Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura
So are you saying that writers don't follow any rules at all? They have to follow certain standards of a language, otherwise no one would take them seriously. You won't find a writer leaving useless content in a story because it dilutes the book/document. It is worthless wording that gets in the way. If you can't send your message, then you don't get your point across.
When you want to state a complex idea or thought, that demands more words than a simple action; but if you simplify it too much, you no longer state your idea. If your idea is not stated, either you have too much noise(interference); you are using too many, too few, or are badly wording your message.
I'm reading a book now, Ulysses by James Joyce. The author throws quite a few grammatical conventions out the window, drops verbs and is VERY wordy:
Originally Posted by Ulysses p. 381
Mr Bloom stooped and turned over a piece of paper on the strand. He brought it near his eyes and peered. Letter? No can't read. Better go. Better. I'm tired to move. Page of an old copybook. All those holes and pebbles. Who could count them? Never know what you find. Bottle with a story of a treasure in it thrown from a wreck. Parcels post. Children always want to throw things into the sea. Trust? Bread cast on the waters. What's this? Bit of stick.
Now, I wonder: could he have written the same book without the "fluff" and with proper grammar, as you suggest he should have? Yes- in a sense. In any case, it might have the same characters' names, but the feel of the book would be completely different. It would also have been, in my opinion, extraordinarily boring.
The reason I decided to read Ulysses is because I loved the style. In fact, I had no idea what the story was supposed to be about when I heard of it; I had only read an essay and found discovered later that it was similar to Joyce's style.
Writing is not limited to conveying ideas, you know, and not everything that is necessary for a piece of literature serves to transmit one.