4 ms·

I kind of feel like this is an old fashioned style of writing. I enjoy simple conversational style more, though it's not exactly painful to read this. It just

by netcan 12y ago

I kind of feel like this is an old fashioned style of writing. I enjoy simple conversational style more, though it's not exactly painful to read this. It just takes more concentration than it should to understand. I don't see the benefit over breaking it up. Also, that disembodied tense is a little harder to connect to. Just narrate the damn paragraph. This long sentence makes you forget that he's trying to contrast something. One of the surprising features of Isaacson’s latest book, coming, as it does, after his biography of Steve Jobs—who is generally, though not entirely correctly, understood to be the model of the radical (and congenitally irascible) American —is that it is a paean to cooperation, to the idea of force-multiplication through collective effort and, in particular, to the transformative power of the diamond triangle of industry, academia and government. - 1 sentence Issacson's new book follows his biography of Steve Jobs who is generally, though not entirely correctly, understood to be the model of the radical (and congenitally irascible) American. In contrast, 'The Innovators' is a paean to cooperation, the idea of force-multiplication through collective effort and, in particular, to the transformative power of the diamond triangle of industry, academia and government. - 2 sentences, shorter The Innovators follows Issacson's popular biography of the famously brilliant-but-belligerent Steve Jobs. His new book praises different virtues: the force-multiplication power of collective effort and the transformative power of industry, academia and government working together. - shorter & flatter The Innovators follows Issacson's popular biography of Steve Jobs. It's an interesting contrast. Steve jobs was famous for both his belligerence and his brilliance. He is presented as an archetypical a lone genius. His new book is different. It praises cooperation and the the idea of force-multiplication through collective effort. Interestingly, the book even emphasizes the diamond triangle of industry, academia and government. - 6 sentences, more narration. Tells you what it's trying to tell you.

spenuke 12y ago
Before seeing your reply, I did a similar "alternate version" write up. I disagree that the long sentence makes you forget he's trying to contrast something. There's a built in hierarchy in the grammar itself that tells you this is all tied together (in a comparison). I find that short, rapidfire sentences makes me lose track of the controlling idea easier. Edited to add: How many times do you have to repeat that each sentence is continuing the thought: "This is interesting..." "His new book is different..." ... Your example isn't hard to read, either. But it's hard to say that it's more concise and precise.
- netcan 12y ago
  Interesting. I find long sentences make me lose the nuance unless I devote a lot of attention, like reading a textbook. I don't think it's about the length itself but the point of view or something. It seems like long sentences are a byproduct of a very removed style of writing. I associate it with old fashioned professorial essay writing. Almost like a dictionary. I think a more narrative or opinionated style is easier to follow because you can "see" the writer. He's trying to tell us that the new book has a different perspective than the old one and how that difference emerges. 'The new book is different from the old one, here's why.' He's almost trying to contain the (contrasting) perspective of the previous book and some more information about the author within the definition of the new book. 'The new book contrasts with the last book in its...' The narrator just uses shorter sentences. 'The word philanthropist is usually used to describe ___...' Usually used to describe ___, the word philanthropist..' You can tell which sentence will be more complicated.

by netcan 12y ago

spenuke 12y ago

Before seeing your reply, I did a similar "alternate version" write up. I disagree that the long sentence makes you forget he's trying to contrast something. There's a built in hierarchy in the grammar itself that tells you this is all tied together (in a comparison). I find that short, rapidfire sentences makes me lose track of the controlling idea easier. Edited to add: How many times do you have to repeat that each sentence is continuing the thought: "This is interesting..." "His new book is different..." ... Your example isn't hard to read, either. But it's hard to say that it's more concise and precise.

netcan 12y ago
Interesting. I find long sentences make me lose the nuance unless I devote a lot of attention, like reading a textbook. I don't think it's about the length itself but the point of view or something. It seems like long sentences are a byproduct of a very removed style of writing. I associate it with old fashioned professorial essay writing. Almost like a dictionary. I think a more narrative or opinionated style is easier to follow because you can "see" the writer. He's trying to tell us that the new book has a different perspective than the old one and how that difference emerges. 'The new book is different from the old one, here's why.' He's almost trying to contain the (contrasting) perspective of the previous book and some more information about the author within the definition of the new book. 'The new book contrasts with the last book in its...' The narrator just uses shorter sentences. 'The word philanthropist is usually used to describe ___...' Usually used to describe ___, the word philanthropist..' You can tell which sentence will be more complicated.