Qualities of Clear and Graceful Writing

What are the qualities of clear and graceful writing, regardless of the type of cadence it has (of course it must flow)? Can you make a list?

I have several books on writing. When I wrote something about five years ago, I strove to follow the Elements of Style, while aiming for cadence, imagery, and parallelism, and according to the comments of others on that piece, which I no longer have the full text of, I managed to do a good job. But I have another book on style, which disagrees with the Elements of Style, saying that it is sometimes necessary to use the passive voice. In the piece I wrote about five years ago, there was nearly no passive voice present due to my efforts to follow the Elements of Style, but now it seems that I am much more careless due to the advice of "Ten Lesson in Clarity and Grace." However, I must admit that I don't really follow that book as much as I used to follow the Elements of Style, partly because I have not yet committed all the rules to memory.

Also, in neither of those two books is there any treatment of rhythm, but in one simply the declaration that rhythm is an "all other things being equal" thing. (I think I read that in the Elements of Style or in an excerpt somewhere but I am not sure). Furthermore, I have read a book on prose rhythm (which is completely useless since it plainly states that the purpose of the book was not to provide a recipe for creating rhythmic prose), whose style I considered to be very good, but which makes heavy use of nominalizations, which is a defiance of the rules in the book "Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace".

So it seems that different books on writing style disagree with one another, and many well-written books do not follow all of the rules given by those style guides. So I would like to ask you what you consider to be the qualities of clear and graceful writing, regardless of the type of cadence it has.

There are probably many writers who adhere to the rules in The Elements of Style, and who will not accept the idea of using the passive voice under any circumstances, although other style guides speak of such circumstances being sometimes present.

I seemed to have succeeded most when following the rules in The Elements of Style, albeit striving for cadence. But I did that in only one five-paragraph piece which I wrote about five years ago. It is possible that my linguistic skills have declined since then. For not to long before that time, I was writing essays and papers for college.

Now even though I succeeded through the rules in the Elements of Style, I am not sure that the advice it gives is the best. Even Steven Pinker, a famous psychologist and linguist, who has written a style guide which I have only just now mentioned "Sense of Style", speaks against much of the advice in the Elements of Style. Nevertheless, ever since I wrote that five paragraph piece about five years ago, I have neither strictly adhered to the Elements of Style, nor written anything that others praised. It seems that, (and I am repeating what I said before), when I follow style guides that permit use of things like the passive voice, I become careless with language. But of course I do not really adhere to such style guides, because I have not fully memorized the rules in them.

Now passive voice is always used when one uses a past-tense participle as a free or bound modifier, so how can one avoid using the passive voice when using the cumulative syntax? Even in that piece which I wrote about five years ago, there was one place where I used a past-tense participle as a bound modifier, not even realizing I was using the passive voice, although I did not specify the agent of the action. So it seems that the passive voice is necessary, at least when it behooves you to use a past tense participle as a free or bound modifier.

There is yet another book I have on writing style, promoted by Writer's Digest, (though that is not where I heard about it), which focuses on grammar and rhythm, a book which, when speaking of clarity, makes no mention of either active or passive voice, nor even the necessity of writing concisely.

So what do I do with these books, since information present in one is missing from another? Do I take the advice of multiple different books, and use them together? How can I, when, the author of one book seems ignorant of the things mentioned in another books; when, in one book, the authors speaks of music but not the fundamental principles of clarity (except for movement from old information to new, and using words with the right definition), and in another book, the author speaks of parallelism and things pertaining to clarity but not of music. I feel as though I need a book on style, which accounts for everything, but there seems to be no such book.

So, what do you consider to be the rules for producing clear and graceful prose, or the qualities thereof? Please feel free to discuss anything I mentioned in this post.

 

Can you give some examples, maybe three? So many sources mis-diagnose passive voice that I think it would be useful to know whether we're actually talking about passive voice.

 

1) The authors of The Elements of Style didn't understand what passive voice is. Of four examples of passive voice, three were not passive voice.

Not passive: There were a great number of dead leaves lying on the ground.
Passive: The sound of the falls could still be heard.
Not passive: The reason that he left college was that his health became impaired.
Not passive: It was not long before he was very sorry that he had said what he had.

More entertainingly, they used the passive voice in the narrative critizing the use of the passive voice:

"Many a tame sentence of description or exposition can be made lively..."

I'd lay pretty high odds that when you were eliminating passive voice, much of what you eliminated wasn't actually passive voice.

In any case, passive voice really isn't an important issue. People run in terror of it, but it's fairly rare, and when it is used, that's often because it's the best way to express the thought. (Yes, 'when it is used' is passive. And I have zero problem with that.)

So, one piece of advice for clear and graceful writing: Stop being distracted by the passive voice phobia.

2) One of my rules for "clear and graceful" prose is to never add complexity that isn't needed. I've more than once quoted Henry Mitchell:

Never permit anything in the garden to be more costly, in material, than is necessary. If wood poles will serve, don't use brick columns. If brick will do, don't use stone. If stone will do, don't use marble.​

Henry Mitchell wasn't saying this as a metaphor, he was saying it literally. But I think that it also applies to writing. This doesn't mean that you should never use complex words, phrasing, structures, etc. It means that you should only use them when you need them.

3) By the way, Henry Mitchell is a magnificent writer. I recommend reading his stuff as one clear and graceful and poetic author, even if you don't care about gardening. He uses ordinary words and gives them deep meaning.

Below is one of his more famous quotes. It has grace and clarity. It has rhythm. It has poetry. But it doesn't twist and tie the words to make a tortured bonsai. The structure serves the meaning, not the other way around.

There are no green thumbs or black thumbs. There are only gardeners and non-gardeners. Gardeners are the ones who ruin after ruin get on with the high defiance of nature herself, creating, in the very face of her chaos and tornado, the bower of roses and the pride of irises. It sounds very well to garden a 'natural way'. You may see the natural way in any desert, any swamp, any leech-filled laurel hell. Defiance, on the other hand, is what makes gardeners.​

Let's add another one:

There is nothing like the first hot days of spring when the gardener stops wondering if it's too soon to plant the dahlias and starts wondering if it's too late. Even the most beautiful weather will not allay the gardener's notion (well-founded actually) that he is somehow too late, too soon, or that he has too much stuff going on or not enough. For the garden is the stage on which the gardener exults and agonizes out every crest and chasm of the heart.​

And another one:

By the time one is eighty, it is said, there is no longer a tug of war in the garden with the May flowers hauling like mad against the claims of the other months. All is at last in balance and all is serene. The gardener is usually dead, of course.​

4) You'll never find a single book on what makes the best style, because there are countless different styles. If you want to find your style, you have to read and write.

 

It seems you have a certain zeal for gathering up the rules and mechanics of writing. Once done, it's now on you to develop your own style. To be completely honest with you, if there be a gun to my head right now; I couldn't tell you what a noun is, or a verb, nor much else. However, I have come to discover what similes and soliloquies are, and that my editor has little time for either.
I write what's in my head, then, I fiddle with it until it feels right. I send it off to my editor and she has a go at it. And I fiddle with it some more. What else is there in telling a good story?

How many rules have I broken in the passage below?


“I’m so relieved my prayers were answered and you’ve come back to us, but it can’t be safe for you, not the way things are now. My uncle is very worried you’ll be found out.”

“Rose, what do you believe in?”

“What do you mean?”

“It’s a simple enough question. Indulge me — what rules your stars?”

Valerie caressed the locket that hung from her neck, rubbing it between her thumb and forefinger. Then in a pillowy voice, she began anew. “Are you moonstruck by the pagan ways, searching the constellations for omens and boiling entrails on Solstice Eve to curry favor with the goat god? Or are you smitten by the meddling gods of antiquity, we creatures great and small moved like pieces on a chessboard, mere amusements in a parlor game? Tell me, have you met the new god who tinkers not in the affairs of Man, a convenient deity invented by a cult of impotent fools that meet in secret and plot great mischief? Such men put their faith in divine reason, but do they tally the cost? No, I think not. I know the God you pray to, the Lord of our hopes and fears, his Son, our Savior — ” Valerie arched her back and thrust her arms out, face and palms lifted heavenward in mock crucifixion. “We try best we can to walk in his footsteps. But these are perilous times. They’ve made it a crime to mention Him in a certain light, and now, God leaves us only breadcrumbs to follow.”

“You’re toying with me again. I would appreciate it if you didn’t treat me like a child,” Rosemarie said, her chin high and shoulders back.

“I don’t know that I am. We haven’t seen each other for such a long spell and in that time I often thought of what I wanted to tell you. Some of those things are now leaping from my mind.” She gave Rosemarie a gentle poke on the nose. “Now, what say you?”

“Are you speaking of such things that exist beyond the veil?”

Valerie shrugged and settled comfortably into the cushions of the couch, letting the question hang in the air.

With no reply forthcoming, Rosemarie searched the room for inspiration. Her eyes rested on one of the dancing figures on the back wall. It was Urania, the muse of astronomy. She wore a tunic speckled with stars and comets, her makeshift wings dropping feathers as she cavorted with her sisters.

Rosemarie took a confident breath. “I know of expeditions returned from distant lands with astounding news of savages and wild animals unknown to us. One of the books you sent me has drawings and descriptions of creatures that look to be sea serpents and dragons... but they’re not that at all. The savages have a profound reverence for the animals and believe them possessed by spirits. But it’s been a great disappointment to most, the creatures aren’t like the myths. The people are backward and have perverse rituals and superstitions. They know nothing of God.”

“And if we geld all the enchanted beasts, is the night any less wondrous?” A thin smile slid across Valerie’s lips. “ ‘There are more things in heaven and earth, Rose, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.’ ”

Rosemarie winced.

“My goodness, what’s wrong?” Valerie said.

“You should never, ever quote Shakespeare on opening night. It’s bad luck, very bad. Everyone knows that.” Rosemarie shook her head. “Worse, you’ve used my name. Thank heavens you didn’t invoke the Scottish Play.”

Valerie suppressed a smile. “I’ve never known you to be rigid in your beliefs, so quick to dismiss. We can observe the world through the skeptic’s looking glass and be satisfied that all is in good order — Shakespeare would expect nothing less of us — but pull on the wrong frayed thread and you undo the universe. If something utterly unbelievable presents itself to you, and there it is right before your unbelieving eyes, you’re obliged to accept it. Even so, you should welcome it in from the cold.”

“Might we stop talking of Monsieur Shakespeare?” Rosemarie said.

 

For instance: The people ran, frightened by the falling meteor.

I used a past-tense participle as a bound modifier in that piece I wrote about five years ago, resembling in grammar the modifier above, (though the above shows a free modifier, and though the above shows the agent of the action, which was not shown in my piece.).

I considered the free modifier here to be in the passive voice, because it somewhat resembles the pattern "(object) was (verb) by (subject)".

I know exactly what the passive voice is. I know it is not "There was a (noun)".

Even though Strunk and White may not have known what the active voice and the passive voice were, I nonetheless followed my own interpretation of their advice, based on my own knowledge.

 

There is no one book, because different forms of writing requires different styles, and different authors have different styles. Academic styles are different from writing for a newspaper, which is different from writing for a magazine, which is different from writing a how-to article for online, which is different than writing a blog post, which are all different from writing fiction. Each of them require a different level of formality, different punctuation, and vastly different sentence and paragraph structures and storytelling structures.

If you're writing something with the intention of getting it published, the answer is simple: find out which style guide that publisher (or magazine) uses, and use that one.

Every magazine follows a specifc style guide, and many magazines have their own Writer's Guides, which are available to writers. In the days before the Internet, I used to call the receptionist for whatever magazine the piece was intended for and ask if they had a writer's guide, or whether they followed Chicago Manual of Style, or the AP Stylebook or Strunk and White. Now, you can find a lot of that info online.

If not, use what works best for you and your writing, and be aware the others exist so you can edit your work accordingly. The book that made me no longer panic about this stuff is The Grammar Book for You and I Oops Me by C. Edward Good.

As primarily a non-fiction writer, I use The AP Stylebook, Strunk & White's Elements of Style, and the Chicago Manual of Style on a regular basis depending on the intended purpose of what I'm writing. I disagree with much of what they say, but if I'm submitting something, my opinion doesn't matter. What the publisher wants is what the publisher gets.

When I have a question none of those can answer, I turn to The Little Brown Handbook (college textbook) or Eats Shoots and Leaves by Lynne Truss. Often, if it's not for publication, I ignore them all and break the rules, because I strive to be clear while sounding like myself. (See above, where I said "is intended for" instead of "for which it is intended." One of those is "correct" but the other one is the way I actually speak when talking with friends.)