Clear and Simple as the Truth: Writing Classic Prose - Second Edition

When a linguist recommends a book on writing, it is a few clicks to read a piece of a brief for the "classic style," where you watch over the shoulder of an author and see what she or he does, as if you are walking in a field with a friend experienced in birdwatching who is happy to point out the kite flying overhead or the sound of a sandhill crane. This style is rooted in our experience with "joint attention" on what we can sense in front of us and is a template for presenting perspectives on everything from the concrete to the abstract.The book begins with an essay defining the classic style and setting it apart from other styles of writing, and it includes both a gallery of curated examples as well as a set of exercises to help you develop the classic style. The book does not argue with the reader. It presents the classic style as a convention of communication, a lucid artifice that takes the common experience of informal conversation about an observable phenomenon as the model for writing.

Best clear communicating book I have ever enjoyed. If your purpose in writing is to display vocabulary, esoteric reasoning and expository artistry, this is not for you. If, on the other hand you wish to be instructed by a master, who uses the method to explain it to you, here he is.

A precision that borders on the pretentious—exactly what a reader is looking for in a book about writing and style.

The book has some good advice and interesting insight. However, it also has a running political agenda, in the use of the feminine pronoun when a gender neutral word is required. This disturbs the flow of the text. When the masculine is used, it has been the custom that it could be either. If there is an objection to this use, which there now is by some, then I think that neither should be used, because the feminine has a distinct gender connotation. In fact, sometimes I think that it has got to the point where the writer uses his own gender, whatever this means now a days. The term "he or she", or the construct "s/he" was quite popular for a while, but did not achieve the politics of the use of "she" and to some is too artificial. I think that less damage is done to the language by (mis)using "they".

This book is great as a primer on Classic Style, the philosophy of the style, what it is, and what it isn't etc.The book is always honest in it's assessment, it does not give easy quick answers that cheapen the idea of Classic Style, and often acknowledges that it is often easier to know what it isn't, than what it is. However, after you read the book you will certainly understand clearly how to think about writing from this point of view, and to use the classic style philosophy in your writing.

I wish it had a little more on writing in classic style in the book, but there’s is a companion website that goes further into the practice of writing styles. The catch is: you have to read the book in order for the website to be of any use. Without reading the book the website is just a website, the book has the information catalyst to bring it all together. Step One: read the book. Step Two: hit the website. Step Three: practice practice practice.

For persons who are writing for academic audiences or are essayists, this is the guide to use to develop the classic style of writing to an intelligent audience. It declares the distinctions between the classic style and other styles (contemplative, oratorical, practical, prophetic,...) so that the reader can develop the proper approach. Note that this is NOT about grammar, footnoting, and the tedium of most style guides. It is about writing with a purpose.

A must read for anyone who writes.

Worth a read

It is a fantastic book on the classic style of writing. However, there is a lot to be desired from this paperback binding. The pages started to fall out after a couple of days--not good if you want to use this as a reference book.

This is the most boring style manual I've ever seen. Way too much theory! The authors themselves have a very bad style: bulky and filled with many nominalizations. Instead, read The Sense of Style by Steven Pinker, who brilliantly summarizes the book.

I recently read Steven Pinker’s  . He discusses "classic style", a particular style for writing clear, compelling prose, and recommends "Clear and Simple as the Truth" for those interested in finding out more. I was definitely interested, so bought it, read it, and am now reviewing it.The authors describe this particular style, in use since ancient times, thus: [p37.] "The idiom of classic style is the voice of conversation. The writer adopts the pose of a speaker of near-perfect efficiency whose sentences are the product of the voice rather than some instrument of writing. … Classic style models itself on speech and can be read aloud properly the first time. In speech, an expression is gone the moment it is spoken, and has only that one instant to enter the mind and attain its place in memory. Since classic writing pretends to be speech, it never requires the reader to look forward or backward; it never admits that the reader is in a situation to do so. Each phrase is presented as if it has only one chance—now—to do its job. Of course, a reader may in fact go over a passage of classic prose many times. But the classic writer never acknowledges that possibility either explicitly or by implication."Their whole book is written in classic style, becoming one large example of what they are describing. Try reading the quoted paragraph out loud. It is easy to do so; significantly easier than much other writing one comes across.Being easy to read, whether aloud or not, does not imply being easy to write. Thomas and Turner contrast two sentences, the first written in classic style, the second most definitely not. [p15.] "La Rochefoucauld’s sentence was of course difficult to write, but it looks easy. The writer hides all the effort. [Samuel] Johnson’s sentence was clearly difficult to write, and its writer wants to display it as if it were a trophy won through his personal effort."Here we learn something not acknowledged in other books on writing style: style is not singular. There are different styles, each suited to different uses. Other books cover only the one style, implying it is the only one. This books acknowledges the existence of other styles; classic style is not style, it is a style.Style here means the style of deep structure of the prose, not the grammar police style concerned with relatively trivial surface marks. The authors have it in for Strunk and White in particular, using their withering paired sentence structure in a further contrast: [p78.] "The best-known teachers of practical style are Strunk and White, in their ubiquitous Elements of Style. The best teachers of practical style are Joseph Williams and Gregory Colomb, in Williams’s Style: Toward Clarity and Grace and a series of academic articles and technical reports."This kind of sentence pairing is an exemplar of classic style, of assuming the reader is competent, and so can draw obvious conclusions without needing them hammered home.As well as describing what classic style is, the authors characterise it by describing what it is not, by contrasting it with other styles. Classic style is not "plain style", where the writer is addressing an audience, reaffirming simple unchallenged truths; in classic style the writer is speaking to a single person, and the truth, while clear, is sophisticated. Classic style is not the self-conscious "reflexive style"; in classic style the writing is a transparent window through which the reader regards the presented truth. Classic style is not "practical style" (although it is the closest) where the writer has the job of educating an audience, with the purpose of satisfying a need or solving a problem (a utilitarian style suitable for reports and instruction manuals); in classic style the writer is speaking to an equal, is presenting information for its own sake rather than to address the reader’s need, and their work cannot be skim-read. Classic style is not "contemplative style", where meanings are presented as the interpretation of the writer, and the process of writing is a hesitant process of discovery; in classic style, the writer presents the unhedged finished product of prior thought as uninterpreted truth, or at least passes off their interpretation as such. Classic style is not "romantic style", which is a mirror on the writer’s thoughts, sensations and emotions; classic style is a window on the world. Classic style is not "prophetic style", which depends on abilities or insights available only to the chosen few; classic style expresses truths that can be verified by all. Classic style is not "oratorical style", where a leader or candidate is unsubtly persuading an audience to an action or agreement; classic style is disinterested and nuanced.Classic style is not perfection, however. Often the writer does have an agenda, and the truth is rarely clear and simple. Towards the end of the Essay section, the authors describe some “trade secrets” on how the classic stylist can cope with such situations, whilst maintaining the advantages of the style. They also dissect a Museum-full of samples written in the classic and non-classic style. But explanations and examples are not enough to gain writing proficiency.This second edition includes a Studio section: exercises for learning writing in the classic style. Many of these exercises involve no writing, only speaking; the classic style is conversational, so the student is encouraged to learn the style through conversation, and only later write it down.Writing in classic style does not make everyone sound the same. There is room for personal style within classic style. The Museum examples each have their distinctive voice. The Pinker that sent me here is in classic style, with a lightness of touch. "Clear and Simple as the Truth" is also in classic style, a smooth, relaxed read, and yet with an underlying thump-thump-thump to the prose. Apart from a few places, such as the Strunk and White put-downs, there is a monotonous tone to the work, and no sparkle. However, the prose is indeed transparent, and so the thumping is ignorable, and the lack of sparkle not an impediment. Nevertheless, Pinker is the better stylist.My takeaway message: if you have to write a manual or report for a specific purpose, use practical style, and follow the excellent guidelines in Williams’  ; if you want to write a piece for general interest, use classic style, and follow the excellent advice here.

Maybe a trifle dry the book is an excellent description of how to write clear, comprehensible and engaging non-fiction. Not based on arbitrary rules and nostrums the authors build up a logical and understandable structure for writing that is fully justified by numerous examples.A "must read" for all budding factual authors.