This was the title of a required text in my advanced college freshman class in 1959. It was unintelligible.

So too have some posts in recent weeks seemed to me.

Shortly after I married, my wife (of 44 years this week) explained to me what she had learned as a journalist and editor:

Short sentences.
Short paragraphs.
Provide the main point of your posting in in the first two sentences.

P.S. We've been married 44 years, but sometimes it feels like 45.

Congratulations, Cassius. My wife and I got married four years ago today, so you have us beat by a little. (I'm a late marriage bloomer.)

SZ

I disagree, and, I think, so would Jacques Barzun, author of "Simple & Direct," the pre-eminent tome on rhetoric for writers. Dean Barzun favored compound and complex sentences because complex relationships cannot accurately shown by using simple sentences. They need to be linked or subordinated in one sentence if possible. Ditto about your prescription about short paragraphs. Paragraphs have to do with developing ideas; and I would argue that you are not seeing all the relationships among ideas in a paragraph comprised of a few short sentences. If an idea truly has only one facet, then it is simple and self-evident and probably unworthy of any exposition, short or long. Check out the length of Dan Dennett's paragraphs in any of his books---typically 20 or more long sentences, all of which hang together nicely. On balance, I would rather be convicted of being long-winded than simple-minded. Besides, your criticism is paradoxical on an outliner software forum in which some topics are regarded as being so complex we need a computer to help us break them down into their constitutent parts. If a topic could be sufficiently covered in a few short sentences and a few short paragraphs, we presumably could keep all of that data in our heads rather than commiting it to paper, digital or otherwise.

My complaints about some posts from some newcomers are that the posts are irrelevant to the forum's raison d'etre and ostentatious
displays of verbosity. More than that is better left unsaid.

I suspect your post is a satirical response to the question at hand. At least, I hope it is.

Apart from satire, one shows wisdom by avoiding dogmatism about paragraph and sentence structure. Much of it depends on context.

The paragraph length I'd choose to develop an idea in an academic journal and in a popular magazine would differ.

Having said that, I find even in the academic literature, and such publications as The London Review of Books (which I love), that paragraphs often are way too long; judicious editing would benefit both the paragraphs and those who read them.

Among novelists some writers craft long and complex paragraphs, while others limit their length. Similarly with sentences.

Since context is about purpose and place, readers and their needs, and generally agreed upon boundaries beyond which off-topic material resides, I'd submit this is unlikely to be the most appropriate place for discussions about Proust (or Daniel Silva's most recent espionage novel, The Fallen Angel, which is excellent indeed), or even posts such as this one on writing style.

Daly


reverendmartian wrote:

I disagree, and, I think, so would Jacques Barzun, author of "Simple & Direct," the
pre-eminent tome on rhetoric for writers. Dean Barzun favored compound and complex
sentences because complex relationships cannot accurately shown by using simple
sentences. They need to be linked or subordinated in one sentence if possible. Ditto
about your prescription about short paragraphs. Paragraphs have to do with
developing ideas; and I would argue that you are not seeing all the relationships
among ideas in a paragraph comprised of a few short sentences. If an idea truly has only
one facet, then it is simple and self-evident and probably unworthy of any
exposition, short or long. Check out the length of Dan Dennett's paragraphs in any of
his books---typically 20 or more long sentences, all of which hang together nicely.
On balance, I would rather be convicted of being long-winded than simple-minded.
Besides, your criticism is paradoxical on an outliner software forum in which some
topics are regarded as being so complex we need a computer to help us break them down
into their constitutent parts. If a topic could be sufficiently covered in a few short
sentences and a few short paragraphs, we presumably could keep all of that data in our
heads rather than commiting it to paper, digital or otherwise.

My complaints about
some posts from some newcomers are that the posts are irrelevant to the forum's raison
d'etre and ostentatious
displays of verbosity. More than that is better left
unsaid.

Cassius, at university I wrangled with English literature profs about paragraph structuring. Mine were, having come from a newspaper background, too short. I continually agreed to attempt to make longer paragraphs, and my profs agreed that, all other things (especially clarity) being equal, my fetish for short paragraphs would not result in having marks docked. My profs did comment from time to time on the clarity of my writing, and I never failed to infuriate them by suggesting it could have something to do with my paragraphs. :)

I think your wife's advice on good writing is spot on.

And congratulations indeed to both of you on your marriage anniversary.

Daly

Cassius wrote:

This was the title of a required text in my advanced college freshman class in 1959. It
was unintelligible.

So too have some posts in recent weeks seemed to me.

Shortly
after I married, my wife (of 44 years this week) explained to me what she had learned as a
journalist and editor:

Short sentences.
Short paragraphs.
Provide the main
point of your posting in in the first two sentences.

P.S. We've been married 44
years, but sometimes it feels like 45.

My post was meant in all seriousness.

Lately there have been too many posts that go on and on and become burdensome to read. Indeed, I have finally chosen not to read such. I am not referring just to Proust, et. al.

When the ratio of black space (= text) to white space on a page is too great, one's eyes and brain become fatigued.

As Polonius said in Shakespeare's "Hamlet," "...brevity is the soul of wit...." (In Shakespeare's time, "wit" usually meant "intelligence.")

Or if you prefer, consider a mathematical proof. (My Ph.D. is in mathematics.)

First you state the proposition you wish to prove.
Then you try to develop a proof of the proposition.

Now, you could write the steps of the proof all squished together,
OR
you could write the steps spread out, with lots of white space between them.

At first, I tried the "squish" approach, but I quickly learned that I made far fewer errors using the .
"space" approach.

Academic journals almost always "squish" because they can cram more articles (which may be valuable or otherwise) into an issue AND because of page charges.

Cassius, I know you were serious. My comment about satire was directed to the Reverend.

Cheers,

Daly

Cassius wrote:

As Polonius
said in Shakespeare's "Hamlet," "...brevity is the soul of wit...." (In
Shakespeare's time, "wit" usually meant "intelligence.")

Or as the Lakonians (Spartans) who were known for expressing themselves in few words said, "laconicism is philosophy"

Personally, I prefer to eschew obfuscation.

Steve Z.

If you can hold your sentences, and your paragraphs short, it's always better, and even in longer sentences and longer paragraphs, good style is to have them clearly constructed, and we all know this implies more work on them, than just write things down: It implies editing efforts (or to be really gifted from start, which makes great writers) - but please note, we're a forum here, not the nrf, so please allow for some sloppiness.

People - be they married for 44 or 45 years, which is both very heartwarming for us guys of lesser constance and who might be not even heterosexual, all us us, thus not being allowed to marry (except for cover) to begin with - that don't like complicated matter are kindly invited to simply not read them, and especially, since my posts are under my name (well, not really, my name would be Fred, not Fredy, but Fred was taken by somebody not currently publishing anything or anymore), skipping them is very easy.

I've got better things to do than agressing people, but since I'm clearly targetted here, please let me remember that some content triggers hits from the outside, via Google, whilst others, most of the o.p.'s "contributions" here in the last year e.g., weren't outright high-brow to say the least, and this isn't diffamation, just search by name and compare the level.

As for Proust, I wouldn't have extended my original post mentioning him if sombody else hadn't said I was mistaken about him, so I had I right to develop why I was not; my original mentioning of Proust was RIGHT ON TARGET since in this forum, we discuss not only "this outliner has got this feature, that one hasn't got that", as the o.p. - judging by his usual "contributions" here (in which on top of it he seems to be mistaken rather often) seems to believe -, but also, to some degree, theoretical foundations of outliners, and it seems evident that a certain group within the people posting here are out to SILENCE the pov's of one of the world-leading experts in this field here, by jealousy or whatever.

Normally, it would appear to be incredibly preposterous to publish such a self-appreciation, but just compare what others said, to great acclaim, on IM by text files / file M within the Scrivener forum, and what I said, to almost no "reception", on that very same subject, within the UR forum: The comparison of these shows the infinite superiority of my thinking upon these matters, and, of course, the unsuitability of the UF forum (= people having made their decision for a "one file contains it all" tool for such developments - but that latter aspect, I knew it from start on, and I had chosen the UR forum whilst I would have had preferred to publish here but didn't do so because the majority, it seemed, of contributors here, had clearly stated they didn't want my contributions here, in late 2011.

I came back here some weeks ago having judged first that I clearly wanted a publication platform really suited to my findings, IM in general, why force UR into that generality whilst their forum is about a specific tiny fraction of MI only, AND having judged that whilst I'm one of the world-leading experts in these matters (cf. my postings in AS, MI, UR fori and here, let alone my own offering in the late Nineties), I was NOT imbued by "final truth value" upon these matters I'm an expert in, and I judged that animosity vàv my person within this forum, in 2011, might have occured because at that time, I hadn't clearly seen yet that some of my judgments re these matters might be mistaken; since I proved here, these last days, that I'm willing to questioning my "findings" and convictions whenever I see counterclaim, AND that I'm willing to give in, I consider some assertions of this thread an INSULT:

Since when some people here want me to be silenced, they obviously do NOT ask for a person to be silenced that doesn't allow for real discussion anyway, but for the silencing of a person that is able to see, and to surrender to, assertions that have NOT been his to begin with, AND of a person whose contributions here are PROVABLE of a totally different intellectual level than those of those people who dare ask for him to be silenced - again, postings in this forum are searchable by posters' name.

I'm certainly not begging clemency here: Chris has just to make the decision to blick my access data, and I will certainly not post here ever again under any other identity, but it seems - this also is provable - that with my contributions here, even the non-"silence him" posts here ROAR, in comparison with those months I've not been here anymore for some months - just compare end of 2011 with forther months, and the immediate antecedents with my again having taken part here: it's overwhelming.

AND I'm totally FED UP with these posts, of "contributors" doing evidently INFERIOR "contributions", treating my contributions here like CRAP or something, when in fact, www-WIDE, you won't find anything similar within our scope - or then, Chris, as our host, making the decising to go back to the non-Fred-contributing state of his forum, and then so be it.

It's up to him, but while he does NOT throw me out, minor contributors here please accept that this forum has got contributions by people KNOWING their "outliner" theory, and this INCLUDES people other than myself, and let me add, for people who do NOT see it by their own means, we've got some contributors here that EXCEL from triggers I "throw" to them, just like I do much better thinking from THEIR contributions vàv mine, than I would do think "all alone", so this forum PROFITS CLEARLY from what I have to say, be it for advancing outliner theory, be it from ad revenus.

As for Proust, I said to have been right on the spot, and I HAD the right to mention since it's EVIDENT Proust's "national French treasure writings" are at the opposite of good IM structure we're discussing here, hence the interest of discussing what his errors were.

The Kant professor left this forum because, as he said, "I don't need this"; well then, he's got his own (brilliant) blog - but where there is NO such discussion enhancing things. I don't have such a blog, so I'm in need of a publication platform - AND, as said, I'm very much stimulated by opponent opinions I get here, AND it's evident I stimulate my co-contributors here, so my contributions here seem to be beneficial AND for the "cause", AND for this forum.

As said, it's up to Chris to throw me out or not, but as long as he doesn't, little rabble-rousers without (many) valid contributions of their own shut up, for the sake of my not leaving, telling myself, "I don't need this either".

Fredy wrote:

If you can hold your sentences, and your paragraphs short, it's always better, and
even in longer sentences and longer paragraphs, good style is to have them clearly
constructed, and we all know this implies more work on them, than just write things
down: It implies editing efforts (or to be really gifted from start, which makes great
writers) - but please note, we're a forum here, not the nrf, so please allow for some
sloppiness.

Fredy, as far as I'm concerned, you've got me covered with the above statement. I can ask for nothing more, from all sides.

Here's the deal: my time is limited, and English is not my mother tongue. I have found some very interesting points in your posts (e.g. re editors) which I would like to discuss and elaborate further. However, in order to find these, I have needed to delve into your posts for quite some time. I cannot afford to do this anymore.

Are you interested in making your ideas known, or simply exposing your mind flow? In the first case, I believe that facilitating interaction is the most effective way to do it.

It's not an issue of Chris silencing you, far from it. We are grateful to Chris for setting up and supporting this forum, but he doesn't own it in order to make decisions on who stays and who is kicked out (unless we get into spam, name calling and other actions with possible legal implications), and I'm sure he'd be the first person to say so.

The issue is READABILITY.

In high school, my son could not spell (he defeated word processors) and his grammar left something to be desired. Yet his stories flowed--they were a pleasure to read. He made As in English class. Now he is an author and senior video game producer.