Tabitha,
Thank you for posting the link, it was very useful and I did print it out for reference.
Andrew )

<Added>

ps ... I will tell Ellie and Nell off next time I see them... what a bunch of reprobates they are indeed!

<Added>

those reprobabtes... you know what? - they didn't recognise themselves in your description above - so you must have meant someone else, I guess? Wonder who you meant?

Tabitha.

It was a useful link. Wordiness is one of my personal pet hates, though some authors have made succesfull careers with a style that I personally consider 'wordy'. As with everything, there are personal levels of acceptability.

One level of wordiness I feel is unacceptable is the selection of an incorrect noun of verb, then hacking it around with adjectives and adverbs to make it fit.

I think everyone should have a look at something by Hemmingway, just to see what can be done with very very simplistic language and structure.

I doubt if there is a sentence in any of his novels that could not be feasibly constructed by a 12 year old. The cumulative effect though, is complex and wonderfully descriptive.

An advantage of simplistic language is that it almost removes the reader from the sensation of reading.

On example that works with me is the work of Peter Straub. I almost don't feel as though I'm reading. It's t as though he's transmitting his thoughts straight into my head.

This is far removed from the frustrating experience of having to re-read sentences and paragraphs just to make sure you unsderstood what was being said.

Thats my personal take

Darryl

seems to be a great deal of it on this forum

PS: I only wear the male variety of the aforesaid nether garments - honest.

Frankie, have you no sense of adventure?

Shocking.

Actually, as a matter of interest, they did tell Mozart that he used 'too many notes'.

This whole whole debate misses a vital point, which is the chosing of appropriate words; is Hemingway better than Dickens, because he uses fewer? Is Hardy a better poet than Dylan Thomas for the same reason? This fixation on 'wordiness'as a BAD THING would result in us adjudging Jeffrey Archer a finer novelist than Melville or Joyce, or Barbara Cartland superior to Angela Carter.
Surely, the only criterion is whether the words are fitting or not; are there too many or too few for the purpose, are they too plain or too rich? Or are they just so? Le mot juste will vary wildly depending upon the context. All that can determine what is appropriate is the idea, 'in the given circumstances.' In my opinion.

Mike

I just want to say:"I like reading." I read to READ. What is wrong with writing you need to read?

Hurrah! Well said.

Mike

What a peculiar bunch of people we writers are. I post a link to a site which can help us all with wordiness, and a whole load of us find a myriad of excuses for ignoring advice in the name of 'creativity'. Oh dear,oh dear, oh dear. :-(((((

Although I do like lean tight writing generally, rather than more 'Rococco'writing styles, I find some flamboyant writers wonderful. Dylan Thomas would be one. I think extravagant word useage fits some themes, some writers and their readers, and some genres very well. Sometimes you read 'wordy' pieces in which the writer is expressing a delight in words alongside the story itself, and when done well it can be very fine.

In science lectures some time ago there was a bad habit amongst some people of presenting their work using absurdly obscure words and phrases, this was because they were not confident about what they were saying, they were like squid producing ink when frightened. And so you had to look through the fog they presented to get the point. I don't like to see this in fiction either, and that to me is the point about being wary of 'wordiness', rather than 'wordiness' per se.

I remember an English lesson at School. We were asked to take well-known phrase or saying and 'expand' this... to make it 'wordy'...

'The General Public is advised upon good authority to exercise caution and to ensure an unobstructed view before casting their optics in the direction of their destination and before propelling themselves by a quick movement of the lower limbs'.

This was 'Look before you leap' so Tabitha does have a good point.

By the way I received one of Becca's gold stars for this.

"Well done. Len!" Somebody called and I heard IB's voice adding "Yes, and make sure he's fried on BOTH sides!"

Len

Len that is excellent - it sounds like this could be another writing exercise!

Here is my attempt, which I have tried to relate to the flavour of this forum. )

To cause the possibility of making an inaccuracy or potential mistake is a characteristic that is often found in most human beings, however to forgive those mistakes when they occur and be generous as a result, so as not to incur the wrath of the aggrieved party who has caused the misunderstanding to occur in the first place, is actually quite an unusal trait and is only found in the likes of angels, gods and goddesses.


"To err is human; to forgive, divine" - Alexander
Pope

A )

<Added>

Len - I'm dead jealous of your gold star from Becca :o)

I have a favourite anti-wordiness phrase.

One of my former MA colleagues - who is a fantastically tight writer - professes herself a member of Waaaaaaa!

(Writers against almost all adjectives, adverbs, anthropomorphism and analepsis!)