Writing for the ear and the eye

I wish someone had taught me this a decade ago -- writing for the ear and writing for the eye call for different priorities.

Writing for the ear necessarily involves more words than writing for the eye. It calls for more words for at least two reasons. First, the words conform to familiar accentual and tonal patterns that keep the hearer attuned and attentive. Studies have shown that we learn these aural patterns before we learn to use words -- the crying of infants reflects the patterns of their native language. Second, the sense of the sentences unfolds at a slower pace, the pace of hearing rather than seeing. The slower pace allows hearers time to make sense out of utterances without missing the next several utterances. Similarly, spoken communication will involve considerable reiteration, a continual circling back, again, to aid sense-making and memory (which is foundational to sense-making).

Writing for the eye involves fewer words. Writing intended for quick, silent reading has different priorities. If the reader's attention fluctuates, if she forgets an earlier bit, or if the sentence doesn't immediately make sense, she can read the same words over again at her leisure. An utterance is gone as soon as it is voiced, but words on a page stay on the page. It does not matter if the words form into euphonious patterns, only that they form grammatical patterns. Repetition is avoided. The most concise manner of expression is favored. New rules hold sway like, "never use two words when one will do." In other words, most of what Strunk and White prescribe prioritizes the eye.

I think that the writing most of us enjoy reading in magazines and novels aims somewhere between these.