How to get good prose?

[Hygro]

That's the problem. Technical terminology often eludes me, even if I'm more than familiar with the subject at hand. The US's economy is globalized. China creates growth by exporting to us. Arab countries sell oil to us. Japan maintains high tech industries by trading with us. When we hit a recession, the world quickly follows. How do I articulate that? All that integration creates conflict, and an awful lot lot of countries depend on us to prevent it. For instance, Saudi Arabia needs us to pressure Iran, Japan and China might take unilateral action against each other if not for the fact that US interest requires that they both remain stable, etc. Withdrawing military and financial support for other countries would thus lead to chaos, as each state tried to act in its own interest in the new global order. That's pretty hard to word, even if I had split it up into multiple sentences.

Technical terminology comes with being educated in your discipline. If you don't know the terminology, it's unlikely you know the discipline. It hasn't "eluded" you. You might have an interest and an intuitive grasp on some of the concepts. However, the same reason you can't find the right language to use in a complex topic also manifests itself in not actually understanding your own topic. China's NX surplus certainly contributes to its growth but America's NX deficit contributes to our own growth so what are you trying to say, and more important, why are you bothering to say it? Some Arab countries sell oil to us, amounting for some of their economic activity. Why is this part of your narrative? Japan is certainly maintaining its tech industries in a way that includes trading with us but Japan's tech industries are probably less reliant on international specialization than our own. Why is this part of your narrative?

Then you state your thesis, integration creates conflict. Sure, any increased interaction will result in increased interaction. Being nice to someone creates more conflict than ignoring someone. So is this what you want to argue?

Or is your thesis that withdrawing military and financial support results in chaos? Chaos among the entire world economy, since you seem to be trying to tie it all? What kind of chaos? Why would it? Withdrawing exactly what financial and military support? It's very unconvincing and you're biting more than you can chew.

Or is it that each state, without US hegemony, would fight to make itself dominant. Why? What is your premise for believing such a strong claim?

I feel for you, man, because I've been there. We all have, it's part of learning.

Now, there are two contradictory thoughts, one is on the receivers end when we think someone is unlearned because they don't know the lingo, but the other is the producer's (your) end assume you're learned in spite of not knowing the lingo.

The thing to do is to stop trying to convince yourself and others of expertise (especially when expertise is hedged as "more than familiar" allowing you to not claim being an expert when you are outed by experts). Instead, get really focused on your thesis and what proves it, with maybe some footnotes if you can't help yourself.

If you need to use amateur terminology, use amateur terminology. But then you need to be very concise and both logical and empirical. Don't insinuate that this is only the surface of your knowledge. It makes you look like a hack. You only get a pass because you're young.

So the quoted sentence you gave us has a few, but look first at how many different ideas you are trying to cram into a single sentence:



The two blue sections are part of the same clause but the mid-blue contains a different point. Five points in a single sentence is a bit much. Hygro's advice is also quite good.

Ah, thank you well! Yeah, breaking things up like that is very helpful.

 

[Mouthwash]

Technical terminology comes with being educated in your discipline. If you don't know the terminology, it's unlikely you know the discipline. It hasn't "eluded" you. You might have an interest and an intuitive grasp on some of the concepts. However, the same reason you can't find the right language to use in a complex topic also manifests itself in not actually understanding your own topic. China's NX surplus certainly contributes to its growth but America's NX deficit contributes to our own growth so what are you trying to say, and more important, why are you bothering to say it? Some Arab countries sell oil to us, amounting for some of their economic activity. Why is this part of your narrative? Japan is certainly maintaining its tech industries in a way that includes trading with us but Japan's tech industries are probably less reliant on international specialization than our own. Why is this part of your narrative?

They aren't. They're examples. I want to be able to express the idea without having to give them.

Then you state your thesis, integration creates conflict. Sure, any increased interaction will result in increased interaction. Being nice to someone creates more conflict than ignoring someone. So is this what you want to argue?

Or is your thesis that withdrawing military and financial support results in chaos? Chaos among the entire world economy, since you seem to be trying to tie it all? What kind of chaos? Why would it? Withdrawing exactly what financial and military support? It's very unconvincing and you're biting more than you can chew.

Withdrawing most of our political and military support would result in global chaos. I argued that our integration with the world economy has made it impossible for us to ignore it (like libertarians would have us do).

Or is it that each state, without US hegemony, would fight to make itself dominant. Why? What is your premise for believing such a strong claim?

I don't think it's as quite as clear-cut as that. It will cause a huge shift in a global balance of power.

 

[Birdjaguar]

An excellent way to convey expertise through writing is to demonstrate that you can use use details (data) to build generalizations that make sense. I prefer to begin with the generalization I want my audience to accept and then work my way down through the evidence until my correctness is evident. Of course, one could work it the other way around too.

The language one uses needs to match the expectations of the readers. Long complex sentences with lots of jargon may be entirely wrong for some readers. You should be writing for your audience, not for yourself (fiction excepted). "Begin with the end in mind." Know what you want as an outcome; state it clearly; then write to that purpose for your readers.

 

[Hygro]

An excellent way to convey expertise through writing is to demonstrate that you can use use details (data) to build generalizations that make sense. I prefer to begin with the generalization I want my audience to accept and then work my way down through the evidence until my correctness is evident. Of course, one could work it the other way around too.

The language one uses needs to match the expectations of the readers. Long complex sentences with lots of jargon may be entirely wrong for some readers. You should be writing for your audience, not for yourself (fiction excepted). "Begin with the end in mind." Know what you want as an outcome; state it clearly; then write to that purpose for your readers.

And don't try to abuse your audience by trying to get them to think you know more than you do. Or even confuse them by getting them to think you want them to think you know more than you do even though you don't actually want that, although that second one isn't always your fault. You can still watch for it, though.

 

[Akka]

On the other hand, most others don't seem to have this problem. TF has the best prose and vocabulary I've ever seen, and can express it so concisely it's like an economy of language.

That's called "elegance" - the ability to express the most meaning in the least amount of words.
If it can makes you feel better, that's kind of the Holy Grail for writers (except when they want to purposedly get a sophisticated style) and it's the kind of skill that isn't easily acquired.
Also, if it can makes you feel less lonely, it's something many of us lack too. Despite this elegance being probably my single most desired goal when I'm write, it's the one I'm utterly unable to reach. I'm constantly making overlong sentences, circling around a concept I want to describe and using ten times more words than I would because I can't find the appropriate way to do it, and putting additionnal information in parenthesis or aparte.
Actually, this very answer is filled with such litterary flaws, so I guess it's a case of self-describing article.

So well, take comfort in knowing you're not alone, and what you aim for is basically what any writer mindful of the quality of what he writes, is also desiring. And that so few manage to do it, is kinda revealing of how truly difficult it is, and why we all want to emulate them.

 

[Kyriakos]

^While the ability you called 'elegance' is important in my view as well, i have two points to make on that:

- Writing small sentences, or the most condenced ones, by itself does not mean your entire text will be elegant. I think there are dependencies between the degrees of 'elegance' in each part of the writing, and the overall form of that writing. You can say a lot of things so as to reach one point in the end, and this does not have to be negative by itself. Poe seems to have created whole pages only with the end to guide you to a final sentence. Dostoevsky is widely regarded as an author with poor style, but he still is considered as a good writer, by and large anyway (some of his large passages are just badly written, though, in my view).

-The ways to see a work of writing are endless. You can always discover news ones. Be sure that any way you see it in will be (at best) your own version of supposedly a more common one, shared by others, but in reality many authors have quite different narrative methods and means of forming a story. Again 'elegance' is an overall effect, not just how you phrase a number of sentences, and not (in my view) a continuous way of phrasing all of the work.

 

[Akka]

I think you misunderstood what I meant with "elegance". It's not the ability to write short/condensed sentences, it's the ability to communicate efficiently, that is to carry a meaning without needing to detail it abundantly, and without loss of information.

Basically, while I'd have to write several blocks of text, and probably in the end dilute what I mean, makes it messy and disjointed and forget many small parts, someone with elegant writing would take just a few sentences able to vehiculate the whole meaning/concept/idea.

 

[Kyriakos]

^Yeah, my point was that this being 'efficient' depends on the form of your overall work, and not in a consistent outpouring of such sentences. There are many more dynamics to be utilized in a text. Sometimes you want to try to hypnotise the reader, before enabling something striking to rise from the depth of the story.

 

[Borachio]

Basically, while I'd have to write several blocks of text, and probably in the end dilute what I mean, making it messy and disjointed and forgetting many small parts, someone with elegant writing would take just a few sentences to get across the whole meaning/concept/idea.

Hmm...

 

[JohannaK]

An excellent way to convey expertise through writing is to demonstrate that you can use use details (data) to build generalizations that make sense. I prefer to begin with the generalization I want my audience to accept and then work my way down through the evidence until my correctness is evident. Of course, one could work it the other way around too.

My professor in "Textual Production in English" calls your approach the 'deductive approach', versus the opposite 'inductive approach'. He said it is the most effective way of the two to transmit knowledge.

 

[Birdjaguar]

My professor in "Textual Production in English" calls your approach the 'deductive approach', versus the opposite 'inductive approach'. He said it is the most effective way of the two to transmit knowledge.

I'm glad it has a name. I learned to use it while in business school in the 80s and had to write one-page case analyses every week for two years. The technique was not taught; I read about it in an essay on demonstrating expertise in some journal. I have found it extremely useful over the years whenever have had to convince people to make the right decision (what I would do ) or that the decision I made was the correct one.

Business writing is all about making a case for something and since most people have weak data skills and data knowledge, they find it difficult to counter a case that focuses on detailed support of a focused position.

 

[JohannaK]

I do like it the other way around though. It's a bit like a Sherlock Holmes case. You get everything first and then are shown how all of it points towards the conclusion. It's fun.

 

[Cutlass]

Why, pretty much all I read is fiction and I feel I suck at dialogue.

Just remember to write the way people actually talk. A lot of writers write dialog in a much more formalized way. But people don't actually talk like that. It leaves a stilted feeling.

 

[Hygro]

I do like it the other way around though. It's a bit like a Sherlock Holmes case. You get everything first and then are shown how all of it points towards the conclusion. It's fun.

This is much riskier. The payoff is greater, but not always worthwhile.

 

[Birdjaguar]

If you tell them upfront what you are going for, then as they read the rest, it makes better sense. They nod in agreement as they read along. In addition, if they fail to make it all the way through your piece, they still know what you want them to know. Remember your goal. If it convincing others, then one approach is often better; if it is building drama, then another might be in order.

 

[Hygro]

If they follow, and if they last all the way, then the buildup is the more effective way to get your point across and get them to agree. It's just too risky in most cases, and it takes too much work to do it well. Probably the best author to me right now how manages to do the build-version, but hooks you in by pretending to introduce his thesis early, is http://thelastpsychiatrist.com

 

[Birdjaguar]

And don't try to abuse your audience by trying to get them to think you know more than you do. Or even confuse them by getting them to think you want them to think you know more than you do even though you don't actually want that, although that second one isn't always your fault. You can still watch for it, though.

I agree. The known facts are all you usually need.

 

[Mouthwash]

OK, "educated" people, please show me how I should have expressed myself. Start with a generalization, like I did, and make my arguments.

 

[Birdjaguar]

If they follow, and if they last all the way, then the buildup is the more effective way to get your point across and get them to agree. It's just too risky in most cases, and it takes too much work to do it well. Probably the best author to me right now how manages to do the build-version, but hooks you in by pretending to introduce his thesis early, is http://thelastpsychiatrist.com

I read his blog on Guinness. He kept me reading, but at the end I was a bit disappointed that his conclusion was not well expressed.

 

[Hygro]

I read his blog on Guinness. He kept me reading, but at the end I was a bit disappointed that his conclusion was not well expressed.

I felt that that article was by far one of his worst. I've read almost all of his posts. His older works are less aware of his own internet celebrity so he doesn't hold himself up to such expectations, which can be better. But some of his newer works are dynamite because he's evolved.