All About Style
Clicking through on a book link, I thought about it. One of the salient points I tend to make about Stuart Woods’ books, as a writer myself, he uses sparse, trim, totally un-stylized text. Damn near perfect and almost transparent. Rhythm, usage, vocabulary, taut, firm, and just about totally bereft of excess.
Compare that to my own horoscopes.
I’m completely unsure of the correct link-to-text ration that is this week’s hot number. I do offer of spurious links. One loyal, avid reader observed it was better with the links. Some days, they are useful and other times? A total waste of time, but then, isn’t that what the internet is for?
All About Style
What gave me pause, though, was thinking about a book I recently discarded because, although an engaging tale, it was way too style-ridden to be readable.
“Too clever by half,” I think is the expression.
Also: writing for a fluid and dynamic medium like the web? What I heard always advised a shorter form — that seems to work better, breaking it up in more bite-sized bytes.
Not sure I agree, as certain mediums doubled their length. Not sure about that — cf., @kramerw.
So the question was all about style, and maybe I should be less bombastic with my styles. Or adhere to a single standard. Or even use proper punctuation and other grammar usage. Eschew obfuscation?
I try, really, I try. But this has to entertain me, as the writer, as well.
- Aperture: ƒ/1.8
- Camera: iPad Pro (10.5-inch)
- Focal length: 3.99mm
- ISO: 80
- Location: 29° 35′ 47.39″ N 98° 28′ 13.52″ W
- Shutter speed: 1/15s