“So the writer who breeds
more words than he needs
is making a chore
for the reader who reads.
That's why my belief is
the briefer the brief is,
the greater the sigh
of the reader's relief is.”
- Dr. Suess
“Omit needless words.”
- William Strunk Jr.
Both of the above quotations recommend the same thing: namely, writing with the greatest possible efficiency. Of course, only the second takes its own advice, but the first makes for a much more entertaining read. So, the question becomes: is it better for writers to give us overflowing descriptions of every minute detail, as Tolkein does? Or is spare, elegant writing, like Hemingway’s, the order of the day?
The question is an interesting one and, naturally, the answer is very personal. Homer, one of the best epic poets of all time, favors a plainer style, which was typical of Ancient Greek writing. And yet Keats, as he makes evident in his poem, “On First Looking into Chapman’s Homer,” was unable to really feel the majesty of Homer’s work until he read a translation by George Chapman. Now, I have looked at Chapman’s translation, a translation by Richmond Lattimore, and the original Greek. Lattimore is fairly faithful to the Greek. Chapman is not at all. Rather than trying to convey the original text as literally as possible, Chapman decided to try and convey the feeling of the text. But, times and cultures vary greatly. So, in order to accomplish this, Chapman had to take some liberties with his translation. In fact, he went so far as to add descriptions which simply were not present in Homer’s original work. Chapman’s translation is beautiful poetry, but is it better than Lattimore’s more literal one? The answer, as I said, is a very personal one and one which I believe depends on what we are looking for when we read.
I am personally fond of a more economical style of writing but I have a friend whose preference is for longer, more descriptive prose. And, when discussing our different opinions, he said something which struck me as rather interesting. When he reads plain, direct prose, he does not feel as though he has lived with the characters. In other words, they do not feel like old friends since he, as the reader, is required to fill in so many of the details. I, on the other hand, do not look for old friends when I read. Rather, I attempt to find pieces of myself in the characters I read about.
Herein might lie one reason for favoring one style above the other. You will have a much easier time finding yourself in a character who, in a sense, you are required to create. However, a character who has been thoroughly created for you might feel more like an old friend (or perhaps, an old enemy). What’s more, I know that, for myself, clean, neat writing matches my clean, neat room and my clean, neat brain. In other words, since I am both a neat freak and a control freak, I can relate better and am put more at ease by simple writing. Of course, both styles are valuable and, in truth, we should look to find both ourselves and old friends when we read and straying from what is comfortable is a good thing. And often we do appreciate both, but our personal preferences might depend on what we look for most.
My friend made one other interesting observation during our conversation and that is that it is much harder to be economical and funny. For proof of the truth of this statement one need only look at the opening quotations.
