I considered the possibility but I feel if it is, he could have done a better job letting us in on the joke
Looking at the author's style, it probably isn't satire. Some of his stuff is borderline purple prose for my taste. But I might find it more tolerable if he used more paragraphs.
I didn't make it past the second sentence, being distracted by the voices in my head saying, "Blah, blah, blah."
I actually enjoyed the hell out of that. I don't necessarily agree with everything, but the author does have a way with catty barbs: That said, there's also some good writing advice in there as well. A few well-phrased pearls for those who didn't care to read it: Should anyone disagree with these, let them be cast out, forced to wander the world with nothing but Dan Brown novels to read for eternity.
A look into the mindset of someone who regards the campus as much more valuable than the student body and faculty. And after looking I can confirm that it’s what I expected. No more, no less.
Pompous verbosity does not entice me to immerse myself in perusing grandiose pontifications on English prose, the universe, and everything. Had I persevered as far as #17, I'd have erupted in furious outcries. Do not dis The Elements of Style to me. However, please feel free to rag on The Chicago Manual of Style.
Thank you @AntPoems for the TL;DR. I didn't make it very far in, but I do actually like some of the parts you highlighted. Not #17 mind you. And I haven't read any Hemingway aside from a few snippets found in online writing guides or books, but it sounds like the guy just loves to hear the sound of his own voice and to use far too many syllables and be extremely highfalutin'. And he seems to have something against clear strong language, which I actually prefer. Makes me dislke him immediately (He sounds like a pompous harumphing authoritarian), but I do like some of his points.
The Elements of Style are 90% good. The rest only applies to non-fiction, and even that's up in the air because of contradictions. Actually, it all applies to non-fiction because that's the Element's published purpose, but that 90% carries over to us. I like Chicago Manual, and the Old Man and the Sea too, hehe. ------------------------ This is my favorite: 11. Orwell also decrees: “If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.” No great writer in the history of any tongue has ever observed this rule, and no aspiring writer should follow it. The correct counsel would be “If a word is so excessive as to mar the effect of a sentence, remove it; but never remove a word simply because it is possible to do so.” I wonder if the author is being obtuse. Of course it means to cut out a word when its presence is not missed. If the word is an asset, its presence is justified by its impact, and then the word stays. Otherwise everything would reduce to subject + verb. I always, always consider chopping every word/phrase. That shows you the purpose of your sentence. If you understand the smallest possible sentence which still conveys a meaningful idea, then the additions to the sentence show their obvious purpose. Some phrases are directing traffic and need to be there. Others are standing on the corner with a cardboard sign. Find the kernel sentence and it will be obvious which is which. ------------------ edit: This rule is treated with the same obtuseness. 16. The same book advises: “Write with nouns and verbs, not with adjectives and adverbs.” That is moronic. Better not to write at all than attempt to heed so obscene a piece of puritanical nonsense. Write with every kind of word that serves your ends. Of course he's right, but only because he's attacking a strawman. Nouns and verbs are more important because they are self-contained. You put your focus there. Adverbs and adjectives do not stand on their own. They are intensifiers. That's all it's saying. The advice isn't to write solely with nouns and verbs. That conclusion would be autistic. Even Rainman knows better than that. I think I do want to fight this guy now.
Some good stuff here, buried in the verbiage. Hart seems to so enjoy the exercise of using the perfectly appropriate word that he loses the delights of economy. It's interesting to me that Huckleberry Finn breaks almost every one of his rules, but somehow continues to be read and appreciated nearly a century and a half after Twain published it. I also found it amusing that, for a fellow who seems to have a contempt for rules, at least promulgated by others, he does have rather dogmatic ways of approaching literary criticism. What makes Benjamin Dreyer's book Dreyer's English so much better as a guide to style and usage is that Dreyer considers rules as helpful guides but not hills to die on. He's quick to say, "Well, you could always do it this way and not that way. It's not orthodox, but hey, it's your book." I'll take Hart's credentials at face value, in that somebody considered him good enough to publish and hire as an instructor. Dreyer's credentials are copy chief of Random House. Make of that what you will.
It strikes me as the chef’s kiss of irony that someone would claim there’s good stuff in an article titled “How to Write English Prose,” and then admit said good stuff is buried in the author’s verbiage.
I meant that it was sort of like looking through all the rubble of an explosion to find the Rolex that you think is buried somewhere. You may actually find it. But not all of the debris hides Rolexes.
