What do you think?
Rate this book
Clear and Simple as the Truth: Writing Classic Prose
For more than a decade, Clear and Simple as the Truth has guided readers to consider style not as an elegant accessory of effective prose but as its very heart. Francis-No�l Thomas and Mark Turner present writing as an intellectual activity, not a passive application of verbal skills. In classic style, the motive is truth, the purpose is presentation, the reader and writer are intellectual equals, and the occasion is informal. This general style of presentation is at home everywhere, from business memos to personal letters and from magazine articles to student essays. Everyone talks about style, but no one explains it. The authors of this book do; and in doing so, they provoke the reader to consider style, not as an elegant accessory of effective prose, but as its very heart.
At a time when writing skills have virtually disappeared, what can be done? If only people learned the principles of verbal correctness, the essential rules, wouldn't good prose simply fall into place? Thomas and Turner say no. Attending to rules of grammar, sense, and sentence structure will no more lead to effective prose than knowing the mechanics of a golf swing will lead to a hole-in-one. Furthermore, ten-step programs to better writing exacerbate the problem by failing to recognize, as Thomas and Turner point out, that there are many styles with different standards.
The book is divided into four parts. The first, Principles of Classic Style, defines the style and contrasts it with a number of others. The Museum is a guided tour through examples of writing, both exquisite and execrable. The Studio, new to this edition, presents a series of structured exercises. Finally, Further Readings in Classic Prose offers a list of additional examples drawn from a range of times, places, and subjects. A companion website, classicprose.com, offers supplementary examples, exhibits, and commentary, and features a selection of pieces written by students in courses that used Clear and Simple as the Truth as a textbook.
At a time when writing skills have virtually disappeared, what can be done? If only people learned the principles of verbal correctness, the essential rules, wouldn't good prose simply fall into place? Thomas and Turner say no. Attending to rules of grammar, sense, and sentence structure will no more lead to effective prose than knowing the mechanics of a golf swing will lead to a hole-in-one. Furthermore, ten-step programs to better writing exacerbate the problem by failing to recognize, as Thomas and Turner point out, that there are many styles with different standards.
The book is divided into four parts. The first, Principles of Classic Style, defines the style and contrasts it with a number of others. The Museum is a guided tour through examples of writing, both exquisite and execrable. The Studio, new to this edition, presents a series of structured exercises. Finally, Further Readings in Classic Prose offers a list of additional examples drawn from a range of times, places, and subjects. A companion website, classicprose.com, offers supplementary examples, exhibits, and commentary, and features a selection of pieces written by students in courses that used Clear and Simple as the Truth as a textbook.
272 pages, Paperback
First published November 25, 1994
130 people are currently reading
2129 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 63 reviews
May 4, 2011
This is not Strunk and White.
And it's not really about sentences and phrases.
It's about ontology--which Thomas and Turner call 'theology.'
Basically, there was a way of writing that begins in earnest around Descartes' "Discourse on Method," was widely adopted by French writers of the 17th century, and can be found in American writers from Franklin and Jefferson to Samuel Clemens to A. J. Liebling.
Thomas and Turner dub this mode of writing "the classic style." The classic style assumes that reality is orderly and capable of being represented: think Foucault's classical episteme, but applied to style--that will give you an idea of the power of T&T's insight.
The classic style argues without seeming to argue. All the work of presentation is hidden. Everything is laid out for the reader to find. The audience is assumed to have the same powers and capacities as the writer. The only appeals made are to facts, inspection, and an assumed common intelligence and set of cultural coordinates. The classic style is not the plain style: it does not assume all knowledge boils down to universal verities; it does not make truth simple; the classic style is always one degree removed from the plain style. In short, the audience is "universal"--even though this universality is a construct.
Most interesting for me: Thomas & Turner distinguish classic writing from practical writing. Practical writing is what you find in business memo's--and scholarship. It's specialists talking to each other about technical problems. Practical writing doesn't assume universal knowledge; it assumes a practical orientation--an orientation towards common ends and arguments about means, you might say.
In short, T&T 'explain' why scholarly writing cannot reach a wide audience: it's a business memo for folks with Ph.D.'s. Those who can write for a wide audience, those few, pass over to a different domain: the public intellectual--often looked down on as 'popularizers' by the specialists.
In short, this is a book about writing, but it's also much much more.
The second half of the book, a 'museum' of examples all elegantly glossed, is worth the price of admission.
Buy it if you think and care about writing.
Otherwise, just stick with your Strunk & White. What about the world could have changed since 1935?
And it's not really about sentences and phrases.
It's about ontology--which Thomas and Turner call 'theology.'
Basically, there was a way of writing that begins in earnest around Descartes' "Discourse on Method," was widely adopted by French writers of the 17th century, and can be found in American writers from Franklin and Jefferson to Samuel Clemens to A. J. Liebling.
Thomas and Turner dub this mode of writing "the classic style." The classic style assumes that reality is orderly and capable of being represented: think Foucault's classical episteme, but applied to style--that will give you an idea of the power of T&T's insight.
The classic style argues without seeming to argue. All the work of presentation is hidden. Everything is laid out for the reader to find. The audience is assumed to have the same powers and capacities as the writer. The only appeals made are to facts, inspection, and an assumed common intelligence and set of cultural coordinates. The classic style is not the plain style: it does not assume all knowledge boils down to universal verities; it does not make truth simple; the classic style is always one degree removed from the plain style. In short, the audience is "universal"--even though this universality is a construct.
Most interesting for me: Thomas & Turner distinguish classic writing from practical writing. Practical writing is what you find in business memo's--and scholarship. It's specialists talking to each other about technical problems. Practical writing doesn't assume universal knowledge; it assumes a practical orientation--an orientation towards common ends and arguments about means, you might say.
In short, T&T 'explain' why scholarly writing cannot reach a wide audience: it's a business memo for folks with Ph.D.'s. Those who can write for a wide audience, those few, pass over to a different domain: the public intellectual--often looked down on as 'popularizers' by the specialists.
In short, this is a book about writing, but it's also much much more.
The second half of the book, a 'museum' of examples all elegantly glossed, is worth the price of admission.
Buy it if you think and care about writing.
Otherwise, just stick with your Strunk & White. What about the world could have changed since 1935?
November 12, 2020
Moved to gwern.net.
February 25, 2013
We have all read books that tackled complex subjects with clarity and elegance such that when we finished, we felt we understood exactly what the author wanted us to. We have also read books that required hard work and page flipping that left us more impressed by the author’s convoluted argument than by what he wanted us to know. The goal of “Clear and Simple” is to educate then train the reader in a writing style designed to achieve the former outcome. Writers of academic, technical, pedagogic or even journalistic material can benefit from reading and reflecting on this book.
The authors tell us, “Most of us have no unconscious writing style available to use when, after becoming engaged in a problem, we have thought it through, reached confident conclusions, and want to make our thought accessible to a permanent but unspecified audience. Even the best-educated members of our society commonly lack a routine style for presenting the result of their own engagement with a problem to people outside their own profession. Writers with a need to address such readers invented classic style.”
Their use of the word style is distinguished from style as presented in many writing manuals, such as the “Chicago Manual of Style” or “The Elements of Style” by Strunk and White. Those books focus on usage and grammar or what the authors call etiquette. They are not opposed to these manuals, but they believe them insufficient to make good writers. Style as used in this book refers to the manner of expression as determined by the answers to questions about the nature of truth, the manner of presentation, the scene and participants in the presentation and the nature of thought and language.
The classic style assumes that:
1. Truth is accessible and can be communicated effectively to non-specialists.
2. Presentation is transparent so the truth being communicated is not obstructed by the writing itself.
3. The scene is one person speaking to another. The writing is linear, to be read from start to finish without a built-in requirement to move back and forth across the text.
4. The writer is thoroughly versed in the subject matter and though the reader is not, the reader is capable of understanding once the argument is laid out.
5. The writer has previously organized the content and language is capable of expressing that content.
These characteristics are illustrated with numerous examples and counter examples from well-known writers. The examples themselves are fascinating and will encourage the reader to search out the sources to read further.
There are other styles available to writers that can be used to achieve different effects with different audiences. What distinguishes the classic style is “the stand that the writer knows something before he sets out to write, and that his purpose is to articulate what he knows to a reader.” To show how this works in practice a major section of the book contrasts the classic style with other styles, specifically the plain, reflexive, practical, romantic, prophetic, and oratorical styles.
The second half of the book contains a “museum” of examples to reinforce the concept of the classic style and a section of exercises the reader can use to develop skill in this style.
One final word. The book itself is written in the classic style, but I don’t think it uses the style quite as well as it describes it. I found it meandered and required me to go back and scan it a second time to really follow the flow. Still, it is a useful book and enjoyable to read.
The authors tell us, “Most of us have no unconscious writing style available to use when, after becoming engaged in a problem, we have thought it through, reached confident conclusions, and want to make our thought accessible to a permanent but unspecified audience. Even the best-educated members of our society commonly lack a routine style for presenting the result of their own engagement with a problem to people outside their own profession. Writers with a need to address such readers invented classic style.”
Their use of the word style is distinguished from style as presented in many writing manuals, such as the “Chicago Manual of Style” or “The Elements of Style” by Strunk and White. Those books focus on usage and grammar or what the authors call etiquette. They are not opposed to these manuals, but they believe them insufficient to make good writers. Style as used in this book refers to the manner of expression as determined by the answers to questions about the nature of truth, the manner of presentation, the scene and participants in the presentation and the nature of thought and language.
The classic style assumes that:
1. Truth is accessible and can be communicated effectively to non-specialists.
2. Presentation is transparent so the truth being communicated is not obstructed by the writing itself.
3. The scene is one person speaking to another. The writing is linear, to be read from start to finish without a built-in requirement to move back and forth across the text.
4. The writer is thoroughly versed in the subject matter and though the reader is not, the reader is capable of understanding once the argument is laid out.
5. The writer has previously organized the content and language is capable of expressing that content.
These characteristics are illustrated with numerous examples and counter examples from well-known writers. The examples themselves are fascinating and will encourage the reader to search out the sources to read further.
There are other styles available to writers that can be used to achieve different effects with different audiences. What distinguishes the classic style is “the stand that the writer knows something before he sets out to write, and that his purpose is to articulate what he knows to a reader.” To show how this works in practice a major section of the book contrasts the classic style with other styles, specifically the plain, reflexive, practical, romantic, prophetic, and oratorical styles.
The second half of the book contains a “museum” of examples to reinforce the concept of the classic style and a section of exercises the reader can use to develop skill in this style.
One final word. The book itself is written in the classic style, but I don’t think it uses the style quite as well as it describes it. I found it meandered and required me to go back and scan it a second time to really follow the flow. Still, it is a useful book and enjoyable to read.
December 21, 2024
Provides an excellent vision for what writing instruction "beyond the basics" should look like, turning to the classical tradition for inspiration rather than encouraging either dry conformity (Strunk and White) or subjective whims (the loosey-goosey "I-Search" approach) in growing writers. I've always been convinced that the finest way to improve one's writing is to read and imitate good writing across a variety of genres, and this book is a great way to start doing that. I do have a few disagreements along the way (i.e. I don't think "classic style" and classical oratorical style are really all that different) and the book itself could be written in more engaging fashion, but heeding its perspective could produce some major inroads to reforming the totally preventable crisis in student writing (and, heck, in adult writing too).
December 29, 2014
I discovered this through the first half of Stephen Pinker's new book being little more than an extended advertisement for — and extended summary of — it. It wasn't until reading this, however, that I realised I'd been placing the emphasis in the wrong place when telling everyone about Pinker's version of it. I'd previously been talking about ‘classic style’ as if it were style that is, er, classic. But it really makes much more sense to stress it the other way around — it's not so much about style-that-is-classic, as the-style-of-a-classic.
The author set out various characteristics of a classic (non-fiction) book, but they mostly boil down to the classic being the book that clearly expresses the truth of any topic to an intelligent, but non-specialist reader, in a way that starkly reveals how every other book was simply too complex to be widely understood.
Then they proceed to describe how exactly to write a book like that, and demonstrating, with copious examples, how it's generally superior to many other styles of writing. (They certainly don't believe it's the only valid style of writing; more just that writers should carefully choose which style they're going to use, and know the strengths and weaknesses of each for getting their ideas across.)
This is not only the best book I've ever read on how to write, but even as someone who simply reads a lot of non-fiction, it has given me a lot more clarity on why I find the style of a lot of books difficult or infuriating. Increasingly I'm finding authors falling back on a style of writing that is more characteristic of a college essay, and this book did a great job of helping me understand why exactly that grates on me so much. Very highly recommended for both readers and writers. ★★★★★
The author set out various characteristics of a classic (non-fiction) book, but they mostly boil down to the classic being the book that clearly expresses the truth of any topic to an intelligent, but non-specialist reader, in a way that starkly reveals how every other book was simply too complex to be widely understood.
Then they proceed to describe how exactly to write a book like that, and demonstrating, with copious examples, how it's generally superior to many other styles of writing. (They certainly don't believe it's the only valid style of writing; more just that writers should carefully choose which style they're going to use, and know the strengths and weaknesses of each for getting their ideas across.)
This is not only the best book I've ever read on how to write, but even as someone who simply reads a lot of non-fiction, it has given me a lot more clarity on why I find the style of a lot of books difficult or infuriating. Increasingly I'm finding authors falling back on a style of writing that is more characteristic of a college essay, and this book did a great job of helping me understand why exactly that grates on me so much. Very highly recommended for both readers and writers. ★★★★★
October 6, 2019
I’ve read the classical style all my life and never knew it was a thing. Really enjoyed diving in and analyzing its strengths and some appropriate occasions for it.
August 30, 2017
Truth exists, it is accessible to the author, and can be communicated to the reader with clarity. Presentation is distinct from description. The imagined setting of the communication is that of one person (the author) pointing out something to the other person (the reader); the reader is interested in the subject, intellectually and aesthetically equal to the author, but less knowledgeable. Writing is an intellectual ability that hides its work, arriving at perfect expression without acknowledging the preparation.
These are some of the underlying assumptions—the dogmas or theology—of “classic style.” Notably, this style comes with an epistemological stance, it is not a collection of surface decisions about word choice, subject matter, level of abstraction, or use of the Oxford comma. Nor is this book. Clear and Simple as the Truth views the act of writing as an intellectual activity grounded in an aesthetic and epistemological stance, of which classic style is one.
Classic styles differs from other styles. For instance, “reflexive” style is cognisant and explicit about the qualifications and restrictions of its statements; while classic style deliberately hides them. “Romantic” style focusses on the individuality and uniqueness of the author’s subjective perceptions and experiences, while classic style aspires to universal and objective insights. Plain, practical, prophetic, and oratorical styles and be similarly contrasted with classic style. The book’s thorough presentation of what classic style is, and what it is not, is a model of clarity and precision.
Once the style is understood, the reader is ready to be shown excerpts from various genres, literary traditions, and time periods; the authors point out how these examples achieve (or fail to achieve, and sometimes eschew) the classic stand. A final chapter of exercises guides the aspiring writer towards a classic stance.
Classic style is a choice, with vices and limitations. I loved the fuck out of this book.
These are some of the underlying assumptions—the dogmas or theology—of “classic style.” Notably, this style comes with an epistemological stance, it is not a collection of surface decisions about word choice, subject matter, level of abstraction, or use of the Oxford comma. Nor is this book. Clear and Simple as the Truth views the act of writing as an intellectual activity grounded in an aesthetic and epistemological stance, of which classic style is one.
Classic styles differs from other styles. For instance, “reflexive” style is cognisant and explicit about the qualifications and restrictions of its statements; while classic style deliberately hides them. “Romantic” style focusses on the individuality and uniqueness of the author’s subjective perceptions and experiences, while classic style aspires to universal and objective insights. Plain, practical, prophetic, and oratorical styles and be similarly contrasted with classic style. The book’s thorough presentation of what classic style is, and what it is not, is a model of clarity and precision.
Once the style is understood, the reader is ready to be shown excerpts from various genres, literary traditions, and time periods; the authors point out how these examples achieve (or fail to achieve, and sometimes eschew) the classic stand. A final chapter of exercises guides the aspiring writer towards a classic stance.
Classic style is a choice, with vices and limitations. I loved the fuck out of this book.
March 28, 2016
Rarely do I read a book that completely upends and transforms the way I think and practice something. Clear and Simple as the Truth: Writing Classic Prose, Second Edition is one of these gems. I have long struggled with finding my own voice in writing, to break free of the shackles of academic writing and its pernicious obfuscation. This book is helping me finally develop the clear, simple, but never bland voice that I have long sought.
The writing reflects the "classic style" that the book teaches. I like how "classic" pieces are juxtaposed with non-classic pieces. The contrast is helpful. I also like that the authors note that there is no one "correct" style. Different situations and circumstances call for styles appropriate for these contexts.
The exercises at the end are wonderful.
If you want to improve your writing, I highly recommend this book!
The writing reflects the "classic style" that the book teaches. I like how "classic" pieces are juxtaposed with non-classic pieces. The contrast is helpful. I also like that the authors note that there is no one "correct" style. Different situations and circumstances call for styles appropriate for these contexts.
The exercises at the end are wonderful.
If you want to improve your writing, I highly recommend this book!
April 4, 2024
A fucking MASTERPIECE!
July 7, 2016
I love quirky books like this that shine a bright and narrow beam on a topic I didn't know I was interested in.
The classic style as defined here is very French, but its pretense since its origin is that it is universal and timeless, and so it is: a wonderful artifice for presenting Truth.
Now, I want to read Euclid!
The classic style as defined here is very French, but its pretense since its origin is that it is universal and timeless, and so it is: a wonderful artifice for presenting Truth.
Now, I want to read Euclid!
March 27, 2021
One of the best books I read on writing. Unlike many writing books, which focus on surface issues such as punctuation, this book shows how to think about writing as an intellectual endeavor. The authors provide frameworks, supported by countless examples, on how to write classic-style texts, which are suitable for use whether you only write at work or you do writing as a profession.
October 8, 2016
A perfect book. I loved its precision, and the beauty of the classic style, which is shown to endure translation from French, German, Spanish. Not for hacks, just for cracks!
August 10, 2021
Excellent reading for a serious writer.
April 17, 2017
The teaching of writing in America is almost entirely controlled by the view that teaching writing is teaching verbal skills—from the placing of commas to the ordering of paragraphs.
I loved this from the first paragraph. Even in literary writing we are told that we should write to be listened to rather than write to be read. The exercise of reading your work out loud is treated not as an exercise to help find problems with your writing but as an end that assumes any problems reading are automatically problems.
Which is not to say that classic style can’t be presented orally. Classic style is about assuming your own competence and your reader’s as well as the worth of the topic. It is especially handy for guidebooks.
Classic style is especially about taking the stance that there is truth, and this truth can be communicated.
In comparing classic style to “reflexive style”:
When we open a cookbook, we completely put aside—and expect the author to put aside—the kind of question that leads to the heart of certain philosophic and religious traditions. Is it possible to talk about cooking? Do eggs really exist? Is food something about which knowledge is possible? These questions may lead to enlightenment or to satori; they do not lead to satisfying dinners.
The second part of the book contains examples of classic style and not classic style, and explanations of why.
This is a humorous and interesting guide to a style of writing that has been around since the Greeks. It puts classic style in perspective compared to several other styles, and makes its strengths and weaknesses plain.
July 14, 2020
This book is for a very specific group of people, a group I am not a member of. I came upon this book after a recommendation Steven Pinker made in his book "Sense of Style". In his book, he highly praised a style of writing known as "classic style". It is a style of writing that is accessible to both reader and writer and a standard to strive for.
This book however, was very difficult for me to get through. My attention ebbed and flowed. And for a book entirely based on the concept distilling any concept in to something simple and accessible, I found most of it very confusing.
The book is broken up into 3 parts. I found the 2nd part most useful. It is titled "The Museum" and provides numerous examples of classic style excerpted from various texts and then provides an analysis on why the piece is deemed classic. But overall, getting through the book felt like a chore aaaand my writing still sucks!
This book however, was very difficult for me to get through. My attention ebbed and flowed. And for a book entirely based on the concept distilling any concept in to something simple and accessible, I found most of it very confusing.
The book is broken up into 3 parts. I found the 2nd part most useful. It is titled "The Museum" and provides numerous examples of classic style excerpted from various texts and then provides an analysis on why the piece is deemed classic. But overall, getting through the book felt like a chore aaaand my writing still sucks!
March 30, 2013
No. Just. No. This was assigned reading for class. There was exactly one part that I liked, but the rest was wasted on me because I have very little personal interest in the classic style. Sure, this book has value, and it teaches something that's worth knowing. It's just that I personally don't find its content worth knowing, at least not right now.
Want to read
March 16, 2008Recommended in The Situation and the Story.
October 31, 2014
This book actually has some interesting things to say about style, but my God, the prose! It's so murky and dense and academic as to be almost unreadable.
November 1, 2018
I loved this book. One reason is the authors’ concession that classic style is but one of many valid styles of writing. Another is that the book is written in a way that exemplifies the style that it proposes. The book is in two parts of roughly equal length. The first half defines and describes classic style, the second half is a “Museum,” writing samples, mostly classic, but not all, with analysis by the authors. The book concludes with an appendix listing some books written in classic style, beginning with Audubon Field Guides, but covering many fields, from history and science to sport and cooking. It features not only Thucydides and Pascal, but also Jane Austen and Louise Brooks.
What is classic style? In one sense, it is a mode of writing practiced by a group of writers such as Descartes in 17th century France. Yet, as the authors show, it is not exclusive to French prose. They cite examples from American, British, Spanish and German authors.
One of the chief hallmarks of classic style is that it is disinterested. It doesn’t argue, it doesn’t have anything to sell. Its aim is to present clearly — to be a window on what it presents. This could be something as concrete as a tree or a painting, or something as abstract as quantum mechanics.
I liked the authors’ subtle distinction that the classic style is elitist but not exclusive. By elitist, they mean that those who write in classic style imagine a reader who, like them, expends the effort and discipline necessary to “get the essential things right” (p. 49). It is an open elite, however; anyone can join. The stance the practitioner of classic style takes toward his or her reader is conversational. It is a meeting of minds on an equal footing. The writer assumes that the reader would see things the same way if he were to stand in the same place.
Thomas and Turner outline further characteristics of classic style, in each case a decision about matters such as “cast,” “scene,” “language” and “thought,” as well as the enabling conventions that underly the style: certain decisions about the nature of truth and other matters. It is part of the honesty of the authors that they admit that classic style is inadequate for treating some topics: “The theology behind classic style does not admit that there is anything that counts as truth that cannot be presented briefly and memorably. In practice, this simply means that classic style prefers to limit its domain while tacitly claiming universal application” (p. 105).
An example of when not to use classic style is when a person in a powerful position is called before a congressional committee (see the analysis of testimony by Alan Greenspan, pp. 179—81).
It may well be true, as the authors assert, that there are many valid styles of writing. Yet while reading this book, I couldn’t suppress the wish that more writers would choose classic style and master it.
What is classic style? In one sense, it is a mode of writing practiced by a group of writers such as Descartes in 17th century France. Yet, as the authors show, it is not exclusive to French prose. They cite examples from American, British, Spanish and German authors.
One of the chief hallmarks of classic style is that it is disinterested. It doesn’t argue, it doesn’t have anything to sell. Its aim is to present clearly — to be a window on what it presents. This could be something as concrete as a tree or a painting, or something as abstract as quantum mechanics.
I liked the authors’ subtle distinction that the classic style is elitist but not exclusive. By elitist, they mean that those who write in classic style imagine a reader who, like them, expends the effort and discipline necessary to “get the essential things right” (p. 49). It is an open elite, however; anyone can join. The stance the practitioner of classic style takes toward his or her reader is conversational. It is a meeting of minds on an equal footing. The writer assumes that the reader would see things the same way if he were to stand in the same place.
Thomas and Turner outline further characteristics of classic style, in each case a decision about matters such as “cast,” “scene,” “language” and “thought,” as well as the enabling conventions that underly the style: certain decisions about the nature of truth and other matters. It is part of the honesty of the authors that they admit that classic style is inadequate for treating some topics: “The theology behind classic style does not admit that there is anything that counts as truth that cannot be presented briefly and memorably. In practice, this simply means that classic style prefers to limit its domain while tacitly claiming universal application” (p. 105).
An example of when not to use classic style is when a person in a powerful position is called before a congressional committee (see the analysis of testimony by Alan Greenspan, pp. 179—81).
It may well be true, as the authors assert, that there are many valid styles of writing. Yet while reading this book, I couldn’t suppress the wish that more writers would choose classic style and master it.
September 24, 2024
2024.02.22–2024.02.28
Contents
Thomas FN & Turner M (1994) Clear and Simple as the Truth - Writing Classic Prose
Acknowledgments
1. Principles of Classic Style
• The Concept of Style
• Recognizing Classic Style
• The Elements of Style
• The Classic Stand on the Elements of Style
• • Truth
• • • Truth Can Be Known
• • • Truth Is Not Contingent
• • • Truth Is Pure
• • • The Motive Is Truth
• • Presentation
• • • Prose Is a Window
• • • Classic Prose Is Perfect Performance
• • • Every Word Counts
• • • Clarity Everywhere Is Not Accuracy Everywhere
• • Scene
• • • The Model Is One Person Speaking to Another
• • • Prose Is Efficient but Not Rushed
• • • Classic Style Is Energetic but Not Anxious
• • Cast
• • • Elite Is Not Exclusive
• • • Classic Style Is for Everybody
• • • The Reader Is Competent
• • • The Writer Is Authentic
• • • The Writer Is Sufficient
• • • The Writer Is Competent
• • • The Writer Does All the Work Invisibly
• • Thought and Language
• • • The Thought Can Stand Alone
• • • Abstractions Can Be Clear and Exact
• • • Thought Precedes Speech
• • • The Language Is Sufficient
• • • Classic Thought and Classic Language Match
• Other Stands, Other Styles
• • Classic Style Is Not Plain Style
• • Classic Style Is Not Reflexive Style
• • Classic Style Is Not Practical Style
• • Classic Style Is Not Contemplative Style
• • Classic Style Is Not Romantic Style
• • Classic Style Is Not Prophetic Style
• • Classic Style Is Not Oratorical Style
• Trade Secrets
• • Classic Style Is Inadequate
• • Truth Is Not Mind-Independent
• Envoi: Style Is Not Etiquette
2. The Museum
3. The Studio
• Introduction
• Fundamentals: Talk First
• • • Exercise 1: Classic Joint Attention
• • • Tutorial: Beyond Classic Joint Attention
• • • Exercise 2: Hiding the Labor
• • • Exercise 3: Fresh Inferences
• • • Exercise 4: Previous Inferences
• • • Exercise 5: Focusing on a Person
• • • Tutorial: Two Steps to Classic Style
• • • Exercise 6: Surfing
• • • Exercise 7: Classic Style without Borders
• • • Exercise 8: Describing Is Not Presenting
• • • Exercise 9: Conversations
• • • Exercise 10: Stealth Argument
• • • Exercise 11: Arrivals and Departures
• • • Exercise 12: Talking to Strangers
• Fundamentals: Write Second
• • • Tutorial: Blending Scenes
• • • Tutorial: Lost in Words
• • • Tutorial: Onset and Dismount
• Advanced Writing
• • • Exercise 13: Sketchbook
• • • Exercise 14: Coherent Mixed Styles
• • • Exercise 15: Lists
• • • Exercise 16: Résumé
• • • Exercise 17: Admissions Essay
• • • Exercise 18: Science
• • • Exercise 19: Obituaries
• • • Exercise 20: Real Estate Pitch
• • • Exercise 21: Restaurant Review
• • • Exercise 22: Travel Writing
• • • Exercise 23: Prejudices: What about Peanut Butter?
• • • Exercise 24: Tethered Excursions
• Conclusion
4. Further Readings in Classic Prose
Notes
Index
Contents
Thomas FN & Turner M (1994) Clear and Simple as the Truth - Writing Classic Prose
Acknowledgments
1. Principles of Classic Style
• The Concept of Style
• Recognizing Classic Style
• The Elements of Style
• The Classic Stand on the Elements of Style
• • Truth
• • • Truth Can Be Known
• • • Truth Is Not Contingent
• • • Truth Is Pure
• • • The Motive Is Truth
• • Presentation
• • • Prose Is a Window
• • • Classic Prose Is Perfect Performance
• • • Every Word Counts
• • • Clarity Everywhere Is Not Accuracy Everywhere
• • Scene
• • • The Model Is One Person Speaking to Another
• • • Prose Is Efficient but Not Rushed
• • • Classic Style Is Energetic but Not Anxious
• • Cast
• • • Elite Is Not Exclusive
• • • Classic Style Is for Everybody
• • • The Reader Is Competent
• • • The Writer Is Authentic
• • • The Writer Is Sufficient
• • • The Writer Is Competent
• • • The Writer Does All the Work Invisibly
• • Thought and Language
• • • The Thought Can Stand Alone
• • • Abstractions Can Be Clear and Exact
• • • Thought Precedes Speech
• • • The Language Is Sufficient
• • • Classic Thought and Classic Language Match
• Other Stands, Other Styles
• • Classic Style Is Not Plain Style
• • Classic Style Is Not Reflexive Style
• • Classic Style Is Not Practical Style
• • Classic Style Is Not Contemplative Style
• • Classic Style Is Not Romantic Style
• • Classic Style Is Not Prophetic Style
• • Classic Style Is Not Oratorical Style
• Trade Secrets
• • Classic Style Is Inadequate
• • Truth Is Not Mind-Independent
• Envoi: Style Is Not Etiquette
2. The Museum
3. The Studio
• Introduction
• Fundamentals: Talk First
• • • Exercise 1: Classic Joint Attention
• • • Tutorial: Beyond Classic Joint Attention
• • • Exercise 2: Hiding the Labor
• • • Exercise 3: Fresh Inferences
• • • Exercise 4: Previous Inferences
• • • Exercise 5: Focusing on a Person
• • • Tutorial: Two Steps to Classic Style
• • • Exercise 6: Surfing
• • • Exercise 7: Classic Style without Borders
• • • Exercise 8: Describing Is Not Presenting
• • • Exercise 9: Conversations
• • • Exercise 10: Stealth Argument
• • • Exercise 11: Arrivals and Departures
• • • Exercise 12: Talking to Strangers
• Fundamentals: Write Second
• • • Tutorial: Blending Scenes
• • • Tutorial: Lost in Words
• • • Tutorial: Onset and Dismount
• Advanced Writing
• • • Exercise 13: Sketchbook
• • • Exercise 14: Coherent Mixed Styles
• • • Exercise 15: Lists
• • • Exercise 16: Résumé
• • • Exercise 17: Admissions Essay
• • • Exercise 18: Science
• • • Exercise 19: Obituaries
• • • Exercise 20: Real Estate Pitch
• • • Exercise 21: Restaurant Review
• • • Exercise 22: Travel Writing
• • • Exercise 23: Prejudices: What about Peanut Butter?
• • • Exercise 24: Tethered Excursions
• Conclusion
4. Further Readings in Classic Prose
Notes
Index
Read
July 22, 2020I read this book because Steven Pinker talked it up in The Sense of Style. It was interesting. According to the authors, writing style should not be thought of as a matter of the surface features of language, like preferring active verbs. Instead, a style is a set of presuppositions about, e.g., the relationship between writing and truth, or the relationship between the writer and the reader. (Their official list of the elements of style: truth, presentation, scene, cast, thought and language.)
The authors focus on "classic style," which they contrast with other styles such as practical, romantic, and oratorical. They clearly like classic style, but they think that other styles are perfectly fine for other purposes.
Here's their summary of classic style: "Classic style is in its own view clear and simple as the truth. It adopts the stance that its purpose is presentation; its motive, disinterested truth. Successful presentation consists of aligning language with truth, and the test of this alignment is clarity and simplicity. The idea that presentation is successful when language is aligned with truth implies that truth can be known; truth needs no argument but only accurate presentation; the reader is competent to recognize truth; the symmetry between writer and reader allows the presentation to follow the model of conversation; a natural language is sufficient to express truth; and the writer knows the truth before he puts it into language."
One example of a classic sentence that they like is this one by the duc de La Rochefoucauld: "Madame de Chevreuse had sparkling intelligence, ambition, and beauty in plenty; she was flirtatious, lively, bold, enterprising; she used all her charms to push her projects to success, and she almost always brought disaster to those she encountered on her way."
One point I especially liked was the idea that because the purpose of classic style is just to present the truth rather than to achieve any practical goal, the writer is supposed to be completely at leisure: "the writer has all the time in the world to present her subject as something interesting for its own sake. Her characteristic brevity comes from the elegance of her mind, never from pressures of time or employment."
The idea that "truth needs no argument," because prose is supposed to act as purely a "window" onto the world, is something I'd like to think more about. This is because the authors make classic style sound attractive, but my philosophy papers are very explicitly about presenting arguments. Maybe classic style just isn't suited for this purpose (at one point they mention academic papers as falling under practical style), but I wonder whether there might be some middle ground, where arguments are presented less self-consciously.
The authors focus on "classic style," which they contrast with other styles such as practical, romantic, and oratorical. They clearly like classic style, but they think that other styles are perfectly fine for other purposes.
Here's their summary of classic style: "Classic style is in its own view clear and simple as the truth. It adopts the stance that its purpose is presentation; its motive, disinterested truth. Successful presentation consists of aligning language with truth, and the test of this alignment is clarity and simplicity. The idea that presentation is successful when language is aligned with truth implies that truth can be known; truth needs no argument but only accurate presentation; the reader is competent to recognize truth; the symmetry between writer and reader allows the presentation to follow the model of conversation; a natural language is sufficient to express truth; and the writer knows the truth before he puts it into language."
One example of a classic sentence that they like is this one by the duc de La Rochefoucauld: "Madame de Chevreuse had sparkling intelligence, ambition, and beauty in plenty; she was flirtatious, lively, bold, enterprising; she used all her charms to push her projects to success, and she almost always brought disaster to those she encountered on her way."
One point I especially liked was the idea that because the purpose of classic style is just to present the truth rather than to achieve any practical goal, the writer is supposed to be completely at leisure: "the writer has all the time in the world to present her subject as something interesting for its own sake. Her characteristic brevity comes from the elegance of her mind, never from pressures of time or employment."
The idea that "truth needs no argument," because prose is supposed to act as purely a "window" onto the world, is something I'd like to think more about. This is because the authors make classic style sound attractive, but my philosophy papers are very explicitly about presenting arguments. Maybe classic style just isn't suited for this purpose (at one point they mention academic papers as falling under practical style), but I wonder whether there might be some middle ground, where arguments are presented less self-consciously.
January 23, 2025
This begins with an interesting historicisation of the 'classic style' in the work of French prose stylists of the seventeeth and eighteenth centuries, leading this reader, at least, to a suspicion that the style developed in close correlation with an emergent and later victorious bourgeoisie; indeed that perhaps such a style developed in part to persuade and cajole others into thinking like the bourgeoisie. Yet, as another reviewer says, the authors are more interested in the classic style as a sort of ontological foundation for prose style, applicable to writing on any subject at any point in history (Romans and Greeks used classic style too), and thus available as a style for contemporary writers too. Weird then, and 'classic' in itself, that before the book gets to its array of examples there is a section on 'trade secrets' in which it is admitted that the kind of view-from-nowhere disinterestedness necessary to the style is actually completely indefensible. It occurred to me during this section, and in some of the examples that follow (Alan Greenspan?) that the authors might actually really fucking hate classic style, and for that you've simply got to respect it.
November 26, 2022
This book introduces the concept of the "classic style" of writing, initiated by 17th-Century French writers. It also defines style as much more than the mechanics of writing, in contrast to how style is defined in such reference works as Strunk & White's Elements of Style or The Chicago Manual of Style. The authors of this work define style as consisting of five elements: truth, presentation, scene, cast, and thought & language. They then contrast classic style with many other styles in terms of these five elements.
The authors "sold" me on the value of classic style in presenting ideas that are meant to stand on their own. It's a very thorough work, but I admit that I stopped reading on p. 148 (out of 206 pages). I was 33 pages into the chapter titled "The Museum", which is an exhibit of excepts of writings that are mostly in the classic style, along with a critique of each. This is most of the rest of the book. By this point I had "gotten" their point, and felt no more need for their analysis.
The authors "sold" me on the value of classic style in presenting ideas that are meant to stand on their own. It's a very thorough work, but I admit that I stopped reading on p. 148 (out of 206 pages). I was 33 pages into the chapter titled "The Museum", which is an exhibit of excepts of writings that are mostly in the classic style, along with a critique of each. This is most of the rest of the book. By this point I had "gotten" their point, and felt no more need for their analysis.
May 18, 2024
“Good writing” is a topic many authors dedicated page after page, since apparently good written text could be enigmatic for many like me. I think this book cracks that enigma.
Most books in this genre go over bad or poorly written text and try to formulate what a writer _shouldn’t_ do to have a well written text. This book takes the opposite route. It first presents principles of classical writing style which is advocated by the author as elegant way of writing and then goes over details such as the relationship between the writer and the reader. It discusses key assumptions such accessibility of truth by the writer and the reader, and spontaneous presentation of truth without embellishments. Ultimately it presents how other styles can be conceived as their relationship to these principles.
Definitely worth reading a second time, and invaluable for both parsing how
Most books in this genre go over bad or poorly written text and try to formulate what a writer _shouldn’t_ do to have a well written text. This book takes the opposite route. It first presents principles of classical writing style which is advocated by the author as elegant way of writing and then goes over details such as the relationship between the writer and the reader. It discusses key assumptions such accessibility of truth by the writer and the reader, and spontaneous presentation of truth without embellishments. Ultimately it presents how other styles can be conceived as their relationship to these principles.
Definitely worth reading a second time, and invaluable for both parsing how
March 9, 2023
There's a pervasive smugness in this book, but once I acclimated to that, I found it useful. The careful distinction between styles, the very idea that there are distinct styles and not the amorphous "style" prescribed by other writing books, is valuable, for readers as much as writers.
There's an unfortunate attempt to drag mathematics into the matter, but where mathematical writing offers proof and rigor, the classic style only offers unassailable confidence. The book makes clear, though, how "confidently incorrect" is a more effective tone than "accurate but carefully hedged". Except when you sound like the Hammacher Schlemmer catalogue.
There's an unfortunate attempt to drag mathematics into the matter, but where mathematical writing offers proof and rigor, the classic style only offers unassailable confidence. The book makes clear, though, how "confidently incorrect" is a more effective tone than "accurate but carefully hedged". Except when you sound like the Hammacher Schlemmer catalogue.
June 24, 2017
Helpful and erudite, a manual that showcases but hardly defines the "classic style". The key ideas and lessons are to be observed in all writing, but I feel that this "classic style" is a post-hoc construct of the author. It's as if any clear and sound writing with an interesting twist could be called "classic". I wonder how many readers will subject themselves to the exercises from the "Studio", and to what effect. Perhaps one's style is just a combination of talent, education and grit. Nonetheless, I think every literate person would benefit from reading this book.
May 4, 2018
A great book where the authors explain classic style: a writing style distinguished from many others (e.g. reflexive, romantic, or plain) which are defined by the the relationship between the writer and the reader and what the writer is trying to accomplish.
The purpose of classic style is "presentation; it's motive, disinterested truth". The authors argue that successful presentation consists of aligning language with truth through clarity and simplicity.
Classic style implies that there is an objective truth and the reader is competent to recognise truth. All the writer has to do is "offer the reader an unobstructed view, and of course the reader will see".
The purpose of classic style is "presentation; it's motive, disinterested truth". The authors argue that successful presentation consists of aligning language with truth through clarity and simplicity.
Classic style implies that there is an objective truth and the reader is competent to recognise truth. All the writer has to do is "offer the reader an unobstructed view, and of course the reader will see".
February 21, 2022
The first 10 pages of this book present a great and provocative summary of what the authors call "classical style writing". They then spend the rest of the book confusing the matter with poorly written exposition and examples.
Maybe I'm not smart enough to grasp their point, but i don't think so...
Maybe I'm not smart enough to grasp their point, but i don't think so...
August 15, 2024
This is a quirky book about writing. Instead of focusing on phrasing and grammar, it presents a philosophy about writing in classic style. This is about the truth, the relation between reader and writer, and making prose appear effortless. I really enjoyed the book, although the first part (on the philosophy of classic style) felt long.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 63 reviews