I read in an article that the approach that most people take in writing today is that of minimalism. It seems to me, after reading what was written in that article, that there is a controversy among writers about the very thing that has been so firmly upheld in modern writing advice. Do you suppose, in agreement with this principle, that writing must contain only the words that convey an intended thought, in the barest fashion? Do you suppose, in agreement with this principle, that a word is necessary by virtue of its prevalence among readers, and by virtue of its unique meaning in a sentence, but not by the rhythm that it gives it?. Now as far as I can tell, I have used no extra words here, but suppose I did, and it sounded natural. Would I then be a maker of poor writing, because I have not adhered to this philosophy of minimalism? What if I gained perfect rhythm by severely altering the words, so that they were no longer conversational. Would not the rhythm of the words, being perfect, justify the change thereof, sounding in the ear no blemish? If so, what is the fault in my intent, to elevate the sound of my words? I ask for kind and honest opinions. No hostility was intended in my tone. Also, feel free to tell me what sounded bad in my paragraph, but in a kind way. Also, here is a question: How would you define the difference between ornate prose and purple prose?