Logic Matters
"
!
Developing A Writing Style
This is just one person’s view. Others will want to stress other virtues and vices in
writing. I originally put together these notes as part of a ‘Training Programme’ aimed at
philosophers just starting out on their postgraduate careers: but more or less everything
"
!
here in the central sections applies to writing undergraduate essays too. Make what use
of these remarks you can!
Introduction
Once upon a time, I used to edit the philosophy journal ANALYSIS. This means that, for
a dozen years, I read a lot of papers. A fair proportion ended up in the pile for
Logic
Matters
immediate rejection simply because
they were
badly written. I saw far too much bad
prose
sure,
some view.
of theOthers
prose will
thatwant
gets to
published
in the
journals
not exactly
This is(to
justbeone
person’s
stress other
virtues
andisvices
in
wonderful:
I assureput
youtogether
that a lot
thatnotes
doesn’t
is very
much worse).
writing. I originally
these
as get
partpublished
of a ‘Training
Programme’
aimed at
philosophers just starting out on their postgraduate careers: but more or less everything
The pressure to publish early is ever more intense. So you need from the very
here in the central sections applies to writing undergraduate essays too. Make what use
beginning to work on developing a good style. After all, the faults that make for bad
of these remarks you can!
writing in potential articles equally make for bad writing in essays, dissertations, and
other
Introduction
projects. So the idea of these notes is that I try to impart some of what I’ve learnt
about bad writing and the mistakes to avoid.
Once upon a time, I used to edit the philosophy journal ANALYSIS. This means that, for
However,
it is one
thing
to of
bepapers.
able to A
recognize
bad writing
it is quite
a dozen years,
I read
a lot
fair proportion
endedwhen
up inyou
thesee
pileit;for
another
thing
to be able
to say,
crisplythey
andwere
clearly,
what
makes
it bad.
can be
immediate
rejection
simply
because
badly
written.
I saw
farProse
too much
bad
dull,
yetprose
it may
begets
rather
diMcult to
exactly what
it
prosestodgy
(to beand
sure,unreadable;
some of the
that
published
in say
the journals
is notmakes
exactly
so
or to suggest
how
to that
improve
And while
I think I am
a fairly
reliable
judge of
wonderful:
I assure
you
a lot things.
that doesn’t
get published
is very
much
worse).
the quality of writing, I certainly claim no special expertise at therapy for bad prose.
The pressure to publish early is ever more intense. So you need from the very
Still, if you follow the advice below, that at least will be a good start.
beginning to work on developing a good style. After all, the faults that make for bad
Writing
and
readingarticles equally make for bad writing in essays, dissertations, and
writing in
potential
other projects. So the idea of these notes is that I try to impart some of what I’ve learnt
about bad writing and the mistakes to avoid.
However, it is one thing to be able to recognize bad writing when you see it; it is quite
:
another thing to be able to say, crisply and clearly, what makes it bad. Prose can be
Some of the great English authors show just how much can be achieved in well-crafted
plain prose, written without affectation or self-conscious stylishness. Choose your
favourite examples. My Rrst and entirely unoriginal choice as an author for
philosophers to emulate is George Orwell. Do look at some of his essays — there are
various collections. Read in particular ‘Politics and the English Language’, both for
Orwell’s reminders about how bad writing corrupts thought and for his own rules about
how to improve our writing.
You will have your own favourite modern philosophical authors — I’m talking about
style rather than content — who strike you as especially clear and direct, whose work
makes you think “I wish I could write like that”. Ask yourself: what is it about their
Some of the great English authors show just how much can be achieved in well-crafted
writing that enables it to speak directly to you? Try to work out what makes it
plain prose, written without affectation or self-conscious stylishness. Choose your
particularly approachable and attractive. Think about how they use memorable
favourite examples. My Rrst and entirely unoriginal choice as an author for
examples, vivid turns of phrase. That must be time well spent.
philosophers to emulate is George Orwell. Do look at some of his essays — there are
Eye
andcollections.
ear
various
Read in particular ‘Politics and the English Language’, both for
Orwell’s reminders about how bad writing corrupts thought and for his own rules about
If I had to give just one rule to help improve your writing it would be this. Read aloud
how to improve our writing.
what you have written. Jonathan Bennett reports that Ryle once said to him “What
doesn’t
the favourite
ear doesn’t
read well
to the eye”.authors
And I endorse
that about
You will read
havewell
yourtoown
modern
philosophical
— I’m talking
emphatically.
style rather than content — who strike you as especially clear and direct, whose work
makes you think “I wish I could write like that”. Ask yourself: what is it about their
Imagine an audience, and read out a few of your completed paragraphs (yes, aloud,
writing that enables it to speak directly to you? Try to work out what makes it
and trying to put some real life into the performance). If you can’t do this with
particularly approachable and attractive. Think about how they use memorable
conviction, you will know that something is wrong with the writing. If your tongue
examples, vivid turns of phrase. That must be time well spent.
stumbles over laborious sentences, or if a sentence sounds ugly or ^at or tedious
when
read
Eye and
earout, then it needs revision. If the passage from one sentence to the next is
jerky or unnatural, if a paragraph lacks shape and rhythm, then (again) revision is
If I had to give just one rule to help improve your writing it would be this. Read aloud
needed.
what you have written. Jonathan Bennett reports that Ryle once said to him “What
Idoesn’t
can’t stress
enough
theear
effectiveness
thisto“read
aloud”
test.
Even better,
read well
to the
doesn’t readofwell
the eye”.
And
I endorse
that if you can
bear
it, is to get another philosophy student to read your prose aloud to you (and you
emphatically.
are not allowed to follow on paper while you listen). If your reader Rnds it diMcult to
Imagine an audience, and read out a few of your completed paragraphs (yes, aloud,
give shape to the sentences and to the paragraphs, if your reader stumbles when trying
and trying to put some real life into the performance). If you can’t do this with
to read your prose aloud, then why suppose they will do any better when trying to read
conviction, you will know that something is wrong with the writing. If your tongue
the same passage quietly to themself? If your writing sounds ugly or banal or
stumbles over laborious sentences, or if a sentence sounds ugly or ^at or tedious
when read out, then it needs revision. If the passage from one sentence to the next is
jerky or unnatural, if a paragraph lacks shape and rhythm, then (again) revision is
:
needed.
repetitious or unclear when you have to listen to it (and you at least have the beneRt of
knowing what is supposed to be going on), then it is going to seem at least as bad to
everyone else.
So Rule One: read your work aloud. Don’t in^ict on your supervisor or an editor
anything that falls down at this hurdle.
The virtue of brevity
If you follow the “read aloud” rule, you are likely (even without thinking about it) to keep
close to three of George Orwell’s cardinal rules for decent prose. But let‘s state them
explicitly all the same. Two of them are: Never use a long word where a short one will
repetitious or unclear when you have to listen to it (and you at least have the beneRt of
do (thus, don’t always write “exhibit” when you could write “show”; don’t use
knowing what is supposed to be going on), then it is going to seem at least as bad to
“demonstrate” when “prove” will do as well). And Never use the passive when the active
everyone else.
will do. So don‘t use
So Rule One: read your work aloud. Don’t in^ict on your supervisor or an editor
It is claimed by Jones that realism is refuted by Putnam’s argument
anything that falls down at this hurdle.
when you could write
The virtue of brevity
Jones claims that Putnam’s argument refutes realism
If you follow the “read aloud” rule, you are likely (even without thinking about it) to keep
close
three of George Orwell’s cardinal rules for decent prose. But let‘s state them
And sotoon.
explicitly all the same. Two of them are: Never use a long word where a short one will
But
Orwell’s
most
important
rule is Ifwhen
it is possible
to cut
out
a word,don’t
always
do (thus,
don’t
always
write “exhibit”
you could
write
“show”;
usecut it out.
And
we can generalize
this: Ifwill
it isdopossible
toAnd
rephrase
sentence
to make
it shorter
“demonstrate”
when “prove”
as well).
Neverause
the passive
when
the active
without
serious
will do. So
don‘t loss
use of content, do so. Thus, don’t write the likes of
He
anJones
argument
for the proposition
that
…
It isadvanced
claimed by
that realism
is refuted by
Putnam’s
argument
when
when you
you could
could write
write
He
argued
thatthat
… Putnam’s argument refutes realism
Jones
claims
And
And so
so on.
on.
The
journal submissions
I saw
forisANALYSIS
were,toofcut
course,
Rnal cut
drafts.
The
But Orwell’s
most important
rule
If it is possible
out a authors’
word, always
it out
.
work
had
already
been this:
lovingly
andto
polished
a number
of times.
Yetit quite
often
And we
can
generalize
If it revised
is possible
rephrase
a sentence
to make
shorter
Iwithout
used toserious
ask authors
cut theirdowork
by tendon’t
or Rfteen
loss oftocontent,
so. Thus,
write percent.
the likesAnd
of almost invariably,
He advanced an argument for the proposition that …
:
when you could write
when I did this, authors commented (when they sent in their shortened revised
version) that they thought that their paper was improved by being made leaner and
Rtter. If Rnal drafts can usefully be trimmed by ten or Rfteen percent, then there is likely
to be a lot more redundant material in earlier drafts. Be Rrm: take your prose to the
gym, and keep working at it until the bones and sinews show through! That’s Rule Two.
Three more rules of thumb?
If you follow those two master rules — test your writing by reading it aloud, and keep
your prose very lean and brisk — then you’ll certainly be on the right road. And if you
look at (say) Fowler’s Modern English Usage or Strunk and White’s The Elements of
Style
Rnd plenty
more detailed
suggestions
cultivating
goodrevised
writing habits.
whenyou’ll
I did this,
authorsofcommented
(when
they sentfor
in their
shortened
We
couldthat
spend
lot of time
such
detailed
I’ll mention
three
version)
theya thought
thatontheir
paper
wassuggestions:
improved by being
madejust
leaner
and
(fairly
selected).
Rtter. Ifarbitrarily
Rnal drafts
can usefully be trimmed by ten or Rfteen percent, then there is likely
to be a lot more redundant material in earlier drafts. Be Rrm: take your prose to the
First, avoid repetition. An obvious point, yet over-repetition is a sin that a lot of
gym, and keep working at it until the bones and sinews show through! That’s Rule Two.
beginning authors fall into. Clarity is not helped by saying the same thing over and over
again
slightly
different
words. And euphony is not helped by repeatedly using the
Three in
more
rules
of thumb?
same word or phrase. (If you are writing about utilitarianism, for example, then that
If you follow those two master rules — test your writing by reading it aloud, and keep
word is perhaps going to appear often. But not every three sentences, please!).
your prose very lean and brisk — then you’ll certainly be on the right road. And if you
Second,
don’tFowler’s
overdo the
Mrst person
those
uses
of Elements
“I think”, “in
look at (say)
Modern
Englishpronoun.
Usage orAlmost
Strunkall
and
White’s
The
of my
view”,
“it seems
to me”,
“indetailed
this section,
I want to”
and should
bewriting
axed. habits.
Style you’ll
Rnd plenty
ofand
more
suggestions
forcan
cultivating
good
We could spend a lot of time on such detailed suggestions: I’ll mention just three
Third, avoid over-emphasis. Keep the use of italics to a minimum. Avoid over-using
(fairly arbitrarily selected).
“very”, “extremely”, “really”, “crucial”, “obviously”, “it is important to note that”, and so
forth.
First, avoid repetition. An obvious point, yet over-repetition is a sin that a lot of
beginning authors fall into. Clarity is not helped by saying the same thing over and over
Overall construction
again in slightly different words. And euphony is not helped by repeatedly using the
same
word
or phrase.
you are
writing
utilitarianism,
for example,
then thatto
Now let’s
pass
on from(Ifadvice
about
howabout
to write
clear sentences
and paragraphs
word
perhaps
appear often.
not
every
three
please!).
adviceisabout
thegoing
overalltoconstruction
ofBut
your
work.
For
it issentences,
quite possible
to write
elegant sentences and even elegant paragraphs, and yet compose a whole which adds
Second, don’t overdo the Mrst person pronoun. Almost all those uses of “I think”, “in my
up to less than the sum of its parts.
view”, “it seems to me”, and “in this section, I want to” can and should be axed.
If it is diMcult to discern a clear line of argument in something you have written,
Third, avoid over-emphasis. Keep the use of italics to a minimum. Avoid over-using
perhaps that’s because there isn’t one. The bad construction may just re^ect bad
“very”, “extremely”, “really”, “crucial”, “obviously”, “it is important to note that”, and so
philosophy. But even when there is a good line of argument in the background, you
forth.
Overall construction
:
Now let’s pass on from advice about how to write clear sentences and paragraphs to
may well not be getting it across. Here are three linked suggestions about how to
check that your structure is working:
First, divide your essay/paper/thesis chapter into bite-sized chunks. Separate your piece
into headed sections (and perhaps divide the sections into subsections), with no part
more than about 500 words long. If you can’t do this neatly and naturally, that strongly
suggests that your line of argument is rambling without suMcient direction.
Second, write yourself a brief abstract of each (sub)section. Can you give (at less than
10% of the length) the headline news for each (sub)section? If you can’t do this neatly
and naturally, that again strongly suggests that your argument is not under tight
control.
may well not be getting it across. Here are three linked suggestions about how to
check that your structure is working:
Third, check whether the abstracts for each (sub)section add up to a coherent overall
story.
When,your
backessay/paper/thesis
in ancient history, O.
R. Jones
I were chunks
co-writing
The Philosophy
First, divide
chapter
intoand
bite-sized
. Separate
your piece
of
Mind
theresections
was a chapter
which my
co-author
had drafted
which he liked
butnoI part
into
headed
(and perhaps
divide
the sections
into subsections),
with
thought
didn’t
work
well.
So Ilong.
asked
“How
cando
wethis
frame
an analytical
table
of contents
more than
about
500
words
If you
can’t
neatly
and naturally,
that
strongly
for
this chapter?”
andofwhen
we tried
to compress
the argument
into brisk headlines
suggests
that your—line
argument
is rambling
without
suMcient direction.
and failed, we quickly agreed that something was indeed wrong. In this case, the
Second, write yourself a brief abstract of each (sub)section. Can you give (at less than
material needed completely reordering. Likewise, if you Rnd that the abstract for your
10% of the length) the headline news for each (sub)section? If you can’t do this neatly
whole piece doesn‘t ^ow well, then try reordering your material. Make imaginative use
and naturally, that again strongly suggests that your argument is not under tight
of cut-and-paste: rearranging paragraphs or sections may suddenly reveal a much
control.
better order of presentation.
Third, check whether the abstracts for each (sub)section add up to a coherent overall
I think I’d headline this advice about breaking the work into sections and writing
story. When, back in ancient history, O. R. Jones and I were co-writing The Philosophy
abstracts as the basic Rule Three, to be put alongside Rule One about reading your
of Mind there was a chapter which my co-author had drafted which he liked but I
work aloud, and Rule Two about aiming for brevity. Following Rules One and Two will
thought didn’t work well. So I asked “How can we frame an analytical table of contents
help you get the micro-structure right, sentence by sentence. Following Rule Three will
for this chapter?” — and when we tried to compress the argument into brisk headlines
do a lot to get the macro-structure right.
and failed, we quickly agreed that something was indeed wrong. In this case, the
In
the hey-day
of completely
linguistic philosophy,
volume ofifdissenting
essays
was published
material
needed
reordering.a Likewise,
you Rnd that
the abstract
for your
entitled
Clarity
is Not^ow
Enough
it isn’t enough.
But complete
clarity is use
whole piece
doesn‘t
well,. And
thenindeed
try reordering
your material.
Make imaginative
certainly
a necessary
condition
of any good
philosophy
(well,
the ex-editor
of cut-and-paste:
rearranging
paragraphs
or sections
may
suddenly
reveal aofmuch
ANALYSIS
say that, wouldn’t he?). Your aim, then, should always and everywhere
better orderwould
of presentation.
be to write with transparent clarity. Following the suggested Rules must promote that
I think I’d headline this advice about breaking the work into sections and writing
aim.
abstracts as the basic Rule Three, to be put alongside Rule One about reading your
work aloud, and Rule Two about aiming for brevity. Following Rules One and Two will
help you get the micro-structure right, sentence by sentence. Following Rule Three will
:
do a lot to get the macro-structure right.
Starting off
Finally, let me say something about a topic that is partly a matter of style, partly a
matter of content.
Your teachers may be obliged to keeping reading your work rather carefully after the
Rrst few pages — though their attention can ^ag, if nothing interesting is happening.
Referees for journals may give up. So might readers of journals, even if your work gets
published.
So it is very important that (1) you make it immediately clear what your
essay/dissertation chapter/draft paper is about, and what the exciting headline news
Starting off
is going to be, so that the reader might be gripped and want to read on to see how you
make
And
it is important
that that
(2) you
get down
to business
Finally,the
letcase.
me say
something
abouttoo
a topic
is partly
a matter
of style,quickly,
partly awith a
minimum
of scene-setting, so your reader isn’t impatiently waiting for the real action to
matter of content.
start!
Your teachers may be obliged to keeping reading your work rather carefully after the
On
will have
read their
papers
where itcan
isn’t
very
clear at the
outset where
the author
Rrst(1),
fewyou
pages
— though
attention
^ag,
if nothing
interesting
is happening.
is
you know
how
irritating
can
be. Don’t
write another
that!
Referees
going, and
for journals
may
give
up. Sothat
might
readers
of journals,
even paper
if yourlike
work
gets
Tell
the reader what the destination is, and why they should care about jumping aboard
published.
and following the argument. I’m not suggesting you give too many spoilers at the
So it is very important that (1) you make it immediately clear what your
beginning — you can say that you are going to be giving a new argument that P
essay/dissertation chapter/draft paper is about, and what the exciting headline news
without spelling out the new argument up front. But at least your announcement will
is going to be, so that the reader might be gripped and want to read on to see how you
have piqued the interest of those who care about whether P.
make the case. And it is important too that (2) you get down to business quickly, with a
On
(2), I turned
down quite asofew
papers
ANALYSIS
simply
because
they
began
with
minimum
of scene-setting,
your
readerfor
isn’t
impatiently
waiting
for the
real
action
to
far
too much scene-setting. Now, a review of the current state of the debate and/or
start!
exposition of the position that you want to criticize are Rne in their place (a supervisor
On (1), you will have read papers where it isn’t very clear at the outset where the author
may very well ask you to write something more or less purely expository as an exercise
is going, and you know how irritating that can be. Don’t write another paper like that!
to help you get clear about basics). So I’m certainly not saying “never write anything
Tell the reader what the destination is, and why they should care about jumping aboard
that is mainly expository”. But do always ask “Is this amount of scene-setting, in this
and following the argument. I’m not suggesting you give too many spoilers at the
context, really necessary? Can’t I assume that my audience (supervisor, examiner,
beginning — you can say that you are going to be giving a new argument that P
journal readers) will already know at least so-and-so and such-and-such?” Give your
without spelling out the new argument up front. But at least your announcement will
audience the beneRt of the doubt and assume they are reasonably up-to-speed (a
have piqued the interest of those who care about whether P.
supervisor or editor will always tell you if you presuppose too much: but relative
beginners
are pretty
dopapers
so). You
want to simply
write about
the background
at
On (2), I turned
downunlikely
quite a to
few
forwill
ANALYSIS
because
they began with
far too much scene-setting. Now, a review of the current state of the debate and/or
exposition of the position that you want to criticize are Rne in their place (a supervisor
may very well ask you to write something more or less purely expository as an exercise
:
to help you get clear about basics). So I’m certainly not saying “never write anything
greater length in your own notes: but when you are writing for others, be very selective.
If in doubt, prune it out.
A counsel of perfection …
In the real world, with deadlines looming, you will rarely be able to use this last bit of
advice! But if you possibly can, when you have Rnished your essay, chapter, paper or
whatever, set aside your work for a week (or even just for three days) and then return
to your draft with fresh eyes. You will inevitably spot unclarities and infelicities, and
see ways to better express what you meant to say. Don’t keep revising for ever: but
taking a break before the Rnal Mnal version — if you can — will always improve it.
greater length in your own notes: but when you are writing for others, be very selective.
This page is based on material Mrst written some years ago, back in the days when I was
If in doubt, prune it out.
still teaching. Is it time to pension it off? Well, this page was visited a couple of
thousand
last year.…It must still be being found useful, and so I will tinker a bit and
A counseltimes
of perfection
leave the page available …
In the real world, with deadlines looming, you will rarely be able to use this last bit of
Last
revised,
2020
advice!
But ifSeptember
you possibly
can, when you have Rnished your essay, chapter, paper or
whatever, set aside your work for a week (or even just for three days) and then return
to your draft with fresh eyes. You will inevitably spot unclarities and infelicities, and
see ways to better express what you meant to say. Don’t keep revising for ever: but
a break before the Rnal Mnal version — if you can — will always improve it.
3taking
responses
This page
is based on material Mrst written some years ago, back in the days when I was
Joe
July 23, 2012
still teaching.
Is it time to pension it off? Well, this page was visited a couple of
useful
toolItthese
thebeing
spell-check.
thousandAnother
times last
year.
mustdays
stillisbe
found :)useful, and so I will tinker a bit and
leave theReply
page available …
Last revised, September 2020
Mary Bhalla
February 13, 2014
If you have time , read The Elements of Style by Strunk White Kalman,published by
Penguin Books.
Reply
July 23, 2012
Joe
Jan von Plato
Another28,
October
useful
2017 tool these days is the spell-check. :)
3 responses
Dear Peter, my rule has always been: don’t write if you don’t have to! First you have to have
February 13, 2014
:
Mary Bhalla
If you have time , read The Elements of Style by Strunk White Kalman,published by
Penguin Books.
something to say that merits writing, then the writing comes easily. Career consideration
is the most harmful thing here.
Reply
Leave a Reply
Comment on this post »
something to say that merits writing, then the writing comes easily. Career consideration
is the most harmful thing here.
# Back to top
Mobile
Comment on this post »
:
Leave a Reply
Mobile
Desktop