4 ms·

...in On Writing, Stephen King writes: "There is little or no detectable bullshit in that book. (Of course, its short; at eighty-five pages it's much shorter th

...in On Writing, Stephen King writes: "There is little or no detectable bullshit in that book. (Of course, its short; at eighty-five pages it's much shorter than this one.) I'll tell you right now that every aspiring writer should read The Elements of Style. Rule 17 in the chapter titled Principles of Composition is "Omit needless words." I will try to do that here". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elements_of_Style#Reception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elements_of_Style#Receptio...

klodolph 10y ago
From the linked section: > The book's toxic mix of purism, atavism, and personal eccentricity is not underpinned by a proper grounding in English grammar. It is often so misguided that the authors appear not to notice their own egregious flouting of its own rules ... It's sad. > aging zombie of a book ... a hodgepodge, its now-antiquated pet peeves jostling for space with 1970s taboos and 1990s computer advice I'm not saying that this book is terrible, just that it is mediocre, spits out good advice but not couched in good practice, is a bit old-fashioned, et cetera. There are better books out there. Stephen King's book On Writing is better in spite of the fact that Stephen King recommends Strunk and White. I think that the reason people like the book is because it says things that you would agree with. "Omit needless words." How can you dislike a book that says such good things? But it doesn't surround the advice with solid examples the way Style: Lessons in Clarity and Grace does, and it doesn't go into depth the way a proper style guide like Chicago does, and it doesn't have the more down-to-earth "how to be a writer" advice like King's or Lamott's works do. So I don't recommend it. (It's also quite curious that you quoted a tertiary source such as Wikipedia rather than King.)

klodolph 10y ago

From the linked section: > The book's toxic mix of purism, atavism, and personal eccentricity is not underpinned by a proper grounding in English grammar. It is often so misguided that the authors appear not to notice their own egregious flouting of its own rules ... It's sad. > aging zombie of a book ... a hodgepodge, its now-antiquated pet peeves jostling for space with 1970s taboos and 1990s computer advice I'm not saying that this book is terrible, just that it is mediocre, spits out good advice but not couched in good practice, is a bit old-fashioned, et cetera. There are better books out there. Stephen King's book On Writing is better in spite of the fact that Stephen King recommends Strunk and White. I think that the reason people like the book is because it says things that you would agree with. "Omit needless words." How can you dislike a book that says such good things? But it doesn't surround the advice with solid examples the way Style: Lessons in Clarity and Grace does, and it doesn't go into depth the way a proper style guide like Chicago does, and it doesn't have the more down-to-earth "how to be a writer" advice like King's or Lamott's works do. So I don't recommend it. (It's also quite curious that you quoted a tertiary source such as Wikipedia rather than King.)