
C.S. Lewis on Writing - taylorbuley
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/04/c-s-lewis-on-writing.html
======
danso
>> _In writing. Don't use adjectives which merely tell us how you want us to
feel about the thing you are describing. I mean, instead of telling us a thing
was "terrible," describe it so that we'll be terrified. Don't say it was
"delightful"; make us say "delightful" when we've read the description. You
see, all those words (horrifying, wonderful, hideous, exquisite) are only like
saying to your readers, "Please will you do my job for me."_

My high school journalism teacher (and I'm sure many others) phrased this as
"Show, don't tell". I wish all writing/journalism classes devoted a week to
this precept.

~~~
jonnathanson
It's funny; my fourth-grade English teacher had a sign on her wall that read
"Eschew prolixity."

It's a safe bet that no fourth grader, no matter how extraordinary, has come
across those two words by that point in his life. So, of course, everyone in
the class was puzzled by them. The phrase might as well have been some
ancient, Latin dictum -- and, for all we knew, it was.

Finally, one day, someone mustered the courage to ask her what the words
meant.

"It's a rule for good writing," she said. "When you understand what it means,
you're already in danger of breaking it."

~~~
davesims
Or the self-contradictory, "Eschew obfuscation."

~~~
gruseom
Hey. Eschew is a perfectly good word.

~~~
taylorbuley
Gesundheit.

Here's a nice list of common phases that can be eschewed without worry:
[http://3.bp.blogspot.com/__oMEOi1B6Rc/TDxuvGxYfeI/AAAAAAAAAA...](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/__oMEOi1B6Rc/TDxuvGxYfeI/AAAAAAAAAAw/AMrFQiPi98k/s640/Avoid.JPG)

~~~
gruseom
You're preaching to the choir, believe me
(<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3794092>). And "eschew" is a perfectly
good word. It's different from "avoid" and "shun", etc., and when it's the
right word, it's just right.

"Obfuscation" is too, for that matter, but I don't want to ask for too much
here :)

~~~
Gormo
Funny thing about words: each has its own peculiar niche, even the
exceptionally arcane ones.

~~~
gruseom
Totally agree! And what you said is far from obvious.

------
ctdonath
"5. Don't use words too big for the subject. Don't say "infinitely" when you
mean "very"; otherwise you'll have no word left when you want to talk about
something really infinite."

This is why I object to most usage of cursing in writing (see recent threads
on the subject). Using the most extreme language for relatively mundane
situations leaves you nothing to work with when extreme language is warranted.
Ex.: using the phrasing "go the f^@& home" (see thread of same name) in a
mundane discussion about work hours really is pretty pathetic insofar as it
wastes & deflates extreme language better used where more appropriate, such as
describing the feeling of having your rib cage pried open with a car jack
(been there, done that, f^@& applies).

(Some of us suffer net-nannies, so pardon the veiling.)

~~~
JDShu
On the one hand it makes sense, but on the other hand isn't it agreed that
cursing brings a certain context or atmosphere? How would the advice here
apply to, say, a Quentin Tarantino movie?

~~~
bdunbar
Most - perhaps all - of the situations a Tarantino character would find
himself in _are_ extreme situations.

Most of us don't find ourselves in places like that on a frequent basis.

This might be true of most action movies. If you're shooting it out with a
band of Euro-trash criminals in a skyscraper, a 'yipi-ki-yay-mother-f%%ker' is
appropriate.

Probably not so much picking up ice cream, milk and yogurt.

~~~
nosse
I really like what you just ended up calling appropriate... I'm seriously
laughing here!

------
shin_lao
One of the best books you can find on the topic has been written by Stephen
King and is called "On Writing".

The first part is a small auto-biography as he states that "to understand
writing you must understand what happens in the life of a writer".

The second part is full of clever and useful advices, including ones close to
the one in this article.

Even if you don't like the author, you should really read this book if you're
serious about writing.

<http://www.amazon.com/On-Writing-Stephen-King/dp/0743455967>

~~~
ctdonath
Great book for the aspiring writer. Most of it is filler material, but the ~16
pages of real writing advice is worth at least the cover price.

One recommendation that stuck with me is to avoid words ending in "ly". I now
make that effort, and the results are an improvement.

~~~
dvdhsu
> _One recommendation that stuck with me is to avoid words ending in "ly". I
> now make that effort, and the results are an improvement._

For those who are wondering at the rationale behind this: many adverbs end in
-ly. "The brown fox quickly ran", "she urgently asked", "he mercilessly ate
his salad", etc.

Adverbs should be avoided, because, as danso notes, you must "show, not tell".
When the brown fox "quickly" runs, you're telling the reader what happened.
Similarly, when she "urgently" asks, you're not showing the reader what's
going on.

Instead, you can describe what's happening with better verbs: "the brown fox
sprinted after his dinner", "she pleaded for the answer key", "he attacked the
tomato in his salad".

That's just one way to do it, of course. You can also describe the action in
detail: "After skewering his tomato, Jessie brought it up to his mouth, where
it tumbled into his esophagus".

------
eavc
Lewis was an amazing man. A more serious scholar and thinker than most who
know about him today would probably expect, a brilliant writer, and he did
things like respond to all of his fan mail and give away the lion's share
(pardon the pun) of his works' profits.

~~~
wyclif
He gave away most of his book royalty income for several reasons: 1. He was a
Christian. 2. For most of his life he was a bachelor and didn't need much to
live on. 3. Magdalen College, Oxford (and later Cambridge University) provided
him accomodations as well as a scholarly income from his professorship.

------
stcredzero
Contrast with Heinlein on writing: "Writing is not necessarily something to be
ashamed of, but do it in private and wash your hands afterwards."

~~~
tygorius
Actually, that's one of Heinlein's characters commenting on writing.
Occasionally Heinlein would have to remind people that his characters spoke
for themselves, not for him.

I can't remember a case where he spoke or wrote about writing in a similar
fashion to what C.S. Lewis wrote in his letter, but his 5 rules of writing[1]
have been influential for many writers. Once, in an Annapolis address, he
explained that the rules were simple (1. You must write. 2. You must finish
what you write. ...) but only 1 in 10 would follow each step. This was how you
could get from half of the adult US population wanting to be a writer to less
than a thousand actually being members of the writing guild he belonged to.

[1] <http://www.sfwriter.com/ow05.htm>

------
adriand
My four-year-old says "I amn't". I correct him with "I'm not" but I've long
felt his usage made logical sense. But I never realized it was at some place
and time an accepted usage! Amazing how the brain acquires language and
independently applies its rules.

------
karlalopez
CS Lewis was quite effective in his CRM. That's just awesome.

~~~
bgilroy26
What do you mean "CRM"?

~~~
karlalopez
Customer relationship managing. "(...)it's no real surprise that C. S. Lewis
received thousands of letters from youngsters during his career. What's
admirable is that he attempted to reply to each and every one of those pieces
of fan mail, and not just with a generic, impersonal line or two."

~~~
bgilroy26
That was what CRM usually means to me and I still didn't make the connection,
that's a really cool thought!

I really like it when we can tie modern techy/businessy practices back to how
someone would do things before the jargon those practices are often built on
came into usage. I think it strengthens both the long term viability of the
practice and our understanding of people who lived in the past.

I think your idea shows how CRM can be down-home and warm, which is a real
drawback to the way it's generally approached. If relationships can be
approached within a framework that makes it easier to manage them more
productively without the "systemitization" swelling into the foreground,
that's a win for everybody. I'm sure that's a big concern for SalesForce
researchers.

------
azarias
Read the 5 points again, except now imagine he is talking about writing code.

A lot of it makes sense...In fact, I say Tim Peters lifted half of the Zen of
Python from Lewis :)

------
grepherder
_> > 3\. Never use abstract nouns when concrete ones will do. If you mean
"More people died" don't say "Mortality rose."_

Am I the only one that doesn't agree with this, at least in general? I mean,
the idea behind the advice is of course sound, just a basic form of keep it
simple stupid. But in this case, why? This isn't engineering, it's about
communication of thoughts. And thoughts _can be_ abstract. I find I can think
more efficiently and also more rationally when using abstractions, especially
ones I'm familiar with. Just like chunking in memory, there is data I have
ready when you speak of mortality, instead of trying to explain to me in plain
words that people die.

That said, it might just be me (or people like me). I have to constantly make
a conscious effort of writing and speaking less abstractly, just to not annoy
people. It might have to do with the fact that English is not my native
tongue, and as I don't use it in my daily life, I lack _the touch_ for
concreteness to make sense to me that easily.

~~~
AerieC
Thoughts can be abstract, but when you're trying to paint a picture with
words, abstractions can make your "picture" weaker. "Mortality rose" is a
confusing statement. What does it mean? Did more people die, or did humanity's
inherent mortality somehow increase? If you meant "more people died", then say
it. You're not talking about the abstract concept of mortality, you're talking
about people dying. In the time it took your reader to figure out what you
meant, you may have already lost him or her.

Often it's a case of writers trying to be overly clever with their wordplay.
For example, you wouldn't want to say something like, "her posterior condition
was greatly exaggerated," when what you meant was, "she has a big ass". Sure,
the first sentence is "clever", but it's not very clear. The second sentence
is right to the point; there's no mistaking the meaning, and it paints a
better picture in one's mind.

It's similar to active voice vs. passive voice. "Dan hit the ball," is clear
and to the point. "The ball was hit by Dan," paints a weaker picture, even if
it says the same thing. Why is "ball" the subject of the sentence. Are we
supposed to care about this ball? Aren't we talking about Dan here?

Clarity in writing is important. Readers don't like to be confused. Anything
that breaks the "flow" should be avoided, unless that is your goal (e.g. to
stop the reader and make them think).

------
nikcub
Point 1 is not the worst point

Point 2 could be additionally descriptive

Point 3 -peaked- (piqued!) my interest

Point 4 was awesome

Point 5 should be universally implemented

ps. related: <http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit>

~~~
bmelton
I supposed you're being downvoted for being so terse, but I generally agree
with your comment, so it got my upvote. Yes, I am aware of how tacky it is to
discuss voting, or making meta-comments in general.

I think that, in my opinion at least, these instructions apply VERY well to
journalism, or perhaps certain types of fiction, but not fiction on the whole.

One of my recently favorite authors is Elmore Leonard, who breaks most of
these rules with great ferocity, and is a fantastic writer on the whole.

He has his own rules on writing, but the first is:

"My most important rule is one that sums up the 10: If it sounds like writing,
I rewrite it."

In contrast to CS Lewis' writings, this leads to much more believable dialog,
but that doesn't necessarily conform to any of Lewis' rules. Characters are
seldom terse when they could instead be interesting. Characters are seldom
cautious to take care that the reader can fully understand what they're
saying. Characters are seldom as specific as you might like them to be.

I find this to be much more natural, and feels much less "like writing" than
most other authors and for that, I appreciate him immensely.

~~~
nikcub
my intention wasn't to be terse - more a meta commentary as every one of my
points contradicts the respective point in OP

------
GiraffeNecktie
This is one of my favorite sites and always the first thing I read when I see
there's something new in my RSS feeds. Kurt Vonnegut's letter on book burning
published last week was also great <http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/03/i-am-
very-real.html>

------
grn
His 4th point reminded me of Solzhenitsyn's _One Day in the Life of Ivan
Denisovich_ and Orwell's _Nineteen Eighty-Four_. Both made a great impression
on me. When discussing them with my wife she observed that they didn't give
you what you ought to think and feel. They just showed you and your feelings
and thoughts were your own and not of the writer.

------
evincarofautumn
#4 could be summed up as “show, don’t tell”. It’s much easier to say what you
mean than to convey it in an interesting way. “Creating Short Fiction” by
Damon Knight mentions this as well, and goes into great detail about the
difficulties of fiction writing and how to surmount them. I thoroughly
recommend it.

------
gregorymichael
I have too many educated friends who write by maxim "Never use a short word
when a polysyllabic one will do".

------
ams6110
Nobody's mentioned _The Elements of Style_ , a great little handbook on how to
write clearly.

~~~
andolanra
Because it's not all that great. It's the _C Programming Language_ of
linguistic style guides—well-respected and historically relevant, but not
necessarily the best resource.

For example, _The Elements of Style_ tells you to avoid the passive voice, on
the grounds that sentences like "The sandwich was eaten by me," are much more
awkward than "I ate the sandwich." It gives three sentences in support of
this: "There were a great number of dead leaves lying on the ground," "It was
not long before she was very sorry that she had said what she had," and "The
reason that he left college was that his health became impaired." None of
these sentences actually contain a passive: the first is an existential
sentence, the second is a simple copula, and the third uses the copula with an
adjective, not a participle.[1]

All of which is to say—Strunk and White did not know what a passive was. The
actual advice they meant to give is something along the lines of, "Don't be
vague about agency," but that is a different proscription. There _are_ places
where you should avoid the passive, and there are also places where you should
employ the passive, because _it is clearer than the alternative_. For example,
if your documentation says, "Our software product is used to [blah]", you
should not change it to, "People use our software product to [blah]," because
_those people do not matter_. By avoiding the passive, you have made your
writing less clear by introducing unnecessary information.

Strunk and White have a lot of advice which is merely harmless, but it is not
a spectacular writing guide, except for the simplest, least elaborate kinds of
writing. Truly great writing is not writing which follows those rules, but
writing that knows _when_ to follow such rules. For example, Orwell and
Churchill, both quite excellent writers, use the passive significantly _more_
than journalists of the time[2].

[1]: The _passive_ transforms sentences of the form "{noun1} {verb} {noun2}"
into "{noun2} {be} {verb}ed [by {noun1}]"; it is (or should be) clear that
these sentences cannot be transformed from the latter pattern into the former.

[2]:
[http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003414.h...](http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003414.html)

~~~
bgilroy26
Isn't the usual advice to keep software as the subject of the sentence but
rewrite the verb? Like: "Our software manages your source code revisions"
rather than "Our software is used to manage source code revisions?".

(I totally agree that the "no passive voice" rule is oversubscribed btw.)

~~~
andolanra
I usually come across people who don't actually know what a passive is[1] or
who are completely and rabidly anti-passive, but I don't doubt that such
advice is common among more reasonable grammarians. Still, there are sentences
that are difficult if not impossible to rewrite in such a way because of
context or lack of vocabulary, e.g. "... and the network interface is written
in C," is difficult to rewrite because the old information (the software)
comes first, the new information comes at the end, the unnecessary agent is
omitted, and no active verbs come to mind.

[1]: <http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3884>

------
sampsonjs
How about some advice from a better writer? Like "Politics and the English
Lagnuage": <http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm>

"(v) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you
can think of an everyday English equivalent."

Like saying "orthogonal" when you mean "unrelated".

------
username3
v. nice practical writing advice

------
wmdmark
Good stuff.

