I wonder if you missed the other differences, like the constant explanation to the reader of things they must already know. There have been plenty of writers throughout history known for their brevity who did not waste it explaining the obvious. I don’t mind short, simple sentences, though as the book I’m currently reading[[1]] suggests, the “brevity of Seneca and Tacitus” can be “too artificially epigrammatic”, and too much concision risks “sail[ing] down to posterity in an armada of nutshells.” I think a little wordiness, a little complexity gives writing a bit of room to breathe. Don’t write Gordian Knot sentences, but I think a little complexity is okay and basically doesn’t risk confusing a literate reader.
Yeah, I agree that the modern version of Ettiquite is worse, but that’s just because we don’t have very complicated ettiquite! They need to waste space here, because everyone already knows what a handshake is, and you need at most a one-sentence description. If you didn’t turn every sentence into a paragraph the book would quickly turn into a blog post.
The solution is not in fact to add more flowery prose or complicated sentences, its to write about something else.
I also don’t know whether those reading in 1922 would say the same thing. We read the 1922 version and think “Oh wow! So informative!”, but perhaps the girls forced to read the book at a 1922 finishing school were thinking the same thing, or maybe ettiquite in 1922 was just a lot more complicated than it is today (it is).
Perhaps, similarly to the hypothetical bored girl in finishing school, in 100 years the future will look at the modern version and think “So informative!”.
The solution is not in fact to add more flowery prose or complicated sentences, its to write about something else.
I would certainly never suggest this. You seem to be implying that good prose is independent of useful prose, but it’s not. Good prose isn’t just flowery and fancy, it is respectful of the reader and their time, and delivers a message clearly and in an entertaining way.
It seems like you’re acknowledging the 2022 version is a bloated waste of space, while also suggesting at the same time that actually it’s very informative, and that this is all just relative? I definitely do not believe this is all just relative, or that girls forced to read Emily Post in the 1920s would have thought the writing in the book was hollow. It’s clearly full of useful information. Not to mention wit and charm. I weep for the future of our species if women in 2122 would think the 2022 version was “so informative!”
I guess my point is that the fact the 2022 version sucks is predicted on my model from the fact that we just don’t use too much complicated etiquette anymore. The fact the sentences are hollow is a fact more about the subject being written, not the skill of the author.
Concretely, using the Wikipedia page for modern handshaking in the US I think gives better prose than the modern 2022 version of the etiquette guide
The handshake is commonly done upon meeting, greeting, parting, offering congratulations, expressing gratitude, or as a public sign of completing a business or diplomatic agreement. In sports, it is also done as a sign of good sportsmanship. Its purpose is to convey trust, respect, balance, and equality.[10] If it is done to form an agreement, the agreement is not official until the hands are parted.
[...]
In the United States, United Kingdom and Canada, a traditional handshake is firm, executed with the right hand, with good posture and eye contact. A handshake where both parties are standing up is deemed as good etiquette.
I wonder if you missed the other differences, like the constant explanation to the reader of things they must already know. There have been plenty of writers throughout history known for their brevity who did not waste it explaining the obvious. I don’t mind short, simple sentences, though as the book I’m currently reading [[1]] suggests, the “brevity of Seneca and Tacitus” can be “too artificially epigrammatic”, and too much concision risks “sail[ing] down to posterity in an armada of nutshells.” I think a little wordiness, a little complexity gives writing a bit of room to breathe. Don’t write Gordian Knot sentences, but I think a little complexity is okay and basically doesn’t risk confusing a literate reader.
Style, the Art of Writing Well by F. L. Lucas
Yeah, I agree that the modern version of Ettiquite is worse, but that’s just because we don’t have very complicated ettiquite! They need to waste space here, because everyone already knows what a handshake is, and you need at most a one-sentence description. If you didn’t turn every sentence into a paragraph the book would quickly turn into a blog post.
The solution is not in fact to add more flowery prose or complicated sentences, its to write about something else.
I also don’t know whether those reading in 1922 would say the same thing. We read the 1922 version and think “Oh wow! So informative!”, but perhaps the girls forced to read the book at a 1922 finishing school were thinking the same thing, or maybe ettiquite in 1922 was just a lot more complicated than it is today (it is).
Perhaps, similarly to the hypothetical bored girl in finishing school, in 100 years the future will look at the modern version and think “So informative!”.
I would certainly never suggest this. You seem to be implying that good prose is independent of useful prose, but it’s not. Good prose isn’t just flowery and fancy, it is respectful of the reader and their time, and delivers a message clearly and in an entertaining way.
It seems like you’re acknowledging the 2022 version is a bloated waste of space, while also suggesting at the same time that actually it’s very informative, and that this is all just relative? I definitely do not believe this is all just relative, or that girls forced to read Emily Post in the 1920s would have thought the writing in the book was hollow. It’s clearly full of useful information. Not to mention wit and charm. I weep for the future of our species if women in 2122 would think the 2022 version was “so informative!”
I guess my point is that the fact the 2022 version sucks is predicted on my model from the fact that we just don’t use too much complicated etiquette anymore. The fact the sentences are hollow is a fact more about the subject being written, not the skill of the author.
Concretely, using the Wikipedia page for modern handshaking in the US I think gives better prose than the modern 2022 version of the etiquette guide