<p>
</p>
<p>Here’s the problem, skrlvr: The authors are not advocating that students “slavishly follow” these rules. Careless, lazy teachers probably do, but the fault is not with the book (as mafool sees).</p>
<p>And again, to acknowledge that the true keys to excellent writing can be hard to capture is not at all the same thing as to say that no one can really address, or should bother to address, the subject. </p>
<p>The book doesn’t seek to set itself up as an oracle.</p>
<p>Harriet- yes now that you mention it, it was something from the local alumni association that mentioned this as the book given for the award.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Pullum’s core argument is not that Strunk and White are overly prescriptive–that’s the nature of a textbook after all–but that they themselves were ignorant of “the rules” of basic grammar. </p>
<p>On the other hand, some of his criticisms seem like straw men. He harps on “Write with nouns and verbs, not with adjectives and adverbs,” which clearly means “young writers often use too many adjectives and adverbs.” And, descriptivist or not, it seems strange to uphold 19th-century fiction writing as the model for 21st-century academic usage.</p>
<p>I just have to say that I love a message board where people argue about grammar and about books about grammar.</p>
<p>^^^ +1, Missy!</p>
<p>I love that English is such a polygot and never has been subjected to a royal academy to bless the proper. And doesn’t English have more words than any other? Just a terrific language to keep arguing over.
I also love that there seems to be an unending variety of ways to stand in the batter’s box and hold a bat, and still be a major league hitter. And amazed by all the odd ways retail clerks can hold pens and still have hand writing much better than mine.</p>
<p>Missy, you’ll love [Grammar</a> Discussion Board](<a href=“http://www.grammarmudge.cityslide.com/grammardiscussion.html]Grammar”>http://www.grammarmudge.cityslide.com/grammardiscussion.html).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>D13 is in her first year of track, doing high jump. We marvel that there can be 15 girls and 15 different ways to get over the bar.</p>
<p>Should we really take these authors and their maxims as exemplars of good writing, when they state in their own text that something should happen, as a rule, but they really mean that there are times when they should be followed and times when they shouldn’t? Is this clear writing? Why insert the phrase ‘as a rule’ when they really mean something else? How is this effective? The presence of such a phrase leads very easily leads to a law-like, strict interpretation. Putting this phrase in seems to reinforce the rule-like aspect of the maxim itself (such a condition must be followed), and not the ‘there are times to do it and times not to’, which you are arguing is how it should be interpreted. </p>
<p>And when readers of such a text follow what they say, in a rule-like fashion, because the writers themselves have inserted such a phrase (as a rule), then the readers and users of the text are the ones who are faulted, and not the writers, because the writers really didn’t really mean it is ‘as a rule’?</p>
<p>There are better ways to express many of their suggestions. As MarathonMan88 points out, it is true that beginning writers often use too many adjectives and adverbs in their prose. Why not say exactly that? Instead we get ‘write with nouns and verbs, not with adjectives and adverbs.’ Does that really clearly mean ‘young writers often use too many adjectives and adverbs’? Or does it clearly mean not to use adjectives and adverbs. The phrasing suggests the latter.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh my gosh, there really is such a thing! I dare not - I might be swallowed up and never come out. Plus, it would probably take about 5 minutes for that crowd to peg me as a lawyer. Being a lawyer has ruined my writing, I know…but it pays the bills!</p>
<p>skrlvr, you’re an academic, and a person with a decent sense of humor (or at least you’ve exhibited one elsewhere on CC). Part of me thinks you’re ■■■■■■■■, but I’ll play along.</p>
<p>You take issue with the phrase “as a rule.”</p>
<p>The familiar English idiom “as a rule” means “usually.” For example, “As a rule, Mrs. Cleaver, I don’t like shortcake, but yours is delicious!” (Though we really shouldn’t trust <em>that</em> source, should we?) “As a rule, I don’t get drawn into arguments online, but for something I’m passionate about, I’ll make an exception.” That there are other ways to say this - “generally speaking” or “most of the time” or “more often than not” are close - doesn’t make this way wrong, or unclear to speakers of English. </p>
<p>It’s another way of emphasizing that these rules are not unbreakable, not of emphasizing their “rule like aspect,” as you put it. </p>
<p>Overall, the writers are not speaking to an audience of fifth graders, or English Language Learners. They’re not speaking to high school students either, though sophisticated high school students and those with good teachers can certainly hear and understand the book. They’re not really talking to YOUNG writers so much as they are ASPIRING writers, some of whom are young and some of whom aren’t.</p>
<p>Why not say exactly what - “beginning writers often use too many adjectives and adverbs in their prose”? Is that what you’re suggesting? Well, it certainly would be appropriate in a book for fifth graders. The Elements of Style isn’t a school grammar text. The maxims are meant to be pithy and memorable; the explanations that follow offer examples and elaborations. Have you actually read what follows “Write with nouns and verbs”?</p>
<p>Taken alone, without the explanatory text that follows, “Write with nouns and verbs” might confuse. Read in context, I doubt it. Unless someone’s reading at a level that has trouble grasping the diction - or someone fails to bring any sense of humor to the book.</p>
<p>Do you honestly have issues with the following List of Reminders?
(I’m not using a quote block because I’m pulling them all out of context, just for listing purposes. This means that the witty examples and explanations are missing. I’d love to quote them all here.)
Place yourself in the background.
Write in a way that comes naturally. (If you’ve read it, you’ll know that this is followed in short order by “But do not assume that because you have acted naturally that your product is without flaw.”)
Work from a suitable design.
Write with nouns and verbs.
Revise and rewrite.
Do not overwrite.
Do not overstate.
Avoid the use of qualifiers. (Which, of course, White qualifies, with a joke.)
Do not affect a breezy manner. (“Well, chums, here I am again with my bagful of dirt . . . .”)
Use orthodox spelling.
Do not explain too much.
Do not construct awkward adverbs. (“Do not dress words up by adding “ly” to them, as though putting a hat on a horse.”)
Make sure the reader knows who is speaking.
Avoid fancy words. (This one contains some very clear and precise remarks about the difference between sticking foolishly to good grammar when good judgment is more important. Precisely the kind of thing that makes me wonder how much of this book some people arguing here have actually read.)
Do not use dialect unless your ear is good.
Be clear. (“Be obscure clearly! Be wild of tongue in a way we can understand!” :D)
Do not inject opinion.
Use figures of speech sparingly.
Do not take shortcuts at the cost of clarity.
Avoid foreign languages. (The explanation deals with exceptions.)
Prefer the standard to the offbeat. (The explanation follows with a discussion of new words, and pioneering vs. laziness.)</p>
<p>(I’ve definitely violated several of the reminders in this post.)</p>
<p>It’s possible to think that Strunk and White is a pithy and sometimes wise style guide (even Pullum comes close to grudgingly conceding that) but a flawed and now outdated grammar.</p>
<p>Some of our younger lawyers make me crazy with their use of verbs as nouns…for example, when something is taught, it’s a “teach.” When money is spent on something, it’s a “spend.” (As in “our spends are getting out of hand”.)</p>
<p>MarathonMan88, I’ve already said I agreed that it was flawed in at least two posts so far. I’ll go for three if you like. FLAWED.</p>
<p>My issue is with people rejecting it out of hand. (And with one or two of Pullum’s choices of constructions to harp on.)</p>
<p>And the grammar is not wholly outdated - many constructions go back centuries and will go forward at least a while longer.</p>
<p>missypie, right - it’s the opposite of that wonderful Calvin observation, from Calvin & Hobbes: Verbing weirds language. :D</p>
<p>“You can wordify anything if you just verb it.” (Don’t remember which comic strip that is from. Get Fuzzy? Garfield?)</p>
<p>I love E B White. I’ll read most anything he wrote.</p>
<p>But then, I also enjoy grammar books. (I love knowing which rules I’m breaking.)</p>
<p>I think that Harriet’s, (and White’s, of course) fluid, supple prose (not to mention humorous, subtle style) illustrates precisely why S and W, though FLAWED, is worth reading, and why the cranky didacticism of pedants like Pullum is often not. Theorists like that are always hung up on “but you ssssaaaaaid that was a ruuyuulllle!–caught you!” Ich.</p>
<p>I think that it’s important to consider the audience for Strunk and White—high school students and college freshmen. I think all of us can agree that the advice “be clear” would be helpful for about 95% of teenagers!</p>
<p>I have always liked the book. I have found, when struggling with an essay, that a return to the principles in The Elements of Style definitely enhances the essay.</p>
<p>I must confess, in spite of everything stated in defense of the little book, that I don’t find it particularly helpful and I very much dislike the way it is misused by teachers, proofreaders, etc. who use it as a bludgeon. So I am not unhappy to see it criticized. I also have a completely unsubstantiated suspicion that E of S is the Bible used by the scorers of the SAT writing section.</p>
<p>Mafool: it certainly wouldn’t surprise me to find out that Strunk and White was used by the SAT writing scorers. Back when there was a separate SAT2 for writing, my daughter took it and scored a 6 on her essay section. Since she’s quite a competent writer, I told her I thought she could do better and asked her about her essay. She’d written quite a charming essay (from her description), but not a standard essay at all. I advised her to retake the test, using a standard five-paragraph essay with intro, 3 body paragraphs (one for a literature example, one for a history example, one for a personal-experience example), and a close. She scored a twelve (the maximum score). My son then used the same formula for a twelve on his essay section.</p>
<p>Bland and boring seems to rule when scoring SATs. Oh well.</p>