I haven't read Fowler's original work, but I found the samples in this article to be hard to understand (i.e., a tad bit unreadable).
Still, as someone who runs a couple of services to help people write more concisely, I agree with most of his advice.
And although it has nothing to do with Fowler, the title of the article itself was confusing. I almost didn't click on it because I thought it was talking about personality, not writing (since it mentions "oneself," not one's writing). Then the double-negative.
A better title would be something like "On Making Your Writing More Readable."
But then it wouldn't be accepted for publication in The Paris Review, would it..."literary critics’ words" (!).
Still, as someone who runs a couple of services to help people write more concisely, I agree with most of his advice.
And although it has nothing to do with Fowler, the title of the article itself was confusing. I almost didn't click on it because I thought it was talking about personality, not writing (since it mentions "oneself," not one's writing). Then the double-negative.
A better title would be something like "On Making Your Writing More Readable."
But then it wouldn't be accepted for publication in The Paris Review, would it..."literary critics’ words" (!).