The headings speak for themselves: "Avoid the obvious content" "Take the less usual side" "Slip out of abstraction" "Get rid of obvious padding" "Call a fo

The headings speak for themselves: "Avoid the obvious content" "Take the less usual side" "Slip out of abstraction" "Get rid of obvious padding" "Call a fool a fool" "Beware of pat expressions" "Colorful words" "Colored words" "Colorless words" Though [edit] the titles are a good summary of the article [/edit] (as per "slip out of abstraction") the examples given are humorous, thorough, and help in really getting the point being made. It's interesting to consider how the author's (sometimes verbose) sentences could be shortened. If writing for pure conciseness, what would you cut out? Which parts are completely necessary? Are the rephrasings necessary to convey the different aspects of the current point? Is the example given important enough to stay? "Pat expressions are hard, often impossible, to avoid, because they come too easily to be noticed and seem too necessary to be dispensed with." => "Pat expressions cannot always be avoided." "A writer's work is a constant struggle to get the right word in the right place, to find that particular word that will convey his meaning exactly, that will persuade the reader or soothe him or startle or amuse him." => "Each situation calls for a certain word with a certain connotation; the writer toils to find it." Again, there's no problem -- it's excellent writing, it just struck me that word golf could be as interesting as code golf. What is the shortest possible phrasing to express this exact idea? (I suppose we're doing it all the time, except in English classes where word count is the goal.)