4 ms·

So much this. Calls to mind one of my favorite quotes (one of the few specific things I remember from high school actually): “Vigorous writing is concise. A se

So much this. Calls to mind one of my favorite quotes (one of the few specific things I remember from high school actually): “Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell.” ― William Strunk Jr., The Elements of Style Precise writing is absolutely critical for communicating complex ideas, yet rarely at the front of people's minds (at least in the software world). I feel like the move to Slack and other chat apps has made the problem worse.

morelisp 6y ago
As so often is the case when quoting Strunk, he violates his own rules. "Vigorous writing is concise and should contain no unnecessary words or sentences. But the goal is not conciseness per se, rather that every word tell." The analogy with machines unnecessary; the analogy with drawing incorrect; the hypothetical writer a distraction. And yet, it's not as forceful. Maybe he's just plain wrong?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- zxcmx 6y ago
  Since the extra words express the point more forcefully, perhaps they were necessary after all :p
- bradstewart 6y ago
  There's certainly no hard and fast rule here. Much is left to the opinions of the author. I'd argue that the analogy is necessary--it adds force to the argument, as you note. Assuming the point of his statement is to convince the reader of something. Side note: solid use of the semicolon there.
  - morelisp 6y ago
    > Assuming the point of his statement is to convince the reader of something. This is the fundamental problem. S&W is very good at taking people who "can't write" and teaching them 1) writing is a skill, 2) you can improve by practice, and 3) the basic practice is not very hard. I don't think it's a coincidence that the book remains popular among engineers who (often justifiably, based on some bad teacher) have been turned off to writing. But also because writing is a skill, the achievable level is very high. (Much higher than I will achieve. I have a family member who is a professional author and dabbles in software development; I see where they are in software development, and realize I'm at the same place in writing). And there are different types of writing, for different goals, towards different audiences. Persuasive writing is not the same as technical documentation is not the same as poetry! All of this matters but S&W pretend it doesn't. A former CTO of mine told me of their previous position (where their reportees were writing primarily Java; we were writing a different language): The value of Java is that it establishes a floor. Anyone hired could be guaranteed not to fuck things up and contribute at least X additional value or work on features of at least Y complexity, and in that market / at that scale that was more important than providing an environment that made it easy for the experts to excel (which they could still do, just with more effort). The book offers specific rules to follow, and if you follow them you will achieve at least mediocre writing. It's the Java of informative writing. If you are awful at writing and internalize those lessons you will improve and it will probably be some kind of professional boon. But there is so much more to writing, and you do yourself such a great personal disservice if you don't at least glimpse it. (On the other hand, at the time I told that CTO I couldn't imagine working at such a place, and they agreed it wasn't appropriate for the current workplace. Now I'm touching management level in another company where I wish more of our programmers had a "mediocre language" floor rather than the more free-wheeling approach the company has. It seems there are very few places where the rewards of expertise beat the averages. But on the other hand, I still fucking hate writing Java.) As for the analogy: without the "drawing" part, it might at least be accurate - but a lot of its force rests on that lie. Persuading people with lies is easy, but, well, wrong.
- john4534243 6y ago
  I can see you point. In technical writing the analogies are useless when the point is clear enough. But in this case I felt his analogies were useful in making it memorable. By the way i wish in the business word or at least in the software development world, correcting each others emails and posts are encouraged without punishment or reward.

morelisp 6y ago

As so often is the case when quoting Strunk, he violates his own rules. "Vigorous writing is concise and should contain no unnecessary words or sentences. But the goal is not conciseness per se, rather that every word tell." The analogy with machines unnecessary; the analogy with drawing incorrect; the hypothetical writer a distraction. And yet, it's not as forceful. Maybe he's just plain wrong?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
zxcmx 6y ago
Since the extra words express the point more forcefully, perhaps they were necessary after all :p
bradstewart 6y ago
There's certainly no hard and fast rule here. Much is left to the opinions of the author. I'd argue that the analogy is necessary--it adds force to the argument, as you note. Assuming the point of his statement is to convince the reader of something. Side note: solid use of the semicolon there.
- morelisp 6y ago
  > Assuming the point of his statement is to convince the reader of something. This is the fundamental problem. S&W is very good at taking people who "can't write" and teaching them 1) writing is a skill, 2) you can improve by practice, and 3) the basic practice is not very hard. I don't think it's a coincidence that the book remains popular among engineers who (often justifiably, based on some bad teacher) have been turned off to writing. But also because writing is a skill, the achievable level is very high. (Much higher than I will achieve. I have a family member who is a professional author and dabbles in software development; I see where they are in software development, and realize I'm at the same place in writing). And there are different types of writing, for different goals, towards different audiences. Persuasive writing is not the same as technical documentation is not the same as poetry! All of this matters but S&W pretend it doesn't. A former CTO of mine told me of their previous position (where their reportees were writing primarily Java; we were writing a different language): The value of Java is that it establishes a floor. Anyone hired could be guaranteed not to fuck things up and contribute at least X additional value or work on features of at least Y complexity, and in that market / at that scale that was more important than providing an environment that made it easy for the experts to excel (which they could still do, just with more effort). The book offers specific rules to follow, and if you follow them you will achieve at least mediocre writing. It's the Java of informative writing. If you are awful at writing and internalize those lessons you will improve and it will probably be some kind of professional boon. But there is so much more to writing, and you do yourself such a great personal disservice if you don't at least glimpse it. (On the other hand, at the time I told that CTO I couldn't imagine working at such a place, and they agreed it wasn't appropriate for the current workplace. Now I'm touching management level in another company where I wish more of our programmers had a "mediocre language" floor rather than the more free-wheeling approach the company has. It seems there are very few places where the rewards of expertise beat the averages. But on the other hand, I still fucking hate writing Java.) As for the analogy: without the "drawing" part, it might at least be accurate - but a lot of its force rests on that lie. Persuading people with lies is easy, but, well, wrong.
john4534243 6y ago
I can see you point. In technical writing the analogies are useless when the point is clear enough. But in this case I felt his analogies were useful in making it memorable. By the way i wish in the business word or at least in the software development world, correcting each others emails and posts are encouraged without punishment or reward.