Write Simply

Reading for pleasure should be entertaining. Reading for knowledge should be simple/concise.

He opposes simple to "fancy", but the opposite of simple isn't just "fancy", that's, well, a simplification. The opposite of "simple" writing may be: "rich" writing, "complex" writing, none of which are particularly problematic for Graham's goal provided that they're paired with enough clarity.

That "simple" writing lasts longer is disproved by many works of literature that have made their way to us through history, most of which, by the standard of this essay, could be considered complex.

As someone with a modicum of experience in the philosophy of language, I must also say that I do not look kindly on people who take for granted that there even could be such a thing as a thought without language, a "pure idea", since for all we know such a thing has never been observed.

'write like you are speaking'

depending on my purpose and audience, i will write the first draft and then deliver it verbally. at least for me, and i do tend to use far too many words in the first draft, that exercise leads to a much clearer second draft.

[...]

2. On the web, where each individual piece of writing is not meant to last as long, the writing style has become more casual. Consider the difference between your average Medium article versus your average academic research paper.

Did you see what he wrote in the essay, regarding this:

> Simple writing also lasts better. People reading your stuff in the future will be in much the same position as people from other countries reading it today. The culture and the language will have changed. It's not vain to care about that, any more than it's vain for a woodworker to build a chair to last.

Indeed, lasting is not merely an accidental quality of chairs, or writing. It's a sign you did a good job.

> I disagree entirely with the premise. There can be value to dense, even perhaps enigmatic writing. I would say that the greatest works of English literature tend towards that direction (James Joyce, Thomas Pynchon, David Foster Wallace).

It seems pretty clear to me that the essay is about non-fiction writing, not fiction. All the arguments in it apply to non-fiction writing.

I would argue that academic writing tends to be pretty poor.