Style and substance

I've recently been reading F. L. Lucas's Style: the art of writing well, a rediscovered classic whose basic tenets are nicely summarised here. So far, this blog has mostly concentrated on clarity and concision, and given little attention to writing that is amusing, awful and artificial. Lucas's book is a masterclass in writing prose that is both clear and a delight to read. Here he is on our own favourite topic, the importance of communicating clearly:

For two thousand years Christendom has been rent with controversy because men could not agree about the meaning of passages in Holy Writ; both Old and New Testaments have been more disputed than any human will. The gardens and porticoes of philosophy are hung with philosophers entangled in their own verbal cobwebs. Statesmen meet at Yalta or Potsdam to make agreements, about the meaning of which they then proceed to disagree. Employers and workers reach settlements that lead only to fresh unsettlement, because they misunderstand the understandings they themselves have made. Sharp legal minds spend their lives drafting documents in a verbose jargon of their own which shall be knave-proof and foolproof; but it is seldom that other legal minds as sharp cannot find in those documents, if they try, some fruitful points for litigation. Even in war, where clarity may be a matter of life or death for thousands, disasters occur through orders misunderstood. Some adore ambiguities in poetry; in prose they can be a constant curse. 

For example it seems that, within a few hours in the Crimea, first of all Lord Cardigan's misinterpreting of Lord Lucan's orders wasted the victory of the Heavy Brigade, and then Lord Lucan's misinterpreting of Lord Raglan's orders caused the suicide of the Light Brigade. It is said that Sir Roger Casement was hanged on a comma in a statute of Edward III. And Professor Ifor Evans has adduced the strange case of Caleb Diplock who bequeathed half a million for 'charitable or benevolent objects'. Clear enough, one would have thought — though needlessly verbose. But the law regularly sacrifices brevity to make sure of clarity — and too often loses both. In this case legal lynxes discerned that 'benevolent' objects are not necessarily 'charitable'. The suit was carried from the Court of First Instance to the Court of Appeal, from the Court of Appeal to the Lords; judges uttered seventy thousand words of collective wisdom; and poor Mr Diplock's will was pronounced invalid. Much virtue in an 'or'. Well did the Chinese say that when a piece of paper blows into a law-court, it may take a yoke of oxen to drag it out again.

Nelson Jones once described Laurie Penny's writing (a bit unfairly) as 'not so much a triumph of style over substance as the use of style to obliterate any possibility of substance'. If he wants her to write with better style, more substance and greater clarity, he should start by giving her a copy of Lucas's masterpiece.