Revising Your Writing for Flow

[@Priscilla_Bettis]

This was so good. I liked both suggested revisions (plus the extra revision of the 2nd piece). Food flow keeps my attention longer.

[@WritingwithAndrew]

Nice--thanks!

[@bjhillinck169]

I studied Modernism, History, and Musicology in undergrad, so the second example really brought me back! I loved your first edit. While I don't think anything you said in the second, more polemical version was technically wrong, the tone shift made it seem like you're arguing that modernist interpretations are not only valid and worthy of study, but in fact are superior to late Romantic counterparts. This is a lot more work, because as a reader my response to the first was "interesting, tell me more" versus "ok wise guy, prove it" Excellent video!

[@WritingwithAndrew]

Thanks--that's fair. Especially since it is a research proposal, I think I was picking up on and trying to amplify the underlying argument (and justification for the project) while also sticking a finger in the academy's eye 😜

[@pedrodavila9270]

Thank you for your comment! As the author, I agree with you. But, of course, Andrew did an amazing job and we love him. :)

[@xzyeee]

Brilliant advice! This is so wonderful.

[@WritingwithAndrew]

Thanks!

[@Beckelby]

I love how you include different examples of works you offer help with, novellas was a nice touch ☺ I'm working on graphic novels and feel included

[@WritingwithAndrew]

You bet! I tend to see a lot of poetry (for probably obvious reasons), but all writing is writing--and it's all up for discussion!

[@yapdog]

I like your edits of Essay Replay, Andrew. The only other edit I'd make is removing references to "soul," favoring "my true self" for its accessibility given the tone of the piece. Great series😁

[@WritingwithAndrew]

Thanks--another good way to go about it

[@yapdog]

On "Modern Academia," I tend to favor a negative-to-positive order in technical writing. IMHO, it creates a flow where the reader can feel some anticipation which _can_ help retention. For example, the "Furthermore" passage starts with a positive-to-negative flow, but I'd flip it: _However, more than just musical practices, these changes in interpretation are representative of a history, a cultural history which also includes the social, political, cultural, and economic realities that shaped interpretive traditions._ I hope that that doesn't come off as arrogant, tho; I'm not exactly a literary scholar by any stretch.😅 I just work through an intuitive flow of ideas. But it's all just subjective, anyway, right?

[@WritingwithAndrew]

Yeah, that's interesting--and it is all (mostly) subjective anyway! Where the goal is to frontload familiar information, talking about practices (which don't appear explicitly in the previous sentence) delays the familiar stuff, but not in a deal-breaking way. Besides, these are general best practices and not at all rules--and I could totally see your version making itself right at home here

[@yapdog]

@@WritingwithAndrew 😎! Your channel is such a great forum for the sharing of ideas: you have such an open and non-judgmental vibe. Good on ya!

[@galenspikesmusic]

What is the piano theme that you use in your videos?

[@WritingwithAndrew]

Depends on the video--they're all just from the KZbin music library, though

[@gike2755]

I would absolutely love to understand my second language(s) well enough to compare their best writing styles against great writing in english. In english we are used to subject-verb-object constructions and a variety of other conventions that bias how easy it feels to read different versions of the pieces in this video. The best writing in english feels like it optimises for communicating ideas using minimal social context because we are a low(er) context culture; my pet theory is that 'effective writing' in high(er) context cultures will feel very different. Though I have no deep insights into how the differences manifest, only anecdotes and descriptions, I do wonder how having another language's biases imprinted in my skull would impact how easy/flow-y the different edits in english would feel too.

[@WritingwithAndrew]

You and me both 😅 But it is interesting to think about how the structure of a language conditions reader expectations/evaluations of clarity and flow. I'll be pondering

[@gike2755]

@@WritingwithAndrewQuestion: aside from mystery/fiction prose or perhaps poetry, is there any purpose to adding ambiguity to writing as an overall effect for the reader? Law perhaps? Things we ponder :D

[@alexu297]

Good, but too prescriptive for me. Some of these suggestions sound like Chatgpt.

[@WritingwithAndrew]

We have very different understandings of "prescriptive," I guess

[@delstanley1349]

4:07-Original- As these words left my mouth, they hurt my soul. Yet again, I was picking comfort over what my sould wanted. Revised- My answer hurt my soul: yet again, I was picking comfort over what my sould wanted. In your revision you suggested trading a period for a colon to help with flow, because in having two sentences "readers must stop and tread water while they figure how the two sentences are connected....the colon tells them immediately that they are connected." When it comes to flow in my case I liked the former version that had two sentences. I guess I'm one of the few who may like treading the water sometimes. In the original sentence it starts, "As these words left my mouth." I understand why you deleted this start, it sounds awkward and clunky, but you discarded it altogether without rewriting it. I believe the writer was trying to impart a timing element that is eliminated in your revised version. You know, that "oh hell I knew I was in trouble the minute I opened my big mouth." The writer realized too late, that he had sold his soul to the devil so quickly that the devil didn't even have to bargain for it. I read it that way, anyway. So, the second sentence (by the writer) that starts "Yet again..." allows a little more time for reflection, and that the writer gave more thought of what was said AFTER the fact. So using a second sentence here for me is fine AS A READER. I wasn't slowed down in a negative manner. The revised sentence doesn't reflect any of the impetuous nature of the writer that he probably wanted. I suppose my discussion had more to do with the revision than actual flow, but I do get the point of your discussion on flow. Take no offense, but the original thesis on music...well I sat that one out, ha ha! Thanx again for your videos.

[@WritingwithAndrew]

That's a fair reading. I'm also probably much more inclined to cuts than most writers--if a phrase or sentence looks at me funny (or even if it doesn't) it's probably getting axed 😆