Talk:Writing style
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Writing style is part of WikiProject Literature, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.See comments |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. |
[edit] On the sad subject of bias ...
This article is driving me nuts. First off, giving instructions on what specifically to write is unnecessary. Secondly, the whole thing is off topic. The article is supossed to be about writing style, not how to write actively.
Anyone agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Throngofbeardedmen (talk • contribs) 03:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
On another note, the external link does not work.
Agreed. The article ought not to end with 'Writing Modes' but begin with it, since the mode typically governs the style before any of these other concerns. (It's notable also that while the subheading 'Practice' discourages simply stylizing one's prose, this is exactly what the article implies one does!)
Moreover, I notice some blatantly erroneous/contradictory statements:
A conversational tone in writing may help the reader more easily grasp what the writer is trying to say. Flowery language sounds more elegant but occasionally has less clarity. Flowery: These United States Conversational: the United States
In fact, conversational tone can just as easily obscure what the writer is trying to say. Nor is it more clear (how is 'these United States' unclear?).
Good writing style uses original and fresh words. It avoids clichés, which are overused, trite expressions that have lost their impact in meaning. Cliché: Some people can relate to the hustle and bustle of city life. Fresh: Some people thrive on the energy and motion of city life. Cliché: She is pretty as a picture. Fresh: Her amber eyes and radiant red hair overwhelmed me.
I would caution against using 'original' words. Also, the 'fresh' examples are almost as cliche as the cliche examples ('thrive' and 'radiant' is quite cliche; 'energy and motion' and 'overwhelmed' are unclear!).
Writing with nouns and verbs, as opposed to adjectives and adverbs can strengthen writing style.
One cannot write sentences without nouns and verbs, nor with only adjectives and adverbs.
A writer who uses vague, fuzzy language may leave the reader confused or even bored. Using concrete words over abstract concepts may help the reader interpret the writer's intentions more accurately. Weak: A car went around the corner. Vivid: A battered blue Mustang careened around the corner.
What is wrong with 'went'? Though vague, it is not abstract. And the writer may have an intention with 'went' that 'careened', besides being cliche and hence boring, does not as accurately imply. The vivid example also seems to violate the conciseness principle and the 'nouns and verbs only' principle.
Good writing style can be achieved by using a variety of sentence purposes.
I find this to be the worst suggestion of the article, mainly because it is a vague and unqualified suggestion. It does no good to go for variety for the sake of variety; if the purpose of a statement is to question or exclaim, then it should question or exclaim, and not do something else for the sake of 'variety.'
Nomdepioro 18:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] I concure
I agree with the person above, i was hoping to find things like types of writing style, how to pick it out of a reading, etc, but i found nothing of the sort. Perhaps, it can be suplimented in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylan boucher (talk • contribs) 13:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
