Hooray for concision. Everything can be boiled down. Better for the reader and better for the writer. I taught my son, age 12 (now 43), to write by giving him paragraphs and seeing how many words he could eliminate without losing any meaning. Now, he writes better than I do and certainly in more prestigious places.
One also wants to preserve some soulfulness, which I think Doyle does beautifully. But glad to know that we are kindred spirits in this (and many other things).
Fair point. Most of us would have different results. And the sample is pretty flawed to begin with. But the idea is not to suggest a correct answer so much as to show the benefits of paring down. I think it's worthwhile.
I'm new to writing, and this is just what I needed—MFA style—another subject to engage in heated debate about... like I didn't already have enough of those!
I tangentially wrote about this a while back. Maybe you'd like to give it a look:
I am not a professional writer, yet I do enjoy writing. I love the idea of cutting as many words as possible. (Tho I tend to use asides as clarification 🤭)
I write as I speak, enjoying the power of making people feel something
You caught and held my attention with incisive expression otw my feed would be flooded with emotional triggers; perhaps algorithms can be developed for the folks who still value a quality read and I can stop writing clickable headlines
Appreciate that, Ellen. Yes, it would be nice to go back to simpler titles, like "On ___," and let the writing work its own enchantment. Glad this one held up for you.
Thank you for this piece, Josh. The distinction between brevity and concision is vital. The care writers take with craft has fewer readers than ever who are able to appreciate it. The publishing industry itself is partly to blame with all those book jackets using descriptions like "propulsive" and "incandescent" to describe ordinary, if not abysmal, prose.
I suppose I can't care deeply about writing without caring about craft. The two are ineluctably linked for me. If that means a smaller coterie of readers, then so be it. I know you follow the same star. And, yes, the trumped-up marketing of mediocrity is wearisome.
Concision? Sometimes it's appropriate, but then you read an author like Mann or Tolstoy, among others, who could weave sentences as long as paragraphs, and paragraphs stretching from one page to the next. To pull that off as they did required craft. Would a big five publisher even give a book like Moby Dick a second look today?
Willa Cather was influenced by both Mann and Tolstoy, yet still believed in concision. Her craft manifesto, "The Novel Demueble," makes the best case for it that I know. In this sense, I think audience matters. Melville, Mann, and Tolstoy were writing for different readers in a different time.
I think the answer to your question is obviously no, unless the author of the next "Moby Dick" was already a celebrity, had a substantial social media following, or checked an identity box that could be leveraged for sales. But there are a great many fine stylists who write concisely who are also not considered by the Big 5 for these reasons.
Mann and Tolstoy were both highly educated and fluent inore than one language. Their readers were likely also educated and accustomed to reading literature in more than one language. Today’s readers seem different on several levels. I know writers who are concise in their writing yet are reluctant to read a longer novel with long, detailed narrative passages. The challenge, I think, is to be concise and deep.
Enjoyable and useful essay, thank you. Working as an administrator at an American university I learned that senior colleagues were unlikely to read email messages beyond what appeared without scrolling on their mobile phone screen, and adapted that kind of writing accordingly.
I am less clear on audience expectations on Substack, and often write essays that may require 15 minutes of reading time, assuming that there might be some with capacity or desire for longer essays; nonetheless I value conciseness.
As a reader the writing the repels me on this platform is that consisting of many one- or two-sentence paragraphs of sensationalist prose. I suppose one might argue that this is journalistic concision, but I do not like being manipulated by text.
Thanks, John. I think there are different coteries of readers on Substack, and many of us are interested in deeper engagement. So I'd encourage you to keep writing what satisfies your own curiosity. Rage bait is the fastest path to growth (unless you're offering a truly practical service), but it also leads to churn and is, as you say, not what many of us are looking for as readers, even if we sometimes succumb to the bait.
Guilty as charged your Honor. That was 3 days that On the Road was writt. Purple prose is "blue" prose, I thought. Had not heard the 500 words rule, and will try one. You seem together with the admirable McLuhan in finding newspaper new speak equitone prose to be the widest net. Myself use equitone as my boilerplate except every time where I find a panda eats shoots, and leaves more stimulating. Why do people call me pornography? Can you tell me?
"Best not to edit. Just let it rip." Oh goodness, we want concision!
Thank you, Mary! Glad you agree.
Hooray for concision. Everything can be boiled down. Better for the reader and better for the writer. I taught my son, age 12 (now 43), to write by giving him paragraphs and seeing how many words he could eliminate without losing any meaning. Now, he writes better than I do and certainly in more prestigious places.
One also wants to preserve some soulfulness, which I think Doyle does beautifully. But glad to know that we are kindred spirits in this (and many other things).
I'd cut the dialogue altogether.
Then, I'm not a writer.
But I'm a good reader.
Fair point. Most of us would have different results. And the sample is pretty flawed to begin with. But the idea is not to suggest a correct answer so much as to show the benefits of paring down. I think it's worthwhile.
I'm new to writing, and this is just what I needed—MFA style—another subject to engage in heated debate about... like I didn't already have enough of those!
I tangentially wrote about this a while back. Maybe you'd like to give it a look:
https://open.substack.com/pub/writerbytechnicality/p/i-look-through-my-window-so-bright?r=3anz55&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
Great article, Joshua. Thanks!
Cheers! Glad it landed.
Thank you Josh.
I am not a professional writer, yet I do enjoy writing. I love the idea of cutting as many words as possible. (Tho I tend to use asides as clarification 🤭)
I write as I speak, enjoying the power of making people feel something
Concision doesn’t apply to footnotes 😊
You caught and held my attention with incisive expression otw my feed would be flooded with emotional triggers; perhaps algorithms can be developed for the folks who still value a quality read and I can stop writing clickable headlines
Appreciate that, Ellen. Yes, it would be nice to go back to simpler titles, like "On ___," and let the writing work its own enchantment. Glad this one held up for you.
Thank you for this piece, Josh. The distinction between brevity and concision is vital. The care writers take with craft has fewer readers than ever who are able to appreciate it. The publishing industry itself is partly to blame with all those book jackets using descriptions like "propulsive" and "incandescent" to describe ordinary, if not abysmal, prose.
I suppose I can't care deeply about writing without caring about craft. The two are ineluctably linked for me. If that means a smaller coterie of readers, then so be it. I know you follow the same star. And, yes, the trumped-up marketing of mediocrity is wearisome.
Concision? Sometimes it's appropriate, but then you read an author like Mann or Tolstoy, among others, who could weave sentences as long as paragraphs, and paragraphs stretching from one page to the next. To pull that off as they did required craft. Would a big five publisher even give a book like Moby Dick a second look today?
Willa Cather was influenced by both Mann and Tolstoy, yet still believed in concision. Her craft manifesto, "The Novel Demueble," makes the best case for it that I know. In this sense, I think audience matters. Melville, Mann, and Tolstoy were writing for different readers in a different time.
I think the answer to your question is obviously no, unless the author of the next "Moby Dick" was already a celebrity, had a substantial social media following, or checked an identity box that could be leveraged for sales. But there are a great many fine stylists who write concisely who are also not considered by the Big 5 for these reasons.
Mann and Tolstoy were both highly educated and fluent inore than one language. Their readers were likely also educated and accustomed to reading literature in more than one language. Today’s readers seem different on several levels. I know writers who are concise in their writing yet are reluctant to read a longer novel with long, detailed narrative passages. The challenge, I think, is to be concise and deep.
That is precisely the challenge! One doesn't want to be concise and trie ;)
Enjoyable and useful essay, thank you. Working as an administrator at an American university I learned that senior colleagues were unlikely to read email messages beyond what appeared without scrolling on their mobile phone screen, and adapted that kind of writing accordingly.
I am less clear on audience expectations on Substack, and often write essays that may require 15 minutes of reading time, assuming that there might be some with capacity or desire for longer essays; nonetheless I value conciseness.
As a reader the writing the repels me on this platform is that consisting of many one- or two-sentence paragraphs of sensationalist prose. I suppose one might argue that this is journalistic concision, but I do not like being manipulated by text.
Thanks, John. I think there are different coteries of readers on Substack, and many of us are interested in deeper engagement. So I'd encourage you to keep writing what satisfies your own curiosity. Rage bait is the fastest path to growth (unless you're offering a truly practical service), but it also leads to churn and is, as you say, not what many of us are looking for as readers, even if we sometimes succumb to the bait.
Guilty as charged your Honor. That was 3 days that On the Road was writt. Purple prose is "blue" prose, I thought. Had not heard the 500 words rule, and will try one. You seem together with the admirable McLuhan in finding newspaper new speak equitone prose to be the widest net. Myself use equitone as my boilerplate except every time where I find a panda eats shoots, and leaves more stimulating. Why do people call me pornography? Can you tell me?
I could tell you if I could make heads or tails of your comments 🤷🏼
Be it said i said guilty as charged. Is that not English? I wonder sometimes as bouge stick that knife of nolo whatever Latinate non grata. Be well.
Sorry dear. I will leave you be.