> Write like you speak and more people will understand your message.
I don't know about this. I feel like this contributes to the overall diminishing of the general reading level.
I don't want to have to write like I'm ELI5-ing everything, all the time. It's exhausting, time consuming and takes away from information I'm trying to convey.
This article is basically "remove what isn't necessary" repeated over and over again, with a few extra questionable remarks.
Is that a problem with how we write, or with how we speak? It's kind of interesting how we all have very complicated writing, yet we speak in a very simple way.
Terse technical prose, for example, is useful for rapidly communicating concepts to readers with requisite comprehension skills. Nobody talks like that though because even if you could pick the right words quickly enough as a speaker, whoever is listening to you is going to have a hell of a time keeping up. Both modes of communication are useful in their respective setting, but the last thing I want is a textbook that uses only small words or a tutor that uses too many big ones.
My boss is the embodiment of this problem. It drives lots of people at our company crazy. When he writes, it's like he's trying to cram every word with as much specificity as possible, even if all of that specificity is lost on whoever he's talking to (in most cases someone totally nontechnical). When people have finally had enough and they get him on the phone, it's like talking to a different person. People usually leave phonecalls feeling great.
Well written, though it’s important to remember that different juries judge different writing styles as “better.” Conciseness would be celebrated in business and tech. Vague, ornate writing might be appreciated by those who enjoy surreal books and art.
This is stupid. As everybody else, I prefer concise explanations of complex problems, but sometimes, you're better of writing fewer descriptive and long sentences, rather than writing a fuckload of paragraphs.
Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. — Antoine-Marie-Roger de Saint-Exupery, Wind, Sand and Stars
Less is more. One also needs good words. Read Hemingway for curtness and directness. It is a more satisfying read than something sophisticated and belabored. Capturing the right note in the simplest melody is more catchy and powerful than a complex fugue or sermon. To be concise, one needs to appreciate the flexibility and multiple facets of "simple" words.
Words which serve no purpose have no place on the page. But purpose varies with context.
If you're writing a guide to a new API, or a functional specification, then it pays to be as direct as possible.
But if you seek to engage or enrage, to persuade, to illustrate why something taken as good is unmitigated folly, or just give people a reason to come back and read more of your text, then you may need more than a long, drab procession of purely functional sentences.
There is more to eating (and cooking) than the simple absorption of nutrients, and there is more to reading (and writing) than the simple absorption of facts. Unadorned simplicity is not automatically good. I've never managed to get past the first chapter of any Hemingway novel. Hell, the only Hemingway short story I've finished is that one that's six words long. I'd rather read Charles Dickens than Richard Ford, any day of the week. Give me the baroque and the beautiful, not something that's been stamped out by a soulless writing machine.
This debate over the "directness" of modern writing really seems to be unique to 21st century English. We have a very direct and prosal language and a culture which places efficiency above all else.
Neither is bad, but our writing style is really interesting.
Great question. Perhaps a recoil from abundance and hedonism or maybe more simply a return to first principles and less dissertation-talk for daily events
I don't know about this. I feel like this contributes to the overall diminishing of the general reading level.
I don't want to have to write like I'm ELI5-ing everything, all the time. It's exhausting, time consuming and takes away from information I'm trying to convey.
This article is basically "remove what isn't necessary" repeated over and over again, with a few extra questionable remarks.