81,695
edits
How to Write a Sentence: And How to Read One: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
How to Write a Sentence: And How to Read One (view source)
Revision as of 11:59, 5 January 2021
, 5 January 2021no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{a|review|}} Now here is a review I’ll have to edit carefully. Like a well composed sentence of which he would approve, Stanley Fish’s “How to Write a Sentence and How...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|review|}} | {{a|book review|}}Now here is a review I’ll have to edit carefully. | ||
Now here is a review I’ll have to edit carefully. | |||
Like a well composed sentence of which he would approve, Stanley Fish’s “How to Write a Sentence and How to Read one” has a clear formal structure, and cleaves closely to it. But, also like one of Fish’s preferred sentences, it rambles on in an unchaperoned fashion: for a short book, it is easy to put down. For all its tight formal structure, it is not clear what Fish wants to achieve, if not simply to put the world to rights. | Like a well composed sentence of which he would approve, Stanley Fish’s “How to Write a Sentence and How to Read one” has a clear formal structure, and cleaves closely to it. But, also like one of Fish’s preferred sentences, it rambles on in an unchaperoned fashion: for a short book, it is easy to put down. For all its tight formal structure, it is not clear what Fish wants to achieve, if not simply to put the world to rights. | ||
| Line 12: | Line 11: | ||
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). | 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 | 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.<ref>It turns out Stanley Fish is a law ''professor'', but not a lawy''er'' — he holds no legal qualification at all! This is quite an achievement.</ref> 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. | 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. | 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 19: | ||
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''. | 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''. | ||
But if you like the idiosyncratic peregrinations of a ''bon vivant'' law and literature professor, fill your boots. | |||
{{sa}} | |||
*[[Plain English]] | |||
*The [[Fish Principle]] | |||
{{ref}} | |||