Read on Twitter
So...writing thread time.
People talk about not dumbing down their writing. "It's a stupid rule," they say "and I don't write for fourth-graders." But, the rule to simplify your writing has come about to address an actual problem. Like most rules, it gets overextended.
/1
People talk about not dumbing down their writing. "It's a stupid rule," they say "and I don't write for fourth-graders." But, the rule to simplify your writing has come about to address an actual problem. Like most rules, it gets overextended.
/1
I just read a post/article about adding sensory descriptions into writing. Yet throughout the entire piece it talked about "sensory modalities." Unfamiliar with this term, I looked up the individual parts. But the meaning became clear when the poster listed various modalities
/2
/2
Things like sight, smell, temperature, touch, body posture.
In other words, SENSES.
"Sense" is one syllable. "Senses" is two. "Sensory modalities" is seven, to say something that could be said in one or two syllables. It was inefficient.
But it was a Big Word.
/3
In other words, SENSES.
"Sense" is one syllable. "Senses" is two. "Sensory modalities" is seven, to say something that could be said in one or two syllables. It was inefficient.
But it was a Big Word.
/3
"Sensory modality" was used to make the author look smart. It's jargon, and unnecessary jargon. If I talk about monopolistic competition or marginal revenue, that's jargon with a purpose. For me to describe in plain speech what these are would take more time and ink.
/4
/4
Monopolistic competition is a market setup where firms sell differentiated products; they act like monopolies in that they aren't selling interchangeable products but act competitively as their competitors are able to substitute to some degree.
Compare with "sensory modality"
/5
Compare with "sensory modality"
/5
That does not elaborate beyond the simple concept of "senses." It's a fancy way of saying it.
I saw it with amateur writers who try to write an "intelligent" character by writing simplistic dialogue and then inflicting a thesaurus on the characters' dialogue.
/6
I saw it with amateur writers who try to write an "intelligent" character by writing simplistic dialogue and then inflicting a thesaurus on the characters' dialogue.
/6
Nobody uses "pulchritudinous" to mean beautiful unless they're trying to wow you with their vocabulary. Nobody would understand it. Intelligence and depth doesn't come from the number of five-syllable words you can twist into a response. It comes from content.
/7
/7
Consider this quote. The most "complex" words in it are, at my reading, efficacy, management, asimi, and Autarch. The latter two are in-world terms, worldbuilding elements.
But it is an intensely philosophical passage. Not because of fancy words, but because of its content.
/8
But it is an intensely philosophical passage. Not because of fancy words, but because of its content.
/8
When people talk about writing clearly...they're talking about finding the right words, not the fancy words. Excess jargon, especially the unnecessary kind, shows a concern with appearing intelligent. Being intelligent is a different matter altogether.
/9
/9
The rule in question is a focus on CLARITY and communication, not impressing people by swallowing and regurgitating a thesaurus on demand.
/fin
/fin
