This first tidbit highlights an anonymous author. It was related by James V. Smith Junior, author of Fiction Writer's Brainstormer. It talks about word length. The longer the sentence, the tougher it is to comprehend.
When we were in grade school, our teachers had to pull teeth to get us kids to write words (well, I loved writing words, but most kids didn't). Right before class, my peers were busy counting their essays to make sure they they met the 100-word requirment. If it fell short, they added a "that" or an "and," looked at me, and smiled. "Essay's done, man."
I can't imagine that problem cropping into any of our writing. If anything, a writer's problem is in being longwinded. A hundred words isn't even enough for me to do the "Previously on LA By Night" bit! This post isn't intended to change anyone's writing style. But I myself keep it in mind when I'm writing. I try to. Granted, I'm not bound to writing simple sentences, but every time I pass 10 or 12 words, I think, "Man, maybe I can shorten this."
The nameless inventor of this chart found that % comprehension and number of words quite neatly corresponded to each other. Each additional word lowers reader comprehension. Every percent of information a reader comrehends is thanks to one less word. It looks like this:
% Comp
100%
90%---xxx
80%---xxx---xxx
70%---xxx---xxx--xxx
60%---xxx---xxx--xxx---xxx
50%---xxx---xxx--xxx---xxx---xx
40%---xxx---xxx--xxx---xxx---xx----xx
30%---xxx---xxx--xxx---xxx---xx----xx-----xx
20%---xxx---xxx--xxx---xxx---xx----xx-----xx-----xx
10%---xxx---xxx--xxx---xxx---xx----xx-----xx-----xx-----xx
--------10----20----30----40----50----60----70-----80-----90----100
--------Words Per Sentence
Without a table generator, this chart is crude. But you can still see the basics. The X's are used to shade in bars.
For instance: With 10 words in a sentence, a person is likely to comprehend 90% of your meaning. If you have twenty words, comprehension drops to 80%. Now, right there, do you want someone to understand only 80% of your writing?
50 words? They'll only get half of what you're trying to say. Reading is hard on the eyes. Breaking up sentences is nice to your reader. And nice to you, the author--less chance that the reader will give up on your sentence. Or your paragraph.
This is just a tidbit, but it applies to how I read, and after testing it thoroughly myself, I was sure it had genuine validity, something that really must be examined further, perhaps using the scientific method by more people than just yours truley, Sid, before the soundness of the reader comprehension versus words in a sentence chart will ever be a tool that others can condone or reject, even though I do, personally, trust that the chart above, whether accurate or innaccurate, does effectively offer at least one, obvious truth:
Shorter sentences, longer memory.
- Login to post comments
Post to Twitter
TIDBITS
I must say, I tend to agree with the premise of keep it short. Sometimes I have a doozy of a sentence, but mostly I try to keep the wordage down.
In fact, when editing posts I often find myself changing commas to full stops. :wink:
TIDBITS
Then you really shouldn't read novels written by Modernist Authors such as D.H Lawrence, Virgina Woolf, E.M Forster, Rosamund Lehamnn, James Joyce etc...
Who tend to write using the 'stream of conciousness' form - no not the 'I just thought of this off the top of my head' for of SoC that Heather bandies around :D but a form of writing that seeks to show how people think. In other words they write in the same way that you think, so the sentences are sometimes disjointed, unco-ordinated, in the same way that thoughts are.
Actually you SHOULD read novels by these authors because they are really GOOD, try Woolf's Mrs Dalloway - and Heather, you can rant and rave over how long HER sentences are! Mrs Dalloway has sentences that reach almost a page long!
Stream of Conciousness in this form is a way of showing a persons uncensored thoughts. Try it, and drive Heather nuts :D (only kidding). But definately read the books if you haven't. I'd reccomend Howards End by E.M Forster, and The Weather In The Streets by Rosamund Lehmann. And see what it looks like to have someone's mind written down on a page.
TIDBITS
Unless I'm mistaken, those are all authors of the past. Writing has changed since their day, and so has the patience of most readers. I'm talking about the modern writing technique--because we're writing LABN NOW.
Before you start proving me wrong, which is easy to do, let me say that YES there are very good, very successful long-winded authors out there TODAY. But it takes skill, and even fame, to pull of stuff like they do. The rest of us should leave the fancy footwork to the professionals and concentrate on clear, conscise writing.
Anyway, this word-length tidbit is just food for thought. I can already tell you that long-winded writing can be very good. I'm a Lovecraft fan. But he had to WIN my patience by being the father of 20-century horror. He muddled through his profession when he was alive, and in fact, he died in obscurity. Very sad story.
Take it or leave it. I'll still read your stuff if you write 50 word sentences, of course, as I hope you'll read mine (it's why we're here!). But sentences that ramble are just harder to get through. That's all.
TIDBITS
OH, and thanks for the input. I'll keep those authors in mind.
TIDBITS
Oh I wasn't saying we should all write like Virginia Woolf, just that, those writers were conciously moving away from prescriptive writing practices of the eighteenth century, and attempting to 'connect' more with people than with the materialistic outward life.
And maybe this is just my idealism run riot, because I'd rather try new ways of writing and push the boundaries of what is commonly 'accepted'. I don't see anything wrong with making people work to read something, if it makes them work it just might be making them think instead of just absorbing words and then forgetting them instantly.
And I disagree that just because we're not famous writers now that we can't experiment with this medium and try new things. Otherwise we aren't thinking, we are merely following.
TIDBITS
You're absolutely right. We should experiment. I support you a hundred percent. Experimental fiction is the slang of writing. And it can produce some fantastic results...that become the norm of tomorrow.
And I'll read your experimental stuff, without a doubt. (I just told Adam the other day that I wouldn't read his pidgeon English...but I think I said that because I figured he'd do it just to prove a point, not do be artistic. :) )
Still, I must speak out against your idea of making a reader work harder. If THAT is your goal, you'll have few readers. They won't thank you for making them think. They'll probably just think about reading something else.
From Self-Editing For Fiction Writers by Browne and King:
At the beginning of Alice in Wonderland, Alice glances at a book her sister is reading, notices that it has no pictures or conversations and thinks, "And what is the use of a book without pictures or conversations?" If you've ever leafed through a book in a bookstore and noticed page after page of long dense paragraphs, you probably know how Alice felt. Before you've read a word, you're turned off.
And even if your experimental writing is GREAT, Lou, you could have lost your otherwise willing audience. They didn't even give you a chance.
And on the subject of clarity in general:
From The 38 Most Common Fiction Writing Mistakes by Jack Bickham:
#26: Don't Worry About Being Obvious
Student writers often worry about being too obvious. They seem to believe they should be as subtle as possible in describing characters or defining story goals.
Nothing can be further from the truth, and professional writers know it. Every time you try to be subtle, you run the risk of losing your reader's understanding.
Okay, we're getting WAY far away from the subject of word-length, but I feel strongly about treating your reader as a precious thing. She is doing you a FAVOR by reading your work. If you make it hard, she'll flip the page and start reading the next story, a story that doesn't have your name on it. :(
With that said, let me reiterate: experimental can be very cool. This site has allowed me to flex my baby wings and WRITE, WRITE,WRITE. I would love to see where you fly to, Lou. I'm sure it's very creative. Even if it does end up being 50 to 100 words a sentence. 8)
Thanks for your responses.
TIDBITS
Which is why I said I am idealistic, I'll write to please myself, to the expression and beauty of my art rather than commercial gain. Which is why I'll end up dying penniless and unknown.
TIDBITS
And it's a sad shame. Back in the old days, when there was a lot less going on, people had the time and patience to sit by the oil lamp and just read. And remember.
But you did say you were idealistic, and that's a wonderful thing. I hope you don't lose it. I also hope you don't die penniless and unknown. You're better than that.
Write to please yourself. If you can't please yourself, how can you please us? :wink: I wave my flag and scream, "Go, Lou, go! Whoooooooo. I'm eatin' your dust!"
QUESTION
So, I have a question. I ask this because I've been out of college English for a few years and am not up on the current trends.
When I was in elementary, we were taught to present dates in the form of MONTH DAY, and YEAR. You know: August 28, 2005. Or you could write Sunday, August 28, 2005. I've noticed more and more that everyone--or is it my imagination?--is doing it something like this:
Sunday, 28 August 2005
I can see the logic. It breaks up the letters and the numbers, making it less confusing. But I'm still having a hard time adjusting. Change is scary, and it confuses my eyes every time I see a date written thusly. But I'm willing to change, if it's the flow of things.
Is it no longer acceptable to write Sunday, August 28, 2005? Or is it equally acceptable to use both forms?
TIDBITS
It's equally acceptable. Month Day, Year is the standard American format. Day Month Year is the standard overseas format.
I told you I'm slowly being turned English... :)
TIDBITS
Yeah. That's an evolution I could stand, myself. I wouldn't mind being a little stuck up if it meant I got a little more brain. I might even be like Lou....argumentative for no reason!!!! hehehehhe
TIDBITS
Awwww... but I like her argumentativeness. Shows conviction.
Anyway, I finally found it. Something that may strike a point about words in senatances. The following is a selection from G.E. Moore, "A Defence of Common Sense" in Contemporary British Philosophy:
TIDBITS
That hurt my eyes to read. In fact, I didn't finish it. Thanks, Adam. Exactly.
TIDBITS
Well, as a further point about long sentances, look at the one marked. I'm still trying to find the beginning. The only reason I know where starts is because it follows immediatly after . :?
TIDBITS
I read a good quote today. In my mind itself, I ran out of breath a little over halfway through. It was a good quote, but long. I decided to count the words. I think I counted something like 29. I'd guessed 30.
There comes a point when you're reading a long sentence where your mind stumbles. When that happens, when you're reading silently but are still feeling like gasping, you know it could stand to be shorter.
TIDBITS
Which is where you get the difference between thoughts and speech.
If you read a book as though you were reading it out loud then of course you'd feel the need to pause and stop and take in breath. But we rarely read books this way, unless you want to get funny looks on the train.
The other point is, if a sentence is representing a thought then it I think it's acceptable to accenuate the randomness of thought. After all, the mind doesn't punctuate. (unless you are THAT anally retentive!)
TIDBITS
I have to disagree with that, my mind DOES punctuates (and I'm far from anal retentive).
When I read silently, if the sentence it to long, my mind gasps for a breath, I need to pause, otherwise it just jumbles in my head.
As for breathing, no I do not breath to match the sentence I am reading, but sometimes I feel the need.
My breath comes out as a sigh when I have to reread the sentence, because my mind has wandered halfway through.