Asymmetrical Information

Amen to that. It is something to aspire to.

Any critic praising DFW for his vocabulary alone is not earning his/her paycheck. His writing IS good, interesting, and pleasing to the ear. I for one have never really noticed him having much of a dependence on big words for big words sake. How anyone could read his essay on luxury cruises and see anything other than sheer brilliance is beyond me. Your last paragraph describes his writing to a tee.

I never really noticed if David Foster Wallace used complex or large words. I don't think that is a particularly significant trait in his writing.

He does you a lot of words, he write long sentences and paragraphs and delves into the details of his stories. He also tends to "riff" of into side stories very frequently. All of which gives a strange but beautiful intensity to his writing. I have just finished his Oblivion short stories and they are great.

Is it possible that you dislike his writing (and we all have personal dislikes of various authors), and have picked on vocab. as the first thing that presents itself?

I have just finished re-reading Orwell's collected essays, and I should warn you that you will feel a great sense of loss at the end that there aren't any more of them coming. His 'As I Please' essays are the epitome of what blog writing could be.
'Politics and the English Language' and 'Why I Write' should be read by everyone. Alongside the observations that belong to their time, there are eerie echoes of present themes throughout:
As I Please 27 - 2nd June 1944

Nearly all human beings feel that a thing becomes different if you call it by a different name. Thus when the Spanish civil war broke out the B.B.C. produced the name "Insurgents" for Franco's followers. This covered the fact that they were rebels while making the rebellion sound respectable.

Extremely obstropulous, Madam.

although it strikes me that this is just one way of writing well (the excellent Tom Robbins, for instance, breaks all the rules) - you might like this if you haven't already seen it. Hat tip The Sharpener.

A friend of mine who was a somewhat well-known author in his heyday, and one of the few people I can legitimately call a genius, once told me, "I'm afraid DFW simply isn't as smart as he thinks he is."

You'll have a blast with that Orwell collection. I'm trying to get a relative in the UK to locate his 20-volume collected everydarnthing set for me.

How does DFW compare to William F. Buckley? Sometime before Megan was born, I considerably expanded my vocabulary by struggling through Buckley's newspaper columns, with an unabridged dictionary at my side. I often disagreed with him, but the thinking behind his writing was often worth the difficulty of reading his work.

IMHO, WFB was as smart as he thought he was. He was also an unbearable showoff, and his writing would have been better without the thesaurus.

Albert Eintein once said, "If you can't explain it to a ten year old, you don't really understand it." Richard Feynman felt the same way. Words to live by.

Why doesn't everyone follow Orwell's rule? Harbaugh has a clean answer: If you're a writer of moderate ability, you can't make yourself look good using ordinary words.

I think that you can make yourself look good with ordinary words. But it is not easy and it takes work. There is a quip by a famous writer who apologizes for the long letter he wrote to his friend - he did not have time to write a short one.

I know I do that all the time!

I've had a lot of trouble getting into DFW's short stories, although I did read "Infinite Jest" (a slog, in some parts - for example, I skipped some of the rules of that damned Quebecois train game).

But I enjoy his essays. It's true that not everything fits his digressive style, and he'd do himself a favor by not writing every single one of them in that form. I think that the luxury-cruise and Illinois State Fair ones are excellent. Nothing in his latest collection quite rises to those levels, in my opinion, which may or may not be a bad sign.

I've noticed the occasional unabridged-dictionary word dropped in his work, but hadn't picked up on it as a particular tic. The first things I think of when I think of his style are footnotes and long, long, sentences.

While I share your admiration for Orwell's style, it's not the only way to write something memorable or useful. It's important to remember that it is indeed a style, and not the lack of one, and that Orwell worked hard at it. Poorly done, attempts to reproduce his pane-of-glass writing can be hard to take (which is a problem with any recognizable style).

And like any recognizable style, it can be abused. "Down and Out in Paris and London", for example, reads, like much of Orwell's work, as a simple statement of fact laid out by an honest, plain-spoken man. But the events in it were compressed, altered, and re-arranged, as Orwell himself said several times.

Is there some trick to twirling a parasol?

I just read my first DFW - "Everything and More". It is an excellent book, one I'd recommend to any layman with a passionate interest in math. However, I fully agree on him needlessly showing off (non-math-related) vocabulary, as well as using unexplained abbreviations. The worst I think was many places in his writing where "&c" appeared in a list, initially puzzling me as to what the heck that is. It took a while for me to realize this was the ultimate snooty way to write what normal people would call "etc".

I'm afraid that I've never read any of his fiction, but I read both his lobster and talk radio articles without being either distracted by or amazed by his writing. (I did, however, enjoy the footnotes in the talk radio article.)

I think good writing has a musical quality. The phrasing strikes a chord. Just like in music, complexity in writing can be inspiring, or just confusing.

If the purpose of my writing is to communicate, then it would seem I'm not communicating very well if my audience must decode every sentence with a dictionary. However, if the purpose of my writing is to impress everyone with what a brilliant lad I am, then using $20 words and obscure technical jargon will certainly impress at least a portion of my audience.

I often attend lectures given by my colleagues and enjoy watching their various speaking styles in different forums. I'm particularly amused by a couple of folks I know who affect an erudite manner and pour on the technical jargon when they speak to the public. This routine usually leaves the majority of the audience glazed and gets the reaction they seek: "Gee, Professor Glitz must be brilliant, I didn't understand a thing he said!" Oddly enough, if these same folks used everyday english the audience would quickly realize that they really don't have much to say and that, in fact, they're bluffers. As the Bluffer's Guide to Archaeology notes:

3. It is especially easy in this field to pass yourself off as an expert, full of impressive and esoteric knowledge, because it is filled with obscure terms and exotic names and places. Even if the general public has heard of them, it is almost certain they will know little or nothing about them. Thus a minimum of homework will go a very long way. [emphasis added]

Hmm.. it seems that bit about long v. short letters hold true for blog comments as well.

Oh my God, Aaron, "Everything and More" was the paradigm example of what happens when his style is ill-suited to a topic. I have a huge pile of math and science books, of varying levels of difficulty, and his was by far the most needlessly diffcult. The path from the simplest ideas in the beginning of the book to Cantor's set theory was rendered hopelessly opaque by his meandering asides and pompous verbosity. I knew where he was going and it was still hard to follow.

Some of his essays are fine, but I think it's pretty clear that his first priority is to write in a style that amuses him, whether or not it's suited to the task at hand.

I will join the defense of Mr. Wallace, who often has something to say under those layers of verbiage. If you want a true empty shell, you need to try John Barth -- the Herb Washington of American literature.

'"Albert Eintein once said, "If you can't explain it to a ten year old, you don't really understand it." Richard Feynman felt the same way. Words to live by.' What preposterous advice: I'll stick to the wonderful Orwell, I think.

Actually, that explain-it-to-a-ten-year-old rule works quite well in the natural sciences. That's why the quote references Einstein and Feynman. You have to have a really firm grasp of a subject in order to give a meaningful, useful explanation of it to a nontechnical audience. In the humanities, this doesn't hold up so well.

You guys remember an article called "Is Bad Writing Necessary?" It was in Lingua Franca a few years ago. I wrote a little post about it on Tuesday, with a link to a Word doc of the article. It uses Adorno and Orwell as its key examples. If'n yer interested, it's right here.

Mr. Lowe: I can't see a good reason why the ten-year-old rule, if it is valid in the sciences (where advanced math is often an irreducible part of meaningful results), should not be at least equally valid in the humanities.

The hallmark of good writing is that the author conveys what he wanted to in the manner in which he wanted to convey it. Most authors aspire to a certain level of clarity; a few seem to revel in obfuscation. Except in certain sorts of fiction, I tend to prefer the authors who aspire towards clarity.

But clarity doesn't equal brevity - of word or of sentence. DFW (who I think is a fantastic essayist and an intermittently great author of fiction; I greatly enjoyed The Infinite Jest, had mixed feelings about Brief Interviews With Hideous Men) strikes me as a very clear writer. Sometimes I don't know what a word means, but I generally feel like he chose a relatively obscure word because it was a cleaner and more precise expression of what he had in mind. The Einstein quote has some merit, but that doesn't mean that *the best way* to explain something, or the clearest, is the way in which you'd explain it to a ten year old. I could explain to a 4th-grader what, say, "logical positivism" is about, but I could explain it faster and better to someone who understood other philosophical terms.

Up there in the first paragraph I used the word obfuscation. I could've also maybe said opacity. Those aren't particularly obscure words - though they're more obscure than "obscure" - but I could've expressed my thought with even more common words. But it gets my point across more cleanly to use one of those words than "a few seem to revel in making their writing harder to understand." Not to the extent that DFW does, but I take a certain enjoyment in the precise deployment of words, and sometimes become quite excited when I learn that there's some long and complicated word which expresses what previously I could only say in a long and complicated sentence composed of short and easy words.

Eschew obfuscation!

The math is a tough part, to be sure, and there are some concepts in physics that are hard to explain even on a hand-waving level. (How magnetism works, for example, is a notorious toughie, which is too bad since a lot of kids, including my own, ask that question).

But you can do a non-math answer that makes sense, even if it doesn't have the power and meaning of the real thing. I was explaining some Newtonian-style physics to my kids recently, and introduced them to the idea of velocity as change in distance with time, and acceleration as change in velocity with time. Now, they know no calculus (that's for sure), so they don't know that I'm talking about first and second derivatives. But they at least have some (true) idea of what's going on.

But the greatness of a particular work of art doesn't come on in the same way. Joyce's story "The Dead", for example, is often a very unimpressive reading experience for, say, a high school student. Only when you've read much more and developed your tastes do you realize what a performance it is (watch the authorial tone and point-of-view shift around in the first few pages!)

I guess that the short answer is that natural science results relate to observed phenomena, while humanities results relate to internal ones.

Why doesn't the "ten year old rule" apply to humanities?

Non=snarky answer: Because humanities deals mainly with works that are intended to affect your emotions, rather than just convey information. Ten year olds lack the life experience to have adult emotional reactions. E.g., even though they can easily read a Hemingway story, they won't understand the deep meaning.

Snarky answer: Because many people make a living by bullshitting about the humanities, and very few of them are talented enough to write convincing bullshit in plain language.

Both are true, although not often of the same people.

Man, that Jane Galt sends my humors from sanguine to bilious.

Yes, It's a blatant crib from The Simpson's.

Never use a large word when a diminutive word will suffice.

I like DFW in spite of his over-the-top diction. But I can't stand James Joyce. A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man is brilliant at times, but Ulysses always seems to me the ultimate example of needlessly stilted writing that's crafted for showing off and makes the work less enjoyable for the reader as a result.

I'll take Hemingway any day.

"It took a while for me to realize this was the ultimate snooty way to write what normal people would call "etc"."

I am going to play the contrarian here. The desire for apparently plain writing and or suspicion of conventions one is unfamiliar with says more about the audience than the writer. As a child of British colonial subjects who were taught in the vanishing liberal style of Victorian public schools I am perfectly comfortable with &c. My own pleasure in writing of the Victorian and Edwardian era probably helps too, see http://sherlock-holmes.classic-literature.co.uk/songs-of-action/ebook-page-19.asp for example.

That DFW resurrects this archaism is no reason to castigate him, it is actually a window into the writer's personality and thus a rare opportunity for insight to be enjoyed, not a deliberate stumbling block. Just as frilly shirts, velvet jackets and penchant for white powder makeup announce one as a Goth to the world in general, DFW's language informs the reader about the author's predilections. DFW is an admitted logophile with a definitive stance on word usage in the English language (http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/DFW_present_tense.html). As with anyone who has bothered to develop a writing style, as opposed to becoming an imperfect replica of the Microsoft Word grammar checker, DFW's voice is distinctive and thus will not appeal to all readers. The lack of universal appeal though is not necessarily a marker of poor skill.

Personally I find that other paragon of limited vocabulary and short words and sentences: Hemingway, far more interesting as a personality than as a writer. That said, I can agree Hemingway's style fits well with his narratives even if I would not adopt it as my own. Similarly, works like "Everything and More" are artistic works with a distinctive point of view, part of which is the writer's love for obscure and archaic words. It is not a textbook and should not be read as such. Yet for those who normally shun mathematics yet share Wallace's perspective on language, it may actually be lead to a greater interest in the subject.

I don't accept propositions that state the "best writing is simple," or "the best writing is complex." Both masters and morons write both styles. Those who denigrate complicated writing as such are usually lazy readers; those who denigrate simple and straightforward writing as such are often intellectual snobs.

My taste is eclectic; I admire Steinbeck and Hemingway of the short stories with the same breath with which I assert that Faulkner is America's greatest twentieth century novelist and that FINNEGANS WAKE is great fun.

Best line(s) ever in a movie (okay, that's a little hyperbolic):

"There were a lot of big words in there, missie and we are naught but humble pirates."

followed by

"We decline to acquiesce to your request. [It]means 'no'."

BTW, Brandon, shouldn't that be, "It is something to which to aspire"? Which reminds me of a nearly as good line from _B&B Do America_:

"Harris - you are a government official. Never end a sentence with a preposition!"
...
"Isn't that the RV off in which they were jacking?"

Point? None really. Excessively complex language can be fun, and following simple rules can lead to silly results. Dunno about rules of simplicity, though.

Never use a long word when a diminutive one will suffice.

"If you're a writer of moderate ability, you can't make yourself look good using ordinary words. So you hide behind pompous language, demonstrating at least that you know more words than the average slob."

I disagree.

Never use a large word when a diminutive word will suffice.

::snorting::

Touche. The alternate meaning...

you can explain everything of consequence in the natural sciences to a 10 year old that we understand well.

it is nearly impossible to explain quantum effects to a 10 year old because it is almost impossible to explain quantum physics to anyone.

magnetism... yeah that's a toughie, though it depends on your 10 year old, and how many whys they throw out.

What I've read of DFW is laugh out loud funny. 'A supposedly fun think I'll never do again' is a great collection of essays.

If you think he's bad, try Julio Cortazar. Far, far more pretensious, but 'Hopscotch', ah its like flourless chocolate cake. Good in small doses. It's a manual on how to live - literally. I don't think I would follow its directions, but...

That said, I am a big fan of clear direct writing. Its much harder to pull off while not being boring. There are lots of writers out there who try it, and usually, they just bore me. I think the way of thinking required to write clear prose tends to deaden the mind in other ways. It takes great skill to maintain the creative edge while writing in that manner.

Yeah, Brett what you said. Except for the clown Joyce. I don't think that simplicity should be forced on emotions that are complicated, and the journey to get somewhere is sometimes as important as the destination. Didn't Orwell write a little about the problems of over-simplification of language too? Double plus un-good.

"Hey baby, nice vocabulary you got there."

"The best writers - like George Orwell - usually stick to short and simple words...Why doesn't everyone follow Orwell's rule?"

...because everyone knows that C.S. Lewis' poem "Jabberwocky" languishes in obscurity because of his steadfast refusal to follow the dictates of Orwellian writing. And all admit that Shakespeare's lasting appeal rests on his limited vocabulary.

Isn't "the best writers usually stick to short and simple words" begging the question? Who are "the best writers"? Where is the textual analysis establishing that they do actually use shorter and "simpler" words than lesser writers in any statistically significant manner?

Is this some bad joke that I'm not getting, invoking Orwell's name like this? Putting forth fascist mandates about art based on Orwell's preferred style of writing?

Not all types of writing have the goals, nor the same methods to achieve them. Thank god for that.

Say it simply. Or simply don't say it.

Well said Justus, I yield to your superior writing skill in making a point.

The only thing I have to add is yet another Einstein quote misappropriated from its context and stretched to apply:

"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."

Justus,

That's definitely the first time I've ever seen C.S. Lewis credited with writing "Jabberwocky." I imagine he'd have been rather flattered.

[Nods in agreement with Justus and Ssezi].

Kipling's line concerning that there are "Nine and ninety ways to make a tribal way and every one is right." definitely comes to mind here. I may prefer to write in a simple manner most times but that hardly means that I'll snark at anyone who does not not. You make use of the tools you need for the job you want and nothing more. ^_~

Feynman said you should be able to explain things to a barmaid, not a 10-year-old.

Speaking of signals and the defensiveness of those of moderate ability, I once had a lawyer ask me a physics question. When I muddled my explanation a bit, I invoked Feynman's rule in what I thought was a little bit of self-deprication: gee, I can't explain this to a well-educated lawyer, never mind a barmaid, so I must not understand it.

He got a bit sniffy about how he wasn't a barmaid, and seemed insulted that I would say such a thing.

Excellent post and comments. I've never understood the whole DFW thing.

One last question -- Die Einstein actually say thor or is it just one of those things we think he said?

Eschew obfuscation assiduously.

That said, I agree with Justus (and think getting confused between C.S. Lewis and Lewis Carroll is forgivable). I really enjoy DFW - I think his delight in using precisely the word he means is charming. He's certainly putting effort into being clever, but sometimes (most of Infinite Jest) he's screamingly funny. And for me, Octet (from Brief Interviews) is both clever and poignant.

Maybe that just makes me a wanker like him. But I love reading Orwell too.

The best prose is writing where you don't even notice the writing - the message comes through without any irritating stylistic distractions.
Which means the reader must have a decent vocabulary - and the writer must use the correct word.

Comments are Closed.