i don’t expect (nor want) everyone else to subscribe to my POV.

i don’t even expect (or necessarily want) for me to continue subscribing to this same POV.

it’s just something i’m feeling at this moment in time. it’s a pattern in the overall progression.

[it's kind of like handplants - i'm working on handplants this season on the snowboard.]

eventually this will become something that i’m no longer focusing on, but just part of my riding / writing style.

but in the meantime, the point in making these notes is to raise awareness. i believe that ppl use codified language, as you explain in your response without ‘intending to’ . . .

i think they become embedded in the ways we communicate.

i go into a bit more analysis of why and how in this piece: http://thetravelersnotebook.com/notes-on-writing/notes-on-codification-and-commodification-in-travel-writing/

What I was labeling as ‘extremist’ (somewhat harshly I will admit) was the opinion you wrote about what I consider a perfectly valid writing style.

You’re entitled to your opinion of course, as am I and all readers – what I was trying to do by my comment was provide some balance to your article and the commenters praising you by pointing out that not everybody (or even everybody who reads on here) subscribes to your point of view. I think that’s a reasonable thing to do.

What I meant by my postscript was: writing that resorts to piling cliche on cliche rapidly becomes lacking in any kind of entertainment value (except as ironic pastiche perhaps) and I was trying to clarify that I do not support that kind of writing. However I am arguing that your view of the style of writing you’re critically deconstructing is not a view I subscribe to, in fact that view is one I consider ‘extremist’ – again I apologise for the emotional implication behind the word extremist, I was struggling to find a word that describes a view I find overly critical without adequate reason.

By the way – in my previous comment (and this reply) I was not *deliberately* using or intending to use any kind of tactic or codified language as you describe – I was simply writing what I thought/believed. Ascribing intention in that respect to me credits me in a way I do not deserve (positive or negative).

when truth becomes irrelevant then writing is meaningless.

here is the pattern: as rhetoric and abstractions are added, truth begins to disappear.

for example, labeling the way i read as ‘an extremist view’ obfuscates the truth of your description / sentence / overall writing style.

instead of examining the language itself, you’re using a rhetorical trick, a way of ‘wrapping up’ your argument using a catchphrase or bit of codified language that may (or may not) resonate with other readers, and then contrasting it to an abstraction, ‘perfectly fair writing.’

if i were to ‘engage in’ this same ‘tactic’, i might end this response with some catchphrase / rhetorical construction like:

“but what writer ever wanted to produce perfectly fair writing?”

but (a) that’s not the way i ‘argue’ (for or against abstractions) and (b) i’m not exactly sure what you really mean by that postscript.

I think perhaps you are. The phrases you deconstruct are constructed in just those ways to entertain, -and- to lead you to conclusions that the author has reached. He could of course have written the article as a series of simple bullet points with no ‘fluff’ around them, but there are many people (myself included, though I’m not pretending to speak here for any kind of fictional ‘majority’) who appreciate the entertaining kind of writing that I believe includes many of these cliched and (in your terms) fallacious sentence constructions.

You appear to me to be demanding facts without opinion, and/or “only the truth” – neither of which are the (sole) points of writing. If travel writing were to avoid all cliches and all fallaciousness, it would be very boring indeed in my opinion – and almost certainly cater for a smaller segment of the intended audience. If ‘purity’ is your goal, then you are arguing persuasively, but purity can be pretty dull.

Travel writing may be classified as non-fiction, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be entertaining, persuasive, tear-jerking, argumentative, manipulative if the writer deems it necessary, and yes, even fallacious. It’s writing – it’s not a logical dissertation where only unadorned facts may be presented.

“the truth is always funny. and sad.”

No it isn’t – the truth is quite often boring, and frequently irrelevant. “Truth seeking” is a particular style of travel writing, but it is only one of many styles that may be used with perfect validity. Perception (of truth) is at least as valid, certainly in terms of travel writing.

As a postscript I’ll add that I’m -not- arguing -for- cliche-ridden pieces that completely ignore all facts – I’m simply arguing against an extremist view of perfectly fair writing.

perhaps i’m being myopic, reading every line without making distinctions, just running it all through some kind of authenticity filter.

i know people who are like that in real life–they can instantaneously see through people’s fronts and are really good at calling them out.

that’s not how i am in real life though. i’m really just kind of quiet / shy.

but as far as how i read: i’m not aware of filtering the stuff; i just do. i’m constantly looking at every word and sort of unconsciously asking myself ‘what is the narrator intending here? is this real?’

actually it doesn’t feel like that at all. it’s more like constantly looking for stoke, for truth, which, like really good wave conditions, offshore winds, barrels, seems so damn infrequent.

the only time i can fully ‘let my guard down’ is when reading pieces that seem written in states of total desperation, written from states where it feels like the author had two choices–either they write it or they kill themselves. ‘notes from underground’ by dostoevsky comes to mind for some reason. a lot of DFW’s stuff, but then he killed himself anyway.

the irony i think is that these super desperate pieces, by the necessity of their truth seeking–are funny. the truth is always funny. and sad.

so back to tom’s piece: i didn’t think of it as a ‘humor piece’ because it didn’t make me laugh.

it didn’t feel like the ‘true tom’. it felt like it was ‘tom trying to be funny.’

i wouldn’t be surprised if the ‘true tom’ was actually hilarious.

either way, i feel like maybe the second half of my comment (the ‘famous filtering’ or whatever) was left in a slightly mean-spirited or just ’smart ass’ way, which isn’t ‘the true dm’ either.

Overall, I found this article very informative, and applicable beyond just travel writing.

Feel like I’m watching Fox News. “Who doesn’t love America?” It’s impossible to refute the point at face value without coming off as a dick/ingrate/terrorist. Fortunately there’s airtime online for the necessary deconstruction.

Great piece, David.

David, you somehow manage to take things I read that bug me but I can’t put a finger on why, or that I don’t even notice as being a fallacy, and breaking it down perfectly. Casual reductionism – I am going to remember that term, because shit, do I ever see it all the time.

Just awesome. Thanks for this article.