A good goal for writers in the digital age is to be as incompressible as possible. This is related to, but not the same as, seeking density. 100 words that can only be compressed down to 90 by most reader is better than 50,000 which can be reduced to 1 tweet by most readers
Conversation
The more incompressible you are, the more your reach will be indirect, via the few people who put in the work to read it
One reason it’s possible for even no-reach beginners to feel genuine pity for Tom Friedman is that The World is Flat is pretty well summarized by its title
3
13
At the other extreme, James Carse Finite and Infinite Games is almost incompressible *despite* being highly redundant and repetitive
1
17
But the people who *have* put in the work to read Carse have all been way more deeply influenced by it. I’ve read both. I never cite World is Flat except as a joke. I cite or use Carse almost every other thing I write. Often in a foundational way.
1
8
Replying to
Inequalities:
ubiquity is not endurance
endurance is not influence
influence is is not consequentiality
1
1
10
Compressing does not lead to incompressibilty though. If you write a very good summary of a book it could still be further summarized as “like that other summary except with this 1 extra point”.
Incompressibility requires differentiation by adding integral original elements.
2
1
7
Replying to
what does compressibility accomplish, negating the need to actually read the work?

