Sometimes it seems like the Elements of Style should be called, The Elements of Avoiding Style, Altogether Which, I think, is the general idea. So, I agree with you.
You agree with me, but I'm not sure I agree with you . Elements should not avoided, just judiciously broken.
Rei brought up a good point; one that I didn't think of before. I completely understand your points, Wreybies. On another, less related note, I honestly thought the uses of the words 'obfuscate' and 'occlude' were wonderful. I get a different feeling from that sentence than I would from, ". . . I would not confuse the meaning. . ." That is the type of thing I enjoy. For example, using the word "occlude" in terms of a sentence's meaning is, to me, a sort of implied metaphor; something that simply saying, "I would not want to confuse the meaning," doesn't have, even though the sentences mean the same thing. I think my major qualm with "short and to the point" is not the philosophy in itself, but how it is usually presented to writers as an ultimative fact; an extreme that everyone must conform to, or else they fail at writing. It's the same type of issue I have with Dawkins and Atheism, but even moreso, because an art is a far, far less definitive thing than the subject of Atheism.
On the note of art; if Picasso can paint what he painted and not only get away with it, but become famous, then I see no reason why we shouldn't be able to simply use the English language to it's fullest extent. Like-- there's something WRONG with the word obfuscate? Are you saying that it isn't a proper word? That there is a problem with the word, other than the fact that most people won't know it? If that's a problem, then most books should SERIOUSLY tone down the vocabulary, because as big as MY vocabulary is, I have NOTHING on most fantasy books out there. I've seen 'vacillate' used. Is that somehow less obscure than the word 'obfuscate'? That's how I see it, anyway. What's the point of these lovely words if we have to not use them at all in order to be writing 'proper' according to some arbitrary standard? What I mean is, the Elements of Style wants you to be technically correct, and YOU say that you can break the 'rules' in order to add style. So basically, the book should be, 'Technical Correctness,' and then we should break these rules in order to add flavor to the writing. That IS what you are saying, right?
No. You are taking some serious creative license with what I have said, and with what I have meant. The OP got the gist of what I was intending perfectly well. There is nothing wrong with the word obfuscate. It exists. It has a defined meaning. It is simply not a word in everyday use. There is no restriction on its use of which I am aware; I simply would not choose to use it in the narrative of a story because it draws attention to itself and away from the hypothetical story I would be writing. My goal is not to wow the reader with my giganto-vocabulary. I have never come away from a book that overuses polysyllabic verbiage and thought to myself, "Amazing vocabulary! I shall treasure this tome for all time." I usually close the book before the first chapter is over and think, "Tedious. Next!" And Atari, I do have a giganto-vocabulary. It is rare that I come across a word in English which stumps me. The issue is in the purpose of the writing and in the purpose of the reading. Again, I don't read a novel with the expectation that I will come away from it with new vocabulary knowledge. I read it to be entertained, and if all I am getting from the author is, "Look at me and awesome vocabulary!" then it is not entertaining. I don't take issue with the odd word used to intone a very subtle nuance or color or shade, but when it is overdone...
Vocabulary is a tool. Language is a tool. Mastery of your tools doesn't mean you use as many of them as can fit a situation. It is knowing exactly which tool best fits the task at hand, and using only that tool. If a task only requires a screwdriver, it isn't performed better because you gave it a final twist with a torque driver. You may only need the torque driver once a year. Pulling it out and using it just because you have it isn't mastery. It's the sign of an amateur. The Elements of Style is a guide to the best use of tools in most situations. In some cases, it will tell you when people often use pliers where a wrench is a better choice. If you have learned from the collected experience it represents, you will find situations in which you can go ahead and use pliers anyway. It will be an informed choice. Most people who disparage the use of The Elements of Style also reject any advice from any source. "Be a rebel. Do your own thing, it doesn't matter wat anyone else thinks." Ironically, this too is advice. So perhaps we should follow their example and ignore that advice also?
Discussions about how best to say things (particularly in fiction) always raise issues about context and diction and variations in style and a barrelful of other matters that good writers have to understand and be wary about. But there are tons of good reasons to see the effect of clarifying a cumbersome sentence or phrase (a la Strunk & White) and no downsides I can think of to understanding the value of clarity. There are equally good reasons to know the good and bad effects of diverging in some way, either for a writerly reason or out of sheer ignorance. Someone alluded to the subjectivity necessary to make a piece of writing one's own (word choice, poetics, and so forth), which I think is why we recognize certain writing as belonging to particular authors. I suspect the best writers also possess a keen awareness that the reader will bring with him or her a good deal of his own subjectivity, too. I think the "beauty" (to stretch the term) of S&W writing is that it will minimize the reader's confusion. But the greater beauty of the memorable artistic writer is to combine clarity with a singular style of one's own in order to optimize the reader's experience (maybe a good deal beyond mere comprehension). Most of us writers probably fall short at both ends in some ways. I think maybe all writers feel that they do. But the S&W end of the spectrum is the easiest one to learn how to accommodate, the most notable side effect of which is to build a foundation for experimenting with how, why, and when to diverge and still capture the imagination of readers we hope to connect with.
I agree that language is a tool, Cogito — but I think your comparing it to a screwdriver is more appropriate when speaking of language as a tool purely for the most efficient mean of communication. Writing is more than just communicating a simple point from author to reader; it is more than a screwdriver, or a torque driver, or a wrench which you use only as you need. An author should want to convey his work to the reader (which includes, but is not limited to his point) as an painter does to his viewer. There is more to a sentence than the stringent efficiencies of its denotation. I think it's unfair (and unreasonable) to make the claim that most people who reject the use of The Elements of Style as ultimate fact also reject advice from any source. That assumption is simply not true, and is actually rather demeaning. Most of the people here realize that there should be kept, and advocated a certain middle-ground. No one is claiming that other people's thoughts don't matter, but there is more to the art that is writing than simplicity and getting the point across. I think this sums it up rather well. A writer, I think, should not want to confuse his reader with unnecessary prose, but at the same time, he should want to introduce the beauty of his art.
Oh yes, I was reading this book, and one of the tips was to shorten what you said. Don't use uneccessary words. At first I dismissed this and thought it was stupid advise. It initially seemed to spoil the idea of writing and freedom. But I think it depends on what you want to do. If you want to tell a gripping story and get from one hook to the the next, and all the climaxes and stuff, then fancy wording isn't necessary and will only distract. However, if you want to write something more exploratory, artistic and visual, then poetic wording may do perfectly. Or a bit of both. Depends on WHAT you are writing and why, in my opinion. An interesting point though!
In that case, the fancy words would be necessary to achieve the goal, so you're still following the advice.
Following what advice? I don't think she said anything about anyone following advice... Anyway, Molly has yet again provided the most satisfying answer to this topic. I second her post. It pretty much sums up everything.
Then consider it my personal observation. Your mileage may vary. But if you note someone rejecting The Elements of Style as pointless rules, take note of their opinions on other matters of writing advice. Take it into account when deciding how much credence to place in their opinions. You may disagree as to how many of the people who reject TEoS reject all guidelines, but surely if you do see such a pattern, you may want to take their advice with a very large grain of salt.
I'm reading "advice" to be referring to Cogito's advice, which is to know the basics (Strunk & White's rules) first. Once you have that down, then you can try writing something more edgy--but you'll be doing it intentionally, understanding the basic rules but knowing how and why you're breaking them for the particular writing you're doing.
I may be wrong, but S&W, which I'd never even heard of in England, is aimed primarily at concise, academic style, isn't it? It doesn't seem to me to be related to creative writing per se, and also it is... very... American... I don't see why it should be taken as such a bible for creative novelists, although I'm with much of it for guidence on academic essays; the more students read it, the better, in fact, especially if English is their second language. Fowler's modern English Usage is far more helpful for me personally.
I think the main idea behind the rule is that if you can say the exact same thing with less words it is most always better to do so. Here is an example that I didn't even think about until Maia corrected it. The people living there went about their morning routines. The residents went about there morning routines. Why write "the people living there" when I can write the residents?
S&W are all about writing for clarity. And it's a good goal, right? If you write something, you want the reader to be able to understand it. I would think any writer would want to know or learn how to write with clarity. Doesn't mean that you never diverge from the rules, but that you diverge on purpose, knowing that you're doing it and why it's necessary for your particular piece of writing.
If you can say the same thing, especially something as groundbreaking as a well trained person beating another, with less words you should do so. You will just bore readers and waste their time. When I read the classics I rarely feel like they are BSing me.
She didn't use the word advice, but the person I quoted did talk about not using unneccessary words, which could be considered good advice. Perhaps "rule" would have been a better word. Essentially, you're still only using necessary words. The words necessary are simply different.
Isn't this the same Art v. Mechanics discussion that crops up anytime three or more writers are together, whether in the real world or cyberland. If I wanted to be an orchestra conductor, but maintained that reading music was unnecessary and diminished the beauty of my work, would there be anyone there who championed my 'freedom'. Picasso, even up to his death, could draw like a thousand angels when he chose. He had to learn the rules before he knew when and how to break them.
Mmm I went on Amazon for this Strunk&White book, and it does seem very American...not saying the same rules don't apply, but to be taken with a pinch of salt. I agree with the fact it seemed aimed more at factual essays rather than creative writing. A lot of the points made are just common sense.
I think this thread has served its purpose, and now it kind of meanders about in a very. . . misunderstood manner. xD
