Developing Your Own Style

“Music,” Herbie Hancock says, “is truly the universal language.” Music captures not just the sounds and rhythms of life, but also the emotions and ideas that create order. Music speaks across languages. Wherever you go, people move when the music starts. Music has that amazing capacity to tell a story. Gregorian chants, folk music, symphonies, jazz, rock and roll, and of course opera all tell tales. But, at the same time, they all rise above the story.

The same applies to style in writing.

Above all else, writing needs to communicate—to tell stories, convey ideas, paint pictures, and evoke emotions. The “classic style” of writing—whose exemplars are William Strunk and E.B. White, Joseph Williams, and William Zinsser—seeks to clear away clutter, sharpen ideas and images, and show the reader something—clearly. And what an amazing world this would be if we could all learn to master the skills of clarity!

But there’s more to writing than that. There’s this thing called style. Style is everything that matters beyond clarity. Style is the part of good writing exists for reasons beyond utility. We need clear writing to communicate, as Hemingway said, “the good and the bad, the ecstasy, the remorse and sorrow, the people and the places and how the weather was.”

Hemingway, in fact, explicitly argued against attaching all kinds of symbolism and higher meanings to works. “The sea is the sea,” he said. “The old man is an old man. The boy is a boy and the fish is a fish. The shark are all sharks no better and no worse.”

And yet …

When you get the writing right—when you find the exact right words, which show readers things they would be able to see otherwise—some kind of artistic magic happens. When you find the rhythm and cadence, sounds and smells and sights and touches, the words that send readers’ imaginations into more profound explorations—then writing does more than simply communicate. It takes readers off into that same place that music does.

So pay attention to all the things that go beyond simple communication—rhythm, beats, sounds, shapes, textures, and images. Consider, for the sake of illustration, these familiar expressions:

Don’t tread on me.
Four score and seven years ago.
Lock and load.
Make the world safe for democracy.
You have nothing to fear but fear itself.
Take me out to the ballgame.
I see friends shaking hands, saying how do you do; they’re really saying I love you.
Peace in our time.
Tax and spend.
Go back to Mississippi.
Tear down this wall.
Coke is it.
Just do it.
We are the ones we have been waiting for.

Read them aloud. Follow the cadence. Get a sense of meaning from the sound. Some make a simple declaration (“Just do it”), others offer a reverie (“Four score and…”), others depict a scene (“I see friends shaking hands…”), and others make an argument (“You have nothing to fear…”). But they all hop along like brook water over stones.

Ancient literature, like Homer’s Odyssey and Iliad, took the form of verse. In an oral tradition, without written records, storytellers used a distinctive meter, melody, wordplay, and imagery to remember the lines of the epic tales.

To test your pacing—too fast? too slow? too wordy? too simple?—read your drafts aloud. If the words sound good moving from the left to the right side of the page, you’re probably on the right track. When you hear awkward phrases and confusing transitions, figure out what blocks the flow.

For a change of pace, read as fast as you can. Concentrate hard and spit the words out, one after another, without pausing. Speed editing often reveals writing better than normal reading. When you read fast, problem passages trip you up. And you engage your whole brain, awakening yourself to the flow and meaning of the words.

Style—that ineffable pizzazz that engages the reader—comes only with mastery of the basics. When you develop all the skills of writing, practice them, and listen to the sounds of your writing, you will find your style.

So how do you find your own style?

Back when he was a struggling printer’s apprentice, Benjamin Franklin decided he wanted to be a writer. He wanted to write like Joseph Addison and Richard Steele, the eighteenth-century essayists whose work appeared in the British Spectator. And so he imitated them. He put his words in their sentence structures. He imitated their alternation of short and long sentences, mimicked their humor, and mirrored their world-wise perspective.

By imitating Addison and Steele, Franklin found his own style. Addison and Steele gave him a template, so that he could master enough skills to find himself.

Go ahead and imitate your favorite writers. If you do it faithfully, you’ll find yourself consciously shaping your sentences and paragraphs. You will master useful techniques, and then burn them into your brain. That’s when your own style will emerge.

How do you know when you’ve got style—your own style, not just affectations and imitations of others? Again, let’s turn to Hemingway for an answer. When he was rejecting the idea of symbolism, he wasn’t rejecting the idea of some greater meaning and insight. In fact, he offered a simple test for style that goes beyond literal meaning.

“What goes beyond is what you see when you know,” Hemingway said.

When you get the writing right—when you develop your own powerful style—you give the reader an opportunity to see something beyond the immediate subject. You offer words that somehow take readers to their deepest levels of understanding.

For more posts on writing, visit the Elements of Writing Blog. Check out the posts on StorytellingWriting MechanicsAnalysis, and Writers on Writing.

Tom Wolfe’s Lesson on Writing with Pizzazz

Two kinds of mindsets prevail among writers.

Style 1, the Clear and Simple School, insists that the purpose of writing is to inform and entertain as simply as possible. Partisans of this style call for short sentences, simple words, and uncomplicated messages. Forget about symbolism or erudite allusions. The Clear and Simple School is the literary version of Joe Friday: Just the facts, ma’am.

Style 2, the Rococo School, insists that clear and simple is really shallow and boring. Why not jazz up the prose? the Two Group asks. Why not create several layers of meaning, even in the simplest phrases? Why not offer the reader new discoveries with every reading of a piece?

In fact, the two schools are not as incompatible as they might seem. You see, even the most ornate prose is usually just a collection of simple phrases and ideas. When you break down a master of literary riffing, like Tom Wolfe or Hunter S. Thompson, you see a string of simplicity.

Consider this passage from Wolfe’s From Bauhaus to Our House, in which Wolfe peals with horrified glee at the foolishness of modern builders. He shows a horde of interior designers and construction crews swarming over a law office, carrying faux-classical materials to dress up the sterile modernist design.

Every great law firm in New York moves without a sputter of protest into a glass-box office building with concrete slab floors and seven-foot-ten-inch-high concrete slab ceilings and plasterboard walls and pygmy corridors-and then hires a decorator and gives him a budget of hundreds of thousands of dollars to turn these mean cubes and grids into a horizontal fantasy of a Restoration townhouse. I have seen the carpenters and cabinetmakers and search-and-acquire girls hauling in more cornices, covings, pilasters, carved moldings, and recessed domes, more linenfold paneling, more (fireless) fireplaces with festoons of fruit carved in mahogany on the mantels, more chandeliers, sconces, girandoles, chestnut leather sofas, and chiming clocks than Wren, Inigo Jones, the brothers Adam, Lord Burlington, and the Dilettanti, working in concert, could have dreamed of.

Now look at this passage, idea by simple idea:

Every great law firm in New York moves
without a sputter of protest
into a glass-box office building
with concrete slab floors
and seven-foot-ten-inch-high concrete slab ceilings and plasterboard walls and pygmy corridors
and then hires a decorator
gives him a budget of hundreds of thousands of dollars
to turn these mean cubes and grids
into a horizontal fantasy
of a Restoration townhouse.
I have seen the carpenters and cabinetmakers
and search-and-acquire girls
hauling in
more cornices, covings, pilasters, carved moldings, and recessed domes,
more linenfold paneling, more (fireless) fireplaces
with festoons of fruit
carved in mahogany on the mantels,
more chandeliers, sconces, girandoles, chestnut leather sofas, and chiming clocks
than Wren, Inigo Jones, the brothers Adam, Lord Burlington, and the Dilettanti,
working in concert,
could have dreamed of.

Each line is as simple as an Amish barn. This passage gets its energy form two things: the specificity of details and the piling-on of these details in just a couple of sentences.

When you want to pepper your prose with style, don’t think you need to be elaborate. In fact, think the opposite — that you need to be as simple as possible. If you find the specific details that others might not notice — and pile these details on top of each other, to create a collective portrait that overwhelms the reader — then you’ll wow the reader.

One warning, though. Don’t overdo it. Audiences love to be dazzled. They love the energy and the color of passages like this. But they can get overwhelmed too. Alternate this kind of linguistic pyrotechnics with a simpler, shorter style. Then you’ll have the best of Style 1 and Style 2.

Before you go . . .
     • Like this content? For more posts on writing, visit the Elements of Writing Blog. Check out the posts on StorytellingWriting MechanicsAnalysis, and Writers on Writing.
     • For a monthly newsletter, chock full of hacks, interviews, and writing opportunities, sign up here.
     • To transform writing in your organization, with in-person or online seminars, email us here for a free consultation.

Fish’s Lament

Why don’t students learn how to write?

If you ever spend any time with college professors, you hear endless complaints about poor writing. At the end of the week, you can tell the ones who have papers to grade. They grimace, anticipating countless lost hours trying to decipher errant sentences in jargon-filled nonarguments.

(If you think the problem is unique to the U.S., think again. The situation is not any better in Britain and other English-speaking countries.)

What’s the source of the problem? College teachers, naturally, say the problem lies with high school. If only high school English classes did a better job, profs say, we wouldn’t have to do all this remedial work. Studies show that only about one-quarter of high school seniors write well. High school teachers, in turn, blame families for not setting limits on TV, computer time, texting, and other diversions.

But this all begs the question.

According to Stanley Fish, one of the innovative legal and literary thinkers of our time, students cannot write because no one ever teaches them.

In a series of columns for The New York Times, Fish reports his alarm at reading the poor writing of his graduate students. When he realized that the grad students were teaching writing to the undergrads, he was even more alarmed. Let Fish pick up the story:

I decided to find out, and asked to see the lesson plans of the 104 sections. I read them and found that only four emphasized training in the craft of writing. Although the other 100 sections fulfilled the composition requirement, instruction in composition was not their focus. Instead, the students spent much of their time discussing novels, movies, TV shows and essays on a variety of hot-button issues — racism, sexism, immigration, globalization. These artifacts and topics are surely worthy of serious study, but they should have received it in courses that bore their name, if only as a matter of truth-in-advertising.As I learned more about the world of composition studies, I came to the conclusion that unless writing courses focus exclusively on writing they are a sham.

Fish proposes ditching all those po-mo classes in favor of classes that teach the basic. He proposes to start with writing strong sentences. In fact, even while serving as dean, he has taught basic composition classes using this method. Again, let Fish explain:

You have to start with a simple but deep understanding of the game, which for my purposes is the game of writing sentences. So it makes sense to begin with the question, What is a sentence anyway? My answer has two parts: (1) A sentence is an organization of items in the world. (2) A sentence is a structure of logical relationships.The second part tells you what kind of organization a sentence is, a logical one, and in order to pinpoint what the components of that logic are, I put a simple sentence on the table, something like “John hit the ball” or “Jane likes cake.” I spend an entire week on sentences like these (which are easily comprehended by students of any background), asking students to generate them, getting them to see the structure of relationships that makes them all the same on a formal level, getting them to see that the motor of meaning production is form, not content.

If that sounds like a grind, think again. Once students write strong sentences, they can do anything. In my writing classes at Yale, we spent hours working on sentences and paragraphs. I insist that my students give every sentence a strong “SVO core.” Every sentence needs to state, clearly, who’s doing what to whom. In fact, I ban the use of the verbs “to be” and “to have.” This artificial constraint turns off the auto-pilot and forces students to think through what they mean to say.

We also spent lots of time on paragraphs. As a basic goal, every paragraph should state and develop a single idea. Writing goes awry when paragraphs lurch in different directions. When you say whatever pops into your head, you lose sight on your point. So I have students mark their paragraphs with two- or three-word labels. If they have two or three labels, they need to recast the paragraph into two or three paragraphs — or, better yet, delete some of the material.

Stanley Fish has taken a lot of grief for his deconstructionist approaches to the law and literature. But even his conservative critics must agree that on the question of basic writing skills, he speaks the truth.

Before you go . . .
     • Like this content? For more posts on writing, visit the Elements of Writing Blog. Check out the posts on StorytellingWriting MechanicsAnalysis, and Writers on Writing.
     • For a monthly newsletter, chock full of hacks, interviews, and writing opportunities, sign up here.
     • To transform writing in your organization, with in-person or online seminars, email us here for a free consultation.