What do you think?
Rate this book
Style: The Art of Writing Well
"The best book on the art of writing that I know is F. L. Lucas's Style"
- Joseph Epstein, New Criterion, June 2011
Lost for almost forty years, Style has acquired the status of a legend. Loved by some of the greatest modern authors and acclaimed by critics, this guide to recognising and writing stylish prose was written by a Cambridge don and veteran of Bletchley Park. Imbued with a lifetime of wit and wisdom, it retains its power today.
Writing forcefully and persuasively has never mattered so much - and Style is the perfect guide for the busy, the ambitious, and the creative.
With unique authority and good humour, F. L. Lucas takes us through his ten points of effective prose style and provides a tour of some of the best (and worst) that has been written in a number of languages and literatures. Wry, perceptive and rich in quotation and anecdote, the book reads like a personal conversation on the art of writing well - with a master of the art.
- Joseph Epstein, New Criterion, June 2011
Lost for almost forty years, Style has acquired the status of a legend. Loved by some of the greatest modern authors and acclaimed by critics, this guide to recognising and writing stylish prose was written by a Cambridge don and veteran of Bletchley Park. Imbued with a lifetime of wit and wisdom, it retains its power today.
Writing forcefully and persuasively has never mattered so much - and Style is the perfect guide for the busy, the ambitious, and the creative.
With unique authority and good humour, F. L. Lucas takes us through his ten points of effective prose style and provides a tour of some of the best (and worst) that has been written in a number of languages and literatures. Wry, perceptive and rich in quotation and anecdote, the book reads like a personal conversation on the art of writing well - with a master of the art.
283 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1955
30 people are currently reading
387 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews
May 23, 2013
Style: The Art of Writing Well (1955) by F.L. Lucas holds the origin to those immortal words so often repeated and quoted by writing professors to their young students: "murder your darlings," meaning to delete those phrases most cherished by the writer who wrote them. Actually, the quote so often used by professors is not the actual intention Lucas had meant, but the purpose, in the end, is the same result. Lucas did not mean to delete the most beautiful sentences from the writing; he actually meant that bold epigrammatic statements that simply could not be proven as true and accurate should either be omitted or have an introductory phrase inserted beforehand. As example: Rice is food for the heart; should actually read, 'It might be said that' rice is food for the heart. Here is the actual quote in length:
"I have spent years saying: 'Your generalization is beautifully epigrammatic. I understand that you could not bear to leave it unwritten. But consider all these exceptions to it. You knew them. If you could not bear to kill your darling, why not introduce it with the words 'It might be said', and then yourself point out the fatal objections? Then you could serve Beauty and Truth at once. At least you could have inserted 'possibly' or 'sometimes' into this sweeping pronouncement" (pg. 131).
This is not the only misunderstanding Lucas proves to be a fallacy.
As for Style (dedicated to Sir Charles Tennyson), Lucas's major claim is that although he agrees with some writers who believe 'C'est que le bon style est dans le coeur' (The truth is that good style is found in the heart), style can be found, at its origin, in the writer's character.
Lucas claims psychology is the key, found both in the reader and the writer. "The fundamental thing," writes Lucas, "therefore, is not technique, useful though that may be; if a writer's personality repels it will not avail him to eschew split infinitives, to master the difference between 'that' and 'which', to have Fowler's Modern English Usage by heart. Soul is more than syntax. If your readers dislike you, they will dislike what you say. Indeed, such is human nature, unless they like you they will mostly deny you even justice" (pg. 35). How true this is. For I have often seen mediocre writing gain an abundant amount of applause by readers who simply make the mistake of supplanting their own beliefs onto the writing. Writing should stand on its own merit, but, as Lucas asserts and I tend to agree, it does not. Character is vital. "For a writer, likewise," continues Lucas, "such shrewder minds are always there in wait. The readers who read between the lines are the readers worth winning. But if the writer forgets them, if his mood in writing is mean or peevish or petty or vain or false, no cleverness and no technique are likely, in the end, to save him. That is why I repeat that the first thing in style is character" (pg. 39). Lucas does offer two extended examples that illustrate this point extremely well. One is a letter by Samuel Johnson to Chesterfield and the other is a letter from Coleridge to Lord Byron. Coleridge had wanted Byron to recommend some poems to Byron's publisher (It seems the writing world hasn't changed that much after all). In closing of this chapter on character Lucas writes, "Naturally no fineness of character is likely to make an ungifted man write well (though I think that even this sometimes happens); but it can make a gifted one write far better" (pg. 43).
The chapters include subjects on Clarity (worth reading, but often cited in other craft books), Brevity, Urbanity and Simplicity, Humour, Good Sense, Simile and Metaphor (another one worth reading), Harmony of Prose, and various Methods of Writing. If Style starts with a bang, it certainly ends in a whimper. The section on harmony is a bit dull and focuses on word stress and the alterations a writer can make for better prose, but Lucas does offer this piece of advice in the section: "Feeling tends to produce rhythm; and rhythm, feeling" (pg. 198). Amateur writers often lead with their heads rather than their feelings and the writing turns out flat and more like a drone than a hymn. Write with your heart; revise with your head.
The last chapter, "Methods of Writing," is very interesting, showing how certain writers through the ages have undertaken the craft of writing. Samuel Johnson is one writer Lucas often considers, and earlier in the book, Lucas reveals a good laugh about the writer: "But I take shelter behind the massive bulk of Johnson," writes Lucas, "When Lady Macleod objected that a writer did not practise what he preaches, 'I cannot help that, madam,' was his reply. 'That does not make his book the worse...I have, all my life long, been lying till noon; yet I tell all young men, and tell them with great sincerity, that no one who does not rise early will ever do any good'" (pg. 31). So one tends to believe Lucas when in the last chapter he writes: "One need not believe too literally in Oscar Wilde's account of how he spent the morning putting in a comma, and the afternoon in taking it out again" (pg. 233). Lucas does have a way with words, and it is a joy to read his advice and stories of some of the most famous writers in the world.
One last quote I would like to share is one worth remembering: "I believe," Lucas writes, "that a writer should try, not to be different from others, but to be himself; not to write 'originally,' but as well as he possibly can. Real originality is spontaneous" (pg. 254).
There are several dozen quotes worth sharing here, but I will simply recommend Style: The Art of Writing Well to any serious writer and for any one who teaches writing at high school or at a higher level. A very strong recommend.
(Happy 37th birthday, Big 'Sis! Pooh-didley-Pooh!)
May 22, 2013
This is the finest book about writing that I have ever read. Not only does it offer useful advice for writing well, but it does so in an entertaining manner. To be clear, Style is not about usage or grammar. It is not, as Lucas himself admits, a book about literary tricks or persuasive rhetoric. Such a book, while perhaps useful in certain contexts, would not likely earn itself great admiration. Rather, Style is about the soul of the writer. Through seemingly endless quotes from some of the greatest writers of the western world, Lucas demonstrates the work it takes to be a writer. Lucas admits, "No one is born a writer. The greatest have had to learn. Only one learns most from trying to do things oneself; an my purpose is simply to make some suggestions, and provide some illustrations from the experience of others, which may perhaps help to shorten that painful process." Reading this book will not make you an excellent writer, but it certainly will help.
Want to read
September 18, 2020Recommended here.
April 5, 2021
Consists of several rewritten lecturers delivered at Cambridge.
The tenets set forth in this book seem critical for good writing (clarity, brevity, variety, etc...). However, the delivery of these tenets is inaccessible and dated. Countless references to classics that the modern reader is likely not familiar with. Also, frequently uses long in-text quotes that are in a foreign languages which are then translated in a footnote? Awful.
The tenets set forth in this book seem critical for good writing (clarity, brevity, variety, etc...). However, the delivery of these tenets is inaccessible and dated. Countless references to classics that the modern reader is likely not familiar with. Also, frequently uses long in-text quotes that are in a foreign languages which are then translated in a footnote? Awful.
January 16, 2016
This cult manual, holy grail of creative writing, was finally reissued in a third edition. One discovers an altogether fine book of "literary criticism" posing as a manual on writing. The medium is the message. In evaluating prose, Lucas is a convincing authority on what constitutes the stylish and what is rubbish. His own irreproachable writing demonstrates the championing of the concise, the clear, and the impeccable. Highly recommended for the conscientious reader and writer.
March 20, 2022
I am not qualified to properly review this book; it has humbled me.
This book is like an expensive hiking food. It's dense, nutritious, difficult to eat in one go, rich, and I feel that it's better suited for professionals than for myself. It is Style for those who have read and know the basics by heart, have knowledge and opinions on all the 'great' writers of the past, and can speak and write French, German, Greek, and Latin.
I consider myself to have a fair vocabulary, decent contextual understanding, and higher than average patience and reading comprehension. This book challenged all of those things about me and shamed me by name dropping, quoting, and analyzing the works of over fifty authors and critics, often times flying over my head. It was difficult to read more than ten pages at a time due to the sheer density and difficulty of pulling apart the sentences to make sense.
Content wise, from what I could understand, this book has much to offer and I wish that I had taken notes; should I in the future reach the level required to fully understand this book, I will have to sit down with pencil and paper and take at least a day for each chapter.
There is a lot of substance in this book, but it is not a light or easy read, nor streamlined for modern readers. I would recommend it to those who appreciate the mechanisms of literature, those who have the time and patience to truly dig the gold out of it. Otherwise, other, more contemporary books may be better suited to a moderate writer looking to better their work.
I feel that it would take me about two years of study to fully appreciate the content of this book. I will keep it on my shelf until then.
This book is like an expensive hiking food. It's dense, nutritious, difficult to eat in one go, rich, and I feel that it's better suited for professionals than for myself. It is Style for those who have read and know the basics by heart, have knowledge and opinions on all the 'great' writers of the past, and can speak and write French, German, Greek, and Latin.
I consider myself to have a fair vocabulary, decent contextual understanding, and higher than average patience and reading comprehension. This book challenged all of those things about me and shamed me by name dropping, quoting, and analyzing the works of over fifty authors and critics, often times flying over my head. It was difficult to read more than ten pages at a time due to the sheer density and difficulty of pulling apart the sentences to make sense.
Content wise, from what I could understand, this book has much to offer and I wish that I had taken notes; should I in the future reach the level required to fully understand this book, I will have to sit down with pencil and paper and take at least a day for each chapter.
There is a lot of substance in this book, but it is not a light or easy read, nor streamlined for modern readers. I would recommend it to those who appreciate the mechanisms of literature, those who have the time and patience to truly dig the gold out of it. Otherwise, other, more contemporary books may be better suited to a moderate writer looking to better their work.
I feel that it would take me about two years of study to fully appreciate the content of this book. I will keep it on my shelf until then.
January 9, 2025
“I would say to [William] Robertson what an old tutor of a college said to one of his pupils: ‘Read over your compositions and where ever you meet with a passage which you think is particularly fine, strike it out.’”—Samuel Johnson
In June 2011, the New Criterion published a review by Joseph Epstein of Stanley Fish’s How to Write a Sentence: And How to Read One.(1) Finding not a single thing to commend Professor Fish’s book, Epstein, by way of comparison, turned to a better guide, Style, by F. L. Lucas (1894 – 1967), originally published in 1955 and out of print since 1974. According to Epstein, Lucas “wrote the best book on prose composition for the not-so-simple reason that, in the modern era, he was the smartest, most cultivated man to turn his energies to the task.” Epstein’s accolade apparently awakened considerable interest in Lucas’s book, with the happy result that in 2012, Style was again in print in a high-quality paperback edition.
Style is not a guidebook, and it cannot be perused for writing tips. Written towards the end of his life, Lucas’s book is an aesthetic and even moral testament by one of the most distinguished scholars and men of letters of his generation.
The idea at the center of Style is that character is the foundation of good writing. “Therefore, if you wish your writing to seem good, your character must seem at least partly so. And since in the long run deception is likely to be found out, your character had better not only seem good, but be it … Authors may sell their books, but they give themselves away.” Now for a modern, secular audience, this is a radical, even subversive idea, but Lucas is relentless in defending his thesis, bringing in, among many others, Aristotle (“To carry conviction, a speaker needs three qualities … good sense, good character, and good will towards his hearers”) and Socrates (“As a man is, so is his speech”).(2)
If character is the foundation of style, what moral qualities of authors are revealed in their writing? Lucas devotes a chapter each to six:
1. Clarity
2. Brevity and Variety
3. Urbanity and Simplicity
4. Good Humor and Gaiety
5. Good Sense and Sincerity
6. Good Health and Vitality
What makes Style so lively and enjoyable is the combination of Lucas’s graceful erudition (in this, he resembles his contemporary, C.S. Lewis) and his examples from literature, culled from a lifetime of reading. Here to give some flavor of his thought are three examples:
1. On Clarity: “…in the first century of the Roman Empire, Quintilian mocks at the obscurantism fashionable in his day: ‘We think ourselves geniuses if it takes genius to understand us.’”
2. On Brevity: After giving several examples of classical haiku, including the exquisite “A butterfly sleeps on the village bell,” Lucas muses, “A Japanese writer in this form, contemporary with Milton, Yasuhara Teishitsu, for the sake of posterity destroyed all his poems but three. There was brevity indeed!”
3 On Humor: Gibbon on Gordian II (c. 192 – c. 238): “His manners were less pure, but his character was equally amiable with that of his father. Twenty-two acknowledged concubines, and a library of sixty-two thousand volumes, attested to the variety of his inclinations; and from the productions he left behind him, it appears that both the one and the other were designed for use rather than ostentation.”
Lucas is not a museum curator, dusting marble statues for our admiration. He is a reader, fully engaged with the authors he is reading. When Swift, for example, writes “Proper words in proper places makes the true definition of style,” we lesser readers would consider this an epigram to commit to memory. But Lucas will have none of it: “One might as well define good talk as proper remarks in proper places; or the good life as proper conduct on proper occasions.”
For anyone who takes words seriously and wishes to write (or read) better, I can think of two additional reasons to commend this book. The first is that an occasional scrubbing-down regarding our pretensions to wide-reading and culture is good for all of us. To return to character, Lucas writes, “It is, I believe, personality above all that sets Virgil and Horace higher than Catullus and Ovid: Chaucer than Dryden; Shakespeare than his contemporaries.” As Joseph Epstein remarks about a similar judgment, “Pause a moment to consider the wide reading required to have written that last sentence.” The second reason is that, like C.S. Lewis, Lucas is a most amiable companion who shares hard-won learning lightly and without pretense. Also like Lewis, he is a scholar who views wisdom as the true purpose of learning:
“It is unlikely that many of us will be famous, or even remembered. But not less important than the brilliant few that lead a nation or a literature to fresh achievements, are the unknown many whose patient efforts keep the world from running backward; who guard and maintain the ancient values, even if they do not conquer new; whose inconspicuous triumph it is to pass on what they have inherited from their faiths, unimpaired and undiminished, to their sons. Enough, for almost all of us, if we can hand on the torch, and not let it down; content to win the affection, if it may be, of a few who know us, and to be forgotten, when they in their turn have vanished. The destiny of mankind is not wholly governed by its ‘stars.’”
____________________________________
(1) Joseph Epstein, “Heavy Sentences,” The New Criterion 29, no. 10 (June 2011): 4-8.
(2) Cf. Luke 6:45: “A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.”
Published in Regent University Library Link, March 18, 2013
http://librarylink.regent.edu/?p=1712
In June 2011, the New Criterion published a review by Joseph Epstein of Stanley Fish’s How to Write a Sentence: And How to Read One.(1) Finding not a single thing to commend Professor Fish’s book, Epstein, by way of comparison, turned to a better guide, Style, by F. L. Lucas (1894 – 1967), originally published in 1955 and out of print since 1974. According to Epstein, Lucas “wrote the best book on prose composition for the not-so-simple reason that, in the modern era, he was the smartest, most cultivated man to turn his energies to the task.” Epstein’s accolade apparently awakened considerable interest in Lucas’s book, with the happy result that in 2012, Style was again in print in a high-quality paperback edition.
Style is not a guidebook, and it cannot be perused for writing tips. Written towards the end of his life, Lucas’s book is an aesthetic and even moral testament by one of the most distinguished scholars and men of letters of his generation.
The idea at the center of Style is that character is the foundation of good writing. “Therefore, if you wish your writing to seem good, your character must seem at least partly so. And since in the long run deception is likely to be found out, your character had better not only seem good, but be it … Authors may sell their books, but they give themselves away.” Now for a modern, secular audience, this is a radical, even subversive idea, but Lucas is relentless in defending his thesis, bringing in, among many others, Aristotle (“To carry conviction, a speaker needs three qualities … good sense, good character, and good will towards his hearers”) and Socrates (“As a man is, so is his speech”).(2)
If character is the foundation of style, what moral qualities of authors are revealed in their writing? Lucas devotes a chapter each to six:
1. Clarity
2. Brevity and Variety
3. Urbanity and Simplicity
4. Good Humor and Gaiety
5. Good Sense and Sincerity
6. Good Health and Vitality
What makes Style so lively and enjoyable is the combination of Lucas’s graceful erudition (in this, he resembles his contemporary, C.S. Lewis) and his examples from literature, culled from a lifetime of reading. Here to give some flavor of his thought are three examples:
1. On Clarity: “…in the first century of the Roman Empire, Quintilian mocks at the obscurantism fashionable in his day: ‘We think ourselves geniuses if it takes genius to understand us.’”
2. On Brevity: After giving several examples of classical haiku, including the exquisite “A butterfly sleeps on the village bell,” Lucas muses, “A Japanese writer in this form, contemporary with Milton, Yasuhara Teishitsu, for the sake of posterity destroyed all his poems but three. There was brevity indeed!”
3 On Humor: Gibbon on Gordian II (c. 192 – c. 238): “His manners were less pure, but his character was equally amiable with that of his father. Twenty-two acknowledged concubines, and a library of sixty-two thousand volumes, attested to the variety of his inclinations; and from the productions he left behind him, it appears that both the one and the other were designed for use rather than ostentation.”
Lucas is not a museum curator, dusting marble statues for our admiration. He is a reader, fully engaged with the authors he is reading. When Swift, for example, writes “Proper words in proper places makes the true definition of style,” we lesser readers would consider this an epigram to commit to memory. But Lucas will have none of it: “One might as well define good talk as proper remarks in proper places; or the good life as proper conduct on proper occasions.”
For anyone who takes words seriously and wishes to write (or read) better, I can think of two additional reasons to commend this book. The first is that an occasional scrubbing-down regarding our pretensions to wide-reading and culture is good for all of us. To return to character, Lucas writes, “It is, I believe, personality above all that sets Virgil and Horace higher than Catullus and Ovid: Chaucer than Dryden; Shakespeare than his contemporaries.” As Joseph Epstein remarks about a similar judgment, “Pause a moment to consider the wide reading required to have written that last sentence.” The second reason is that, like C.S. Lewis, Lucas is a most amiable companion who shares hard-won learning lightly and without pretense. Also like Lewis, he is a scholar who views wisdom as the true purpose of learning:
“It is unlikely that many of us will be famous, or even remembered. But not less important than the brilliant few that lead a nation or a literature to fresh achievements, are the unknown many whose patient efforts keep the world from running backward; who guard and maintain the ancient values, even if they do not conquer new; whose inconspicuous triumph it is to pass on what they have inherited from their faiths, unimpaired and undiminished, to their sons. Enough, for almost all of us, if we can hand on the torch, and not let it down; content to win the affection, if it may be, of a few who know us, and to be forgotten, when they in their turn have vanished. The destiny of mankind is not wholly governed by its ‘stars.’”
____________________________________
(1) Joseph Epstein, “Heavy Sentences,” The New Criterion 29, no. 10 (June 2011): 4-8.
(2) Cf. Luke 6:45: “A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.”
Published in Regent University Library Link, March 18, 2013
http://librarylink.regent.edu/?p=1712
September 1, 2020
This might be my favourite book on writing so far.
It is incredibly well written and gives a lot of advice. Though I generally don't like non-fiction books with many examples (as this one has), they did not bother me here, as the book itself was such a joy to read.
A must-read for every aspiring writer, filled with many points that more modern books on writing ignore.
It is incredibly well written and gives a lot of advice. Though I generally don't like non-fiction books with many examples (as this one has), they did not bother me here, as the book itself was such a joy to read.
A must-read for every aspiring writer, filled with many points that more modern books on writing ignore.
May 9, 2021
In some ways a self-help guide: how to live as well as how to write. Amazing selections of quotations and examples. Wonderfully written- the only chapter I found hard to digest was the 'harmony of prose' which lost me completely.
September 24, 2019
A go to reference for me
Read
June 19, 2024This book was okay but not great. Definitely learned some, but it often didn't feel like it was saying anything. I'd say skip this one and read Figures of Speech by Arthur Quinn instead.
March 31, 2025
Pretty much aligned on his writing philosophy. Thats the most valuable part of this book. Be courteous.
July 4, 2021
This is a fantastic little book.
It is not a book to read to learn to write; it is a book to read to learn to write better. That is, this is not a grammar book, and is of the most value to someone who wouldn't also benefit from reading a book on grammar. For, if grammar is the structure of language, style is the superstructure — the metaphysics of composition. And F.L. Lucas (d. 1967), Cambridge don, literary scholar, and classicist keenly perceives this higher form.
From his having read, it seems, the better part of the Western canon of great literature in English, French, German, Greek, and Latin, Lucas believes the higher form of style correlates strongly with the goodness of one's character. (This he demonstrates throughout the work by way of numerous choice prose selections.) But Lucas isn’t making style a slave to morality. He isn't saying that all good people write well, or that all bad people write poorly, both of which are plainly false: one need not think too hard to find counterexamples. Moreover, people value different things; and to judge the quality of style of a composition based on what the thrust of the argument is would be ludicrous.
Rather, by goodness, Lucas chiefly means three things: clarity, brevity, and simplicity. This is goodness as empathy. This is the Golden Rule for prose: making the prose as clear, concise, and straightforward as possible because that makes the most of the reader’s time. Good style then, is winsome and cultivated from compassion.
Therefore, “If you wish your writing to be good, your character must be good. Authors may sell their books: but they give themselves away.”
It is not a book to read to learn to write; it is a book to read to learn to write better. That is, this is not a grammar book, and is of the most value to someone who wouldn't also benefit from reading a book on grammar. For, if grammar is the structure of language, style is the superstructure — the metaphysics of composition. And F.L. Lucas (d. 1967), Cambridge don, literary scholar, and classicist keenly perceives this higher form.
From his having read, it seems, the better part of the Western canon of great literature in English, French, German, Greek, and Latin, Lucas believes the higher form of style correlates strongly with the goodness of one's character. (This he demonstrates throughout the work by way of numerous choice prose selections.) But Lucas isn’t making style a slave to morality. He isn't saying that all good people write well, or that all bad people write poorly, both of which are plainly false: one need not think too hard to find counterexamples. Moreover, people value different things; and to judge the quality of style of a composition based on what the thrust of the argument is would be ludicrous.
Rather, by goodness, Lucas chiefly means three things: clarity, brevity, and simplicity. This is goodness as empathy. This is the Golden Rule for prose: making the prose as clear, concise, and straightforward as possible because that makes the most of the reader’s time. Good style then, is winsome and cultivated from compassion.
Therefore, “If you wish your writing to be good, your character must be good. Authors may sell their books: but they give themselves away.”
January 29, 2014
Lucas is a bit of a showoff, waxing elegant on world literature and dropping quotes -- mercifully translated in the new edition, but not in Lucas's original -- from a staggering array of authors in every European and ancient language under the sun. More amusingly, he occasionally manages to digress into how much he hates Hitler. (Spoiler alert: He REALLY hates Hitler.) But on the whole, Lucas's book on writing is a sprightly, well-crafted, eminently readable guide to crafting crisp, clear prose.
He also makes a very useful point I've seen nowhere else: That how well you write depends largely on the person you are. The best writers, Lucas convincingly argues, write with empathy for their audience, out of a sincere desire to communicate information (rather than, say, bile or self-glorification). My own experience as a writing coach had begun to suggest this same conclusion before I encountered Lucas's book, but Lucas -- as befits a Cambridge professor and ex-coded-message-crafter for the Allies in WWII -- conveys that novel concept eloquently and well.
He also makes a very useful point I've seen nowhere else: That how well you write depends largely on the person you are. The best writers, Lucas convincingly argues, write with empathy for their audience, out of a sincere desire to communicate information (rather than, say, bile or self-glorification). My own experience as a writing coach had begun to suggest this same conclusion before I encountered Lucas's book, but Lucas -- as befits a Cambridge professor and ex-coded-message-crafter for the Allies in WWII -- conveys that novel concept eloquently and well.
March 20, 2014
This book is a classic, which is usually an erudite way of saying that something is going to be soul-crushingly hard to swallow for most members of a contemporary audience, but if you can force your way through it, you can brag to all your friends in your critique group about how much ancient wisdom you gleaned from its cold and yellowed pages.
The truth is that the language of this book is antiquated and occasionally effusive. However, if you can transcend the absence of vernacular, the message is worth the journey. For me, it was enjoyable to read a book about style that was written before "style" became a product that is repackaged and perpetually marketed like so many bars of soap.
It communicates something about the truly timeless aspects of style. When I read more contemporary work on the subject, I find myself returning to this book as a sort of Occam's razor, for while the language may no longer be simple, the message is timeless and unclouded by commercial bias.
I appreciate that.
The truth is that the language of this book is antiquated and occasionally effusive. However, if you can transcend the absence of vernacular, the message is worth the journey. For me, it was enjoyable to read a book about style that was written before "style" became a product that is repackaged and perpetually marketed like so many bars of soap.
It communicates something about the truly timeless aspects of style. When I read more contemporary work on the subject, I find myself returning to this book as a sort of Occam's razor, for while the language may no longer be simple, the message is timeless and unclouded by commercial bias.
I appreciate that.
July 11, 2013
If you are a writer and wish to refine your skills, this book has some useful pointers. I rate it a 4/5 for hints and general knowledge of writing, but a 2/3 for the actual read. This of course is not the fault of the author, as he is very well written (as you'd imagine since he is writing a guide to writing), yet it is still for all intensive purposes an academic book. You read this title to learn, not to be entertained. The prose can become cumbersome and pedantic, yet if you are truly intent on improving your own writing, this is a book for you.
A piece of advice though, read one chapter at a time. One a week or so. Use what you learn in that chapter as you practice your own prose through the week. This is a perfect book to fill a half hour or so between chores or other books. Style is definitely not a book to sit down and devour in one sitting.
A piece of advice though, read one chapter at a time. One a week or so. Use what you learn in that chapter as you practice your own prose through the week. This is a perfect book to fill a half hour or so between chores or other books. Style is definitely not a book to sit down and devour in one sitting.
September 9, 2012
Fantastic advice on writing. Apparently pulled from a series of lectures, I found the book far more engaging than Strunk & White or any other book on writing that I have read. Lucas has a very even, readable style in which he puts his common-sense approach to writing to good effect. What put it over the top for me relative to the competition is that Lucas uses stronger and more memorable examples, pulled from throughout English literary history. The book gave me the impression that he's better read than most writers on style--and it comes across in a positive and useful way, indicative of an appreciation of the craft and its effects, rather than in a showy way. It's not a perfect book, but it's easy to recommend.
January 10, 2015
Read this because my dad insisted I should.
It was at the bottom of my TBR pile and was one I started but only just finished.
Found this one wasn't for me at all. I thought I disagreed with the author b/c things he thought were great were mind-numbing for myself (probably means I have no style at all (pun intended) but hey, I know what I like).
Also found it annoying that the footnotes were, in some places, longer than the main text of the page. Also having the quotes in different languages broke the flow (spoiler alert, I am unfortunately only able to read in English.. and write in it. And speak in it.) of the overall passage. A bit like all this bracketed bollocks.
It was at the bottom of my TBR pile and was one I started but only just finished.
Found this one wasn't for me at all. I thought I disagreed with the author b/c things he thought were great were mind-numbing for myself (probably means I have no style at all (pun intended) but hey, I know what I like).
Also found it annoying that the footnotes were, in some places, longer than the main text of the page. Also having the quotes in different languages broke the flow (spoiler alert, I am unfortunately only able to read in English.. and write in it. And speak in it.) of the overall passage. A bit like all this bracketed bollocks.
January 9, 2014
This book on writing is quite different from Stunk and White. It provides numerous examples of what the author considers good writing although a number of them are in French. The author writes with wit and good humor. The author does not elevate brevity and simplicity of grammatical construction to the pinnacle of writing as S&W, but rather, the main lesson is clarity and good humor (leave the snark behind, or do it very very well).
April 14, 2014
Why have I never heard of this book before?
Stylish, informed, informative and a fascinating guide to recognising and writing good prose.
The man himself, Frank Laurence Lucas (1894–1967), apart from looking like everyone's idea of Sherlock Holmes, was a WWI veteran, an accomplished writer, a leading light of the code breakers at Bletchley in WWII and a vocal opponent of appeasement with Nazi Germany.
This book is a rare treasure and deserves to be an oft-referenced classic.
Stylish, informed, informative and a fascinating guide to recognising and writing good prose.
The man himself, Frank Laurence Lucas (1894–1967), apart from looking like everyone's idea of Sherlock Holmes, was a WWI veteran, an accomplished writer, a leading light of the code breakers at Bletchley in WWII and a vocal opponent of appeasement with Nazi Germany.
This book is a rare treasure and deserves to be an oft-referenced classic.
June 13, 2008
Excellent resource. Still timely.
May 3, 2013
We are so used to thinking of style as something superficial, but when it comes to writing, Lucas shows how it is fundamental to an honest, well-crafted piece of work. This is a book to return to.
July 17, 2013
Since F.L. Lucas is a fan of brevity, I will resume his book: don't be too extreme in anything you write.
September 6, 2013
An excellent 'lost' book on the art of writing. Worth finding for any aspiring author.
January 28, 2017
An absolute must for writers and researchers.
April 28, 2015
Old-school. Dazzling delivery with unfathomable depth. A humbling read.
May 3, 2017
Albeit somewhat dated, Style was originally published in 1955, there are chapters and sentiments in the book that remain as true today as they were in the middle of the last century. The chapters on Character, Clarity, Brevity, Variety, Humor, Sense, Sincerity, Simile, etc. are very useful and enlightening.
This is a book that should be read both by students and professional writers alike.
Rating: 4 out of 5 Stars
This is a book that should be read both by students and professional writers alike.
Rating: 4 out of 5 Stars
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews