Elements of Style

[Jamesaritchie]

A stupid article written by a stupid man.

[WeekendWordsmith]

 

I, like many, received my first copy of "Elements" back in '79 when it was assigned as part of the book list for a creative writing course. While my early college attempt fizzled out in my foolish desire to try and make a living playing my guitar, the book stayed on in my bookshelves.

It's been a very useful guide for thirty years now, through a later-revived Engineering degree and multiple opportunities for business writing since.

I don't believe the book was ever intended to be an iron-clad grammatical rulebook, but I do think it has certainly helped hone my awareness of effective writing.

So I find the article to be interesting, but nit-picky and a tad pompous. The best part was his allusion to Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide, so bonus points for that.

However, I'm afraid his primary tenet falls flat with me. There have been multitudes of writing guides which have come and then drifted off to anonymity while Strunk and White's book has endured.  There's a reason for that.

My $.02.

 

 

[WeekendWordsmith]

 

I, like many, received my first copy of "Elements" back in '79 when it was assigned as part of the book list for a creative writing course. While my early college attempt fizzled out in my foolish desire to try and make a living playing my guitar, the book stayed on in my bookshelves.

It's been a very useful guide for thirty years now, through a later-revived Engineering degree and multiple opportunities for business writing since.

I don't believe the book was ever intended to be an iron-clad grammatical rulebook, but I do think it has certainly helped hone my awareness of effective writing.

So I find the article to be interesting, but nit-picky and a tad pompous. The best part was his allusion to Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide, so bonus points for that.

However, I'm afraid his primary tenet falls flat with me. There have been multitudes of writing guides which have come and then drifted off to anonymity while Strunk and White's book has endured.  There's a reason for that.

My $.02.

 

 

[jrtomlin]

I was waiting for your reaction, James. *chuckles*

Jamesaritchie - 2009-04-17 11:01 AM

A stupid article written by a stupid man.

[jrtomlin]

I was waiting for your reaction, James. *chuckles*

Jamesaritchie - 2009-04-17 11:01 AM

A stupid article written by a stupid man.

[Lexi]

jrtomlin - 2009-04-17 10:25 AM Sorry, Lexi, but I think you are off base. It has nothing to do with the rules changing since publication. The author is a scholar who is quite aware of that happening and he shows with reference to works done BEFORE the publication of the work that the authors had a weak understanding of grammar. The problem involved, for instance, is not that they were wrong that passive is generally preferable to active, but that they didn't know what passive WAS and their examples of passive were simply wrong among other things. It isn't that passive has CHANGED. It hasn't. "There were a great number of dead leaves lying on the ground" wasn't passive when they said that it was. It wasn't passive 100 years before and won't be passive 100 years hence. Unfortunately, a lot of people will think that it is. This is one of the reasons you will see so many people come here with no understanding of these rules. This has nothing to change in the rules of grammar. Edit: "There were a great number of dead leaves lying on the ground" is a rather weak sentence and would be better revised. But that doesn't make it passive either.

I guess I should have made it clear that I didn't quite agree with the author of that aritcle.  My comment was about the way language and writing has changed over the years, not the rules of grammar.  As you said, "There were a great number of dead leaves lying on the ground" is a good candidate for revision.  That was my point as well.  Sorry for the misunderstanding. 

[Lexi]

jrtomlin - 2009-04-17 10:25 AM Sorry, Lexi, but I think you are off base. It has nothing to do with the rules changing since publication. The author is a scholar who is quite aware of that happening and he shows with reference to works done BEFORE the publication of the work that the authors had a weak understanding of grammar. The problem involved, for instance, is not that they were wrong that passive is generally preferable to active, but that they didn't know what passive WAS and their examples of passive were simply wrong among other things. It isn't that passive has CHANGED. It hasn't. "There were a great number of dead leaves lying on the ground" wasn't passive when they said that it was. It wasn't passive 100 years before and won't be passive 100 years hence. Unfortunately, a lot of people will think that it is. This is one of the reasons you will see so many people come here with no understanding of these rules. This has nothing to change in the rules of grammar. Edit: "There were a great number of dead leaves lying on the ground" is a rather weak sentence and would be better revised. But that doesn't make it passive either.

I guess I should have made it clear that I didn't quite agree with the author of that aritcle.  My comment was about the way language and writing has changed over the years, not the rules of grammar.  As you said, "There were a great number of dead leaves lying on the ground" is a good candidate for revision.  That was my point as well.  Sorry for the misunderstanding. 

[jrtomlin]

I originally thought you disagreed with the author. Now you say that I was wrong and you disagree -- and since that is what I thought I really am confused.

Frankly, I agree with him. I always found Elements of Style at best a flawed in many respects. Saying that sentences are passive when they aren't and other errors simply do exist in it.

Sure that sentence is weak and a candidate for revision. But it's not passive. If it were even close to the only error that would be one thing, but it's not. Mind you, there are a lot of good grammar guides out there. Learning grammar is, in my opinion, essential, but I don't think you can do it from Essentials of Style.

[jrtomlin]

I originally thought you disagreed with the author. Now you say that I was wrong and you disagree -- and since that is what I thought I really am confused.

Frankly, I agree with him. I always found Elements of Style at best a flawed in many respects. Saying that sentences are passive when they aren't and other errors simply do exist in it.

Sure that sentence is weak and a candidate for revision. But it's not passive. If it were even close to the only error that would be one thing, but it's not. Mind you, there are a lot of good grammar guides out there. Learning grammar is, in my opinion, essential, but I don't think you can do it from Essentials of Style.

[mammamaia]

but I don't think you can do it from Essentials of Style

...since you're so sensitive to their mistakes, jeanne, don't you think you should at least get the title of their book right?