58. Writing and understanding

April 15, 2009 § Leave a comment

I have just been reading a few economics texts at an advanced level and what strikes me is that most sentences I read are not necessary to, do not advance, the argument being made. Why are they there? The economics of publishing has made the “article” and the “book”, the standards. A 70 page book or one page article don’t make it into that system.

Because of this, writers have assumed that “length” is an important variable in the goal of writing, and yield to filler writing to meet the goal.

The result is that we waste a lot of time coming up to speed on important issues.

If the standard were reader efficiency in grasping the argument (or impression, for these too are valuable), the writing would look very different. The point is, our approach to writing leads to delayed and incomplete understanding, inefficiently, and un-aesthetically achieved.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading 58. Writing and understanding at Reflections on GardenWorld Politics Douglass Carmichael.

meta

%d bloggers like this: