Introduction

[Tim Aeus]

This is the first thing I've written in some time. Probably the first thing I've ever written that wasn't assigned to me. It's simply the result of a conversation I had last night that got rather unnecessarily heated. Feedback is appreciated. Oh, and hello all.


In the course of human interaction, conflict is undeniably inevitable. There will come a time, in any exchange—between any partakers in said exchange—that invariably, the two or more partakers’ opinions will collide. And in such collision, is the catalyst for change.

It may be, in fact, that all opinions on the matter being discussed are invalid. It may also be that one or more persons hold a certain part of the truth, but not the whole truth. It may never be, however, that one individual grasps the entirety of the truth. This is only to say that Truth is ever elusive by nature; any attempt at defining Truth will be irrefutably incomplete. This is one truth that honest pursuers of wisdom will at one point ascertain: our World is incomprehensible. Therefore, every attempt to define some occurrence, or some being, in our World will be ineffectual. An attempt at such will be in ever need of revision.

All of this is not to diminish the importance, or I may say necessity, of conflict. It is a necessity for one to develop opinions about the World. Without such opinions, we are as a ship without an anchor, free to float aimlessly and recklessly amongst harbors and vessels; or a sailor without a compass, lacking the watchful eyes of the heavenly stars above; we are indubitably and irrevocably lost. We will float, as driftwood floats, incessantly seeking shelter from the ocean of incertitude, locked in a perpetual tide of seemingly bliss ignorance.

But this bliss would only be a likeness of actual Bliss. It is a human manifestation of a state of being unattainable, and equally unimaginable, to any individual fortunate enough to be blessed with mortality. Thus, it is in our mortality that mankind is bestowed its’ opportunity for growth. Without our imperfect understanding of our Universe, we would lack the conviction required to better ourselves. And through this attempt, conflict is born.

Conflict is a gift. Through conflict, the lost sailor finds his bearing and corrects his trajectory; through conflict, we discover where to redirect our effortless pursuit of impartiality; through conflict, we are given the opportunity to tirelessly refute the presentation of fallacy, and in doing so correct the trajectory of other lost souls. One’s path is forever intertwined with the paths of individuals who either passively follow the signs and roadmaps set before them, or passionately pursue that which mortality only likens. When two paths intersect, those on the path endeavor to collaborate in order to arrive at their destination in a timely fashion. Much to the surprise of one, or perhaps both, of the travelers, inevitably their maps will not align. At this point most will fall into banter and belittling, making accusations and assumptions based on their own map, unwilling or incapable of deciphering the map of the other traveler.

The two depart, both to continue to live by that which is on the map that guides them. One of the travelers, a student of Knowledge, inexorably suffers from the persistent nagging of a being that is as real as it is unreal. The being pries into the mind of the student, forcibly exposing it to doubt and fear. The student behaves as any honest student of knowledge would, and pursues to reconcile the differences between his map and that of the other traveler. The other traveler, convinced of his ways, will curse whatever madness has stricken the poor soul that he just encountered. He walks away with a bitter taste in his mouth, not out of anger, but out of empathy. He pities the man that cannot see as he sees, and he wishes for the sake of the fool’s soul that he could guide him on the path of righteousness.

The wiser of the two is indeterminable. However, I will continue to live my life in a manner that is decidedly uncertain and admittedly foolish.

[hillwalker]

Hello back, and well done on posting your first piece on here, and for choosing to write for pleasure rather than as part of an assignment.
But I'm not sure what this was meant to achieve. It read like a formal, legal document rather than an essay on human interaction. Perhaps you're still in 'institutionalised writing' mode.

The opening paragraph is particularly stuffy:

In the course of human interaction, conflict is undeniably inevitable no need for both. There will come a time, in any exchange —between any partakers in said exchange— again an exchange implies there will be partakers - no need for all this guff that when invariably, the two or more partakers’ again, much too wordy and repetitive opinions will collide differ?. And in such collision, doesn't make much sense logically This provides the catalyst for change.

...so 43 words reduced to 27 without losing any sense of what you were trying to say.

In the course of human interaction, conflict is inevitable. There will come a time, in any exchange, when opinions will differ. This provides the catalyst for change.

I could go through this entire piece trimming away redundant phrases like 'in fact', unnecessary words like 'also', and most of the superfluous adverbs (especially when you give us two where one is more than enough) but I won't. I lost interest by the end of paragraph 2 I'm afraid.

You make a valid point that 'truth' can never be agreed upon because we all perceive the world differently. But your style of writing made this heavy-going. Even when you tried to appear all 'poetical', pontificating about 'bliss', it was still a very dry read. Something a student might write when trying to impress a teacher with his verbosity and depth of thought. But deadly dull to read.

I suggest you lighten up and try to write something to entertain us rather than impress. You'll probably get more pleasure from the exercise as well.

H

[Tim Aeus]

That all makes sense. And thank you for taking the time to point it out. I really didn't have a goal in mind when I began this. It was more stream of thought than anything.

If I may ask several questions of you, I'm curious as to why 'wordy' is a bad thing. Why not use two adverbs? Why not use a large word in place of a small word? Why not write seriously? Are these all taboo in writing world? Or is it just ill-advised for someone starting off?

[hillwalker]

Tim,

Admittedly this isn't fiction so you're not catering for a wide audience, but over-writing or long-windedness is frowned upon because it suggests the writer is trying to impress the reader with his/her rich vocabulary rather than express himself clearly. The same goes for politicians when they open their mouths.

There's a difference between writing 'seriously' and writing 'pompously'. There are many popular, well-written books that you might not consider 'serious' - but if you're aiming to get published you have to consider your readership. If you're writing to entertain yourself and showcase your verbosity that's fine, but boring the pants off a reader doesn't sell books or even get you published.

Flowery language and over-writing is probably the worst sin. It's like an electric guitarist suddenly breaking into a 30-minute lick just to show off how talented he is. It's seldom fun to listen to after the first 5 minutes and often ruins a good tune.

Adverbs are a lazy short-hand way of describing an action that should have been shown much more clearly elsewhere in the piece.
A sentence like 'I closed the door firmly' for instance is a very 'telling' sentence. The word 'firmly' doesn't really 'show' the reader how the narrator closed the door. What is 'firmness' to one person might not be considered 'firmness' to another.
'I slammed the door' conveys the same action more clearly and does a better job.
BUT it still doesn't reveal the character of the narrator or explain why he slammed the door. There should be enough clues in whatever precedes such a sentence for the reader to visualise how the door is going to be closed... in which case the word 'firmly' is redundant. If not, the writer hasn't done a good enough job.
That's not a brilliant illustration by any means but you get the general idea.

As for littering your narrative with adverbs... it becomes tedious to read long lists of modifiers that add nothing to the prose. And they show timidity rather than experience in the writer. I counted 21 adverbs in your piece (including 3 x onlys). Wow!

Without such opinions, we are as a ship without an anchor, free to float aimlessly and recklessly if it's anchorless we know it is 'free to float' wherever - so you're wasting words to say the same thing two or even three different ways amongst harbors and vessels; or a sailor without a compass, lacking the watchful eyes of the heavenly stars where else would they be? - especially as you also add the word 'above' above; we are indubitably and irrevocably lost how does this differ to being 'lost'? can one be almost lost?. We will float, as driftwood floats, incessantly adds nothing seeking shelter from the ocean of incertitude, locked in a perpetual tide of seemingly another non-word blissful ignorance.

What you're telling us is that without opinions we can seem adrift. But you take a long time to get your message across. Most readers will assume you have a problem communicating the simplest message based on this kind of writing.

Giving the reader a pair of adverbs or adjectives to choose from makes things even worse. It suggests the writer lacks the confidence to make the choice for them. So the reader assumes the writer is unable to express himself clearly.

Why use a short word rather than a long one? It depends. If the long word expresses the thought more accurately then that's fine, but if you've used it merely to showcase your thesaurus-like mind it's tiresome.

If you want to discover what it takes to be a good writer the best way is to read as much as possible. I'm guessing from this piece that you read a lot of rather heavy material. But the art of writing involves much more than ostentatious displays like this.

H

[Tim Aeus]

Again, thanks for the feedback. I value and appreciate your input. Naturally, I disagree on parts of your critique. This is the very subject I sought to illustrate. I do understand that as a writer trying to get published, it is paramount to consider the audience. I believe, however, that it is always most important to write for yourself.

Valid points on showcasing. Pompous is not an adjective I'd like used to describe myself, so there are things I need to work on.

The only way to go is up. Perhaps the next essay will be more appealing.

[Calidore]

Here's a couple of entries from Elmore Leonard's 10 rules of writing that cover what Hillwalker is saying. Naturally, like any "rules" that apply to an artform, they can and should be tailored to fit the user's thinking and style. They're an excellent starting point, though.

4 Never use an adverb to modify the verb "said" . . . he admonished gravely. To use an adverb this way (or almost any way) is a mortal sin. The writer is now exposing himself in earnest, using a word that distracts and can interrupt the rhythm of the exchange. I have a character in one of my books tell how she used to write historical romances "full of rape and adverbs".

10 Try to leave out the part that readers tend to skip. Think of what you skip reading a novel: thick paragraphs of prose you can see have too many words in them.

My most important rule is one that sums up the 10: if it sounds like writing, I rewrite it.

[Tim Aeus]

I like that last rule. Thanks for the input.

[Tim Aeus]

Spencer comments on this quite a bit actually. In 'The Philosophy of Style' he writes,

"Hence, carrying out the metaphor that language is the vehicle of thought, there seems reason to think that in all cases the friction and inertia of the vehicle deduct from its efficiency; and that in composition, the chief, if not the sole thing to be done, is, to reduce this friction and inertia to the smallest possible amount."

Much like Spencer to use science as an illustration for the arts. Interestingly, he seems wordy himself.

[Alexander III]

Spencer comments on this quite a bit actually. In 'The Philosophy of Style' he writes,

"Hence, carrying out the metaphor that language is the vehicle of thought, there seems reason to think that in all cases the friction and inertia of the vehicle deduct from its efficiency; and that in composition, the chief, if not the sole thing to be done, is, to reduce this friction and inertia to the smallest possible amount."

Much like Spencer to use science as an illustration for the arts. Interestingly, he seems wordy himself.

When people criticizes wordiness or flowery language often it sends the wrong message across. There is nothing wrong with that, and when it is done beautifully it is one of the highest forms of the art - e.g Fitzgerald, Proust, Sidney, Marlowe, Shakespeare ect.

But it is discouraged because it is incredibly difficult to do well, and in the majority of cases not only is it not done well but it is done hideously. So the best advice is to start with clear, concise prose, think the minimalism of a greek temple. Then once that style is mastered one can construct more baroque and rococo cathedrals if one wishes. But to begin opulent without having learnt the craft of precision is to guarantee failure.

Aim not for wordiness nor for minimalism, aim for graceful and natural language. If a word does not add to the piece remove it. If the sound of a word is unpleasant remove it.

When writing try to master the aristocratic art of sprezatura. Be like the renaissance courtier. Appear to the world to be nonchalant, to be a blithe being which does not think or speculate but acts from nature and with perfect ease. Speak as if life is to ridiculous to be taken seriously, and appear beautiful because you were born beautiful and devoid of effort.

That is what you must convey, but to convey it you must in secret; think profoundly over every syllable which you might utter, before acting consider every possible action and reaction to said action, study and train your manner of movement to achieve thoughtless elegance and rid yourself of awkwardness, be serious in your studies and the contemplation of yourself, and exhaust yourself in removing every unnatural blemish from your face and in replicating the beauty Adonis. But most of all, never show the second half, for sprezatura becomes ridiculous as soon as it reveals itself. Write like the renaissance courtier lived.

[Tim Aeus]

Not very difficult, Alexander. Couldn't you have given me something challenging?

[Calidore]

I like that last rule. Thanks for the input.

It's not clear in my original post, but the last rule is from Leonard also, not me. Here's a link to a Guardian article containing Leonard's rules, plus lists by several other authors.

Edit: When the thread got bumped, I noticed I'd neglected to post the link. Sorry about that.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/feb/20/ten-rules-for-writing-fiction-part-one

[Alexander III]

Not very difficult, Alexander. Couldn't you have given me something challenging?

Be yourself and write from the heart?