Posted on Facebook as well as here:
Is there any living non-fiction writer whom you would recommend for the quality of his or her prose alone, regardless of subject? Is there a Newman of our time? Not in absolute quality (highly unlikely) but commanding a similar regard? Preferably not someone who specializes in rich descriptions or taut narrative, as in "creative non-fiction," but one mainly interested in ideas.
I'm looking for someone I can learn from. From whom I can learn.
I would name David Bentley Hart, whose prose I find absolutely delicious, but I have heard that he is not to everyone’s taste.
Patrick Leigh Fermor, who died in 2011, was a wonderful prose stylist. His writing is graceful and intricate. He published mostly travel memoirs; all those I’ve read have been excellent.
Go to your nearest academic library and browse back issues of Granta.
Check out the essayist Chris Arthur. His writing tends to the observational, and I think that at times he overwrites, but I really enjoy his style overall, even when he’s writing on something I’m not all that interested in.
Haven’t heard his name. I’ll look for something.
I’m surprised to hear you recommend Granta, Art. I subscribed to it back in the ’80s, maybe only for one year, and really didn’t care much for it. It exhibited much of what I find objectionable or tiresome in the literary world, though the writing was good. I recall it being mostly fiction, though. The only non-fiction piece I remember involved violent homosexual S&M perversity. The writing was good but I’m not sure I ever finished it because it was so creepy.
DBH is probably a good choice, Craig. I’ve liked some of his essays but the only book I’ve attempted is Beauty of the Infinite and as we’ve discussed before it involves such a thick jargon that I can’t say whether it was good prose or not. I gave up on it fairly quickly. I have his Experience of God but haven’t read it yet.
Oh, and Joseph Epstein’s very good. He’s more straightforward and less of a stylist than Arthur, but he’s always a pleasure to read regardless of the subject.
I agree about Patrick Leigh Fermot. I love his trilogy about walking to Istanbull – Constantinople. Its a favourite of mine.
If its Idears you want Hart is the way to go
Yes, Epstein had occurred to me. I’ve only read a few essays and they were good, but relatively light.
A collection of DBH’s essays, mostly, I think, from his ‘Back Page’ column in First Things, has recently been issued under the title A Splendid Wickedness. It might be a nice source for short pieces.
Fermor has been sort of on my radar for a while, mainly because of near-adulatory articles in The New Criterion, but I’m not sure I would ever have gotten to him.
It’s not ideas for their own sake. Those are pretty easy to come by but good writing about ideas, and in general non-narrative writing isn’t. Beauty of the Infinite sort of traumatized me, really. It is currently functioning as part of a stack of un-needed books devoted to raising my Roku to a point where it can receive the wi-fi signal consistently.
There’s also an older collection of Hart’s essays called In the Aftermath, which is excellent.
I was reading something just the other day and thinking how well-written it was and I’ve been trying to remember all day, and can’t. It is driving me crazy.
I wonder if I dreamt it.
AMDG
Patrick Leigh Fermor is definitely good writing, but not particularly about ideas (at least not that I’ve noticed).
I don’t think there’s anyone currently writing about ideas whose prose strikes me as exemplary. I will be interested to see the replies, to find out what I’m missing out on.
I agree that Fermor’s writing is not about ideas in the strict sense; he is writing about his travels. But his reflections on the history and character of the places he visits are thoughtful, and not much, I think, escapes his notice.
Part of what provoked the question is that I’m re-reading Newman’s Apologia. First time was many years ago, and it’s remarkable. So it’s not strictly an ideas book, but not strictly a memoir-sort-of-thing either.
I do not recall anything like that in Granta. I was reading it most frequently ca. 1992. Perhaps a new editor. The non-fiction which comes immediately to mind was a piece by Gabriel Garcia Marquez on a rainstorm and a piece on some Russian clergy.
You might try Glas: New Russian Writing which has translated Russian literature. There are like publications I used to know of which I cannot recall by name and which have (by and large) gone under in print.
The individual writers I can think of are old and not producing a whole lot anymore (Midge Decter, Wendell Barry and Joseph Epstein to name a few). Berry has declined in my estimation in recent years.
If you’re willing to drop the requirement that the writer be living, I’d suggest hitting the library and just browsing the P-schedule near where you find Chesterbelloc. Not sure what the University of South Alabama has been collecting though (I’ve had the impression it was a vocationally-oriented school).
I agree with Art Deco about Granta – for the year or so that I subscribed I enjoyed it a lot. I recently read a book that was originally printed in Granta, and it is excellent – both well written, and full of interesting Idears. Its by Ian Baruma, and its called ‘Murder in Amsterdam’. That’s the kind of journalism I remember from Granta. I stopped subscribing because I couldn’t afford it, then later I simply didn’t have time.
I’d guess it was about 1988 or so that I subscribed. I think it was only for one year, definitely not more than two. There was plenty of good writing in it, it just wasn’t stuff I much wanted to read. And it had that whole contemporary secular intellectual vibe that I find weirdly dispiriting.
Have you remembered yet, Janet?:-)
No! But I do remember that I was reading something non-fiction, which is a rare thing, and thinking that it was so well-written that I didn’t mind reading it.
But I’m going to go to bed soon. Maybe I’ll dream it again.
AMDG
John McPhee is very worthwhile, Mac. He is still alive but quite old so may not be writing any more.
On paper or online, Janet?
I’d forgotten about McPhee. Years ago (30+) I used to see rave reviews of his work but have never read him. I should definitely check him out.
I am of the opinion that only a classically educated person could write with the erudition of JHN.
Absolutely. Not only that, he would have to have been born no later than about 1850 or so. Actually you touch on the reason why I asked this question: reading Newman I think “Man, I wish I could write like this”, then “What can I learn from him?”, then “What would a Newman-class prose style in our vernacular be like?”
I don’t think such a thing is in fact possible, and of course it wouldn’t sound at all like Newman. But I’m interested in seeing just how good we (21s century English speakers) can be.
The Hedgehog Review, published by UVA, is a journal of ideas that is often astonishingly well-written, and is very sympathetic to Christians and conservatives.
I call it a “journal of ideas,” but it concerns itself more with the tangible things of the material world in history, rather than Mortimer J. Adler-style bloviation about the “Great Ideas.”
Most of its articles, btw, are available for free on its website. These include, in the most recent issue, a very fine long essay by Helen Andrews, who in my opinion fits the bill for the original question.
I’ve seen it advertised, I think in The New Criterion. Sounds definitely worth a look–thanks.
Most of John Lukacs’ books about Churchill, WWII, and the nature of history are worth reading. Its not ‘fine writing’, like Patrick Leigh Fermor, but its good writing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lukacs
I’ve read a bit of Lukacs in mags over the years and always wanted to read more. Apart from style, he seems to be a significant thinker.
One great prose stylist, who happened to influence John Lukacs, in addition to the Inklings and W.H. Auden, is Owen Barfield. (Not still living, I’m afraid.) He is reputed to be difficult; but he is a pleasure to read, even when you can’t understand him. The book History in English Words is a fun, accessible introduction, though very heretical in a few parts.
I recognize the name but that’s about all.
Im a huge fan of Lukacs, Mac. The way that he dramatizes WWII is hugely enjoyable.
Looking over his bibliography, I see several that seem to deal with the intellectual history of the 20th c. Those caught my eye rather than the history-history ones. In principle I’m very interested in history but when actually reading it frequently have trouble keeping track of what’s going on. Maybe Lukacs would be better.
I know what you mean. I don’t read a lot of history because I just forget it, and then I think what was the point? You don’t re-read history books like you re-read novels. But Lukacs’ books about Churchill and WWII are dramatized like a novel. They are more about character then facts.
Having said that, I love his books on the nature of history. If I were you, I’d go for the earlier ones. As he goes on, he repeats the earlier theses in a more and more telegraphed form. Don’t read anything from the past ten years. I have a friend in Hungary who knows Lukacs slightly, and the old historian is very forgetful these days.
Hmm, yeah, I see he’s 92.
“…because I just forget it…” It makes me really happy to hear you say that.
I have a kind of specialized problem as well, in that, if this is work, then I take notes, so I have a means of recalling need-to-know stuff. So with history books, I never know if this is need-to-know stuff, and I should be taking notes (because otherwise I forget), or for fun, in which case, why am I reading such a massively detailed factual book?
For Lukacs, I think the mid-period is the best.
Its one of the great features of Lukacs’ historical studies – he does not drown you in a ton of research you will forget before you get to the end of the chapter.
Roughly what years would you include in mid-period?
George Will
Hmm. Interesting choice. I’ve only read his columns and they’re well written but they seem kind of…constrained or something.
I’ve just finished A.N. Wilson’s After the Victorians, which is the first Wilson book I’ve read. He’s not a great stylist, exactly, but he’s a very good writer, and a pleasure to read.
There’s a volume of essays and addresses by John Lukacs called Remembered History which has a piece in it on the question of History as a literary genre rather than a social science. His Budapest 1900 was also a good read, but with the prospect of preparing a trip to Budapest as a utilitarian spur to getting through it.
Before starting the undergraduate History course at Oxford we were advised to read Gibbon and Macaulay. I can’t say I took to either of them, but I think the aim was to stop our essays from reading like textbooks.
In my own field the historians I’ve reread for fun, having already read them for work, are Geoffrey Parker, John Elliott, John Bossy, and Eamon Duffy, but there it’s not just a question of style but also appreciation for the sources they use and how they use them. John Bossy has recently died but the others are still living. They’re the only four (apart from my own friends and teachers – which maybe disqualifies John Elliott) that I would get excited about having a new book out, regardless of whether it was relevant to my work.
Or it might be Remembering History. It isn’t where I thought it would be on my shelves.
Found it: Remembered Past! (I knew there was something wrong with my memory of the title.)
I’ve read part of Duffy’s Stripping of the Altars, still mean to get back to it, but I don’t recall thinking that his style was more than readable. Which may be a mild compliment but is still a compliment for a fairly academic book like that.
Re George Will: I looked at his Wikipedia page wondering if there are any books where he stretches out in a way that his columns don’t allow him to. One of those early titles looks interesting: The Pursuit of Virtue and Other Tory Notions. I’m surprised to see that he describes himself “an amiable, low voltage atheist.” I had the vague impression that he was an amiable, low voltage Christian–Episcopalian or something.
Historcal Consciousness, June 1941, Hitler and Stalin, and The Duel were the ones I most liked.
I have read about a dozen and without my books here I honestly couldn’t remember which ones were the best – so I looked them up!
http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/bookman/article/john-lukacs-biblical-historical-thinking/
I think the whole symposium is good (unless memory fails 🙂 )
Driving home on Tuesday! YAAAY!
Re George Will: I looked at his Wikipedia page wondering if there are any books where he stretches out in a way that his columns don’t allow him to. One of those early titles looks interesting: The Pursuit of Virtue and Other Tory Notions. I’m surprised to see that he describes himself “an amiable, low voltage atheist.” I had the vague impression that he was an amiable, low voltage Christian–Episcopalian or something.
His daughter was baptized in 1980 or 1981. She was baptized in an Episcopal Church. I think he told an interviewer ca. 1985 that Mrs. Will was ‘Mediterranean’, though her maiden name (“Marion”) does not look to be Italian, so I’d guess that’s his side of the family. I seem to recall in one or another of his pre-1981 columns, he identified himself as a member of the Episcopal Church.
Most of his books are collections of columns. The first one (The Pursuit of Happiness and Other Sobering Thoughts is the best). I’ve looked at his monographs and bought one once. He was a master of the column. The monograph is just not his format. Re Charles Krauthammer, the magazine essay is his format; his column has never been that engaging. For John Podhoretz, the book review is his format; everything else he writes is dreck.
Statecraft as Soulcraft was derived from the Godkin Lectures he gave at Harvard in 1981 and previewed in The New Republic. It was also the occasion of his falling out with Buckley and National Review. Joseph Sobran savaged the book in a review and Will’s name disappeared from the contributors list.
His other monographs have included a book on baseball, a topical volume on presidential elections, and another work on campaign finance. He hasn’t attempted any scholarly writings since 1969. Statecraft as Soulcraft I think was his attempt at translated scholarly writings and may have derived in part from his doctoral dissertation.
The 1st Mrs. Will ejected him from the family home in 1987. A great deal of the wit in his column seemed to disappear at that point. Sometime about 15 years ago I wager he’d said everything he’d had to say, rather like Buckley after about 1990. The libertarian turn in his thinking in the last dozen years has been more annoying than edifying.
There’s a volume of essays and addresses by John Lukacs called Remembered History which has a piece in it on the question of History as a literary genre rather than a social science.
Just my $0.02: ‘social science’ is a misnomer because hypothesis testing is a modest part of what is done in those disciplines. “Social research” or (including tests-and-measurements psychology), ‘social research and the study of man’ is a more encompassing descriptor.
I have a kind of specialized problem as well, in that, if this is work, then I take notes, so I have a means of recalling need-to-know stuff. So with history books, I never know if this is need-to-know stuff, and I should be taking notes (because otherwise I forget), or for fun, in which case, why am I reading such a massively detailed factual book?
See Mortimer Adler’s How to Read a Book on inspectional reading and other short cuts. Per Adler, you give a book the attention it deserves, and not every book deserves a careful, line-by-line reading.
Its one of the great features of Lukacs’ historical studies – he does not drown you in a ton of research you will forget before you get to the end of the chapter.
The ton of research’s for the footnotes.
Ding a ling a ling.
Anne Tyler. I suspect all of her work is good, short fiction and novels (though The Accidental Tourist is over-rated). Dinner at the Homesick Restaurant is a fine work.
Art Dec, I’m 56, and I’ve been reading books for research most of my time since I was 19. It’s too late to change how I read, I’m afraid. I’m sure Adler’s book is admirable, but it’s too late to cure me.
Oh, that’s right, you wanted non-fiction.
I’m sure Adler’s book is admirable, but it’s too late to cure me.
Cure you of what?
Adler was 70 when the edition I own appeared.
Robert George and J. Budziszewski placed work with the defunct Spence house. You might be able to get it through inter-library loan (or perhaps the company which took over Spence’s assets is still vending their warehoused inventory).
Just read the University Bookman piece on Lukacs. Excellent.
Maclin, your clip is exactly how I feel about escaping from NYC! 🙂 No joke! I can’t believe its nearly over. It felt like it would never end. This must be some foretaste of the end of a million years of purgatory.
That’s a little shocking, really. It’s supposed to be the pinnacle of almost everything.
Well I a going to watch a movie for 52 Movies. I don’t feel like doing any work – I am too excited about going home to work. Is anyone down for French Connection? I thought of doing that one.
I don’t have strong feelings about the movie either way but I’m sure whatever you have to say about it would be interesting.
Someone who reminds me a bit of Joseph Epstein is Anthony Lane, one of the New Yorker’s critics. Has that same mix of humor and “deep” thoughts. Haven’t read him in a long time, though, since I no longer subscribe to the magazine. He did a piece on Evelyn Waugh that was very good, as I remember. I think he’s done just one book, Nobody’s Perfect, a collection of some of his New Yorker work.
Two essayists I enjoy reading are Theodore Dalrymple and Norman Podhoretz. Podhoretz is 86 now and doesn’t write much anymore (that I know of), but plenty of his essays can be found on the internet. A good example is “My War With Allen Ginsberg” (https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/my-war-with-allen-ginsberg/).
Dalrymple seems to be especially prolific right now, producing essays and blog posts at New English Review, City Journal, The Spectator and elsewhere.
I’m not sure either will satisfy your request. Although both are excellent writers, for me about 75% of the enjoyment comes from what they write, not how they express it.
I like Dalyrmple a lot. And he is a good stylist. I’m pretty sure I read that Podhoretz piece about Ginsberg a good many years ago.
Seems like I’ve read something or other by Anthony Lane, but I can’t remember specifically.
I like Dalyrmple a lot. And he is a good stylist.
I try to pay attention to his style. Lesser writers require 2 or 3 sentences to convey the amount of information Dalrymple packs into a simple, elegant one.
There is David Warren as well. Not sure what he has out in print. I’ve only ever read him online. Heather MacDonald is generally instructive, though I do not think the sort of stylist for which you’re looking.
I love reading David Warren online, but I don’t think he ever wrote a book. He is a consummate stylist.
I’m glad you are going home, Grumpy.
AMDG
Wow Yasaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaassy
I’ve settled on Hart and Lukacs as my near-future choices. As I mentioned earlier, I’ve read some of Hart’s more casual writing, and have The Experience of God but haven’t yet read it. I sampled it and it’s considerably more readable than The Beauty of the Infinite. Also I happen to be particularly interested in the subject at the moment. Lukacs I know only by slight acquaintance, reputation, and what y’all have said. But in his case also I’m very interested in the subject(s).
Thank you for all the recommendations. I hope to get to all these people eventually (the ones I’m not already familiar with).
I thought last night I should write a note and say the David’s first book the beauty of the Infinite is very very different in style from athe Experience of God It in his first book he wrote for an academic audience. Now he writes for the general public.
Seems like I heard or read somewhere that BotI was originally his dissertation?
I think so yes. PHDs have to be published, to get a job, but the intended audience is about 200 people at most. Either DBH’s The Beauty of the Infinite or my Christ the Form of Beauty or any other PhD into book book is not written for an ordinary human being.
I like Dalrymple and David Warren, but it occurs to me that I only read Peter Hitchens these days. I don’t have much time for other regular serious reading.
This blog is one of half a dozen I currently read and one of only two that I have read consistently for a decade.
But I do really like Anthony Esolen, when I stumble across him.
I don’t think I’m much of a critic on style, really, but I know what I like.
I also like Joseph Pearce.
Got a bad feeling about Joseph Pearce when I read a book of his that seemed to be just a re-hash of someone else’s, but have read some essays that were excellent.
I’m flattered that you have found this blog so worthwhile.
I admit I had some trouble with Christ the Form, too, Grumpy, but there were some great passages. Probably true if BotI if I would persevere with it. What I don’t get is certain words used in what seems to be a specialized way, but I have no idea what the special meaning is. I particularly remember “distance” in Hart’s book. An altogether unfamiliar word, like “ontic”, I can look up (well, actually in that case I would guess “ontological…something to do with being…” and read on). But a known word with esoteric meaning–I’m lost.
“true of” BotI, not “if”
Light On Dark Water 
Leave a reply to Paul Cancel reply