4 ms·

This is fairly popular advice, and I heard it at least a half dozen times at my (liberal arts) college. That's not to dismiss this post because its takeaway is

by jmduke 11y ago

This is fairly popular advice, and I heard it at least a half dozen times at my (liberal arts) college. That's not to dismiss this post because its takeaway is commonplace: I agree with the sentiment. However, I think it's important to embrace the full implication of its thesis: Informal language is the athletic clothing of ideas. Athletic clothing is comfortable, it is functional, and it traffics in convenience. But people wear clothes for aesthetics, for culture, for dozens of reasons. When you optimize for, say, being as easily digestible by as many people as possible, you may reduce your nuance or your aesthetic or whatever. And words like mercurial tend to have unique depths and distinctions that keep them being used by the Neil Olivers of the world. That's a good thing. (As a minor aside that doesn't detract from his point: You'd feel like an idiot using "pen" instead of "write" in a conversation with a friend. Really? Some people just feel more comfortable in suits than in sweatpants. There's nothing wrong with that.)

dannylandau 11y ago
I remember reading one of Isaac Isimov's biographies, where he mentions that one of the critiques of his writing is that it is too simple. His response -- that's the way it is supposed to be!
- setpatchaddress 11y ago
  Beautiful quote on writing style from I, Asimov here: https://books.google.com/books?id=mATFyeVI7IUC&lpg=PT324&ots=ZYw64bISrI&dq=isaac%20asimov%20stained%20glass&pg=PT324#v=onepage&q=isaac%20asimov%20stained%20glass&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=mATFyeVI7IUC&lpg=PT324&ots...
- ikeboy 11y ago
  Orson Scott Card made a similar point in one of the intros to Ender's Game.
singhrac 11y ago
In the same vein, if it helps your reader understand your point, use the most precise word that means what you mean to say and is easily understandable. Synonyms have differences, and the additional depth is helpful in many circumstances - this is the whole point of scientific 'jargon'. However, I don't think that conflicts with pg's overall point, perhaps just nitpicking his example. I do think that 'mercurial' has its uses.
grey-area 11y ago
Exactly, formality can be part of the message, and sometimes less is a bore. There is certainly a place for more formal language at times, if only to communicate intent and add a bit of pepper to the writing. For example Will Self would not be Will Self without using ten words where one would do, nor would Poe or Henry James (who I suspect spoke much as he wrote). I think what pg is objecting to here though is probably people putting on airs by attempting a more formal register than they are comfortable with, and thus coming across as a little stilted and a little fake and obscuring their meaning rather than communicating it. This is a particular problem in art criticism, where postmodern art critics adopt a certain stilted, formal, and impenetrable language as a sort of shibboleth; the height of this style is probably someone like Camille Paglia, who gives the impression of saying much about Art without saying much at all (IMO). Of course you can also do the same by trying to be informal without being intimately acquainted with the particular usage you're trying to emulate, and it depends who you're talking to. What is appropriate (both in speech and in writing) depends on context more than we like to admit.
- dreamfactory2 11y ago
  Quite. There is that ghastly put-on cutesy/folksy over-friendly style that a lot of startups use - which is every bit as stilted and ill-fitting as over-formality.
- cableshaft 11y ago
  Articles in the New Yorker also tend to say a lot without saying much at all, from what I've seen. You don't need to spend 5,000 words and six 'next pages' telling the entire backstory of the people in question before making your first point.
loco5niner 11y ago
Ooo... a new word! Hmmm... googling Mercurial... ((of a person) subject to sudden or unpredictable changes of mood or mind.) Oh! like the metal mercury, how cool is that? Rich and Vivid :-)

by jmduke 11y ago

dannylandau 11y ago

I remember reading one of Isaac Isimov's biographies, where he mentions that one of the critiques of his writing is that it is too simple. His response -- that's the way it is supposed to be!

setpatchaddress 11y ago
Beautiful quote on writing style from I, Asimov here: https://books.google.com/books?id=mATFyeVI7IUC&lpg=PT324&ots=ZYw64bISrI&dq=isaac%20asimov%20stained%20glass&pg=PT324#v=onepage&q=isaac%20asimov%20stained%20glass&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=mATFyeVI7IUC&lpg=PT324&ots...
ikeboy 11y ago
Orson Scott Card made a similar point in one of the intros to Ender's Game.

singhrac 11y ago

In the same vein, if it helps your reader understand your point, use the most precise word that means what you mean to say and is easily understandable. Synonyms have differences, and the additional depth is helpful in many circumstances - this is the whole point of scientific 'jargon'. However, I don't think that conflicts with pg's overall point, perhaps just nitpicking his example. I do think that 'mercurial' has its uses.

grey-area 11y ago

Exactly, formality can be part of the message, and sometimes less is a bore. There is certainly a place for more formal language at times, if only to communicate intent and add a bit of pepper to the writing. For example Will Self would not be Will Self without using ten words where one would do, nor would Poe or Henry James (who I suspect spoke much as he wrote). I think what pg is objecting to here though is probably people putting on airs by attempting a more formal register than they are comfortable with, and thus coming across as a little stilted and a little fake and obscuring their meaning rather than communicating it. This is a particular problem in art criticism, where postmodern art critics adopt a certain stilted, formal, and impenetrable language as a sort of shibboleth; the height of this style is probably someone like Camille Paglia, who gives the impression of saying much about Art without saying much at all (IMO). Of course you can also do the same by trying to be informal without being intimately acquainted with the particular usage you're trying to emulate, and it depends who you're talking to. What is appropriate (both in speech and in writing) depends on context more than we like to admit.

dreamfactory2 11y ago
Quite. There is that ghastly put-on cutesy/folksy over-friendly style that a lot of startups use - which is every bit as stilted and ill-fitting as over-formality.
cableshaft 11y ago
Articles in the New Yorker also tend to say a lot without saying much at all, from what I've seen. You don't need to spend 5,000 words and six 'next pages' telling the entire backstory of the people in question before making your first point.

loco5niner 11y ago

Ooo... a new word! Hmmm... googling Mercurial... ((of a person) subject to sudden or unpredictable changes of mood or mind.) Oh! like the metal mercury, how cool is that? Rich and Vivid :-)