# Whatever Happenned to Good Writing?



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jul 17, 2008)

I have been reading Samuel Rutherford and John Owen lately and it strikes me even moreso that our style and execution of the English language is poor to say the least. The crassness and shallowness of our use of the vocabulary given to us belies a by-gone era where one was judged as to his/her ability to write in a manner that struck a lyrical tempo to the piece of literature. 

When did we stop writing so well? How can we begin to write well again?


----------



## Casey (Jul 17, 2008)

Haven't liked you my posts??


----------



## TimV (Jul 17, 2008)

> When did we stop writing so well? How can we begin to write well again?



I dunno.


----------



## skellam (Jul 17, 2008)

wuz rong W 2days lang? d nu wA of tlkN n ritN S so mch mor eficent. No nd 2 wori bout vocab or sp. Everybody's got somit 2 sA. txt msgN S d bomb.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jul 17, 2008)

skellam said:


> wuz rong W 2days lang? d nu wA of tlkN n ritN S so mch mor eficent. No nd 2 wori bout vocab or sp. Everybody's got somit 2 sA. txt msgN S d bomb.


----------



## Kim G (Jul 17, 2008)

I've wondered the same thing. The poetic lilt that is so common in writings from even one hundred years ago seems to have been lost. I love the writing styles of Shakespeare, Alexander Pope, Samuel Johnson, the Puritans, Spurgeon, etc. I remember reading that Samuel Johnson used to craft entire poems in his head to store away, and when the time came to publish a poem or article, from his mind would flow a beautiful work of art that only took one sitting to finish.

I wish I were more disciplined in studying great writing so I could imitate the writers. But I fear it would always be just that--an imitation.


----------



## caddy (Jul 17, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I have been reading Samuel Rutherford and John Owen lately and it strikes me even moreso that our style and execution of the English language is poor to say the least. The crassness and shallowness of our use of the vocabulary given to us belies a by-gone era where one was judged as to his/her ability to write in a manner that struck a lyrical tempo to the piece of literature.
> 
> When did we stop writing so well? How can we begin to write well again?


 
How?

1. Read "better" writers.
2. Attempt to mimic that same style.

I have not read Rutherford yet, but hear he is wonderfully gifted and insightful. I am not sure I would want to write like Owens even if I could. He's very difficult to follow. I hear the same of C.Van Til. If I could write like anyone, I would hope to pattern myself after Thomas Watson. Pure depth!

Modern Day: Michael Horton. He restates commonly known terms and ideas in such a fresh manner. I love reading somebody and saying, "Yes, what he said." Then I tend toward breaking one of the commandments in saying: I wish I could have said that!

: )


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Jul 17, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> skellam said:
> 
> 
> > wuz rong W 2days lang? d nu wA of tlkN n ritN S so mch mor eficent. No nd 2 wori bout vocab or sp. Everybody's got somit 2 sA. txt msgN S d bomb.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jul 17, 2008)

caddy said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > I have been reading Samuel Rutherford and John Owen lately and it strikes me even moreso that our style and execution of the English language is poor to say the least. The crassness and shallowness of our use of the vocabulary given to us belies a by-gone era where one was judged as to his/her ability to write in a manner that struck a lyrical tempo to the piece of literature.
> ...



I always hear people talk about having trouble reading Owen. I learned a neat little trick from Carl Trueman about reading Owen, he says to read it out loud. I find this helps a whole bunch now I can read Owen without any trouble. Just repeating what he says in my head.


----------



## KMK (Jul 17, 2008)

I believe there are at least two reasons for this, and they will both open a 

1) Children in this country used to be homeschooled.


2) Children in this country used to be taught to read the KJV. (See the "Blue Back Speller" and the "New England Primer".


This brings up another interesting question: Is modern English a different English than that of John Owen et al? Or is it the same English but of a lesser quality?

Some say that English is what it is and we must teach students to communicate using the English that they know. (Hence 'Ebonics', 'Dual Immersion' etc)

Some say that the writers of previous centuries (KJV, Shakespeare, Owen) are a standard for English.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jul 17, 2008)

KMK said:


> I believe there are at least two reasons for this, and they will both open a
> 
> 1) Children in this country used to be homeschooled.
> 
> ...



The same English but of a lesser quality I say.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 17, 2008)

KMK said:


> Some say that English is what it is and we must teach students to communicate using the English that they know. (Hence 'Ebonics', 'Dual Immersion' etc)
> 
> Some say that the writers of previous centuries (KJV, Shakespeare, Owen) are a standard for English.



_Some say love it is a river 
that drowns the tender reed 
Some say love it is a razer 
that leaves your soul to blead 

Some say love it is a hunger 
an endless aching need 
I say love it is a flower 
and you it's only seed _ 

(Ahem, clears throat)

I think it all went downhill when people started replacing "f"s with "s"s.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jul 17, 2008)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > Some say that English is what it is and we must teach students to communicate using the English that they know. (Hence 'Ebonics', 'Dual Immersion' etc)
> ...



That is a fure thing Andrew.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 17, 2008)

Looking ahead, it's only going to get worse folks:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f52/english-tomorrow-eu-announcement-13666/#post178357


----------



## caddy (Jul 17, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> caddy said:
> 
> 
> > Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> ...


 
Interesting! I just purchased a couple of Tureman's books a month or so ago.

"...the choicest believers, who are assuredly freed from the condemning power of sin, ought yet to make it their business all their days to mortify the indwelling power of sin...Do you mortify; do you make it your daily work; be always at it whilst you live; cease not a day from this work; be killing sin or it will be killing you. Your being dead with Christ virtually, your being quickened with him, will not excuse you from this work."

From _Mortification of Sin_, by John Owen.

I wonder how Horton would rewrite?


----------



## govols (Jul 17, 2008)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > Some say that English is what it is and we must teach students to communicate using the English that they know. (Hence 'Ebonics', 'Dual Immersion' etc)
> ...



Now was that Bette, Conway or Leann?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 17, 2008)

govols said:


> VirginiaHuguenot said:
> 
> 
> > KMK said:
> ...



Bette.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 17, 2008)

I like modern straight forward journalistic style. 

No sentence should be more than 10 words, but Owens and others sometimes wrote 40-word sentences. 

Remember the goal of writing - communication. 


I have heard that we are entering a post-literate age, but we probably do more reading and writing than people EVER have done in the history of the world. So much so, that I guess we are getting sloppy.


----------



## JBaldwin (Jul 17, 2008)

KMK said:


> This brings up another interesting question: Is modern English a different English than that of John Owen et al? Or is it the same English but of a lesser quality?
> 
> Some say that English is what it is and we must teach students to communicate using the English that they know. (Hence 'Ebonics', 'Dual Immersion' etc)
> 
> Some say that the writers of previous centuries (KJV, Shakespeare, Owen) are a standard for English.




Modern English is not a different language, but a morphed language. It doesn't mean we should bow our knees to the sloppy grammar, poor spelling and bad writing so common today. One only has to dig a bit deeper to find good writers today. While they won't look and sound like Rutherford or Owen, they are good writers of modern English. Sadly, most of them are not found in Christian circles. 

I don't think we should make the mistake of saying writers who don't use the vocabulary and style of the master writers of the 17th and 18th century are poor writers. That would be overlooking the fact that our language has changed. 

This doesn't mean that we should copy the sloppiness of our day, either. We should be students of the English language. We should master the vocabulary and the grammar, and we should practice to be good writers. 

I would agree that we are not, on the whole, teaching our children to be good writers and readers. Our ipod and computer-crazed society has a disdain for long sentences, quality grammar and meaty words, because it has no time for them. 

How does one become a good writer? Read good writers. Learn how to write. Most people are clueless when it comes to structure. Practice good writing. Good writers of the past kept daily journals. Good writers of today also keep journals called daily blog pages. Add to your vocabulary. I found that studying French increased my vocabulary immensely, because so many words in the English language have the same latin roots as the French words.


----------



## FenderPriest (Jul 17, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I have been reading Samuel Rutherford and John Owen lately and it strikes me even moreso that our style and execution of the English language is poor to say the least. The crassness and shallowness of our use of the vocabulary given to us belies a by-gone era where one was judged as to his/her ability to write in a manner that struck a lyrical tempo to the piece of literature.
> 
> When did we stop writing so well? How can we begin to write well again?



Benjamin,

Having done some study of the history of the English language (i.e. learning and reading some Old English, but more Middle English), there are two ways my mind goes on this issue, so I hope you don't mind me listing a few!
_
The first is:_
1) The first is that indeed English is horribly adulterated with poor vocabulary, poor grammar, poor writing, poor spelling, etc. 

2) This is in part due to viewing English and the English language expression as a commodity to be enslaved to our industrialist/consumerist aspirations.

3) This is also an evidence of a "dumbing down" of the mind, which is directly correlated to the rise of the demand for entertainment, which is directly related to #2 in my assessment.

_The second direction of my thoughts goes as such:_
1) The English language is an incredibly versatile language, and what we're presently experiencing is just the next phase of our language. For some reason in God's providence, English is one of the more adaptable languages to those indigenous to various cultures. One sees this in its use in Indian, the rise of "Spanglish", what we call "Ebonics", etc.

2) It's _very_ important to remember that there is no such thing as "Standard English" for the mass culture. This isn't a "liberal" v. "conservative" distinction, it's just a fact of history, but it deserves these two qualifications: First, language is a tool used by people to communicate, and it thus adapts to the people using it, which are effected and defined by their situation. For example, some might have thought that it was an adulteration of English when the Normans took England and injected a large amount of their Old French into our judicial, economic, etc. systems. Old French was imposed into English by power, and it's vocabulary makes up more than 50% of our word count (if memory servers me here). For example, all fruit used to be called "apple" in Old English, but when the Normans inject Old French into our commerce, "apple" was delegated to a particular fruit, and "fruit" was given as our new generalization for those sweet-seeds-from-trees-that-we-eat. Secondly, because language is used as a general communication tool for the communication of ideas and thoughts, there is a standard English, and there should be, for those instances where it should exist. Academics is a perfect example. People should write in Standard English in schools. What they do at home or on the streets up to their own desires. But we need a standard of spelling, grammar, structure, etc. for English. 

Thus, I don't think quite accurate to say that the English language is degrading because degrading because we don't write in the style of Rutherford and Owen (though, why anybody would aspire to write like Owen is beyond me - his English is horrible!). Language is moldable, and it fits for what we need. The real issue is what language testifies to: an increasingly self-centered, self-loving, self-serving culture by institutionalization. It is also important to recognize that just as our language expresses the sin of our own culture, the language of Rutherford, etc. does the same for them. At the same time, there is room to say that our English is horrible because we're increasingly unable to communicate effectively, which is a product of poor thinking. So, I think my position is to lightly agree with you, but say that the problem is deeper, and so we shouldn't whip to hard on the messenger. 

Anyhow, I hope that communicated!
~Jacob


----------



## Kim G (Jul 17, 2008)

JBaldwin said:


> Our ipod and computer-crazed society has a disdain for long sentences, quality grammar and meaty words, because it has no time for them.



It usually takes me forever to write a text message because I insist on using correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation.


----------



## redmanca (Jul 17, 2008)

FenderPriest said:


> _The second direction of my thoughts goes as such:_
> 1) The English language is an incredibly versatile language, and what we're presently experiencing is just the next phase of our language. For some reason in God's providence, English is one of the more adaptable languages to those indigenous to various cultures. One sees this in its use in Indian, the rise of "Spanglish", what we call "Ebonics", etc.
> 
> 2) It's _very_ important to remember that there is no such thing as "Standard English" for the mass culture. This isn't a "liberal" v. "conservative" distinction, it's just a fact of history, but it deserves these two qualifications: First, language is a tool used by people to communicate, and it thus adapts to the people using it, which are effected and defined by their situation. For example, some might have thought that it was an adulteration of English when the Normans took England and injected a large amount of their Old French into our judicial, economic, etc. systems. Old French was imposed into English by power, and it's vocabulary makes up more than 50% of our word count (if memory servers me here). For example, all fruit used to be called "apple" in Old English, but when the Normans inject Old French into our commerce, "apple" was delegated to a particular fruit, and "fruit" was given as our new generalization for those sweet-seeds-from-trees-that-we-eat. Secondly, because language is used as a general communication tool for the communication of ideas and thoughts, there is a standard English, and there should be, for those instances where it should exist. Academics is a perfect example. People should write in Standard English in schools. What they do at home or on the streets up to their own desires. But we need a standard of spelling, grammar, structure, etc. for English.
> ...




I agree with this. Francis Shaeffer has some good things to say about this in "Art and the Bible." I'm on campus and don't have it with me, but I will try and put some quotes up later. 

Also, there is no shortage of good writers these days (according to the English today). The reason it seems like there are only bad writers, is that, because of the internet, all the bad writers have been given more prominence, whereas in the 18th century, only the good writers were published, and thus are remembered. I'm sure there was no shortage of bad writers at that time, but no-one remembers them.

My guess is that in a hundred years from now, no-one will remember all the bad writers from this era.


And Jacob, I've always wanted to read Old English! I tried learning Irish Gaelic a while ago (and will continue to try). I think it would be so cool to read the poetry written when our language originated. (I'm an English major).

Conor


----------



## InevitablyReformed (Jul 17, 2008)

skellam said:


> wuz rong W 2days lang? d nu wA of tlkN n ritN S so mch mor eficent. No nd 2 wori bout vocab or sp. Everybody's got somit 2 sA. txt msgN S d bomb.



 Nice.


----------



## FenderPriest (Jul 17, 2008)

redmanca said:


> And Jacob, I've always wanted to read Old English! I tried learning Irish Gaelic a while ago (and will continue to try). I think it would be so cool to read the poetry written when our language originated. (I'm an English major).



Word. I was an English Major focusing on old literature (Old and Medieval). It's a rather quirky language, and had a lot more character and inflection to it than modern English. Watch out with it, the two-person plural will throw you off if you're not careful! That's right, they had a case ending just for two's. But, i mostly read Middle-English from my class on Chaucer where we were required to read it in the original. It's not as hard as you would think.


----------



## danmpem (Jul 17, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I always hear people talk about having trouble reading Owen. I learned a neat little trick from Carl Trueman about reading Owen, he says to read it out loud. I find this helps a whole bunch now I can read Owen without any trouble. Just repeating what he says in my head.



I used to have trouble, but then I read John Owen: The Man and His Theology at the recommendation of others who used to struggle with reading him. That book cleared so much up for me. It's not to say that I don't consult BoT's paraphrases once in a while, but Owen is now so much more accessible and readible.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Jul 17, 2008)

joshua said:


> I believe we have to be careful, though, and not equate _simplicity_ with _poor writing_.



I definitely agree with this comment. English language (or any language, for that matter) isn't a static, written-in-stone institution. It morphs and changes with time, so that the writing of 100 years ago isn't necessarily better or worse than the writing of today. For example, Charles Dickens and Jane Austen would be shredded in modern English classes for their prose, which is considered far too "flowery" and verbose with far too many clauses, which don't really contribute to the point, of which we cannot always be sure, if, for instance, it is not entirely clear to whom the writer is referring, if in fact there is a point, person, or place, where we might not have, if not familiar with geography, become familiar. 

Simply because someone wrote 100 years ago doesn't mean their writing is automatically "better" than contemporary writing...


----------



## KMK (Jul 17, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> I like modern straight forward journalistic style.
> 
> No sentence should be more than 10 words, but Owens and others sometimes wrote 40-word sentences.
> 
> ...



Have you read Paul in the Greek? Talk about your long sentances. Was Paul a poor communicator?


----------



## Jon Peters (Jul 17, 2008)

I think that we lovers of the theology of that era tend to romanticize the period and begin to think that everything was better back then.


----------



## sastark (Jul 17, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> No sentence should be more than 10 words, but Owens and others sometimes wrote 40-word sentences.



16 words.



> I have heard that we are entering a post-literate age, but we probably do more reading and writing than people EVER have done in the history of the world.



30 words.


----------



## Ivan (Jul 17, 2008)

ColdSilverMoon said:


> For example, Charles Dickens and Jane Austen would be shredded in modern English classes for their prose, which is considered far too "flowery" and verbose with far too many clauses, which don't really contribute to the point, of which we cannot always be sure, if, for instance, it is not entirely clear to whom the writer is referring, if in fact there is a point, person, or place, where we might not have, if not familiar with geography, become familiar.



Great sentence. Love it.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Jul 17, 2008)

Ivan said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> > For example, Charles Dickens and Jane Austen would be shredded in modern English classes for their prose, which is considered far too "flowery" and verbose with far too many clauses, which don't really contribute to the point, of which we cannot always be sure, if, for instance, it is not entirely clear to whom the writer is referring, if in fact there is a point, person, or place, where we might not have, if not familiar with geography, become familiar.
> ...


----------



## VictorBravo (Jul 17, 2008)

The most direct and obvious answer to the original question is that, in 1999, they replaced the 3rd edition of Strunk and White's The Elements of Style with the 4th edition.

It's been all downhill since then.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 17, 2008)

sastark said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > No sentence should be more than 10 words, but Owens and others sometimes wrote 40-word sentences.
> ...





Yep, I'm a classic example of a bad writer too. But look at Hemingway and others. Short active-voiced sentences.


----------



## caddy (Jul 17, 2008)

victorbravo said:


> The most direct and obvious answer to the original question is that, in 1999, they replaced the 3rd edition of Strunk and White's The Elements of Style with the 4th edition.
> 
> It's been all downhill since then.


 
Amen. Don't forget Zinsser's Classic


Amazon.com: On Writing Well, 25th Anniversary: The Classic Guide to Writing Nonfiction (On Writing Well): William K. Zinsser: Books


The BEST book In my humble opinion on *"On Writing Well" *


----------



## greenbaggins (Jul 17, 2008)

There are plenty of recent writers of good English. I would put Tolkien up against Dickens and Austen, for instance. Read Phil Ryken carefully, and you will find a master wordsmith there. Dave Barry is great in the realm of humor, as was Erma Bombeck. In theology, we have Sinclair Ferguson, R.C. Sproul, Ligon Duncan, Joey Pipa, Iain Duguid and many others writing in clear language that is also literary. That being said, in general education is going down the tubes. I remember an English class I took in college (!), wherein we were supposed to critique one another's work. We were supposed to check for organization and clarity of the thesis (was it arguing for a position). I couldn't get to those things with my colleagues, because their grammar was so poor that they couldn't even write a complete English sentence! They had many fragments and run-on's. No longer can colleges count on high schools teaching students how to write. They should be writing in a cogent fashion even before attending high school, and many high school students cannot even do that.


----------



## VictorBravo (Jul 17, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> They had many fragments and run-on's.




Not to be picky, dear brother, but I can't help it. An apostrophe for a plural? Arghhh! 

Apostrophe Protection Society


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 17, 2008)

skellam said:


> wuz rong W 2days lang? d nu wA of tlkN n ritN S so mch mor eficent. No nd 2 wori bout vocab or sp. Everybody's got somit 2 sA. txt msgN S d bomb.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Jul 17, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> There are plenty of recent writers of good English. I would put Tolkien up against Dickens and Austen, for instance. Read Phil Ryken carefully, and you will find a master wordsmith there. Dave Barry is great in the realm of humor, as was Erma Bombeck. In theology, we have Sinclair Ferguson, R.C. Sproul, Ligon Duncan, Joey Pipa, Iain Duguid and many others writing in clear language that is also literary.



I agree with you, especially regarding Tolkien. Of course, anyone who taught himself Finnish for the fun of it at the age of 12 has to be pretty good with languages! 

My favorite contemporary author is Mark Helprin. He's not a Christian, but has an interesting view of predestination (not necessarily correct) that I posted a few months ago. Regardless of what you think of his theology, his prose is as good as I've ever read. 

http://www.puritanboard.com/f24/secular-view-predestination-30933/


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Jul 17, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> sastark said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...



I don't think long sentences are necessarily bad, but most people write long sentences (like this one!) not because their thoughts are so complex, but because they don't know how to be concise. Long sentences have an undeserved bad reputation. Still, people first need to learn to use short sentences well. Then they can craft longer sentences that are still comprehensible.

I think the current emphasis on short sentences stems from two trends: (1) bad use of long sentences; and (2) overly short attention spans. Many people can't process longer sentences anymore -- a good long sentence delays gratification.


----------



## py3ak (Jul 17, 2008)

These are some good questions. As to when we stopped writing so well, that is rather a loaded question. At all times there have been some people who write well, and many people who do not. We stand in awe of some earlier ages, thinking of men like Addison, Pope and Swift; but we forget that for every Addison there was a Steele or someone worse.

However, one thing has changed: people don't hear the rhythms of language very well anymore. C.S. Lewis remarked to one of his correspondents that they shouldn't write on a typewriter, as the clacking of the keys would interfere with their ability to hear the sentences properly. I think the rhythms of the industrial age have mostly destroyed our ears. Lewis wrote an essay on "Meter" in which he adduces evidence to demonstrate his point. But take just one point: can you tell how to pronounce an unfamiliar word by its position within a line of poetry? If not, that's a good sign that your ear is not where it needs to be if you are to write beautifully.

I don't think I would hold up either Owen or Rutherford as models of style. Bunyan is far superior from a literary point of view, and not just in _Pilgrim's Progress_, as this extract will show:



> …it is evident that saints neither can, nor dare venture to plead their cause. Alas! the Judge is the Almighty and Eternal God; the law broken is the holy and perfect rule of God, in itself a consuming fire; the sin is so odious, and a thing so abominable, that it is enough to make all the angels blush to hear it but so much as once mentioned in so holy a place as that is, where the great God doth sit to judge. This sin now hangs about the neck of him that hath committed it, yea, it covereth him as doth a mantle; the adversary is bold, cunning, audacious, and can word a thousand of us into an utter silence in less than half a quarter of an hour. What then should the sinner (if he could come there) do at this bar to plead? Nothing, nothing for his own advantage. But now comes in his mercy; he has an Advocate to plead his cause. “If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.”



John Bunyan, _The Work of Jesus Christ as an Advocate, Explained_ (Practical Works, v. 6)

Just the phrase, _less than half a quarter of an hour_ reveals his outstanding talent: it's almost impossible to ruin it by pronouncing it with undue emphasis, because however you sound it, it is an appropriate phrase.

As to developing better writing yourself, you have to read good writers. And it is best to have a variety of authors from different periods: imitation is not the way to a good style, but digestion of the principles that (perhaps unconsciously) underlay the great stylists (who are all quite uniquely different) will go a long way. Some of the greatest authors or books from a stylistic perspective are Jane Austen, Tolkien's translation of _Pearl_ (which is far and away Tolkien's best work), Virginia Woolf, Katherine Mansfield, C.S. Lewis, Oscar Wilde, G.K. Chesteron, Shakespeare and Samuel Johnson (whose importance cannot be overemphasized). It helps to read critical writings, to look at what critics who aren't interested primarily in psychoanalysing the author or the characters, but who are evaluating how a given work accomplishes its goal and affects its readers. Perhaps most important is to read poetry: obviously Shakespeare comes in there again, but Pope's _The Rape of the Lock_ and Dryden's, _Ode to St. Cecilia_ are fairly simple places to start, as is Coleridge's _Kubla Khan_.

Read out loud, and read so it doesn't sound choppy, forced, sing-song or like you're actually rapping instead of reading. 

So far the only theologians I would consider stylists as well, are Theodoret, Bunyan, Candlish and Hugh Martin, although Calvin obviously has a good deal of literary ability and perhaps Boethius should be included as well.

My further advice would be to pay little attention to rules. Someone pointed out that some undeniably great authors would be castigated today for their "poor" prose, and people are taught to write sparsely (or in some homeschool curricula they are taught to write stiltedly under a pretense of being vivid). However, to all the advocates of sparse prose who think nothing else can be published, J.K. Rowling is the standing refutation: she is not a great stylist, nor indeed great in any quality that makes for an outstanding author; but not only is she the world's richest authoress, she is also wildly successful in terms of popularity, and her prose is far from sparse.


----------



## caddy (Jul 17, 2008)

py3ak said:


> These are some good questions. As to when we stopped writing so well, that is rather a loaded question. At all times there have been some people who write well, and many people who do not. We stand in awe of some earlier ages, thinking of men like Addison, Pope and Swift; but we forget that for every Addison *there was a Steele or someone worse.*
> 
> However, one thing has changed: people don't hear the rhythms of language very well anymore. C.S. Lewis remarked to one of his correspondents that they shouldn't write on a typewriter, as the clacking of the keys would interfere with their ability to hear the sentences properly. I think the rhythms of the industrial age have mostly destroyed our ears. Lewis wrote an essay on "Meter" in which he adduces evidence to demonstrate his point. But take just one point: can you tell how to pronounce an unfamiliar word by its position within a line of poetry? If not, that's a good sign that your ear is not where it needs to be if you are to write beautifully.
> 
> ...


 
Which Steele are you referring to? Richard Steele?


----------



## rmdmphilosopher (Jul 17, 2008)

There is a definite beauty in the more labyrinthine constructions of older prose... I've actually been thinking about that a lot lately...

My instruction in writing always seemed to contradict my taste in reading. “Simplicity!” I was taught—and found a glorious complexity in the mazey sentences of Thomas Browne; “Conciseness!” I was taught—and relished the glorious profusions of Dickens; “Directness!” I was taught—and meandered with Montaigne through his urbane recollections. The utilitarian spirit that infects instruction in writing—that, in fact, infects modern prose as a whole—has always disturbed me.

In the late 1600s the Royal Society in England, in the pages of its members' works, proposed to extend their skeptical and scientific spirit to the realm of literature. They eschewed much that falls under the range of stylistic variation in prose. Thomas Sprat, a historian of the movement, describes them in this way:

“They have, therefore, been most rigorous in putting in execution the only remedy that can be found for [...] extravagance, and that has been a constant resolution to reject all amplifications, digressions, and swellings of style: to return back to the primitive purity and shortness, when men delivered so many things almost in an equal number of words. They have exacted from all their members a close, naked, natural way of speaking—positive expressions, clear senses, a native easiness—bringing all things as near the mathematical plainness as they can, and preferring the language of artisans, countrymen, and merchants, before that of wits, or scholars.”

Like Neo-Platonists squirming in discomfort at the burden of their bodies, these men almost seemed to be squirming at the inevitably stylistic nature of language, wishing, really, that it was a mathematical notation system. This movement influenced most scientific literature to this day—its ideals in language becoming more respected as science became more respected. Also, the average attention span seems to have diminished. As Thomas De Quincey wrote, “To read therefore habitually by hurried installments has this bad tendency—that it is likely to found a taste for modes of composition too artificially irritating, and to disturb the equilibrium of the judgment in relation to the colorings of style”. In other words, no one seems to have the time or see the need for thinking about style in prose these days.

The problem with this scientific and utilitarian criticism, I think, is that it undervalues and underestimates the complexity and richness of the world, and especially of humanity. Constricting our viewpoint to the scientific is a frequently castigated reductionism that requires no further whipping from me. It is the peculiarly modern perversion of an excellent and worthwhile principle, originated by Francis Bacon, that has burst the bounds he set upon it. In an essay entitled “Aphoristic Style and the Delivery of Knowledge,” he lays out this useful principle: “... knowledge that is delivered as a thread to be spun on, ought to be delivered and intimated, if it were possible, in the same method wherein it was invented: and so it is possible of knowledge induced”. But the problem arose when these words were embraced with such overzealous vigor that the principle behind them became lost. The human mind and heart longs to communicate more than scientific knowledge, in my experience. 

Anyway, that's my take on the whole thing... I think writing books like Zinsser's or Strunk & White's, while fine in some situations, by setting up the ideals they do sometimes degrade the possibilities of prose style... So basically, I completely agree with the sentiments that prompted the opening post in this thread.


----------



## Robbie Schmidtberger (Jul 17, 2008)

Conciseness helps. If it takes you paragraphs to say something, then you do not really understand it. Which is telling for me... just read my posts. bad grammar everywhere. 

Has anyone seen Abraham Piper's Blog, twenty two words? He limits every post to 22 words, with a few exceptions. It is frequently humorous.


----------



## py3ak (Jul 17, 2008)

Yes, Sir Richard Steele. His contributions to the _Spectator_ mostly fall so far below Addison's that it is almost embarrassing to read them. Or, if we are forced to, we could mention Smollett.


----------



## rescuedbyLove (Jul 21, 2008)

skellam said:


> wuz rong W 2days lang? d nu wA of tlkN n ritN S so mch mor eficent. No nd 2 wori bout vocab or sp. Everybody's got somit 2 sA. txt msgN S d bomb.




Owen ain't got nuttin on dis!


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 22, 2008)

The MAIN question is, "Why am I writing?"

If I am writing to sound flowery or to move people, then write flowery. If one is writing to convey concise, clear arguments, then one should write concisely and clearly. Much of theology needs more conciseness and clearness rather than floweriness in my opinion.

Also, if we write like the Puritans we have to remember that most folks do not read the same way as the Puritans. This is not neccessarily because they were smarter, but they WERE more used to that style of writing. 

We all write for an audience. And we often try to practice and practice in order to be able to write like people (the Puritans) that few people read in our day. While John Owen was very deep, most all would say he is hard to read and outside of our circles people rarely read him. If our writing is truly to spread our beleifs rather than merely "preach to the choir" so to speak than we need to write in a manner that is understandable by those to whom we are seeking to reach.

The Death of Death has been updated, made concise and replaced with modern and clearer language under the title of "Life by His death" by Banner of Truth I think and I applaud this effort.



As far as writing styles being "superior" or "inferior" much of this is cultural snobbery. _De gustibus non est disputandum_ There is no disputing in matters of taste and I think James Joyce and Melville stink and prefer Harlan Ellison and other pulp fiction writers.


----------



## rmdmphilosopher (Jul 22, 2008)

> If I am writing to sound flowery or to move people, then write flowery. If one is writing to convey concise, clear arguments, then one should write concisely and clearly. Much of theology needs more conciseness and clearness rather than floweriness in my opinion.



But surely there are more alternatives than these when it comes to what we call "good writing"? You basically set up a dichotomy between clarity and obfuscation as the only divider between good and bad writing. But it's painful to read some of the 'clear' writing out there, because the author, for example, had a lead ear that caused him to throw in difficult and ungainly phrases, or to accidentally approximate the rhythm of poetry, or to rhyme in annoying unintended ways. I think the category of good writing requires clarity. But it requires other things as well. Never deny the aesthetic dimension of things (thankyou Seerveld)--God created that too!


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 22, 2008)

I think I am reacting against some fellas I know. They have read the Puritans so much that when they write for their local church newsletter or fellowship magazine, their style is slow and ponderous. 

Or.........

Maybe I am just a young fella raised on TV sound bites and news articles and I like the bottom line up front and the main point in the first paragraph and that main point again reiterated in the final paragraph....


----------



## rmdmphilosopher (Jul 22, 2008)

Y'know, I can see the value of advice like that which Josh remembers, but I wonder if it's not occasionally one of those half-the-truth sort of reminders that good teachers often employ to clear up a predominant excess among their students. For example, when taking writing courses in college I heard a funny story in an advanced exposition class from the same teacher that taught freshman composition. He said that half the principles he laid down as unalterable rules for the Freshman--to break them of bad habits--he proposed to spend _this_ class removing. And he did just that. I think we were all better writers because of it.

On a side note, have you ever met those humorous seminary students who combine the tendency Pergamum mentioned (of trying to imitate the style of the Puritans) with the advice that Josh remembers? I heard one last Sunday. It was a little funny--he said everything in an extremely ponderous, circumambulatory fashion, and he literally said *every* sentence twice, and every point twice (which means every sentence practically four times), and his complete outline before each point... It was an impressive performance.

=P


----------



## JohnGill (Jul 22, 2008)

*The Big Three Are Missing*



Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I have been reading Samuel Rutherford and John Owen lately and it strikes me even moreso that our style and execution of the English language is poor to say the least. The crassness and shallowness of our use of the vocabulary given to us belies a by-gone era where one was judged as to his/her ability to write in a manner that struck a lyrical tempo to the piece of literature.
> 
> When did we stop writing so well? How can we begin to write well again?



My sister got her PhD in English and since teaching at a community college has been disgusted with the lack of writing ability exhibited by so many students. Writing, so I've read, is thinking on paper. Poor writing is considered a sign of poor thinking. (I think I read that in one of Zissner's books.)

I believe the cause for poor writing is due to a lack of mental training in three areas that were once required: Grammar, Logic, and Rhetoric. (By grammar I refer to what is generally called 'Universal Grammar'.) 

A few years ago I decided to start researching what was once taught in the trivium. Most of the books I read on the three subjects were written prior to the 20th century. All but the modern books are available at Google Book Search

Here's a list of the resources I used:

*Grammar:*

Principles of General Grammar by Antoine de Sacy
Hermes, Or A Philosophical Inquiry Concerning Universal Grammar by James Harris (linked above and the first book to read)
The Principles of Language by Solomon Barrett (excellent book!)​
*Logic:*

The Port-Royal Logic trans. by Thomas Spencer Baynes
Logic and the Right Use of Reason by Isaac Watts
An Introduction to Logic by H.W.B. Joseph

Modern Books:
Introduction to Logic 12th Ed. Copi & Cohen
With Good Reason - Morris Engel​
Audio Course:
Critical Thinking by Greg Bahnsen

*Rhetoric:*

English Composition and Rhetoric by Alexander Bain
A Manual of Composition and Rhetoric by John S. Hart
The Practical Elements of Rhetoric by John F. Genung
Advanced Course: Composition & Rhetoric by G. P. Quackenbos
The Principles of Argumentation by George Pierce Baker
Argumentation and Debating by William Trufant Foster​
Modern Books:
A Rulebook for Arguments by Anthony Weston
Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation by Douglas Walton
The New Oxford Guide to Writing by Thomas S. Kane​
Audio:
The Teaching Center - Argumentation

I found the study of these materials to be both enlightening and humbling. Made me feel very stoopehd. 

But it has also helped me to think clearly and to understand pre-20th century writers. I get a lot more out of my reading than ever I did before I began the study.

Hope this is helpful.


----------



## Stomata leontôn (Jul 23, 2008)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> I think it all went downhill when people started replacing "f"s with "s"s.


_Ah yes, the beloved long '_ſ_':_

"And there is nothing that ſo much ſtrengtheneth our faith and truſt in God, that ſo much keepeth up innocency and pureneſs of the heart and alſo of outward godly life and converſation, as continual reading and recording of God’s Word. For that thing, which by continual reading of holy ſcripture and diligent ſearching of the ſame is deeply printed and graven in the heart, at length turneth almoſt into nature."


----------



## timmopussycat (Jul 23, 2008)

victorbravo said:


> The most direct and obvious answer to the original question is that, in 1999, they replaced the 3rd edition of Strunk and White's The Elements of Style with the 4th edition.
> 
> It's been all downhill since then.



I've got the third edition!!!


----------



## timmopussycat (Jul 23, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> There are plenty of recent writers of good English. I would put Tolkien up against Dickens and Austen, for instance. Read Phil Ryken carefully, and you will find a master wordsmith there. Dave Barry is great in the realm of humor, as was Erma Bombeck. In theology, we have Sinclair Ferguson, R.C. Sproul, Ligon Duncan, Joey Pipa, Iain Duguid and many others writing in clear language that is also literary.



C. S. Lewis and Robert Frost are also first class wordsmiths.


----------



## timmopussycat (Jul 23, 2008)

py3ak said:


> So far the only theologians I would consider stylists as well, are Theodoret, Bunyan, Candlish and Hugh Martin, although Calvin obviously has a good deal of literary ability and perhaps Boethius should be included as well.



You might want to add John Piper to your list. Note especially his narrative poems on the Desiring God website.


----------



## timmopussycat (Jul 23, 2008)

Robbie Schmidtberger said:


> Conciseness helps. If it takes you paragraphs to say something, then you do not really understand it. ...
> 
> Has anyone seen Abraham Piper's Blog, twenty two words? He limits every post to 22 words, with a few exceptions. It is frequently humorous.



Thank you for mentioning this excellent blog.


----------



## py3ak (Jul 23, 2008)

No, I think I'll pass on adding Piper. I would classify his ability as oratorical, rather than literary.


----------



## CharlieJ (Jul 23, 2008)

timmopussycat said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > So far the only theologians I would consider stylists as well, are Theodoret, Bunyan, Candlish and Hugh Martin, although Calvin obviously has a good deal of literary ability and perhaps Boethius should be included as well.
> ...



Yes, Piper has a way of making his longer books about 50% too long. I do like his poems, though. His book Fifty Reasons Why Jesus Died is also a fantastic example of deep, stirring, meaningful writing.


----------



## christianyouth (Jul 23, 2008)

What about these three :

James Thurber
E.B. White
H.L. Mencken
?


----------



## JohnGill (Jul 24, 2008)

*I forgot a free Rhetoric class*

I was syncing my ipod tonight, download some greek lectures and intro to theology lectures, and saw a folder marked Rhetoric 101.

Here's how you get it for free:

Load iTunes
Click on iTunes Store
Click on iTunesU
In the block 'Find Education Providers' Click on Universities & Colleges
Select UC Berkeley
Click on Social Sciences
Scroll to the bottom and click on Rhetoric 10

It's free!


----------



## py3ak (Jul 24, 2008)

Thurber is funny, which is one kind of excellence, but is not a great writer.
E.B. White is a fine author. _Stuart Little_ is a very enjoyable book.
H.L. Mencken is, I think, overrated.


----------

