I recently read that advanced writers keep the same or closely related subjects at the beginning of sentences or clauses.
This:
The President ..............................................proposed lower taxes.
He ..............................................................drafted the proposal in December
and......................................................... hoped it would be passed within the next year.
The president.............................................. estimated accurately, and as such,
He ...............................................................will likely be re-elected.
Is supposedly better structured than:
The President's proposal..........................promised to lower taxes.
A draft......................................................was written in December.
The president............................................hoped it would be passe within the next year.
This president's estimation........................................was accurate.
The people...............................................will most likely re-elect him.
By keeping the beginning of each clause or sentence as related as possible to the original (and ultimately, most important) subject, the writing is easier to follow. The subject is the president in the first, but the subject is the president, his proposal, a draft, his estimation, and the people, in the second. Though I understand this in concept, and in how it'd work to keep the paragraph easier to follow, I also feel like it's beating the reader over the head, and does not allow for subtle transitions.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Simplicity
I've been trying to figure out what I can do to improve my writing. I keep being told that simplicity is key. That a sentence should be as concise and clear as possible without losing meaning. I've been able to clean up my sentences, but am not sure if I'm taking it to far, as I see a lot of professional writers who don't make their sentences as clear as possible, instead aiming for a more conversational style. Now, one could assume that conversational style fits the informal nature of most on-line articles, but I also feel like the simpler the text, the more accessible, and ultimately more accessible seems less formal, with a lower barrier of entry.
----
(Edited for conciseness)
I've been figuring out how to improve my writing recently. Most texts claim the key is simplicity. A sentence should be concise and clear as possible without losing meaning. I cleaned up my sentences, but am not sure if I'm taking it to far. I see a lot of professional writers who don't make their sentences as clear, instead utilizing a more conversational style. One could assume conversational style fits the informality of most on-line articles, but I feel simpler text is more accessible, which seems less formal due a lower barrier of entry.
---
I know that it's a stylistic choice, as opposed to any rules, but I'm not exactly sure what dictates how simple a work should be. I only know how to write like I speak, or write as clear as possible. It's just the way I've been taught. I assume I'm wrong though to feel like clearer is better, seeing as I can figure out how to eliminate useless words from literally any article I've ever read.
----
(Edited for conciseness)
I've been figuring out how to improve my writing recently. Most texts claim the key is simplicity. A sentence should be concise and clear as possible without losing meaning. I cleaned up my sentences, but am not sure if I'm taking it to far. I see a lot of professional writers who don't make their sentences as clear, instead utilizing a more conversational style. One could assume conversational style fits the informality of most on-line articles, but I feel simpler text is more accessible, which seems less formal due a lower barrier of entry.
---
I know that it's a stylistic choice, as opposed to any rules, but I'm not exactly sure what dictates how simple a work should be. I only know how to write like I speak, or write as clear as possible. It's just the way I've been taught. I assume I'm wrong though to feel like clearer is better, seeing as I can figure out how to eliminate useless words from literally any article I've ever read.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Elegance Versus Clarity
I'm an English Major, a senior in college. I'm attempting to improve my writing ability. In order to do this, I started a blog on gaming today. It's a subject I'm confident in, and I'm hoping that just by writing and analyzing my work, I'll develop my skill as a writer. Here is an excerpt from my first post:
" As you may be guessing at this point, being good with words does not equate to being intelligent, and I spent quite a bit of time thinking that I simply could not write about games because, unlike most people who I know who write about games, I can't afford them."
Lets clean it up a bit:
"By now you may have realized that being good with words does not mean I am an intelligent person. I've spent too much time believing that I can't write about games, owing to the fact I can't afford them. "
I tried to get the same point across and eliminate excess that did nothing to enforce this point. I assume most people understand a game critic can afford games
Which is better? I think the second passage is clearer. Using less commas and "ands" or "buts" makes the point easier to follow. these devices imply a change in the intended statement. On the other hand, the first may be more difficult to follow, but I think it flows better. When I imagine an elegant speaking voice, this is the voice that I speak in. I can only guess, but the nuances of spoken language could be the reason it's harder to follow. We are programmed to communicate verbally, written language is an invention, and so is more difficult to understand. That we read in an imaginary voice is a problem though, as in our voice, the meaning may change. I think that's why I over-use commas as well. Years of poetry classes have instilled in me the idea that a comma denotes a pause, a period denotes a stop. In writing prose, this is different.
Other issues I'm still having include mismatching tense (something that, along with plurality, I notice a lot of internet writers have ), and I still don't perfectly understand nominalization (the tendency to use the noun form instead of the verb form).
Example:
noun: They responded to me with outright refusal.
Verb: They refused me outright.
The second statement is more direct, and I've been told by professors that despite it's simplicity, it is stronger. I don't understand why. To my ear the first sentence sounds more elegant. Which should I use?
" As you may be guessing at this point, being good with words does not equate to being intelligent, and I spent quite a bit of time thinking that I simply could not write about games because, unlike most people who I know who write about games, I can't afford them."
Lets clean it up a bit:
"By now you may have realized that being good with words does not mean I am an intelligent person. I've spent too much time believing that I can't write about games, owing to the fact I can't afford them. "
I tried to get the same point across and eliminate excess that did nothing to enforce this point. I assume most people understand a game critic can afford games
Which is better? I think the second passage is clearer. Using less commas and "ands" or "buts" makes the point easier to follow. these devices imply a change in the intended statement. On the other hand, the first may be more difficult to follow, but I think it flows better. When I imagine an elegant speaking voice, this is the voice that I speak in. I can only guess, but the nuances of spoken language could be the reason it's harder to follow. We are programmed to communicate verbally, written language is an invention, and so is more difficult to understand. That we read in an imaginary voice is a problem though, as in our voice, the meaning may change. I think that's why I over-use commas as well. Years of poetry classes have instilled in me the idea that a comma denotes a pause, a period denotes a stop. In writing prose, this is different.
Other issues I'm still having include mismatching tense (something that, along with plurality, I notice a lot of internet writers have ), and I still don't perfectly understand nominalization (the tendency to use the noun form instead of the verb form).
Example:
noun: They responded to me with outright refusal.
Verb: They refused me outright.
The second statement is more direct, and I've been told by professors that despite it's simplicity, it is stronger. I don't understand why. To my ear the first sentence sounds more elegant. Which should I use?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)