Writing style

[Sy Borg]

Caps lock is useful for headings and for making a piece of text stand out. However, caps lock is overused, the effect of the emphasis is lost; words that are supposed to emphasised simply melt into a pool of other emphasised words.

The other readability issue is that bulk text written in capital letters is slightly harder to read than lower case because all the letters are the same height, and thus less distinctive.

Still, when it comes to readability online, nothing makes reading harder for me than long paragraphs.

[Jack D Ripper]

...

Still, when it comes to readability online, nothing makes reading harder for me than long paragraphs.

I would think that incomprehensible gibberish in short paragraphs would be harder to read than something sensible that was in long paragraphs. But, yes, long paragraphs online are worse than long paragraphs in a printed book, as it is harder to keep one's place, particularly if one has to scroll to read the whole paragraph.

[Sy Borg]

...

Still, when it comes to readability online, nothing makes reading harder for me than long paragraphs.

I would think that incomprehensible gibberish in short paragraphs would be harder to read than something sensible that was in long paragraphs. But, yes, long paragraphs online are worse than long paragraphs in a printed book, as it is harder to keep one's place, particularly if one has to scroll to read the whole paragraph.

Incomprehensible gibberish in long paragraphs is harder again :)

I lose the shapes of words in long paragraphs - both in print, as you say, and on screens - because my vision becomes dominated by what is basically a grey block, in which I need to dig for detail. There's extra effort involved for the reader. A wonderful quote from Kurt Vonnegut's writing tips:

7. Pity the reader

They have to identify thousands of little marks on paper, and make sense of them immediately. So this discussion must finally acknowledge that our stylistic options as writers are neither numerous nor glamorous, since our readers are bound to be such imperfect artists. Our audience requires us to be sympathetic and patient teachers, ever willing to simplify and clarify — whereas we would rather soar high above the crowd, singing like nightingales.

https://nicolebianchi.com/kurt-vonnegut-infographic/

[creation]

Caps lock is useful for headings and for making a piece of text stand out. However, caps lock is overused, the effect of the emphasis is lost; words that are supposed to emphasised simply melt into a pool of other emphasised words.

Besides caps lock NEVER being used, by me, ALL the words written in capital letters, by me, are MEANT TO BE 'emphasized'.

The other readability issue is that bulk text written in capital letters is slightly harder to read than lower case because all the letters are the same height, and thus less distinctive.

Fair point, which I had NEVER noticed previously.

So, headings, in capital letters, to you, are harder to read than the following story, written in lower case letters, correct?

Still, when it comes to readability online, nothing makes reading harder for me than long paragraphs.

Why is that, can you not concentrate for extend periods of length? Or, for some other reason?

Also, to you, how long is a "long paragraph"?

[creation]

7. Pity the reader

They have to identify thousands of little marks on paper, and make sense of them immediately. So this discussion must finally acknowledge that our stylistic options as writers are neither numerous nor glamorous, since our readers are bound to be such imperfect artists. Our audience requires us to be sympathetic and patient teachers, ever willing to simplify and clarify — whereas we would rather soar high above the crowd, singing like nightingales.

But being willing to simplify, clarify, AND explain things in VERY simple and easy terms is ACTUALLY an EXTREMELY simple and easy thing to do. For example, being willing to explain in simplified, specific, precise, concise, and clarified terms that, for example;
'Life, and living', Truly are JUST, and Truly are VERY simple and easy INDEED, IS another example of just how simple and easy 'Life, and living, REALLY IS', as can be SEEN and EVIDENCED here.

However, being EVER willing to simplify AND clarify things, instead of EVER wanting to, so call, "soar high above the crowd, singing like nightingales" does NOT necessarily help readers at all. If readers, for example, have absolutely NO interest in what has been simplified, and NEVER seek CLARIFICATION, themselves, then for the writer 'to clarify', for EACH and ALL individual DIFFERENT readers, ends up taking thousands upon thousands of more little marks on paper.

So, for a writer, to be 'ever willing to simplify and clarify' is a Truly simple and easy thing to do indeed. However to find the least amount of the EXACT RIGHT little marks, to put down so that ALL readers can gain CLARITY is NOT some thing that has been achieved YET.

So, Life, and living, REALLY IS JUST, simple AND easy.

But how many readers Truly understand this SIMPLIFIED writing?

See, being ever willing to simplify is very simple, and easy. And, being ever willing to clarify is also very simple and easy. But, if a writer does NOT YET KNOW what is needed to be clarified, then no matter how willing they are to clarify, they do NOT YET KNOW what NEEDS to be clarified.

There NEEDS to be people to explain what 'it' IS that they NEED clarified, BEFORE a writer could clarify, correctly AND properly.

NO writer can clarify FOR readers/others. Only readers/others can explain, ask, or seek, what 'it' IS that they NEED clarified.

Although a writer could CLEARLY SEE things, and thus have CLARITY of things, this does NOT mean that they ALREADY KNOW, for sure, what 'it' is EXACTLY that readers want CLARIFIED.

[Pattern-chaser]

No. You have used them in an unusual and unexpected way, but you haven't explained why, so no, of course we don't know.

Do you explain WHY you write in the unusual and unexpected way that you do?

If not, then WHY NOT?

Obviously I do NOT explain WHY I write in the way that I do, EVERY time I write. Especially considering that most of what I have been writing, AND SAYING, is;

ONLY THROUGH CLARIFICATION IS CLARITY GAINED.
WHEN, AND IF, CLARITY IS GAINED, THEN UNDERSTANDING IS ALSO OBTAINED.
So, IF ANY ONE WANTS TO OBTAIN TRUE UNDERSTANDING, THEN JUST ASKING TRULY OPEN CLARIFYING QUESTIONS IS JUST NEEDED.

Which ALL means; if you Truly want to KNOW WHY I, or ANY one else, write ANY thing that we do, then it is UP TO YOU to ask the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS for which you seek answers for.

But, OBVIOUSLY, one HAS TO BE Truly interested in what ANOTHER is writing, and/or saying, BEFORE they would even begin to want to gain UNDERSTANDING, Itself, of the 'other'.

By the way, EVERY one uses words, and their formatting, in unusual and unexpected ways, sometimes. This is because there is, obviously, NO 'One rule' for EVERY one.

Also, and further more, I ACTUALLY HAVE EXPLAINED WHY I use 'capital letters'. You have either MISSED it, MISUNDERSTOOD it, or have FORGOTTEN it. So, your claim that I have NOT explained WHY is just PLAIN WRONG, as SOME people do ALREADY KNOW WHY I use capital letters.

Any author who presents their writing to an audience has, we can assume, content to offer that they feel is worth reading. That author, in my opinion, has a responsibility to that content, to deliver it in a way that will encourage their audience to read it. In this sense, writing comprises style (the subject of this topic) and content. If an author's writing is not read - if it earns no audience - then further discussion is pointless. Neither style nor content matters if no-one reads it.

An author must earn the interest and attention of their audience. And, while content is vital, style matters almost as much. If your audience find your words difficult to read and understand, they will not bother. There is no value in condemning your audience's lack of discrimination, if they don't feel your writing is worth the trouble of deciphering. When your audience is lost, your message is lost too.

I am the author of this topic, the person who really wants to understand your contribution to the subject in hand. But I'm afraid that I cannot find in your writing anything to retain my interest or attention. Others are less likely to work as hard as me to appreciate what you have to say. It looks as though you have failed. Your message, whatever it is, is lost. I'm sorry.

[Pattern-chaser]

Still, when it comes to readability online, nothing makes reading harder for me than long paragraphs.

This is something I hadn't previously considered. Thanks. I didn't realise that long paragraphs might be differently accepted when read from a screen, instead of a printed page. I will try to minimise the length of my paragraphs (online) from now on. Thanks for the feedback!

[Pattern-chaser]

...Perhaps due to being polite. [...] Sometimes, of course, being polite dictates that one not speak the truth. So one either dissembles or one is not polite. So this really comes down to a question of values, of what one regards as most important. That might vary on a case by case basis, as sometimes the one approach may seem more appropriate whereas in other cases the other approach may seem most appropriate. Sometimes, a "useful" response will be impossible.

Personally, I prefer to focus on courtesy, rather than politeness. Courtesy is a code of practice that allows us to speak unpalatable truths without insult, and the violence that inevitably follows. If politeness requires - even only "sometimes" - that one not speak the truth, then I reject it. But you're right, of course, that it is not always possible to make a "useful" response.

[Jack D Ripper]

...Perhaps due to being polite. [...] Sometimes, of course, being polite dictates that one not speak the truth. So one either dissembles or one is not polite. So this really comes down to a question of values, of what one regards as most important. That might vary on a case by case basis, as sometimes the one approach may seem more appropriate whereas in other cases the other approach may seem most appropriate. Sometimes, a "useful" response will be impossible.

Personally, I prefer to focus on courtesy, rather than politeness. Courtesy is a code of practice that allows us to speak unpalatable truths without insult, and the violence that inevitably follows. If politeness requires - even only "sometimes" - that one not speak the truth, then I reject it. But you're right, of course, that it is not always possible to make a "useful" response. 😧

I do not understand the distinction between courtesy and politeness that you are trying to make.

I think in many cases, speaking unpalatable truths cannot be done without insult. Of course, there is a difference between saying, "I believe you might be mistaken" and "You are wrong, you moron!", but sometimes people are offended and feel insulted at the suggestion that they might be making a mistake.

[Sy Borg]

Still, when it comes to readability online, nothing makes reading harder for me than long paragraphs.

This is something I hadn't previously considered. Thanks. I didn't realise that long paragraphs might be differently accepted when read from a screen, instead of a printed page. I will try to minimise the length of my paragraphs (online) from now on. Thanks for the feedback! 👍🙂

You might like this readability link: https://degree.astate.edu/articles/unde ... print.aspx

Often in print, we logically work through a paragraph to reach a conclusion. Due to the way people tend to scan text online, it can help to start with the conclusion and then explain. Generally, short paragraphs, short sentences and choosing the simplest possible word for a task makes work easier to read. Then again, if you only want serious responses, you can use complexity to minimise trolling.

[evolution]

Do you explain WHY you write in the unusual and unexpected way that you do?

If not, then WHY NOT?

Obviously I do NOT explain WHY I write in the way that I do, EVERY time I write. Especially considering that most of what I have been writing, AND SAYING, is;

ONLY THROUGH CLARIFICATION IS CLARITY GAINED.
WHEN, AND IF, CLARITY IS GAINED, THEN UNDERSTANDING IS ALSO OBTAINED.
So, IF ANY ONE WANTS TO OBTAIN TRUE UNDERSTANDING, THEN JUST ASKING TRULY OPEN CLARIFYING QUESTIONS IS JUST NEEDED.

Which ALL means; if you Truly want to KNOW WHY I, or ANY one else, write ANY thing that we do, then it is UP TO YOU to ask the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS for which you seek answers for.

But, OBVIOUSLY, one HAS TO BE Truly interested in what ANOTHER is writing, and/or saying, BEFORE they would even begin to want to gain UNDERSTANDING, Itself, of the 'other'.

By the way, EVERY one uses words, and their formatting, in unusual and unexpected ways, sometimes. This is because there is, obviously, NO 'One rule' for EVERY one.

Also, and further more, I ACTUALLY HAVE EXPLAINED WHY I use 'capital letters'. You have either MISSED it, MISUNDERSTOOD it, or have FORGOTTEN it. So, your claim that I have NOT explained WHY is just PLAIN WRONG, as SOME people do ALREADY KNOW WHY I use capital letters.

Any author who presents their writing to an audience has, we can assume, content to offer that they feel is worth reading.

But, why assume?

WHY asssume this, or ANY thing else?

That author, in my opinion, has a responsibility to that content, to deliver it in a way that will encourage their audience to read it.

Let us take a look at an example of this. Let us say that an author wants to deliver content, to you, which they KNOW is REALLY worth reading, and REALLY worth understanding, but this content, however, goes completely against what you BELIEVE is true.

How could this author best deliver this content, to you? In what way, EXACTLY, could this content be delivered, to you, which would encourage you to read it? Remember this content COMPLETELY opposes 'that's what you already currently assume and believe is true.

In this sense, writing comprises style (the subject of this topic) and content. If an author's writing is not read - if it earns no audience - then further discussion is pointless. Neither style nor content matters if no-one reads it.

This goes without saying.

BUT, how could ANY one KNOW the style or the content, if what was written was NEVER read?

See, this is the problem and issue here; How can an author encourage the audience to read their work, if their work is not read?

An author must earn the interest and attention of their audience.

And HOW do you propose an author does this?

Are you aware that an 'audience', here, are the ones who are ALREADY reading?

You can SEE the predicament that an author would have, correct?

And, while content is vital, style matters almost as much. If your audience find your words difficult to read and understand, they will not bother. There is no value in condemning your audience's lack of discrimination, if they don't feel your writing is worth the trouble of deciphering.

Deciphering, itself, it could be argued is the WHOLE issue here. This is because 'you', human beings, have placed more that one definition to many of the words, which you use.

I agree that there is NO real value in condemning some thing else for what essentially is your OWN inability. If you do NOT YET KNOW how to write so that absolutely EVERY thing that you say is Truly and FULLY understood, by EVERY one, then that is NOT the fault of ANY thing else other than than the 'you'.

Oh, and by the way, when writing in forums, like this one, then there is absolutely NO reader that 'has to' DECIPHER absolutely ANY thing, as asking CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, to each and EVERY author, is just so SIMPLE, and EASY.

When your audience is lost, your message is lost too.

Then it is solely responsibility of the author alone to NOT lose their audience, correct?

I am the author of this topic, the person who really wants to understand your contribution to the subject in hand. But I'm afraid that I cannot find in your writing anything to retain my interest or attention.

Okay.

Why is that?

And OBVIOUSLY you REALLY do NOT want to understand my contribution at all. 'Your inactions speak way louder than your words', as is said.

Others are less likely to work as hard as me to appreciate what you have to say.

But you do NOT 'appreciate' what I have to say. Or, you can PROVE me WRONG, by telling us here what do you ACTUALLY 'appreciate' in what I have to say.

And, how have you, supposedly, or actually, "worked hard" to 'appreciate', what I have to say?

Also, did you notice YOUR contradiction here?

It looks as though you have failed.

But I have NOT "failed", at all, in what I have set out to do. In fact the EXACT OPPOSITE is ACTUALLY True.

To you, I have only "failed", because you were ASSUMING I was doing some thing, which, by the way, I was NOT.

Your message, whatever it is, is lost.

But the actual message is NOT 'lost' at all. It is just being HIDDEN, from 'you'. And, 'I' WILL REVEAL 'it' when I am READY TO.

SEE, 'you' have NOT YET been prepared for what is about to be come, so 'you're are NOT ready to SEE what is about to be REVEALED.

I'm sorry.

WHY would you be, so called, "sorry" here?

Who are 'you' sorry for, or, what are 'you' sorry about, EXACTLY?

Also, this is yet ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of someone starting off a post, with an ASSUMPTION, which has NOT YET been clarified to be true it not, but continues on with that post basing that that ASSUMPTION is true, right, so that they can then put forward their OWN ALREADY HELD BELIEFS, and conclude that they are true and right.

But what could be found is that that ASSUMPTION is WRONG, in the way it was portrayed. This could be found IF clarification was ever made, that is.

So, because the premise/assumption was WRONG, the conclusion is ALSO WRONG.

But ALL unsound and/or invalid arguments, like this one here, can be CLEARLY SEEN, and VERY simply and easily, I will add.

'you', adult human beings, however, are NOT YET able to CLEARLY SEE this, in the days of when this is being written. This is because 'you' like to think and/or believe that things are about 'you' or that things revolve around 'you'. Therefore, 'you' are NOT YET able to SEE from a Truly Objective perspective, and this is WHY 'you' still can NOT SEE thee actual Truth of things CLEARLY, YET, neither.

[Pattern-chaser]

But the actual message is NOT 'lost' at all. It is just being HIDDEN, from 'you'. And, 'I' WILL REVEAL 'it' when I am READY TO.

No, you won't, because I won't be reading. I had hoped you might just say what you mean, but I have waited long enough, I feel. Perhaps I'm making a terrible mistake; I shall never know. I wish you well; take care.

[Pattern-chaser]

...Perhaps due to being polite. [...] Sometimes, of course, being polite dictates that one not speak the truth. So one either dissembles or one is not polite. So this really comes down to a question of values, of what one regards as most important. That might vary on a case by case basis, as sometimes the one approach may seem more appropriate whereas in other cases the other approach may seem most appropriate. Sometimes, a "useful" response will be impossible.

Personally, I prefer to focus on courtesy, rather than politeness. Courtesy is a code of practice that allows us to speak unpalatable truths without insult, and the violence that inevitably follows. If politeness requires - even only "sometimes" - that one not speak the truth, then I reject it. But you're right, of course, that it is not always possible to make a "useful" response.

I do not understand the distinction between courtesy and politeness that you are trying to make.

You made the difference clearer than I did. "Sometimes, of course, being polite dictates that one not speak the truth." Courtesy, as I understand it, does not require falsehood. Essentially, it only requires that we avoid ad hominem attacks, although we usually describe and understand it in much simpler (and less philosophical) words.

I think in many cases, speaking unpalatable truths cannot be done without insult. Of course, there is a difference between saying, "I believe you might be mistaken" and "You are wrong, you moron!", but sometimes people are offended and feel insulted at the suggestion that they might be making a mistake.

I don't know of any truth that requires me to insult the person I'm talking to. Avoiding insult is not always obvious or easy, but I think it can always be done ... can't it?

[Pattern-chaser]

This is something I hadn't previously considered. Thanks. I didn't realise that long paragraphs might be differently accepted when read from a screen, instead of a printed page. I will try to minimise the length of my paragraphs (online) from now on. Thanks for the feedback!

You might like this readability link: https://degree.astate.edu/articles/unde ... print.aspx

Thanks for that. I've archived it in my Evernote collection.

[Ecurb]

However, being EVER willing to simplify AND clarify things, instead of EVER wanting to, so call, "soar high above the crowd, singing like nightingales" does NOT necessarily help readers at all. If readers, for example, have absolutely NO interest in what has been simplified, and NEVER seek CLARIFICATION, themselves, then for the writer 'to clarify', for EACH and ALL individual DIFFERENT readers, ends up taking thousands upon thousands of more little marks on paper.

So, for a writer, to be 'ever willing to simplify and clarify' is a Truly simple and easy thing to do indeed. However to find the least amount of the EXACT RIGHT little marks, to put down so that ALL readers can gain CLARITY is NOT some thing that has been achieved YET.

Creation's penchant for capital letters is a minor problem. His misplacement and misuse of words. his redundancy, and his improper grammar is worse.

IN the above segment, creation capitalizes "EVER" twice. It's the wrong word. Does he mean "always" (or even "ALWAYS")? Even had he written "always", the word would have been misplaced. ""Being ALWAYS willing to simplify" suggests that the writer has no interests other than his desire to simplify. In the next sentence, creation runs on and on. "EACH and ALL individual DIFFERENT readers..." is simply silly and redundant. So is the "more" in last clause of the sentence.

Let's try a translation:

Simplifying does not necessarily help readers. Some readers prefer prose that "soar(s) high above the crowd, singing like nightingales". No prose can be simple and clear to thousands of different readers, each with his own point of view and level of education.