Saturday, August 18, 2012

Being Wordy Enough?

My writing is a little scatterbrained at the moment, isn't it? Well, it's getting the space filled up here nonetheless, and I have to say I haven't been giving myself sufficient writing release lately, so the temptation is a little built up. Argh, if I woke up early then I'd be better off with more time.

Here's the current musing: What's the fine line between being concise and having said a sufficient amount to get your meaning across? The difficulty I come across in certain issues is that I notice I often has to say a lot in order to get my full meaning out, but sometimes it takes an awful lot of words and a little time to do so. I wonder about it because it makes certain issues hard to discuss, as I consider the amount of words to be necessary, yet it might be complained that I communicated excess, unnecessary information.

One such example would be Diana Hsieh's answer to a question I submitted to her podcast. Generally it's a good answer, but she derails a bit. While she says my question was a little overly verbal, I think I may not have said enough, because in the specific cases I've observed there's enough evidence to objectively conclude that the particular people in question were being irrational.

For one, by frequent interruptions I mean interruptions that were rude, unnecessary, and sometimes dishonest because I was upfront about it to the person, yet they wouldn't change their behavior. Many people I've spoken to have often taken to interrupting me every few seconds, hardly allowing me to string sentences together, and will stubbornly refuse to alter their behavior after I point out how annoyed I am by their interjections, and, most importantly, how I treat them that way. Sometimes I've discussed the issue of a one person's interruption habit multiple times, yet they'll both refuse to change it or to even address my complaint; they just pretend like I've never explicated it and go on interrupting.

As another example, by arbitrary time limit I really meant an insufficient time limit to formulate an answer, or no time at all even. A girl in music class I was debating once asked me a question, gave me literally two to three seconds to answer it, during which that span she loudly interjected with "Mhm?!" noises to prevent me from responding (since I'd be quieted by believing she's going to say something), and then just up and ended the conversation, refusing to listen any longer. With other people there have even been times where I'll be asked a question and given no time at all to answer, like a fraction second, before the person continues on as if I were somehow unable to answer the question. If their question were written out, there'd be no space between the question mark and next sentence.

Diana is right to say that one shouldn't assume that someone is irrational in all instances where it may only appear so, but in the specific cases that I have observed there is enough evidence to conclude that. However, it takes some words to be able to detail these factors in order to provide sufficient evidence that this is the case. I can state the conclusion all by itself, and it'll still be just as true, but without the evidence I will obviously not seem at all supported to any viewer of the stated conundrum, which will lead them to draw other conclusions, such as that I'm misinterpreting the situation.

This type of verbiage problem makes me hesitant to speak upon a certain breadth of issues, such as why I've chosen to cut my family out of my life. My argument as to why is easy to understand, but the number of factors make it lengthy since the problems encompass over a decade, so my metaphor for descriving my argument is that it's like a giant and easy children's puzzle where the pieces are as big as your torso and extremely easy to put together, but the number of pieces present make it take up the whole floor space: Easy, yet still just slightly time-consuming. As such, I tend to refuse to go into details or discuss the topic, which leads me to the irksome predicament of people claiming to "sympathize" with me, even when the reality of their situation might be drastically different.

So to reiterate, in detailing certain positions that require a certain number of factors in order to relay with full accuracy, how can one better serve to be concise while not sacrificing meaning?

Perhaps the best course is to either make explicit certain assumptions, or to be clear that not all factors are present. Hmm. I intend to read a book on English rhetoric (i.e. speech-giving), so perhaps any mention of concision there will give me the right food for thought.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Ah! So you want to comment? Good!

My only rule: Use common sense manners.