Nobody?

later dude later hang on dog

what kind of critique do you want? content critique or just style?

Well obviously it doesn't bother me if you disagree with my content, that's each to his own. But if there's something ill-informed I would like to know about that, weaknesses in argument, and yeah general advice on my style and rhetoric

Quickly read this one:

http://bryanblears.com/2013/08/

I think your best and most original point is to point out that humans arose from the natural ecosystem that people are saying would thrive without us.

It is an inventive way of pointing out that this implied division between natural and artificial is a falsehood, and that everyone a human does is part of animal behavior which is part of natural history and the ecosystem and indeed the universe.

Although I feel like this was a walk in the park, because as far as I'm concerned the voluntary extinction movement is a bunch of fucking nonsense.

However I might advise you to dwell a bit more on the idea that life itself is not worth living, from a human perspective. Essentially what these people are saying is that we should all commit suicide because life is suffering. I would recommend you respond to this.

Will say more later.

I won't speak to the content, but to the style. I browsed a few essays and found that (like many writers, including myself) you are a bit too in love with the sound of your own voice and large vocabulary.

A good rule of thumb is "never use two words where one will do." It has also been said that "if you have to use a thesaurus to find the right word, it's not the right word." I've always thought the second one was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but the point remains the same: simplify, simplify, simplify. Unless you're paid by the word, strip it down to the bare essentials. If you can be objective enough about your own writing, you might be amazed at just how much fluff you can discard.

For example, I recently completed a novel that clocked in at about 175,000 words. Just by going through it a few times and trimming away the unnecessary fat, I've gotten it down to just over 160,000. If it makes it to publication, chances are an editor will have pared it down to around 150,000. The book will be stronger for being more streamlined.

Good luck!

There is something to be said for trimming down but frankly I think it is just a modern fad that short sentences and small words are preferable. There is nothing wrong with a plenitude of verbiage... it can be poetic I think.

Be aware that this is a heterodox position, lol.

Thucydides, being a Diplomacy geek may have caused some bad habits! Maybe you are too used to seeing true meaning concealed behind cryptic and obfuscatory language, big words scooped out of the bulk bin to create a wall o' text that says as little as possible, where confusion and bafflement on the part of the reader are to be desired rather than avoided...

In all seriousness, though, Hemingway championed the "short sentences and small words" style nearly a hundred years ago... and unless he's writing about bullfighting, or a Cuban fisherman fighting to land a marlin, I find him to be one of the dullest writers of all time. So there is a balance that needs to be struck, in my not-so-humble opinion.

If you have an ear for language and an elegant turn of phrase, a bit of florid language can be a beautiful thing. But unless you are in fact a poet, getting your point across in a clear and concise manner is generally preferable to showing off your vocabulary.

I guess what I'm saying is I found synapse's diction clear enough. Far from being obfuscatory I think he was straight to the point and upon looking at it again I think his fault may even be that his wording and organization is too vanilla and straightforward to be considered creative.

Take this sentence:

"Wishing to change the world based on human perspectives is to acknowledge humanist values; to see ourselves as fit enough to dictate the world around us."

That uses entirely straightforward and functional words. I don't see any thesaurus use there.

So what are you driving at?

I'm not interested in cherry-picking a passage that validates my opinion to a stranger on the internet. If you like an overly verbose style that's fantastic for the both of you.

SYnapse asked for a critique, and I obliged. What (admittedly little) I read needed editing and polishing. He says himself at the top of the thread that these are not final drafts, so this should not come as a surprise.

It is up to him to examine that critique, examine his own writing, and decide whether that critique (coming as it does from some stranger on the internet) is valid or not.

I'm not trying to fuck with you, I genuinely want to know what change you're proposing because I second glance it doesn't even seem very wordy, it's a pretty short piece after all.

I'm not trying to say your critique has no basis I just asked you to go into more detail about, that's all!

Thucy is completely correct in this thread.

This transient floccinaucinihilipilification of lexical virtuosity belies a nascent yearning for impoverished discourse.

Drat, I meant to say bespeaks. :-P

Okay, looking back I realize my critique may be less than helpful without specific examples. So in case the author (and Thucy) is still interested...

The first thing I clicked on was "The Case for Our Survival." Based on the opening paragraph, I quickly skimmed the rest of the essay and a few others, and came to the conclusion that it was fairly representative. The paragraph in question reads:

"Although our survival is perpetually at stake as a species we do not often genuinely despair at the thought. The existence of our species lies outside of our control as we helplessly drift through a vast ocean aboard tiny life raft Earth. Yet there are even some people who question whether humans should survive. Consider the following..."

Read the original first sentence versus:
"Humanity's survival is perpetually at stake, but few despair at the thought."
This conveys the same meaning in a less cumbersome fashion.

"Humanity's survival is not guaranteed, and few even consider it."
Even cleaner, and to my mind, more accurate.

"Humanity's survival is far from guaranteed, and few even realize it."
A subtle bit of alliteration is usually good, and the "realize," while perhaps not as accurate, flows better.

Read them all aloud against the original. Which has the best rhythm? Which is the most clunky?

In place of the second sentence you should describe the myriad dangers humans face, for those who hadn't considered it. I wouldn't correct the wording so much as the imagery. Here, I would argue, is where you can purplefy your prose a bit - unleash the horrors of dinosaur-killing asteroids upon your reader, nuclear war, drug-resistant superbugs, whatever your favorite axe is to grind.

Remember: Who is your audience? If you're looking for mutual masturbation among like-minded individuals, I wish those of you in the circle-jerk all the best. But shouldn't you instead be trying to convince a misanthrope like me, who would cheerfully sacrifice a billion strangers for a guaranteed five extra years of healthful longevity for my dog and cat? You need to make me cheer for those plucky humans, surviving against all odds.

Once you've shown how fragile our hold on existence is, then you get to the main theme. The third sentence can be cleaned up a bit as well. Read the original versus:
"Yet there are those who question whether we should survive."

Or you could punch it up a bit and go with:
"There are those who say we shouldn't survive!"

To go any further I'd have to start charging for my services, but this is the stuff I'm talking about. Blow off some of the chaff and it will be a smoother read. Clean it up, find the rhythm.

I think your revisions don't quite capture the original, HR. I think you should use "yet" instead of "and" to capture the "Although" in the original. For example, you say, ""Humanity's survival is not guaranteed, and few even consider it." You should say, ""Humanity's survival is not guaranteed, yet few even consider it."

Of course, this is still not capturing all that the original was. It's different to say that I don't "genuinely despair" and that I don't even consider something. So I'm a little unclear if you are complaining about the style or the substance of the original.

"Genuinely despair" is an awkward phrase that should be cut. For one, it is clunky rhythmically. For two - as opposed to "artificially despair"?

Editing to an extent is a matter of personal taste. My point is he can streamline his prose.

@thucy: re - voluntary human extinction, you said : "Essentially what these people aresaying is that we should all commit suicide because life is suffering. I would recommend you respond to this."

That is not at all what they are saying. No suicide cult. They propose we have no more children and/or raise our children to not have children.

It is a moral position which values each species, and thinks human extinction is better than a mass extinction - a conter arguement could be made that mass extinctions are natural, but that doesn't escape placing the blame for the current mass extinction on us.

A better counter arguement could be that mass extinctions are a good way to clean the slate and allow a huge amount of creativity (new genetic diversity, which would otherwise be impossible)

Interesting item at least.