This and your previous comment is a genuinely hilarious response to this post and I do sincerely apologise if it wasn't intended as a very clever and well constructed joke. But you did make me...
This and your previous comment is a genuinely hilarious response to this post and I do sincerely apologise if it wasn't intended as a very clever and well constructed joke. But you did make me laugh.
That said, you raise some valid points. I think the original author's point would be rather better stated if he'd used the world 'clear' rather than 'simple'. The best writing is, some outlying cases aside, clear. Writing exists to transmit meaning and that requires clarity, if not always simplicity.
As a fiction writer myself I can attest to the persuasiveness and expressiveness of simplicity. Some writers used simplicity to great effect. Hemingway comes to mind. Maybe Paul Auster. I believe...
As a fiction writer myself I can attest to the persuasiveness and expressiveness of simplicity. Some writers used simplicity to great effect. Hemingway comes to mind. Maybe Paul Auster.
I believe the core of your objections come as a consequence of an interpretation that is overly narrow. In other words, you are countering points the text doesn't really make, but rather a particular interpretation of its hypothetical effects.
Auster trilogy of New York is wonderful, but I would only recommend if you're into absurdim, awkwardness and/or empty spaces. It helps if you don't enter looking for a lot of meaning. The Sun Also...
I'm not familiar with Auster. Is there anything of his you'd recommend starting with?
Auster trilogy of New York is wonderful, but I would only recommend if you're into absurdim, awkwardness and/or empty spaces.
It helps if you don't enter looking for a lot of meaning.
The Sun Also Rises would be my recommended Hemingway
Edit: minimalism and simplicity are definitely related but are also quite distinct.
I think part of the beauty of language and communication is that it accommodates a diversity of styles. You, mrbig, are someone who speaks with the clarity and impact of short and simple...
I think part of the beauty of language and communication is that it accommodates a diversity of styles.
You, mrbig, are someone who speaks with the clarity and impact of short and simple statements. I love your posts for that. They often cut through the noise and clutter of longer posts in a powerful way.
Meanwhile, @Atvelonis is someone who uses length and complexity to make nuanced, often incredibly robust points. I love their posts for that. They often bring a depth to the table that can’t be trimmed down lest it loses some of its rich and strategic specificity.
I think there is room for both, and I think each of you would be ill-served should you be forced to write in the other’s style. It’s not that there is one right way to communicate but that we, as speakers, find the way to best way for us to get our messages out to the world. For some, that’s lengthy comments. For some, it’s short ones. For some, it’s poetry. For some, it’s music, or dance, or code.
There isn’t one right way to convey a message. There are thousands. Why put limits on something that is so beautifully unconstrained?
I'm a big fan of the Hemingway philosophy of writing, don't use words you don't need. Simplicity is often better, but maybe not as absolutely is Graham believes. The purpose of the written word is...
I'm a big fan of the Hemingway philosophy of writing, don't use words you don't need.
Simplicity is often better, but maybe not as absolutely is Graham believes. The purpose of the written word is to be read, so accessibility is important. And also, I don't think that's a reason to rush down to the lowest common denominator, at least not always.
It just depends on who you're writing for :)
Side note: he implies that using "fancy" words is an attempt to sound cool. What about the elegance of a word that communicates a concept which would otherwise take a dozen words? Sometimes that's worth the tradeoff. Language is more than just functional, it can be beautiful too.
It's an odd quirk of mind, that while I agree with the premise, I can't help think of exceptions to the rule. Word soup is a classic PR move. E.g. if you don't want to be quoted at all, or out of...
It's an odd quirk of mind, that while I agree with the premise, I can't help think of exceptions to the rule.
Word soup is a classic PR move. E.g. if you don't want to be quoted at all, or out of context, by a reporter.
Or to avoid a question.
Jargon and technical terms signal credentials.
Plus I enjoy a point that is simply stated, yet augmented by a few uncommonly apt multisyllabic words.
I mean yeah that's likely correct but I feel you're overcomplicating a point that is quite straightforward.
This and your previous comment is a genuinely hilarious response to this post and I do sincerely apologise if it wasn't intended as a very clever and well constructed joke. But you did make me laugh.
That said, you raise some valid points. I think the original author's point would be rather better stated if he'd used the world 'clear' rather than 'simple'. The best writing is, some outlying cases aside, clear. Writing exists to transmit meaning and that requires clarity, if not always simplicity.
As a fiction writer myself I can attest to the persuasiveness and expressiveness of simplicity. Some writers used simplicity to great effect. Hemingway comes to mind. Maybe Paul Auster.
I believe the core of your objections come as a consequence of an interpretation that is overly narrow. In other words, you are countering points the text doesn't really make, but rather a particular interpretation of its hypothetical effects.
Auster trilogy of New York is wonderful, but I would only recommend if you're into absurdim, awkwardness and/or empty spaces.
It helps if you don't enter looking for a lot of meaning.
The Sun Also Rises would be my recommended Hemingway
Edit: minimalism and simplicity are definitely related but are also quite distinct.
I think part of the beauty of language and communication is that it accommodates a diversity of styles.
You, mrbig, are someone who speaks with the clarity and impact of short and simple statements. I love your posts for that. They often cut through the noise and clutter of longer posts in a powerful way.
Meanwhile, @Atvelonis is someone who uses length and complexity to make nuanced, often incredibly robust points. I love their posts for that. They often bring a depth to the table that can’t be trimmed down lest it loses some of its rich and strategic specificity.
I think there is room for both, and I think each of you would be ill-served should you be forced to write in the other’s style. It’s not that there is one right way to communicate but that we, as speakers, find the way to best way for us to get our messages out to the world. For some, that’s lengthy comments. For some, it’s short ones. For some, it’s poetry. For some, it’s music, or dance, or code.
There isn’t one right way to convey a message. There are thousands. Why put limits on something that is so beautifully unconstrained?
I'm a big fan of the Hemingway philosophy of writing, don't use words you don't need.
Simplicity is often better, but maybe not as absolutely is Graham believes. The purpose of the written word is to be read, so accessibility is important. And also, I don't think that's a reason to rush down to the lowest common denominator, at least not always.
It just depends on who you're writing for :)
Side note: he implies that using "fancy" words is an attempt to sound cool. What about the elegance of a word that communicates a concept which would otherwise take a dozen words? Sometimes that's worth the tradeoff. Language is more than just functional, it can be beautiful too.
It's an odd quirk of mind, that while I agree with the premise, I can't help think of exceptions to the rule.
Word soup is a classic PR move. E.g. if you don't want to be quoted at all, or out of context, by a reporter.
Or to avoid a question.
Jargon and technical terms signal credentials.
Plus I enjoy a point that is simply stated, yet augmented by a few uncommonly apt multisyllabic words.