Notes on conciseness – Sentient Relay
I have the terrible habit of being unnervingly concise . As the son of old-school print journalists, that comes with the territory. I learned how to write at school, but my parents taught me how to write well. The newsroom trained them on the importance of writing correctly and succinctly. Their whole lives were dictated by how many characters they could fit in whatever shape the editor reserved for them.
I embraced their religion. No amount of effort seems sufficient to make me a long-winded writer. For most of my life, that was more useful than harmful. A lot of what I wrote had a defined length, I even worked for a newspaper for a while. And tiny stories were more likely to be read by whoever I wanted to impress.
That works well for fiction. A short story stipulates the very context according to which its sentences are evaluated — the inner rules of a possible world. The reader shifts their assumptions from reality to what is true in the context of the story. Ultra concise fiction works because, in fiction, what is not allowed does not exist. A forced analysis can surmise whatever the interpreter wants, but the operation is more transparent and fragile. Of course, fiction and reality are intrinsically connected, and it is valid to interpret fiction through the lens of reality. But that is a more laborious operation, which is neither as quick nor as compulsory as it is for non-fiction.
That way of writing served me well for many years but is woefully inadequate for the vivid dynamic of online discussions. Even considering that everyone is susceptible to communication mishaps, I can no longer ignore that I am a particularly prolific offender. Whenever I’m “let loose”, I seem to anger people . That wouldn’t be surprising if I held positions that are, by their very nature, hateful. But the reality is that, when those events occur, in the majority of cases I agree with those I offended. When people breathe for a second, they usually realize that I can’t possibly be so awful. In reality, I cannot expect anyone online to take a breather. Strictly stating just what I wish to express is not an option, and failing to understand that essential feature of online debate is both irresponsible and unintelligent. In practice, that which is both negative and unstated will be interpreted as an implicit endorsement. The opposite also occurs when readers make positive interpretations of unstated favorable implications. But that is a discussion of communication defects, so I won’t spend much time describing felicitous interactions. In any case, adversarial interpretations tend to draw more support, especially when charged with emotion.
