Maximally Considerate Writing

NeuroFizz · Nov 30, 2007

I came across a mini-essay by David Foster Wallace* in the Oxford American Writer’s Thesaurus (2004) in which he addresses the use of “puff words.” It contains this statement: “Formal writing” does not mean gratuitously fancy writing; it means clean, clear, maximally considerate writing (bolding mine).** We are all aware of the drawbacks of purple prose and of too-deep dives into the thesaurus for our descriptive passages. In addition, threads pop up regularly asking about phonetic spelling in dialogue. But in this general context, the bolded phrase really hit me—it’s the first time I’ve thought in these specific terms. Yes, we’ve all danced around this with our acknowledgement of the benefits of concise, tight writing, but do we really have the reader in mind to the extent of making our writing maximally considerate? It’s an interesting take, at least to me.

As for word choice, it’s all a personal thing, and we, as writers, are expected to develop our own personal style of writing. For some, this can and does involve use of “thesaurus words” and this doesn’t doom those writers to the slush piles. Maximally considerate writing should be flexible enough so the right word could be an unusual one as long as context clues in the surrounding words take the reader into consideration. Furthermore, paragraph, sentence, or phrase rhythm is a consideration in prose and can (and should) impact word choice.

And to stretch this, how about poetry? Word choice there is much different than in prose since things like rhythmicity, word-play, and rhyme have a much greater impact, and because vivid word-pictures must be way more compact. Is maximally considerate writing just as important (or essential) in poetry?

Any thoughts?

*cited merely to give credit, not for any specific expectation of recognition
**note the irony of finding this mini-essay in a thesaurus

blacbird · Dec 1, 2007

The phrase "maximally considerate writing" itself strikes me as snobby, pretentious and . . . well . . . inconsiderate. Without reading your quoted excerpt, I didn't have a clue what it meant, which means it was, by its own definition . . . well . . . inconsiderate.

Mark Twain's advice was to "eschew verbiage". David Foster Wallace has failed, with maximal inconsiderateness, in that regard.

caw

nerds · Dec 1, 2007

The idea is sound but the term is obnoxious; I agree, Twain put it better.

As a reader I'm glad it's being talked about and thought about, since excess puff word abuse in prose is an irritant for me. I love the big pretty words as well as the next person, I do know what they mean, but when something can be said cleanly in nine words rather than twenty fancy ones I'm a happier reader.

As to Poetry, I hope the poets come along and have their say. I'd be interested to hear what they think. Poetry is such a different type of effort from prose - I think there's a little more wiggle room there for the fancy stuff, but I'll tire of reading a poem instantly if it feels overdone, deliberately dense, or patronizing in its use of the purple or obscure words. My reason for that is it makes me feel that the writer was not in fact interested in communicating with me the reader - that the reader was forgotten.

Will Lavender · Dec 1, 2007

blacbird said:
Mark Twain's advice was to "eschew verbiage". David Foster Wallace has failed, with maximal inconsiderateness, in that regard.

caw

I don't think he's failed at all. You have to consider what sort of audience Wallace is writing for, and he writes perfectly for that audience. (I think his nonfiction is much better than his fiction, BTW.) He isn't writing for mystery readers or romance readers; he's writing for academics, college kids, people who don't mind big words and rambling, esoteric footnotes and allusions to obscure 17th century philosophers. So he's "considerate" to that audience in that he writes the way his readers think.

I absolutely agree with Wallace's quote, and a whole lot of other writers I respect (including Vonnegut, et al) have said the same thing. If you aren't writing in a compassionate, specific, considerate manner for your audience, then you shouldn't be writing at all. This is why it kills me when writers seem so intensely against having their own work edited; that strikes me as hellaciously counter-intuitive in that it goes right against the grain of what writing for publication should be about.

We are giving the reader something, aren't we? If not, what are we doing?

Will Lavender · Dec 1, 2007

David Foster Wallacesque footnote to my post above:

It helps to know who your audience is. And to do that, one has to read extensively to find out what's going on in whatever style or genre you're writing.

Here, I guess, you get into the question, "Does being compassionate as a writer mean giving the reader what sells?" For instance, James Patterson is on the top of the bestseller lists in my genre all the time. Do I look at Patterson -- his tropes as well as the language he uses -- and decide that I'm going to ape him so I can compassionately give my readers what they want?

Of course not. BUT if you're writing genre, I've always felt you shouldn't try to murder the genre when you write. I try and pay homage to it but also do something new, and this, hopefully, will please a reader who happens to pick up my book.

Of course I'm a little off the topic of "formal writing" now as Wallace defines it, but this is a wide-ranging (and interesting) issue that has many permutations.

maestrowork · Dec 1, 2007

"Maximal" for whom? If a writer has a superb vocabulary, is he supposed to dumb down his words just so an 8th grade student could read his book, even if he's writing for adults?

What I go by, especially in writing fiction, is whether I can hold my audience captive and keep them in the fictive dream. And if that means I need to use words that 99% of my target audience could understand, that's what I would do. Anything that will take them out of the dream would be a bad thing, and that includes bad prose and difficult or wrong words. Absolutely know your audiences, but at the same time, I don't think there's such thing as "maximally considerate writing" when you consider the wide spectrum of your audiences. So do you aim at the lowest common denominator?

To me, most often it's not the word and its inherent meaning that matter to me, but how I use it for the purpose of storytelling (or poetry). Especially poetry or poetic writing: how you can turn that lemon into lemonade and pies.

CaroGirl · Dec 1, 2007

Remember another memorable Twain quote: The difference between the right word and the almost right word is like the difference between lightning and a lightning bug. In my writing, it's not a question of the biggest words. Nor do I try for verbosity. It's about choosing exactly the right word, whether it be two syllables or five.

Also, there are as many writing styles as there are writers. A style that works for me might not work for you, and vice versa. Oftentimes, a style either works or it doesn't. I think blanket statements like this don't really help writers all that much.

lfraser · Dec 1, 2007

I'm not going to mention any names, but there's one writer I've stoped reading because their writing, although undeniably strong, seems self-consciously intellectual. That's not a deal-breaker on its own, but when combined with Failure to Tell a Damned Good Story, it is.

KTC · Dec 1, 2007

I always use the words as they come to me. Either in fiction or in poetry. I don't stop to consider the word choices. I am not sure if I would even be able to do that. I just type. The word that comes out is the best word for that moment. I would never fluff my work with words for the sake of using the word. In poetry I write a poem in about 3-5 minutes...as long as it takes for me to type it out. I don't consider particular words and how the reader will feel about that word. I listen to the language as it comes out and just look for a sound that works as I'm typing. I guess I do the same thing with my fiction. I consider myself to be average...so the word I use would fall naturally into the category of maximally considerate. The words would be the right words for me the writer and for anyone who chooses to read them. I don't really understand the concept of 'choosing words' as it is not something I think about. I just write, man.

Danger Jane · Dec 1, 2007

I don't think "maximally considerate" is the right phrase here...how's that for maximum consideration? I think it's more of a "less subjective" thing that we're discussing. It's true, formal/essay/paper writing is generally less subjective, sometimes at the expense of brevity, than artistic writing like poetry and novels.

It's not negative, in my mind, to write as objectively as possible, so that your readers can come only to one conclusion. That isn't insulting your reader. Insulting your reader is assuming they won't understand your meaning. Objective writing is simply more straightforward than subjective.

I'm not sure any story or poetic writing can be purely objective, not in this sense. Readers expect nuances in stories and poems, so they'll find them, whether intentional or not. But it's equally hard to find a beautifully written article in a scientific journal, or something. Leaning one way or the other isn't a matter of quality--it's a matter of style.

JoNightshade · Dec 1, 2007

"Maximally considerate" seems to me to imply that we, as authors, are writing for the ease of the reader: whatever makes it easiest for them to fall into the story and is not confusing or excessively wordy.

I agree with this on general principle. But what I don't necessarily agree with is the concept of making the text "easy" for the reader. Some writing is valuable for the fact that you DO have to dig into it, maybe read it a couple of times to really understand the full meaning. I think this was more "in vogue" a couple hundred years ago (average sentence length has decreased amazingly since then), and these days people tend to go for the straightforward and simple. But I love to read 18th century prose simply for the sheer intellectual stimulation of it. I always feel like I've been bumped up to some higher level of brain function. There are a few modern writers (mostly nonfiction) who accomplish this for me as well.

maestrowork · Dec 1, 2007

But does "maximally considerate" or "making it easiest for the readers" mean you have to dumb it down, or whether you need to explain everything just in case they don't get it? Sometimes I find the problem with the writing I critique is that the author tries too hard to a) tell me something and b) explain everything. So how do we define "maximally considerate"?

I'm just throwing that in for discussion.

KTC · Dec 1, 2007

Definitely, Ray. Nothing I hate more than writing that explains like that. Writers who do that are not dropping down into their own story. How the hell do they expect the reader to do so. The idea is to just tell the story and take the reader along with you. If you feel the need to explain, in an explanatory way, then you're losing the reader and the free flow of the story.

maestrowork · Dec 1, 2007

Personally I find it particularly annoying when the author feels the need to explain everything through internal monologue. But that's just me.

Shadow_Ferret · Dec 1, 2007

NeuroFizz said:
I came across a mini-essay by David Foster Wallace* in the Oxford American Writer’s Thesaurus (2004) in which he addresses the use of “puff words.” It contains this statement: “Formal writing” does not mean gratuitously fancy writing; it means clean, clear, maximally considerate writing (bolding mine).

He's talking about non-fiction or technical writing, not fiction, certainly not creative writing. When writing non-fiction we have to consider the audience and write it simply, omitting unnecessary words.

Will Lavender · Dec 1, 2007

Shadow_Ferret said:
He's talking about non-fiction or technical writing, not fiction, certainly not creative writing. When writing non-fiction we have to consider the audience and write it simply, omitting unnecessary words.

Not sure I agree.

I don't think there's a huge difference, language- and sentence-wise, in nonfiction and fiction. Writing on the sentence level is similar across the board (unless, of course, we're talking about technical manuals and such), isn't it?

And one should ALWAYS consider the audience. Always always. Without the audience, we're just...diarists.

arrowqueen · Dec 1, 2007

He's taking the piss. 'Maximally considerate' are 'puff words'. They're ugly, awkward and pointless. He could remove them (and the gratuitous 'gratuitously') and his sentence would be much clearer.

I'll lay odds he was commissioned for 1,000 words, was 200 short - and padding like a bastard.

blacbird · Dec 2, 2007

To rephrase what I said in my first response: The sentiment and idea DFW expressed is appropriate. The manner in which he expressed it is . . . well . . . less so. I have four college degrees, including two Masters (one an M.F.A. from Iowa) and an Ph.D. I'm the "audience" DFW is alleged to be aiming his comment at. It still comes across as pretentious and snobby.

How about if we say: Write as clearly and directly as you can. That work?

caw

Will Lavender · Dec 2, 2007

blacbird said:
How about if we say: Write as clearly and directly as you can. That work?

caw

No, because I still think one can be "compassionate" and not write clearly or directly. If we define uncompassionate writing as being equal to difficult writing, then the entire avant garde and experimental canon looks "pretentious" and "snobby."

Wallace has no desire to write for the "common man," as Wordsworth said. (And I don't want to come off as maniacally taking up for the man; I like him, but he's not one of my favorites or anything like that. If I had to pick, I'll choose the simple, muscular prose of one of my favorite mystery writers every day of the week.) Not his bag. Yet, there are articles and stories and even parts of IJ that are so (yes) puffy and (intentionally) pretentious, but they remain pretty considerate of his reader's wants. Wallace on many occasions has talked about his tennis background and his family of professors and linguists in a humorous way, and he also has some hilarious pieces where he takes some pretty lampoonish shots at himself (mostly in A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again).

I agree that the simple the better, usually, but there are a few writers who stand outside that maxim. This guy is one of them, IMO.

chroniclemaster1 · Dec 2, 2007

I think what Wallace meant was that we should not just write for ourselves, but be conscious of how we'll be interpreted by our readers. That formal writing should not be flowery for it's own sake, but polite.

arrowqueen said:
I'll lay odds he was commissioned for 1,000 words, was 200 short - and padding like a bastard.

I take it no one has tried to read any of Wallace's work, I guarantee he was never "short" on anything he's written. Though I now believe that his Infinite Jest must refer to the fact that the 1000+ pages were written by a man who could say "think first of your reader". OMG

paprikapink · Dec 2, 2007

blacbird said:
How about if we say: Write as clearly and directly as you can. That work?

caw

I think it works well for saying what *you* have to say, but it doesn't say what DFW was saying. I think the concept of consideration could be a good one to add to your word-choice filter, which, ideally, would be working in the background, without your really even being aware of it.

LeeFlower · Dec 2, 2007

My way of making sure I'm not using my thesaurus for evil is not using words I don't already know. Sometimes I need a thesaurus because I just can't find the word I want (Visuwords is my current favorite; mostly because it's a toy), but I know it when I see it.

If I have to look up a word, on the other hand, I don't use it. I may use it later, because having added it to my vocabulary, it may become the word I was looking for the next time I reach for my thesaurus. But if I didn't know it before I grabbed my thesaurus, it clearly wasn't the word I was looking for. Plus, I like to see a word in context a few times before I start messing with it.

But that's a far cry from 'dumbing down' my work. I'm not going to patronize my readers by assuming they can't understand my big-girl words. It's just that I also don't feel like I need to impress them by throwing around esoteric words where common ones are perfectly sufficient.

kuwisdelu · Dec 2, 2007

How is the phrase "maximally considerate" pretentious? I don't get it. Makes sense to me...

wayndom · Dec 2, 2007

NeuroFizz said:
I maximally considerate writing...Yes, we’ve all danced around this with our acknowledgement of the benefits of concise, tight writing, but do we really have the reader in mind to the extent of making our writing maximally considerate?

I come from a background in radio news reporting, where I discovered that the more I focused on writing clear, unambiguous sentences, the more praise I got for my writing.

When I'm writing prose, the only thing I'm thinking about (in terms of how to write it) is how clear my writing is. In my mind, if anyone ever has to read any sentence twice, I've failed. I never give any thought to "style" in my writing, and whatever style I might have (if I have any) comes through without my knowledge. (I'm told that one of my strong points is my sense of humor, though I never consciously try to come up with anything funny, and I'm always a little surprised when people mention it.)

I've always felt that the best writing is transparent -- i.e., the reader sees what's being described, and can actually forget she's reading for brief periods. I've experienced that a few times while reading other writers, and when I go back and look at the passage where I forget I was reading and seemed to just experience the narrative first-hand, it's invariably written in the simplest possible prose, using the fewest everyday words.

That's all I strive for.

wayndom · Dec 2, 2007

blacbird said:
The phrase "maximally considerate writing" itself strikes me as snobby, pretentious and . . . well . . . inconsiderate. Without reading your quoted excerpt, I didn't have a clue what it meant, which means it was, by its own definition . . . well . . . inconsiderate.

Huh??? How does one interpret "maximally considerate" to mean, "inconsiderate"???

My interpretation of "maximally considerate" writing would be, "writing that doesn't bust the reader's balls."

Is that inconsiderate?

Maximally Considerate Writing

The grad students did it

of all the gin joints

Everything is what it seems.

Everything is what it seems.

Fear the Death Ray

Living the dream

Bored and Frantic

Stand in the Place Where You Live

has finally arrived

Fear the Death Ray

Stand in the Place Where You Live

Fear the Death Ray

Court Jester

Everything is what it seems.

RIP, our sarky besom

Everything is what it seems.

Seeking Undercover Angel

Bored fanatic

Lurker Extraordinaire

Revolutionize the World