> I wish I understood what "wordiness" means. Perhaps it's restating the same simple point three times in as many loose sentences.
Does wordiness mean restating the same simple point three times in as many loose sentences?
> People who harp on this point usually point to the writing of Hemingway and similar writers (Carver comes to mind). All of these men are better writers than I am, but I still prefer to read Nabokov. Could Nabokov have "made his point" in fewer words? Almost certainly, but I wouldn't have enjoyed them any more.
People who complain about wordiness point to Hemingway and Carver. I personally find it a joy to read Nabokov despite his wordiness, and I do not think my reading enjoyment is related to being wordy.
* Sorry about this, thought I will have some fun. This is not chatGPT, just my own effort, and both your para and my para does not call out whether Hemingway is wordy or concise !!
>I personally find it a joy to read Nabokov despite his wordiness, and I do not think my reading enjoyment is related to being wordy.
> [original:] Could Nabokov have "made his point" in fewer words? Almost certainly, but I wouldn't have enjoyed them any more.
This sentence is a great example of how the main semantics of the sentence are actually the same but their subtext are entirely different. In both cases, the main point is that GP concludes that 'reading enjoyment is not correlated to wordiness'.
But in the first case, Nabokov is enjoyable despite the wordiness, whereas in the original it sounds more like it's an important part of the charm; reducing it would not improve enjoyment, and probably reduce it. It is almost opposite.
As an aside I think it's quite a dumb rule. If wordiness is bad, you'd get maximum enjoyment from a summary. Wordiness should be correlated in a more complex way to what is being told, the impression it should make, and the place within the narrative flow.
Another aside, the ChatGPT version (much more respectful of semantics, but barely more concise):
Those who emphasize this often refer to writers like Hemingway and others such as Carver. While these writers are more skilled than me, I still favor reading Nabokov. Could Nabokov have expressed his idea more succinctly? Likely, but I wouldn't have found it more enjoyable.
I once noticed that people who are used to quickly read tons of texts often don't get the meaning of more winded sentences right. (I assume chatgpt would have the same issue.) But the fault was mine of course, since I did not distinguish between texts written to convey information and "literary" texts written for amusement.
In the age of LLMs it makes you wonder though, if all this writing advice isn't out of date. Concise texts are for AIs, wordy texts are for humans.
> I wish I understood what "wordiness" means. Perhaps it's restating the same simple point three times in as many loose sentences.
Does wordiness mean restating the same simple point three times in as many loose sentences?
> People who harp on this point usually point to the writing of Hemingway and similar writers (Carver comes to mind). All of these men are better writers than I am, but I still prefer to read Nabokov. Could Nabokov have "made his point" in fewer words? Almost certainly, but I wouldn't have enjoyed them any more.
People who complain about wordiness point to Hemingway and Carver. I personally find it a joy to read Nabokov despite his wordiness, and I do not think my reading enjoyment is related to being wordy.
* Sorry about this, thought I will have some fun. This is not chatGPT, just my own effort, and both your para and my para does not call out whether Hemingway is wordy or concise !!