Overly Verbose (AKA verbal dioreah)

Recommended Videos

falcontwin

New member
Aug 10, 2008
229
0
0
Am I the only one here who after clicking on a new thread only to find a 2 page long rant about a simple easily summed up topic, just thinks that the thread is not worth responding to as the original poster could not summate their topic and the thoughts they have about it in a few consice sentances.

It may just be me but after the first 10 lines or so of your average rant I start filling in the words with blaH BLAH BLAH. And scroll down to read the responses to see if there is anything worth talking about.

Why do people feel the need to be overly obtuse in their topics?
 

MindBullets

New member
Apr 5, 2008
654
0
0
My guess? Because people don't want to be seen as the sort of person who just states the topic and says "Discuss".
 

Clashero

New member
Aug 15, 2008
2,143
0
0
MindBullets said:
My guess? Because people don't want to be seen as the sort of person who just states the topic and says "Discuss".
Definitely this, but I do agree with the OP that some people make their threads unnecessarily long. They shouldn't just say "Obama. Discuss.", nor should they write a 4,000 word essay about what they want in a game.
 

orifice

New member
Nov 18, 2008
414
0
0
I'd say it depends if the thread is something I might be interested in. That and if the post was written well enough to be worth reading.
 
May 17, 2007
879
0
0
It really depends on the quality of the writing, but since the quality of the writing has to be proportional to the length of the topic to keep anyone's interest, very few people* can pull off a good long post. Most of the people who try are boring self-important windbags. (I'm sure I've been guilty in the past...)

*The only person who comes to mind is mshcherbatskaya [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/profiles/view/mshcherbatskaya].
 

Cousin_IT

New member
Feb 6, 2008
1,822
0
0
welcome to the escapist. Its members pride themselves on a self-satisfying sense of superiority to lesser public forums, gaming or otherwise, & to articulate this belief they indulge themselves in as you call it overly verbose discussions. Being able to write these, & more importantly being able to read & respond in a similar manner, is seen as exemplary of the superiority of these forums & by no coincidence its members.

Of course there are pleanty of examples of well written longwinded rants/discussion starters/responses etc that are well worth taking the time to read. But at the heart of it the reason for their proliferation & indulgence is the above.

edit: of course wall to wall one liners, paticular thread starters that are just "x is awsome what do you think? Vote now to increase my viewcount" are just as bad as needlessly longwinded rants & should be purged with greater intensity because while I can see a long post & ignore it before reading; short ones ill find myself having read before even thinking its not worth the time.
 

PumpItUp

Senior Member
Sep 27, 2008
431
0
21
I agree and disagree with your post. I believe the most important part of an essay, thread, etc. is the point. The whole idea that your topic surrounds. Overuse of long-winded speeches and elaborate vocabulary is likely to lose a lot of readers, both well-read and not. That said, written prose requires a bit more elegance to it than simply saying, as previously stated, "Obama, discuss."
It's an important balance, setting up your topic and covering important points while not saying too much that readers become disinterested.
 

Shade Jackrabbit

New member
Aug 3, 2008
270
0
0
Oh... uhm... *cough*definitelynotguiltyofthat*cough* ...mm-hm.

I dunno, I think some things deserve long posts, but yeah, shortening it up can sometimes be a good idea.

*jumps into bunker*
 

Anarchemitis

New member
Dec 23, 2007
9,102
0
0
It's common that people have lots to expostulate due to whatever circumstances that present itself.
Case in point seems to be our Complainer-in-Chief Khell_Sennet. Why he talks so much about a given frustration is due to the fact that he thinks about it lots, or sees it happen often, or both. For example.
 

Beelze

New member
Jan 15, 2009
15
0
0
Know, gentle reader, and I speak here as an experienced and accomplished chronicler in my own right (as the gentle reader has already had occasion to judge, from his perusal of these preceding pages of our tale), that of all the sins and foibles which afflict the writer?be that writer a scribe or a scribbler, a diarist or a dramatist, a narrator or a notary?there is none so foul, so odious, so disreputable, so arrant, so untoward, so deplorable, so infamous and so peccant as verbosity, yes, I say again, verbosity, that malignant cancer of the narrator's craft, which, under its many names?whether those be the names preferred by the educated gentility: wordiness, long-windedness, prolixity, superfluity or garrulity; or yet those more exact and fine-focused terms which are the natural optation of the scholar, the rigor of whose training in the necessity of precise meaning naturally leads them to such labels as: longiloquence, largiloquence, grandiloquence, multiloquence, polylogy and rodomontade, not to mention the yet-more-technical terms of the specialist: nimiety, pleonasm and amphigory (or amphigouri, as the purists insist); or those euphemisms which are, not surprisingly, the terms of choice of the verbose themselves, I speak here of: circumlocution, loquacity and eloquence; or even, for we should not in natural pride of our intellect and refinement ignore their cultural contributions, meager and crude though these be, the coarse epithets which are oft heard from the lips of the uneducated and unwashed: chatter, jabber, prattle, gabble, babble, blabber and blather?wreaks the greatest havoc of all the literary vices upon the heart of literature and narrative itself, that heart being, although most (even exceptionally well-read) literates are unconscious?say rather, not fully conscious?even of its existence, much less its centrality, the fundamental bond of trust which develops 'twixt writer and reader as these twain intersect, though indirectly and at a distance (a distance measured not simply in space but in time), without which education itself becomes an impossibility, for the reader becomes wearied and overtaxed, and thus loses his concentration, indeed, even his interest, while?what is worse!?the writer loses all sense of the purpose of his craft, the which is not to aggrandize himself, in a frivolous display of empty virtuosity, but to impart to the reader the pith and the meat of the tale which he tells, and in so doing, loses all grasp on reality and reason, falling thus further and further into the fell sway of those psychologic disorders which we know as solipsism and egomania.

--Eric Flint
 

Erana

New member
Feb 28, 2008
8,010
0
0
If ya don't read it, don't post.

That's my motto, and why I don't like diving into several-page threads.
 

blindey

New member
Dec 30, 2008
120
0
0
Anarchemitis said:
It's common that people have lots to expostulate due to whatever circumstances that present itself.
Case in point seems to be our Complainer-in-Chief Khell_Sennet. Why he talks so much about a given frustration is due to the fact that he thinks about it lots, or sees it happen often, or both. For example.
I agree with you. I find myself being able to speak moreso in an arms-length format such as the internet, or essays for various classes or what have you. I don't see that I can as effectively do that in person for a couple reasons (a couple specific to me and a few everyone would have)

A) Knowledge. The fact we can look up things in the blink of an eye to supplement our argument when we have to be "cold" during a conversation or whatever if some topic comes up.
B) Shyness
C) (goes along with B) familiarity. It's quite frankly easier and less intimidating to talk online than in real life with you know, actual people that you can see. Here, everyone is just text, a screen name, and an avatar; (slightly more if one visits the profile but that's a moot point) this can't accurately describe a person.
 

Fenring

New member
Sep 5, 2008
2,041
0
0
I think if depends on what the rant is about. If it's a review or an rant written by Jumplion or such I will read the whole rant because I think of them as smart people who have proven their intelligence, they probably have a reason for such a long post. If a rant is just posted by a random person, I'll read the first couple of sentences to see if I want to read the rest, if not I'll just find a more interesting thing to read.
 

Sketchy

New member
Aug 16, 2008
761
0
0
Well, I think that ramble ramble ramble ramble ramble (just imagine that for 3 paragraphs).

I usually don't read stuff that's too long, unless it can hold my interest (which, in most cases, it can't).
 

Chickenlittle

New member
Sep 4, 2008
687
0
0
fullmetalangel said:
I agree, somewhat, but when I make a thread, I prefer to have all my arguments right there so I don't have to waste time with obvious come backs.

edit:

Also, isn't it more obtuse to make a generalisation about a certain subject than picking out the exact details? Aren't you being obtuse right now?
Partially. Some things don't necessarily need exact detail. Can't be bothered to make an example, though.
 

NewClassic_v1legacy

Bringer of Words
Jul 30, 2008
2,484
0
0
falcontwin said:
Am I the only one here who after clicking on a new thread only to find a 2 page long rant about a simple easily summed up topic, just thinks that the thread is not worth responding to as the original poster could not summate their topic and the thoughts they have about it in a few consice sentances.

It may just be me but after the first 10 lines or so of your average rant I start filling in the words with blaH BLAH BLAH. And scroll down to read the responses to see if there is anything worth talking about.

Why do people feel the need to be overly obtuse in their topics?
I find your opening topic is ironically ill-explained, and therefore too short. You mention that the opening posts are ranty and long, but you don't explain why this is a bad thing. By your logic, the book "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" is much worse than "The Sorceror's/Philosopher's Stone" for length alone [http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a395/NewClassic/Kittens/Kitten_by_L_G_K.jpg].

Instead, explain what about the longer posts you dislike, otherwise you come off as somewhat pretentious. (Also, no offense intended, but it is spelled "diarrhea.")
 

hypothetical fact

New member
Oct 8, 2008
1,601
0
0
As long as every word counts, others will realise your point and answer the obvious for you.
If you can't post in a short manner, include a tldr version because most of the content of posts is subjective easily dismissed opinion, whether the OP is passionate or not.

New Classic, while the OP should have clarified why they grow bored of long posts, your comparison between forum posts and books are flawed.

A book should tell a story worth reading while a a post should express an opinion and evidence to back up that opinion, one does not need to explain how they came to that opinion as it only eats up time and space; if the matter of why is so important than rest assured somebody on the first page will ask.

In case anyone feels witty, my post does not contradict itself because the matter of why in this instance is the evidence need to back up the post, though this differnce only aplies to threads such as this which are built soley on opinion and not tangible evidece.