[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 42 KB, 480x480, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8438374 No.8438374 [Reply] [Original]

If any of you assholes read this book maybe you'd be decent writers

>> No.8438386

Bait? Its a very technical book. Won't better your creativity or talent.

>> No.8438414

>>8438386
It has a lot of good advice on sentence structure and editing and such. It's worth reading at least once.

>> No.8438622

>>8438386

Is being technical bad? It's very helpful to keep in mind common grammar and vocab mistakes. And most of the stylistic advice just boils down to "write clearly," which certainly would help you better express yourself and hone your storytelling talent.

>> No.8438630

>>8438622
did u read even it u write 2 wordy (serious)

>> No.8438637
File: 40 KB, 400x388, 1404126792586.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8438637

>it's a professor who has written no notable book of literature of his own telling you how to write episode

>> No.8438638

>>8438630

I'm not great at keeping advice desu

How would you shorten that post btw?

>> No.8438646

>Fourth edition

>> No.8438649

>>8438374
A book by idiots for idiots. You're better off doing a Hemmingway and killing yourself.

>> No.8438651

>>8438637
>a professor
There's two of them.

>> No.8438661

>>8438622
Most of the stylistic advice boils down to "write clearly". Its helpful to keep in mind common grammar and refine what your expressing.

>> No.8438664

>>8438661
>>8438661
>>8438661
you*re woopsy

>> No.8438666

>>8438661
>refine what your expressing

Apologize. Now.

>> No.8438668

>>8438661
>Its helpful to keep in mind neurotic thoughts about nobody understanding you unless you write like you have aspergers.
Fixed that for you.

And their advice goes well beyond that into "don't ever write like this, it is wrong and bad. Write like this."

>> No.8438669

>>8438666
>666
u

>> No.8438678

>>8438668
whats wrong with that version

>> No.8438684

>>8438678
There's no reason to be neurotic about it if you're neuroatypical :^)

>> No.8438688

>>8438374
i read it and forgot it all

>> No.8438704

>>8438684
i think in a unique perspective so im not gonna be catagorized by ur mental jargon im aconsignable

>> No.8438708

>>8438637
This x1bajillion

>> No.8438774

Oxford Guide is better.


>>8438622
Technical stuff is good to know but if you place it above everything else you just end up writing like an ESL.

>> No.8439016

>>8438637
>>8438708
You're both incredibly stupid because this is just an extension of "well why critique it if you can't do better"

>>8438661
The stylistic advice is especially aimed at people who just try to get too fancy and think they're Joyce or some shit. Stuff like "stick to one language", "don't rely on passive voice", as well as the general advice for structuring sentences is basic shit that most writers here don't employ, and not because they've moved beyond it and mastered it (a la Joyce) but simply because they don't know the rules and are imitating experimental writers like pseuds

>> No.8439149

>>8438649
>Hemmmmmmmmingway
You are not to be trusted.
>>8438774
>Oxford Guide is better
How so? In what way?

>> No.8439167

>>8439016
>"well why critque it if you can't do better"

Strunk, what does this even mean,

>> No.8439200

One of the worst style guides available.

Get a better, more contemporary one.

>> No.8439204

>>8439016
They don't say "don't rely on passive voice", rather "passive voice sounds less direct/vigorous". It's not true, and as for the "le technical writing" posters, you do use quite a lot of passive voice in technical writing.