SpikeTheLobsterWaffling
March 7th 2009 21:06
We are all Kosh
Ask a psychologist: waffling is most frequently a result of one of two things - lack of self-confidence or a phobic problem. Writers and speakers who feel they need to justify everything have a tendency to take a long, roundabout route to their main point, instead of just stating their opinion.
If you're writing an epic, multi-volume series, such attention to detail can be a definite advantage. Take the example of the television series Babylon 5: generally regarded as an exceptionally well-written saga, it leaves very few - if any - loose ends or untravelled roads on the way to its conclusion. Each sub-plot is followed to its end and all the threads are tied together in the eventual climax. The disadvantage of such writing is in demanding extra patience from the viewer or reader, which can lead to a loss of interest part-way through the journey. In the case of the same series, it almost lost its air-time because of the demands it made on its viewers, both in following all the parts of the story and in its seemingly slow progress.
The opposite situation applies to concise writing, such as blog entries or speeches with a limited duration. The writer must take care not to ramble too far from their main point, at the risk of omitting a certain amount of detail. In particular, online writing suffers from a frequent lack of concentration on the part of the reader: a visitor wishes to load the page and immediately see something useful. Waffling simply delays the important content's arrival and drastically increases the possibility of the reader giving up and looking elsewhere for what they need. With so much information readily available, it is often better to break deep discussion into several parts, each focussed on one matter of importance.
This is where one very useful piece of advice comes into its own: do not underestimate the intelligence of the audience. On deeply technical or complex subjects, an author cannot normally assume much prior knowledge, but in general it is better to keep the discourse relatively short, quote sources and stay firmly centred on the main point of debate. The reader will fill in the rest from their own experience and understanding.
| 72 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Teresa Ralton
MRS SMITH
READ THIS
SISTERS IN CRIME
I'm a nervous talker.
When I write something I usually take the long, roundabout route first - then cut it. Reading stuff online is definitely a different experience to reading print and probably mirrors our modern need for stimulation and immediate gratification. It's so easy to click away.
But it depends so much on your frame of mind and situation when you are reading (at work maybe?). That's what I have found, anyway. Sometimes you just want a few minutes of distraction and sometimes you can give your attention to what you are reading. What is the picture?
Comment by Spike 2
Wordophilia
Qwerk
Peanut Butter
The pic is the Vorlon Ambassador, Kosh, from Babylon 5. He was the best character in the show as far as I'm concerned. Really profound and vague. He came out with great quotes like "The avalanche has already begun. It is too late for the pebbles to vote."
Comment by Damo
I am no fan of waffle either.
I work on the theory that it it ain't then it it was not drafted correctly.
Unless ofcourse that was the intention.
Comment by Janet Collins
Acceptable Etiquette
The Social Critic
Janet Collins Blog
Comment by Spike 2
Wordophilia
Qwerk
Peanut Butter
I used to hate having to record voice-mail things at my job in France. The company wanted them to contain certain useful information, which made them quite long. Then I had to do it in two languages. It just went on and on and on... icky. As if telephone messages weren't already bad enough!!