
On Making Oneself Less Unreadable - benbreen
https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2017/12/04/making-oneself-less-unreadable/
======
m52go
I haven't read Fowler's original work, but I found the samples in this article
to be hard to understand (i.e., a tad bit unreadable).

Still, as someone who runs a couple of services to help people write more
concisely, I agree with most of his advice.

And although it has nothing to do with Fowler, the title of the article itself
was confusing. I almost didn't click on it because I thought it was talking
about personality, not writing (since it mentions "oneself," not one's
writing). Then the double-negative.

A better title would be something like "On Making Your Writing More Readable."

But then it wouldn't be accepted for publication in The Paris Review, would
it..."literary critics’ words" (!).

~~~
tome
> the title of the article itself was confusing

Isn't it a joke?

~~~
m52go
Ah, maybe. But I think a title is a risky thing to make into a joke,
especially in this day and age (clicks), if it obfuscates its own meaning.

------
Avshalom
There was a post once on memepool:

>> Now there is something to be said for the change, or the two changes: the
old-fashioned period, or long complex sentence, carefully worked out with a
view to symmetry, balance, and degrees of subordination, though it has a
dignity of its own, is formal, stiff, and sometimes frigid; the modern
newspaper vice of long sentences either rambling or involved (far commoner in
newspapers than the spot-plague) is inexpressibly wearisome and exasperating.

-h.w. fowler

Vigorous writing is concise

-strunk and white.

That's when I when I fell in love with Fowler.

------
yesenadam
I didn't find the title at all confusing. I found the Fowler excerpts
wonderful, I've downloaded it to read already. Thanks!

But :-) I didn't understand how on earth he could say "Johnson himself was the
first to prove that there was little in the way of drudgery in the task of the
lexicographer". Does he know how many years of toil it took him? Maybe he just
means "It's not a dull book to read", I can't imagine what else.

~~~
telesilla
I read that as saying, Johnson enjoyed every moment of his work. Quite a feat,
what both of them achieved.

------
Ice_cream_suit
It is a shame that entire article is the antithesis of clarity.

~~~
telesilla
One would wonder why? Wit is so wearisome.

~~~
falsedan
_Attempts_ at wit are so wearisome.

------
emacsgifs
I wonder if that title was chosen ironically, or if the author simply has no
clue?

Put another way, what's up with that title?!

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Many of the quotes in the article are doing exactly what they're giving advice
about not doing, so that in reading it, you can see exactly what happens if
you ignore the advice. The title is doing the same.

~~~
emacsgifs
Absolutely, I wasn't sure if the entire article was intended as a complicated
joke / cautionary example.

An interesting way to communicate the message, but I'm sure it was largely
unintentional.

------
falsedan
On the topic of clear writing, a longer work to follow on from this article is
_The Complete Plain Words_ by Sir Ernest Gowers. I heartily recommend it, and
find its recommendations on reducing officialese quite useful for increasing
clarity in technical documentation.

------
happy-go-lucky
I think _if and when_ is redundant because it is just equivalent to _if_.
Based on context, either _if_ or _when_ is more appropriate than both of them.

~~~
rahimnathwani
'I think' is redundant because language is a mechanism for you to express what
you think.

'If and when' is not always redundant:

1) I will make your favourite breakfast if you finish your homework

2) I will make your favourite breakfast when you finish your homework

3) I will make your favourite breakfast if and when you finish your homework

(2) and (3) specify that the breakfast will be made immediately, or soon
after, the homework is completed, whereas (1) doesn't indicate a time,
suggesting it will be at the next opportunity (e.g. tomorrow morning).

(1) and (3) include some doubt as to whether the homework will be completed,
whereas (2) assumes that it will be completed, and only the time is unknown.

~~~
Jtsummers
“I think” marks what follows as interpretation or opinion, so it’s not
redundant. Removing it would change the statement to one of fact or make it
prescriptive when it may be better taken as descriptive or a possibility among
many.

~~~
Retra
"I think" also marks a reflection on the state of mind without any implied
uncertainty. That is, it implies that the thought originates from your own
mind, rather than from some deferred authority. As in "I think we should do X"
in opposition to "we should do X" where I've just walked into a meeting after
getting off the phone with my boss. I don't want anyone to get the impression
that I'm merely relaying orders.

>Removing it would change the statement to one of fact or make it prescriptive
when it may be better taken as descriptive or a possibility among many.

There are better ways to make these distinctions, and in most contexts, you
don't need to differentiate between facts and opinions on account of the
difference being obvious. And where it isn't obvious, it's obviously
debatable, and people will do that regardless of whether you make such a
qualification.

~~~
thomastjeffery
> and in most contexts, you don't need to differentiate between facts and
> opinions on account of the difference being obvious

Unfortunately it is not me who needs to differentiate, and many seem to
blindly assume statements to be _as fact_ , when they are meant to be _as
opinion_.

I agree that it is a waste, but I can't change the way my words are perceived,
only the words that I use.

------
haZard_OS
For those who prefer a more direct (although less poetic) version of Fowler's
work, I refer you to "The Sense of Style" by Steven Pinker.

------
baxtr

      It is wrong to start a sentence with “but”! It is wrong to start a sentence with “and”! It is wrong to end a sentence with a preposition! It is wrong to split an infinitive!
    

Love it!

~~~
cdancette
You should not quote like this, use > rather. It is unreadable on mobile, we
don't want that, do we?

~~~
germinalphrase
This complaint seems to appear on a regular basis (because it's accurate).
Can't we just fix that issue rather than attempting to reinforce some
community norm about quote formatting?

~~~
IncRnd
> _This complaint seems to appear on a regular basis (because it 's accurate).
> Can't we just fix that issue rather than attempting to reinforce some
> community norm about quote formatting?_

As you indicate, there is nothing to fix when the complaint of incorrect usage
is accurate. The markup quotes _verbatim_. Therefore quoting long lines will
scroll on smaller screens.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc](https://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc)

* Blank lines separate paragraphs.
    
    
      * Text after a blank line that is indented by two or more spaces is reproduced verbatim. (This is intended for code.)
    

* _Text surrounded by asterisks is italicized, if the character after the first asterisk isn 't whitespace._

* Urls become links, except in the text field of a submission

~~~
colanderman
I think the "fix" GP is suggesting is for HN to _add_ a "blockquote" syntax.
i.e., make text like this:

> something quoted which is very long and let's pretend it wraps lines

look something like this (sans horizontal scrolling):

    
    
      | something quoted which is very long and
      | let's pretend it wraps lines
    

I get that HN doesn't want to be markup-heavy (a sentiment with which I
agree), but posters quote things _all the time_ and it's _always_ ugly if line
wraps are involved.

~~~
krapp
Imageboards use that syntax for quotes as well, italicizing _and_ changing the
text color, highlighting the quoted text without the scrolling issues of a
blockquote.

I had a userscript doing that on HN for a while along with as other text
fixes, and the result seemed quite readable.

------
Retra
>vogue words.

Ha. Best example of this I can recall: 'said' meaning 'aforementioned'. "I ate
said taco."

Never heard it before. Then suddenly... everyone seemed to be using it.

~~~
posterboy
I noticed a few mondegreens (misheared words) from foreign languages used
here, like _per say_ instead of French/Latin _per-se_ , which is _by itself_ ,
in case you wonder. I suspect the bigger half [sic!] of all language
originated like that.

------
chris_wot
How to write more readable prose.

~~~
posterboy
How to write readable prose.

~~~
zinckiwi
How to write right.

------
IncRnd
> On Making Oneself Less Unreadable

Don't use a double-negative, and use the correct noun.

For example, On Making the Written Word Readable

