On the importance of brevity and editing in communicating an idea with clarity but only when it makes sense

On the surface this is a post about how long or how short a piece of writing should be. However, it is actually about questioning the advice you’re given and the context in which it is given. Especially when that advice is unsolicited as most of the advice on Medium is. You’re happily carving out your own path when some persuasive post or podcast by someone you respect threatens to knock you off your own course. If you are made of stronger stuff than me and are never left questioning yourself then you might as well stop reading.

I recently read a post by Jason Fried in which he describes a college course he’d like to see taught in college:

It would be a writing course. Every assignment would be delivered in five versions: A three page version, a one page version, a three paragraph version, a one paragraph version, and a one sentence version.

I read this post on the same night that I downloaded and started The Complete Works of Honore de Balzac and it got me thinking that Balzac would have failed Fried’s course.

Or Swann’s Way by Marcel Proust book which begins with the first 30-odd pages describing the protagonist waking up in the morning.

In fact, in How Proust Can Change Your Life Alain de Botton describes how Proust used to do the opposite of what Fried is suggesting. He would read the news in brief section of the daily newspaper and let his imagination run wild as he expanded the couple of lines into full blown stories.

Then I listened to Derek Siver’s on the James Altucher Podcast discussing his advice to aspiring TED talkers:

Cut out everything that isn’t surprising.

This is also the strategy Siver’s takes in his writing. This is interesting advice and I interpreted it as much as a tool for weeding out mediocrity in my writing as a tool for improving brevity.

Do I honestly think that either of them are solely interested in brevity when it comes to writing? No, I would never make that presumption.

So why do I care?

Because I respect these people and reading their advice made me feel slightly uneasy and I wanted to find out why.

I neither wanted to blindly follow their advice nor dismiss it out of hand.

Interestingly, in the same podcast Siver’s talks about the importance of context in digesting advice.

My interpretation of the context of this advice

Then I wondered if this advice to edit, simplify and then edit some more applies to content that is appealing to (and sometimes written by) people who don’t actually love to read. They read. They may even enjoy reading but not for the love of reading but as the most direct means to acquiring knowledge they desire. And if you’re writing for such an audience your goal is action. If that is your goal then brevity and clarity will serve you better than lengthy and detailed prose.

Fried’s post does appear in the publication Signal v Noise which offers readers:

Strong opinions and shared thoughts on design, business, and tech.

So I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

Where did I end up?

I have arrived in an all too familiar place. The realisation that neither long or short form writing are right or wrong unless they fail to serve my intended purpose.

Therefore I need to put more focus on why I am writing and for whom.

As well as purposefully practicing both.

And on that note I am away to edit the shit out of a post I’m writing on my recent trip to a Serbian refugee camp:

EDIT:

I have since published the post but prior to doing so I asked Derek Sivers to read over it and give his opinion on the editing of the post.