Define "excessive." Or, how about this. Make a statement about something complex and defend it in less than two paragraphs. Like, for instance, you stand on natural rights. Or, perhaps, how evolutionary theory predicts (or doesn't) economic realities. Notice you can probably make the statement in two paragraphs, but to defend it you have to think about what others think, the objections they have to your view, and how or why those objections don't undermine that view.
Let's agree that, to you, because you are "not in this forum to read" anything that appears to you to be "excessive" my writing is "excessive." So why are you here? If you don't like reading my texts, why? You read books, which are much, much longer (are they all fiction because that might explain it). Do you only read the short, pithy, often snarky replies? How long is too long for you?
In any case there are two things with which I do have a problem when it comes to critiquing my work here. First, I have a problem with labeling what I write a "wall of text" as if there is something inappropriate about me writing the way I do. I defend my writing style and don't appreciate when it's put down as in appropriate. There are few rules in this forum about length but those are probably more about technical issues than writing styles. Second, I really have a problem with "I didn't read it, but here are my comments on it...." That is disingenuous.
@Iyapo You say: "I could always just read the title. AJ...pontificating about concise writing. lol"
First, do you really want all the ideas of every post put into the title? Can anybody really expect that is an effective way to communicate? The statement appears to me to be a bit "tongue in cheek" and I hope it is.
Second, "pontificating" has negative connotations. One dictionary defines it as: "
express one's opinions in a way considered
annoyingly pompous and
dogmatic." In thinking about it I do wonder how difficult it must be for those who are experts in their field to not sound "annoyingly pompous and dogmatic" to those who don't recognize they know of what they are speaking. Should the, in order to not sound "annoyingly pompous and dogmatic" dumb down their words and approach? Would that do a better job of actually presenting ideas?
And finally, the whole point of my post was to discuss concise writing. I know you read the title so you should have got at least that. Now you do seem to imply my writing is not concise. By the definition and discussion I have given, show me where I've not been concise. There may be a place or two, but in all my postings here I you will probably not find more than that. Since you have chosen to imply I'm not, how about showing how I'm not concise.
1) Why post anything?
2) Yep, "wall-y" because the writing is unclear. Concise writing seldom has this problem because what often makes writing confusing is the addition of asides, unneeded side journey's to other ideas and so on.
3) And "yep" writing needs a road map of sorts. Each paragraph should have something it contributes to the overall flow of the piece and the person reading should sense a forward progression. "First," "Second" and so on, especially previewed with a something like, "I see three reasons this might be..." are powerful road signs.
To all: I didn't expect such strong reactions to what I consider a clear concept. Concise is not necessarily short. I've laid out some ideas of what concise means to me and why implying it's inappropriate is, inaccurate. I've also suggested some honesty is in need when a person doesn't read the long post and then decides to condemn it for being "too long." The value of the text cannot be determined without reading the text.
AJ