Re:Broken: What the Hell Happened in East New York?
by ubercore on Friday April 08, 2016 @05:00PM
(#11457904)
I think you're half there, but in the end I stand by it just being kind of poor writing. It's not so much a development of prose tending towards shorter sentences. Rather, the author is making a stylistic choice that uses longer sentences while _also_ loading the sentences with structural aberrations and external, sometimes opaque, references.
I'd argue that it's always been a good idea to use style judiciously in prose, and balance longer more complex sentence structure with fewer references or other oddities. Or load up unusual structure and abstruse language, but keep things shorter.
Re:Broken: What the Hell Happened in East New York?
by kbenson on Friday April 08, 2016 @05:12PM
(#11458020)
I won't deny that longer sentences often seem to be the result of authors trying to shoe-horn more than they should into the sentence, and that appears to be the case here. Length is a bit less subjective (IMO, which of course makes it subjective... ;) though, so I figured it might be easier to approach the argument from that direction.
Long sentences make us keep more state about the current thing we are parsing in our head, as later portions of the sentence may cause reinterpretation of earlier portions.
What you may be seeing is less that people are becoming incapable of reading long-form prose, but more that prose itself has shifted to using shorter sentences and simpler structures, at least in contexts that have to do with reporting.
I don't find it surprising that people that are exposed less to longer, more complex sentence structures will have more problems parsing them correctly. In any event, it's stylistic choice, and one that some may find pleasing, but it does make the work less approachable (those used to longer sentence structures should have no problem with shorter ones, but the opposite is not necessarily true).