This book is puzzling. It's a contorted read that breathes platitude after platitude, but does more to demonstrate how to write obscurely than with clarity. At first, I thought the book was a satire, deliberatly using ambiguity, the absence of punctuation, and the lack of clarity to make its points. But, that's clearly not the case. The authors seriously believe they are about making "truth" clearer, but then fail to make a single argument to support any of its propositions. This is one of the worst books on style and clarity I've seen. Not only is it superficial, but its grammatical and syntactical mistakes are glaring. Do the authors know anything of punctuation? IF they do, they don't show it.

This book is unique in a useful and interesting way. I agree with the negative reviews, to the extent that the book's structure as a 'useage' description was more confusing than it needed to have been. And I agree with the positive reviews, to the extent that I also recognize the philosophical issues within forceful, memorable prose. Since few other books, and virtually no intellectual traditions, look at the issues involved here, the strengths of the book are more important than the failings within the structure and the rhetoric.
One can especially see that the authors are doing something very unusual when reading their discussions of Descartes. Most intellectual traditions and institutions prattle on about 'Descartes' Error'. In fact, criticism of Descartes is so common, I would suspect that there is a book on aerobics that is built around a criticism of Descartes. The error discussed is the way in which Descartes understood and located the certainty of objective knowledge. Certainly many of our worst problems derive from intellectual traditions that rely on Descartes' error--though it is always a question of the level of culpability, regarding Descartes and his users. This book asserts that Descartes' writing style exemplified an understanding that 'truth can only be understood within the context of the speaker and audience'. Descartes' Error ostensibly springs from NOT understanding this. The authors have strong evidence, and while I'm not necessarily convinced, at least they are swimming against the current in a way that abjurs glibness and rejects mainstream intellectual glibness.
Also worthy of praise is that the authors identify, describe and discuss at length the nature of classic prose vis-a-vis the nature of all prose. They are almost hyper-aware of the fact that classic prose can only say things in a very limited way, and that classic prose is not the only--and not certainly even the best--way to be eloquent. I'll certainly give a chance to anyone aware of the holes in their perspective, and I think it is worth it for others to give them a chance too.
The one concern is that the limits of classic prose becomes an excuse for the problems that arise from it. But a more positive view of relativism is fine here, because errors here are often benign, often recognized and addressed, and usually quickly and persuasively identified for the ignorant. I won't pull down an idea that can be exploited by scoundrels no more easily than a typical idea or view. Maybe, though, there isn't enough time in the book to the limits of classic prose made clear by the use of the word 'classic'--i.e., that ideas outside the 'classical' mainstream or the everyday mainstream can't be integrated into classic prose, or proven to be worthy of inclusion in the 'classics' through a defense written in classical prose. For example, I could never say 'classically', "Each man faces his culture as Winston Smith or Winston Rodney," because the eloquence of the statement can't make people more familiar with reggae music, and if you don't know much about reggae, Rastafarianism, or the artist Burning Spear (Christian name: Winston Rodney), then you can't understand or recognize the eloquence or cleverness or usefulness of the equation. Orwell's 1984, though, is almost too 'classically' prominent. How then do we expand the classics?

Contrary to other reviewers, I have found this book wonderfully useful. It was not written as a how-to book, but the style -- indeed the whole philosophy that the truth is both pure and simple -- is refreshing and enticing. While Oscar Wilde didn't believe it, neither did he believe half of what he himself said.

The writing is clear and pure. Classic style does not portend to talk down to the reader, but assumes that she is capable of understanding the concepts presented. It is a style to intelligently present information and ideas for the consumption of the intelligent. And, as the authors rightly point out, there are frequently other styles appropriate for other things. Unlike other books about writing style (the best of which is perhaps Williams' "Style"), this book does not give rules or advice, but simply observes and inspires.

To me, this book is the prosaic equivalent of Edward Tufte's books on visual design (and Robert Bringhurst on typography). I re-read these books regularly, and try to follow their intelligent examples.