It would be great if you could give us an overview of what you’ve learnt, as a starting-point of further discussion.
Here’s a very broad, shallow overview:
Classical rhetoric is a lot like TVTropes, except the tropes have names like “tricolon” and “synechdoche” instead of “Sean Connery is Going to Shoot You”. If you’ve ever noticed a common device that speakers and writers use, it probably has a name in Greek. They serve purposes. You might read a draft of what you’ve written and think “this sentence sounds weak and lacks impact, but [rhetorical device] is bold and punchy, so I’ll construct one and stick it on the end”.
There’s quite a lot of material available on standard essay structures and essay types for different purposes, (exposition, persuasion, etc.) mostly directed at students. My prototypical “smart person” would probably find 70% of the content in one of these “obvious”, but I imagine the missing 30% would vary from person to person.
Grammar and linguistic knowledge are a powerful rhetorical tool. A really obvious example is the idea of the passive voice sounding evasive and blame-shifting, (e.g. “mistakes were made” rather than “Colin made a mistake”). Understanding the mechanics of sentences is useful in constructing them. I’m currently waiting for a textbook to arrive on this specific subject.
Poetic metre and scansion provide a very useful framework for describing verbal aesthetics. The rhythm of spoken and written words induce emotional and attentional affect in the reader. Nice collections of words sound nice, and people will want to read them.
Informal logic seems like a no-brainer, but is still worth mentioning. If you know what an argument is, it’s a lot easier to make one.
Also, I think it’s important to know what sort of quality writing you’re aspiring at. Good scientific writing is very different from good literary writing, for instance.
I want to present ideas both clearly and attractively. As an example, even when Scott Aaronson goes over my head, he’s still a pleasure to read, and my confusion about individual points doesn’t spill over to confusion about the whole piece.
Thanks. I like the Tolstoy reference above (every unhappy document is unhappy in its own way, etc) and think that this comment highlights the mechanism behind that: that there many different ways in which you can write badly: flawed arguments, poor language, bad structure, and so on.
I think that the best way to improve is detailed feedback. You can learn a fair amount from style books, but only so much, I would guess. Lots of the time, you don’t see what mistakes you are making, and need someone else to point them out.
It’s important that this feedback is precise: that it tells you exactly what you do wrong and what you could do better, on a sentence by sentence level, as it were. General and vague feedback is not at all as useful as it doesn’t tell you what to do in order to improve. I like Christian’s proposal below of a writing group where such feedback could be given.
For what it’s worth I think you’re already a very good writer, but of course everyone could improve. Including Orwell.
Regarding rhetorics I personally prefer texts that don’t include too many rhetorical devices such as personal stories, fictive dialogues, and so on, but which instead present the heart of the matter in a precise, structured, and non-roundabout way. Tastes differ here, however.
Here’s a very broad, shallow overview:
Classical rhetoric is a lot like TVTropes, except the tropes have names like “tricolon” and “synechdoche” instead of “Sean Connery is Going to Shoot You”. If you’ve ever noticed a common device that speakers and writers use, it probably has a name in Greek. They serve purposes. You might read a draft of what you’ve written and think “this sentence sounds weak and lacks impact, but [rhetorical device] is bold and punchy, so I’ll construct one and stick it on the end”.
There’s quite a lot of material available on standard essay structures and essay types for different purposes, (exposition, persuasion, etc.) mostly directed at students. My prototypical “smart person” would probably find 70% of the content in one of these “obvious”, but I imagine the missing 30% would vary from person to person.
Grammar and linguistic knowledge are a powerful rhetorical tool. A really obvious example is the idea of the passive voice sounding evasive and blame-shifting, (e.g. “mistakes were made” rather than “Colin made a mistake”). Understanding the mechanics of sentences is useful in constructing them. I’m currently waiting for a textbook to arrive on this specific subject.
Poetic metre and scansion provide a very useful framework for describing verbal aesthetics. The rhythm of spoken and written words induce emotional and attentional affect in the reader. Nice collections of words sound nice, and people will want to read them.
Informal logic seems like a no-brainer, but is still worth mentioning. If you know what an argument is, it’s a lot easier to make one.
I want to present ideas both clearly and attractively. As an example, even when Scott Aaronson goes over my head, he’s still a pleasure to read, and my confusion about individual points doesn’t spill over to confusion about the whole piece.
Thanks. I like the Tolstoy reference above (every unhappy document is unhappy in its own way, etc) and think that this comment highlights the mechanism behind that: that there many different ways in which you can write badly: flawed arguments, poor language, bad structure, and so on.
I think that the best way to improve is detailed feedback. You can learn a fair amount from style books, but only so much, I would guess. Lots of the time, you don’t see what mistakes you are making, and need someone else to point them out.
It’s important that this feedback is precise: that it tells you exactly what you do wrong and what you could do better, on a sentence by sentence level, as it were. General and vague feedback is not at all as useful as it doesn’t tell you what to do in order to improve. I like Christian’s proposal below of a writing group where such feedback could be given.
For what it’s worth I think you’re already a very good writer, but of course everyone could improve. Including Orwell.
Regarding rhetorics I personally prefer texts that don’t include too many rhetorical devices such as personal stories, fictive dialogues, and so on, but which instead present the heart of the matter in a precise, structured, and non-roundabout way. Tastes differ here, however.