Maybe it’s because economics requires the development of math skills to the exclusion of writing skills that much economics writing is riddled with ill-conceived metaphors. Paul Krugman sounds the alarm:

Uh oh. we’ve got a downturn that can feed itself and, at the same time, dig trenches. The fascist octopus will sing its swan song any day now.

Sounds like a fun sport, spotting travesties like these. They should be in abundance as reporters struggle to keep pace with events and consequently drop their standards.

The New York Times has an an oh-so New York Times series of advice articles by successful established authors to aspiring writers. I find the premise irritating for a whole slew of reasons which probably stem from my irritability more than anything else. But that aside, I was genuinely baffled by Elmore Leonard’s tidbit #10:

10. Try to leave out the part that readers tend to skip.

A rule that came to mind in 1983. Think of what you skip reading a novel: thick paragraphs of prose you can see have too many words in them. What the writer is doing, he’s writing, perpetrating hooptedoodle, perhaps taking another shot at the weather, or has gone into the character’s head, and the reader either knows what the guy’s thinking or doesn’t care. I’ll bet you don’t skip dialogue.

Do people skip parts in books? I never, ever do. If the shit’s getting tedious, I quit the book. Is this not the norm?