In Writing, Is Brevity Better?
73I recall an idea that I believe was put forth by Mark Twain that he could speak for a couple of hours with a few minutes notice, but that if he had to limit his speech to less than a half-hour, he needed several weeks to prepare. To some degree, I feel the same is true of writing.
The question becomes, is brevity of writing better? In journalism, most assuredly. In novels and novellas, maybe not so much, although it is almost requisite to edit several times for clarity and conciseness. I raise the question to get opinions from you.
If you have a Twitter account and have had so for very long, you may or may not be aware that there was a Twitter Fiction contest last Spring. (2008) I won that contest by writing an entire story, including proper punctuation, in exactly 140 characters. The responses were varied, to say the least. However, more and more there seems to be a trend towards expressing creative ideas in shorter and shorter forms. Is this a real trend or just a temporary spike in interest due to a different approach to a short-short story? (There is a form of writing called Flash Fiction that tells a story in 500 words or less. So is the Twitter-length story now considered short Flash fiction?)
The original one-line story as written by Hemingway goes: "For sale. Baby Shoes. Never worn." It tells a sad tale very concisely but doesn't expand on anything about the hopes and aspirations of those involved. That is where a longer story begins to really engage our interest. We can feel a kinship to the characters, relating to their hopes and fears, triumphs and failures. We come to know their inner thoughts and feelings, better than our own in some cases. That is something that cannot be well conveyed in an extremely brief story.
I am coming to feel that brevity may hit the concise high point, but to really tell a compelling story requires the writer to engage the reader with feelings and emotions while not wasting the reader's time with fluff filler. In other words, it is all right to cut to the chase so long as the reasons for the chase are also covered with all the pertinent details included, but excess fluff discarded in the editing phase.
What is your take? Do you prefer brief, to-the-point action or do you want more of the whys and wherefores in the stories you generally read?
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
I agree with goldentoad. It all depends on the story. To me, excess fluff is never good, but extra information that adds emotion and feeling to a story is always good.
There was a writing challenge here to write a 60 word short story, and I didn't realize how hard it was to do that until I did it.
I liked the Mark Twain one line story. :)
No matter how hard I try, I can't write long articles or stories. I am always brief. I was never a fan of Hemingway but I always end up writing like him.I blame a writing professor I had who was a huge Hemingway fan.
There is a great line, "I did not have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one".
However, I think it's important to be concise, and precise, but that isn't hte same as brief. Something I've had to work on - when I was about 14, one of my school reports said my style "verged on the telegraphic".
Yep -- like LG -- one of my professors used to thank me for the telegrammes I handed in instead of papers.
I really don't care whether it's long-winded or super short. It's how the words are put together. Ultimately I know a good story when I see one - they usually leave me breathless. :D
Probably neither of our teachers intended it as a compliment (-:
No, indeed -- the sarcasm with which my "telegrammes" were received was ouch-worthy.
From the comments and emails I have received, it appears that the consensus is that a writer has to convey the whole story concisely, but that brevity for brevity's sake is not a goal to strive for.
Great hub! No matter what my good intentions are, I find it nearly impossible to write anything brief. It's just too boring for me, I always want more. I know I'll lose some readers, but it's just not me to not share all that lagniappe.
"Brevity is the soul of wit"; " "Buns are the lowest form of wheat".
I like to have information in the most brief form possible-- but then there is the exquisite savoring of descriptive literature, which must also have a limit to keep it from becoming an endless swamp.
Depends on the purpose of the writer and of the reader.
Hi Rongould,
For me, I write until everything I wanted to say is there. In fact, I have one hub on the burner that was told in a few brief sentences in one hub. What happened was I began describing it in detail to another hub and it was suggested that I make it its own hub.
Some of my hubs are short, but none of them are extremely lengthy. I enjoy reading something that holds my interest and keeps me on the edge of my seat. One that has me anticipating the very next sentence.
Personally, for me, when I come across a hub that catches my attention, and I then see that it goes on and on and on, that loses me, just because of its length. And, perhaps that's not fair, because it's not that I like to read in a hurry, and the writer who puts those long hubs out consistently may very well have a good article or story. In those instances I think it's just a matter of how much time I have.
I agree with Rochelle, that it depends on the purpose of the writer, but also on the expectations of the reader. Different writing styles appeal to different people. Some love long, lengthy articles, while others want you to get to the point quickly. So, to answer your question, I think it wholly depends on who's writing and who's reading.
Thanks for sharing.
goldentoad says:
11 months ago
I think its not what I prefer, but what the writer is trying to convey.