Hi Andrew. New subscriber from Denmark here :-) I'm a mathematician that likes to write. When I was in school, I really liked grammar, but I didn't enjoy writing at all. For some reason, this has changed, and writing my thoughts and ideas can feel both relaxing and rewarding. I love to understand things and your videos are inspiring and instructive. Obviously, English is not my mother tongue. However, your content is very language independent and is transferable to Danish (for instance). As a bonus, I learn more about English at the same time.
We're (see i hv started using contraction😅) blessed that , such an adept and experienced person is there to help us in honing our skills... Thank u so much
I have a spicy brain and found myself distracted by alliteration and internal rhymes. I wonder whether there's been a study of the impact on comprehension of these elements for ASD and ADD brains.
Yeah, that's what makes this so fun: there are as many different options as people. The point here is just that some words can have a purpose beyond meaning or syntax, a purpose that often gets overlooked. For example, in a sentence like, "I am, then, disappointed," the role of "then" does suggest a consequential relationship with something that comes before, but it's role here is almost entirely rhythmic--the syntax of the sentence can't realistically be simplified further. Thanks for the comment!
I had never even heard of doing that before. It seems a little awkward to me. I usually break up the sentence into multiple parts. Because, even if the ideas are all closely connected, large sentences tend to have smaller ideas within them. Small ideas could be their own sentence. Even modifiers like Brave, Curious, or Strong can be broken off into their own sentences. I can say " The strong, brave, and curious man fiercely fought the fire, which was ferociously devouring the giant house, seeking to stop it from destroying the many priceless artifacts hidden inside, and learn their secrets before it was too late." or "The strong man furiously fought the fire. His bravery and courage driving him deeper into the giant house. The fire was devouring the house, But the man sought to stop it from destroying the artifacts. The priceless artifacts were hidden in the house, covering secrets the man wanted to learn. " Each of these have a different style and feel. Even if the information is pretty much the same. But, some of the information is given more importance by splitting it out. And a couple things that might have been implied spelled out. Simplifying a sentence is great for clarity. But, in some cases meaning can be lost. it does make things that are more important, more clear. In others, shifting the complexity of the meaning somewhere else. Might enhance the sound or feeling of the text. Bringing it close to what you are intending to accomplish.
Starting at 2:40 when I heard that it had me grinning ear to ear. Something about that just tickles my brain, its partly why I love the song Alphabet Aerobics so much. Id love to sound like a cartoon character!
Oh dear, how poor my English is. I left out a few words in my message above, namely: I wish I had encountered you earlier. Sorry, sorry for not reviewing the message before hitting the return button. Well, old folks are often that absent-minded, although I am only 82. (Lame excuse, man.)
Flow is a tool. A fast flowing paragraph is similar to run-on sentence. So, even though it may be broken up, It can still be overwhelming. And, clarity can be lost, as little stands out among a sea of words. Therefore, it may leave one without a chance to think. But simply keep on pushing you along, Giving no time to soak in what you read. Parts of an idea can stand alone. They can be big. Or, Small pieces may come out. When everything stands out, ideas are slowed. But, paragraphs are quickened. Having a long sentence is often wrong for the same reason that a flowing paragraph might, it fills the cup of what people can remember, when it spills, it is hard to understand. But, breaking brings release. What you say is enhanced by how you say it. Change is the core of method. It creates a path like the course of a river. A river carries on, but it bends from side to side. It drops. Or gently flows over a stone, leaving a ripple along it's surface as it moves. Rhythm ticks on with a tempo. Even in speech the same thing can be said slowly, or quickly. The more beats that are added, the longer it takes to finish without straying from the beat. In some cases it may be changed for effect. A note can be played both staccato or legato. And they both give a different feel. Your purpose guides feeling, tempo, and flow. It is important to express it by saying what you mean. And also pulling out things that get in the way of that purpose. Whether it be one thing or several, purpose is key. A side note: I have actually struggled a lot with purpose when it comes to casual writing. In many cases I simply say the first words that come to mind. Which tends to lead to a natural flow. But, it many cases will turn out unclear. And in some cases, editing may simple improve clarity but not really work to ensure the flow is being used to build something bigger.
For sure--there isn't one correct way to write in all situations at all times. The key is to know the tools that are available, figure out your purpose, and then use the appropriate tools to get the job done (which can be much easier said than done, I acknowledge!)
I really disliked your writing here. Reminds me a lot of Andrew's video on writer-centric writing vs reader-centric writing. You're writing for yourself, here. Feels like you're trying to pop wheelies and speed around corners on a tricycle. it also feels so self-conscious I have an impossible time focusing on what you're trying to say, if anything at all.
Have you done, or would you do, a video on the whys of English pronunciation and conjugation? Such as knight= nite or enough= enuf. And to conjugation to past tense: walk- walked, skip - skipped. But other words are not "ed" added but become a different word, speak - spoke or run - ran. Thanks.
Great question! Not specifically, though, since it's kind of a term I invented to explain this aspect of writing. My best recommendation to get started might be to read some poetry out loud and even listen to recordings of poetry (a lot of the pieces at poetryfoundation.org have recordings): since poets pay more conscious attention to sound than other writers typically do, it can be a great way to train your ear for sound patterns that you think flow well.
Ah, I could have explained that more carefully: they're shortened forms of words or groups of words, like "can't" (instead of "cannot") or "we'll" (instead of "we will")
7:48 A visual test to see how I'd reconstruct the sentence to my understanding of “flow”. *Editing note: “the board of directors” sounds singular in its construction like “I”; it'd go like “he/she recommends”, but drop the-s-for the verb to be “the board of directors recommend” as a singular they. In light of these recent government restrictions, the board of directors recommend an immediate moratorium on all bioregulatory product development in relation to our biomedical research procedures for the foreseeable future. *Editing note: Tempted to put-un-in foreseeable future, based on reconstructing it. Does it give this sentence a voice? In light of these recent government restrictions, the board of directors recommend an immediate moratorium on all bioregulatory product development in relation to our biomedical research procedures for the unforeseeable future. Any and all non-compliance to do so will receive reprimandation upon funding for this support. *Editing note: A second sentence following this change allows for a difference in “where” the writing flows next. The direction of writing flow, given the style (voice of the writing) alters it to be said a certain way, if not at most times, always pertains to the goal of the writing itself (or the paragraph's idea). Whether this detracts from formal writing in favour of creative writing differs, since “voice” in works like research papers prefer the style to be passive and not active (e.g. There was a proposable change in the requested transfer of subset E transferring into D).
Interesting experimentation--cool to see your thought process explained at the same time. The fun we can we have with made-up bureaucratese! As for the singular/plural "board of directors," my understanding is that that one divides pretty cleanly on the American/British line (e.g., the team is going vs. the team are going). One of those fun quirks
None really come to mind--at least not traditional composition books. These kinds of discussions are more common when it comes to poetry, but they have applications beyond poetry too
@@WritingwithAndrew The last poetry book I read was Stephen Fry's The Ode Less Travelled. It was a little dry. Elements of Eloquence has some wonderful definitions of various rhetorical devices.
This was excellent stuff Andrew. I would love to see more on flow. Perhaps you could add a video with plenty more before and after examples, or could you suggest some great reading on flow?
Thanks for the kind words and good suggestion! Good reading on flow is hard to come by (which is why I made the series). I'll definitely put another video or two on the list and work on pulling together some more examples
I'm so grateful to have discovered this channel! Currently I'm learning the very basics of creative writing with popular advice such as to "show, don't tell", to favor active voice over passive voice, and to streamline our writing by eliminating as many superfluous words as possible. I've found none of it particularly objectionable except for the very last piece of advice to streamline and maximize economy. Even disregarding my inept writing and coming purely from the standpoint of a reader, I find a lot of the most contemporary commercial fiction difficult to read despite being so economical in the use of words. I couldn't pinpoint why given how the sentences are much simpler and shorter than the fiction I grew up reading, but I suspected it had something to do with flow. Even "shrugged his shoulders" (a line I've seen critiqued to death in favor of merely "shrugged") has a pleasant alliteration that seems to smooth and round things out. I am [I avoided the contraction here since I wanted to emphasize "am"] trying to pay some attention to economy, yet I often feel so compelled to insert words that contribute nothing to the literal meaning of a line. If we take the line, "My [own] mother wept at my callous response," I want naturally to insert "own" and desperately keep it in that sentence even after I become completely aware that it contributes nothing to its meaning. Might that relate to flow? I also find it functioning as a form of emphasis.
Economy is a valuable thing, but, like most things, it's in tension with other valuable things. I see a strong preference for removing "unnecessary" words among the literary editing crowd, but I've also seen sentences with ambiguities that could be avoided if we just allowed a few unnecessary instances of "that" to stick around. Optimize for economy, and you're bound to fall short in other ways. I would argue that the real skill is finding balance among competing virtues. Like your example, "own" may be unnecessary in a word-counting sense, but it conveys an emotional intensity that we'd miss without it--and the real goal is the effect on the reader, not the word count.
@@WritingwithAndrew That balancing act is quite difficult for me for a variety of reasons, yet I'm finding your videos so helpful to better understand exactly what I'm balancing against beyond a vague and possibly very subjective, "This feels better to me." Thank you so much for sharing your knowledge! My main difficulty is that I don't subvocalize much when I read English text given the way I learned English as a second language. I'm from Japan and initially taught myself English primarily through silent reading (and always with a dictionary handy). I began in kindergarten during the 80s with a premature desire to experience adult fiction (text-based adventure games aimed at more mature audiences, novels, comic books, etc). So I learned how to read many words long before I even knew how to pronounce them out loud. While such adult fiction existed in Japanese, it seemed easier to learn English as a boy than the 3,000+ Kanji characters typically required for Japanese to even be able to read a newspaper. I also had a strong preference for a lot of Western media (Western role-playing and adventure games which my cousin had on his computer, Western fantasy and sci-fi books, etc). Much of my motivation was admittedly out of a naughty curiosity to experience adult content like graphic violence and sex at an early age, but I was also a peculiar child who generally found the, "Once upon a time [...] They lived happily ever after," type of stories aimed at children so dull and predictable; even as a kindergartener, I wanted stories more like Game of Thrones in which I could genuinely worry about whether the most central characters will succeed or fail (and potentially even die horribly). This peculiar way of learning English has allowed me to speed read and excel in reading comprehension tests (once I started being taught English in a formal context beginning in junior high school) for texts that have a formatting (reasonably narrow columns) and writing style agreeable to me (most academic text does). Nevertheless, it comes with the glaring weakness that I'm always second-guessing myself as to how my own writing might read/sound to native English speakers who learned to read out loud before reading in complete silence with minimal or no subvocalization. I'm also very lacking in ability to appreciate English poetry, perhaps in part since the intended sound and flow of it is rather ambiguous to me. I'm at the level where I just see most of it as bizarrely-formatted ornate prose. It's easier to me if it's lyrics to a song since hearing the accompanying music and vocals disambiguates how it's intended to sound to my ears and provides a very clear context for its unorthodox formatting and punctuation.
