The Greatest Prose-style?

[Climacus]

Restricting ourselves to English-speakers (to avoid translation issues), which writer has the greatest prose-style? 'Greatest prose-style' meaning, for the present, that which you would emulate - if you could - in day-to-day writing, a model prose-style. I know this is limiting, but for conversation's sake.

For me, two names especially stand out, for lucidity and economy: C.S. Lewis and George Orwell.

What do you guys think?

Edit - NB: It was hyperbole on my part to speak of a 'greatest' prose-style. There can be no absolute 'best' prose-style. There are styles for different occasions, audiences, etc, etc.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

The two names that immediately popped into my mind were William Faulkner and Herman Melville. Though, the caveat you added of what one would want for "day-to-day writing" complicates things, because I wouldn't want to be writing notes and the various banalities one needs to write in the way Faulkner and Melville write their prose. Plus, if I am talking about my own creative writing, I'd hope to create my own voice, rather than being a strict emulation of one writer or another.

[PeterL]

You are askingg for opinions only. There is no single best prose stylist.

As for who I would emulate, Mark Twain, H. P. Lovecraft, and L. Sprague de Camp are at the top of the list. Each provides different facets to the style that I like t write in. Then ther eare the asptets that I would select from G. C. Edmondson and from Henry Beard and Steve Kinney, the authors of Bored of the Rings, which has some of the funniest bits in literature.

[Climacus]

You are askingg for opinions only. There is no single best prose stylist.

Right. :)

[Ragnar Freund]

gone.

[ForrestJG]

For the people I would try and emulate...probably Voltaire, Kafka, and possibly Poe, although my vocabulary isn't so gigantically broad like his; I think Poe had a lot of freedom with his writing.

[Darcy88]

Joseph Conrad is my favourite stylist. I also really like the prose style of Lawrence Durrell.

[Desolation]

Henry Miller, Samuel Beckett, James Joyce, William Faulkner.

[Pierre Menard]

I'd like nothing more than to be able to write like Nabokov.
Second choice, who is quite different to the first, would be Cormac McCarthy.

[JBI]

Liang Shiqiu - best essayist I have yet encountered.
I like Woolf's essays too, they are cute, and show a real interesting style, though seem less read then they aught to be.

As for additional writers, Cicero is quite good, as are Montaigne and Bacon, Bacon in many ways I find stronger than Montaigne but perhaps that is language.

Leopardi also strikes me as an interesting prose author, though I have read far less of his work than I aught to have.

There is something to be said of the short personal essay as an idealized form, though it seems to be ignored as a form in itself in favor of novels, which I would argue are arguably inferior as a developed genre.

[chrisvia]

I can't pick a single, but I've found myself, at various times, taken by the prose style of Thomas Wolfe*, Hemingway, Kerouac, Pynchon, Marilynne Robinson*, Joyce, Proust (had to deviate from language restrictions here), Thoreau, Dickens, et al.

* I was most impressed with these two. Wolfe for his ornate, meticulous, rich prose; and Robinson for her beautiful, bellatristic language.

[Darcy88]

Also, any discussion of stylistic excellence must include mention of Ralph Waldo Emerson.

[mortalterror]

I think that Ernest Hemingway had the best prose style for literature. I'll second those who named Melville, Nabokov, and Conrad too. I'll add Fitzgerald to that list. When it comes to essayists JBI has the right idea, Montaigne and Bacon are the best, followed by Emerson. I'm also an admirer of the great prose stylists of the seventeen hundreds Samuel Johnson and Edward Gibbon. I know that Cicero and Demosthenes are the models for ancient prose but I've never liked either and would sooner copy Sallust or Pliny the Younger.

[Climacus]

Some of you guys are including foreign-language writers. Tsk, tsk. ;) (Chrisvia is forgiven.) That puts us at the mercy of translators' prose-styles, at least in part. (I adore Kierkegaard's prose-style. That is, as it comes across in the translations of E. Hong; but I've read other translations that were ghastly.) Anyway, can we narrow the field to English writers? I'm curious to see how many repeat names result.

[Loganm]

I don't know if anyone else reads him, but I dig Carlyle's style.

[chrisvia]

I also like James Salter's compressed style, especially in A Sport and a Pastime and Light Years. I guess I can also throw in the style of Raymond Carver. (Thanks for the pass, climacus!)

[Ragnar Freund]

Gone.

[PoeticPassions]

The first author that came to mind was Fitzgerald. I think his prose is just so beautiful, and it has a wonderful flow to it.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Joseph Conrad is my favourite stylist. I also really like the prose style of Lawrence Durrell.
How could I forget Conrad? Definitely one of my picks as well.

What's with you people and Melville? Have you not read the original post?



Are you trying to show off or answer the OP's question?

Would you write a letter to a friend (or to the editor) Melville-style? Would you spend three pages describing the bananas you bought yesterday?

Well, aside from me addressing the discrepancy in the OP, which was kind of silly in adding the "day-to-day" thing (why would you really want to emulate any stylistic prose for day-to-day writing, after all?), just because you're emulating someone's style doesn't mean the content of what you write has to be the same. One can write like Melville without resorting to over-description. To me, style is about the use of language, not the content.

[The Comedian]

I love the prose of Edward Abbey -- its terse at at times, fluid (to almost florid) at other times. But its entirely distinctive too. His Desert Solitaire is a perfect book.

[Seasider]

For 20th Century writers George Orwell stands out for me.
As for earlier times Gibbon and Thomas Babington Macaulay.

[Climacus]

Thanks for the replies everyone. Later I'll tally up every author who got more than one vote.

. . . kind of silly in adding the "day-to-day" thing (why would you really want to emulate any stylistic prose for day-to-day writing, after all?) . . .
Forget the "day-to-day" stipulation, if that throws you off. :) (I also said 'model prose-style' - and maybe I should have left it at that.) But I mean the sort of general prose you would employ in a letter to a friend, in a blog post, in an article, etc.

PS: All prose is "stylistic." We all have a prose-style.

[Kyriakos]

Kafka-Poe-De Maupassant come to mind :)

[smerdyakov]

Of the modern writers, J.M. Coetzee has a lovely prose style. As does John Banville, who is another one of my favourite writers.

[cyberbob]

Fancy: Poe

Simple: Orwell

[Chris 73]

If I was trying to emulate a writer in day to day activities such as an e-mail to a chum then I'm very fond of KJ Parker's dry, detached style.
If I'm showing off beautiful writing style then Angela Carter, Robert Holdstock.

[mona amon]

Joyce, Nabakov and P.G.Wodehouse.

[Climacus]

The leaders right now are, alphabetically, Conrad, Joyce, Orwell, and Poe. All tied with three votes apiece. (Again, considering English writers only.)

[PeterL]

The leaders right now are, alphabetically, Conrad, Joyce, Orwell, and Poe. All tied with three votes apiece. (Again, considering English writers only.)

If only English writers are being considered, then Conrad should be dropped. He was Polish.

[Climacus]

If only English writers are being considered, then Conrad should be dropped. He was Polish.
Conrad wrote in English. That's all that matters. We're just trying to avoid translation issues.

[KCurtis]

F.Scott Fitzgerald. I never tire of reading some of his most beautiful prose, and I absolutely can lose myself in his imagery.

[ChicagoReader]

I'll also mention Nabokov as Lolita was written in English, not quite sure if the rest of his works were or not. I also love Cormac McCarthy and Michael Ondaatje, both very poetic prose.

[Jeremydav]

Dickens and George Eliot.

[chrisvia]

I'll also mention Nabokov as Lolita was written in English, not quite sure if the rest of his works were or not. I also love Cormac McCarthy and Michael Ondaatje, both very poetic prose.

Speaking of McCarthy, has any one seen this site: http://yelpingwithcormac.tumblr.com/ ? If you are familiar with McCarthy's style, these are hilarious!

[Ecurb]

I'm not sure I agree with the concept of rating "prose-style". What does that mean? Can "style" and "content" be divorced?

Suppose we were to talk about the last chapter of "Ulysses", consisting of one long, run-on, stream-of-consciousness sentence. Would it be reasonable to say, "I like it, but I disapprove of the 'style'." Would it be reasonable to say, "I like the style, but other than that it's a bore."

Is "style" like some garnish, that can be added to one's main course or not, without significantly altering the flavor of the meal? Is it possible to dislike the "style" of a book one loves, or like the "style" of a book one dislikes?

What if we were talking about poetry? Would the distinction between "style" and any other merits a poem might have still be reasonable? Is it possible to translate a poem into prose, and say, "I like the 'message', but not the 'style'."?

[Desolation]

Yes, Ecurd, I would say that style and content could be discussed separately.

For instance, there's The Great Gatsby, one of the greatest books ever written. The story is un-notable, but the writing style takes it to new heights. The same could be said for Proust's In Search of Lost Time (wherein Proust himself says that the writer's duty is to elevate the dull to magnificence through language).

One of my favorite writers, Henry Miller, is best known for his sexual writings. I have a very conservative morality when it comes to sex, to some extent. But, the man is such a fine writer that I don't mind the long rambling tales of promiscuity.

I suppose that in these instances, it could be argued that the story of scenes themselves are not what's important, but the work's greater philosophy makes up the content.

[Ecurb]

Yes, Ecurd, I would say that style and content could be discussed separately.

For instance, there's The Great Gatsby, one of the greatest books ever written. The story is un-notable, but the writing style takes it to new heights. The same could be said for Proust's In Search of Lost Time (wherein Proust himself says that the writer's duty is to elevate the dull to magnificence through language).

One of my favorite writers, Henry Miller, is best known for his sexual writings. I have a very conservative morality when it comes to sex, to some extent. But, the man is such a fine writer that I don't mind the long rambling tales of promiscuity.

I suppose that in these instances, it could be argued that the story of scenes themselves are not what's important, but the work's greater philosophy makes up the content.

What about poetry? Wouldn't trying to separate the "style" from the "content" be what some call the "heresy of paraphrase"? Once (according to the story) a pretty young girl asked Robert Frost, "I love the sound of your poem, Mr. Frost. But what does it mean?"

"Do you want me to say it over again in worser English," replied Frost.

Desolation says Henry Miller is "such a fine writer that I don't mind the long rambling tales of promiscuity." What does this mean? Are Miller's sentences so sonorous that the sound alone, divorced from the meaning, is pleasurable? Is "The Great Gatsby" some sort of chopped liver dinner, made palatable only by the exquisite sauce of Fitzgerald's "style"?

I'll grant that some authors have a knack for writing prose that sounds elegant when read out loud. They pay more attention to the sounds of words than other writers. Is this what we mean by "style"?

In general, I'd suggest that prose is of a piece. The style and the content are insuperable. Let's look at a simple William Carlos Williams poem:


This Is Just to Say

I have eaten

the plums

that were in

the icebox

and which

you were probably

saving

for breakfast

Forgive me

they were delicious

so sweet

and so cold

Would it make sense to say, "I like the 'style' of the poem, but the content is dull and everyday." (That would be similar to Desolation's comments about Fitzgerald or Miller.)

The style IS the content, and the content is the style.

[Climacus]

Can "style" and "content" be divorced?

. . . What if we were talking about poetry? Would the distinction between "style" and any other merits a poem might have still be reasonable? Is it possible to translate a poem into prose, and say, "I like the 'message', but not the 'style'."?

Yes, certainly 'style' and 'content' can be divorced. We're talking about something at least quasi-propositional, after all.

For example, Hopkins - my favourite poet - poeticizes: ‘Glory be to God for dappled things – | For skies of couple-colour as a brinded cow; | For rose-moles all in stipple upon trout that swim.’ And this may be rendered into prose as follows: ‘Let’s glorify God for patchy-coloured things, like partly-cloudy skies, which resemble certain breeds of cattle, and like reflective game fish.’ The propositional content is more or less the same. But the former is poetry and the latter is prose. The former is art and the latter is not. ‘Put into prose,’ notes philosopher-historian Étienne Gilson, ‘what the poet says is usually insignificant, if not incoherent.’

Art - that is, fine art - involves but is not fundamentally about knowledge. Knowledge is the quintessence of philosophy, not art. Art is fundamentally about beauty. Where the fine arts are concerned, knowledge is to beauty as matter to form. Hopkins himself understood the same, writing: ‘Poetry is speech . . . framed to be heard for its own sake and interest even over above its interest of meaning. Some matter and meaning is essential to it but only as an element necessary to support and employ the shape which is contemplated for its own sake.’

[Climacus]

NB: It was hyperbole on my part to speak of a 'greatest' prose-style. There can be no absolute 'best' prose-style. There are styles for different occasions, audiences, etc, etc.

[Desolation]

Are Miller's sentences so sonorous that the sound alone, divorced from the meaning, is pleasurable? Is "The Great Gatsby" some sort of chopped liver dinner, made palatable only by the exquisite sauce of Fitzgerald's "style"?

Well...Yes. I don't mean to say that the content can or should be completely mundane. If I didn't like the over-riding themes and thoughts on life present in the works of Miller and Fitzgerald, I wouldn't read them.

But, no book is great from beginning to end. Surely we can agree on that. It's the powerful use of language that makes the more grating passages palatable. If you put the exact plot-points of The Great Gatsby into the hands of a lesser wordsmith than Fitzgerald, then it would sink. Scott's use of language is what makes the book great, paired with his keen sense of social commentary.

Now, I know about as much about poetry as I do about quantum physics, so I can't really comment on that. I am a music fan, though, and my favorite artist is Bob Dylan. I know that lyrics and poetry are not the same thing, but I can say that I don't always need to know exactly what Bob Dylan is talking about to feel his words.

I guess, though, that I can't really disagree with you that style is content. I just think that language can over-ride dull subjects at times.

[Ecurb]

Of course I agree that art is not fundamentally about knolwedge. That's why I don't think we can separate "style" from other artistic qualities. They are all of a piece. To paraphrase the William Carlos Williams poem would completely change the meaning of it. It's not just a matter of saying the same thing over.

Let's look at another art: painting. Is it possible to separate "meaning" from "style" here? Is my stick-figure drawing of "The Oath of the Horati" equivalent in all but "style" to Jaques Louis David's painting? The "meaning" fo the painting IS the 'style'.

Let's look at "Dappled Things" - by way of example:


GLORY be to God for dappled things—
For skies of couple-colour as a brinded cow;
For rose-moles all in stipple upon trout that swim;
Fresh-firecoal chestnut-falls; finches’ wings;
Landscape plotted and pieced—fold, fallow, and plough;
And áll trádes, their gear and tackle and trim.

All things counter, original, spare, strange;
Whatever is fickle, freckled (who knows how?)
With swift, slow; sweet, sour; adazzle, dim;
He fathers-forth whose beauty is past change:
Praise him.

I'll grant that Hopkins has a talent for sounds, and that his poetry always sounds great when read out loud. Is that all we mean by "style"? Or are the sounds, the meaining, and the metaphor insuperable to the quality of the poem?

Personally, I wish Gerard would lay off the "dappled things". What's wrong with plain, unvariegated colour? Also, why compare the spots on a trout to a technique in painting, if we want to wonder at God's beauty? Shouldn't the comparison be made the other way around? Isn’t the artist’s brush a poor imitation of God’s handiwork?

I love "Spring and Fall to a Young Child", although when I read it as a young boy I had no idea what it meant, and didn't even have the slightest notion what "unleaving" referred to. In fact, I thought that “unleaving” meant “staying”, instead of "leaves falling off". I liked the sounds, though.

But "Whatever is fickle, freckled (who knows how?)" seems to me to be the worst of Hopkins - cloying, cute (who knows how), and worshipping diversity and dappling just because they can be sentimentally admired in alliterative, clever lines. Are we to ignore the trite sentimentality, because we admire the alliteration? Or are the two insuperable?

Of course I agree that if you paraphrase a poem, it is no longer a poem and loses its artistic merit, just as if I draw a stick-figure version of the Oath of the Horati its meaning is utterly different from that of David's painting. If that's what we mean by "style", I agree. However, I don't think style and content in poetry CAN be separated. In that, I agree with Robert Frost.

[cyberbob]

I agree that style and content can be judged seperately. There are lots of writers (like Melville) who keep me interested and eager to continue reading mainly because of their writing style while what they're actually saying may be totally frivolous or "boring".

[Ecurb]

Here's "The Oath of the Horati":

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/his/CoreArt/art/resourcesb/dav_oath.jpg

[Climacus]

Of course I agree that art is not fundamentally about knolwedge. That's why I don't think we can separate "style" from other artistic qualities. They are all of a piece. To paraphrase the William Carlos Williams poem would completely change the meaning of it. It's not just a matter of saying the same thing over.
The point is that the propositional content of both poem and prose translation or paraphrase are - or ought to be - the same. Thus, the meaning does not - or ought not to - change. But one is beautiful and the other is not. Therein lies the principle of differentiation and therein lies the art.

Now, if you mean that there is communicable 'meaning' that is somehow extra-propositional or meta-propositional, then you've drifted into mysticism (which may, after all, be true). But in that case there is nothing, quite literally, that we can say about it.


Let's look at another art: painting. Is it possible to separate "meaning" from "style" here? Is my stick-figure drawing of "The Oath of the Horati" equivalent in all but "style" to Jaques Louis David's painting? The "meaning" fo the painting IS the 'style'.

But the visual arts - and music - are non-propositional and thus incomparable.

[Ecurb]

The point is that the propositional content of both poem and prose translation or paraphrase are - or ought to be - the same. Thus, the meaning does not - or ought not to - change. But one is beautiful and the other is not. Therein lies the principle of differentiation and therein lies the art.

Now, if you mean that there is communicable 'meaning' that is somehow extra-propositional or meta-propositional, then you've drifted into mysticism (which may, after all, be true). But in that case there is nothing, quite literally, that we can say about it.


But the visual arts - and music - are non-propositional and thus incomparable.

I agree, of course, that SOME OF the beauty of art lies in something other than its literal propositional content. But it seems to me that some of the meaning (if not "propositional content" --I had to look up what was meant by the phrase) is intregally bound to the "style". Let's return to the Williams poem. What is it that makes that simple piece emoitionally resonant?

The idea that the poem is meant to represent a homely, domestic note invites us to join in the relationship between the husband and the wife. "Forgive me" resonates because we all (whatever we have done) need forgiveness. In addition, the juxtaposition of "forgive me" to "they were delicious so sweet and so cold" makes the reader wonder whether the wife, like the plums, is "delicious, so sweet and so cold".

There's more to it -- that's merely a quick, initial comment, which, I think, is realtively non-mystical. The question is: are these suggestions to the reader part of the "style" or the "meaning" of the poem? Of course they aren't literal propositional content -- but it doesn't seem to me you can separate the "style" from the "meaning". These suggestions -- which are imbedded in the words, and constitute meaning -- are both stylistic, and part of the content of the poem. The poem wouldn't be a poem without 'style'. When posters say, "So and so has the greatest prose style," do they simply mean, "So and so is my favorite writer of fiction."? If so, of course, I have no quarrel. It's the notion that "style" is something separate from the overall artistic value of the piece that I question.

[KCurtis]

Yes, Ecurd, I would say that style and content could be discussed separately.

For instance, there's The Great Gatsby, one of the greatest books ever written. The story is un-notable, but the writing style takes it to new heights. The same could be said for Proust's In Search of Lost Time (wherein Proust himself says that the writer's duty is to elevate the dull to magnificence through language).

I suppose that in these instances, it could be argued that the story of scenes themselves are not what's important, but the work's greater philosophy makes up the content.

I disagree that the story of The Great Gatsby is un-notable. It's not only taken to new heights by the writing style, but the story is so thought provoking-the inferences that can be made concerning the very rich, phoniness and thoughtlessness, who is the good guy, is Gatsby really what we think he is, or are supposed to think he is-after all, the title is The GREAT Gatsby. What does Nick Caraway really believe, or want to believe. I could go on!

[Climacus]

'We must speak by the card, or equivocation will undo us . . .'

We'd better clarify our terms or we shan't make headway. Meaning is propositional, it is expressed propositionally. (A proposition is any declarative sentence, a sentence to which a truth-value can be applied.) I ask you, 'What does this mean?' And you reply in the form of a proposition (or in the form of propositions). The words - spoken or written - that point to propositions are material; the propositions to which words point are immaterial. My conception of style is the classical conception: viz, style is that part of rhetoric which transforms immaterial propositions into material words, spoken or written.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

All I know is I can separate style and content, because I may be partial to the content of the book, but if the style of the prose is poor or not my thing, I won't like it, and vice-versa.

[Ecurb]

'We must speak by the card, or equivocation will undo us . . .'

We'd better clarify our terms or we shan't make headway. Meaning is propositional, it is expressed propositionally. (A proposition is any declarative sentence, a sentence to which a truth-value can be applied.) I ask you, 'What does this mean?' And you reply in the form of a proposition (or in the form of propositions). The words - spoken or written - that point to propositions are material; the propositions to which words point are immaterial. My conception of style is the classical conception: viz, style is that part of rhetoric which transforms immaterial propositions into material words, spoken or written.

Now you are heading off into philosophical jargon with which I am only vaguely familiar. From Wiki:


In logic and philosophy, the term proposition refers to either (a) the "content" or "meaning" of a meaningful declarative sentence or (b) the pattern of symbols, marks, or sounds that make up a meaningful declarative sentence. The meaning of a proposition includes having the quality or property of being either true or false, and as such propositions are claimed to be truthbearers.

Of course, given this definition, "Forgive me" is not "propositional". So, are you saying that the words "forgive me" are automatically stylistic, which the words, "I have eaten the plums in the ice box" are not?

I looked up "style" in the dictionary:


1. "The way in which something is said, done, expressed, or performed: a style of speech and writing.
2. The combination of distinctive features of literary or artistic expression, execution, or performance characterizing a particular person, group, school, or era."

Of course "the way in which something is said" is what constitutes literary art. To distinguish the "style" from something other than the style (the "content", perhaps?) seems merely to dissemble. A poem is not a poem without "the way in which it is said". So to say, "I like this poet's 'style', but I can't stand his poetry" would be ridiculous. Similarly, to say, "I can't stand this poet's style, but I love his poetry" would be ridiculous. The way in which something is said is what constitutes poetry.

The question is can we make a reasonable distinction between "style" and something else in prose fiction? I think what most people mean by 'style' when they are discussing prose (as in this thread) is something like, "the extent to which it resembles poetry instead of prose." In other words, 'style' might suggest an evocative use of metaphors ("And so we beat on, boats against the current, borne ceaselessly into the past"), or sonorous, poetic language like alliteration ("His soul swooned slowly as he heard the snow falling faintly through the universe and faintly falling, like the descent of their last end, upon all the living and the dead.")

But, of course, more literal, plain-spoken writers also have a "style". Straight-forward story tellers, who don't adorn their stories with metaphors and alliteration are also "transform(ing) immaterial propositions into material words." How could it be otherwise, given that all fictional stories are "immaterial propositions". Yet, in this thread, I read people who like Fitzgerald for his "style" -- despite claiming that the story is pedestrian. Perhaps someone else might like a non-poetic writer (say, Frank O'Connor) for HIS "style". But that's not what I see here. Instead, I see admiration for poetic langage as having a "style", and straightforward prose, although readers may love the books, as being liked for something OTHER THAN style.

All I'm suggesting is that both have a 'style', and in both the 'style' is a combination of declarative sentences and something else. At the end of "The Glass Menagerie" the hero (I forget his name) begins his famous monologue saying, "I didn't go to the moon. I went much further." These are two, simple declarative sentences. However, their resonance goes beyond their declarative meaning. It is created by the viewer's imagination, and resonates because of the previous action in the play. The same, I would suggest, is true of EVERY work of fiction. But what is the "immaterial proposition" that these lines "transform into material words"? Can it be translated back into different "material words"? Isn't the emotional impact any work of prose fiction has on its reader always the result of its "style" -- in other words, the result of the careful way in which the author has chosen the actions of his story, the order in which the actions will be described, and the words with which he will describe the actions? Aren't all these things "style"? And if they are, how is "style" distinct from other aspects of the artistic performance?

[Ecurb]

All I know is I can separate style and content, because I may be partial to the content of the book, but if the style of the prose is poor or not my thing, I won't like it, and vice-versa.

Conrad said the author's role is "most of all, to make the reader SEE." Now, I'll agree that if the writer doesn't make his reader see, the book will be dull. Similarly, if the writer DOES make his reader see, but the reader sees only what is dull or prosaic, the book will be boring. Also, if you are "partial to the content", how can you not like the book? It seems to me that being "partial to the content" MEANS you like the book.

By the way, there are famous writers who write ungrammatically or awkwardly (Paul Fussell famously used Graham Greene's mistakes in a grammar and usage quiz).

[Darcy88]

I think non-fiction more clearly demonstrates what Mutatis is talking about. A book on a subject one usually finds fascinating could be rendered unreadable by the author's stylistic ineptitude. Conversely, one might be so fascinated by the subject matter, the content, that they are able to overcome the author's lack of stylistic ability and enjoy the book despite it.

I'm particularly interested in the history of Ancient Greece, but I've come across books from scholars in that field so poorly written they simply could not be read.

That said, I don't know if I'd call a poorly written book "artistic," no matter how interesting the content may be.

[Ecurb]

I think non-fiction more clearly demonstrates what Mutatis is talking about. A book on a subject one usually finds fascinating could be rendered unreadable by the author's stylistic ineptitude. Conversely, one might be so fascinated by the subject matter, the content, that they are able to overcome the author's lack of stylistic ability and enjoy the book despite it.

I'm particularly interested in the history of Ancient Greece, but I've come across books from scholars in that field so poorly written they simply could not be read.

That said, I don't know if I'd call a poorly written book "artistic," no matter how interesting the content may be.

I'll grant that an author can render an interesting topic dull by failing to communicate clearly. More often, though, historians or scientists make their potentially interesting subjects boring by failing to suss out what's interesting about them. Nonetheless, I don't buy that a "poorly written book" can be "interesting". If it's interesting, it's well-written. That's what "well- written" means.

[Climacus]

About style: All who write or speak prose have a prose-style. And it needn't be poetic. In classical rhetoric, under the heading of 'style,' one studies diction, sentence structure and patterns and euphony, figures of speech, tropes, and the like. Again, style is that part of rhetoric which transforms propositions into words, spoken or written. (Consider Cardinal Newman's definition of style, 'a thinking out into language.') And a single proposition can be put into words in any number of different ways, in any number of languages. There is the divorce, Ecurb.


. . . all fictional stories are "immaterial propositions".
You're confusing immaterial with counterfactual. Propositions are immaterial in the sense that you can neither see nor hear nor touch them, but they exist. Abstract objects and numbers, for example, are immaterial existents in this sense too.


"Forgive me" is not "propositional".
No, 'Forgive me' is not a proposition, but it is propositional. For it betokens the proposition 'I would that you forgive me.'

[Climacus]

I'm particularly interested in the history of Ancient Greece, but I've come across books from scholars in that field so poorly written they simply could not be read.
Me too - well, ancient Greek philosophy at any rate. Have you read any of W.K.C. Guthrie's stuff?

[Climacus]

I don't buy that a "poorly written book" can be "interesting". If it's interesting, it's well-written. That's what "well- written" means.
I don't think so. I've read profoundly interesting and thought-provoking books that were poorly-written. Oftentimes modern philosophy works are like that. The prose is desiccated, mediocre at best, poor writing qua writing; but the reasoning is sound, the philosophy good. But I don't read those sorts of books for the writing itself. For philosophy is at bottom a matter of knowledge, not beauty.

Conversely, I've enjoyed books with unsound reasoning and bad philosophy but good writing qua writing. I do read those sorts of books for the writing itself. For art is not at bottom a matter of knowledge, but of beauty. Now, on a very few but very happy occasions, art and philosophy meet. Yet only one can be master ultimately, I think. For eventually there will be conflicts of interests.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Conrad said the author's role is "most of all, to make the reader SEE." Now, I'll agree that if the writer doesn't make his reader see, the book will be dull. Similarly, if the writer DOES make his reader see, but the reader sees only what is dull or prosaic, the book will be boring. Also, if you are "partial to the content", how can you not like the book? It seems to me that being "partial to the content" MEANS you like the book.
Well, how about this. I LIOVE Star Wars. I love it to the point where I know that Yoda has a female cousin who also, for a time, served on the Jedi Council. I recently pickd up a Star Wars book, that from all indications from the description the back, I would love. It had lightsabers, so that was enough in the first place. But the book was so atrociously written--the prose style so abhorrently bad--I just couldn't read it. No amount of epic lightsaber battles and starship dogfights could change that.


By the way, there are famous writers who write ungrammatically or awkwardly (Paul Fussell famously used Graham Greene's mistakes in a grammar and usage quiz).
True, and I like some of them, Faulkner and Cormac McCarthy come immediately to mind.

[PeterL]

I love the prose of Edward Abbey -- its terse at at times, fluid (to almost florid) at other times. But its entirely distinctive too. His Desert Solitaire is a perfect book.

His style fit the content. which made the content more interesting.

[PeterL]

Conrad wrote in English. That's all that matters. We're just trying to avoid translation issues.

While the words may have been English, the syntax and style wre not. I don't know whether he was completely idiosyncratic, or if he retained Polish style, but it sure isn't English.

[Ecurb]

I don't think so. I've read profoundly interesting and thought-provoking books that were poorly-written. Oftentimes modern philosophy works are like that. The prose is desiccated, mediocre at best, poor writing qua writing; but the reasoning is sound, the philosophy good. But I don't read those sorts of books for the writing itself. For philosophy is at bottom a matter of knowledge, not beauty.

Conversely, I've enjoyed books with unsound reasoning and bad philosophy but good writing qua writing. I do read those sorts of books for the writing itself. For art is not at bottom a matter of knowledge, but of beauty. Now, on a very few but very happy occasions, art and philosophy meet. Yet only one can be master ultimately, I think. For eventually there will be conflicts of interests.

I'll agree that it's possible to read a book that's thought-provoking, but not well written. It's also possible to read a book that contains interesting information, and is not well written. However, if the book is interesting to read (instead of boring to read, but thought provoking later on) I'd claim it is well written. The author who can entertain, enlighten, and interest his reader is writing "well", whatever his "style". Indeed, I would DEFINE "well-written" as "entertaining, enlightening and/or interesting", however ungrammatical.

I don't know what you mean by "I don't read those books for the writing itself." That's that sort of comment I don't understand. Why would anyone read a work of fiction for any reason other than "the writing itself"? I can't divorce "meaning" from "style". Since you're a Hopkins fan (I am, too, by the way, I just think that Pied Beauty, although it's one of his most famous poems, is not among his better poems), let's look at another Hopkins poem:

THE WORLD is charged with the grandeur of God.
It will flame out, like shining from shook foil;
It gathers to a greatness, like the ooze of oil
Crushed. Why do men then now not reck his rod?
Generations have trod, have trod, have trod;
And all is seared with trade; bleared, smeared with toil;
And wears man’s smudge and shares man’s smell: the soil
Is bare now, nor can foot feel, being shod.

And for all this, nature is never spent;
There lives the dearest freshness deep down things;
And though the last lights off the black West went
Oh, morning, at the brown brink eastward, springs—
Because the Holy Ghost over the bent
World broods with warm breast and with ah! bright wings.

Hopkins’ talent -- the skill with words, the alliteration -- is used to better effect here. The startling image of the sunrise as reminiscent of a bright winged bird keeping her nest warm is visually beautiful, metaphorically sound, and emotionally evocative. Compare that to the line in "Pied Beauty" also about the sky: "...For skies of couple-colour as a brinded cow..." I suppose one can picture this image, if one tries hard enough, but it is forced. I can't imagine myself looking at the sky and saying, "Hmmm, looks like a brinded cow." Or if I did say that, it would be a bit like seeing "duckies" or "horsies" in the clouds.

On the other hand, the dawn DOES look like the bright, spotted wings of a bird. Even without the metaphor, the image is sound and stunningly beautiful. As Conrad desired, it "makes you see". Yet "Pied Beauty" is in all the anthologies, and “God’s Grandeur” in only a few.

Wallace Stevens once said that, “sentimentality is a failure of feeling.” I like dappled things as much as the next person, but it seems mere sentimentality to glorify the strange over the ordinary, the fickle over the constant, and stippling over a strong, steady stroke of the brush. That's why, despite the brilliant use of sounds (which some may see as "style"), I see "Pied Beauty" as overrated compared to other other Hopkins poems. The "style" and the "content" of a poem are insuperable.

I'll grant this is less true of prose (especially non-fiction) -- but I still think it is basically the case for fiction. The ART is the STYLE.

[Darcy88]

While the words may have been English, the syntax and style wre not. I don't know whether he was completely idiosyncratic, or if he retained Polish style, but it sure isn't English.

How is it not English? I'm reading some Conrad now. His style may be unorthodox and inventive, but its still English.

[PeterL]

How is it not English? I'm reading some Conrad now. His style may be unorthodox and inventive, but its still English.

The word order in sentences is typical of some other languages.

[Climacus]

While the words may have been English, the syntax and style wre not. I don't know whether he was completely idiosyncratic, or if he retained Polish style, but it sure isn't English.

The word order in sentences is typical of some other languages.
Like Darcy88 said, it's still English. You're using the term in some heterodox sense, PeterL. Conrad was Polish-born and that likely influenced his English prose, but it's still English prose.

[Ecurb]

Well, how about this. I LIOVE Star Wars. I love it to the point where I know that Yoda has a female cousin who also, for a time, served on the Jedi Council. I recently pickd up a Star Wars book, that from all indications from the description the back, I would love. It had lightsabers, so that was enough in the first place. But the book was so atrociously written--the prose style so abhorrently bad--I just couldn't read it. No amount of epic lightsaber battles and starship dogfights could change that.

.

In his famous essay "On Art", Tolstoy claimed one form of false art in prose fiction is "interestingness". In other words, and author "interests" his reader by putting in historical facts or theories (think "The DeVinci Code"), or intersting science (as in some sci. fi.), or even interesting light sabers and quasi-religion (as in Star Wars). This may make the book fun to read, but it is fun to read for non-artistic reasons -- in other words, for the same reasons some non-fiction is fun to read.

I'd say that ANY time you don't like a work of art, it's because of the "style". It's likely that if the Star Wars book you disliked had been written more clearly, you might have liked it for non-artistic reasons("interestingness"). However, the artistic merit of a novel (I'm arguing) is insuperable from the 'style'.

[Climacus]

Ecurb: Equivocation is still our problem, I think. We're using terms like 'style' and 'content' in different senses, especially the latter. But maybe our positions are closer than it seems.

Indeed, I would DEFINE "well-written" as "entertaining, enlightening and/or interesting", however ungrammatical.
Well, I wouldn't, for the reasons given in my earlier post. (I've read poorly-written books that were enlightening and interesting.) Again, it's equivocation we're battling. For me, and I think for most people, 'well-written' means rhetorically well-written in the classical sense - 'classical' meaning derived from the mediaevals via the peripatetics. (Many of the great English prose-stylists studied classical rhetoric formally.) Some of these contemporary analytical philosophers are great logicians but poor rhetoricians.


I don't know what you mean by "I don't read those books for the writing itself." That's that sort of comment I don't understand. Why would anyone read a work of fiction for any reason other than "the writing itself"? I can't divorce "meaning" from "style".
To begin with, we're not necessarily talking about fiction but about any sort of writing. Anyway, we can make the content-style divorce - and you can't - because we seem to mean something different than you do by the terms. To restate, style is that part of rhetoric which transforms propositions (or, if it's easier, thoughts) into words, spoken or written. The propositions are the 'content.' And this 'thinking out into language' can be done variously with different styles, in different languages. So, given these definitions, the divorce is obvious. This divorce is what makes translation possible. The same single term (propositions are made up of terms, which are immaterial in the same sense that the propositions are) may be translated variously. 'Love' and 'lieb' are two different words for the same term. Whence the divorce. I don't know that I can put it any simpler.


The "style" and the "content" of a poem are insuperable.
I think you mean inseperable. If so, I disagree for the reasons given above. (Glad that you're a Hopkins fan by the way :) ).


The ART is the STYLE.
We may, finally, agree here. But I'm confused about your terms.

[Climacus]

. . . the artistic merit of a novel (I'm arguing) is insuperable from the 'style'.

Again, I think you mean inseparable. But before you said the content and style were inseparable, not art and style. Maybe I agree with you here, about art and style. Still confused about your terms though.

[Ecurb]

You are correct that I meant "inseperable". I still don't see how a book (especially a work of fiction) can be interesting and enlightening, but not well written. I suppose if it is interesting because of what Tolstoy called "interestingness" it would be possible. But if it is artistically interesting, I still maintain it IS well written.

It further seems to me that classical rhetoric (from Aristotle) is more concerned with argument and persuasion than with fictional "style".


To begin with, we're not necessarily talking about fiction but about any sort of writing. Anyway, we can make the content-style divorce - and you can't - because we seem to mean something different than you do by the terms. To restate, style is that part of rhetoric which transforms propositions (or, if it's easier, thoughts) into words, spoken or written. The propositions are the 'content.' And this 'thinking out into language' can be done variously with different styles, in different languages. So, given these definitions, the divorce is obvious. This divorce is what makes translation possible. The same single term (propositions are made up of terms, which are immaterial in the same sense that the propositions are) may be translated variously. 'Love' and 'lieb' are two different words for the same term. Whence the divorce. I don't know that I can put it any simpler.

Obviously, since I can't read Russian, Russian novels are in a "style" that is incomprehensible to me without translation. In addition, if style is that part of rhetoric that transforms propositions into words, it includes things like the directions for putting together some disassembled chair one buys at Wal-mart. Of course some directions are easier to follow than others, and I assume that means they have a better "style" (by your definition). I'll buy that.

But (and help me out here to see if I understand you) do you mean that (for example) the "content" of a novel would by the action of the novel simplified and stated as simply as possible, and the "style" would be a more detailed description? Is the order in which the propositions are placed "content" or "style"? Have you ever read the great structuralist Claude Levi-Strauss's method of analyzing myths? He recommended (this is actually true, believe it or not) rewriting the myths so that the action is described as simply as possible, shuffling the propositions (i.e. simple, declarative sentences), and rearranging them in pairs of opposites. This would lead the critic to the "deep structural meaning" of the myth.

Is something like what the Levi-Strauss method would deliver what you mean by "content"?

[Climacus]

I still don't see how a book (especially a work of fiction) can be interesting and enlightening, but not well written. I suppose if it is interesting because of what Tolstoy called "interestingness" it would be possible.
Well, here's an example of how a novel could be interesting and enlightening but poorly-written. Imagine a novel written by an analytic philosopher, determined to put his philosophical theories into novelistic form - maybe to gain a broader audience. But, while he's a great philosopher qua philosopher, he's a poor writer qua writer. And the novel is not a success novelistically. Yet the philosopher's theories are interesting and enlightening. Readers see this but also bemoan the philosopher's rhetorical lameness. (Maybe this is something like what Tolstoy meant, but I couldn't say.)

But if it is artistically interesting, I still maintain it IS well written.
And, I think, I agree.


It further seems to me that classical rhetoric (from Aristotle) is more concerned with argument and persuasion than with fictional "style".
Remove the qualification 'fictional' and you'll find that classical rhetoric is very much concerned with style. Rhetoric is the art of persuasion (this is a bit of an oversimplification, of course). And style is a potent means thereto. The student of classical rhetoric learns about the modes of persuasion, the so-called 'topics,' how to arrange material, and style. See, Corbett and Conners, Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student, (Oxford, 1999). (Expensive, but worth it.)


. . . if style is that part of rhetoric that transforms propositions into words, it includes things like the directions for putting together some disassembled chair one buys at Wal-mart. Of course some directions are easier to follow than others, and I assume that means they have a better "style" (by your definition). I'll buy that.
Kinda, sorta. But you mayn't always want your style to be clearcut and easy-to-follow. The poet, for instance, aims for beauty. And the more beautiful diction may be the more obscure. You're on the right track though.


But (and help me out here to see if I understand you) do you mean that (for example) the "content" of a novel would by the action of the novel simplified and stated as simply as possible, and the "style" would be a more detailed description?
No, not necessarily. You're thinking of style here as ornamental, as dressing up propositions. That may or may not be the case, contingent on any number of variables: aim, purpose, target audience, etc, etc. Style may dress down propositions. Again, I think you're on the right track though.

Haven't read, and so can't comment on, Levi-Strauss.

[Climacus]

Another note:


propositions (i.e. simple, declarative sentences)
When philosophers say simple they mean 'non-composite' - that is, not composed of discrete parts. Propositions are not simple in this sense, since they are composed of terms. Whether or not they are simple in some other sense depends on the individual propositions themselves, I guess.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

While the words may have been English, the syntax and style wre not. I don't know whether he was completely idiosyncratic, or if he retained Polish style, but it sure isn't English.
:lol: Conrad wrote in English. There's really no argument, at all, against that.

In his famous essay "On Art", Tolstoy claimed one form of false art in prose fiction is "interestingness". In other words, and author "interests" his reader by putting in historical facts or theories (think "The DeVinci Code"), or intersting science (as in some sci. fi.), or even interesting light sabers and quasi-religion (as in Star Wars). This may make the book fun to read, but it is fun to read for non-artistic reasons -- in other words, for the same reasons some non-fiction is fun to read.

I'd say that ANY time you don't like a work of art, it's because of the "style". It's likely that if the Star Wars book you disliked had been written more clearly, you might have liked it for non-artistic reasons("interestingness"). However, the artistic merit of a novel (I'm arguing) is insuperable from the 'style'.
Meh. The argument is kind of pedantic for my taste.

[Ecurb]

Rhetoric is certainly concerned with "style". However, I'm not sure I buy your "writer qua writer" bit. Perhaps that's where our disagreement lies.

A philosopher who writes interesting, sound philosophy IS a good writer, and a philosopher who writes lousy philosophy is a lousy writer. One may use better grammar than the other, but the quality of philosophic writing is most significantly determined by the quality of the philosophy.

The philosopher who embeds a good bit of philosophy in a lousy novel has simply produced something that is GOOD "writing qua writing" in one respect, and lousy "writing qua writing" in another.

I'll grant that it would be reasonable for such a philosopher to think, "Gosh, I should improve my grammar, and learn to communicate more clearly. If I read Strunk and White, I can improve my 'writing'." However, the quality of a written piece of Philosophy is determined by many factors, just as the quality of a novel is determined by many factors. In the case of the philsophy article, the quality is determined by the extent to which the author's thesis is worthwhile, and his argument in support of it is sound. The "style" that is most important in his "writing qua writing" is his ability to make sound, logical arguments and communicate them clearly. These are the rhetorical skills demanded of a philosopher. If he lacks these skills, he's not a good philosopher, but a lousy writer. He's a lousy philosopher, and a lousy writer.

A novelist needs different rhetorical skills. He needs to invent a story that captures the interest and imagination of his readers, develop interesting characters, and provide an emotionally resonant experience for his readers. The rhetorical (or, for this discussion, "stylistic") skills that allow them to do that ARE his skills at "writing qua writing". If, like Graham Greene, he makes grammatical errors, that may be mildly annoying to his readers, which lessens the quality of the novel slightly, but I wouldn't say that it means that Greene is a failure at "writing qua writing". If the novelist is able to express any idea he has precisely and elegantly, but never has an idea worth reading, I would never say he is a good "writer qua writer". He's not. He's a lousy writer. The most important quality in novel writing is inventing entertaining plots and characters, just as the most important quality in philosophical writing is making sound arguments.

[Climacus]

. . . the quality of a written piece of Philosophy is determined by many factors . . . the extent to which the author's thesis is worthwhile, and his argument in support of it is sound. The "style" that is most important in his "writing qua writing" is his ability to make sound, logical arguments and communicate them clearly. These are the rhetorical skills demanded of a philosopher. If he lacks these skills, he's not a good philosopher, but a lousy writer. He's a lousy philosopher, and a lousy writer.
This seems multiply confused. You seem both to admit and to deny that there is a differentiation. That is, you admit that there is a distinction between philosopher qua philosopher and writer qua writer, but you go on to amalgamate the two. Now, the bit that I've 'bolded' is clearly false. Three things are demanded of a good philosopher qua philosopher: that his terms be clear and unambiguous, that his premises in which the terms are found be true, and that his reasoning be valid. That's all. Now, note well, he need never have opened his mouth, need never have put stylus to tablet, to achieve these things. (By the way, by your definition, Socrates was a lousy philosopher, for Socrates wrote no philosophy.) Philosophy's about thinking hard about things. The thoughts (that is, the immaterial propositions) need never be communicated to others. Rhetoric is about taking those thoughts and putting them into words for communicative purposes. You're still confusing philosopher or logician with rhetorician or writer. The philosopher qua philosopher works with immaterial, intrapsychic thoughts. The rhetorician qua rhetorician works with material, extra-mental words.

[Climacus]

If the novelist is able to express any idea he has precisely and elegantly, but never has an idea worth reading, I would never say he is a good "writer qua writer".
Good heavens, I would! Give the man some ideas and set him to work. Even if the ideas are inane, be the writing itself good enough, I'll read it. Poetry, again, is illustrative here. For 'what the poet says is usually insignificant, if not incoherent.' But how he says it, that's the thing. The material cause may be paltry, but if the formal cause is worthy, I'll read it.

The most important quality in novel writing is inventing entertaining plots and characters, just as the most important quality in philosophical writing is making sound arguments.
No, the most important quality in invention is invention. And inventing is prior to writing, and may never lead thereto. How often do we hear people say, 'I've got a great idea for a novel, if only I could write.'

The fallacy you're making is something like: 'There's a sort of writing peculiar to philosophy. Therefore, philosophy just is that sort of writing.' Words, in a sense, are pointers. They point to propositions. You're mistaking the pointer for that to which it points.

[JCamilo]

Conrad said the author's role is "most of all, to make the reader SEE." Now, I'll agree that if the writer doesn't make his reader see, the book will be dull. Similarly, if the writer DOES make his reader see, but the reader sees only what is dull or prosaic, the book will be boring. Also, if you are "partial to the content", how can you not like the book? It seems to me that being "partial to the content" MEANS you like the book.

By the way, there are famous writers who write ungrammatically or awkwardly (Paul Fussell famously used Graham Greene's mistakes in a grammar and usage quiz).

And some like Poe or Stevenson would say that hiding or not showing the plain obvious was the writer trick. A good example is the tricks of the dective fiction . They actually hide in plain sight, but they hide and they are not boring. I woud argue in fact that much novels deal with so obvious - after all the character must act exactly like he should, there should not be enough surprises - that the true art is not showing, but suspension.

I woud point that a scientific thesis has a inherent style and is good written, even because a good writing can be only judged if it follows his proposal. So goes journalism, chronicles, diaries, etc. And Tolstoy was talking about himself.

[Ecurb]

Good heavens, I would! Give the man some ideas and set him to work. Even if the ideas are inane, be the writing itself good enough, I'll read it. Poetry, again, is illustrative here. For 'what the poet says is usually insignificant, if not incoherent.' But how he says it, that's the thing. The material cause may be paltry, but if the formal cause is worthy, I'll read it.

No, the most important quality in invention is invention. And inventing is prior to writing, and may never lead thereto. How often do we hear people say, 'I've got a great idea for a novel, if only I could write.'

The fallacy you're making is something like: 'There's a sort of writing peculiar to philosophy. Therefore, philosophy just is that sort of writing.' Words, in a sense, are pointers. They point to propositions. You're mistaking the pointer for that to which it points.

We'll just have to agree to disagree here. I don't understand you. Words don't point to propositions - sentences do. In addition, how would you "give the man some ideas and set him to work." You can't "give someone ideas" without -- yes -- putting them into words. I suppose the man could be a decent editor or translator, and if you want to define a good editor as a good "writer qua writer" that's your prerogative. But I wouldn't so define him. Medieval literature (before the printing press) defined "copying" texts as one valuable "style" of writing. But I wouldn't call someone who was good at copying texts a "good writer qua writer". It's no longer a valuable skill.

Remember the second definition of "style" I quoted:
2. The combination of distinctive features of literary or artistic expression, execution, or performance characterizing a particular person, group, school, or era." .

I'll go along with that. If someone wants to say, "I like romance novels, but dislike science fiction," I can see what he's talking about. There is a distinction in "style" between poetry and prose. Someone might say, "I think "Pale Fire" (Nabokov's masterpiece) is good prose, but it's lousy poetry." That's coherent.

That being the case, Philosophy books and articles consist of a "style" of writing (just like science fiction is a style of writing, except philosophy isn't as much fun to read). It is the style philosophers are expected to write, and (although some may be profound thinkers who never open their mouths) we can judge their philosophy only by what they write or say. In general, academics are judged by what they write (although Socrates and Wittgenstein are exceptions -- blabbermouths who rarely wrote). So we judge their philosophy based on their writing. How else COULD we judge it?

The notion that someone can "invent" a story that is not told or written is silly. A story is DEFINED as something that is told or written. "Inventing" a story without words would be like cooking a meal without food. It's impossible by definition. Besides, we both philosophize and tell stories using language, and non-linguistic story telling or philosophizing is outside the ken of our experience, and difficult to discuss. As Yeats wrote, (I quoted it before): "O body swayed to music, O brightening glance, How can we know the dancer from the dance?"

Can we distinguish a philosophy from the words expressing it? Can we distinguish a story from the words expressing it? If the words are changed, isn't the "story" changed? Do the "propositions" of a fictional story even exist prior to the words? Do animals that lack language engage in "philosophy"?

If you fail to understand me, I suggest you read an essay by C.S. Lewis (whom you listed as one of your favorite prose stylists). I think it's called "High Brows and Low Brows" and it's not available on the internets (I haven't read it for several years). The basic theme is that Lewis thinks the distinction between "literature (high brow)" and "mere fictional entertainment (low brow)" is a false one. In addition, he thinks that those who make such a distinction often falsely ascribe the difference to something called "style", which you might call "writing qua writing". Since I agree with you that Lewis is a clear and lucid writer, I recommend his article. I'd be glad to discuss it with you if you find it. It's great stuff.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I think several posters (including me) could learn a thing or two about civility by looking at the exchange between Ecurb and Climacus. Not that they should. We wouldn't want things to get too boring.

[Climacus]

Words don't point to propositions - sentences do.
You're right. My mistake. I meant to say that words point to terms. The order is this (1) concepts, (2) terms, (3) words. Maybe I should have developed concepts sooner, but I didn't want to overload the thread with a lot of cumbersome metaphysics. (In classical logic, one usually studies concepts first, as they're so basal.) Anyway, concepts are abstract, universal, immaterial, necessary, immutable. And terms mediate between concepts and words.

The notion that someone can "invent" a story that is not told or written is silly.
Again, I would have to disagree. For inventing is (ontologically) prior to telling.


(1) Can we distinguish a philosophy from the words expressing it? (2) Can we distinguish a story from the words expressing it? (3) If the words are changed, isn't the "story" changed? (4) Do the "propositions" of a fictional story even exist prior to the words? (5) Do animals that lack language engage in "philosophy"?
As for (1) and (2), yes - that is, it is logically possible to do so. (3) Maybe, maybe not - it all depends. (4) Yes, absolutely. But I don't know that this is the place to go in-depth about the ontological status of propositions. (5) Well, I'm old-fashioned. I think that animals are 'brutes' in the classical sense - that is, they are not rational. They are incapable of ratiocination. So, no, animals do not engage in philosophy.

More on (3). 'I am amused' and 'Amused am I' both mean the same thing but say different things. Similarly, 'God is love' and 'Gott ist liebe' both mean the same thing but say different things. The concept-expressing terms are stable, while the words affixed thereto may be many and varied.

Put it this way. If you're right that content and style - what is said and how it is said - are inseparable, then translation would be impossible. But translation isn't impossible. Therefore content and style are not inseparable.

PS: I may have the Lewis article you're referring to, in a compendium-type book, but I'll have to check.

[Climacus]

I think several posters (including me) could learn a thing or two about civility by looking at the exchange between Ecurb and Climacus. Not that they should. We wouldn't want things to get too boring.
Yes, more like a how-to on being tedious. :p And it may very well be that we're just shooting arrows over each other's heads. It's still the damnéd equivocation, I think.

[Ecurb]

Yes, more like a how-to on being tedious. :p And it may very well be that we're just shooting arrows over each other's heads. It's still the damnéd equivocation, I think.

I think we've talked this out -- except I can't resist a couple of parting words: You are correct that "inventing" precedes "telling". But "telling" precedes (or is simultaneous to) the "invention" becoming a "story". The invention isn't a story until it is told. It's something else.

I read the Lewis article in some compendium book. They have the book in the University Library here, but not in the Public library. If I get over there, I'll check it out.

Also, you didn't say if you think the medieval monk, skilled at copying texts qualifies as a "good writer qua writer". There's no logical reason why he wouldn't. The only reason he doesn't is that's not what most people mean by a "good writer". Same with the skilled wordsmith who has nothing to say, or a translator.

Obviously, translation (although never creating an identical work) does show that there's some basic distinction between "meaning" and "style". But in terms of the emotional impact of the novel (in other words, in terms of judging its quality) the two are of a piece. "A ghost and a prince meet / And everyone ends in mincemeat..." as they sing in "That's Entertainment" from "The Band Wagon".

[Climacus]

Ecurb: It was a good discussion. And we've succeeded in making everyone hesitant to post. :wink5:

You are correct that "inventing" precedes "telling". But "telling" precedes (or is simultaneous to) the "invention" becoming a "story". The invention isn't a story until it is told. It's something else.Well, I guess I just don't see it that way. Of course, if you define a story as something told, then you'd be right. But it still seems to me that the invention is a story - or if you like, an untold story.

Edit: If, as you say, a story isn't a story until it's told, then the proposition 'I'm thinking of a story that I'm going to write' would be absurd. But it isn't absurd. Therefore, etc.


Also, you didn't say if you think the medieval monk, skilled at copying texts qualifies as a "good writer qua writer". There's no logical reason why he wouldn't. The only reason he doesn't is that's not what most people mean by a "good writer". Same with the skilled word-smith who has nothing to say, or a translator.No for the copyist as copyist. He requires only manual skills. (You might as well say that a photocopier is a good writer.) Yes for the skilled word-smith and yes, possibly, for the translator.

Obviously, translation (although never creating an identical work) does show that there's some basic distinction between "meaning" and "style".Hooray. Let the bells ring out and the banners fly. :party:

[TheChilly]

Denis Johnson.

Even though his novels can drag on like a mad-man to the point where stuff seems more like unneeded extended poetry (i.e.: "Tree of Smoke"), his prose is definitely something worth influence. Not sure about emulating other authors, though (Last author I almost tried to emulate in a short story a couple of years back was James Ellroy in his "Underworld USA" phase).

[hanzklein]

For my money, Finnegans Wake by James Joyce. Its extremely meaningful yet poetic and groundbreaking. However, it may be too much for some people so then I'd say Ulysses, which is written in English while the other is debatable. In particular, the first three chapters of Ulysses are unparalleled in form and beauty.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Wow, hanzklein showed up to extoll the works of James Joyce . . . didn't see that coming! :lol:

[hanzklein]

Wow, hanzklein showed up to extoll the works of James Joyce . . . didn't see that coming! :lol:

[In Finnegans Wake brogue] Well, what do ye propose is better prose?

[Jack of Hearts]

Finnegans Wake as 'beautiful prose.' It's just opinion. In this reader's opinion, anyone who says that is either lying (to themselves?) or crazy.

James Joyce belongs on this list though. Not for Wake. Not for Ulysses (beautiful in other ways).

Yep. Dubliners. The best thing he ever did.

But the greatest prose stylist, in this reader's opinion, is definitively Faulkner for Benjamin and Quentin's segments of The Sound and the Fury.






J

[Alexander III]

While I wouldn't have the audacity to say that he has the greatest prose style; Turgenv, whom I have been reading as of late has one of the most simple yet beautifull prose styles I have ever read.

I have never been a particular fan of joyce, my opinion is it is easy to appear grand and beautifull when your qwork with the complex, but it is very hard to be grand and beautifull while dealing with the simple. But that is just my preference.

[hanzklein]

Finnegans Wake as 'beautiful prose.' It's just opinion. In this reader's opinion, anyone who says that is either lying (to themselves?) or crazy.

James Joyce belongs on this list though. Not for Wake. Not for Ulysses (beautiful in other ways).

Yep. Dubliners. The best thing he ever did.

But the greatest prose stylist, in this reader's opinion, is definitively Faulkner for Benjamin and Quentin's segments of The Sound and the Fury.






J

I've been casually studying FW for a year now. Did you know Joyce thought this book would be the one his reputation rested on? Its not fair to just dismiss it. Dubliners was also very good, but its primitive compared to his other works.




I have never been a particular fan of joyce, my opinion is it is easy to appear grand and beautifull when your qwork with the complex, but it is very hard to be grand and beautifull while dealing with the simple. But that is just my preference.
Uncertain of what you mean. All of Joyce's works revolve around the ordinary, such as walking around.

[Jack of Hearts]

It has hardly been dismissed. The view you're expressing about it is the dominant one in a very well known, controversial debate.

And Dubliners could be said to be more primitive in many ways. Ulysses and FW have schematics published on them, for starters. But there's a difference between art and verbal sudoku, and it seems Joyce began leaning toward the latter as he progressed in his career. He was even making statements about keeping professors 'busy for years' and living forever in a puzzle, etc.

So academia can have that part of him and hopefully keep it to themselves. This reader is not a Joycean scholar, but a perfectly fine agent of his own experiences with the man's work (sometimes great, sometimes bogged down by some truly grave [alleged] character flaws).







J

[hanzklein]

It has hardly been dismissed. The view you're expressing about it is the dominant one in a very well known, controversial debate.

And Dubliners could be said to be more primitive in many ways. Ulysses and FW have schematics published on them, for starters. But there's a difference between art and verbal sudoku, and it seems Joyce began leaning toward the latter as he progressed in his career. He was even making statements about keeping professors 'busy for years' and living forever in a puzzle, etc.

So academia can have that part of him and hopefully keep it to themselves. This reader is not a Joycean scholar, but a perfectly fine agent of his own experiences with the man's work (sometimes great, sometimes bogged down by some truly grave [alleged] character flaws).







JFW is dismissed as unreadable by practically everyone except Joycean scholars, fyi. I even have heard the words come out of the mouth of an ivy league professor that he did not think the book was readable in anyway by anyone except scholars studying James Joyce's life. So the book's been practically shot down in flames by everybody.

Verbal soduku? Joyce was out there to create intricate worlds and complex works of art, not crossword puzzles. Just because one doesn't understand something doesn't mean they won't comprehend the book. And how do you even know if they are good or not if you haven't spent time unearthing what the books actually mean, even on a superficial level?

[Jack of Hearts]

The schematic published on it, the fact that there are so many people who take to the internet and ask "Startin' the Wake! Advice?", the fact that discussion is still ongoing with lively interest despite separation of time and interest suggests otherwise.

Your mentioning the 'ivy league professor' might bear more weight with somebody who takes academic culture more seriously.

And lastly, whatever conclusion you draw by implication in stating that this reader has spent insufficient time with these works- interesting logic to say the least.

But it's your opinion, so enjoy it. This reader is not and never was interested in this discussion.






J

[hanzklein]

The schematic published on it, the fact that there are so many people who take to the internet and ask "Startin' the Wake! Advice?", the fact that discussion is still ongoing with lively interest despite separation of time and interest suggests otherwise.

Your mentioning the 'ivy league professor' might bear more weight with somebody who takes academic culture more seriously.

And lastly, whatever conclusion you draw by implication in stating that this reader has spent insufficient time with these works- interesting logic to say the least.

But it's your opinion, so enjoy it. This reader is not and never was interested in this discussion.






JI'm sorry, but where are these "lively discussions" about Finnegans Wake taking place? The book is not as popular as you think, even the majority of Joyce fans don't read it...

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

[In Finnegans Wake brogue] Well, what do ye propose is better prose?

I don't know. I've never read Finnegans Wake, and don't plan to. I've read part of Ulysses, and while the prose was nice, it seemed complicated for the sake of being complicated.

Note that I'm not going to argue with you, here, hanz. Ulysses and Finnegans Wake are undoubtedly the greatest pieces of literature ever written by the greatest author, ever.

[Drkshadow03]

I don't know. I've never read Finnegans Wake, and don't plan to. I've read part of Ulysses, and while the prose was nice, it seemed complicated for the sake of being complicated.

Note that I'm not going to argue with you, here, hanz. Ulysses and Finnegans Wake are undoubtedly the greatest pieces of literature ever written by the greatest author, ever.

Clearly you've never read any fiction I've written! :puke:

Dubliners is good. Really good. I would definitely give Joyce a nomination on the strength of Dubliners alone.

[JCamilo]

I understand some people rulling out Finnegans because the best definition of it would be "a huge poem in prose", as it challenges traditional genre definitions. But really, it is certainly not something you would use in day-to-day writting.

[hanzklein]

I understand some people rulling out Finnegans because the best definition of it would be "a huge poem in prose", as it challenges traditional genre definitions. But really, it is certainly not something you would use in day-to-day writting.

FW does look like a huge poem in prose...but you can read it just like prose. In fact, there is a "translation" of half the book into basic English (I'm assuming this is from early manuscripts from Joyce himself) and it is incredible to see how he expresses it in the final product.

Compare: http://www.finneganswake.info/narrative/fwbk1ch4.htm

to: http://www.finwake.com/1024chapter4/1024finn4.htm

[Gregory Samsa]

Le Clézio, Nabokov, Hamsun and Kundera are my favorites.

Orwell? I think his prose are functional and like a window pane, but never beautiful.

[prendrelemick]

Marquez.
Functional can be beautiful. Chronicle of a Death Foretold is just about perfect.

The trouble with Joyce is that he is too aware of style, and is constantly drowning out the story with his experiments. When it works it is spectacular - remember the Sirens in Ulysses - fantastic stuff. Sometimes it's just irritating.

[Climacus]

Orwell? I think his prose are functional and like a window pane, but never beautiful.
I agree with this sentiment. But originally I was asking after prosaic prose-stylists, as it were. To me, Orwell and C.S. Lewis are paragons here - of lucidity, economy, and, as you say, functionality.