How to Write a Sentence: And How to Read One: Difference between revisions

How to Write a Sentence: And How to Read One (view source)

Revision as of 14:53, 30 October 2020

71 bytes added , 30 October 2020

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,028

edits

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 I’m not sure why these would be the fundaments of any linguistic structure, other than because Fish says so, nor what to do about sentences, like this one, that attempt to do all three. Nor that there aren’t perfectly well sentences that do none. (Most of {{author|James Ellroy}}’s never get that far, and he is one of the most stylish writers on the planet).
-Talk of {{author|James Ellroy}} reminds me: what Fish’s prescription, contra Strunk, White & Ellroy (now ''there'' would be a fine book on style!) encourages ''verbosity''. Fish ''loves'' long, wordy, flowery writing: he’s a lawyer, after all. He devotes he second half of his book to a canter through his favourite sentences from literature. Most, to my eyes, could have been improved with a full stop or two and hearty use of a red pen, and all seemed selected as much to burnish the author’s own intellectual credentials as anything else.
+Talk of {{author|James Ellroy}} reminds me: what Fish’s prescription, contra Strunk, White & Ellroy (now ''there'' would be a fine book on style!) encourages ''verbosity''. Fish ''loves'' long, wordy, flowery writing: he’s a lawyer, after all. He devotes the second half of his book to a canter through his favourite sentences from literature. Most, to my eyes, could have been improved with a full stop or two and hearty use of a red pen, and all seemed selected as much to burnish the author’s own intellectual credentials as anything else.
-Fish believes that ''Strunk & White''’s preference for concision is a modern error that robs the language of richness and diversity. Now, granted, I don’t always practice what I preach, but I profoundly disagree: It is easy (as Fish demonstrates, using his subordinate and additive templates) to write infinitely long sentences. All you need is to be bothered enough to do so. It is harder to write short ones. It is ''much'' harder to write ''good'' short ones.
+Fish believes that ''Strunk & White''’s preference for concision is a modern error that robs the language of richness and diversity. Now, granted, I don’t always practice what I preach, but I profoundly disagree: It is easy (as Fish demonstrates, using his subordinate and additive templates) to write infinitely long sentences. All you need is to be ''bothered enough to do so''.  This, in Professor Fish’s honour, I call the [[Fish Principle]]. But it is harder to write short ones. It is ''much'' harder to write ''good'' short ones.
 Elongating a sentence for the sake of it is a charlatan’s ruse. It appeals to the pretentious and those who charge by the hour, as lawyers do. The real challenge, as far as I can see, is imparting all that richness and complexity as economically as possible.
@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 So, I can’t recommend this book based on its billing. If you do want to learn, simply, how to write and read a sentence, then — well, try ''Strunk & White''.
-If you like the idiosyncratic peregrinations of a ''bon vivant'' law and literature professor, perhaps this is your book.
+But if you like the idiosyncratic peregrinations of a ''bon vivant'' law and literature professor, fill your boots.
 {{sa}}
 *[[Plain English]]