It is a good rule of thumb in writing not to make the reader work hard to get your meaning, to have to blast for it if you will. Brevity promotes simplicity an

It is a good rule of thumb in writing not to make the reader work hard to get your meaning, to have to blast for it if you will. Brevity promotes simplicity and simple things are much easier to understand than are those that are prolix. So writing in a style consisting primarily of short, easy-to-understand sentences is in itself a good rule of thumb when aiming to write well. But it is only a rule of thumb, as I see it, and when it is enshrined as something more, it can do more harm than good. The English language is a marvel of complexity and has so many rich, diverse, and colorful elements that you cheat only yourself as a writer if you fail to give full scope to such elements in choosing how to express yourself in the written word. You want to make a driving argument? By all means, use active verbs to punch along short, compact thoughts with an aggressive rhythm. Want to weave fascinating characterization? Well, then maybe relax the feel a bit and, with Dickens, unwind a string of long, flowing sentences that carry your reader along into a wonderfully imaginative series of pictures, running page after page, that hardly turn on being short, compact, and punchy - indeed, that are the very opposite. The point is not that you want to go to one extreme or the other. The point is that, as one who seeks to write well, you should avail yourself of the rich set of tools available to you without feeling bound to adhere to any form of absolute rules about how best to use them. So, write away! Go for feel. Go for rhythm. Go for clarity. Go for what best suits your purpose. And, oh, yes, do keep it short and simple, except when you find it doesn't suit your purpose. A rule of thumb is just that. In the end, do what gets your point across for the long-suffering reader who deserves to have it done well.