Handout Philosophy

Hey, I'm a young preacher and I'm interested in getting some thoughts on philosophy of handouts. Particularly, I'm wondering, assuming that you don't use overhead/powerpoint and that you have chosen to use a handout, what is your goal with handouts?

Is it to keep people following? Is it to make complex outlines easier to follow? Do you use "fill in the blank"?

Your thought would be appreciated.

7749 reads
Jonathan Charles's picture

I've wondered how great preachers (Martyn Lloyd-Jones, James Montgomery Boice) would incorporate (if they were ministering today) handouts/powerpoint into their preaching. I read their published sermons and I would guess it would detract from it. What do people do with the handouts? Do they file them away? Do they tuck them in their Bible and throw them away in a few weeks? Do they sit down with it later in the week and study the text again? I've tried to use handouts before, but, as far as my ministry is concerned, I didn't feel it was making a difference.

Ed Vasicek's picture

I used to use handouts without power point, and now I use them with power point. I have used them regularly for about the past 8 years. But the purposes were similar--with our without power point.

1. Outlines make it easier to hold attention. People can focus upon concentrating between points. Filling in the blanks keeps them alert, so outlines can improve concentration.

2. People save the outlines that seem relevant to them. When I did the "Jesus Series" (life of Christ), I mostly had information sheets and only occasional "fill in the blank" outlines. We gave them binders and punched the sheets so they could collect them. We then posted a link (here is the site)
http://www.highlandpc.com/studies/#fojc

3. Outlines discipline me to get through the sermon; sometimes I cannot make it and have to repeat the outline sheet, quickly reviewing the blanks that should have been filled in the week before.

I also print a lot of other info on my sheet: maps, charts, verse quotations from sources I do not want to take the time to turn to in the name of time management, etc.

I am sold on 'em.

4. People are not as sharp as they used to be. Many people never did well at transferring spoken words into accurate thoughts (that's why MO. is called the "Show Me State"), and fewer do well with speaking than in the past. While we may try to train people to listen, I do not know if such a project would yield a harvest of reformed learners. We live in the age of attention deficit, and it is hard to decide to what degree we cater to it and to what degree we defy it and try to change it. I am somewhere in between. I am not for dummed down sermons or all sorts of gimmicks, but an answer sheet seems a modest compromise.

"The Midrash Detective"

BryanBice's picture

I almost always use handouts with blanks for Wed. evening Bible studies and adult Sunday School lessons. The goal of those times is primarily instructional, & I want the listener to see the logical flow of ideas. The "blanks" part simply helps them pay attention and stay tuned in, looking for what's coming.

In contrast, I almost never use any kind of handout for Sunday sermons. The main reason is I want people to leave with a point, one idea that will hopefully stick with them about the text. I'm not concerned that they get a ton of information from the message. And since I almost always preach expository messages from a single passage (working our way through books), I want them to see that the point of the sermon is the author's intended point of the passage. Doing handouts for those times create a sort of "information overload," too easily crowding out the main idea.

Incidentally, I have at times used Wed. PM or even Sunday School to give a bunch of background or related information that I thought would be helpful to the Sunday morning series--and then I use a handout for that.

So, for me, the question of HO or no HO depends on what I want people to carry home with them: a bunch of information, or a single idea that must compel some kind of change.

Daniel's picture

FWIW, the other day I was on this site (http://www.richdad.com/) watching their videos. The last video they have is what they call the cone of learning. Apparently, ASU did a study on ways people learn and the bottom two (If I can use the term in a non negative way) worst ways to learn were reading then hearing. The next two above it were looking at pictures then watching a movie. Above those four are probably about 10 other ways to learn, some of which are participating in discussion, leading a discussion, OTJ training.

I am not necessarily advocating dropping preaching, but perhaps the reason people have a hard time paying attention in church is, we as people learn the worst this way. We probably need to incorporated many forms of learning to adequately teach a truth. And it is not necessarily best to do the top one, but rather to do as many as possible. So when teaching (in general) it would be best to do a lecture with handouts, then do a dramatic presentation, then have people participate in round table discussion, then do it.

Back to preaching, although, HO may be the worst way to learn, it is probably best to use HO in conjunction with preaching. And if you can incorporate any of the other ways of learning, that would only help.

My only recommendation is to not use blanks, I find them rather distracting. I know people have different views, but I think people go from blank to blank only listening for the answer rather than listening to the message.(this is why I have quit taking notes. Personally, I remember and learn more when just listening, rather than trying to take notes) And if someone is not going to pay attention without handouts, I have a hard time believing they are going to pay attention with HO. They probably have other issues.(Medical or otherwise)

Ron Bean's picture

The scripture seems to place a premium on learning by listening.

When I speak, I value eye contact and have found that handouts and power points hinder that aspect of communication.

When I am in a teaching situation, I use handouts and visual to assist, but when I preach i like the intimacy of looking people in the eye.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

SDHaynie's picture

I agree with Ron that the Bible places a premium on listening, but I don't think that necessarily precludes the use of some other tools. In fact, some of the prophets used some pretty graphic "visuals" in their sermons that I am sure made a lasting impression on the people.
In my opinion, I think a lot depends on your personality and the "personality" of your church. In my experience I have seen/heard some preachers who were very good with visuals (PowerPoint, overhead, flipcharts, etc.) and some who were so awkward with using visuals that it distracted from their messages. I have seen some handouts that were so captivating (a good balance of outline, extra material, and space for personal notes) that I still have them...some from over 20 years ago! Others are more of a distraction and end up getting tossed in the round file as soon as they get home. So what is your personality/capability in the area?
Also, the personality of the church may or may not lend itself to using print and visuals. Talk to your people...feel them out...what is their preference?
I personally am sold on handouts, visuals, etc. Here's my reasoning:
1) Different people have different learning styles. There are auditory learners and they will get the most benefit from just hearing your message. There are visual learners and they will benefit from also seeing an outline, pictures, graphs, etc. on visual media and handouts. There are kinesthetic learners and filling in the blanks (as long as they are crucial words in the outlines) will help them capture the message. I want to be able to reach out to as many different learning styles as possible, but keep the preaching primary.
2) I have always done all I could to encourage people to keep handouts. I make them as professional looking as possible. At times, I have even provided a binder and give the handouts with the holes already punched in them. Then at the end of a series, the people have a resource in hand that they can always go back to. (The pastor of the church I grew up in wrote a "Through the Bible in 10 Years" Sunday School curriculum I still have all the handouts and still refer to them as one of my "commentaries" when I study a passage.)
3) I also add a big "Amen" to the points that Ed made.
Now, for just one caveat. It is always a temptation to lean on the "wow factor" of visual media and/or fancy handouts. In the old days the joke was "holler louder here because the point is weak." Today, in some cases it seems as though it is, "make the media presentation more impressive because I didn't have enough time to prepare." Resist that temptation. Our primary task is to make sure the sermon/lesson is exegetically and homiletically sound. Even if you do use visuals/handouts prepare as though the electricity will be cut off and all you will have is a flashlight in the pulpit (that actually has happened to me!) Would the sermon still have the same power? If so, go ahead and use the "enhancers." If not, spend more of your time on exegesis and preparation.
Hope this helps. God bless your ministry.

Shawn Haynie

Diane Heeney's picture

Daniel wrote:
My only recommendation is to not use blanks, I find them rather distracting. I know people have different views, but I think people go from blank to blank only listening for the answer rather than listening to the message.(this is why I have quit taking notes. Personally, I remember and learn more when just listening, rather than trying to take notes) And if someone is not going to pay attention without handouts, I have a hard time believing they are going to pay attention with HO. They probably have other issues.(Medical or otherwise)

I remember reading in a thread on effective women's speakers that several did not like "blanks"...that they were distracting, even demeaning. I used lots of handouts when I taught at BJ, but I was always seemingly trying to reel in the attention of my students, who were busy looking at their papers. At a recent conference, I provided outlines (sans "blanks"), to give the ladies something to follow, and to also give them references they can go back to later (as well as valuable quotations from resources I used). That was appreciated, it seemed.

There is something to be said for learning styles, and handouts (I can't help it...whenever I hear that word, I still think of Dr. Hand's nick name at BJU...man, was he big on handouts! Smile ) can facilitate a visual learner (as well as a kinesthetic learner, who would likely be filling in all the o's in his church bulletin while listening to you anyway). I am a visual learner, and God has blessed me with the opportunity of being able to read the entire sermon text from each Sunday's service, while I edit and post it on our church site. I get even more out of it while reading than while just listening.

"I pray to God this day to make me an extraordinary Christian." --Whitefield http://strengthfortoday.wordpress.com

Alex Guggenheim's picture

I have very rarely (I initially wrote "never" but then realized that is highly unlikely) used handouts as a Bible teacher and I personally do not use them when given to me, I prefer to arrange my notes in a proprietary manner. If an adult wishes to take notes, my perspective is that he or she can make that decision and act upon it.

Jason's picture

Thanks for your comments so far. I've found them very helpful.

Diane Heeney wrote:
I remember reading in a thread on effective women's speakers that several did not like "blanks"...that they were distracting, even demeaning.

This is one thing I've struggled with a little. Has anyone else felt at times that the blanks could be "demeaning"?

BryanBice's picture

Jason wrote:
Thanks for your comments so far. I've found them very helpful.

Diane Heeney wrote:
I remember reading in a thread on effective women's speakers that several did not like "blanks"...that they were distracting, even demeaning.

This is one thing I've struggled with a little. Has anyone else felt at times that the blanks could be "demeaning"?

I've done a little more thinking on this, Jason (emphasis on "a little"!), and I believe your ministry context has a great deal to do with how you approach this. I would suggest that the higher the average educational level, the less you need to provide "helps." In my current ministry, very few have any post-high school education. Most work, or did work, in manual labor jobs. The average age is probably around 50. My church reflects the community in this regard. Although there are a few exceptions, most in my congregation are not "note takers"--a reflection of educational background more than anything. So I provide handouts with a few easy-to-follow blanks to aid in their "note taking." There's almost universal appreciation for this--only a couple don't bother with them, and that's fine. In fact, the handouts are so welcome that some, if they're going to be absent, will have a friend get an extra handout & ask him to fill in the blanks for him.

If I were ministering to a congregation of largely white-collar people where most had at least some college education, I would likely take a different approach that would be more demanding (challenging?) of the listener.

Susan R's picture

EditorModerator

Jason wrote:

Diane Heeney wrote:
I remember reading in a thread on effective women's speakers that several did not like "blanks"...that they were distracting, even demeaning.

This is one thing I've struggled with a little. Has anyone else felt at times that the blanks could be "demeaning"?


Ditto- I can't stand fill-in-the-blanks. I like having an outline to refer to later or I take my own notes, so Power Point or 'object lessons' are fine with me, but fill-in-the-blank stuff is IMO annoying. It's like saying "I know you're not going to pay attention so I am going to try to make you focus on the message by giving you a silly hoop to jump through." I don't even use fill-in-the-blanks with my kids- it has never been a method, again IMO, that truly facilitates learning, any more than multiple choice tests are a means to ascertain understanding- they only show who is a good guesser. I would agree that fill-in-the-blank handouts are condescending.

FWIW, I have a three-ring binder where I keep handouts for future reference, and a small spiral notebook that I keep sermon notes in. My husband has a file for his handouts and a blank journal for sermon notes.

BryanBice's picture

Susan R wrote:
Jason wrote:

Diane Heeney wrote:
I remember reading in a thread on effective women's speakers that several did not like "blanks"...that they were distracting, even demeaning.

This is one thing I've struggled with a little. Has anyone else felt at times that the blanks could be "demeaning"?


Ditto- I can't stand fill-in-the-blanks. I like having an outline to refer to later or I take my own notes, so Power Point or 'object lessons' are fine with me, but fill-in-the-blank stuff is IMO annoying. It's like saying "I know you're not going to pay attention so I am going to try to make you focus on the message by giving you a silly hoop to jump through." I don't even use fill-in-the-blanks with my kids- it has never been a method, again IMO, that truly facilitates learning, any more than multiple choice tests are a means to ascertain understanding- they only show who is a good guesser. I would agree that fill-in-the-blank handouts are condescending.

FWIW, I have a three-ring binder where I keep handouts for future reference, and a small spiral notebook that I keep sermon notes in. My husband has a file for his handouts and a blank journal for sermon notes.

So...Susan's take on blanks, etc. reveals that a pastor simply needs to know his people. If your church is made up of folks largely like Susan, scrap the blanks....if it's made up of folks like mine, use 'em -- and hopefully if there are a couple who think of them as demeaning, they'll be gracious enough to realize that the pastor is trying to do the best he can to help the majority of his people. Know your people...grow your people. Take them from where they are--wherever that is.

Susan R's picture

EditorModerator

BryanBice wrote:

So...Susan's take on blanks, etc. reveals that a pastor simply needs to know his people. If your church is made up of folks largely like Susan, scrap the blanks....if it's made up of folks like mine, use 'em -- and hopefully if there are a couple who think of them as demeaning, they'll be gracious enough to realize that the pastor is trying to do the best he can to help the majority of his people. Know your people...grow your people. Take them from where they are--wherever that is.

Absolutely- if the congregation overall needs milk, then start 'em on milk. If I had a nickel for every seminary graduate who went into a church of babes and tried to shove meat down their throats... but I think the goal should always be to encourage the congregation to study on their own and not be dependent on the pastor to spoonfeed them, and IMO (read that as In My Opinion ya'll) fill-in-the-blank handouts are spoonfeeding and in my experience it reads to most people as spoonfeeding. But young Christians often need that kind of guidance- nothin' wrong with it if and when it is needed. Just wanted to make that clear.

Eric R.'s picture

Susan R wrote:
Absolutely- if the congregation overall needs milk, then start 'em on milk. If I had a nickel for every seminary graduate who went into a church of babes and tried to shove meat down their throats...

Are you saying that the "milk/meat" imagery of I Corinthians 3:2 and Hebrews 5:12 has to do with delivery style and not content? I don't believe that is an accurate understanding of those texts in their context.

Susan R wrote:
I think the goal should always be to encourage the congregation to study on their own and not be dependent on the pastor to spoonfeed them

The two are not mutually exclusive. There is never a point in a believers maturity when they do not need to be fed by the preaching of the Word in addition to their own personal study. The Pastor's responsibility is to feed the flock. The content (milk vs. meat) is based on the spiritual maturity of the hearers. The delivery method (spoon, fork, sippy cup) is based on many personal and sociological factors, as discussed by several above.

Susan R wrote:
But young Christians often need that kind of guidance- nothin' wrong with it if and when it is needed.

Are you implying that those with a different learning or note-taking style than you are somehow spiritually immature?

You have made it clear that this is just your opinion, but upon what is it founded other than personal preference?

Susan R's picture

EditorModerator

I qualified what I said with the phrase "in my experience". I certainly didn't say that folks can reach the point of 'arriving' to where they never need preaching or guidance, and I think my post was clear on that point. Milk and meat are both delivery and content, IMO. Don't we teach children in a different manner than we do adults- not just in content but with our body language and voices? IMO Paul's demeanor reads very differently on Mars Hill than it does when he faces Agrippa and company. Different audience, different approach. And educational methods are an area that I have studied for 20+ years, so it isn't just personal preference- there are much more effective and efficient teaching/learning methods than fill-in-the-blank. But as Bro. Brice stated- know your congregation, and respond to them according to their needs.

"Spiritually immature" is not a phrase I particularly like because of the way it is often interpreted- Paul uses the comparison of milk/babes to mature/meat, but when we hear it, the implication is that someone who is a new Christian (immature) is inferior, and that is not so, any more than age appropriate activities indicate inferiority in our children. It's the stage they are in, and that's why certain methods often work with certain groups. It's already been pointed out that a congregation of people with advanced educations are probably not going to respond well or need the fill-in-the-blank approach. Does that mean they think they are superior? No, I don't think so.

Ron Bean's picture

"Welcome to our Bible class in the catacombs tonight. We don't have any handouts because papyrus is expensive and most of you can't read anyway so instead brother Apollos will be illustrating the lesson with his hands and shadow puppets by lamp light."

:bigsmile:

Have a great day folks.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Eric R.'s picture

Susan,
I believe I may have partially misunderstood your original comments. Thank you for the clarification. I did not mean to misrepresent what you were saying. I apologize.

It seems you are saying (please correct if needed) that fill-in-the-blanks are demeaning and are not appropriate for a spiritually mature audience. And you are supporting that thesis with scripture by saying that “milk and meat are both delivery and content, IMO.”

I am merely questioning your interpretation of those passages and asking you to defend it. I see nothing in the context of either passage having to do with delivery style. Perhaps I am missing it.

Susan R wrote:
Don't we teach children in a different manner than we do adults - not just in content but with our body language and voices?
Definitely. But that’s because of physical/mental maturity, not spiritual. Even children who are believers are going to be less spiritually mature than an adult who has been saved and growing for decades. There are multiple reasons why I don’t try to teach 6 years olds the deeper truths of the relationship between Melchisedek and Christ. Paul was not talking about teaching children, he was talking about adults who have not progressed spiritually as they should have.

Susan R wrote:
IMO Paul's demeanor reads very differently on Mars Hill than it does when he faces Agrippa and company. Different audience, different approach.
Exactly correct. But what do evangelism approaches have to do with the “milk vs. meat” passages?

Susan R wrote:
And educational methods are an area that I have studied for 20+ years, so it isn't just personal preference.
I in no way meant to impune your knowledge or expertise in the area. Please forgive me for any offense. I was merely responding to comments such as, “I can't stand fill-in-the-blanks. I like having an outline to refer to later or I take my own notes, so Power Point or 'object lessons' are fine with me, but fill-in-the-blank stuff is IMO annoying.” This struck me as mostly personal preference.

I am all for differences of preference and opinion! I have plenty of my own. Smile And that's what Jason started this thread looking for, so keep it coming. My only concern is that we not inappropriately use scripture to defend our opinions.

Eric R.'s picture

Ron Bean wrote:
"Welcome to our Bible class in the catacombs tonight. We don't have any handouts because papyrus is expensive and most of you can't read anyway so instead brother Apollos will be illustrating the lesson with his hands and shadow puppets by lamp light."

Ron,

Would mind clarifying your point?

Thanks. Smile

Charlie's picture

I don't like fill-in-the-____, but that's part of a larger dislike of outline-based approaches to learning, which is intensified when applied to preaching.

A basic outline is not content. It is the structure upon which content is formed, so that there is a logical progression to a book/sermon/essay/lecture/etc. The worst form of outline is the word/phrase outline:

A. God
1. Attributes
2. Trinity
3. Works

Uh.... what is the point of this? Does anyone actually learn from something like this? It's just words thrown together. Somewhat better is the sentence outline.

A. God is a Trinity
1. The Father is the source of the Godhead
2. The Son is eternally begotten of the Father
3. The Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father (and the Son?)

This is a bit better, since at least we have propositions on the page, and a prospect of relating them in a meaningful way. However, if this is really what you want your audience to know, why not just get up, read the outline, and sit down? Instinctively, we all know that the outline is not the point of a message; it is a tool to let people know what we are discussing at the moment. The important stuff that makes these propositions meaningful and relevant is actually in the white space in between the points. Fill in the blank works counter to this process, since it implies that the important information is a piece of the outline. It narrows the listener's attention band. I remember classes in college where the professor lectured to a ____ outline. Hardly anyone takes any notes until he says, "Point 2 is...." and then the pencils start scratching. The poor guy was wasting 90% of his breath on students who were listening with an outline filter. Of course, it was his own fault for teaching that way.

The best outline is the concept outline, which isn't technically an outline at all. The purpose is to cause the audience/reader to reflect on the relationship of certain ideas to one another. Many times it proceeds at least partly by questions. The answers to some of the questions correspond to the "points" of an outline, and others you leave for the audience to reflect on later. Thus, you proceed by "answer the question," a strategic twist on fill in the blank. The answers are in brackets.

Topic: Justification

What does it mean to be justified? [God declares me righteous ]

There are 2 ways people try to be justified, by themselves or by God.

1. Justification through human effort
Why do humans want to justify themselves? [God-given desire to be "good"; no one wants to be a bad person; pride; etc. ]

How do humans try to justify themselves? [Making their own rules and keeping them; comparison with others; be thought well of by others ]

Why do human efforts at justification fail? [The strict demands of God's law ]

2. Justification by Divine gift

Upon what basis can a human be justified by God? [Keeping the law perfectly ]

But haven't we all failed to keep the law perfectly? [Yes, that's why Jesus came and kept the law perfectly and died and rose again ]

But what does Jesus' righteousness have to do with me? [Union with Christ through faith ]

----------
Conclusion

Am I justified by God or am I seeking to be justified by my own righteousness?

What things about myself make it difficult for me to believe in justification by faith apart from works?

As a Christian, do I act as though I am justified by works?

The point is to get the audience to focus on as much of the message as possible, as well as to highlight HOW ideas relate to each other, since outlines (especially single words or short phrases) generally only show that ideas DO relate to each other through domination/subordination. There are a lot of ways to approach the "concept outline," since it itself is a concept, not a form. If you're going to speak 10,000 words on Sunday morning, you need to find some way to help people understand that more than 20 of them are important.

My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com

Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin

Susan R's picture

EditorModerator

Quote:
It seems you are saying (please correct if needed) that fill-in-the-blanks are demeaning and are not appropriate for a spiritually mature audience. And you are supporting that thesis with scripture by saying that “milk and meat are both delivery and content, IMO.”

I am merely questioning your interpretation of those passages and asking you to defend it. I see nothing in the context of either passage having to do with delivery style. Perhaps I am missing it.


No offense taken- and I'm happy to clarify where needed. I said that in my experience fill-in-the-blanks are usually interpreted as demeaning by an academically advanced audience- I don't think spiritual maturity has quite as much to do with it as education does- sorry if I wasn't making that point clear. But a lack of confidence or experience with the content can also call for a more elementary method of presenting material, so young Christian audience made up of college graduates might still find the fill-in-the-blank handouts helpful, but I have yet to see a group that overall didn't find fill-in-the-blank handouts distracting, from high school to Bible college to adult Sunday Schools.

IMO it is unavoidable for content to not affect delivery. Having had some experience in speech and debate competitions, I was taught that the content and audience dictate the delivery, and I think various authors and speakers in the Bible have a 'tone of voice' that changes with the different audiences they address, which in my mind illustrate that delivery and content are inextricably intertwined. This principle crosses not only lines of academic experience or spiritual maturity, but age, gender, and culture.

For example, my delivery in a debate on euthanasia was much different than when I had to give an impromptu persuasive speech extolling the virtues of brand name Rice Krispies vs. generic crispy rice cereal. And if I had an audience that knew nothing about euthanasia vs. an audience comprised mostly of medical professionals, that also would have changed everything about the presentation, from vocabulary to demeanor.

Again- know your audience, and use what works within Biblical guidelines. I don't see any Scripture that demands handouts or Power Point presentations, but we certainly aren't prohibited from using them.

Diane Heeney's picture

Charlie wrote:
Conclusion

Am I justified by God or am I seeking to be justified by my own righteousness?

What things about myself make it difficult for me to believe in justification by faith apart from works?

As a Christian, do I act as though I am justified by works?

The point is to get the audience to focus on as much of the message as possible, as well as to highlight HOW ideas relate to each other, since outlines (especially single words or short phrases) generally only show that ideas DO relate to each other through domination/subordination. There are a lot of ways to approach the "concept outline," since it itself is a concept, not a form. If you're going to speak 10,000 words on Sunday morning, you need to find some way to help people understand that more than 20 of them are important.


Where's the poem? Isn't that supposed to be part of the conclusion? Wink For my part, I can tolerate a few blanks more easily than I can alliteration, esp. when it's badly done. I am instantly lost to the message, and drawn into a reverie of thesaurusizing..."there's gotta be a better word than that...."

"I pray to God this day to make me an extraordinary Christian." --Whitefield http://strengthfortoday.wordpress.com

Eric R.'s picture

Diane,

I once read a great article entitled "Four things happen when you alliterate, and four of them are bad." Biggrin
I would love to be able find that again...

Diane Heeney's picture

Eric R. wrote:
Diane,

I once read a great article entitled "Four things happen when you alliterate, and four of them are bad." Biggrin
I would love to be able find that again...


1. Distraction
2. Detraction
3. uh.....Dismay
4. hmmmmm....Disingenuousness (only because it's one of those buck-and-a-quarter SI words) :bigsmile:

"I pray to God this day to make me an extraordinary Christian." --Whitefield http://strengthfortoday.wordpress.com

Susan R's picture

EditorModerator

Diane Heeney wrote:
Eric R. wrote:
Diane,

I once read a great article entitled "Four things happen when you alliterate, and four of them are bad." Biggrin
I would love to be able find that again...


1. Distraction
2. Detraction
3. uh.....Dismay
4. hmmmmm....Disingenuousness (only because it's one of those buck-and-a-quarter SI words) :bigsmile:

Oh, now you've gone and done it!

Alliteration is usually
Awful because it is the
Artificial
Arrangement of words that begin with the same letters of the
Alphabet and is often
Awkward
and
inAccurate

I can't seem to resist wacky word games. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php ][img ]http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-fc/gy.gif[/img ]

Eric R.'s picture

Also:

5. Declarification
6. Dispronunciation
7. Delucidation

Diane Heeney's picture

Susan R wrote:
Diane Heeney wrote:
Eric R. wrote:
Diane,

I once read a great article entitled "Four things happen when you alliterate, and four of them are bad." Biggrin
I would love to be able find that again...


1. Distraction
2. Detraction
3. uh.....Dismay
4. hmmmmm....Disingenuousness (only because it's one of those buck-and-a-quarter SI words) :bigsmile:

Oh, now you've gone and done it!

Alliteration is usually
Awful because it is the
Artificial
Arrangement of words that begin with the same letters of the
Alphabet and is often
Awkward
and
inAccurate

I can't seem to resist wacky word games. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php ][img ]http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-fc/gy.gif[/img ]


I knew this would hook you. Smile I'm not responsible for where this goes now...

"I pray to God this day to make me an extraordinary Christian." --Whitefield http://strengthfortoday.wordpress.com

Pages