An Unforced Approach to Design
While it's common to commend a writer for having a "natural style," there's some ambiguity built into the idea of "natural writing" that requires further investigation. The word "natural" conjures up images of ambiguity. Although the Food and Drug Administration, which tightly defines our food language, authorizes producers to brand products heavy in salt, sugar, fat, and all manner of preservative chemicals natural foods, it is a popular moniker for both foods and styles.
One of the many names we use to describe English prose and poetry is "natural." The Aristotelian categories of high, middle, and low are echoed in the styles. During the 19th century, we talked about the anxious (or powerful) style and the feeble; there are also the dry (simple), neat (elegant), and florid styles. It is common for commentators to use terminology from multiple stylistic groups interchangeably. There are those who would term it "plain"; nevertheless, others will argue that it is more ornate than "plain," which in turn is more ornate than "dry." This mismatch of words demonstrates the subjective nature of style evaluation to the average reader. Throughout the ages, reviewers have always agreed on one thing: the best style is described as "natural," regardless of its qualities, while any style that offends them is referred to as "rude" or "affected."
The claim of modern literature that it established the plain, natural style as a reaction to twelve hundred years of writing and poetry in English is something we should know better about. Natural style has always predominated among our writers, and numerous critics have argued for it as the ideal mode of formal discourse since the Renaissance, regardless of how it is defined.
Aristotle's definition of high style is more precise, although English authors often think of it as formal, elevated, elegant speech. The low style, on the other hand, is both casual and coarse. In English writing, the extremes of high and low style have historically been reserved for specific purposes. Localized focus, such as humor or an abrupt shift in formality, can be achieved through the use of fads, but when they prevail, they are regarded faddish and out of step with the times.
The natural style, on the other hand, symbolizes a typical, average, comfortable, everyday style of language that can be used in a variety of contexts. For one thing, it's difficult to define what constitutes "natural" style because it's so subjective and ambiguous. Even though we are eager to characterize modern writing as simpler and hence more natural, we tend to overlook that what is plain to one generation may appear hopelessly ornate or convoluted or self-conscious to its descendants.
Modern ideas of style equate decoration, whether in diction or syntax, with a past whose means of expression are no longer appropriate, therefore it is rarely questioned that natural diction is straightforward, brief, and accurate. No one can disagree that "expository prose" still prefers to be written in a straightforward manner. The high or elevated manner, even on the most formal of occasions, has lost its place in our own discourse. There are few instances in which we hear this kind of hyperbolic language used by our intellectuals and wits except in jest, and the closest we get to it may be in official documents or student papers that contain overly dense technical jargon that challenges the widely held belief that the primary purpose of language is for communication. Plays and novels, film and radio, and television all use the low style to represent speech. Only in the context of a critique has it played a significant role in expository writing in the past.
The phrase "natural" can be used to describe the most popular writing style at any given period, or it can refer to a style that is considered superior than the most popular. A further complication is the use of the term "natural" by certain reviewers, while others use it to describe writing that does not draw attention to itself. All critics, however, seem to agree on one point: until the twentieth century, the mainstream natural style of every age aimed at simplicity in diction and, perhaps to a lesser extent, the avoidance of elaborate and intricate sentences. This difference appears to be the most significant one. Critics and educators in modern English have added the goal of making every sentence shorter.
