Look It Up

If I had to choose the best thing about the internet, I would say it is the sheer access to information. And I don't mean news stories or anything in that ilk. I mean things like trivia. Who was that guy in Planet of the Apes? What exactly does 'troglodyte' mean? How long is a furlong? There is no fact you can't find with in three mouse clicks.

With this instant access to information, it makes me wonder how that affects writing. I remember being told that we should always assume our reader knows nothing about the subject. It is a good teaching device to get students to write thoroughly, and it should be taught for that, if nothing else, but should we keep it for all of our writing?

In digital writing, the answer seems to be no. If you are responding to another article or referring to a picture or a song, all you need to do is link to it. For people who don't know, they can delve deeper into a subject to understand it more thoroughly, and for people who are already familiar with the subject matter, they get straight to the point of the new content without worrying about the background.

But what about non-digital writing? To what degree should we be thorough when you can't just click on a link to learn more about something? On this matter, I strattle the fence; I can take either side of the argument.

On one hand, I believe that a piece of writing should be able to stand on its own, so thoroughness is good. On the other hand, I believe that writing should be efficient, so there's no need covering ground that somebody could easily research on any of the countless devices that can access the internet.

Ultimately, it is a personal decision to figure out how much you choose to explain. Both sides are perfectly valid. If you are torn between the two, then I recommend going for sound. Which version is more pleasant to the eyes and the ears? All other things being equal, pick the one that is the most pleasant to experience.