In this concluding passage from his essay
on style, Schopenhauer emphasizes the importance
of brevity, but not the “false brevity”
of some of his contemporaries.
He also calls out subjectivity in style, especially
among German authors, thinking here especially
of Hegel and the Kantians.
Good writing should be a dialogue, in which
clear style is all the more important because
the author cannot hear the reader’s questions,
but must anticipate and answer them as he writes.
Schopenhauer concludes by noting that poor
style reflects poor thought.
The truth of their ideas should inspire authors
to write and rewrite until they achieve a
standard of clarity.
Here’s the text.
True brevity of expression consists in a man
only saying what is worth saying, while avoiding
all diffuse explanations of things which every
one can think out for himself; that is, it
consists in his correctly distinguishing between
what is necessary and what is superfluous.
On the other hand, one should never sacrifice
clearness, to say nothing of grammar, for
the sake of being brief.
To impoverish the expression of a thought,
or to obscure or spoil the meaning of a period
for the sake of using fewer words shows a
lamentable want of judgment.
And this is precisely what that false brevity
nowadays in vogue is trying to do, for writers
not only leave out words that are to the purpose,
but even grammatical and logical essentials.
Subjectivity, which is an error of style in
German literature, is, through the deteriorated
condition of literature and neglect of old
languages, becoming more common.
By subjectivity I mean when a writer thinks
it sufficient for himself to know what he
means and wants to say, and it is left to
the reader to discover what is meant.
Without troubling himself about his reader,
he writes as if he were holding a monologue;
whereas it should be a dialogue, and, moreover,
a dialogue in which he must express himself
all the more clearly as the questions of the
reader cannot be heard.
And it is for this very reason that style
should not be subjective but objective, and
for it to be objective the words must be written
in such a way as to directly compel the reader
to think precisely the same as the author
thought.
This will only be the case when the author
has borne in mind that thoughts, inasmuch
as they follow the law of gravity, pass more
easily from head to paper than from paper
to head.
Therefore the journey from paper to head must
be helped by every means at his command.
When he does this his words have a purely
objective effect, like that of a completed
oil painting; while the subjective style is
not much more certain in its effect than spots
on the wall, and it is only the man whose
fantasy is accidentally aroused by them that
sees figures; other people only see blurs. ...
A man who writes carelessly at once proves
that he himself puts no great value on his
own thoughts.
For it is only by being convinced of the truth
and importance of our thoughts that there
arises in us the inspiration necessary for
the inexhaustible patience to discover the
clearest, finest, and most powerful expression
for them; just as one puts holy relics or
priceless works of art in silvern or golden
receptacles.
It was for this reason that the old writers
— whose thoughts, expressed in their own
words, have lasted for thousands of years
and hence bear the honoured title of classics
— wrote with universal care.
Plato, indeed, is said to have written the
introduction to his Republic seven times with
different modifications.
On the other hand, the Germans are conspicuous
above all other nations for neglect of style
in writing, as they are for neglect of dress,
both kinds of slovenliness which have their
source in the German national character.
Just as neglect of dress betrays contempt
for the society in which a man moves, so does
a hasty, careless, and bad style show shocking
disrespect for the reader, who then rightly
punishes it by not reading the book.
