I tried to leave a comment on this post over at CopyBlogger, but interestingly it didn’t make it through moderation. So I figured I’d just make the point here, because it’s a valid one.
The above-linked article lost me before it even made it past the unrelated analogy it was setting up to whatever the article was about. Why? The analogy was a bit long, but it wasn’t that. It was that it was completely inaccurate.

The problem with conversing with a parrot is that the bird has no idea what its actually saying, or why its saying it. Parrots have no clue about context, and therefore make for bad conversation.

This is wrong. Parrots do have a limited understanding of what they’re saying, just like young humans learning language. Even untrained, they trouble themselves to learn phrases that inspire humans to play with them, get them out of their cages, or give them some of that pizza. It’s a natural mechanism for them, and an understanding of context is clearly demonstrated. All that said, I might not have totally walked away from the article except for the next line:

The truth is, no one really wants to speak with a parrot.

This line just comes off as presumptive and belligerent. There are many thousands of parrot owners in the US alone who would beg to differ. The effect of a statement like this is to narrow your target audience: those who do indeed like speaking with parrots immediately experience a sense that this post is not for them. Some will read it anyway, but others will just not bother.
The lessons I got from this post were not about swipe files or whatever. They were:

• Make sure an analogy is accurate. Otherwise, you run the risk not only of alienating readers, but of making your factual error become the center of the discussion thread. Actually the second one is probably more common, and if you moderate comments, maybe you don’t care. But if you want good, relevant discussion, don’t toss in a widdle factual error - you never know when some group of self-proclaimed experts or fans will go nuts harping on it.
• If you can’t make sure the analogy is accurate, limit it. Without going all passive-voice, this analogy could have worked under several conditions. Had it emphasized the limitations of a parrot’s ability to have a true back and forth dialog as opposed to simply stating they don’t have any idea what they’re saying, that would be true enough. Had it stuck to just one isolated experience the author had or observed, it would have been true for that incident and avoided the problems inherent in making sweeping generalizations. Which brings me to the third lesson…
• Avoid sweeping generalizations and language that’s so declarative it puts some of your audience on the defensive. Again, you need not resort to passive voice and wimpy wording to avoid declaring things that aren’t justified. “No one really wants to speak with a parrot” is just as nonsensical as stating “No one really wants to exercise on a treadmill”. How do you know? Did you interview everyone on earth… or did you just assume that because you don’t like treadmills, it’s impossible someone else might?

A copyrighting lesson: getting analogies right - Read More...