Laughing at the World Around You

If you tell a joke and nobody laughs, was it still a joke?

How sure are you that your answer to that question is right? What is the definition of “joke”? That question broadens out. Does humor necessarily make you laugh? If you laugh, does that mean the object of your laughter is humorous?

It doesn’t take long to start thinking of examples of things we call humorous that do not actually induce laughter. Dark humor, for example, may not make you laugh out loud. That doesn’t bother us, we just say, “I am laughing inside,” which, when you think about it, is a rather odd thing to say. You actually don’t LOL as much as you LI. What is laughter? The definition of laughter is also rather tricky. Even if you spend a couple days puzzling this out in a hotel in Indianapolis, you may well still not have an answer.

So, let’s change the question: does it matter why we laugh? If you know anything about philosophers or the academy, it will not surprise you to hear that people have been wrestling with this question for a few thousand years. There are a surprising number of theories of humor and laughter. Enter Frank Buckley.

He begins his book The Morality of Laughter with an anecdote. The purpose of this anecdote is to explain why Buckley, a lawyer, is writing a book about laughter. As you read it, ask yourself: is this anecdote funny? Do you laugh at it? Is it appropriate to laugh at it? If Buckley told you this story in person, would you laugh?

This book had its origin in an elevator at the University of Chicago law school, where I was a visiting fellow. On the elevator with me was Nobel laureate Ronald Coase, a founder of the law and economics movement associated with that school and with the law school where I now teach. The elevator stopped on the way down, and a U. of C. fundraiser stepped aboard with a donor in tow. “This is Ronald Coase,” she enthused. “He invented the Coase theorem!” Smiles, and a shaking of hands all around. “This is Frank Buckley…,” she continued. And in the embarrassed silence which followed I resolved to have a theorem too.

Did you laugh? Whether or not you did, was it right to laugh?

One explanation of laughter is that it is the response to something really surprising. In this case, you pick up a book on laughter and read the story of how the author decided to write on the subject and it is nowhere even remotely the genesis story you were expecting. That is funny.

Buckley doesn’t like that explanation for laughter, though. In the book, Buckley argues that laughter is always an expression of superiority. The laugher is asserting superiority over the object of laughter. If Buckley is right, when you laugh at his story about how he came to write the book, it is an assertion of your superiority. Over what? Presumably over the fact that this lawyer thought he could write a book on laughter than would in any way compare to the Nobel-winning work of Coase.

Is Buckley right? His thesis has both positive and a normative components. He not only wants to assert that laughter is by definition an assertion of superiority, but also that laughter is a morally correct assertion of superiority. He does note that it is possible to accept the positive thesis but not the normative thesis. Oddly, however, I am not enamored with the positive thesis, but I think he is onto something with normative thesis. Perhaps you should now laugh at me.

Buckley’s argument for the thesis originally struck me a rather bizarre. He asserts his thesis, and then tries to knock down any competitors by showing that they do not account for every possible thing that people find humorous. There is shockingly little actual argument for or even exploration of his thesis. It seems like it would be a rather simple matter to knock down Buckley’s thesis using the same sort of arguments he uses to knock down all the competitors. Why isn’t Buckley’s argument stronger? Then I remembered why. Buckley’s academic training is in law. This is a legal brief. He is not proving the truth (read: innocence) of his thesis, he is just raising reasonable doubt about all the other possibilities.

Consider one of the assertions. “All deadpan humor signals the wit’s superiority over those who fail to get it.” Indeed, the highest triumph is when nobody gets the joke; then you get to feel really superior to everyone. That explanation of deadpan humor strikes me as wrong. Who wants to tell a joke that nobody gets? The alternative explanation is that deadpan delivery enhances a joke by making the audience discover the joke themselves. The audience gets that surprise of realizing “That was a joke!” This is why the deadpan joke may fail if the teller of it laughs when it is delivered. If the listener doesn’t get that shock of realizing it was a joke, it may remove the humor.

How do we resolve which theory is the better explanation? I have no idea. Laughter is a ridiculously complicated subject.

When Buckley turns to the normative part of his thesis, I found myself admiring the clever framework of his argument. I don’t think all laughter is an assertion of superiority, but some laughter, even much laughter, is about the antics or misdeeds or absurdities of others. Buckley sets forth a taxonomy of the seven virtues which laughter is meant to reinforce. Deviations from these virtues can occur from either a deficiency or an excess of the virtue. We laugh at either extreme.

Here are the virtues, followed by the effect of a deficiency or excess of the virtue:

Integrity (Hypocrisy; Misanthropy)
Moderation (Moral Sloth; Priggishness)
Fortitude (Cowardice; Foolhardiness)
Temperance (Greed; Excessive Humility)
Grace (Clumsiness or Gaucherie; Excessive Finesse)
Taste (Vulgarity; Preciousness or Camp)
Learning (False Pedantry; True Pedantry)

What intrigues me about that list is that if you wanted to craft a comic character, all you would need to do is pick one of those 14 things and amplify it.

To take an example, cowardice is not really funny. But it is easy to imagine a humorous account of cowardice: the stereotypical person standing on a chair screeching about the mouse or the person acting as if some totally innocuous act is the most terrifying thing in the world. Laughing at these things is indeed an assertion that cowardice is something which is morally blameworthy. But, does the humor work because laughter is the assertion the superiority of the laugher or because it is unexpected that someone would be that terrified of something that is not inherently terrifying?

While I am not persuaded by the details of Buckley’s argument, the general impulse behind the book is entirely correct. Laughter is a good thing.

Why laugh? It is a healthy way to get through life. After watching Dr Strangelove again recently, I realized why. The subtitle of that movie is “How I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb.” The movie does indeed end with the nuclear annihilation of the planet. Is it a funny movie? I think it is quite funny, but there is truly nothing funny at all about the actual plot of the movie. So why the laughter? Well, what’s the alternative? Imagine we are all on the brink of annihilation and there is nothing we can do to stop it. What do you do? Well, you can worry. You can spend all your time worried about the fact that the universe is moving along outside your control and that other people are doing really foolish things to move us even further into disaster. But, what good is all that worry? Instead, why not stop worrying about the bomb and laugh?

Find the odd and surprising things in life and laugh. It is sure a much more pleasant way to go through life.

Third-Rate Heroes

Imagine a useless Superhero, that hero who shows up at the moment of crisis and you think, “Uh, not what I had in mind.” Yep, you just imagined Aquaman. The guy who can breathe under water and…talk to fish.

Quick, try to think of the crisis when you want Aquaman to come to the rescues. You fell off a boat into shark-infested waters? That is so low grade a crises, any superhero can get you out of that.

Aquaman has a reputation problem. He is, oddly enough, one of the Giants in the DC Universe. Part of the Justice League, no less. Yet, contriving plots where he has something to do means adding on an unnecessary underwater bomb or something.

He didn’t even have a particularly great beginning. The Submariner showed up in 1939 over at Marvel as the king of the seas. So, DC needed a King of the Seas, too, and Aquaman was born. But, while the Submariner was a gritty character, originally a villain who quickly became good, Aquaman was a guy in green pants and an orange shirt who called upon his “finny friends” to help rescue people from boats being sunk by Nazi submarines. It’s cute, like many a 1940s comic book. He even goes to college and reluctantly joins the swim team to help save the college from a mean alumnus who threatens to cut off funding if the school doesn’t win the next swimming meet! (Take note, you college graduates.)

But, once all the other superheroes started growing up and finding interesting things to do, Aquaman…well, there still was nothing for a guy whose biggest power is talking to fish can do. So, introduce Aquagirl and Aqualad and Aquababy! (No Joke. Aquaman has a son who is named Aquababy.)

Then you can feel the increasing desperation of the writers as Aquababy is killed off and Aquaman breaks with Aqualad and even Aquaman’s wife starts vanishing and turning against him. Ah, but he can still talk to fish!

You don’t have to take my word for it. In 1980, while fighting the bad guy of the day, Aquaman actually says this, spread out over a whole page:

Beaten? I know there are certain benighted souls who think I’m some kind of Third-Rate hero, scavenger—but I’d think that you—of all people—would know better!
But since you seem a bit confused—let me make this perfectly clear…
…I was in the world-saving game when people like Firestorm and Black Lightning were still in their Diapers…
I’ve worked Hard to earn the Respect and Trust of every living creature beneath the waves—and I take my job very seriously…
So get this through your head, punk…
I’m Aquaman, King of the Seven Seas…
…And I’m the Best!

Insert Cringe. I thought about analyzing all the ways that passage is cringe-inducing, but, well, it is just too depressing.

Alas, that was Aquaman’s high point. Soon thereafter he got a makeover to look more rugged…kind of like Jason Momoa. Then he lost his hand and started wearing a hook. Then he got a water hand instead of a hook. Then nobody was paying any attention to the fact that the issues just turned into lots of pretty underwater pictures.

So, what do we make of Aquaman? Well, despite the fact that we are the benighted souls who think about him as a third-rate hero, he has been continuously in print for 75 years and is still a part of the Justice League and recently got a high-budget feature length film. He even has a book praising his longevity: Aquaman: A Celebration of 75 Years. So, how does a guy like Aquaman do this?

Curiously, Aquaman is the Superhero who is most like the rest of us, the not-so-super types. Sure he has powers you don’t have—he can talk to fish!—but then you can do lots of things Aquaman can’t do. Imagine, for a second, that you are a unique individual who can so some things really well, but other things you can’t do at all. How should you live your life? Be like Aquaman!

What does Aquaman do? He sees things in the world which he can fix, and he does his best to fix them. He doesn’t spend time lamenting all the things he can’t do or all the problems he would be useless in solving. He just doggedly, unrelentingly, and unhesitatingly looks for things that need to be done and does them. Issue by issue of the comic book, you can laugh at the silliness of Aquaman, but issue by issue, you can’t help but admire the guy. Sure he is a third-rate hero, the scavenger of the Super-Hero World, but he is exactly what you would be like if you were in the Justice League.

The moral: imagine you live in a time when everything around you seems like chaos and there is absolutely noting you can do to fix all that chaos. (Really, try to imagine living in a time like that.) Now channel your inner Aquaman and ask what small thing you can do today to make the little corner of the world in which you swim just a bit better. You can do that. You can do that today.

Escaping The Pit of Despair

Sometimes a story just haunts you and won’t let go. This is not always surprising. If you really enjoyed a story, it makes sense that you will often remember it fondly. I know many people whose life seems to be one long pleasant reminiscence of Jane Austen novels.

But it isn’t these pleasant reminiscences I am discussing here.

There is another category of story which stays in the mind not because it aroused any particular strong emotion. The story lingers because it presented a puzzle, and you just can’t stop trying to solve the puzzle. Not like a “How does the farmer get the fox and the chicken and the bag of grain across the river?” type of puzzle. A puzzle about how to get out of a particularly messy situation.

The story that has haunted me: “The Strange Ride of Morrowbie Jukes” by Rudyard Kipling. It is a tale of a harrowing place from which there is seemingly no escape. The puzzle: How to escape.

Morrowbie Jukes is an Englishman in India who sets out into the desert and falls into a deep crater. On three sides, the walls are high and steep. When Jukes tries to climb the sand walls, they collapse and he slides back down. In the crater, there is a group of others who have been similarly trapped there. At one point, Jukes discovers that he is not the first Englishman to fall into this pit; the other died, probably murdered.

Now the sand walls are only three sides of the pit. The fourth side is a river. Cross the river and you can go on your merry way. Alas, the river is full of quicksand. But, there is a path across the river; you just have to know the path. Fortunately, this path is known. So, if you tread carefully, you can cross the river. Alas, if you try to cross the river, you find yourself being shot at by someone with a powerful rifle who is down the river a bit, out of sight from the people trapped in the crater.

Now, what do you do? You are trapped in a space with the ragtag and rather eerie group of people who eat crows and have dug narrow holes into the sand wall in which to sleep. So at least you can sleep in one of the holes that someone who died before you used if you are willing to crawl into a small dark space which may still contain a skeleton or two. You are faced with spending the rest of your life in this place unless you can figure some way out.

Morrowbie Jukes tries to find a way out. Over and over. Every new idea fails. Fortunately, in a bit of deus ex machina, his servant finds him without falling in and is able to thrown him a rope and drag him out of the pit of despair.  So, Morrowbie lives happily ever after and now we know about this place. (The story is written as if it is true; it is curious that neither you nor I are spending even a second wondering if it is true.)

What haunts me is trying to think of how to get out of that pit. What is weird is that I know I will never actually end up there, but I have this nagging feeling that I really need to figure out how to get out of it.

How bad is this problem? The Long-Suffering Wife of Your Humble Narrator and I went camping out on Cape Cod recently. I had read the story a month earlier. But there I was wandering down the beaches of Cape Cod, which are gorgeous, and staring at the sand dunes wondering how one could climb them if they were steep and high. Indeed, I started wondering how steep a sand wall could get; what is the maximum angle at which the wall will hold? How high would it have to be in order to prevent enough momentum from carrying you to the top? Is there a way to climb that would make it less likely for the cliff to collapse on you? Is this just a matter of percentages, so that if you do it enough times, eventually you will succeed? If you don’t know if it is possible, but think it might be possible, how many times would you try before giving up? A thousand? Ten thousand? If you spent all day every day trying to climb the sand wall, how many attempts would that be?

Yep. I spent a good chunk of time at Cape Cod imaging how to escape from a nonexistent crater in the desert in India. I am a bit concerned that the next time I spend myself wandering by a river, I’ll spend the same amount of time trying to figure out how to cross it if someone is shooting at me while I am trying to navigate a specific path to avoid the quicksand.

I think this means “The Strange Ride of Morrowbie Jukes” is a rather captivating story. Sure, it could be spun as an allegory for British Rule in India, wondering how England will ever extract itself from its Empire. Sure, it can be spun as a gothic tale of horror meant to alarm readers about the scary things that lie outside your safe civilized realm. Sure it could be spun as a pure adventure story.

But, none of those things are the big takeaway I have. I just want to go read a whole book about the physics of sand dunes.

Living with Aphantasia

Close your eyes and picture a house. What color is the house? Now picture a dog? What kind of dog is it? Now picture a member of your family, a scene from your favorite novel, and the last meal you ate. When you closed your eyes, could you picture those things? If so, congratulations. You have just done what everyone can do.

Well, not everyone can do that. I can’t. When I close my eyes, it’s all just black. No pictures. No mental images. I can’t picture a house or a dog or anything else. I just can’t do it. Now when I mention this to people, it is amazing how many people don’t believe me. “Surely,” they insist, “you can picture things in your mind.” It doesn’t matter how much I reply that I just can’t; it is really hard for most people to imagine that this is actually true.

It took me many decades to realize that when people said they were picturing something that they meant they were actually forming a mental picture of something. It is like they really do have a mind’s eye. So, I can understand why people have a hard time grasping that I can’t form a mental picture; I had the same problem figuring out that other people actually can picture something. As hard as it is to believe, some people (well, most people) can actually see a house when they try to picture a house. They can also actually see their family members when they try to picture them.

To answer the most frequently asked question: yes, I can remember things just fine. I can even describe things. I can describe my office or my house perfectly well even if I am not there. It is not that I cannot remember what things look like; I just can’t picture them. I can also recognize things I have seen before. I just can’t picture them in the time between the times I am seeing them.

As far as I can tell, the only effect on my ability to recall things is that I have to actually notice something in order to remember it. Since I am not terribly observant of my physical surroundings, this means I am unlikely to recall all sorts of details. If you stop by my office and then ask me later on what you were wearing, I am highly unlikely to know. I can’t picture what you looked like when you were in my office, so unless I made a mental note that you were wearing, say, a blue Mount Holyoke Sweatshirt, I won’t even know you were wearing a sweatshirt. Presumably, however, someone with aphantasia who was more observant would remember such things.

It has been this way for my whole life, so there is nothing weird about it. It is not like I used to be able to picture things and then stopped being able to do so. I have never been able to picture things. The only revelation to me later in life was that other people could.

Then a year or so ago, I was merrily reading a survey and one of the question was “Do you have Aphantasia (an inability to picture things in your mind)?” To say I was stunned is an understatement. I don’t ever remember being more stunned. I had no idea the inability to form mental pictures had a name.

Obviously Google was the next stop. The phenomenon of aphantasia was first described by the polymath Francis Galton in the 1880s. There has been remarkably little study of the matter, though that is changing of late. Right around the time scientific study of the phenomenon picked up, Blake Ross (co–founder of Mozilla Firefox) wrote an essay on Facebook describing his shock at discovering other people actually can picture things; the post went viral. Then a bit later on, one of the co-founders of Pixar announced he too had no mind’s eye. So, two famous tech guys say they have this condition, and instantly everyone knows it is real.

It even shows up in brain scans. When someone is looking at a picture, there is a portion of the brain that lights up. Take away the picture and ask the person to visualize something and the same portion of the brain lights up. Well, for most people that is true. For some people, the portion of the brain which is active when looking at something has zero activity when there is no object being observed.

So yeah, it is real. I truly cannot picture things.

Now, there the matter would have rested, but for the fact that in my Google search, I discovered there is a Book! Like a moth to a flame, I bought it. Aphantasia: Experiences, Perceptions, and Insights by Alan Kendle. This is where I really want to say that people with aphantasia write remarkable and amazing books about the condition. I really want to say something nice about this book. Sigh.

Kendle’s book is primarily just a whole bunch of verbatim answers that people gave to a whole bunch of questions. I have no idea how many people are included or even how the questionnaire was distributed. To say this is not scientific study would be an understatement. But, maybe we can learn something by looking at the statements of an unknown number of non-random people?

The questions start off on the right note asking people to describe what they see when they try to picture something (all the answers are variants of “Nothing”—no surprise, this was, after all, the selection criterion to be included in the book). But then, the questions start wandering off to see how the inability to form a mental picture is related to other aspects of cognition.

Over the course of the book, we discover that aphantasia causes people to be really lousy at school and to be really great at school. It makes it harder to memorize things and it makes it easier to memorize things. It makes fiction less enjoyable and more enjoyable. It makes it easier to do mathematics and it makes it harder to do mathematics. It makes you take more photographs and it makes you take fewer photographs. It makes your memory better and it makes your memory worse. It has a big effect on your work life and family relationships and it has no effect on those things.

I could go on, but you get the point. One might think from reading these answers that aphantasia has no effect on life. After the questions about whether you can picture things, there is not a single question asked in this book on which the respondents have even remotely the same answer. There is no reason to assume, for example, that people with aphantasia are any better or worse at learning mathematics or foreign languages than a random cross section of the population.

That leads to the revelation I had when reading this book. Someone who cannot form mental pictures discovers that most everyone else can do so. There is even a name for the inability to form mental pictures. And suddenly every single other hardship or personal preference can be attributed to having aphantasia. If you like reading fiction, hated mathematics, and spend lots of time taking pictures, well, those things are because you have aphantasia! If you have trouble at work, but get along well with your immediate family, it is because you have aphantasia! If you are a superstar in your professional field, but are sort of monomaniacal about it, you guessed it, it is because you have aphantasia!

What is with the obvious intense desire to attribute every aspect of personality to a single thing? There is clearly a relief that the reason someone did poorly in school or has a hard time in relationships is because of this aphantasia thing. Kendle’s book is Exhibit A. He should have seen this set of answers and realized that there is absolutely no consistency in these answers and thus there is no reason to assume correlation.

I cannot picture things. That condition is described by the clinical term “Aphantasia.” And, that’s all there is to it.

The Power of Conversation

Cormac McCarthy is my answer to the question, “Which living novelist is most likely to be considered Great in 100 years?” He has a number of novels which are widely and justly celebrated. This isn’t about any of those novels. He also has one work which I rarely see mentioned anywhere, but is truly an amazing bit of art.

The Sunset Limited. The subtitle itself is curious. A Novel in Dramatic Form. If you glance at any page, it sure looks like a play, but calling it a play would almost certainly mislead a devotee of the theater. It simply doesn’t have the structure of what you would expect in a play. It is two people talking. That’s it. Just a long conversation. That does not mean a live production of The Sunset Limited would not be worth seeing. There is, in fact, a marvelous HBO production, starring Samuel L. Jackson and Tommy Lee Jones. That is what the industry would call an All-Star Treatment.

The plot, such as it is, is simple. There are two characters, identified only as “Black” and “White.” Black is an ex-con, working class man. White is a college professor. The conversation takes place in Black’s apartment in a run-down New York City tenement building.

Why, you ask, are these two men, unlikely to interact in any social setting you can imagine, sitting in Black’s apartment? Earlier that morning, Black was waiting at a subway station, when White dashed across the platform in an attempt to jump in front of The Sunset Limited as it raced through the station. He accidently leapt right into the arms of Black. Black brought White back to his apartment and the conversation ensues.

Black and White have little in common. Black is a rather devout Christian, who had a moment of conversion after a rather ugly fight in prison left him in the hospital. White is an atheist English Professor who has realized that there is literally nothing good in this world, no afterlife, and thus he welcomes the cold utter oblivion of death.

It is the idea of this conversation that makes this book so endlessly fascinating and rereadable. About 10 pages in, you realize this conversation is going nowhere, that neither man is ever going to be convinced by any argument the other one makes. These are two people with very firm beliefs. They know what they know. McCarthy plays scrupulously fair throughout; neither one ever gets the upper hand and dominates the conversation; neither one is set up as a straw man to be knocked down with the Author’s Message.

In other words, this is not a book to be admired because it proves that the beliefs of Black or White are correct. From the description above, you already feel an affinity for either Black or White, but at no point in this book will you feel like McCarthy has rigged the conversation so your side will obviously win or lose.

What does a book like this teach us? A great many small things and one very big thing. The small things are scattered throughout as the conversation meanders. The Big Thing: Conversation is Powerful.

The power of conversation is not that you might convince someone to agree with you. Sure, conversation can do that sometimes, but if the only goal of every conversation you have is an attempt to persuade the other person you are right, then you will never experience the real power of conversation.

The power of conversation is not that you will enjoy talking with other people who believe the same things that you do. Sure, conversation can be an echo chamber and it is nice to hear your own views echoed back. It can make you feel right and virtuous. But, if you only talk with like-minded people, then you will never experience the real power of conversation.

The real power of conversation comes when you talk with someone with whom you disagree and you know at the outset that nobody is going to be persuaded and you just let the conversation flow wherever it goes. You can’t win a conversation like that. The goal is simply to learn and to enjoy the process of learning. The goal is to experience a mind different than your own and to probe that mind while that mind is probing your mind. The conversation lays bare what you really believe by exposing all the things you thought you believed, but in articulating them to someone who disagrees, you realize that you don’t really believe that after all. The conversation fine tunes your beliefs and forces you to realize what are the non-negotiables in your own mind. The conversation teaches you things and ideas you had never encountered before and constantly shows that the world is a wider and richer place than you ever imagined.

I was about to write “that sort of conversation is dying, if not dead.” But, truth be told, now that I am having this conversation with you, Dear Reader, I realized I am not sure that sort of conversation was ever vibrantly alive. People probably have always tended to talk with people who are like them. The lack of actual conversation is just now more evident when the Echo Chambers have a very loud presence on the internet. Watching people standing in one echo chamber screaming about people living in different echo chambers is terribly dispiriting and depressing and dismal.

The Sunset Limited is this like the light on the front of the titular train. It shines a light into the dark places of the tunnel in which we all live. It gives us the choice to either stand in front of the train or get out of the way of the train. Does life have meaning? Is there a purpose to our acts? Why are you here?

Read The Sunset Limited for the same reason you should enjoy conversations with people with whom you disagree. You’ll enjoy it and you will learn something. I have no idea what you will learn; that is part of the joy of a good conversation and a book like The Sunset Limited.

Writing With Style

The first sentence I ever wrote has never been reproduced in a book demonstrating the highest points to which the English Language can attain when deployed by a Master of the Pen. The second sentence I ever wrote suffered the same fate. Total oblivion. Even I don’t remember these sentences. Presumably they were not very good. Presumably not even my kind teacher was inspired by them.

Learning to put words on paper is a remarkable achievement. Let us not minimize how extraordinary it is that squiggly black marks on a page enable meaning to be conveyed between two minds. (“Squiggly” is a technical term.) Writing as a Civilizational Advance is worthy of Great Praise and perhaps an Epic Poem or Two. Writing as practiced by the bulk of humanity? Using another technical term: Ugh.

Consider my first sentence. Presumably something like “The ball is red.” Efficient, to be sure. But, you might not want to read 500 pages written like that. So, once the idea of writing is mastered, a growing child is taught style. As it turns out, the untutored write remarkably poorly. Nouns, verbs, conjunctions, gerunds, tenses, vocabulary, all must become part of the writer’s toolkit. The process of stocking said toolkit is painful. You remember those days. You are not fond of them.

Then, a remarkable thing happens. Stocked with these things, the child, now a teenager, begins to deploy them indiscriminately. Long, impressive sounding words are thrown forth as if from a trebuchet. Yeah, like that. “Trebuchet” looks impressive, right? Sentences end up wandering off into the void that has no name but the darkness induces a somnolescence in the grader who will hopefully fail to be aware that the string of words misses a verb or said object has no connecting tissue. The mind lulls. What was I saying?

Eventually, along comes those hideous “grammar books.” They contain The Rules. You resented those rules. They cramped your style. And, as we know, your style was the Most Impressive Style Ever. The fact that you used words improperly, your sentences lack cohesion, your paragraphs did not cohere, your essay was merely a stream of consciousness which ended merely because you hit the minimum number of words for the assignment, well, none of that mattered because it was Your Style. Your benighted teacher gave you a low grade because your foolish teacher just didn’t like the way you wrote. Writing is a matter of personal taste. You like run-on rambling streams of consciousness! Well, as long as you are the author. Obviously when other people try it out, you cannot understand what they are saying.

If you are lucky, at some point your teacher handed you a copy of Strunk and White. Or Orwell. They had style rules. Simple and direct ones. Use short words. Use active voice. Delete unnecessary words. If you did this, your prose became good. Efficient. All that use of flowery ornamentation to mask the substance (of lack thereof) in your sentences was eschewed. Instead, a reader could understand what you wrote. Win.

I have heard tell that students used to learn how to write well in high school. That era predates me. Now, most students do not write well. They need Strunk and White. They need those rules. But, before we start complaining about the young’ins, let us note that their Elders are even worse. Pick up an academic journal sometime and admire the utterly abysmal nature of the prose therein. Current professors are among the worst writers ever.

But, imagine you are someone who has mastered those rules. You are someone who understands why active voice and short words are good. You know how to convey meaning in an efficient manner. What do you do now? You have a choice. You can continue to write efficiently, conveying meaning directly. This is not a bad option; the world needs more people who can do this. But, you could also buy a copy of Farnsworth’s Classical English Style and be amazed at the possibilities.

This book should come with a warning label: Not for those who have not learned to write efficiently. In the wrong hands, it would inevitably lead to even more of the overwritten prose beloved by the “Look at all the Big Words I am using” crowd. But, in the right hands, it will teach someone how to write like Lincoln or Churchill.

Great English Style is born of learning how and when to break the rules. The tension of this fracture of the rules is capable of lifting prose into a work of art. You can’t break the rules at random to pull off this feat. You must break them just so. Farnsworth’s book is a compendium of Just Sos. (That looks weird. But, so does “Just Soes.” What is the plural of “Just So”?)

Consider the short versus long word debate. Short words tend to have Saxon origins. Usually one syllable and brutally direct with harsh consonants. Longer words tend to be Latinate. Mellifluous and multisyllabic. If you have to pick one and always use it, go with Saxon. Your prose will improve.

But, what happens when you mix Latinate and Saxon words? Here is where Farnsworth comes in. Imagine a sentence that begins with Latinate words but has a Saxon finish. The idea begins in the ethereal realms, your mind dwells in those lofty plains, then it crashes to earth. Example? Lincoln: “I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free.” The contrast of sharpness of the end after the lightness of the beginning gives it force.

Go the other way now. Start short and end in a beautiful panorama of vibrant vocabulary. It releases the tension built by the first part of the sentence, lifting it up. It is particularly effective at describing the good in short direct words, and then the villains in haughty terms. Lincoln again: “Did we brave all to falter now—now, when that same enemy is wavering, disserved, and belligerent?”

Once you start seeing the patterns, you can deploy them to great effect. Lincoln: “To meet and overthrow the power of that dynasty is the work now before all those who would prevent that consummation. That is what we have to do.” Or Churchill, who loved to mock his opponents with Latinate flourishes “He did not run away, he executed a strategic movement to the rear,” or “At 4 o’clock this morning, Hitler attacked and invaded Russia. All his usual formalities of perfidy were observed with scrupulous technique.” Brilliant.

To take another example from Farnsworth, consider sentences. Style guides like moderate sentence length, straightforward structure, and active voice. The result? A sentence designed to be as efficient at conveying meaning as possible. It creates an easy-to-read sentence which the reader can follow without too much effort.

If you want to see a really good example of this, start a blog and get the Yoast add-on that evaluates your prose for Search Engine Optimization (SEO for the obsessed blogger). It is cute. You get a green light when the search engines will like your post, a yellow light when it gets a bit frustrated, and a red light when your prose is too awful for the search engine to want to bother figuring out what it is that you are trying to communicate. It really likes simple structure, few subordinate clauses, short paragraphs and a relatively conventional vocabulary. The idea here is that people reading things online (and many people only read things on-line) have short attention spans and thus need prose that is simple, direct, easy on the eye, and not too difficult to follow. Long wandering sentences with ornate style are verboten.

Now contrast that to Great Prose. Farnsworth has a fascinating graph comparing the sentence length deployed by Oliver Wendell Holmes and William Rehnquist. The average sentence length is the same. The variance? Rehnquist’s are all roughly the same length. Holmes has both much longer and much shorter sentences. That contrast, a very long sentence followed by a short sentence or the other way around, has a remarkable effect on the prose. You notice it. It is a way of drawing attention to what is being said.

Similarly, while active voice makes a sentence forceful and direct, at times, you want attention drawn to something other than the actor. Jefferson knew this when writing the Declaration of Independence. “All men are created equal” and so on draws attention to people. That is the point. “God created all men equal” would draw attention away from those declaring independence, muting the forcefulness of the declaration.

A post like this could go on and on. The book is 145 pages of examples of all sorts of rhetorical devices. Things I never knew had a name—Anacoluthon being one which is much overused in this here space. Or this supremely excellent piece of advice: when you use hyperbole, exaggerate boldly.

I picked up this book because I saw multiple mentions of it when it first came out as being a most amazing book of style. The reviewers were right. I have never enjoyed reading a book on writing more. Indeed, it makes me want to go read other books of style, which is both high praise and I am afraid will inevitably lead to some rather disappointing reading in my future. Your future is brighter. You can click on the picture of the book cover above and buy a copy of Farnsworth’s book. If you care about writing, you will love it.

Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial