Log in

No account? Create an account
Mount Orégano
Sue Burke
Theory of style 
4th-Apr-2012 12:35 pm

When I was a freshman in college, I read an excerpt of a book by the Spanish writer known as Azorín, which was the pen name of José Martínez Ruiz, (1873-1967). Mario Vargas Llosa has called him "one of the most elegant artisans of our language."

It changed the way I thought about writing.

The excerpt was from a chapter called "Theory of Style" in the book Un Pueblecito: Riofrío de Ávila, published in 1916. It's set in the little town of Riofrío de Ávila and deals with the experiences of the parish priest, Bejarano Galavis. Chapter 4 describes Bejarano's theory of good writing style — really Azorín's:

The snow and the water

[...]Look at the whiteness of that mountain snow, so smooth, so clear; look at the transparency of the water in this mountain stream, so clean, so crystalline. Style is this; style is nothing. Style is writing in such a way that those read it think: This is nothing. They think: I can do this.

And yet they — the ones who think they can — nevertheless can't do such a simple thing; this thing which is nothing may be the most difficult, the most laborious, the most complicated of all.

Directly to the things

Bejarano Galavis, in the prologue to his book, puts forth his theory of style. His declarations are categorical. "Clarity," our author says, "is the first quality of style. We do not speak except to make ourselves understood. Style is clear if it immediately conveys the things in it to the listener without making him pause on the words."

Let us retain this fundamental maxim: Directly to the things. Without words that slow us down, hold us back, make the road more difficult, we arrive instantly at the things.[...]

One who isn't an artist, who isn't a great stylist, who hasn't mastered technique, will always fatally tend to dress up his feelings and ideas with annoying accessories and fuss. He'll never understand that a style should not be rejected for being simple. "The quality of simplicity as a point of style isn't a term of contempt but of art."[...]

And the author adds: "Simple style has no less delicacy or precision than the rest." "Of all the defects of style, the most ridiculous is the one called overstuffed."

Obscure style, obscure thought

Everything must be sacrificed to clarity. "Every other circumstance or condition, like purity, measure, elevation, and delicacy, must cede to clarity." Isn't this enough? Well, for the purists, this: "It is better to be censured for grammar than to not be understood."

"It is true that every affectation is reprehensible, but without fear one can affect to be clear." The only excusable affectation is clarity. "It is not enough to make yourself understandable; it is necessary to aspire to be unable to be misunderstood."

Yes, the supreme style is serious and clear. But how to write seriously and clearly if one does not think that way?[...] Here lies the big problem. We are going to give a formula for simplicity. Simplicity, the extremely difficult simplicity, is a question of method. Do this and you will suddenly achieve great style:

Put one thing after the other. Nothing more; this is everything. Haven't you observed the defect of an orator or writer that consists in putting things inside other things by means of parentheses, asides, digressions, and fleeting and incidental considerations?

Well, the opposite is to put things — ideas, sensations — one after the other. "Things should be placed," Bejarano says, "in the order in which they are thought, and given their proper extension."

But the problem ... is in thinking well.

— Sue Burke

Also posted at my professional website: http://www.sue.burke.name

4th-Apr-2012 12:01 pm (UTC)
My father was a fan of Rudolph Flesch (author of The Art of Plain Writing and other such books) who was the American equivolent...though he did not say it as poetically as your fellow.

Funny thing is, I've come around to not really agreeing with them...or rather to noting that "plain writing" is a style...not good writing. Some authors make that style sing. Others are just flat with it. Some authors make a more intricate style sing.

Still...I think there is a benefit to erring on the side of simplicity if you are uncertain.
4th-Apr-2012 01:49 pm (UTC)
I'm sorry, but Flesch and plain writing is not what Azorín was talking about, not any sort of equivalent, no relationship either superficially or at its heart.

Plain writing is about bureaucratic writing, about how to make IRS instructions easier to understand.

Azorín, as an artisan of language, made literate writing sing -- lyrical prose, seductive works, always as poetic as you have just read. His simplicity is a means to achieve strong writing, not plain writing.
4th-Apr-2012 03:32 pm (UTC)
LOL You know...you are right...what I left out was my dad. My dad was a reporter. He took plain writing and did something to it. He believed in plain writing that sang. ;-)

Sorry...I didn't mean to degrade Azorin in any way.
4th-Apr-2012 05:00 pm (UTC)
No problem. It would have been more obvious if you had read any Azorín, but as far as I know none of his works have been translated to English.

And hats off to your dad. Making the news easy to understand with prose that sang was a real accomplishment.
4th-Apr-2012 11:27 pm (UTC)
Thanks. My dad felt that the very best writers were those who could take a topic he cared nothing about and make it fascinating. The fact that this is possible has always inspired me.
This page was loaded Nov 22nd 2019, 8:09 pm GMT.