it sounds formal. For instance, one another and each other have very specific uses: the former is for groups of more than two, and the latter is for two only. Or the use of depending on or depending upon: They mean the same, but one is more formal.

When in doubt, look it up!

How about those -lys?

Further in the interest of clean writing, let’s take a look at using superfluous -lys. For example, more importantly or secondly. The argument against the former is an old one, and it’s not necessarily right, but this editor feels that where it’s appropriate, go simpler. If you can remove it or rework it, do so! It never hurts to freshen up your writing by changing up tired phrases.

As for the latter, again, the simpler, the better. Besides, how high does one count using -ly? Do you even need to list in that manner, or can you rework your piece entirely?

In general, it never hurts to make your editor’s life (and your writing!) easier by pausing a moment and asking yourself if what you’re trying to say can be re-said simpler, cleaner, or with a different phrase altogether. Now if only we could pause real-life conversations in such a way…

Anne King, copy editor