Great article! As someone who comes from a speechwriting background, I can comment a bit on the oratorical style. Namely, it is the sort of style that you ought to mix into your writing with some restraint—it is often best deployed for argumentative punctuation rather than persuasion.
While sentence level rhetorical devices such as parallelism and particulars are ubiquitously useful, the deployment of flowery rhetoric is best reserved for when you already have the reader largely on your side. Its usefulness lies in its ability to stir a sympathetic audience to action rather than compel an antagonistic one into agreement.
You can see this dynamic in, say, courtroom arguments, where despite being orally delivered, a closer will adopt a Classic or other stylistic tone to present facts of the case or discuss legal intricacies, reserving the rhetorical flourishes for the call to action of a verdict or opinion.
As an example, I think the ending of my Bees essay is a pretty close approximation to how I typically write oratorical rhetoric, and in some ways the entire essay builds to that finale (which was written somewhat early in the process). It’s fun and leaves a lasting impression, but you really gotta earn it.
Oratorical content is also, imo, a lot more work than the other styles. You have to pay attention to the rhythm and sound of words, and you can’t afford to have your reader stop and re-read a sentence in confusion since the kinetic energy is so important. It’s also highly audience-relative since you are trying to inspire specific emotions.
Unfortunately no. Though I did take a speechwriting class in college and am in contact with the professor. I can see if he has any resources—though much of that class was less on style per se and more on techniques.
Lessons/elements included:
1) A focus on function over content
2) Importance of theme as a unifying component of the piece (in a way that differs from how a thesis unifies a piece)
3) Rhythm, repetition, and parallelism as comprehension tools to make statements seem more “true” or profound or whathaveyou
4) Particulars (specific details) as vitally important, not mere set dressing
5) Use of rhetorical “problems” to drive audience motivation
6) Negation as a fundamental rhetorical technique
7) Brevity is not automatically better, the passive voice is great in many contexts if that’s what you need, and in general most english style guides are stupid and unhelpful for speechwriting (and writing in general, since many of these lessons are broadly applicable beyond speechwriting)
I’m planning to write some essays on the art of rhetoric covering the above at some point. Unfortunately, life has really gotten in the way of my substack publishing.
I read (and loved) Steven Pinker's A Sense of Style but I don't think the classic style should be used everywhere. IMO it definitely should be used more in academia though 🙈
Thank you for your kind words! Writing this was quite hard, and I'm glad you enjoyed it!
I agree that classic style should be used more in academia. EA writing too! Classic style constrains you to write timeless articles in clear prose, which is often valuable.
A specific failure mode I see in a lot of academic writing is hard to describe but something like "failure to take responsibility for your words." I think different (mature) writing styles avoids it in different ways. Classic Style avoids it through a sort of style purity[1]. EA writing, or at least the good ones, tend to have more "I"-first language. "I think, I believe, in my opinion, etc" (Implied, if you think/believe wrong things, you're responsible for your mistakes).
That said, EA reflexive writing styles also share some of the failure modes of academic writing, while adding other failure modes as well.
Great post! "The Elements of Style" is perhaps a bit out of date now but helped me a lot to develop a sense for good written style. Based on this article, I would describe what the authors are pushing for in that book as a mix between classic and plain.
Thomas and Turner thinks a lot of the style is actually implicitly practical! But they hide the motivating factors of the style's principles/commitments, so it's harder to see.
In a similar vein, I can recommend Raymond Queneau's Exercises in Style, in which he writes the same short story in 99 different styles, including Casual, Free verse, Gustatory, Philosophic, and Zoological.
Haven't read enough of him to know! Claude says he wrote Narnia in classic style, Mere Christianity in Classic style mixed with oratory, Screwtape Letters in ironic reflexive style, and A Grief Observed in a mix between reflexive and contemplative!
This suggests that CS Lewis was capable of (and employed) stylistic range, just as my essay advocates!
Great article! As someone who comes from a speechwriting background, I can comment a bit on the oratorical style. Namely, it is the sort of style that you ought to mix into your writing with some restraint—it is often best deployed for argumentative punctuation rather than persuasion.
While sentence level rhetorical devices such as parallelism and particulars are ubiquitously useful, the deployment of flowery rhetoric is best reserved for when you already have the reader largely on your side. Its usefulness lies in its ability to stir a sympathetic audience to action rather than compel an antagonistic one into agreement.
You can see this dynamic in, say, courtroom arguments, where despite being orally delivered, a closer will adopt a Classic or other stylistic tone to present facts of the case or discuss legal intricacies, reserving the rhetorical flourishes for the call to action of a verdict or opinion.
As an example, I think the ending of my Bees essay is a pretty close approximation to how I typically write oratorical rhetoric, and in some ways the entire essay builds to that finale (which was written somewhat early in the process). It’s fun and leaves a lasting impression, but you really gotta earn it.
Oratorical content is also, imo, a lot more work than the other styles. You have to pay attention to the rhythm and sound of words, and you can’t afford to have your reader stop and re-read a sentence in confusion since the kinetic energy is so important. It’s also highly audience-relative since you are trying to inspire specific emotions.
Thanks for this! Oratorical is the style I spent the least time investigating, so I really appreciate an experienced writer's takeaway!
Do you have a resource explaining the oratorical style, particularly with modern, English examples?
Unfortunately no. Though I did take a speechwriting class in college and am in contact with the professor. I can see if he has any resources—though much of that class was less on style per se and more on techniques.
Lessons/elements included:
1) A focus on function over content
2) Importance of theme as a unifying component of the piece (in a way that differs from how a thesis unifies a piece)
3) Rhythm, repetition, and parallelism as comprehension tools to make statements seem more “true” or profound or whathaveyou
4) Particulars (specific details) as vitally important, not mere set dressing
5) Use of rhetorical “problems” to drive audience motivation
6) Negation as a fundamental rhetorical technique
7) Brevity is not automatically better, the passive voice is great in many contexts if that’s what you need, and in general most english style guides are stupid and unhelpful for speechwriting (and writing in general, since many of these lessons are broadly applicable beyond speechwriting)
I’m planning to write some essays on the art of rhetoric covering the above at some point. Unfortunately, life has really gotten in the way of my substack publishing.
Really enjoyed this, very useful framing!
I read (and loved) Steven Pinker's A Sense of Style but I don't think the classic style should be used everywhere. IMO it definitely should be used more in academia though 🙈
Thank you for your kind words! Writing this was quite hard, and I'm glad you enjoyed it!
I agree that classic style should be used more in academia. EA writing too! Classic style constrains you to write timeless articles in clear prose, which is often valuable.
A specific failure mode I see in a lot of academic writing is hard to describe but something like "failure to take responsibility for your words." I think different (mature) writing styles avoids it in different ways. Classic Style avoids it through a sort of style purity[1]. EA writing, or at least the good ones, tend to have more "I"-first language. "I think, I believe, in my opinion, etc" (Implied, if you think/believe wrong things, you're responsible for your mistakes).
That said, EA reflexive writing styles also share some of the failure modes of academic writing, while adding other failure modes as well.
[1] Paul Graham describes it well: https://www.paulgraham.com/goodwriting.html
Great post! "The Elements of Style" is perhaps a bit out of date now but helped me a lot to develop a sense for good written style. Based on this article, I would describe what the authors are pushing for in that book as a mix between classic and plain.
Thomas and Turner thinks a lot of the style is actually implicitly practical! But they hide the motivating factors of the style's principles/commitments, so it's harder to see.
In a similar vein, I can recommend Raymond Queneau's Exercises in Style, in which he writes the same short story in 99 different styles, including Casual, Free verse, Gustatory, Philosophic, and Zoological.
oooh interesting...thanks!
Omg yay! Looking forward to reading this one!
Looking forwards to your takeaways!
This is very helpful! I'm afraid I've not paid much attention to writing style before, but I'll try to give it some more thought and work from now on.
Would you say CS Lewis wrote in classic style? I find he's one of those writers who is somehow so straightforward and yet delightful to read.
Haven't read enough of him to know! Claude says he wrote Narnia in classic style, Mere Christianity in Classic style mixed with oratory, Screwtape Letters in ironic reflexive style, and A Grief Observed in a mix between reflexive and contemplative!
This suggests that CS Lewis was capable of (and employed) stylistic range, just as my essay advocates!
I am offended that I was not mentioned in the prophetic style.
What's the favorite thing of yours that you've written in prophetic style?
This, perhaps, is the most obvious, however I prefer “the great attractor”: https://open.substack.com/pub/terminalvel0city/p/we-are-rapidly-approaching-terminal?r=j8wth&utm_medium=ios
The great attractor: https://open.substack.com/pub/terminalvel0city/p/the-great-attractor?r=j8wth&utm_medium=ios
Here’s the story of how Texas’ most infamous showgirl of the 1950s and 60s upended our lives and blessed us at the same time.
This is The life of a Showgirl
https://open.substack.com/pub/carolcountryman/p/the-phone-call?r=eyl56&utm_medium=ios