>Recent debates on the competence of some writers (well known and
>less well known) raise a question in my mind: Does anybody know of
>a widely acceptable set of a few criteria which can be used to
>grade, or at least assess, competence and validity? Or are these
>qualities undefinable and mostly in the eye or mind of the individual
critical beholder?
>
>Schopenhauer held a strong opinion on this question (as he did on
>many others). I think that even people (like myself) who don't
>accept his main philosophical theory would readily admit the
>clarity of his style (overlong sentences notwithstanding) and his
>power of penetrating analysis. His opinion may therefore be of
>interest to list members, and I submit below my translation of a
>relevant passage. Isn't it interesting to see that some critical
>points made in 1828 seem to fit no worse in 2000?
>
>Greetings!  Rudi Borth  <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>SECTION QUOTED AND TRANSLATED FROM ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER's NOTEBOOKS
>included in Lorenz Trippel's selection "_Zusammenstellung aus
>seinen Manuskripten_", available at
><http://ecwww.eurecom.fr/~stoeckle/trlorenz/schopenhauer.html>
>
>
>In order to have a provisional estimate of the value of a person's
>intellectual production, it is not necessary to know _what_ or
>_what about_ he has been thinking; that purpose would require us
>to study all his works; rather, it is sufficient to know _how_ he
>has been thinking: and the accurate imprint of this _way of
>thinking_, of its actual _quality_, is _the style_. In a way,
>style shows the texture, the pervasive formal nature of all of a
>person's thinking which has to remain the same whatever or what
>about he may be thinking -- like a dough used to knead all his
>forms however different they may look. In his style we can see his
>intellect's pace and stride, its agility and ease or even its
>swiftness or soaring -- or, conversely, its clumsiness, lameness,
>stiffness and leaden nature. Eulenspiegel, when asked by a walker
>how much longer he had to walk, called to him: "Walk!" in order to
>estimate his speed and the time needed to cover a given distance;
>in the same way, reading a few pages of an author will give me an
>idea about how far he may be able to take me.
>
>All mediocrities, while quietly aware of this, attempt to hide
>their original and natural style (which would indeed look rather
>sheepish) under some assumed manner and affectation; for this
>reason, they are unable ever to write naively: but by this very
>fact they betray themselves. Naïveté is the stamp of originality,
>the stamp of genius. _Scribendi recte, sapere est et principium et
>fons._ [To write well, one has to think well. _Horace, Ars poet._]
>
>Using throwaway short ambiguous and still paradoxical statements,
>some writers want to create the impression of saying infinitely
>more than they actually know to say [...]. Others, under a torrent
>of words with most unbearable long-windedness as if wondrous
>efforts were needed to present their profound meaning, produce the
>most meager and senseless thought in the world [...].
>
>Everywhere in our ink-splashing times, we see the tireless intent,
>constantly tried in new ways, of selling words as thoughts. By
>means of words, new or newly used phrases, compositions,
>expressions of all kinds: to create an appearance of intellect or
>spirit [_Geist_] in order to hide its absence -- while intellect,
>if present, would make all such tricks unnecessary. It is like
>metal workers trying hundred different compositions as a
>substitute for the single metal gold which none of them can
>replace.
>
>To all of them applies Boileau's word: "Ils parlent toujours et ne
>disent jamais rien." [They talk all the time and never say
>anything.] Poverty of thought is the curse and the hallmark of all
>bad scribblers, whereas that of good writers is: "Ma pensée au
>grand jour partout s'offre et s'expose. Et mon vers (ma page) bien
>ou mal dit toujours quelque chose." [My thinking lies open to the
>light of day. And my poetry, good or bad, always says something.]
>
>The first (indeed by itself sufficient) rule of good style in
>writing is to have something to say.
>
>_(Manuskriptbücher 1828, Nr. 282)_
>
>