not brief

Generally I'm not an advocate of brevity. I mean, look at how I write. Paragraphs and paragraphs. And look at what I read. I enjoy reading Dickens, Joyce, Tolkien, fabulously long chapters, complex descriptions, thick books. I would rather a book be very thick than thin because it will last longer and I can live inside it more. At the end of good books I always think, more more! don't end yet!

I think that when one tries to be brief, he often misses something. Brevity is too often oversimplification. Yes, being brief helps when you want to be witty. But even wit tends to oversimplify. Which is fine if you're going for a joke. But when I want to explore something, brevity just doesn't do it.

I want explanation, deep exploration, to know what and how and what it is like. I love long descriptions in books. Multiple paragraphs spent describing one flower? Delicious. But just a quick little jot of something, a brief sentence followed by nothing but the expectation that the reader will understand, can be very annoying. What if I don't understand (which often happens)?! Breathe it out, ramble over and through it, make it long and detailed to keep from missing anything.

But I suppose brevity is okay sometimes too. Some things are not long and thus should not be described at length. A flash of light is a flash, not a drawl. And being long-winded can be needlessly confusing. I can't stand to read jumbling mumbling circuitous academic papers, for example.

Brevity: useful sometimes, but a grievous mistake under many circumstances. Difficult to use properly. Be careful and do not think it is a rule.