5 ms·
It's funny, because I have the exact opposite reaction. I think he makes good points, but ruins it in that his own style is cluttered and more complex than it n
by unalone 18y ago
It's funny, because I have the exact opposite reaction. I think he makes good points, but ruins it in that his own style is cluttered and more complex than it needs to be. It's still great advice to follow: I see it as "do as I say, not as I do."
- light3 18y agoHe makes good points no doubt, but the article just seemed a little long winded to me, maybe the book is better.
- unalone 18y agoLong-winded's the right way to put it. He could have said less and still carried his points.
- gabrielroth 18y agoI agree, and I felt the same way when I read the whole book. It was hard for me to learn anything about writing from someone whose own style is so flabby. But the substance of his advice is good, and anyone who enjoys the style would probably benefit from reading it. It's just kind of ironic that he's unable to apply his own instructions.
- unalone 18y agoIs it similar to Elements of Style in its focus? (That book, of course, had the most perfect phrasing: "Omit needless words.")
- gabrielroth 18y agoAccording to my recollection, there's less of the nuts-&-bolts-of-grammar and more about substance. E.g. Zinsser spends a lot of time arguing that you have to have a deep understanding of a subject, and be able to think well about it, to write well about it. Which ... sure, no doubt. But, um, not that helpful? (At least not to me at the time.) It's been a long time, though, and the book apparently has many fans on this board who surely know it much better than I do. But no, less technical and more discursive than Strunk & White.