In praise of "The Sense of Style" (Pinker 2015)
In praise of:
The Sense of Style: The Thinking Person's Guide to Writing in the 21st Century (Pinker 2015)
What a wonderful book!
Classic writing style has never been more fun to read!
I particularly loved:
From the end of that spectacular chapter:
My brief (and sometimes waggish) summary of some of those tricky writing tips include:
AVOID, LIKE YOU WOULD THE BUBONIC PLAGUE (which, can kill you):
Metadiscourse (which includes, Signposting, which is coming up next, and see what I did there).
Metadiscourse is: `verbiage about verbiage, such as subsection, review, and discussion. Inexperienced writers often think they’re doing the reader a favor by guiding her through the rest of the text with a detailed preview. In reality, previews that read like a scrunched-up table of contents are there to help the writer, not the reader.' (Pinker 2015, p. 38)
Signposting - Instead of explaining (or, previewing) what your next section or chapter will do, (e.g., In this next section, I will discuss the causes of ...) and instead, Ask the reader an interesting question! (e.g., What makes [X]s do [Y]?).
Likewise, instead of summarizing (e.g.: In the section/chapter above I have shown that...) in Classic Style you should use figurative language to demonstrate a literal view. Convert the language into a mental "view". (e.g.: As we have just seen...)
Hedging - Stop using weasel-words! `Many writers cushion their prose with wads of fluff that imply that they are not willing to stand behind what they are saying, including almost, apparently, comparatively, fairly, in part, nearly, partially, predominantly, presumably, rather, relatively, seemingly, so to speak, somewhat, sort of, to a certain degree, to some extent, and the ubiquitous I would argue (does this mean that you would argue for your position if things were different, but are not willing to argue for it now?).' (Pinker 2015, p. 43)
Apologizing - Don't apologize that there is no standard definition for the topic you are discussing, nor open by saying it is "complex" and there is "uncertainty" and "controversy." Pinker writes: `In classic style, the writer credits the reader with enough intelligence to realize that many concepts aren’t easy to define and that many controversies aren’t easy to resolve. She is there to see what the writer will do about it.' (Pinker 2015, p. 42)
Professional narcissism - Don't say "In recent times, researchers have focussed on the problem of...[X]" just pose the question and answer it: "[X] is the mystery. How does it work?".
On this, Pinker says: `researchers are apt to lose sight of whom they are writing for, and narcissistically describe the obsessions of their guild rather than what the audience really wants to know. Professional narcissism is by no means confined to academia. Journalists assigned to an issue often cover the coverage, creating the notorious media echo chamber. Museum signs explain how the shard in the showcase fits into a classification of pottery styles rather than who made it or what it was used for. Music and movie guides are dominated by data on how much money a work grossed the weekend it was released, or how many weeks it spent in the theaters or on the charts. Governments and corporations organize their Web sites around their bureaucratic structure rather than the kinds of information a user seeks.' (Pinker 2015, p. 41)
Clichés - Try and create new cliches! Don't just use the old ones. - It's boring!
(The movie mogul Sam Goldfish said: "What we need around here are some new cliches!")
Mixed metaphors - Keep it consistent, stupid!
Pinker says: `Classic prose is a pleasant illusion, like losing yourself in a play. The writer must work to keep up the impression that his prose is a window onto the scene rather than just a mess of words. Like an actor with a wooden delivery, a writer who relies on canned verbal formulas will break the spell. This is the kind of writer who gets the ball rolling in his search for the holy grail, but finds that it’s neither a magic bullet nor a slam dunk, so he rolls with the punches and lets the chips fall where they may while seeing the glass as half-full, which is easier said than done.
Avoid clichés like the plague— it’s a no-brainer. (12) When a reader is forced to work through one stale idiom after another, she stops converting the language into mental images and slips back into just mouthing the words.' (Pinker 2015, pp 45-6)
Metaconcepts - These are abstractions of abstractions! `Could you recognize a “level” or a “perspective” if you met one on the street? Could you point it out to someone else? What about an approach, an assumption, a concept, a condition, a context, a framework, an issue, a model, a process, a range, a role, a strategy, a tendency, or a variable? These are metaconcepts – concepts about concepts.' (Pinker 2015, p. 49)
These mean your prose is too abstract, and not concrete. If you really have to use a "model", a "strategy", etc, then, immediately follow it up with examples! Paint a visual picture!
In Classic Style: You put the reader in the scene with you, and make it so that you are both viewing the object that you are talking about.
Then again - an actual scientific model is okay, if you include a diagram, in my view. e.g.: See the Creative Practice Theory model. Or say, the Systems Model of Creativity.
But of course - in Classic Style you should also include concrete examples, right after mentioning any abstract concept. (Like I just did above, with those 2 links, to CPT and the Systems Model of Creativity.)
Zombie nouns - e.g. "There is no anticipation of a cancellation" is better said "It's still on." Pinker writes: "The nominalization rule takes a perfectly spry verband embalms it into a lifeless noun by adding a suffix like –ance, –ment, –ation, or –ing.Instead of affirming an idea, you effect its affirmation ; rather than postponing something, you implement a postponement. The writing scholar Helen Sword calls them zombie nounsbecause they lumber across the scene without a conscious agent directing their motion." (Pinker 2015, p. 50)
and finally, Pinker (2015) warns against:
Unnecessary passives - Make the language active (active not passive verbs) unless there is a need for the passive. (Sometimes the passive voice is better! Depends on the exact problem-situation.)
====================
And so, those are but a fraction of the priceless advice in this wonderful book!
A crucial point - and which, as far as I know, nobody has ever made before, I would like to make [note the signposting, but I think it's worth it this time] is:
Classic Style is, literally, creative writing.
Namely, the standard bipartite definition of creativity (Runco & Jaeger 2012) is: an artifact (word, sentence, paragraph, book, movie, joke, etc - a unit of culture) that is "new and useful", and the tripartite definition of creativity is: new, useful and surprising.
Now...
Just to use one example from the above excellent list by Pinker, let's look at:
Cliches!
Pinker 2015 (rightly) adjures (i.e. advises, if you have never seen that word before) on Plain vs. Classic Style:
Okay well - stated formally, by Martindale (1989):
So, with his book, Pinker is showing us:
Did you catch that? It's a profound truth.
(Profound, because the opposite of it is also true; namely: using cliches is uncreative writing.)
Pinker is showing us: how to be - literally - creative in our writing...!
Let's break it down:
1. "New" = Combine two old things, to get a new thing.
Namely, combine the phrase "The early bird gets the worm" with another phrase - a joke, in this case - ("but") "the second mouse gets the cheese."
2. "Useful" = Okay so the utility of any solution depends on the precise problem-situation, and how well it is solved by that creative artifact (idea, process, or product).
In this case, the problem (i.e., task, goal, objective) is:
At least; the new twist on an old cliche shows, just one of the very many stylistic tricks, devices, moves, or techniques, of Classic Style writing. (There are literally hundreds of heuristics for Classic (prose) Style. It's much like: Screenwriting Heuristics.)
And finally: (in looking at: 1. new, 2. useful, 3. surprising as the 3 criteria for creativity...)
3. "Surprising" = unexpected.
The 2nd half of the sentence ("but the second mouse gets the cheese.") is an extra added (and/or, `new') twist on an old cliché, or turn of phrase!
I, for one, didn't see the second part of the phrase, coming! It was a nice surprise.
I mean to say: I could not have predicted it. (And: I had not heard/seen/did not know that specific phrase/joke before. So, it was also new . To me! (And, no doubt, to many other readers, who also have not heard that entertaining phrase before.)
So it is - officially - a creative sentence. New, useful and surprising .
It achieves all the three goals/criteria, at once!
But - what is most amazing: Pinker (2015) does this, over and over and over...!
Sentence after sentence after sentence!!!
Thus:
He is super-creative in his writing.
Super: Classic Style!
My admiration and appreciation for this kind of writing knows no boundary conditions! (I was going to say "Knows no bounds", but that seems a cliche. And I am trying to write in Classic Style more often. It takes a while to learn. Practise makes... less-imperfect.)
Have I made myself clear? Here is my (new, useful & surprising) point:
Classic Style writing, literally is creative writing.Classic Style writing, actually is creative writing.Classic Style writing, really is creative writing.
My favourite writers/thinkers are (to name only seven of hundreds):
Charles Darwin, Stanley Kubrick, Dan Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Brian Boyd, Steven Pinker, Helen Sword...
And, guess what?
They all write in Classic Style!
...And, guess what else?
Steven Pinker has written a book (2015) on Classic Style, in Classic Style!
(That is an amazing feat! He actually: walks the talk-!)
And, it is an absolute pleasure to read.
And: informs, educates, explains, entertains!
...I LOVE IT!
...Why are you not reading it, right now???
(Okay, maybe you first have to finish reading this blog post.)
Okay, it's over, so: GO! :)
And sprint, don't perambulate.
As an aside - for my next trick, 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.
The Sense of Style: The Thinking Person's Guide to Writing in the 21st Century (Pinker 2015)What a wonderful book!
Classic writing style has never been more fun to read!
I particularly loved:
`Chapter 2:
A Window onto the World.
Classic Style as an antidote
for
Academese, Bureaucratese, Corporatese, Legalese, Officialese,
and other kinds of Stuffy Prose.'
(Pinker 2015, p. 26)
From the end of that spectacular chapter:
"In this chapter I have tried to call your attention to many of the writerly habits that result in soggy prose: metadiscourse, signposting, hedging, apologizing, professional narcissism, clichés, mixed metaphors, metaconcepts, zombie nouns, and unnecessary passives.
Writers who want to invigorate their prose could try to memorize that list of don’ts.
But it’s better to keep in mind the guiding metaphor of classic style: a writer, in conversation with a reader, directs the reader’s gaze to something in the world.
Each of the don’ts corresponds to a way in which a writer can stray from this scenario."
(Pinker 2015, p. 56, bold emphasis mine)So my advice is: read the book!
My brief (and sometimes waggish) summary of some of those tricky writing tips include:
AVOID, LIKE YOU WOULD THE BUBONIC PLAGUE (which, can kill you):
Metadiscourse (which includes, Signposting, which is coming up next, and see what I did there).
Metadiscourse is: `verbiage about verbiage, such as subsection, review, and discussion. Inexperienced writers often think they’re doing the reader a favor by guiding her through the rest of the text with a detailed preview. In reality, previews that read like a scrunched-up table of contents are there to help the writer, not the reader.' (Pinker 2015, p. 38)
Signposting - Instead of explaining (or, previewing) what your next section or chapter will do, (e.g., In this next section, I will discuss the causes of ...) and instead, Ask the reader an interesting question! (e.g., What makes [X]s do [Y]?).
Likewise, instead of summarizing (e.g.: In the section/chapter above I have shown that...) in Classic Style you should use figurative language to demonstrate a literal view. Convert the language into a mental "view". (e.g.: As we have just seen...)
Hedging - Stop using weasel-words! `Many writers cushion their prose with wads of fluff that imply that they are not willing to stand behind what they are saying, including almost, apparently, comparatively, fairly, in part, nearly, partially, predominantly, presumably, rather, relatively, seemingly, so to speak, somewhat, sort of, to a certain degree, to some extent, and the ubiquitous I would argue (does this mean that you would argue for your position if things were different, but are not willing to argue for it now?).' (Pinker 2015, p. 43)
Apologizing - Don't apologize that there is no standard definition for the topic you are discussing, nor open by saying it is "complex" and there is "uncertainty" and "controversy." Pinker writes: `In classic style, the writer credits the reader with enough intelligence to realize that many concepts aren’t easy to define and that many controversies aren’t easy to resolve. She is there to see what the writer will do about it.' (Pinker 2015, p. 42)
Professional narcissism - Don't say "In recent times, researchers have focussed on the problem of...[X]" just pose the question and answer it: "[X] is the mystery. How does it work?".
On this, Pinker says: `researchers are apt to lose sight of whom they are writing for, and narcissistically describe the obsessions of their guild rather than what the audience really wants to know. Professional narcissism is by no means confined to academia. Journalists assigned to an issue often cover the coverage, creating the notorious media echo chamber. Museum signs explain how the shard in the showcase fits into a classification of pottery styles rather than who made it or what it was used for. Music and movie guides are dominated by data on how much money a work grossed the weekend it was released, or how many weeks it spent in the theaters or on the charts. Governments and corporations organize their Web sites around their bureaucratic structure rather than the kinds of information a user seeks.' (Pinker 2015, p. 41)
Clichés - Try and create new cliches! Don't just use the old ones. - It's boring!
(The movie mogul Sam Goldfish said: "What we need around here are some new cliches!")
Mixed metaphors - Keep it consistent, stupid!
Pinker says: `Classic prose is a pleasant illusion, like losing yourself in a play. The writer must work to keep up the impression that his prose is a window onto the scene rather than just a mess of words. Like an actor with a wooden delivery, a writer who relies on canned verbal formulas will break the spell. This is the kind of writer who gets the ball rolling in his search for the holy grail, but finds that it’s neither a magic bullet nor a slam dunk, so he rolls with the punches and lets the chips fall where they may while seeing the glass as half-full, which is easier said than done.
Avoid clichés like the plague— it’s a no-brainer. (12) When a reader is forced to work through one stale idiom after another, she stops converting the language into mental images and slips back into just mouthing the words.' (Pinker 2015, pp 45-6)
Metaconcepts - These are abstractions of abstractions! `Could you recognize a “level” or a “perspective” if you met one on the street? Could you point it out to someone else? What about an approach, an assumption, a concept, a condition, a context, a framework, an issue, a model, a process, a range, a role, a strategy, a tendency, or a variable? These are metaconcepts – concepts about concepts.' (Pinker 2015, p. 49)
These mean your prose is too abstract, and not concrete. If you really have to use a "model", a "strategy", etc, then, immediately follow it up with examples! Paint a visual picture!
In Classic Style: You put the reader in the scene with you, and make it so that you are both viewing the object that you are talking about.
Then again - an actual scientific model is okay, if you include a diagram, in my view. e.g.: See the Creative Practice Theory model. Or say, the Systems Model of Creativity.
But of course - in Classic Style you should also include concrete examples, right after mentioning any abstract concept. (Like I just did above, with those 2 links, to CPT and the Systems Model of Creativity.)
Zombie nouns - e.g. "There is no anticipation of a cancellation" is better said "It's still on." Pinker writes: "The nominalization rule takes a perfectly spry verband embalms it into a lifeless noun by adding a suffix like –ance, –ment, –ation, or –ing.Instead of affirming an idea, you effect its affirmation ; rather than postponing something, you implement a postponement. The writing scholar Helen Sword calls them zombie nounsbecause they lumber across the scene without a conscious agent directing their motion." (Pinker 2015, p. 50)
and finally, Pinker (2015) warns against:
Unnecessary passives - Make the language active (active not passive verbs) unless there is a need for the passive. (Sometimes the passive voice is better! Depends on the exact problem-situation.)
====================
And so, those are but a fraction of the priceless advice in this wonderful book!
A crucial point - and which, as far as I know, nobody has ever made before, I would like to make [note the signposting, but I think it's worth it this time] is:
Classic Style is, literally, creative writing.
Namely, the standard bipartite definition of creativity (Runco & Jaeger 2012) is: an artifact (word, sentence, paragraph, book, movie, joke, etc - a unit of culture) that is "new and useful", and the tripartite definition of creativity is: new, useful and surprising.
Now...
Just to use one example from the above excellent list by Pinker, let's look at:
Cliches!
Pinker 2015 (rightly) adjures (i.e. advises, if you have never seen that word before) on Plain vs. Classic Style:
`The early bird gets the worm, for example, is plain.
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese is classic. '
(Pinker 2015, p. 30)Wait, How does creativity work, again?
Okay well - stated formally, by Martindale (1989):
`Ultimately, all creative products have this quality: old ideas or elements are combined in new ways.
This is the case for all domains of creativity.’
(Martindale, 1989, p. 212, bold emphasis mine).
So, with his book, Pinker is showing us:
How to make an old thing (e.g.: a cliche): new, useful and surprising.
Thus: officially, creative.
Did you catch that? It's a profound truth.
(Profound, because the opposite of it is also true; namely: using cliches is uncreative writing.)
Pinker is showing us: how to be - literally - creative in our writing...!
Let's break it down:
1. "New" = Combine two old things, to get a new thing.
Namely, combine the phrase "The early bird gets the worm" with another phrase - a joke, in this case - ("but") "the second mouse gets the cheese."
2. "Useful" = Okay so the utility of any solution depends on the precise problem-situation, and how well it is solved by that creative artifact (idea, process, or product).
In this case, the problem (i.e., task, goal, objective) is:
I want not to bore my readers!
I want to do the opposite, namely entertain, or educate, or amuse, or inform, (etc - insert other possible goals here, there may well be many goals.)The new thing - the actual phrase: "The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese" - is: entertaining as well as informative, as it demonstrates for us, how to do classic writing. So it is indeed: useful!
At least; the new twist on an old cliche shows, just one of the very many stylistic tricks, devices, moves, or techniques, of Classic Style writing. (There are literally hundreds of heuristics for Classic (prose) Style. It's much like: Screenwriting Heuristics.)
And finally: (in looking at: 1. new, 2. useful, 3. surprising as the 3 criteria for creativity...)
3. "Surprising" = unexpected.
The 2nd half of the sentence ("but the second mouse gets the cheese.") is an extra added (and/or, `new') twist on an old cliché, or turn of phrase!
I, for one, didn't see the second part of the phrase, coming! It was a nice surprise.
I mean to say: I could not have predicted it. (And: I had not heard/seen/did not know that specific phrase/joke before. So, it was also new . To me! (And, no doubt, to many other readers, who also have not heard that entertaining phrase before.)
So it is - officially - a creative sentence. New, useful and surprising .
It achieves all the three goals/criteria, at once!
But - what is most amazing: Pinker (2015) does this, over and over and over...!
Sentence after sentence after sentence!!!
Thus:
He is super-creative in his writing.
Super: Classic Style!
My admiration and appreciation for this kind of writing knows no boundary conditions! (I was going to say "Knows no bounds", but that seems a cliche. And I am trying to write in Classic Style more often. It takes a while to learn. Practise makes... less-imperfect.)
Have I made myself clear? Here is my (new, useful & surprising) point:
Classic Style writing, literally is creative writing.Classic Style writing, actually is creative writing.Classic Style writing, really is creative writing.
My favourite writers/thinkers are (to name only seven of hundreds):
Charles Darwin, Stanley Kubrick, Dan Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Brian Boyd, Steven Pinker, Helen Sword...
And, guess what?
They all write in Classic Style!
...And, guess what else?
Steven Pinker has written a book (2015) on Classic Style, in Classic Style!
(That is an amazing feat! He actually: walks the talk-!)
And, it is an absolute pleasure to read.
And: informs, educates, explains, entertains!
...I LOVE IT!
...Why are you not reading it, right now???
(Okay, maybe you first have to finish reading this blog post.)
Okay, it's over, so: GO! :)
And sprint, don't perambulate.
As an aside - for my next trick, 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.
No comments have been added yet.
