Wriging

One of the more ardently defended and preached maxims of blogging is that brevity is key. We must communicate what we wish to communicate with as little digression and ambiguity as possible. Say what you need in as few words as possible, essentially.

So, what you're saying is that some of the best blogging advice you'll receive is to say what you mean while keeping it simple. KISS, as they say. ;-)

Are you suggesting that you'd like a kiss, Erin?

That's a standing suggestion when it comes to you, my dear. Just read between my lines.

The problem with applying Price's pragmatic theory to blogging is there is no ability to visually interpret the language as you are not directly speaking to the person.

I have read many bloggers who have been told they need to shorten up their writings, but I wouldn't have these bloggers any other way, on the other hand I've see many cases, many many, where brevity would have served the blogger better. I am also included in this and have adapted, over the last few months, to the call for brevity - in most cases anyway.

Who writes these rules, anyway? People like YOU do.

Be authentic and be yourself. Nobody can question that, you don't have to contort yourself into a pretzel to be something you aren't, you won't wind up trying to please all the people all teh time, and nobody can ever take that away from you.

Hey, I'm not saying it's right for everyone, it's just worth keeping in mind.

Be authentic and be yourself. Nobody can question that, you don't have to contort yourself into a pretzel to be something you aren't, you won't wind up trying to please all the people all teh time, and nobody can ever take that away from you.

So... if you're writing so that others may read yet are naturally long-winded, then you shouldn't subscribe to the maxim that brevity is the soul of wit because... it just isn't you?

Sorry, but that's lazy. As someone who's worked (and frequently failed at) ensuring that every word tell, I can't help but think that whenever use of one word to say just as well what two or three would can be successfully employed, it should. If you're writing without the expectation of an audience, for only the sake of self satisfaction, without any eye towards improvement, then by all means continue in your less-than-amateur ways (for a true amateur seeks to improve). Anything otherwise invariably demands improvement. It has nothing to do with you as a person; nothing to do with succumbing to some societal machine bent on the denial of self. It has everything to do with writing in a manner which communicates without confusing.

Of course, if you wish to be like such greats of long-winded verbiage as HP Lovecraft, L. Ron Hubbard, and the unedited Stephen King, then by all means do so. Just don't expect anyone to respect you for that.

The problem with applying Price's pragmatic theory to blogging is their is no ability to visually interpret the language as you are not directly speaking to the person.

*Ding!* We have a winner! Yet, isn't true that this is an issue with all printed media? Need not the author who tales communicate in words that which would otherwise be done through the body? Need not the reporter define whom she quotes when? And need not they both sometimes rely on assuming some level of intelligence on the readers' part to know what they mean based on context?

I agree: it is difficult to clearly explain to a reader what body language tells without words. However, a writer should be able to discern when that should be written, and when it is best left to the reader's mind to fill in the gaps.

Dear Gnorb, I very much agree with you and that was very well written. I wish to give you points because reading that reply struck a chord with me, but alas, your points form is broken. :(

Gnorb you are right, but as the pragmatic theoretics Rich was speaking of is based not only on verbal but on visual interpretation, and he was only mentioning blogging, I didn't go any further.

In some cases, once one reads certain blogs over time, one can almost imagine the visual expressions, but as it is only something imagined it really is a different thing altogether.

I guess I have never tied length of a post to quality. Some people are just long winded. Some are terse. Both have an equal opportunity to be craptastic in my humble opinion.

I think there is a happy medium between brevity and being long-winded. Brevity is for writing lab reports, not blog posts.

Well, now that I think about it, it kind of depends on your blog's content. For a personal blog, brevity is not good. But for a science blog, or a how-to blog, I can see how brevity is important.

Everyone's right!

Brevity is for writing lab reports, not blog posts.

William Strunk disagrees.

How can one be brief, yet also use well developed imagery? Instead of saying someone had "the disposition of a pit viper and the appearance of a baboon" one should just say "mean and ugly?" I guess this would mean more in a personal blog, as one about technology admittedly uses very little imagery or other literary devices.

Brevity is for writing lab reports, not blog posts.

William Strunk disagrees.

Amber Simmons, while writing for A List Apart, disagrees.

She writes, "...the advice to omit words, chunk content, use bullets, and keep it short remains. This is sometimes, but not universally good advice."

I knew that A List Apart could back me up!

Isn't language the most ungainly of tools? Can't wait til we get wifi in our brains and start thought-blogging.

Strunk is not always right (see: most of Strunk & White's). In fact, he's mostly an idiot. Think twice before taking advice from him as gospel.

@Alisa:

Brevity is for writing lab reports, not blog posts.

William Strunk disagrees.

Amber Simmons, while writing for A List Apart, disagrees.

Daniel Ritzenthaler disagrees!

"Anything past the absolute minimum of what you can say and do is giving people more opportunities to miss the point and forget who you are."

(See, I can do that, too! Frankly, while I respect A List Apart, they're hardly the end-all on the subject. Then again, in English it hardly seems as if anything can be considered the "end-all, be-all.")

Of course, Daniel is going a bit further than I here, but the point remains valid.

By the way, Alisa, regarding your quote remember that "the advice to omit words, chunk content, use bullets, and keep it short remains." This is the rule. "This is sometimes, but not universally good advice" is the exception. While I'm sure most writers seek to be exceptional, I'm not so sure they're interested in doing it by focusing on exceptions.

@Andrew: I could only wish.

@Solepsis: You're confusing the rule "Show, don't tell" with my insistence on brevity. I never EVER indicated that this rule should be violated. Writing would be but a mere shadow of itself otherwise, but using two and three words to say what one can is both sloppy and tiresome to the reader. For writers, it is a greater challenge to condense text yet keep the full meaning than it is to ramble on (which I admit tends to be a fault of mine). Usually the passive voice, in use where active voice should be, is at fault here. (Unlike some, most notably Strunk, I believe there is place for the passive voice. Too often, however, it is abused. Way too often.)

Brevity doesn't mean that imagery should be eliminated. Rather, that every word should tell. (Gene Wolfe and Ray Bradbury are perfect examples of writers who employ successfully both brevity and imagery.) "Mean and ugly" = tell. "The disposition of a pit viper and the appearance of a baboon" = show, with a rather humorous effect. (A favorite quote of mine comes from "The Picture of Dorian Grey", where someone is described as being "being a peacock in every way but looks.") I think we can all agree that describing how a character's cheeks redden, fists clench, and eyes narrow is a much better way of describing anger than having the character yell "That makes me feel angry!"

(This goes back to cooper's statement that "The problem with applying Price's pragmatic theory to blogging is there is no ability to visually interpret the language as you are not directly speaking to the person." She's very much right here, and I address that in my first comment.)

It should be noted that my original comment came in response to DaveBB's response. The second response came to what I considered to be a rather simplistic (and misguided) statement by Alisa (who, unlike DaveBB, actually came back with a good defense of her stance).

@Rich: While I don't entirely agree with Strunk, I ardently disagree with you on his being "mostly an idiot" (see: "Strunk & White's"). Then again, I've only ever been directed to that book by every chief editor in every publication I've ever worked for, so what would I -- or by extension, they -- know? (Note that it is usually paired with other style guides, such as the Chicago Manual of Style, the Associated Press Stylebook, and Wired Style.) I'd be very interested in hearing why hold that opinion. (And I say this not in sarcasm, but rather in the spirit of true inquiry. Any way in which I can improve my writing is welcome.)

(Finally, sorry for the delay in response. Life's been a lot more hectic than I could have anticipated lately.)

Gnorb: To say he's 'mostly an idiot' would certainly be an exaggeration (perhaps only a slight one; a matter of opinion). The problem with The Elements of Style, the real problem, is the amount of stock people put in it. There is certainly some great advice in it, but to supplement it, you find pointless and often incorrect rules like 'don't use ongoing' and 'don't begin a sentence with however'. What you need to realise is that this guide was written in the '50s -- it's terribly out of date now -- and most if its grammatical advice is just plain wrong.

Examples ahoy!

The faults in the advice to '[O]mit needless words' has already been discussed above. But consider that this rule renders countless examples of classic literature grammatically incorrect -- the first sentence of Wuthering Heights for example. Good advice maybe, particularly when editing your own writing, but not the law.

Write with nouns and verbs, not with adjectives and adverbs.

They saying, following the sentence with two adjectives: 'weak or inaccurate'. (Side note: Which is it, exactly? They might advise you to be more clear if you wrote that yourself, if their previously quoted rules in this note are anything to judge by.) William Zissner is also quoted as calling adjectives 'unnecessary' -- an opinion he wasn't able to express without an adjective!

According to Strunk and White, the Declaration of Independence is also a shoddy piece of writing. It contains countless adjectives and adverbs, frequently uses passive voice, contains many long sentences -- the very first being 71 words -- begins sentences with conjunctions, and contains many redundancies. All things the prescriptivist duo vehemently decry.

There are many, many more examples of outdated prescriptivist nonsense littering the book, and I don't have the time or will to go through anymore, but they are there.

I forget where I read this now, but allegedly (as I have not read it myself), a collection of White' editorials titled Wild Flag sees the Elements of Style co-author consistently ignoring his own advice. The only example I remember from the forgotten article is his annoyance at writers referring to themselves as 'we', but never revealing who the other half of the 'we' is. Something he does himself in our favourite style manual.

If the writer himself can't follow his rules, how can we be expected to have faith in them?

Some of the Chicago Manual of Stlye's grammar advice is equally suspect, by the way. I shall quote Language Log on this one:

Presenting a representative sample would take a long time. Suffice it to say that on on page 177 he appears to claim that progressive clauses are always active (making clauses like Our premises are being renovated impossible); on page 179 he states that English verbs have seven inflected forms, including a present subjunctive, a past subjunctive, and an imperative (utter nonsense); on page 187 he reveals that (although he agrees, like every other grammarian, that the misnamed "split infinitive" is grammatical) he thinks that the adverb is "splitting the verb" in this construction (it isn't; it's between two separate words); on page 188 he describes word sequences like with reference to as "phrasal prepositions" (they aren't); and so it goes on and on.

Admittedly, this is less a case of idiocy and more a case of preaching advice as law, and people putting far too much stock in the ridiculously outdated advice given. (Granted, also, that most of this small rant is grammar-oriented, where the topic is more style-related, but the fact remains that those two are not to be trusted.) Personally, I recommend The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language.

And yeah, I wrote this in a rush, so keep your pedantry to yourself!