Style vs. Non-style Elements of Writing

[Naomasa298]

No, they are not. For the purpose of this thread, I am not referring to genre style.

They're all part of style, so I don't see why it should be separate?

So we're well advised to put the priority on this

Only *after* you have mastered the basics, which is the how.

 

[badgerjelly]

Style is determined by a piece of writing’s structural elements, like word choice, sentence structure, and tone and rhythm.

Non-style elements include its content, substance, and meaning.

According to the ancients, the meaning, substance and content should come first.

As Cato said, “Grasp the subject, the words will follow.” (Rem tene, verba sequentur.) Words come after, not before.

Aristotle initiated the tradition of making language “so transparent a medium that it disappears and interposes no obstacle or screen between the reader and the things it points to.” (Fish, How to Read a Sentence, page 39)

Should it be style over non-style elements, or non-style elements over style? Which one should be favoured? What value does style have?

Not sure if it helps but there is a field of study called Stylistics which is concerned primarily with a broader understanding of linguistics. It is commonly used in literary analysis too, but at the end of the day it is analytic rather than a guiding force. It offer a means to analyse a text objectively.

Stylistics encompases both meaning and structure. They are intertwined. The more recent developments in stylistics has been in how non-fiction is scrutinised with the same tools as fiction--political, marketing etc.,.

 

[Louanne Learning]

Mind you, I generally write in freeverse, which means that you are meant to create the form, as you write, to suit the content. But the other way can work too and some of the best poems I've written were when I decided to focus on a specific form. It can also be quite challenging but if you keep it up you can internalize the form and it becomes a template for meaning.

Very well said. Thanks for that.

 

[Louanne Learning]

They're all part of style, so I don't see why it should be separate?

Well, I wasn't thinking of genre style at all when I made this thread. Only how each individual writer expresses their writing.

I am sorry I wasn't more clear. That's on me.

 

[Naomasa298]

Well, I wasn't thinking of genre style at all when I made this thread. Only how each individual writer expresses their writing.

I am sorry I wasn't more clear. That's on me.

OK. The genre style is not a complete style in itself. Rather, it encompasses baseline elements, like creating tension, the ways to do that (such as by using short sentences and so on) and informs the author's own style - each writer then refines and develops it according to how they want to do it. That's why it forms part of a written style as a whole. Writers will use different styles (and voices) to write in a particular genre, and everyone will do it differently. I could write horror as King, Lovecraft, Dahl or Conan Doyle, for example. Or just as me.

 

[Louanne Learning]

I admit I have a romantic notion of the writing process. I think it best begins with being headstrong – to let your imagination run wild, to examine how you feel about things, to pinpoint what you want to say, to begin with mental work, rather than the grind, to not reigning yourself in, but to go forward in the knowledge that none of your thoughts are mediocre, but original and meaningful, and to shut your eyes and think.
In the words of Mozart:

When I am, as it were, completely myself, entirely alone, and of good cheer – say traveling in a carriage, or walking after a good meal, or during the night when I cannot sleep, it is on such occasions that my ideas flow best and most abundantly. Whence and how they come, I know not; nor can I force them. Those ideas that please me, I retain in memory and am accustomed, as I have been told, to hum them to myself. If I continue in this way, it soon occurs to me how I may turn this or that morsel to account so as to make a good dish of it, that is to say, agreeable to the rules of counterpoint, to the peculiarities of the various instruments.
All this fires my soul, and provided I am not disturbed, my subject enlarges itself, becomes methodized and denned, and the whole, though it be long, stands almost complete and finished in my mind, so that I can survey it, like a fine picture, a beautiful statue, at a glance. Nor do I hear in my imagination the parts successfully, but I hear them as it were, gleich alles zusammen, all at once. What a delight that is I cannot tell! All this inventing, this producing, takes place in a pleasing, lively dream. Still the actual hearing of the tout ensemble is after all the best.

(Quoted in If You Want to Write: A Book about Art, Independence and Spirit, by Brenda Ueland, page 109)

So, style – construction - comes into play after inspiration. The style of a piece involves taking the following into account:

Put statements in positive form
Do not overstate
Express coordinate ideas in similar form
Keep related words together
Maintain consistency in verb tenses
Place the emphasis at the end
Use active voice
Design
Omit needless words
Revise and rewrite
Use definite language
Avoid fancy words
Avoid the use of qualifiers
Do not explain too much
Follow a chronological order
Sentence length
Use figures of speech sparingly
Use orthodox spelling
Write concisely

The stated aim of a book originally published in 1918 – The Elements of Style – by William Strunk, Jr. (Professor of English in Cornell University) is:

… concentrating attention on a few essentials, the rules of usage and principles of composition most commonly violated.

Here is its table of contents:

I.​	Introductory	5​
II.​	Elementary Rules of Usage	7​
	1.​	Form the possessive singular of nouns by adding 's	7​
	2.​	In a series of three or more terms with a single conjunction, use a comma after each term except the last	7​
	3.​	Enclose parenthetic expressions between commas	8​
	4.​	Place a comma before a conjunction introducing a co-ordinate clause	10​
	5.​	Do not join independent clauses by a comma	11​
	6.​	Do not break sentences in two	12​
	7.​	A participial phrase at the beginning of a sentence must refer to the grammatical subject	13​
III.​	Elementary Principles of Composition	15​
	8.​	Make the paragraph the unit of composition: one paragraph to each topic	15​
	9.​	As a rule, begin each paragraph with a topic sentence; end it in conformity with the beginning	17​
	10.​	Use the active voice	19​
	11.​	Put statements in positive form	21​
	12.​	Use definite, specific, concrete language	22​
	13.​	Omit needless words	24​
	14.​	Avoid a succession of loose sentences	25​
	15.​	Express co-ordinate ideas in similar form	26​
	16.​	Keep related words together	28​
	17.​	In summaries, keep to one tense	29​
	18.​	Place the emphatic words of a sentence at the end	31​
IV.​	A Few Matters of Form	33​
V.​	Words and Expressions Commonly Misused	36​
VI.​	Spelling

It was in the tradition of Strunk’s definition of style that I opened this thread.

 

[Also]

If someone would rewrite EoS beginning afresh from that outline, it would probably emerge a much better book — for business and other styleless informational writing.

The Elements of Style shines at its brightest in improving business writing, which most often can best benefit from such simplistic proclamations.

But to quote Linda Proud in her essay The Book That Ate America's Brain:

In criticizing The Elements of Style, Geoffrey Pullum, professor of linguistics at the University of Edinburgh and co-author of The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, said:

‘The book’s toxic mix of purism, atavism, and personal eccentricity is not underpinned by a proper grounding in English grammar. It is often so misguided that the authors appear not to notice their own egregious flouting of its own rules . . . It’s sad. Several generations of college students learned their grammar from the uninformed bossiness of Strunk and White, and the result is a nation of educated people who know they feel vaguely anxious and insecure whenever they write however or than me or was or which, but can’t tell you why.’

Specifically, Prof. Pullum said that Strunk and White misunderstood what constitutes the passive voice, and criticized their proscribing established usages such as the split infinitive and the use of which in a restrictive relative clause. He also criticizes The Elements of Style in Language Log, a linguists’ blog about language in popular media, for promoting linguistic prescriptivism and hypercorrection among Anglophones, referring to it as “the book that ate America’s brain.”

In the Boston Globe newspaper’s review of The Elements of Style Illustrated (2005) edition describes the writing manual as an “aging zombie of a book . . . a hodgepodge, its now-antiquated pet peeves jostling for space with 1970s taboos and 1990s computer advice.”

I've certainly seen the EoS-inspired insecurity and misconceptions that Pullum talks about manifest in various critique groups still today.

EoS can arguably improve some mediocre writing, but it can also drag excellent writing down to mediocrity.

It was already ancient when it was imposed on my 12th-grade English class over a half-century ago. The co-teachers did not like when I protested with some of the same observations Pullum would publish decades later, but they couldn't refute them.

Today there are any number of basic books that are more beneficial to writers of fiction or business prose. The first to mind is Anne Stilman's Grammatically Correct [etc], a pleasant, clear, self-consistent and (not least) correct read.

In my estimation, Style emerges only after a writer has achieved fluency, including correctness.

 

[Naomasa298]

business prose

Heh. I just spent the day implementing AI to improve exactly that, at the behest of management. Not something I would choose to do, but orders are orders.

 

[JLT]

If someone would rewrite EoS beginning afresh from that outline, it would probably emerge a much better book — for business and other styleless informational writing.

The Elements of Style shines at its brightest in improving business writing, which most often can best benefit from such simplistic proclamations.

I remember reading Geoffrey Pullum's critique when it first came out. He had some valid points, but you have to remember that EoS came out over a century ago, and it was seen as an antidote to the turgid sort of writing that was still popular at that time (and survives to this day in the more grotesque forms of bureaucratic jargon). What was intended as a counter-attack is now seen as an excess of prescriptionism. The language has changed, and what used to be taboo is now given some tolerance, if not respect.

I still use EoS a reference, but with the knowledge that it may not reflect the current use of the language. For that, I recommend Dreyer's English: An Utterly Correct Guide to Clarity And Style. And I'll check out Stilman's Grammatically Correct when I get a chance. But I have a fear that, like Woe is I or Eats, Shoots, and Leaves, it will go down heavily on the side of prescriptionism, whereas Dreyer gleefully points out where usage changes over time and asks "Why are we still quibbling about this?" I would also recommend Kory Stamper's Word by Word and Emmy Favilla's A World Without Whom if you're interested in how the language is continually morphing, and how what was considered bad is now considered normal. (Stamper is a lexicographer for Merriam-Webster and Favilla is the main copy editor of Buzzfeed, so their credentials are sound.)

But also consider that EoS has two sections. The first, by Strunk, summarizes what was then the conventional "rules" of English composition, rules that are somewhat thread-worn by now. But White's second section is still good advice, because he's more concerned with how English flows across the page than with how it follows rules. That's really the essence of "style" as I conceive the title of this thread to be.

EoS can arguably improve some mediocre writing, but it can also drag excellent writing down to mediocrity.

Perhaps, but a teacher should let the students be aware of how they are deviating from form, and ask the student whether it was intentional or not. It's the old story, "The apprentice makes inferior work because he does not know the rules. The journeyman makes satisfactory work because he knows and follows the rules. The master makes excellent work because he know the rules and knows when and how to break them."

In my estimation, Style emerges only after a writer has achieved fluency, including correctness

Well said. You have to learn to walk before you can dance.

 

[Also]

it was seen as an antidote to the turgid sort of writing that was still popular at that time

Indeed. It was common, although by some point tongue-in-cheek, for newspaper accounts of an event to conclude, "A good time was had by all."

 

[defaux]

Style emerges only after a writer has achieved fluency, including correctness

For the development journey of a writer, in terms of personal style, I would agree. But also learning style itself is a skill that requires practice. Is that more or less important than learning the mechanics of the language? Can they not both be learned at the same time?

I think my question is what do you put your emphasis on? is it just about creating mood and vibe, or telling a story?

The particular phrasing you have used here, I would certainly say it's both. A story well told must necessitate a compelling mood to suit. And each informs the other. The narrative informs the choice of words as much as the desired atmosphere of your story.

As another post mentioned (sorry, I missed picking up the quote.) Art is both form and content, structure and subject. I don't believe either can exist without the other.

 

[Also]

I don't believe either can exist without the other.

Or at least not succeed without the other.

 

[Naomasa298]

Well said. You have to learn to walk before you can dance.

This is what I mean by you need to learn how before you can spend too much time on what. Style comes from absorbing the basics - a style will naturally evolve as you do so. Style is how you apply the basics - it sort of goes without saying that you need master them, but it often remains unsaid.

Once you've got the basics down pat, THEN you can go about breaking all the rules if you want to.

 

[Naomasa298]

One thing I will say is that this thread comes across a little dismissive of style as simply window dressing. I'm sure that's not the intent, but that is how it feels. It isn't just that. It's as important as, and forms part of the substance, in my view, and I think most of us who have responded feel that way.

 

[Louanne Learning]

that this thread comes across a little dismissive of style as simply window dressing. I'm sure that's not the intent

yes, you're right, not my intent at all

 

[Rigor Mortis]

"The apprentice makes inferior work because he does not know the rules. The journeyman makes satisfactory work because he knows and follows the rules. The master makes excellent work because he know the rules and knows when and how to break them."

It maybe pedantic or misguided, particularly as I see value in the analogy, but I'd suggest it's pointed askew. If the apprentice mentioned is a carpenter, there are laws of physics that might be best kept in mind when the work is being assembled. The same laws apply to the journeyman and the master. With an aptitude for such things, through experience and study, the carpenter learns of the many other ways to complete a project while still adhering to the laws of physics, at times to the point of disbelief of unknowing observers.

Masterful writers don't, in my opinion, work out that the rules might best be followed here and broken there. They are the ones with a broad, and sometimes vast, range of skills and application that allow them to choose from an array of different options on how best to tell this story, whatever that might be.

It might be a small distinction, but it seems significant to me.

 

[Pyroglyphian]

Perhaps the Johari window can provide another perspective, if you’ll pardon the pun

TL;DR

• Quadrant 1 concerns things you know about yourself that nobody else knows.
• Quadrant 2 concerns things you know about yourself and that others also know.
• Quadrant 3 concerns things you don’t know about yourself but which others do.
• Quadrant 4 concerns things about yourself that neither you nor others know.

An outcome of this is that we all have a style, just as we all have a personality. The question is how much conscious involvement we’ve had in shaping it. Perhaps some aspects of our style, though immediately obvious to others, remain forever hidden from us. It often seems easier to identify the root of other people’s problems than our own. This is why feedback from others can be so helpful for growth.

I think it’s similar with substance and meaning. Our capacity for nuance grows as we encounter life’s ambiguities ever more deeply. George Orwell touched on this; expressing meaning clearly requires us to think clearly about what we mean. This is a life’s work.

 

[Naomasa298]

I think it’s similar with substance and meaning. Our capacity for nuance grows as we encounter life’s ambiguities ever more deeply. George Orwell touched on this; expressing meaning clearly requires us to think clearly about what we mean. This is a life’s work.

Ah, the Rumsfeld method of writing. Known unknowns and unknown unknowns.

 

[JLT]

It maybe pedantic or misguided, particularly as I see value in the analogy, but I'd suggest it's pointed askew. If the apprentice mentioned is a carpenter, there are laws of physics that might be best kept in mind when the work is being assembled. The same laws apply to the journeyman and the master. With an aptitude for such things, through experience and study, the carpenter learns of the many other ways to complete a project while still adhering to the laws of physics, at times to the point of disbelief of unknowing observers.

It's true that the laws of physics are immutable (save for the CGI stuff we see in action movies nowadays), but those other rules--- like "Well, we've always done it this way" or "Somebody else did it this way and it didn't work, which proves that you shouldn't do it either"---are the ones that masters safely ignore if they get in the way of their own vision.

In a way, those rules are the very ones that you find in the first section of Strunk & White. They're not so much rules as conventions, and conventions change over time. For example, it used to be that while possessives such as "Charles's" needed that extra S on the end, "Moses'" and "Jesus'" didn't. That was the convention then. But that exception is pretty near extinct now.