upvote

points

by tdeck6 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby bryanrasmussen4 hours ago|
next
[-]
The first is of course from the King James Bible which for centuries was essentially a standard that all English speaking peoples aspired to. If you find that version difficult I would expect much literary writing before the 1940s also seems difficult. This is just to say I recommend reading the King James even if you are an atheist, as I am.

I also have to say that the first strikes me as being written by someone that might be smarter than I am, the second as being written by someone significantly less intelligent than I, yet somehow placed by society in a position of authority over me.

reply
upvoteby tdeck3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
In the context of newly written work in the modern era, I would argue it's best to use grammatical constructions that are used in modern 20th/21st century English, at least most of the time. Those who wrote the KJV were trying to be expressive but the whole point was to do so in language that ordinary people would be familiar with.

> the first strikes me as being written by someone that might be smarter than I am

This is why Joseph Smith tried to imitate the language of the King James Bible in the Book of Mormon, albeit not very successfully.

reply
upvoteby bryanrasmussen1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
yes, I am very schooled in Smith's attempts.
reply
upvoteby dragonfax4 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Yeah, I found Orwell's easier to understand and quite fast to read as well, but I think it's just because of the style of writing of the first one. It's from an earlier style of prose that I'm just not used to.

I also don't have a problem with large words as long as I'm well familiar with the words. The length of a word has nothing to do with the complexity of its meaning. We just have a limit to the number of pronounceable combinations of 5 letters.

reply
upvoteby pavinjoseph6 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
I had to reread the first one but I wanted to read it! The second one was understood on the first scan but was a chore to read.

Does that make sense?

reply
upvoteby jimmaswell3 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
The second one was very clear and to the point. Parsing it was rewarded with instant understanding and I enjoyed the word choice. The first one was just annoying; I could tell it was just listing a bunch of pointless analogies to try to make its point sound more grandiose so I immediately started skimming, and didn't come away feeling like it meant much other than "we all die in the end". The second one made an actual point and was the one that made me want to read it. The first one was the chore for me.
reply
upvoteby lljk_kennedy3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
The first communicated a feeling. A brief flutter in the soul of a picture of recognition, painted for your mind's eye with care by the author.

The second transcribed considerable information bandwidth through intentionally structured word choice for maximal density.

reply
upvoteby buttercraft5 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
That was exactly my experience, and I found it to be a little bit depressing.
reply
upvoteby ahepp1 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
I wonder if this is due to experience with reading technical documentation?

I think the second requires deeper concentration, but is still quite readable compared to the kind of low-content engagement / SEO stuff one read on the internet even before LLMs

reply
upvoteby jfengel6 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
The grammar is more straightforward. It has some extraneous words, and makes conspicuously bad choices of vocabulary, but it's still a more direct statement.
reply
upvoteby macleginn4 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
This is why almost 100% of hard and social scientific discourse reads almost exactly like this these days.
reply
upvoteby kamma44345 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
I found it an improvement too
reply
upvoteby Barbing5 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Second helped explain the first, appreciated having both (but I’m no genius or nothin’).
reply
upvoteby Kerrick5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Other translations keep Zinsser's preferred lack of fuzz but avoid using "is ... to" for possession.

For example, the Lexham English Bible:

> I looked again and saw under the sun that the race does not belong to the swift, the battle does not belong to the mighty, food does not belong to the wise, wealth does not belong to the intelligent, and success does not belong to the skillful, for time and chance befalls all of them.

reply
upvoteby Barbing5 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Easiest! Loses some color, gains much clarity.
reply
upvoteby jimmaswell3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
This could be shortened to "success does not belong to the skillful, for time and chance befalls all" with no meaning lost. It's self-indulgent fluff. Meanwhile, Orwell's actually adds more to the statement - much better signal to noise.
reply
upvoteby tudelo3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Writing is fluff. What do you want, a list of bullet points? There would be no books. Maybe you have a career in writing 2 page books?
reply
upvoteby overtone10006 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Seconded
reply
upvoteby shsjshhsh4 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
[dead]
reply
upvoteby 4 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
deleted
reply