Talk:Writing style/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

I concur

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)

What is Writing Style????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.224.53.125 (talk) 02:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Occupations Box

The formatting on the Occupations box looks sloppy.--Coching (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

LOL

An article about writing style, and it contains this "sentence" (I am being generous): "Writing style can include the authors Methaphors or personification that he or she uses throughout the storie." 66.66.149.221 (talk) 04:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

This article needs work

This article on writing style is confusingly written. The part on "diction" is so garbled it's not clear what they're trying to get across at all. There are also no examples and only one citation, for a letter writing service. This is article contains some useful information, but it's buried in so much jargon and bad sentences that it's hard to extract it. I'm sure the irony of this is lost on no-one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redwordedward (talk • contribs) 15:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

We need an expet

Hello. Please can we have an expert in English here to sort out this page, its really badly written. Thanks, George Georgeh109 (My Talk Page) 22:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

This article needs a complete re-write

I have done some pruning of it, but this article needs re-written and its main thrust directed along the right lines. Currently it is simply a writing style guide book, defining and describing what is effective style in the opinion of an undefined source. An encyclopaedia should describe, not proscribe. It is all totally lacking any cites. We can assume most of it came from the books in the Bibliography, but again these are all guidebooks and this article should not be trying to summarise their content. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

24 february 2020 and this is still a normative article...! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.253.6.128 (talk) 08:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Citations Needed

As part of the Education_Program:Mount_Saint_Vincent_University/LIBR_2100:_Introduction_to_Research_in_the_Information_Age_(Summer_2015) Over the next couple of weeks, I am going to add to this article by finding credible sources to site and reworking the article. (Mountstudent (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)) .

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Writing style/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Does anyone think that this page is a little biased? Not to mention off topic! 170.211.171.44 (talk) 14:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 14:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 10:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Writer's voice

Writer's voice and Writing style appear to be the same thing, so the pages should probably be merged. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I intend to rewrite Writing style and merge Style (literature) and Writer's voice into Writing style, as the general consensus of these three articles is that they are all poorly written, should be rewritten, and should be merged. If anyone has any objections, please discuss now.—Anita5192 (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I see no problem merging Writing style and Writer's voice, but I'm not sure Style (literature) is the same, or should be, at any rate. The subject sounds closer to genre, though that doesn't seem to come across in the article. Mannanan51 (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Is there any fundamental difference in meaning between the subjects, Writing style and Style (literature)?—Anita5192 (talk) 21:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done Merge complete. — Anita5192 (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)