Styles of writing in: `Clear and Simple as the Truth' by Thomas & Turner

So, I've just been reading:

Clear and Simple as the Truth - Writing Classic Prose - Second Edition (Thomas & Turner 1994 / 2017)
And - it's terrific. Read it!
I was alerted to its existence by this (also-excellent) book: 
The Sense of Style (Pinker 2015) 
As, see the [9] minutes mark to the [30] mins mark (or so - in fact watch it from start to finish), of this great lecture, by Steven Pinker from 2014:


Steven Pinker on The Sense of Style (Talks at Google, 2014)
Anyway - back to Clear and Simple as the Truth (2017), as that is the point of this post.
So - I've been a professional writer for 25 years, have also been reading stuff for 40 years (and - a professional movie & TV script reader for 20 years) and, didn't consciously know that there were some [8] very important categories (styles) of prose (nonfiction) and poetry and novel and play, writing. 
But Thomas and Turner (2017) lay these 8 styles out clearly (and simply), and: I like them! 
So this (below) is my uber-brief Summary of what they say, in the book:
The 8 major styles of writing are: 
Plain style, Classic style, Reflexive style, Practical style, Contemplative style, Romantic style, Prophetic style, and Oratorical style. 
At least, from pages 72 through 97 of their book, those are the categories (or: styles) of writing they explain, and with examples and critiques of those examples. 
But I do note, on page 69 they say this:

"...style is plain, classic, romantic, contemplative, oratorical, sublime, prophetic, practical, or diplomatic."

Thomas, Francis-Noël. Clear and Simple as the Truth: Writing Classic Prose - Second Edition (p. 69). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition (2017). 

And, Diplomatic is not explained in detail as a style, in the book...
And I note, Sublime is not explicitly discussed as a category quite like the others are in pages 72-97. But - they do say:

"The closest model in classical antiquity for our analysis of classic style is Longinus’s analysis of “the sublime” in On the Sublime, perhaps the most brilliant treatment of a style ever written." 

Thomas, Francis-Noël. Clear and Simple as the Truth: Writing Classic Prose - Second Edition (p. 69). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition. 

So, here's the thing: as I understand it, Classic style is Plain style but with some fancy bits added on, and, Plain style is basically (more or less) very close to what Longinus (long ago) called: Sublime style. 
And Now, I am going to try and summarize the basic characteristics (and, give examples of) these major styles, as Thomas & Turner (2017) have explained it. 
(And, I sure hope this works.)
Here we go.
1) Plain style - clear and simple writing, but - the theology (the belief system / worldview) behind plain style assumes the knowledge it presents (as: common knowledge, or common sense - even possessed by young children) is "the truth". But - the fact is, sometimes kids can actually be very wrong (truth and reality may be more complex than a kid can comprehend) - so, Plain style is basically a much simpler, (much worse, less accurate, less true) version of Classic style.

Classic style takes Plain style and adds to it: sophisticated thought, conceptual refinement, critical thinking and also personal responsibility.

In Plain style, you can also sometimes basically trick people into thinking what you are saying is true, but mainly because it falls back on moves like "As any child knows..." which may well be true information in some cases - but may also be a rhetorical trick (and/or, the result of muddy thinking).

Plain style also uses cliches, whereas Classic style often extends and rethinks cliches:

e.g., a Plain style phrase might be "The truth is pure and simple..." (which is a cliche) - whereas by distinction, a Classic style phrase would instead be: "The truth is rarely pure and never simple..." (as Oscar Wilde wrote).

““Seeing is believing” is plain. 

“Seeing is believing only if you don’t see too clearly” is classic." 

Thomas, Francis-Noël. Clear and Simple as the Truth: Writing Classic Prose - Second Edition (pp. 72-73). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition. 

Bear in mind also - in any given piece of writing: it may be the actual case that a sentence, a paragraph, even a chapter, may be in one style (e.g., Plain, or Classic, or Romantic, etc!) while others vary.

So - some writers may well use many different styles, all within the one work! (Even in a blog post - like this!)

(Also - the authors of any given piece of writing may not even have known that these 8 different styles exist - or else, some of the styles may well have emerged after they were writing!)

Thomas and Turner note:

"“Grace is simple” is plain. “Grace, from the perspective of God, is simple” is classic, as is “The machinery of grace is always simple.” 

Plain style values simplicity but shuns nuance. 

Classic style values both simplicity and nuance." 

Thomas, Francis-Noël. Clear and Simple as the Truth: Writing Classic Prose - Second Edition (p. 72). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition. 

And - some Examples of Plain Style would be: 

A typical religious person talking to another religious person.

In my view, most of Mark Manson's essays, as, they seem to be the result of very shallow thinking? e.g. this essay of his on Evolutionary Psychology, as he is writing about something he clearly knows very little about, namely Evolutionary Psychology. (I would also note - he switches styles a few times within that lousy blog-post, but overall it is mostly written in Plain style.)

Hmm, and actually right now, I can't think of too many more very good / obvious examples of Plain style (as importantly, it is usually not very memorable because of its actual Plain style!), but - most bad student essays, and indeed a whole lot of blogs are written in Plain style; rife with cliches, and very simple - often wrong-headed - thinking).

In contrast to Plain style: 

2) Classic style - takes a very clear stance on 5 key issues:

Truth, Presentation, Scene, Cast, and also Thought and Language.

(You will have to read the actual book by Thomas and Turner in full, to see all the details of those 5 x things, above.... But - just as an example, Cast means there are 2 people in the classic "scene", and they are equals; not a "Professor talking down to Student". Conversely, in Oratorical style, the Scene and Cast is: a speaker talking to a crowd, and s/he is trying to persuade that crowd of something or else summarize their consensus view.)

As the authors also write:

"The concept of classic style assumes that plain style already exists. 

The classic version introduces a refinement, a qualification, a meditation on the plain version that makes it classic. 

Classic style takes the attitude that it is superior to plain style because classic style presents intelligence as it should be presented: as a sparkling display, not weighed down by grinding earnestness." 

Thomas, Francis-Noël. Clear and Simple as the Truth: Writing Classic Prose - Second Edition (p. 16). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition. (boldface emphasis mine) 

Examples of Classic style (as given by the authors, Thomas and Turner) include:

Thucydides' The Peloponnesian War. Plato's Apology. Euclid's The Elements of Geometry. Descartes' Discourse on Method. Mark Twain's Life on the Mississippi. Austen's Pride and Prejudice.

Also (surprisingly) most good Guide Books, such as say: The Audubon Field Guide to North American Birds. (...Seriously!)

I also suggest, (given my understanding of styles) that these works below are (primarily if not totally) written in Classic style:

Darwin On The Origin of Species. Dawkins The Selfish Gene. Dennett Darwin's Dangerous Idea. Boyd On the Origin of Stories. Csikszentmihalyi Creativity. 

Interestingly, in short, and in retrospect, a great many of my favourite nonfiction books seem to be written in Classic style. (i.e., Now that I think I know, what it actually is ! Having read Clear and Simple as the Truth. And no, this blog post is not written in Classic style; it uses various styles, depending on the situation.)

Basically, as the authors note, Classic style is "a transparent window through which its subject is presented". (p. 73)

Also, you can't really skim-read Classic writing, as, you miss nuance... The "last third" of a classic sentence is not predictable!

"[when you read] the end [e.g. the last third] of a classic sentence, you will recognize that the sentence was true to its direction, but that does not make the sentence predictable, because it usually contains a conceptual refinement that is clear and simple as the truth but not a cliché and hence not predictable."
Thomas, Francis-Noël. Clear and Simple as the Truth: Writing Classic Prose - Second Edition (pp. 81-82). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition. 

(The authors also then provide 4 great examples of such Classic sentences in their book. Here is just one...)

"Although a dirty campaign was widely predicted, for the most part the politicians contented themselves with insults and lies. (Julian Barnes on the 1992 British parliamentary elections)" 

Thomas, Francis-Noël. Clear and Simple as the Truth: Writing Classic Prose - Second Edition (p. 82). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition. (bold emphasis mine) 

Basically, the last third of the sentence in Classic style writing is often creative: i.e., new, useful and surprising!

Moving on now to the next category of style outlined by Thomas and Turner:

3) Reflexive style - this style is: writing (and, thinking) that questions (and even doubts) its own competence...

One point they make is that, in a cookbook (say) we don't expect philosophical (ontological and epistemological) introductions about whether cooking even exists, and if it is even possible to talk about cooking...

Raising such doubts self-consciously in the writing is a Reflexive style. It uses Philosophy to appear "knowing", whereas Classic writing deliberately ignores such questions and just cuts to the car-chase.

Classic style assumes that we can (and indeed should) talk (i.e., write) about the subject we are describing, explaining or otherwise discussing. And, that it is interesting for its own sake. (And - may well also be, very useful knowledge and/or insight to have or use.)

Examples of Reflexive style include:

Quite a lot of Philosophy. Especially that writing that questions its own ability to describe or communicate anything.

Meanwhile - (next style in our listicle...)

4) Practical style - is writing that tells you how to solve a practical problem: Build a house, change a tyre, skin a cat, or whatever.

Most Instruction Manuals are usually written in Practical style.

"In the model scene behind practical style, the reader has a problem to solve, a decision to make, a ruling to hand down, an inquiry to conduct, a machine to design or repair—in short, a job to do. The reader’s need, not the writer’s desire to articulate something, initiates the writing."
Thomas, Francis-Noël. Clear and Simple as the Truth: Writing Classic Prose - Second Edition (p. 75). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition. 

Thomas and Turner later write:

"The best-known teachers of practical style are Strunk and White, in their ubiquitous Elements of Style. 

The best teachers of practical style are Joseph Williams and Gregory Colomb, in Williams’s Style: Toward Clarity and Grace and a series of academic articles and technical reports." 

Thomas, Francis-Noël. Clear and Simple as the Truth: Writing Classic Prose - Second Edition (p. 78). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition. 

Examples of Practical style are: 

Most scientific and even artistic research papers, which are presenting the results of some research. And also, Instruction Manuals. And "How-To" (D.I.Y.) books. Most Screenwriting Manuals would also thus be an example of Practical style.

Moving on now to:

5) Contemplative style - which is focussed on the writer's interpretation, and thus (implicitly) tries to convince the reader to interpret it in the same way.

"In contemplative style, the distinction between presentation and interpretation is always observed: the writer sees something, presents it to the reader, and then interprets it. 

The stress is on the interpretation, but the transition is always explicitly marked. E. B. White, a master of the contemplative essay, characteristically observes this sequence, as he does in “The Ring of Time,” a dazzling piece of writing that is entirely unclassic." 

Thomas, Francis-Noël. Clear and Simple as the Truth: Writing Classic Prose - Second Edition (pp. 82-83). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition. 

I am also reminded of the TV series The Wonder Years, where after a flashback, there is always a scene where the now-adult-voice of the narrator narrates "It was at that time, I realized: [insert some proverb or insight here, etc]"

Examples of Contemplative style include:

E B White's contemplative essays (obviously :)

Preachers, who present a text and then present their interpretation of it.

Moving along:

6) Romantic style - is all about the writer, not the reader.

As the authors say:

"Classic Style Is Not Romantic Style  

Contemplative style is fundamentally about the writer’s thought and often explicitly acknowledges this focus. Romantic style, although not necessarily focused on the writer’s thought in the sense of his analysis or reflection, is always and inescapably about the writer. Romantic prose is a mirror, not a window. 

Romantic style does not separate thought from sensation, memory, and emotion. All these things together are experience. 

Neither does romantic style distinguish the person who experiences from the experience. The romantic writer therefore cannot be an observer who sees something separate from himself; both the writer and his experience are inseparable elements of a perpetual dialectic in which the writer creates a world, which in its turn creates him. This process is something like the pulse of life. A writer can describe this dynamic relationship, but cannot “present” it and allow it to be verified."
Thomas, Francis-Noël. Clear and Simple as the Truth: Writing Classic Prose - Second Edition (p. 86). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition. 

Examples include:

Proust, In Search of Lost Time

Probably lots of Romantic writing, e.g.: Taylor-Coleridge, Wordsworth, Blake, Shelley, Byron, Keats. (Including many or even all of their poems... not just their essays or the like)

Goethe, in The Sorrows of Young Werther.

Importantly:

"Both the classic writer and the romantic writer are vulnerable but in entirely different ways. The classic writer is vulnerable because he speaks noncontingent truth to which everybody is vulnerable. The romantic writer is vulnerable because everybody is vulnerable to the conditions of life. 

The classic writer is always vulnerable to challenge; the romantic writer never." 

Thomas, Francis-Noël. Clear and Simple as the Truth: Writing Classic Prose - Second Edition (pp. 88-89). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition. 

Classic is basically the opposite of Romantic writing. (No wonder I hate Romantic writing so much :)

(Romantics obscure creativity. The scientific study of creativity is much more useful to people!)

Moving along to:

7) Prophetic style - is its own authority, usually "by" some kind of deity or mystical prophet or something with divine powers. And/Or, reporting what the "prophet" (or deity, or supernatural being) has "said" (or "declared").

In short, science is always better than supernatural or mystical stuff.

Examples include: 

The Old Testament.

Or in fact, most bibles of most religions.

...and finally our last style:

8) Oratorical style -  is basically a public speaker, talking to a crowd and trying to convince them of something.

"The model scene of oratorical style is neither casual nor spontaneous. Its prototypical occasion is the assembly of a group of people faced by a public problem—like military invasion, the forming and maintenance of public values, or the judging of social offenders.

This scene creates a cast. Leadership is necessary, and the assembly’s job is to respond to a candidate who puts himself forward. 

The orator assumes a role as leader of both the public moment and the setting of policy. He invites the audience to yield to his rhythms and to his views, which he typically presents as a version of common verities." 

Thomas, Francis-Noël. Clear and Simple as the Truth: Writing Classic Prose - Second Edition (pp. 91-92). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition. 

Examples include:
Ulysses (eg at certain points, in The Iliad, and The Odyssey) and also Pericles (his "Funeral Oration" in Thucydides' Pelopponesian Wars), whenever they are a spokesperson for an audience. 
And - I am also thinking of, the "Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears" speech in Julius Caesar.
Also, Jefferson (US Declaration of Independence): "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." (etc)
==============================
Anyway - so, that's an overview / summary of the 8 styles, namely:
Plain style, Classic style, Reflexive style, Practical style, Contemplative style, Romantic style, Prophetic style, and Oratorical style. 
And importantly - Classic style assumes that there is an Objective Truth. 
(That: "Truth is not: Mind-Independent" (p. 99))
...So: I like it! 
(I also like: Karl Popper. And Dan Dennett, and the like... Same deal.)
And so - I very highly recommend the book:
Clear and Simple as the Truth - Writing Classic Prose - Second Edition
(Thomas & Turner 1994 / 2017)


And - Thanks for reading this post!
(The main reason I wrote this post was to force myself to check that I understand the 8 major styles as described and examined in the book.)

I've written million-selling games and novels and movies, not sure in what style... I'd have to re-read/rewatch/replay them, and figure it out. But from now on I'll be aware if it when creating stuff.
FYI, I see there is another summary of Thomas & Turner, on a blog by somebody, here. Theirs is probably a better (more comprehensive) Summary than mine, but as I say, I was mainly just trying to make sure that I understood the book (and thus the styles).
As an aside - I am actually going to try and write a book in the Classic style. 
It is about: this.
-----------------------------
Dr. Joe T. Velikovsky, Ph.D. (Communication & Media Arts)
& High-Movie-RoI Consultant (see: The StoryAlity PhD)

-------------------

`The word communication will be used here in a very broad sense to include all of the procedures by which one mind may affect another. This, of course, involves not only written and oral speech, but also music, the pictorial arts, the theater, the ballet, and in fact all human behavior... The language of this memorandum will often appear to refer to the special, but still very broad and important, field of the communication of speech; but practically everything said applies equally well to music of any sort, and to still or moving pictures, as in television." - The Mathematical Theory of Communication, (Shannon & Weaver 1949, pp. 3-4).
Also:
“I know you think you understand what you thought I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant” - (attributed, and ironically, possibly mistakenly, to: Robert McCloskey, namely the children's book author and illustrator, date of quote unknown)
& this autosig is not even near complete yet, as
JT Velikovsky is also a:
Transmedia Writer-Director-Producer: Movies, Games, TV, Theatre, Books, Comics
Transmedia Writing Blog: http://on-writering.blogspot.com.au/

& (High-RoI) Story/Screenplay/Movie Analyst - and Evolutionary Systems Theorist
See: https://storyality.wordpress.com/

& Bio-Culture (Science & the Arts) & Transmedia Researcher
Academia link: https://aftrs.academia.edu/JTVelikovsky
See, also:

Joe Velikovsky on IMDb: 
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/joeteevee

Okay - the autosig is over now. You can stop reading.