Lakoff’s thesis is that metaphor is deeply embedded in the way we think about everything. So what happens when this mindset is turned to poetry, which is supposed to be metaphorical? Well, we get that it is even more metaphorical: it takes everyday metaphors, extends them in novel ways, and combines them into a dense interwoven structure that implies more than can the individual metaphors alone. It is the combination and overlapping of metaphors that gives poetry its added richness and depth. [Allegedly. I will admit right up front that I know nothing about poetry, and care somewhat less. But I am interested in Lakoff’s ideas about cognition. And it seems worth studying those ideas where they occur in extreme situations – like poetry.]
So Lakoff and Turner identify a bunch of metaphors used in everyday life (LIFE IS A JOURNEY gets a lot of mileage), and illustrate how they are used, extended and combined in certain poems. The point is that these metaphors are everyday concepts. They aren’t just “pure poetry”, in contrast to “literal” prose. Our understanding of how they work in the everyday context is necessary for our understanding of them in the poetical context.
Having dissected individual lines of various poems, the authors go on to analyse an entire (short) poem, “The Jasmine Lightness of the Moon”, in terms of its layered metaphorical imagery. [If poetry had been analysed like this when I was at school, I might have been more interested. But then again, I’m interested in the analysis – not the poem!]
But their key message is in the final chapter, on proverbs as poems, where they identify THE GREAT CHAIN OF BEING metaphor, deeply embedded in our culture and cognition, and deeply antithetical to ideas of equality and conservation.
Here, Turner ranges from the tools of modern linguistics and classical rhetoric, to the recent work of neuroscientists such as Antonio Damasio and Gerald Edelman, to literary masterpieces by Homer, Dante, Shakespeare, and Proust, as he explains how story and projection—and their powerful combination in parable—are fundamental to everyday thought. Language itself, he concludes, is the child of the literary mind. Offering major revisions to our understanding of thought, conceptual activity, and the origin and nature of language, The Literary Mind presents a unified theory of central problems in cognitive science, linguistics, neuroscience, psychology, and philosophy. Adventurous and convincing, Turner’s work launches a new understanding of what it is to have a human brain.
The book is divided into four parts. The first, “Principles of Classic Style,” defines the style and contrasts it with a number of others. “The Museum” is a guided tour through examples of writing, both exquisite and execrable. “The Studio,” new to this edition, presents a series of structured exercises. Finally, “Further Readings in Classic Prose” offers a list of additional examples drawn from a range of times, places, and subjects. A companion website, classicprose.com, offers supplementary examples, exhibits, and commentary, and features a selection of pieces written by students in courses that used Clear and Simple as the Truth as a textbook.
I recently read Steven Pinker’s The Sense of Style. He discusses classic style, a particular style for writing clear, compelling prose, and recommends Clear and Simple as the Truth for those interested in finding out more. I was definitely interested, so bought it, read it, and am now reviewing it.
The authors describe this particular style, in use since ancient times, thus:
Their whole book is written in classic style, becoming one large example of what they are describing. Try reading the quoted paragraph out loud. It is easy to do so; significantly easier than much writing one comes across.
Being easy to read, whether aloud or not, does not imply being easy to write. Thomas and Turner contrast two sentences, the first written in classic style, the second most definitely not.
Here we learn something not acknowledged in other books on writing style: style is not singular. There are different styles, each suited to different uses. Other books cover only the one style, implying it is the only one. This books acknowledges the existence of other styles; classic style is not style, it is a style.
Style here means the style of deep structure of the prose, not the grammar police style concerned with relatively trivial surface marks. The authors have it in for Strunk and White in particular, repeating their withering paired sentence structure in a further contrast:
This kind of sentence pairing is an exemplar of classic style, of assuming the reader is competent, and so can draw obvious conclusions without needing them hammered home.
As well as describing what classic style is, the authors characterise it by describing what it is not, by contrasting it with other styles. Classic style is not plain style, where the writer is addressing an audience, reaffirming simple unchallenged truths; in classic style the writer is speaking to a single person, and the truth, while clear, is sophisticated. Classic style is not the self-conscious reflexive style; in classic style the writing is a transparent window through which the reader regards the presented truth. Classic style is not practical style (although it is the closest) where the writer has the job of educating an audience, with the purpose of satisfying a need or solving a problem (a utilitarian style suitable for reports and instruction manuals); in classic style the writer is speaking to an equal, is presenting information for its own sake rather than to address the reader’s need, and their work cannot be skim-read. Classic style is not contemplative style, where meanings are presented as the interpretation of the writer, and the process of writing is a hesitant process of discovery; in classic style, the writer presents the unhedged finished product of prior thought as uninterpreted truth, or at least passes off their interpretation as such. Classic style is not romantic style, which is a mirror on the writer’s thoughts, sensations and emotions; classic style is a window on the world. Classic style is not prophetic style, which depends on abilities or insights available only to the chosen few; classic style expresses truths that can be verified by all. Classic style is not oratorical style, where a leader or candidate is unsubtly persuading an audience to an action or agreement; classic style is disinterested and nuanced.
Classic style is not perfection, however. Often the writer does have an agenda, and the truth is rarely clear and simple. Towards the end of the Essay section, the authors describe some “trade secrets” on how the classic stylist can cope with such situations, whilst maintaining the advantages of the style. They also dissect a Museum-full of samples written in the classic and non-classic style. But explanations and examples are not enough to gain writing proficiency.
This second edition includes a Studio section: exercises for learning writing in the classic style. Many of these exercises involve no writing, only speaking; the classic style is conversational, so the student is encouraged to learn the style through conversation, and only later write it down.
Writing in classic style does not make everyone sound the same. There is room for personal style within classic style. The Museum examples each have their distinctive voice. The Pinker that sent me here is in classic style, with a lightness of touch. Clear and Simple as the Truth is also in classic style, a smooth, relaxed read, and yet with an underlying thump-thump-thump to the prose. Apart from a few places, such as the Strunk and White put-downs, there is a monotonous tone to the work, and no sparkle. However, the prose is indeed transparent, and so the thumping is ignorable, and the lack of sparkle not an impediment. Nevertheless, Pinker is the better stylist.
My takeaway message: if you have to write a manual or report for a specific purpose, use practical style, and follow the excellent guidelines in Williams’ Style; if you want to write a piece for general interest, use classic style, and follow the excellent advice here.