Newman’s Rules for Writing

Having been exercised in recent months in review of E. O. Wilson’s pungent little book Creation, which proposes cooperation between Christians and secular humanists in the sphere of ecology, my thoughts have turned to the more fundamental matter of the differences between theists and atheists (whether the atheism is of the functional variety called agnosticism, or a matter of positive philosophical conviction) on what counts as knowledge upon which human volitional action can be based. Thus interested I returned to John Henry Newman’s classic The Idea of a University to review what the great man had to say about “theology as a branch of knowledge,” for it is precisely at that point, I believe, in Christian perception, where agreement between theists and non-theists must begin to break down. More on that, perhaps, and several other of Newman’s points on university education anon, when my own thoughts congeal a bit more, and I find time to write them down.

For now though, before I forget and omit to do it, I wish to pass on from my 1927 Loyola Press edition Fr. O’Connell’s transmission (p. xv) of Newman’s “Rules for Writing,” which the editor observes “seem to me to give the caution most needed by young writers, a guard against any form of verbosity.”
____________________

1. A man should be in earnest--by which I mean he should write, not for the sake of writing, but to bring out his thoughts.

2. He should never aim to be eloquent.

3. He should keep his idea in view, and should write sentences over and over again till he has expressed his meaning accurately, forcibly, and in few words.

4. He should aim at being understood by his hearers or readers.

5. He should use words which are likely to be understood. Ornament and amplification will come spontaneously in due time, but he should never seek them.

6. He must creep before he can fly--by which I mean that humility, which is a great Christian virtue, has a place in literary composition.

7. He who is ambitious will never write well; but he who tries to say simply what he feels and thinks, what religion demands, what faith teaches, what the Gospel promises, will be eloquent without intending it, and will write better English than if he made a study of English literature.

___________________

I will venture to add to this that I take Cardinal Newman to include in his caution against attempts at eloquence not reference simply to the florid effusion typical of his own age (I would put James Fennimore Cooper and Charles Grandison Finney forward as fine examples), but every age’s conceit of its gilding as art, its cliché as thought.

Comments

[Bill R]

Newman's rules are timeless, but no one would mistake Newman for a 20th century writer. His 19th century Oxbridge writing style would likely land him in trouble with many editors these days. The leisurely and occasionally convoluted prose of much 16th to 19th century English literature makes one appreciate how much such literature must have contributed to the cultivation of patience in the reader. But simpler is not always clearer. While I appreciate simplicity in writing, I would attribute much of it today to a decline in the literacy and attention span of the common reader. Thus much of what currently may be thought of as "spare" prose may simply mask shallow thinking.

[maggie]

I need to post these above my desk. Maybe in a frame. With a hammer next to it so I can pound them into my head when I have need (which is often...).

[labrialumn]

I am so thankful that Shakespeare and Tolkien did not heed such advice. Modern 3rd-reader level newspaper prose lacks all music.

[DGP]

>>I am so thankful that Shakespeare and Tolkien did not heed such advice.

I doubt the advice applies well to fiction, which is first about beauty and not about ideas.

[smh]

I do not see Newman's advice as inapplicable to literature, or productive of "newspaper prose."

We might test it against the work of Tolkien or Shakespeare to see if they transgressed: Did either of them lack earnestness, or show evidence in their writing of the attempt to dissimulate? Did they aim at "eloquence"? Did they characteristically lose sight of their literary goals and wander off into byways? Did they show evidence of the intention of not being understood by their readers? Did they use words unlikely to be understood by their audiences, or ornamentation that was not the fruit of intelligent deliberation? Would one wish to pursue the charge that they lacked the kind of humility or displayed the kind of ambition (unless making a decent living as a playwright is "ambitions") which concerns Newman?

I think it would be better to exonerate them from the charge of license and stick to Newman's rules than to suggest they made great literature by transgressing them. Great writers do not become that way by breaking the rules, but by showing us what they mean.

Your remarks, Labrialumn, show evidence of a good, modern education. I congratulate you for paying attention at school.

[Bobby Winters]

I am reminded of the advice from the father in A river runs through it.

"Shorter."

[labrialumn]

I have read Tolkien (and some Shakespeare - he is meant to be heard, not read)

Tolkien and Shakespeare certainly aimed at eloquence, and Tolkien definitely used words not well-known the readers not intimately familiar with the Oxford English Dictionary, philology, Old English, West Midlands dialect, and a number of invented languages.

As to your snarky comment, well, what's to be said to such things.

[labrialumn]

I'm sorry, that should be.

Tolkien used big words. Tolkien used strange words. Shakespeare used funny words.

There, that fits the dictum better, doesn't it.

[maggie]

Ever want to see a good example of the writing produced by ignoring those rules? Check out www.fanfiction.com. Young, eager, ambitious, mostly-poor writers trying to be eloquent.

Or maybe we should just follow the dictum of a prof. of mine: "A paper should be like a lady's skirt: long enough to cover the subject but short enough to be interesting." ;-)

[labrialumn]

Maggie,
I don't think that the typical poor quality of fanfic comes from ignoring certain of those rules - but rather from not having followed the advice of others, who say that one should fill ones' mind with -good- books. Well-written books, and not trash.

In the modern setting, if one forgets the historical context, Newman's advice becomes Dick and Jane all too easily.

And then people wonder why Americans hardly ever read for pleasure.

[Rob G]

"Tolkien and Shakespeare certainly aimed at eloquence..."

I'm not so sure about this; eloquence seems to me to be something that one doesn't aim at, but rather a thing that one achieves almost inadvertently in his attempt at writing well.

"In the modern setting, if one forgets the historical context, Newman's advice becomes Dick and Jane all too easily.

And then people wonder why Americans hardly ever read for pleasure."

I don't see how your first statement is true, or how the second one follows. But even if they are both accurate, I would fault "the modern setting" rather than Newman's advice. As Bill mentioned above, most people's attention spans are greatly reduced compared to those of our forbears, largely due to TV and video, IMO. When they read, they tend to read solely for plot; that is, they want their books to read like TV shows, and their nonfiction to read like talk radio. This, I think, confirms Newman's advice, which is at once a guard against verbosity and a way towards both intelligence and intelligibility in writing.

The idea that in Newman's advice there is some sort of pitch for the "dumbing down" of writing seems to me to be mistaken, and if those in the "modern setting" read it that way the problem is with that setting, not with Newman.

[Daniel Propson]

The complexity of sentences ought to be a function of the complexity of thought. Making things as simple as possible is obvious; but you cannot make them any simpler.

"Tolkien used big words" does not express the complexity of the original sentences. It is NOT simple; it is incomplete.

Rules of style will always be available for debate and disagreement because style is not a formula. Such rules are made to combat abuses in the style of others. In this case, Newman is criticizing those who are obsessed with writing in an ornate or flowery way, among others.

As no one has ever called Tolkien flowery, I imagine Newman would not particularly object to his writings.

[CAL]

What a great list by which to measure oneself. Thank you for posting this.

[ELC]

Does evident eloquence in an author's work necessarily indicate the author aimed at eloquence? I mean, is the result necessarily evidence of a deliberate attempt? I do not think so. It may well be that we can garner from other evidence (letters, conversations, whatnot) that Tolkien aimed at eloquence. ("I really tried hard to be eloquent in that passage.") But I think we are much too far from Shakespeare's time to be able to find any kind of evidence of what he aimed at, rather than what he hit.

[Michael]

Sometimes there are things we consider eloquent that are little more than a natural development of the author's natural voice. I often find that I write how I speak, albeit in a more refined matter. Is it unreasonable to think that Tolkien was given to descriptive poeticism, though not necessarily poetry, and his writing style was simply a refinement of his spoken diction?

The aphorism "write what you know" may apply not only to subject matter, but also to the way in which the matter is communicated. I know excessive use of adverbs, adjectival clauses and an underlying penchant for verbosity--the type that is natural, not forced, for this is how I speak--and my prose often comes out thus with a lyrical "lilt" (or so says a friend). On the other hand, my poetry is given to flowing from one image to another in lieu of sustained metaphors.

[ELC]

Well... this might complicate the issue. Google reveals that Newman Reader lists them as "Rules for Writing Sermons" not merely "Rules for Writing".

Newman Reader - Sermon Selection - O'Connell
http://www.newmanreader.org/controversies/guides/favorites.html

[smh]

Interesting. This explains Item 7 in particular, which seemed to be a bit out of place in a list of general rules of this sort. O'Connell, in his Editor's Introduction to the edition in my library, lists them simply as Newman's "Rules for Writing." I presume he left out "Sermons" because of their general application, and leave it to readers to use them as they see fit.