Poetry and fiction writing, for example, is not always about describing and explaining some object of joint attention (though it often is, albeit in a novel and interesting way).Ĭlassic style is the antithesis of the postmodern style.
It may be less well-suited to other disciplines. In academic writing, you are usually trying to explain or justify something to a reader: you have seen something they have not, and you want to bring it into the spotlight. The visual element of this metaphor is driven home by the use of argument diagrams.Īs Pinker sees it, classic style is an ideal model of communication for academic and expository writing. In my case, it is usually an argument, one that I almost literally want the reader to be able to see: I want them to see the premises, how they connect with one another, and how they support one or more conclusions. Indeed, I think of most academic writing as an attempt to orient the reader toward some kind of abstract “object”. For example, it could be a scientific theory, or a philosophical concept, or an academic or scholarly debate. The object of joint attention need not be so mundane. Here, the accident is the object of joint attention the goal of the written communication is to “orient your gaze” toward that accident and the communication succeeds when I manage to describe it accurately.īut don’t get too hung up on this example. Suppose I just witnessed an accident on my way home, and I’m trying to describe it to you in a letter. The simplest example of classic style in action would be where the writer literally describes an object or event in the real world to the reader. It succeeds when it aligns with the truth, the proof of success being clarity and simplicity. The purpose of writing is presentation, and its motive is disinterested truth. The writer can see something that the reader has not yet noticed, and he orients the reader’s gaze so that she can see it for herself. The guiding metaphor of classic style is seeing the world.
The essence of classic style is that writing should be viewed as a conversation between the writer and the reader, in which the writer explains some object of joint attention to the reader. It was originally presented by two literary theorists - Francis-Noel Thomas and Mark Turner - in a book called Clear and Simple as the Truth. This is not something he came up with himself. His preferred theory of communication is that of classic style. Why it is okay to occasionally break them. If the style-gurus had some theory of communication in place, they could explain why they adopt a certain set of rules and That’s why their rules are often so odd, and why the best prose stylists often break them. When their authors are busy doling out advice, they do so in an intuitive, somewhat haphazard manner. One of the infuriating aspects of traditional style guides - according to Pinker anyway - is that they lack an underlying theory of communication. In particular, I want to share the basic theory of communication that Pinker relies on, and some of his main dos and don’ts. Instead, I want to share one of the key ideas from the book.
#Steven simple writer manual
Furthermore, it’s written in an engaging style (always encouraging in a style guide), and may be the first manual of its sort that you would actually want to read from start to finish.īut I don’t intend for this post to be a fawning review. It has some of the traditional lists of dos and don’ts, but with an added helping of psychology and linguistic theory.
Some are good, some are bad, some are merely infuriating. Those of you who are familiar with style guides will know the usual drill: a list of principles and dos and don’ts, often supplied without reason and subject to any number of qualifications and exceptions. And this latest book is his attempt to provide a style guide for the 21st Century. Pinker is, of course, a well-known linguist, cognitive scientist and public intellectual. That’s why I have been keen to read Steven Pinker’s new book, The Sense of Style. Still, I strive for clarity and would like to improve. I know I sometimes rush to complete blog posts, never getting a chance to polish or rewrite them. I know I sometimes lean too heavily on technical philosophical vocabulary, hoping that the reader will be able to follow along. I try to write in a straightforward, conversational style. I try to convey complex ideas to a broader audience.