What does /lit/ think about The Elements of Style? Also recommend

It shouldn't be taken seriously. Style will always be style.

>>7385955
Writing Tools by Roy Peter Clark
On Writing by Stephen King

File: h.jpg (2KB, 100x74px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 100x74px

>>7386591
>Stephen King

File: 1438179223628.gif (2MB, 360x270px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 360x270px

>>7386591
>Stephen King

>>7385955
>What does /lit/ think about The Elements of Style?

trash

what book can i spend 2 hours reading to becoming a good writer

>>7385955
Absolute trash. It encourages you to write like Strunk and White. They encourage a minimalist prose style and eschew anything complex.

>>7386943

Shakespeare

>>7385955
helpful, especially for punctuation/grammar. it triggers me when this book triggers autists, who think conciseness is incompatible with complexity (>>7387082), and who think that you have to accept something wholesale or disregard it completely. also, On Writing is GOAT writing guide.

That's not a group those are peoples.

>>7385955
Autism incarnate. Beginners should read it with a grain of salt, but it does address common problems in bad writing. Stephen King's On Writing is less prescriptive and very good, oddly enough.

>>7387358
>On Writing is GOAT writing guide.
>>7386915
>>7386927

I'm not a native speaker so it helps a lot. I think the general tone can teach everyone, but I don't think it the majority of advices should be taken too seriously.

On writing is pretty useless for anyone who wants to be a serious writer.

this is a guy who doesn't remember writing cujo and wrote the running man in two weeks. his advice is basically "write a lot," which congrats steven, you did. too bad its all shit.

also, http://www.vulture.com/2010/12/stephen_king_ew.html

>>7385955
it's no good. this paper sums up the problems with it.
http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/LandOfTheFree.pdf

>>7385955
It's great for undergraduates who need a primer on writing clearly and concisely. It's not a bible, however, and you should deeply mistrust anyone who treats it as such.

I'm very fond of poets writing about writing. They don't treat it as some sort of mystical divining, and instead can concisely explain why one sentence is more beautiful than another.

Granted, their stylistic suggestions are clearly subjective, but there's something refreshing about seeing an artist plainly talking about their nuts-and-bolts decision making, as opposed to invoking pseudo-religious sources for their talents (Baxter's Bringing The Devil to his Knees, for example).

Both Voight's Art of Syntax and Pinsky's Sounds of Poetry are excellent. That said, I cannot vouch for and haven't enjoyed what little I've read of their poetry, so take it for what it's worth.

>>7386915
>>7386927
>>7387380
Plenty of literary authors loudly preach the gospel of On Writing, and for good reason. It's a fine, fine book.

>>7387461
>Plenty of literary authors loudly preach the gospel of On Writing
>Implying that being a literary author automatically makes you good.

>>7387429
>http://www.vulture.com/2010/12/stephen_king_ew.html
Best laugh I've had in years. Thanks.

It may be useful if you have to write a scientific paper.

>>7387461
>>7387498

Don't know if that's what I was implying.