Rules for writing?

I am very interested in rules for writing. I am seeking materials in which the author shares his perspective on what constitutes good writing, material that could be categorized into the same genre as Nietzsche's advice to Salome, George Orwell's 'Politics and the English Language, and Ezra Pound's 'A Few Don'ts by an Imagiste'.

Any recommendations? Preferably essays and lists.

(I'm tackling Strunk and White next, but I already know they will disappoint).

Referenced above:

brainpickings.org/2014/08/08/nietzsches-10-rules-for-writers/

orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit/

poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/articles/detail/58900

Other urls found in this thread:

curiosityquills.com/limyaael/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
brainpickings.org/2014/08/08/nietzsches-10-rules-for-writers/
pastebin.com/d9w3G0Ks
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Matters of grammar and syntax also fall into this request. Things of such a nature as 'never end on a preposition', or that 'however' ought to be postpositive.

curiosityquills.com/limyaael/

Ive always been told to keep my imagination "short" and have always found that to improve my writing for what its worth.

Oh geez. I'll be busy for a bit!

It's an amazing collection. Very easy to read and a lot of fun. It's my freaking bible. I'd marry that woman if anyone knew whatever happened to her.

i was at a talk last night given by marilynne robinson.
her advise for young writers:

>be authentic
>don't be trendy
>find your voice, it is probably not the voice you think/speak in

honestly such disappointing words from her

>advise
i'm fucking tired

...

What was Nietzsche's advice?

Rule 13: omit needless words.

can you elaborate a little bit? none of it is particularly original but i'm curious what you were expecting

read DFW essay authority and american usage

its more on grammar but its cool

Language is arbitrary; nobody can tell you anything.

Writing what you don't know isn't as bad as people will tell you. An outsiders perspective can occasionally bring something new to the conversation

Totally
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

brainpickings.org/2014/08/08/nietzsches-10-rules-for-writers/

I'll check it out. Thanks :)

That's a horrific way to think of language; the fact we can communicate at all is at least indicative of some sort of order.

Hell, the ancient world cared enough about grammar that Suetonius created biographies on the greatest grammarians of Roman history. We have fallen from that state.

It's not horrific, it's a realistic way to think about language.
If you are ignorant of the many dialects/variants each language has, you could be forgiven, or if you are not a linguist.
To think that the majority of speakers of any language use its standard norm is laughable.

The fact that we can communicate is a wonder and is only indicative of some sort of order constructed within our immediate surrounding (regional dialect). From some regional dialect, an arbitrary norm could emerge but that doesn't mean suddenly 100% of the speakers will start using it exclusively.

If you study historical linguistics or the history of a language, you'll see that many of the so called 'norms' today have emerged from the mistakes people made persistently.

You would understand what somebody is trying to say if they were to use 'could of' instead of 'could have', but is it grammatical? Not yet, but it might become. Or it might become a standard for only one variant of English.

I am willing to concede on a few of those points.

Nevertheless, the notion of arbitrariness, to me, seemed to indicate a notion of chaos, of non-communal grounding, as if a single person can generate nonsense and be understood. The arbitrariness spoken relates closer to a community-driven convention, but it still needs to be picked up by the community. Language which cannot communicate is useless.

Second, I think that there is an ennobling pursuit in trying to understand what the language-community thinks as 'high' communication. Rules, such as writing without concluding on propositions, may not be grammatically or syntactically etched in stone, but the elegance, perceived or otherwise, should be to which we aspire. Our thoughts are limited to our ability to express them; if we can express them beautifully within the confines of these rules, such as metrical rules for poetry, the thoughts, themselves, become even more beautiful.

I want to write and think beautifully, -
I am not a philologist; I am a logophile - and the pursuit of these rules is the pursuit of a transcendental.

I think stylistics would be more fitting to you than morphology, syntax, historical linguistics and the like.

Neat, I didn't realize that was a thing. Do you have any recommended reading in the field?

I'm also generally interested in the other fields as well, but stylistics would be the principal interest.

Sauce me senpai

>Galperin - English Stylistics
>Simpson - STYLISTICS: A resource book for students
>Leech - Style in Fiction
for starters

>This is all rather sad, don't you think? For poor Sokal, to begin with. His name remains linked to a hoax—"the Sokal hoax," as they say in the United States—and not to scientific work. - Jacques Derrida

pastebin.com/d9w3G0Ks

seconded, it's great, especially the exercises.

The ten rules for serious writers from A Reader's Manifesto.

>Be Writerly: If your writing is too natural, then there is no way it is scholarly.

>Sprawl: Content doesn't matter, it's all about size. Critics are impressed by big books, so brevity should be dismissed.

>Equivocate: If it doesn't make sense, there can always be a good excuse. Truth can always be distorted as long as it makes the writer sound good. For example, the plot isn't important because the lack of plot is what's important.

>Mystify: If people think that your writing is smarter than their writing, then they will respect your writing. If you sound smart (and definitely if you are published) then you must possess a brilliant mind.

>Keep Sentences Long: If the sentence is not long and boring, then it is definitely not literature.

>Repeat yourself: Repetition of words is important. If you don't mention your subject enough times, then the reader may not know what you are talking about. You may also use synonyms to show that you know how to use a thesaurus, and thus, must be an intelligent writer.

>Pile on the Imagery: Your writerly credentials will bloom to greatness if your ability to tie together multiple similes and metaphors like the wooden pieces of a Lincoln log set, never disintegrate from the fiery visage of the sun. The more literary devices that you can throw together, the better the writing.

>Archaize: If thine style of writing reflects an age long gone, and a world unfamiliar to the modern reader, then thou art indeed a master of the quill and the ink. This is very similar to rule number four, except you must write as if you are stuck in the past, rather than stuck in a dictionary.

>Bore: The word boring may as well be a synonym to the word scholarly. Along the lines of rule number one, you cannot write naturally, or make your words interesting. It is simply not scholarly. People are not supposed to be able to understand your writing, they are only supposed to realize that your writing is brilliant, because it just might be the cure for insomnia.

>Play the part: Remember to be as you write, scholarly, literate, practically a god. You must understand that when you seem smart, when you seem to believe in yourself, others will do the same, because, how could someone that is so smart and so pompous be wrong?

What do you mean 'short'?