Quote:
Originally Posted by ardeegee
No, it applies to every form of written or spoken communication. You don't use the same words or arguments with a 2-year old that you use with a 10-year old or a 50-year old. You don't use the same words with a specialist in your field that you use with a layman. You don't use the same words with a fellow hobbyist that you use with someone unfamiliar with the hobby. When you are writing to or speaking to someone-- unless you are acting on pure, insane ego-- you are attempting to communicate something to that person or audience-- and thus, you need to tailor your words to be something that they can understand, or else there is no point in saying it in the first place. |
It's also useful to read the rest of what your "audience" has written in their previous post rather than just responding to the first line of that post. Do I take it that you don't acknowledge that some literary writing is intentionally constructed in such a way the informational content of the writing is blocked or inhibited? Is it the case that James Joyce, to stick with the same example - but there are many more, was a rubbish writer because it's not clear what's happening in his writing? If only he could have followed the strictures of Writing 101 he would have been much better? It's a bit like saying if only Picasso had done Painting 101 he presumably wouldn't have been dumb enough to paint two eyes on a woman seen in profile and he would have been a better painter for it.