Concise writing

[ajqtrz]

FWIW, I read for a living, so when I hit a wall of text in a game forum, it better be captivating or my eyes grey it out. For example, @crackie your post was very informative for a literary type who also loves technology. I do remember responsive design from one of the cs classes that I took when I decided to change careers and then realized that I would be competing with kids who grew up with computers when I graduated.

Any other text walls might have been greyed out by my eyes, or I just didn't have anything to add.

My initial response to your response was not pleasant. Why? Because, honestly, I skimmed it. I saw the all to familiar "wall of text" and read it as a negative comment. And maybe it was, but then, because I'm working on being more understanding of what others have written, I went back and read it carefully. My initial reaction was wrong as it was more a comment about what you expect in a forum.

I often get the "wall of text" or "TLR" response. More than I like. I've tried to shorten and condense my writing and anybody who follows me may see that I've improved. On the other hand, while there is such thing as a "wall of text," I doubt I've ever posted one, in spite of my critics claims. But I have a more nuanced idea about what constitutes a "wall of text."

A wall of text, is, to me, built of repetition, extraneous or off topic comments, or other things which do not advance the story, argument or ideas of the post. It generally means the writer, didn't re-read and/or take the time to edit, and/or was unaware of the rules for concise writing.

Concise writing is not the same thing as short comment, though it may be short. In concise writing each and every word you write is needed to explain and advance communication. It may look like a wall of text, but it's a wall of dense, and sometimes cogent ideas that deserves respect. A "wall of text" does not. Sadly, too often readers "grey out" the words before them precisely because they have come to expect the text to be "repetitious, rambling, off topic, and so on. In other words, they see a large post and think, "not for me, it's a wall of text." Sort of what we did when we were kids and had to do a book report. We looked for the shortest thing we could find and anything over fifty pages was just too hard. On the other hand, which do you think you would have gotten more out of? "Fun with Dick and Jane" at ten pages or so, or "To Kill a Mockingbird?" at about 150? You probably know what you'd have done as a kid, but you aren't a kid anymore. Judging a bunch of writing because it looks like a wall of text, is, in my opinion, being an immature reader.

In any case, here here are some ideas I use in my attempt to become a more concise writer.

1) The first write of anything is for you as you work out in your own mind what you think. So never post the first draft. The second or beyond is for public consumption. So, edit your work.
2) When you edit, you being the process of writing for others. Put yourself in their place and listen with their ears. Then change, even throw out, what you've just written. Editing is saying to your readers that you care about their time and emotional state. Removing insults, staying on topic, moving the argument or story along, are not always easy. And doing it with the understanding that while you may understand what you mean, the readers may not. The greatest sign of respect for your readers is that you stop and read what you said, consider it from their perspective, and often dump it and try again.
3) Remember, you aren't writing for everyone. In fact, it's probably a small percentage of the potential audience to whom you will speak. Those interested in the topic, interested in what you may have to say about the topic, and willing to listen to you say it. This is a small group, more than likely. Write for them.
4) You may have to repeat yourself, but do so in a different place. Why? Because saying the same thing more than twice -- in two different ways -- in the same post, is not effective. By the third take the reader has either gotten it or won't as the human mind becomes dulled by the third iteration of the same idea, no matter how clever that iteration may be. So if you have to say it again, wait and find another place to say it.
5) Don't be too hard on yourself, or anybody. You are going to make mistakes and they will be pointed out to you. Acknowledge them, apologize for them, and be thankful because you need to grow and sometimes the only way to do that is to blush and carry on.

I could go on, but won't. I'll, instead, spend the time editing this to make it more concise.

AJ

 

[Sodbury]

My French teacher offered this exercise where we would have to eliminate every unnecessary word from a paragraph and still retain its essence. Often, a paragraph could be reduced to a few words. I'm sure this is a standard exercise of sorts but I've never discovered what it is called.

Also, where did my like button go?

 

[Sprite1313]

My French teacher offered this exercise where we would have to eliminate every unnecessary word from a paragraph and still retain its essence. Often, a paragraph could be reduced to a few words. I'm sure this is a standard exercise of sorts but I've never discovered what it is called.

Also, where did my like button go?

You can't like in the community feeds, sadly.

 

[Sodbury]

You can't like in the community feeds, sadly.

Oh. I imagine that there's some tortured logic behind this, known only to one historical checkbox unclicker. Thanks for explaining.

 

[elvenbee]

I often get the "wall of text" or "TLR" response. More than I like. I've tried to shorten and condense my writing and anybody who follows me may see that I've improved. On the other hand, while there is such thing as a "wall of text," I doubt I've ever posted one, in spite of my critics claims. But I have a more nuanced idea about what constitutes a "wall of text."

A wall of text, is, to me, built of repetition, extraneous or off topic comments, or other things which do not advance the story, argument or ideas of the post. It generally means the writer, didn't re-read and/or take the time to edit, and/or was unaware of the rules for concise writing.

The actual meaning of "wall of text" is "an intimidatingly large block of writing", but in forums it's also "long responses with little to no paragraph breaks". Thank goodness you include paragraph breaks lol. Your initial response to Tehya's comment was unpleasant, because you skimmed it. Now, look at her comment length versus yours.... see the irony here? I think you need to accept defeat that you DO write walls of text lol

 

[Myne]

The actual meaning of "wall of text" is "an intimidatingly large block of writing", but in forums it's also "long responses with little to no paragraph breaks". Thank goodness you include paragraph breaks lol. Your initial response to Tehya's comment was unpleasant, because you skimmed it. Now, look at her comment length versus yours.... see the irony here? I think you need to accept defeat that you DO write walls of text lol

THIS

 

[defiantoneks]

is it wrong to admit that i skip over much of what's in those long posts and instead read the responses?
I still get the gist without having to go through the full blown episode of the original post.

 

[ajqtrz]

The actual meaning of "wall of text" is "an intimidatingly large block of writing", but in forums it's also "long responses with little to no paragraph breaks". Thank goodness you include paragraph breaks lol. Your initial response to Tehya's comment was unpleasant, because you skimmed it. Now, look at her comment length versus yours.... see the irony here? I think you need to accept defeat that you DO write walls of text lol

My initial response was not to the length. It was to the content. I miss read the content and had to go back and re-read it lest I say something untrue or unkind. And that is, I think, exactly what anyone should do if they take issue with a poster. Re-read it and make sure they understand it. A first read should never be the last if you are responding critically. That's what I did. Sorry if you thought my response was to the length.

In any case, since we have a different definition of "wall of text" it might be impossible for us to agree. I do think we can agree that any text that uses excessive repetition, gets side tracked, makes snide comments, etc... and is long, is included both of our definitions of a "wall of text." And I would think be would both agree that such a block would not be considered concise. The length of a post, though is not what you have defined as a "wall of text." What you've presented is measure of the term based not upon it's length, but in the readers emotional response. One could imagine a post of a single paragraph being intimidating to some readers. But the emotional response of it seeming "intimidating" is just a reaction. Should we, therefore, judge the block of text as a bad (which is what the term "wall of text" seems to imply). because our emotional response is to find it intimidating? Isn't that a comment on our reading habits more than the actual text?

All of which brings me to the idea that maybe it's our reading habits that are the culprit. Why? Because, being flooded with information (some of it actually true), we have less and less time to actually use to consider the information and thus want it is tiny, pre-digested bites. So we get a clever meme claiming this or that view is true. We think, because it reinforces our feeling that we are right, it makes us "more right." Unfortunately, to critique such a "snap shot" presentation you either have to present a more powerful meme -- at which you are really only trading clever blows, and not exploring the issue -- or you have to write things. In the end most people, I think, want to skim the issues and grab whatever clever meme agrees with them and consider themselves "well informed." So, in the end, it's probably not the concise writing of which I speak that's the real problem, but the way people take in, and don't take in, information.

But I'm not concerned with the large blocks of text so much because I'm not writing for those who want an abbreviated trade of jabs and punches in the place of a carefully reasoned discussion. Jabs and punches are meant for the ring where opponents do battle. Carefully and thoughtfully presented discussion is for those who really would like to know what the truth might be. Those are the ones, for whom I write. Which is one of my points. If you aren't the type to want to know the truth, whatever it might be, but think you already have it and have no need to consider it any deeper, don't read my blocks of text. You aren't the one to whom I'm speaking. Though I wish you were.

(To be clear, the "you" in the above paragraph is the general reader, not you, elvenbee. You may or may not be the type of reader to whom I'm writing.)

is it wrong to admit that i skip over much of what's in those long posts and instead read the responses?
I still get the gist without having to go through the full blown episode of the original post.

Actually, it's an interesting technique and I do appreciate your honesty. However, there are two problems: First, you are relying on others to accurately understand and present fairly what was said. The "cliff notes" versions you get may distort things in the direction of the one writing the notes. Second, you may miss some points entirely. Responders usually respond to specific words rather than to the whole thing and thus may miss the actual point or points altogether.

AJ

 

[hvariidh gwendrot]

wall of text = too many words
well thought i had two o's ha
but the point is valid and correct

 

[ajqtrz]

wall of text = to many words

It's "too" not "to." LOL And, if I had written, within the text, tomorrow's lottery numbers, would it have been "to[o] many words?" So the number of words is really irrelevant if it means you get something of value from having read it. Now, of course, this presents a problem. If you don't read it you have no idea of it's value. But if you do read it, and it has nothing of importance in it, you've just wasted your time. Even if it's only one or two words and it give you nothing of importance, though, it's a waste of time. The thing is, you can't decide if some text is worth reading until you read it. My suggestion is that you read the first paragraph. If it is concise and well written, go on. If it's full of unneeded repetition, and so on, skip the rest. It's unlikely the rest will be better.

AJ

 

[elvenbee]

My initial response was not to the length. It was to the content. I miss read the content and had to go back and re-read it lest I say something untrue or unkind. And that is, I think, exactly what anyone should do if they take issue with a poster. Re-read it and make sure they understand it. A first read should never be the last if you are responding critically. That's what I did. Sorry if you thought my response was to the length.

In any case, since we have a different definition of "wall of text" it might be impossible for us to agree. I do think we can agree that any text that uses excessive repetition, gets side tracked, makes snide comments, etc... and is long, is included both of our definitions of a "wall of text." And I would think be would both agree that such a block would not be considered concise. The length of a post, though is not what you have defined as a "wall of text." What you've presented is measure of the term based not upon it's length, but in the readers emotional response. One could imagine a post of a single paragraph being intimidating to some readers. But the emotional response of it seeming "intimidating" is just a reaction. Should we, therefore, judge the block of text as a bad (which is what the term "wall of text" seems to imply). because our emotional response is to find it intimidating? Isn't that a comment on our reading habits more than the actual text?

All of which brings me to the idea that maybe it's our reading habits that are the culprit. Why? Because, being flooded with information (some of it actually true), we have less and less time to actually use to consider the information and thus want it is tiny, pre-digested bites. So we get a clever meme claiming this or that view is true. We think, because it reinforces our feeling that we are right, it makes us "more right." Unfortunately, to critique such a "snap shot" presentation you either have to present a more powerful meme -- at which you are really only trading clever blows, and not exploring the issue -- or you have to write things. In the end most people, I think, want to skim the issues and grab whatever clever meme agrees with them and consider themselves "well informed." So, in the end, it's probably not the concise writing of which I speak that's the real problem, but the way people take in, and don't take in, information.

But I'm not concerned with the large blocks of text so much because I'm not writing for those who want an abbreviated trade of jabs and punches in the place of a carefully reasoned discussion. Jabs and punches are meant for the ring where opponents do battle. Carefully and thoughtfully presented discussion is for those who really would like to know what the truth might be. Those are the ones, for whom I write. Which is one of my points. If you aren't the type to want to know the truth, whatever it might be, but think you already have it and have no need to consider it any deeper, don't read my blocks of text. You aren't the one to whom I'm speaking. Though I wish you were.

(To be clear, the "you" in the above paragraph is the general reader, not you, elvenbee. You may or may not be the type of reader to whom I'm writing.)


Actually, it's an interesting technique and I do appreciate your honesty. However, there are two problems: First, you are relying on others to accurately understand and present fairly what was said. The "cliff notes" versions you get may distort things in the direction of the one writing the notes. Second, you may miss some points entirely. Responders usually respond to specific words rather than to the whole thing and thus may miss the actual point or points altogether.

AJ

Too long, I'm not reading that.

Every meaning of "wall of text" that I've read includes an excessively long post, which is what you do. You write walls of text.

For context, I'm an avid reader, I LOVE reading books. I'm just not on this forum to read walls of text like yours. Please note, this isn't me being snarky, just honest in a forum without tone. There's a reason why you and I don't interact on the forum, because of your walls of text, lol.

 

[Iyapo]

The thing is, you can't decide if some text is worth reading until you read it

I could always just read the title. AJ...pontificating about concise writing. lol

 

[Zoof]

This is the third time I've tried to figure out what to post here. I've given up. Might as well post a couple thoughts in easy-to-see bullet points.

• To me, walls of text are only wall-y if I have to reattempt a paragraph several times because I've lost my place while trying to read it.
• Landmarks not readily available to traditional print, such as typeface formatting, listing, and tables, makes foruming easier for us all.
• I had a really short story relating landmarks to road trips that got edited out. But by golly, I WILL SHARE IT.

Context: Good writing is like beautiful landscape on road trip. Can get monotonous, though. Paragraph breaks are like exit signs on a road trip. Formatting like landmarks. THE THING I WANT TO SHARE: Like that aforementioned road trip. The last northbound exit before the Florida Turnpike merges into I-75. The signage is loud. It was obvious. But the actual exit led to what could best be described as a middle-of-nowhere suburb without the urb. The gas station eastward from the exit was large and full of space. But a strange liminal space sort of deal because I'm already over 300 miles away from home and each time me and my party reached it, it was sometime around 2AM. The graveyard shift, if you will. But the funny thing is that even though I'd only visited it three times in my life, the station cashier remembered me. Actually driving that far sucks balls but the warm kindness just stuck with me, even over 12 years after the fact.

 

[ajqtrz]

Too long, I'm not reading that.

Every meaning of "wall of text" that I've read includes an excessively long post, which is what you do. You write walls of text.

For context, I'm an avid reader, I LOVE reading books. I'm just not on this forum to read walls of text like yours. Please note, this isn't me being snarky, just honest in a forum without tone. There's a reason why you and I don't interact on the forum, because of your walls of text, lol.

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.

This is the third time I've tried to figure out what to post here. I've given up. Might as well post a couple thoughts in easy-to-see bullet points.

• To me, walls of text are only wall-y if I have to reattempt a paragraph several times because I've lost my place while trying to read it.
• Landmarks not readily available to traditional print, such as typeface formatting, listing, and tables, makes foruming easier for us all.
• I had a really short story relating landmarks to road trips that got edited out. But by golly, I WILL SHARE IT.

Context: Good writing is like beautiful landscape on road trip. Can get monotonous, though. Paragraph breaks are like exit signs on a road trip. Formatting like landmarks. THE THING I WANT TO SHARE: Like that aforementioned road trip. The last northbound exit before the Florida Turnpike merges into I-75. The signage is loud. It was obvious. But the actual exit led to what could best be described as a middle-of-nowhere suburb without the urb. The gas station eastward from the exit was large and full of space. But a strange liminal space sort of deal because I'm already over 300 miles away from home and each time me and my party reached it, it was sometime around 2AM. The graveyard shift, if you will. But the funny thing is that even though I'd only visited it three times in my life, the station cashier remembered me. Actually driving that far sucks balls but the warm kindness just stuck with me, even over 12 years after the fact.

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

 

[Iyapo]

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.

The word concise is synonymous with brief, laconic, pithy, succinct, or terse. You are none of those things.

 

[Sprite1313]

It's "too" not "to."

First, people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. It’s “misread” not “miss read”. We are all going to have typos or other errors in our posts. Forums are not academic writing and to point out grammatical, syntactical or other errors in posts is rather boorish. (I would describe it in other terms, but that would violate forum rules). We all understood what was meant, which is the purpose of communication.

“Brevity is the soul of wit” - Shakespeare
”The most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do.” - Thomas Jefferson
“Something said briefly can be the fruit of much long thought” - Friedrich Nietzsche

 

[Alram]

Correcting grammatical errors is a violation of forum rule #4.

https://us.forum.elvenar.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.702/

 

[Sodbury]

I can't find the lottery numbers.

I am enjoying the thread, though.

 

[Darielle]

Correcting grammatical errors is a violation of forum rule #4.

https://us.forum.elvenar.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.702/

Thank you, Alram. Grammar na... well, whatever they're called, are not helpful on forums. People are here from all different backgrounds and all different levels of energy. When you're tired and just want to kick back and visit a forum, you don't want someone breathing down your neck correcting your replies. I've been an editor for 30+ years (and still edit a leading authors' magazine), but I once wrote "throne" when I meant "thrown" and I got a lot of howls for that ... not here on this forum, thank goodness. This forum doesn't usually violate the rule Alram spoke of in his post. But everyone makes an occasional error ... everyone. Matter of fact, I am currently reading Tom Clancy's The Cardinal and the Kremlin, an older runaway best seller, and I've already spotted three typos.

The correction was probably more about hurt feelings because everyone thinks that a certain someone writes too verbosely and condescendingly, rather than simply wanting to educate someone on their spelling. Face it ... no one wants long "walls of text" designed to educate the unwashed masses. We're here to learn fun facts about the game, commune with our fellow Elvenarians, have fun, relax, and get to know each other. Whenever someone comes across as a professor trying to teach his class, people are bound to get a little irritable.

 

[Darielle]

I can't find the lottery numbers.

I am enjoying the thread, though.

Lol ... thanks for lightening up the thread! It needed it.