Is less, in fact, more?

I’ve always been of the impression that, the more descriptive, the most vivid and explanatory of adjectives used, an use of the most elongated sentences, would surely result in the most impactful communication.  But this may not always be the rule in writing, nor in communication. It may be in our modern era of discourse that the cut-and-dry approach yields the most desirable impact.

I believe descriptive, elaborative speech is something to be cherished as a private, introspectively focused message. This dialogue is intended to move us internally and stir our senses with flourish and masterfully orchestrated arrangements of linguistics. Examples may be a speech at a college graduation, a sermon, a business seminar, group meeting, or even a political rally. The messages delivered are designed to appeal to you in a passionate, deeply stirring manner.  And are they are eloquently worded?  Are these discourses masterfully crafted? Of course they are.  Do you feel driven, and charged, and committed when faced with the flurry of descriptors and motivational phraseology drilled into your brain?

Yes that’s the idea.

But what of the phrases that have little flourish?

I love you.

I hate you.

I’m sad.

I’m hurting.

Please listen.

Please stop.

Sorry.

Sorry too.

We should.

We tried.

You shouldn’t have!

You should have told me.

Are any less impactful than an elaborately constructed tirade, or lavish poetic utterance?

Context certainly affords flexibility in this discourse.

I have found myself verbose in type, yet reserved in speech.  Does this find me a neglector in the flesh or a charlatan on the page?   Are both considerations equally acceptable?

When I change the prior role, must I then completely reverse ideologies?

Or, might I simply be doing, speaking, typing, writing, and playing in a manner that is truly genuine, all of the time?

Are you doing the same?

Humbly yours,

J