I did look at Grey's site, she's kinda dark, IMO. Not saying her post isn't relevant and doesn't have great suggestions, but for me writing has always been more fun than anything else. I never thought about all the technical stuff she mentions, nor did I have any idea where any of my stories were going. Critical thinking had nothing to do with it. Just the opposite. I created the characters, turned them loose and gave them a free rein. I was lucky...and I had some very good editors.
Alrighty! She has a slight passion for writing, I see. I love what she wrote, but now I am exhausted. She's not wrong. I might be a little frightened if I were her husband and got in an argument, though. Writing (and reading) is a discipline for serious people. It, indeed, is a muscle one can strengthen with exercise, if motivated. I hope she's a writing instructor somewhere.
This particular piece is ragey, but I've not read anything else of hers. Maybe I should take a peek. Many people read for relaxation. This article would not supply that. Thanks, John.
I write exclusively in LaTeX because Microsoft Word is still unable to typeset math correctly. And Word isn't available for Linux. Maybe I'll paste a few paragraphs into Libre Office Writer and ask it to do what Grey recommends one ought to ask Word to do — if it can.
I've been using Google Gemini for some technical work. It's good at connecting things, even sometimes does math correctly. But its prose is the opposite of what Grey recommends. I sent the essay. It didn't understand it.
"The link you provided points to an essay that advocates for a specific, deliberate kind of prose: The Formal Style.
"In this style, the text does not speak with a personal voice; it speaks with the voice of the system, the data, or the law.
" The Soft Style: "I think we should let the fluid mechanics calculate the spacing instead of forcing a fixed geometry, because then we don't have to guess the area ratio."
" The Formal Style: "By decoupling the geometric constraints, the spatial envelope of the assembly becomes an explicit dependent variable of the fluid dynamics, eliminating the requirement for arbitrary volumetric scaling assumptions."
"The formal style removes the "I" and the "we" to establish an objective baseline. The focus remains entirely on the physical and mathematical mechanisms at play.
"Turgid writing wanders because it adds clauses without a clear logical sequence, resulting in a muddy sentence. True formal writing uses long, complex sentences, but constructs them like a stone arch: each clause is placed to bear a specific analytical load.
"Consider this structural adjustment:
" Fragmented: "We can update the code now. We will use the exact hydraulic diameter relations. This will make the root-finder run faster and it won't use any more CPU cycles."
" Structured Formal: "Incorporating the exact concentric relations directly into the post-processing loop eliminates geometric approximation error without imposing an additional computational burden upon the transcendental root-finding routine."
"The sentence is long, but it moves smoothly from the action (incorporating relations) to the immediate effect (eliminating error) and concludes with the bounding condition (without imposing a computational burden)."
I haven't asked other robots, such as Grok, to consider Grey's style.
Too many rules and too much instruction. Almost Talmudic.
I would say instead: Avoid the verb 'to be'. Avoid the passive tense. Avoid adjectives like the plague. Rely upon precise and powerful verbs. Buy a good thesaurus. Look up meanings of any words about which you are unsure of the meaning. Write what ever comes out, then go back and edit until it makes sense. Put it aside for two weeks, then come back and see it as a reader, not as the author. Accept the style that your brain laid down for you.
My attempts (and I admit, failures) in such writing about important ISSUES have been not to express MY views but to present logical sequences. I do not write to entertain. My intended readers are those who have clout and the ability to deal with the issues. I am not writing to everyone. I try NOT to speak down but to reach readers who have both the inclination and the abilities to DO something, to CHANGE something. There are MANY such issues, many of which John explores. The most difficult "antagonists" are those who THINK they already have the answers and there is no reason why they should explore new views. Those who have been on serious multi-day juries know exactly what I mean. ... Bill Lynch ... bandglynch@gmail.com
This is the right article for the right time! I am better at expressing myself in writing than I am with extemporaneous speech. I need time to think. Time to research. Time to choose the right words. I've been thinking that I would like to write articles or letters-to-editors to express my views in a potent and no-holds-barred manner; but in a way that might cause the reader to think or rethink their own views. Thank you, John.
There are genuinely good observations in this piece:
* rhythm matters,
* sentence variation matters,
* reading aloud matters,
* specificity matters,
* and editing matters.
But the piece itself repeatedly violates the clarity and precision it claims to celebrate.
The author is so busy performing intensity that she constantly interrupts her own insights. The prose keeps announcing how “dangerous,” “lethal,” and psychologically advanced it is instead of simply demonstrating strength naturally.
Eventually the performance becomes the subject.
And that exhausts the reader.
Ironically, the best parts are the simplest parts:
* cut clutter,
* use concrete imagery,
* study widely,
* vary cadence,
* and write honestly.
Everything else becomes increasingly overwritten and self-mythologizing. The endless:
* war metaphors,
* predator metaphors,
* forensic metaphors,
* interrogation metaphors,
* and neuroscience language
…eventually blur together into one long cloud of theatrical intensity.
Thank you for dissecting the article as you did. I will use your "best parts are the simplest parts" observations as I attempt to express my views in writing.
Bennie, if you want to see direct, succinct writing, check out my site. I write 3–4 times a week and keep things tight, clear, and pattern-driven rather than padded out with theatrical prose.
The goal is not to sound intense. The goal is to reveal something true quickly enough that the reader experiences a Blinding Flash of the Obvious.
Having written 13 books for Harlequin Superromance (I had 30 sled dogs and needed dog food money) I'm not touching this one with a ten foot pole!
Nadia: I wasn't ware that you have a timid streak...
I did look at Grey's site, she's kinda dark, IMO. Not saying her post isn't relevant and doesn't have great suggestions, but for me writing has always been more fun than anything else. I never thought about all the technical stuff she mentions, nor did I have any idea where any of my stories were going. Critical thinking had nothing to do with it. Just the opposite. I created the characters, turned them loose and gave them a free rein. I was lucky...and I had some very good editors.
Nadia: You are just more of a free spirit!
Alrighty! She has a slight passion for writing, I see. I love what she wrote, but now I am exhausted. She's not wrong. I might be a little frightened if I were her husband and got in an argument, though. Writing (and reading) is a discipline for serious people. It, indeed, is a muscle one can strengthen with exercise, if motivated. I hope she's a writing instructor somewhere.
Linda: A lot of her writing is from what appears to be an angry perspective. But maybe it's me.
This particular piece is ragey, but I've not read anything else of hers. Maybe I should take a peek. Many people read for relaxation. This article would not supply that. Thanks, John.
I write exclusively in LaTeX because Microsoft Word is still unable to typeset math correctly. And Word isn't available for Linux. Maybe I'll paste a few paragraphs into Libre Office Writer and ask it to do what Grey recommends one ought to ask Word to do — if it can.
I've been using Google Gemini for some technical work. It's good at connecting things, even sometimes does math correctly. But its prose is the opposite of what Grey recommends. I sent the essay. It didn't understand it.
"The link you provided points to an essay that advocates for a specific, deliberate kind of prose: The Formal Style.
"In this style, the text does not speak with a personal voice; it speaks with the voice of the system, the data, or the law.
" The Soft Style: "I think we should let the fluid mechanics calculate the spacing instead of forcing a fixed geometry, because then we don't have to guess the area ratio."
" The Formal Style: "By decoupling the geometric constraints, the spatial envelope of the assembly becomes an explicit dependent variable of the fluid dynamics, eliminating the requirement for arbitrary volumetric scaling assumptions."
"The formal style removes the "I" and the "we" to establish an objective baseline. The focus remains entirely on the physical and mathematical mechanisms at play.
"Turgid writing wanders because it adds clauses without a clear logical sequence, resulting in a muddy sentence. True formal writing uses long, complex sentences, but constructs them like a stone arch: each clause is placed to bear a specific analytical load.
"Consider this structural adjustment:
" Fragmented: "We can update the code now. We will use the exact hydraulic diameter relations. This will make the root-finder run faster and it won't use any more CPU cycles."
" Structured Formal: "Incorporating the exact concentric relations directly into the post-processing loop eliminates geometric approximation error without imposing an additional computational burden upon the transcendental root-finding routine."
"The sentence is long, but it moves smoothly from the action (incorporating relations) to the immediate effect (eliminating error) and concludes with the bounding condition (without imposing a computational burden)."
I haven't asked other robots, such as Grok, to consider Grey's style.
Van: Hopefully you will try AlterAI soon, as my experieince shows that it is far superior to Grok, Gemini, etc. as a source for information.
Too many rules and too much instruction. Almost Talmudic.
I would say instead: Avoid the verb 'to be'. Avoid the passive tense. Avoid adjectives like the plague. Rely upon precise and powerful verbs. Buy a good thesaurus. Look up meanings of any words about which you are unsure of the meaning. Write what ever comes out, then go back and edit until it makes sense. Put it aside for two weeks, then come back and see it as a reader, not as the author. Accept the style that your brain laid down for you.
Good Luck
Easier than the Hadith, though. f
Chris: TY for sharing your perspective. Before I submit anything of consequence (e.g., a new substack piece) I let it sit for a day or two...
Hmm! Has Gilgamesh returned?
My attempts (and I admit, failures) in such writing about important ISSUES have been not to express MY views but to present logical sequences. I do not write to entertain. My intended readers are those who have clout and the ability to deal with the issues. I am not writing to everyone. I try NOT to speak down but to reach readers who have both the inclination and the abilities to DO something, to CHANGE something. There are MANY such issues, many of which John explores. The most difficult "antagonists" are those who THINK they already have the answers and there is no reason why they should explore new views. Those who have been on serious multi-day juries know exactly what I mean. ... Bill Lynch ... bandglynch@gmail.com
Bill: Thank you for sharing!
This is the right article for the right time! I am better at expressing myself in writing than I am with extemporaneous speech. I need time to think. Time to research. Time to choose the right words. I've been thinking that I would like to write articles or letters-to-editors to express my views in a potent and no-holds-barred manner; but in a way that might cause the reader to think or rethink their own views. Thank you, John.
NYB: Good that it is useful to you...
There are genuinely good observations in this piece:
* rhythm matters,
* sentence variation matters,
* reading aloud matters,
* specificity matters,
* and editing matters.
But the piece itself repeatedly violates the clarity and precision it claims to celebrate.
The author is so busy performing intensity that she constantly interrupts her own insights. The prose keeps announcing how “dangerous,” “lethal,” and psychologically advanced it is instead of simply demonstrating strength naturally.
Eventually the performance becomes the subject.
And that exhausts the reader.
Ironically, the best parts are the simplest parts:
* cut clutter,
* use concrete imagery,
* study widely,
* vary cadence,
* and write honestly.
Everything else becomes increasingly overwritten and self-mythologizing. The endless:
* war metaphors,
* predator metaphors,
* forensic metaphors,
* interrogation metaphors,
* and neuroscience language
…eventually blur together into one long cloud of theatrical intensity.
When every sentence screams, nothing screams.
Thank you for dissecting the article as you did. I will use your "best parts are the simplest parts" observations as I attempt to express my views in writing.
Bennie, if you want to see direct, succinct writing, check out my site. I write 3–4 times a week and keep things tight, clear, and pattern-driven rather than padded out with theatrical prose.
The goal is not to sound intense. The goal is to reveal something true quickly enough that the reader experiences a Blinding Flash of the Obvious.
That is the chunk.
Free to read:
www.reynolds.com
Jim: Good assessment. Note that I started off saying that she can have more impact if she shortens her barrage...
My goodness! Quite the verbal assault but I loved it. A lot of truth in there - especially about making every word count.
Loved the part where anyone can do this - just study what you love with ferocity! Thanks for posting!
Christy: Yes, some of her writing comes off as an assault — which is evidently how she wants it...
He seems to suffer from “I” trouble, … or maybe “IQ.” Lots of good stuff. More ego.
Kimball: Good point, even thought the he is a she...
Powerful. Reminds:asking the right questions is tougher than finding the right answers. f
Fritz: Yes. These days that is the KEY to utilizing AI...
Thanks for this wonderful share, John.
Bonnie: You're welcome. Hope you found it interesting.