Read on Twitter
Incoming thread on writing and game design re generalizations, hedging, and superlatives. All three see common usage, but they’re hard to do well. I know. I've made all these mistakes at some point. I'm thankful I had mentors and colleagues to free me from these illusions. 1/
As editor and technical editor (or developer), I've seen misuse of generalizations, hedging, and superlatives a lot. I’ve also seen them in preproof passes, added during other phases of editing. Allow me to pay the help I had forward if you like. 2/
Generalizations speak of common or majority traits. Frex, you write, "Half-demons have horns." Do all half-demons have horns? Not if you accept what a generalization is. Generalizations have exceptions and read as having them. 3/
A generalization describes truth without acknowledging exceptions. Generalizations simplify statements for quick understanding. If you can imagine an exception, you’re within bounds about that exception. And the exception’s existence doesn't make a generalization untrue. 4/
Imprecise generalizations can lead to trouble. We see that in combining “Half-demons are people” and “Half-demons are evil.” For world-building, pairing these generalizations is a problem. The latter requires reframing and more explanation after that rework. 5/
Careful construction and exceptions build from generalization to complex understanding. Exceptions work to refine a generalization’s simplified meaning. They can seem to contradict when better defining. That's part of the charm of additive comprehension. 6/
Aside: Additive comprehension (AC) is when new information requires us to revise our understanding. AC works in fiction and game design, narrative and mechanics. Human communication requires AC. Artistic expression, including game design, can use AC as a device. 7/
It has been generalized that generalizations without exceptions are rules. That claim seems incorrect. Game rules are generalizations layered with complexity built of exceptions. They’re still called rules to ease understanding of their context. 8/
The context of a generalization is simplifying a concept into a digestible form. But because a generalization constructed with care is still imprecise, the temptation to hedge is strong. Sometimes, hedging is okay. Like that... and this--“Most half-demons have horns.” 9/
The problem with hedging is that your statements can sound wishy-washy or weaselly. And being a weasel doesn’t absolve you of explaining your exceptions. When you say, “Most half-demons have horns,” you’ve taken on the responsibility to explain that “most.” 10/
But you had a responsibility to explain that “most” already if you know that “Half-demons have horns” has exceptions. Then, too, the “most” isn’t doing any real work in conveying your intent. Especially so if you leave “most” without further explanation. 11/
I’ve seen editors, whom I admire, add weasel words to passages to soften a generalization. “Generally, half-demons have horns.” This addition does nothing to aid the text. It's worse if the exceptions have later explanations. And it sounds noncommittal. Is it true, or not? 12/
As an editor, I cut weasel words without mercy. If a generalization lacks exceptions, it stands and allows for later exceptions. If the writing explains exceptions, or exceptions are known to exist, reframing is on the table. But the text doesn’t need to be watered down. 13/
Attempting to write generalizations and explaining the exceptions requires more care than hedging. And text is clearer for the effort. Avoid weasel words whenever possible. Find a way to do without them, as a writer or an editor. 14/
Weasel words are junk we can do without. We can also do without generalizations with superlatives. “Half-demons always have horns.” With that “always” you’ve made the generalization an exceptionless rule, an absolute. That's bad enough, but... 15/
…you’ve also painted further creation based on your statement into a corner. Generalizations aren’t absolutes on their own. A generalization is useful for simplifying a complex notion. Absolutist statements are, instead, editorial nightmares in fiction. 16/
Superlatives are editorial nightmares in mechanical design, too. That “always” or “never” is likely to be a careless addition. We can make snarky generalizations about it. Such sloppiness, such lack of foresight, is worthy of spite. Avoid that usage. 17/
Absolutes are editorial nightmares in mechanical design, too. That “always” or “never” is likely to be a careless addition. We can make snarky generalizations about the usage. Such sloppiness, such lack of foresight, is worthy of spite. Avoid it. 18/
In game design or fiction, a superlative creates an absolute or seems like one. And it's unneeded. I’ve yet to see a superlative that was necessary for the mechanic or fiction. The usage only creates problems when a derived work needs or needs to be an exception. 19/
And, believe me, in year two of a game’s life, you’ll find a need for that exception. Then you or your editor will run across that superlative. Pandelerium ensues. Do you contradict the absolute claim already made? Or do you ignore it? These discussions are mind numbing. 20/
As an unneeded weasel word weakens text, so does an unneeded superlative. Consider that need before using either. Give a superlative more scrutiny, though. It’s cutting out possibilities, while a hedging word opens them up, if in a messy way. 21/
Any of these usages requires more care when applied to imaginary people or imaginary abhorrent behavior. It’s not enough to assume the audience members know what you mean. It’s not enough to assume they understand the exceptions. 22/
Generalizations about imaginary people are among the dangerous or faulty ones. So are those supporting terrible behavior in non-villains. Everyone knows slavery is evil, right? We don't need to say the slavers are baddies, right? Wrong. Say what you mean. 23/
Take a critical eye to generalizations in your writing and design. Be skeptical when you see weasel words or superlatives. Must you hedge? Must you declare absolutes? That eye will help make your writing stronger. Your creations will convey your intent. 24/
Aside: Mind the gaps, those spaces you leave in your fiction or design, that people fill with their assumptions. They can be okay, as in “fire whale,” or not so much, as in “all orcs are evil.” But such gaps are a topic for another day. 25/
This thread is full of generalizations. (Not rules.) They have exceptions, too. And I did a little hedging. Old habits, you know? But I hope they’re useful to you in thinking about and doing writing, design, and editing. Thanks for reading, regardless. 26/26
