Re: [verbiage

[Guest guest]

i think the real prob is whether the writer is focussed on having the reader understand clearly what he/she is trying to say or whether the focus is on self-expression.

18 years of being a teacher have forced me into the first category.

as ann additional point - bec we all process experience differently - it is not what we say but what the other one hears; not what we write but what the other one reads that counts in the end!

so, simplicity and clarity do help if one is trying to communicate anything.

my take is that there is an tendency for academic thinking types to obfuscate unneccessarily by showing off in a torrent of greek n latin derivative vocabulary to the detriment of clear communication.

i am writing as a lover of language, which is what most poets are.......

love

ao

[Guest guest]

simplicity and clarity do help if one is trying to communicate anything.

Dear Alice, all,

This is my most fervent goal and I hope I get better at it as I continue to work at it.

Blissings,

Sam

Don't believe everything you think. ~ Bumper Sticker"Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view." ~ Obi-Wan KenobiChoose your illusion carefully. ~ EdDon't worry about what people think, they don't do it very often.People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use. ~Søren Kierkegaard

[Guest guest]

ask for clarification where required.

Precisely. I think this statement stands whether the prose is terse or convoluted.

Blissings,

Sam

Nothing worse could happen to one than to be completely understood.--Carl Jung

[Guest guest]

Alice, all,

You basically offer the prunefiddle ideology here. I do not, obviously,

forge my responses here so that anybody, everybody can understand them.

Somebody recently asked me to re-formulate a complex argument (about

social relations in the context of economic development,) 'so that a ten

year old could understand,' to which I replied,

" it's not an argument made to or for ten year olds. "

***

You dichotomize in a facile way here:

(1) whether the writer is focussed on having the reader understand clearly

what he/she is trying to say

(2)whether the focus is on self-expression.

Whereas the following is simply mistaken as a matter of the psychology of

communication:

(A) it is not what we say but what the other one hears

Obviously the message is equally important as is its reception.

***

Since I've been upfront about my communication style for ten years, I

accept it is worthy of a reception on the continuum between deletion and

100% understanding.

I happen to enjoy most the complicated and often oblique communication

styles of , Heward, Marte. I recognize my own stylistic preference

tends toward unclarity if that is how it is beheld.

At the same time I recognize that Rod McKuen is clearer than Pound, but

Pound is more valuable; that the Quran isn't easy reading; that there are

traditions of communication for which the pressure the communication

creates is part of the context of the message being fully, accurately

received.

Etc. and etc.

This makes me think of all sorts of reactions I've heard over the years in

response to whether somebody hears the 'message' in a piece of music.

" Music should be clearly beautiful. " Coltrane, The Replacements, Webern,

Gnawa ritual...I've heard many times that the message didn't get through

so the sender must 'have a problem'.

If I offer my own form of an 'avant-garde' I go into it knowing in advance

some won't like it all. I rationalize this by musing that it is their

loss, not mine. My stylistic tendency can be psychologized too. I consider

the deficits in my personality to be, at this middle age date, to be part

of my charm. ...not for everybody.

***

" too abstract " for one person is " completely concrete " for another.

Also, aside from typological differences, there is a lot of research on

the nature of cognitive complexity. It nicely plugs into research on

effective communication. ...you don't want to know.

In a world where we are daily assaulted with de-pressurized, insipid,

intelligence-insulting CLEAR rhetoric, where we are subjected to

half-baked arguments, superstitious posing, glib new ageisms, and all the

varieties of Duh!!!, I am unapologetically a pomo self-indulgent and

self-referential stylist who is okay with 'my' audience self-selecting

itself. And, perhaps they have to work at it.

Prunefiddle ideology has no appeal for me. I'm much rather read a complex

ambiguous idea set in difficult terms than a simplistic and naive idea put

clearly. ...just my own pref...

regards,

[Guest guest]

A good idea is to check the word sizes you use. There is usually an anglo saxon word which will replace most latin based terms. But where there is not - then use the right word and be done with it. The onus is - after all - also upon the reader to be capable of understanding at some level. And one expects on a list of this type for eg. that one would not have to write primary school prose.

bravo! just right n well put.

love

ao

[Guest guest]

, Alice et al

I go with the fact that often any real idea which cuts to basics is often

so nearly ineffable that placing it in simple, easy sentences quite often

loses the initial or fundamental clarity needed to get beneath and truly

see what the writer has thought.

This does not mean that we necessarily *have* to use ten dollar words where

five cent ones will do, but it does mean that a convoluted process of

weaving into the depths is required. Too often a simple statement leaves

implicit certain notions which ought not be allowed to be implicit. Too

often simple language becomes syllogistic beneath its simplicity. One must

be very clear and able if one is to not fall into this trap.

So I go with in many ways. Sometimes it takes a lot to say a little

if you want that little to be truly understood for what it is.

I think one of the biggest problems for those who do not write for a

living, or write to communicate as part of their daily life, tend to fall

into the trap of losing themselves in words. The ten dollar trap. " Listen

to me - I can speak so eloquently " is what the writer is saying, but the

reader only hears an excess of words, quite often words which confuse

rather than clarify.

A good idea is to check the word sizes you use. There is usually an anglo

saxon word which will replace most latin based terms. But where there is

not - then use the right word and be done with it. The onus is - after all

- also upon the reader to be capable of understanding at some level. And

one expects on a list of this type for eg. that one would not have to write

primary school prose.

I think we get a feel for each style of poster here. And it is true that

sometimes we find it hard to get into the mind of the writer, but that is

at least a difficulty we can work on - what is perhaps more of a problem is

lack of forethought before writing. But this is a list - not a place for

carefully prepared theses or analyses. And just so - it is necessary for me

to understand and all others and ask for clarification where

required. Not demand that he or they should present their words in a

" suitable " style.

rgh