What do you think?
Rate this book
Style: An Anti-Textbook
“A necessary manual for those interested in the perpetuation, and the possibilities, of good English prose.”—Harper’s Magazine
“[Lanham’s] style is notable for its audacity, liveliness, and grace.”—The Times Literary Supplement
“The most applicably provocative book on the subject of prose style available. Imperative reading for all teachers and students of writing.”—Choice
This humorous and accessible classic on style calls for the return of wordplay and delight to writing instruction. Richard Lanham argues that many tomes on writing, with their trio of platitudes—clarity, plainness, sincerity—lie “upon the spirit like wet cardboard.”
"People seldom write to be clear. They have designs on their fellow men. Pure prose is as rare as pure virtue, and for the same reasons…The Books [Lanham’s term for misguided composition textbooks], written for a man and world yet unfallen, depict a ludicrous process like this: 'I have an idea. I want to present this gift to my fellow man. I fix this thought clearly in mind. I follow the rules. Out comes a prose that gift-wraps thought in transparent paper.' If this sounds like a travesty, it’s because it is one. Yet it dominates prose instruction in America."—from Chapter 1
Richard A. Lanham is professor emeritus of English at the University of California, Los Angeles, and president of Rhetorica, Inc., a consulting and editorial services company. He is the author of numerous books on writing, including A Handlist of Rhetorical Terms, Analyzing Prose, The Electronic Word, and most recently, The Economics of Attention.
“[Lanham’s] style is notable for its audacity, liveliness, and grace.”—The Times Literary Supplement
“The most applicably provocative book on the subject of prose style available. Imperative reading for all teachers and students of writing.”—Choice
This humorous and accessible classic on style calls for the return of wordplay and delight to writing instruction. Richard Lanham argues that many tomes on writing, with their trio of platitudes—clarity, plainness, sincerity—lie “upon the spirit like wet cardboard.”
"People seldom write to be clear. They have designs on their fellow men. Pure prose is as rare as pure virtue, and for the same reasons…The Books [Lanham’s term for misguided composition textbooks], written for a man and world yet unfallen, depict a ludicrous process like this: 'I have an idea. I want to present this gift to my fellow man. I fix this thought clearly in mind. I follow the rules. Out comes a prose that gift-wraps thought in transparent paper.' If this sounds like a travesty, it’s because it is one. Yet it dominates prose instruction in America."—from Chapter 1
Richard A. Lanham is professor emeritus of English at the University of California, Los Angeles, and president of Rhetorica, Inc., a consulting and editorial services company. He is the author of numerous books on writing, including A Handlist of Rhetorical Terms, Analyzing Prose, The Electronic Word, and most recently, The Economics of Attention.
212 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1974
24 people are currently reading
242 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 - 25 of 25 reviews
May 29, 2010
I really liked the idea behind this book, and I looked forward to seeing just what could fill an "anti-textbook." What I discovered was that this particular anti-textbook was filled with repetition and hatefulness. The author spends a lot of time attacking others (in very personal ways); this added nothing to his thesis and came over as sheer priggishness. He keeps on beating dead horses throughout the book, heaping scorn on pretty much everyone that is not Richard Lanham. One particularly ugly scene was where he tore apart an undergrad's letter to his school paper. Lanham's personal vitriol was out of proportion to the student's crimes against prose, and was rather bizarre(I was questioning the author's sanity actually).
I found it torturous to read, but kept plodding along in the hope that he might actually say SOMETHING about "style." In the end I don't think he said a single thing worth remembering. I suggest this as a book to avoid.
I found it torturous to read, but kept plodding along in the hope that he might actually say SOMETHING about "style." In the end I don't think he said a single thing worth remembering. I suggest this as a book to avoid.
December 24, 2013
This is the second edition of a book first published by Yale University Press in 1974. Some of its examples are curiously dated now, especially in its treatment of the street speech of the time. But the book holds up, and its arguments are as necessary as ever. As Lanham sees it, the teaching of writing has stressed clarity and content and has made style effectively invisible (and thus unteachable). For the traditional taxonomies of style, such as high-middle-low, Lanham created a spectrum of possibilities between transparent (the "clear" style which hides itself) and opaque (the style which demands to be noticed). This is a theme he elaborated in a much more comprehensive later book, *Analyzing Prose*, so if you want a full treatment of that, you'll have to to turn to that book. Here he crafts a set of essays against the dominant assumptions of writing instruction and makes a persistent, and I think needed, plea for style as the proper subject of a college composition course. He wants to develop "copiousness" in the sense meant by ancient rhetoric and later by Erasmus.
Lanham's own style is quotable and funny. Passages like the following are delightful:
"The art of translation that any teacher performs when she corrects a paper is essentially satirical. She is ridiculing pretense, revealing a simplified and usually demeaning reality behind it. This satire a student must learn to perpetrate on his own prose and his own self. Both yield the same comic awareness of self and the limitations of self."
Readers hoping for a straightforward guide to writing or even teaching will be left disappointed. Readers who enjoy a rich, quirky, and committed approach to the subject will be well served.
Lanham's own style is quotable and funny. Passages like the following are delightful:
"The art of translation that any teacher performs when she corrects a paper is essentially satirical. She is ridiculing pretense, revealing a simplified and usually demeaning reality behind it. This satire a student must learn to perpetrate on his own prose and his own self. Both yield the same comic awareness of self and the limitations of self."
Readers hoping for a straightforward guide to writing or even teaching will be left disappointed. Readers who enjoy a rich, quirky, and committed approach to the subject will be well served.
June 10, 2020
A rousing defence of writing that seeks to charm, entertain, inspire and amuse: Lanham pretty much eviscerates the view that the best style is that which is invisible, and its associated belief that meaning somehow exists beyond the words that (in the orthodox view) are meant to reveal it mutely. Within that prospectus, however, he is also very funny about the impoverished state of attention to the words of others as well as our own, and especially convincing about the latent orality of writing. If you don't read it out loud, you don't really know what it says. Literally, indeed. Other highlights include a withering analysis of the hieratical obscurantism of modern sociological writing and the observation that we oscillate in reading for meaning and hesitating on that threshold of meaning that is its stylistic packaging. That's very Iain McGilchrist, amongst other things.
March 31, 2016
Intellectual, provocative; rather that low, middle, and high style, he writes of translucent and opaque styles. His reasoning is often fanciful and playful, but those are the elements he proposes that current English lessons are missing. I enjoyed it, and I feel inspired to try to inject an element of play into my teaching.
August 17, 2021
The author takes aim at the scientific attitude towards prose perpetuated by university writing courses: the writer should be themselves, write with clarity and have an unnoticeable style. He argues that this description of good prose is not necessarily wrong but that it is not helpful and that it can miss the point of style.
Style provides the context through which we discuss concepts. It facilitates understanding. This is most visible with the existence of jargon, which he labels as a form of stylistic expression. Jargon can hardly be classified as speaking clearly to the outsider. But to the insider it has purpose. It conveys a concept more clearly by relating it to context and through familiarity. It also signals to the reader that, "yes you are an insider." Why else do scientific papers obscure clarity by sounding so scientific?!
This self-congratulation, by recognizing style and being an insider, is another purpose of style highlighted by the author throughout the book: for enjoyment and pleasure. While the scientific attitude focuses on concepts as the object of attention, the author argues for stylistic self-awareness. For making style itself the object of attention. On this spectrum of self-awareness lies on one end a paper on scientific article on mathematics, and on the other poetry. But any piece of prose can be written to sit in the middle.
The quality of style, therefore, can't be objectively determined because it depends on the situation between the reader, writer and context of discussion.
~
For someone like me, a terrible and inexperienced writer, this was not a good place to start learning how to write. Ironically, the book was probably leaning too far towards "stylistic self-awareness" for me to fully understand everything he is trying to say. Although I do appreciate his message, to make prose style more fun for the its own sake. In my experience I will understand something better, and stay engaged longer, if what I am reading is fun and grips my attention.
So what do I take away from this?
- There is a spectrum of stylistic self-awareness.
- Make prose fun, for its own sake.
- Style familiar to the context is helpful to readers
Style provides the context through which we discuss concepts. It facilitates understanding. This is most visible with the existence of jargon, which he labels as a form of stylistic expression. Jargon can hardly be classified as speaking clearly to the outsider. But to the insider it has purpose. It conveys a concept more clearly by relating it to context and through familiarity. It also signals to the reader that, "yes you are an insider." Why else do scientific papers obscure clarity by sounding so scientific?!
This self-congratulation, by recognizing style and being an insider, is another purpose of style highlighted by the author throughout the book: for enjoyment and pleasure. While the scientific attitude focuses on concepts as the object of attention, the author argues for stylistic self-awareness. For making style itself the object of attention. On this spectrum of self-awareness lies on one end a paper on scientific article on mathematics, and on the other poetry. But any piece of prose can be written to sit in the middle.
The quality of style, therefore, can't be objectively determined because it depends on the situation between the reader, writer and context of discussion.
~
For someone like me, a terrible and inexperienced writer, this was not a good place to start learning how to write. Ironically, the book was probably leaning too far towards "stylistic self-awareness" for me to fully understand everything he is trying to say. Although I do appreciate his message, to make prose style more fun for the its own sake. In my experience I will understand something better, and stay engaged longer, if what I am reading is fun and grips my attention.
So what do I take away from this?
- There is a spectrum of stylistic self-awareness.
- Make prose fun, for its own sake.
- Style familiar to the context is helpful to readers
August 10, 2020
I loved this book, which is largely devoted to revising prose. I still recall his wonderful term for describing wordy sentences: lard-factor. I have never forgotten that lesson and to this day I will often remove at least a third of a quickly written sentence, if I get a chance to revise it. Great book.
Read
December 27, 2024Zany and thought-provoking, though it does feel like only half of the conversation. Worth reading, left wanting more even with the afterthoughts. Can't believe reading this before the annotated edition, that would be 1/4th of the conversation.
May 15, 2025
"...such comic self-awareness is, of course, the central requirement for the citizen of a self-conscious society. To know that we are mistaken, and necessarily so, is the art of spiritual openness and welcome that makes such a society possible" (180).
March 26, 2020
Not a lie, anti-textbook, maybe even anti-book.
April 3, 2020
Inspiring.
February 6, 2012
Richard Lanham's central argument in this polemical "anti-textbook" is that style should take center stage as the self-conscious focus of freshman composition courses. As he puts it, "Style as visible, self-conscious, opaque, forms part of a curriculum whose center will be self-consciousness, whose rock-bottom is an awareness of boundary conditions" (132). As he makes his case, Lanham explores and embodies various—and often opposing—positions in current controversies about “prose style.” He presents advertising as both the death knell and the great hope of American style. He deplores linguistics’ “disastrous influence … on the teaching of writing” (67), but later claims that linguists’ “nomenclature … comes as near a pedagogy for acquiring ‘an ear for English’ as anything today is likely to” (107). He mocks those who prophesy the death of style and himself proclaims its death.
In one sense, Lanham’s rhetorical method is thus an apt reflection of his book’s content. In Style’s sixth chapter, Lanham argues against notions of a “central self” (124). Instead, he sees the “adolescence” of college freshmen “as a time of role-experiment. A single self has not yet cohered” (116). And for these purported adolescents, “[t]o play with styles is to play with roles” (124). Lanham’s equivocating thus echoes the imitative, experimental purpose he sees style serving for composition students. In a sense, his perspectives on selfhood—the lack of a central self and language’s role in both constructing and restricting a more fragmented self—align him with theorists from Derrida to Judith Butler. What can be off-putting about
his particular argument, however, is that he seems to place himself outside of his own restrictive system.
In one sense, Lanham’s rhetorical method is thus an apt reflection of his book’s content. In Style’s sixth chapter, Lanham argues against notions of a “central self” (124). Instead, he sees the “adolescence” of college freshmen “as a time of role-experiment. A single self has not yet cohered” (116). And for these purported adolescents, “[t]o play with styles is to play with roles” (124). Lanham’s equivocating thus echoes the imitative, experimental purpose he sees style serving for composition students. In a sense, his perspectives on selfhood—the lack of a central self and language’s role in both constructing and restricting a more fragmented self—align him with theorists from Derrida to Judith Butler. What can be off-putting about
his particular argument, however, is that he seems to place himself outside of his own restrictive system.
July 13, 2015
Ричард Лэнгэм призывать нас смотреть на стиль письма не как на всего лишь украшение, которое, быть может, отвлечет читателя от главного, а как на главное, как на способ самовыражения и одновременно проявление удовольствие от разговора как такового. Приглашение Лэнгэма смотреть на язык таким образом очень привлекательно: кто-то должен вспомнить, что зачастую цель разговора не "передача информации", а ощущение близости. Мы смотри "сквозь" слова на их смысл, а надо смотреть "на" них. Мы их "используем", а лучше бы "любили".
"Я", как полагает Лэнгэм, это не наши эмоции и идеи, не наши текущие наблюдение, а наш тон, голос рассказчика, иными словами, "стиль". Обрести стиль можно если много читать, но не банального много, не "взахлеб", а "вслух". Только так можно распробовать слова.
Жизнерадостный и игривый Лэнгэм, сокрушающийся по поводу стилистической слабости современников, никоим образом не рисует картину упадка. Так, аудиокниги вернули нам чтение вслух, которое отнял когда-то печатный пресс. А Facebook и другие сети предоставили бесконечные возможности примерять на себя разные роли.
Даже жаргон, канцелярщина -- для него "наполовину полный стакан". Это всё ж бегство от совсем бесх��тростной простоты, от научного к игровому отношению. И исправлять эти недостатки он призывают играючи: переводя канцелярщину на обычный язык, имитирую ее, создавая тем самым комический эффект.
Тон книги делает Лэнгэма приятным собеседником. Это и есть лучшая реклама его рекламы стиля.
"Я", как полагает Лэнгэм, это не наши эмоции и идеи, не наши текущие наблюдение, а наш тон, голос рассказчика, иными словами, "стиль". Обрести стиль можно если много читать, но не банального много, не "взахлеб", а "вслух". Только так можно распробовать слова.
Жизнерадостный и игривый Лэнгэм, сокрушающийся по поводу стилистической слабости современников, никоим образом не рисует картину упадка. Так, аудиокниги вернули нам чтение вслух, которое отнял когда-то печатный пресс. А Facebook и другие сети предоставили бесконечные возможности примерять на себя разные роли.
Даже жаргон, канцелярщина -- для него "наполовину полный стакан". Это всё ж бегство от совсем бесх��тростной простоты, от научного к игровому отношению. И исправлять эти недостатки он призывают играючи: переводя канцелярщину на обычный язык, имитирую ее, создавая тем самым комический эффект.
Тон книги делает Лэнгэма приятным собеседником. Это и есть лучшая реклама его рекламы стиля.
March 2, 2010
Lanham, in hilariously witty, clear prose, outlines the problems of modern prose teaching. His perspective gave me new insight into what prose writing is and what it does, and what we should strive for when doing it. Most of all, however, he brought home to me how bad I am (we all are, speaking for most of peers) at it and that college will not solve that problem for me.
Lanham criticizes the unhelpful dictum to "be clear," echoed in most modern writing texts and courses. He argues that this advice, coming from academics who indulge in horrifically unclear prose, is hypocritical and furthermore misleading: there is no such thing as perfect clarity in writing. This misconception of thought as distinct from prose has underdeveloped our generation's clarity of thought as much as our clarity of prose. Thinking and writing go hand in hand; if you write clearly, you will think clearly, and vice versa.
All prose takes an implicit attitude towards its subject and towards its reader, and it is awareness of these attitudes that Lanham stresses. He recommends wide reading, of course, and reading at a pace that allows you to appreciate the meaning as well as the style of the prose. He insists that prose must be taught as something to be enjoyed, something playful, in order that it be written well. He further stresses reading prose aloud, in order to understand its natural rhythm and thus write rhythmical, appealing prose.
Lanham criticizes the unhelpful dictum to "be clear," echoed in most modern writing texts and courses. He argues that this advice, coming from academics who indulge in horrifically unclear prose, is hypocritical and furthermore misleading: there is no such thing as perfect clarity in writing. This misconception of thought as distinct from prose has underdeveloped our generation's clarity of thought as much as our clarity of prose. Thinking and writing go hand in hand; if you write clearly, you will think clearly, and vice versa.
All prose takes an implicit attitude towards its subject and towards its reader, and it is awareness of these attitudes that Lanham stresses. He recommends wide reading, of course, and reading at a pace that allows you to appreciate the meaning as well as the style of the prose. He insists that prose must be taught as something to be enjoyed, something playful, in order that it be written well. He further stresses reading prose aloud, in order to understand its natural rhythm and thus write rhythmical, appealing prose.
December 11, 2014
I found this book to be an excellent complement to texts used in the teaching of university composition courses. Lanham critiques some of the more popular approaches to composition, while offering a practical set of alternatives, well-illustrated from literary sources. He is not unkind to traditional approaches, but carefully points out their short-comings in a considerate way. When I first started reading the book, I thought this would be an excellent text to use in composition courses. However, as I read further, I could see two important things about Lanham's work. First of all, he was writing to instructors, not students primarily. His tone is conversational, but clearly directed to readers who are taking their time and not rushing to meet deadlines. Secondly, his examples are often extended, requiring patience to see points he is illustrating.
There are several books I have read recently that have contributed seriously to my understanding of how to teach composition. Lanham's is the one I felt I needed to write a review of; it is a necessary part of the composition teacher's library.
There are several books I have read recently that have contributed seriously to my understanding of how to teach composition. Lanham's is the one I felt I needed to write a review of; it is a necessary part of the composition teacher's library.
May 16, 2014
Yes, I am a geek who reads books about writing for fun. I adore Richard Lanham - he says all of the things that I think! Who can argue with a guy who recommends fun with language (as exemplified by Shakespeare) over everything else in creating good writers? Having read his earlier edition a number of years ago, I enjoyed the new edition which provided short updates at the end of each chapter, detailing how his thoughts had changed or not in the thirty years or so since he wrote the first edition. He also had a nice explanation (apology?) for his paint-by-numbers textbooks on achieving clarity - and he has a point, though he doesn't recommend that slash and burn, checklist kind of method as the best way of incubating writers, if you are going to do it that way, you might as well do it correctly.
May 22, 2013
The daily commute has never so soothed and exhilarated as, for this past week, in the company of Lanham's treatise. I gladly steeped in his prose, skirting decadence to contemporary ears but rich as well in humor--sanguine, surely--and in hope for a wider turn to play in academic writing.
Lanham meets his 1970s text as an old friend in this edition, appending to each chapter a few "afterthoughts" on how American prose and his appraisal of it have changed in the intervening years. A fascinating door ajar to one man's long and not entirely unpleasant struggle with "the prose problem."
Lanham meets his 1970s text as an old friend in this edition, appending to each chapter a few "afterthoughts" on how American prose and his appraisal of it have changed in the intervening years. A fascinating door ajar to one man's long and not entirely unpleasant struggle with "the prose problem."
September 7, 2016
A refreshing and anti-establishment approach to the teaching of writing, focusing on the idea that style, not clarity, should be of primary concern even for student-writers. It's a convincing argument, and should definitely be considered by college professors as a tool in the teaching toolbox, as it will liberate unwilling comp students from the sometimes stifling formality of traditional curriculum.
The book's main point is established early, so some of the later chapters seem less relevant and more forced, but that's a minor point considering the potential benefits of the method.
The book's main point is established early, so some of the later chapters seem less relevant and more forced, but that's a minor point considering the potential benefits of the method.
June 17, 2015
Richard Lanham wrote this classic treatment of prose style over 30 years ago. Instead of re-writing an updated edition, he has left the original text mostly alone and added updates to the end of each chapter, which allows us a glimpse at how things were then, and how they've changed -- for better or worse -- since. And it's breathtaking. Lanham's observations are absolutely hilarious! I laughed until I cried.
One of the best books on writing I've ever read, period.
One of the best books on writing I've ever read, period.
April 24, 2016
Not great, but mostly interesting
That pleasure in words should be the standard for writers was a unique concept to most college students when this book was written. Pleasure in giving the refer the emotional impact has been the standard for great writers since at least Ancient Greek times.
That pleasure in words should be the standard for writers was a unique concept to most college students when this book was written. Pleasure in giving the refer the emotional impact has been the standard for great writers since at least Ancient Greek times.
July 9, 2022
I enjoyed this one, and definitely want to read it again at some point.
Acquired 1996
Cheap Thrills, Montreal, Quebec
Acquired 1996
Cheap Thrills, Montreal, Quebec
September 17, 2009
Hard to read so far, but it makes an awesome observation about how America teaches literature, writing, and language in general.
June 26, 2014
lots of repetitions and contradictions. and his "putting-down" humor really should be toned down. despite all those things above, it's generally refreshing.
October 9, 2015
A bit dated, but still an interesting and informative read.
April 8, 2016
Uh huh. Don't ask. So relieved that we're done with it in class.
August 9, 2012
An interesting take on style.
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews