Comments on: Style Versus Substance

By: Gene Kieffer

Gene Kieffer — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 21:15:10 +0000

The problem with Dr. Jill Taylor’s book is that it doesn’t explain anything. That’s because she has a Ph.D. from Harvard, which turns an ordinary person with good common sense into an incorrigible, who thinks she knows something about her condition just because she’s a “brain scientist.” The only rational explanation for her “nirvana” experience is Kundalini. I don’t say her awakening was typical. Without knowing the important symptoms, such as Urdhava-retas (Sanskrit meaning reversal of the reproductive system), it still seems rather obvious that she had a spontaneous Kundalini awakening, which more or less caused the left hemisphere of her brain to “crash,” while simultaneously greatly enhanced the activity of the right hemisphere. This would account for the Nirvana feeling. Dr. Taylor needs to forget Harvard and read about Kundalini, preferably and insights. She needs to read a few books by Gopi Krishna, the man who introducee Kundalini to the West. If she were to take this advice, she might very well transform herself into a genuine world-teacher, which at present she isn’t. Rather, she is doing a disservice by speaking out like another Sarah Palin, misinterpreting an experience that could actually be Enlightening. Come on, Dr. Taylor, do it!

By: Jane

Jane — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 18:36:20 +0000

I agree with Christine’s point that non-fiction authors are not necessarily writers. They may have a good story to tell, but they often lack the writing skills to tell it. Enter the editor…except in My Stroke of Insight. Where was the editor when the egregious grammar and usage errors made it to the final manuscript? While Taylor clearly knows her neuroanatomy, she could have used help with subject-verb agreement (numerous examples of “each”and “neither” needing singular verbs), missing and/or misplaced punctuation, redundancy (“self-medicating themselves”), and pronoun-antecedent agreement. When I see on this blog “Shouldn’t the author’s message trump their style?”, I easily excuse the error because the casual writer is not being paid to ensure proper grammar and usage. Unfortunately, the lack of good editing is more and more the norm these days, and I deplore that situation. My enthusiasm for Ms. Taylor’s remarkable story was dampened by the poor writing and editing.

By: zibilee

zibilee — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 17:31:48 +0000

I had this experience not too long ago while reading The Weight of a Mustard Seed. The story the book told was supposed to be compelling and enlightening, but the writing was just atrocious. I just couldn't get involved with the book because I was in constant wonder at the horrible writing. At this point in my life, with as many books as I want to read, I just can't waste time on terrible writing, even if there is a great story lurking under there somewhere. zibilee’s latest blog post:The Neurology of Angels by Krista Tibbs - 284 pages

By: Stephanie Moore

Stephanie Moore — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 21:12:44 +0000

Great post!
I agree with monica tarzier here. Even if I don’t like the writing style, a good story can carry it. I love Dr Seuss as much as Dostoevsky- the two styles aren’t comparable. Bad prose is whatever distracts from the story- I don’t even want to see the words on my first read. I love the prose in The Thirteenth Tale- it’s totally my cup of tea.

Good prose/bad prose is a matter of personal preference. Sometimes, even when it comes to Literature we think it’s not right to just say “Look, this book just doesn’t do it for me”
Instead we try to show that the work is flawed. “Poorly written” is the first thing people say.

If you read the negative reviews on Amazon, especially for beloved classics, you’ll see what I mean. 750 people gave the book five stars, it has a Pulitzer, a Nobel but here is A. Smith from Indiana stating that it’s “poorly written” instead of “hey, I don’t like this style”

Also, I don’t think prose matters much in books like Lolita, The Thirteenth Tale, etc because they are written from first person p.o.v and the author is creating a person with their prose.

Stephanie Moore’s latest blog post:Notes and Pages: Best Music To Read To

By: EL Fay

EL Fay — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 17:38:03 +0000

Oh, I’m not saying all historians can’t write. I actually double majored in both English and History, so I know how prose has to differ between fiction and non-fiction. The point I was trying to make was, what should poor writers do instead when hiring a ghost writer just isn’t feasible?

A major problem I had with Peter Linebaugh and Marcus Rediker’s “The Many-Headed Hydra: Slaves, Sailors, Commoners, and the Hidden History of the Revolutionary Atlantic” was that it was TOO well-written in the artistic sense. I mean, it read like a novel and the prose was very passionate. It made the history aspect flow way more neatly than reality ever actually is. Of course, it was also a Marxist history (which I believe is falling out of favor), which basically puts everything in the context of class warfare. In other words, the bias was blatantly obvious and it read like propaganda. (“Oh, the poor, wretched proletariat! How they have fought! How they have suffered!”) I ended up not trusting it.

By: Serena (Savvy Verse & Wit)

Serena (Savvy Verse & Wit) — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 00:19:59 +0000

I think that without a style that captures my attention, the content will be lost. Serena (Savvy Verse & Wit)’s latest blog post:Mailbox Monday #23

By: MLO

MLO — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 02:08:40 +0000

I have to make a major exception to the idea that historians can’t write. Myself, I can’t stand what most English Lit types consider good literature. Historians have a completely different audience – people who need to support some very complex multifactorial arguments that will be lost in flowery language.

Please remember that the audience determines the type of writing. I have been a technical writer in my past. In technical writing, the style of writing is determined by the target audience. It doesn’t matter what is nicer prose if the point is going to get lost. Mass market non-fiction books have a very different style from those books written for the professional or serious amateur markets. I know that when I review non-fiction, I try to take into consideration who the book is targeted at. If the book I am reading is targeted at the serious amateur I am going to give much more leeway in terms of the niceties of prose. If the book is targeted at “the masses,” I am going to be more critical of the prose.

To sum up an overlong response, it depends on who the audience for the book is!

By: glumpuddle

glumpuddle — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 03:23:01 +0000

Poor prose can obfuscate the point, and not communicate. I love the history example above – and as a academic & theologian, I find much the same problem in my field. Sometimes people use a lot of big words and say very little of substance. Perhaps it is my engineering training, but I find I prefer clarity in prose even to beauty – though I am appreciating beautiful prose more these days.

By: Alyce

Alyce — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 16:36:45 +0000

I see that Karen beat me here – I was coming to tell you about the award that I gave you.
http://athomewithbooks.blogspot.com/2009/03/awards-roundup_28.html

I’ve been thinking a lot about this topic lately too. Escpecially since I just finished a self-pub book that had an excellent plot but terrible writing. I just can’t give the book a high rating because the writing was so poor that it was painful to read.

Alyce’s latest blog post:Awards Roundup

By: monica tarzier

monica tarzier — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 14:35:01 +0000

A fundamental question I believe we’re asking is, “what is a book for?” Or better, what is writing for? I see writing as only a tool, and perhaps that’s too narrow-minded a view, but then, there it is. I love elegant, beautiful, well-crafted tools, but to me that’s all they are. Writing evolved to preserve and transmit content (McLuhan to the contrary), and only centuries later did it become an art form.