From your introductory paragraphs, it appears that you have a genuine desire to respond to feedback but are significantly underestimating the degree of change required to do so. Perhaps a good old fashioned dose of Strunk and White would help. Especially this (note both the content and the style):
Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no
unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer
make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in
outline, but that every word tell.
While I don’t have anything in particular to recommend in its place, it’s perhaps worth noting that the contributors over at Language Log don’t think terribly highly of Strunk & White; to paraphrase from my recollection, I think the criticism runs that the authors frequently ignore their own advice, much of which isn’t any good anyway.
Upvoted both this and its parent, because the quoted bit of Strunk and White seems like good advice, and because the linked criticism of Strunk and White is lucid and informative as well as entertaining. I learned about two new but related things, one right after the other; my conclusions about Strunk and White swung rapidly from one position to the opposite in quick succession. Quite an experience! (“Oh look, there are these two folks who are recognized authorities on English, and they’re presenting good writing advice. Strunk and White… must remember. Wait; here’s a response… Oh—turns out not much of their advice is that good after all! Passive voice IS acceptable! Language Log… must remember.”)
You might enjoy this post, as well: Don’t put up with usage abuse. It’s one of many, many posts on Language Log in which the authors thoroughly destroy the notion of prescriptivist grammar.
The first thing to say is that the only possible way to settle a question of grammar or style is to look at relevant evidence. I suppose there really are people who believe the rules of grammar come down from some authority on high, an authority that has no connection with the people who speak and write English; but those people have got to be deranged.
From your introductory paragraphs, it appears that you have a genuine desire to respond to feedback but are significantly underestimating the degree of change required to do so. Perhaps a good old fashioned dose of Strunk and White would help. Especially this (note both the content and the style):
While I don’t have anything in particular to recommend in its place, it’s perhaps worth noting that the contributors over at Language Log don’t think terribly highly of Strunk & White; to paraphrase from my recollection, I think the criticism runs that the authors frequently ignore their own advice, much of which isn’t any good anyway.
Upvoted both this and its parent, because the quoted bit of Strunk and White seems like good advice, and because the linked criticism of Strunk and White is lucid and informative as well as entertaining. I learned about two new but related things, one right after the other; my conclusions about Strunk and White swung rapidly from one position to the opposite in quick succession. Quite an experience! (“Oh look, there are these two folks who are recognized authorities on English, and they’re presenting good writing advice. Strunk and White… must remember. Wait; here’s a response… Oh—turns out not much of their advice is that good after all! Passive voice IS acceptable! Language Log… must remember.”)
You might enjoy this post, as well: Don’t put up with usage abuse. It’s one of many, many posts on Language Log in which the authors thoroughly destroy the notion of prescriptivist grammar.
Upvoted for linking to something that mentions an alternative.
As someone who routinely abuses grammar for comedic effect, I greatly appreciated this link. Language Log is one of my favorite blogs on the internet.