Strunk and White's elements of style?

[Crusader]

i only heard of Strunk and White's The Elements of Style within the past few months. Apparently it is some sort of well-known reference for English written usage; i nodded and moved along.

However, in perusing a weblog administered by a professor of linguistics, i've read some very dismissive comments by that professor towards the book in general. The comments come in the context of corrections on specific examples of the book's rules, and so i was doubly surprised: once, that that any well-known reference book could be viewed that way by a linguist, of all people; then twice, that any well-known reference book could be accused of blatant error.

Out of curiosity, i looked tonight on Amazon.com's reviews for The Elements of Style. i found eight very negative ratings of two stars or less, plus four mildly negative reviews of three stars... out of 207 total reviews. The remaining 195 reviews were gushing with praise, leading me to understand at least how the book became well-known.

But still, as far as the professor's comments and critiques go, i'm confused. Who is right here... the Ph.D of the language, who states a compelling case for why the book is erroneous in places and flawed overall? Or the many, many satisfied and admiring teachers, editors, and writers who praise the book to high heaven?

[an hour later]

Ok, wow--serendipity strikes. i wasn't going to post this at all, then the weblog just now led to the professor finally opening full-bore on The Elements of Style.

* * *

Posted by Geoffrey K. Pullum at October 28, 2004 11:43 AM

[...]

Regular readers will be able to name my least favorite book in the world: it is Strunk & White's The Elements of Style, a horrid little compendium of unmotivated prejudices (don't use ongoing), arbitrary stipulations (don't begin a sentence with however), and fatuous advice ("Be clear"), ridiculously out of date in its positions on appropriate choices among grammatical variants, deeply suspect in its style advice and grotesquely wrong in most of the grammatical advice it gives. (Don't make me go on; if you want an hour-long lecture on the demerits of this beastly little book, that can be arranged.) One of the things that worries me about the number of Americans who seem to treasure this little piece of trash, now in its fourth edition since it was revived in the 1950s after E. B. White undertook a light revision of an earlier version by Strunk and added a chapter on style, is that they just don't realize how absurdly old it is — that it is pretty much not even a work of the last century, but rather reflects ideas formed in the one before that.

White agreed to revised [sic] and expand Strunk's little book for the reissue in 1959 because he already revered it. Strunk had been one of his professors at Cornell. He vividly remembered Strunk positively shouting vacuous slogans like "Omit needless words!" at him, and apparently he thought it was wonderful. The interesting thing is about when it was that White took that course.

Strunk had been born in 1869. That is, he was old enough to read the news when General Custer led his men to massacre at the Little Big Horn. Strunk was a grownup with a Ph.D. when Dracula was first published. By the time White was his student and had to buy the privately published precursor of what would become Strunk & White, the professor had reached the age of 50. It was 1919.

[...]

But what I'm saying about the extreme age of the outdated nonsense in Strunk & White can perhaps best be put like this: White's formative experience in Strunk's class was so long ago that the Red Sox had just won the World Series the year before.

Cited from:
itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/l...01604.html (http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001604.html)

Author's page:
people.ucsc.edu/~pullum/ (http://people.ucsc.edu/~pullum/)

[pepperlandgirl]

I'm not following the argument about how old it is. I'm supposed to allow him to discredit Strunk because he was born in the 19th century? In terms of the language and writing, that was practically yesterday!

You think Strunk was old? Let me tell you about this guy I heard of named William who was already 39 when Jamestown was settled! He died before the French-Indian War! In fact, he was so old that he never even heard of the Red Sox!

I'm sure there are compelling reasons to discount Strunk and White, and I don't have a dog in this fight since I'm the bad English major who doesn't even own a copy, but I think that he should really present a better argument than that.

[pianoman5]

Professor Pullum has a point. Strunk and White is pretty old, and many modern linguists have issues with it.

Of course, on his own blog the honorable professor can choose to mention or not mention what the hell he likes, but on tracing his credentials I noticed that financially he is not totally disinterested in this matter.

His rival publication The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (http://uk.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521431468) sells for UKP120, a cool US$230.

[Jamesaritchie]

The edition everyone uses was written in 1957, so it isn't all that old. It's also known as "The Writer's Bible," and it deserves the title. It's still used by the best writers and editors in the world, and this professor is an idiot with self-interest at heart. Just reading through what he writes should let anyone see that if anyone really needs "The Elements of Style," it's this professor.

Good writing remains good writing, and good style remains good style, and I don't know any major grammarians, writers, editors, or linguists who have issues with Srtunk & White. Outside a few with vested interests, or those who just like to be contrary, it's still the most recommended stylebook in the world, and for very good reason.

You can't go wrong using Strunk & White, and what was good writing and good style in 1857 remains good writing and good style today.

[James D Macdonald]

Wow! A cranky academic with a pet theory? Say it ain't so!

Look, guys, maybe Professor Pullum thinks that "omit needless words" is so obvious that it needn't be stated. The learned professor doesn't grade many undergraduate themes anymore, does he?

Here's the thing. Before you can disagree with Strunk&White, you have to be familiar with what they have to say. You have to understand why they're saying what they do. Only then can you decide for yourself if you can or should ignore their advice.

Or, try this: Go over to Fanstory.com and sign up as a reviewer. Spend the next four hours reading and commenting on the stories and chapters presented for review.

Then tell me how much you disagree with Strunk&White.

(Note for Professor Pullum: The Red Sox won the World Series in 2004.)

[Maryn]

We've all read stories, screenplays, and poetry online by wanna-be writers, right? If every one of them followed Strunk & White to the letter, and ran spell-check, the quality would be vastly improved. I'm guessing that something like 80% of the no-argument errors would be corrected.

As someone who critiques pretty often, "be clear" is advice that many beginning writers still need to hear.

The good professor sounds like a bit of an elitist snob to me. I'm good with words and dead serious about writing well, but I'd have to be brain damaged to drop $230 on his book. What's Strunk retail for, about ten bucks?

Maryn

[Crusader]

-I'm supposed to allow him to discredit Strunk because he was born in the 19th century? ... I think that he should really present a better argument than that.

i read the point as being "Strunk's perspective on English is severely outdated by the passage of time, and so a book written from that perspective is likewise outdated".


-Professor Pullum has a point. Strunk and White is pretty old, and many modern linguists have issues with it.

It would be interesting to find out why, if "many modern linguists" have issues with the book, there apparently isn't any obvious, formal movement by "all those linguists" to discredit it.


-You can't go wrong using Strunk & White, and what was good writing and good style in 1857 remains good writing and good style today.

It would be helpful to offer some evidence that the writing and style of 1857 are still in fact applied and applicable today.


-I noticed that financially he is not totally disinterested in this matter.

This statement borders on the appeal to motives fallacy. So i ask: are the financial interests of the critic relevant to whether the book itself has flaws or is flawed?


-... this professor is an idiot with self-interest at heart... Outside a few with vested interests, or those who just like to be contrary, it's still the most recommended stylebook in the world.

This combines the fallacies of argument ad hominem, appeal to motives, and appeal to majority. So i ask: regardless of any personal opinion of the professor, his motives, or the majority view, is it possible to identify if the book itself has flaws or is flawed?


-Wow! A cranky academic with a pet theory? Say it ain't so!

Clear example of argument ad hominem. So i ask: is this opinion of the professor relevant to the judging the book itself?


-(Note for Professor Pullum: The Red Sox won the World Series in 2004.)

Indicates a misunderstanding of context: the professor likely mentioned the Red Sox win in 1919 specifically as a bookend to the Red Sox win in 2004, in an attempt to put the entire discussion of Strunk's "outdatedness" into perspective. I.E. "Wow, this guy was teaching way back when the Sox won their previous title?"

* * *

In the interests of providing a better amount of material for readers to use in judging the professor's opinion, i collected a few of the relevant posts he made on the topic, along with shortened/truncated previews of each.


Posted by Geoffrey K. Pullum

... he is right, of course, that the so-called experts condemn the adjective. If you want to see what the very worst of the usage and style recommenders say, it is always a good idea to turn to Strunk and White's The Elements of Style first. Sure enough, on page 71 of the 4th edition, they say: "Write with nouns and verbs, not with adjectives and adverbs." As usual, moronic advice, and impossible to follow. And in the very next sentence they use adjectives themselves...

What do these writing experts think they are doing trying to take something as subtle as how to write well and boil it down to maxims as simple as the avoidance of one particular grammatical category?

Cited from:
itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/l...00469.html (http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000469.html)

* * *

Posted by Geoffrey K. Pullum

*Was it your father or your mother who broke his leg on a ski trip?
[nongrammatical example; boldface mine]

That is not how we say things in English. (The commonest way to get around the gender problem here is to use singular they: Was it your father or your mother who broke their leg on a ski trip?; Either the husband or the wife has perjured themself. Shakespeare used it; Jane Austen used it; loads of fine authors use it. Get used to it. And if you have a usage book like Strunk and White that declares singular they to be an error, throw that book away.)

Cited from:
itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/l...01362.html (http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001362.html)

* * *

Posted by Geoffrey K. Pullum

... what my undergraduate student's high school English teacher insisted on was that you should look at any sentence containing the subordinator that and see whether omitting it would leave the sentence still grammatical. If so, then you must omit it, this teacher said. She would grade you down if you ever used that where grammar did not absolutely require it.

[...]

But I think I know where it comes from. I think it originates in an elevation of a stupid mantra to the status of a holy edict. The mantra is "Omit needless words," stated on page 23 of Strunk and White's poisonous little collection of bad grammatical advice, The Elements of Style, and elaborated on by E. B. White in the reminiscences of his introduction. It could be interpreted in a sensible way as a piece of advice for those editing their own writing: make sure you're not being too wordy (e.g., why say on a daily basis if you're trying to keep to a length limit and the phrase every day is shorter). But the teacher must have decided that the Strunkian imperative had to be obeyed literally and without question at all times, and that punishment must be meted out to those who do not obey. Fascist grammar.

Cited from:
itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/l...00994.html (http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000994.html)

[James D Macdonald]

The professor is entitled to his opinion.

It happens that he's wrong.

I note that he's a linguist, not a writer. He is, therefore, arguing outside of the area of his expertise. His entire screed can be discarded on that ground alone.

[aka eraser]

1st Law of Journalism: Consider the source.

The professor's competing compendium makes his criticisms suspect. He is an unreliable source.

Experienced writers and editors like James R and others who vouch for Strunk carry more weight with me.

I'm 35-some years removed from my last Latin class or I'd say something spiffy in that language to "cinch" my argument. ;)

[HollyB]

I just grabbed my copy of Strunk and White from its honored and readily-available place next to my computer. My fourth edition boasts a 2000 copyright (previous editions 1979, 1972, and 1959).

Advice such as this surely cannot be outdated:
"Write in a way that comes naturally."
"Do not explain too much."
"Do not overwrite."
"Be clear."
And my personal favorite (as mentioned by Uncle Jim), "Omit needless words."

The recommendations of Uncle Jim, James A Ritchie, and Stephen King (who plugs S&W in On Writing) are good enough for me.

[detante]

Crusader, have you read Elements of Style? You can find a copy of the 1918 version here (http://www.bartleby.com/141/). Keep in mind it is a style guide, not a grammar guide.

You don't have to use the advice of Strunk and White. But Elements of Style is considered The Writer's Bible for a reason. Ignore it at your own risk.

[Crusader]

The professor is entitled to his opinion... It happens that he's wrong.

He's wrong, in your opinion?

Or wrong, as a point of fact?


I note that he's a linguist, not a writer. He is, therefore, arguing outside of the area of his expertise. His entire screed can be discarded on that ground alone.

To prove this would require showing that writing is outside the expertise of linguistics...?

If it was proven, than the accuracy of the professor's book on grammar might be likewise suspect. Interesting. But first things first: how to prove that a professor of linguistics cannot, by definition, be an expert on writing?

* * *

The professor's competing compendium makes his criticisms suspect. He is an unreliable source.

Again, this is the fallacy of appeal to motives. The only valid way to prove or disprove a criticism itself is to address it, not the motives of who is doing the critique.


Experienced writers and editors like James R and others who vouch for Strunk carry more weight with me.

This seems like appeal to authority and appeal to majority wrapped together. Is it useful to simply point to an authority, or a mass of authorities, instead of directly addressing the opponent's argument itself?

* * *

@reph:

i thought i made it clear that i hadn't read The Elements of Style? But anyway, thanks for the link, there were similar links on Amazon. i do hope you realize that my point is more to figure out the objective truth here, as opposed to simply forming my own subjective opinion.

I.E. If rules of grammar and style are subjective, then why have books of them? Or, if they're objective, and the apparent authorities disagree with each other, then who is right?

(i also note that while you say the book isn't intended to address grammar, the professor describes it as addressing grammar, so that itself is apparently another point of dispute...)

[James D Macdonald]

To prove this would require showing that writing is outside the expertise of linguistics...?

Professor Pullem has no published fiction.

Whatever his qualifications as a linguist, he has no expertise whatever in writing publishable novels or short stories.

Q.E.D.

[Crusader]

Professor Pullem has no published fiction.
Whatever his qualifications as a linguist, he has no expertise whatever in writing publishable novels or short stories.
Q.E.D.

Sounds reasonable. Except, that the question has shifted from "his expertise on writing" to "his expertise in writing publishable novels or short stories." While related, they aren't the same question.

In any case, two things come to mind.

1.) Do you have any published papers on linguistics that would prove you are qualified to describe what is and isn't covered by the expertise of a linguist?

2.) This entire tangent looks like the fallacy of affirming the consequent. In other words... a lack of having written published fiction, is not proof of a lack of expertise in writing fiction, or, in writing overall. It merely indicates a lack of having written published fiction.

(Think of it as saying "well, this tree has no apples now, and trees with no apples are often sick, so therefore this tree is sick." The tree may or may not actually be sick; the lack of apples proves nothing.)

[James D Macdonald]

You're having a great deal of fun trying to play logic games, Crusader.

Makes no difference to me what you believe, or why you believe it.

I state, as an expert on writing, that Professor Pullem is talking through his hat. Look up at the top of this page: You'll find that this board is for discussing writing novels. That's the context in which this conversation is taking place.

It's entirely possible that in academic writing, which Professor Pullem presumably does, that adding needless words is a virtue. I'm not arguing that.

I dismiss Professor Pullem.

If you intend to write and sell fiction, I suggest you do too.

[Crusader]

There's no "game" involved in making sure that what we say and believe actually matches the truth, whatever the truth might be. i'd call that pretty serious, actually.

In that vein, i note that i've been forming questions and analyzing answers about this topic, not stating beliefs.

It's fine for someone to dismiss Professor Pullum. i'm trying to identify if dismissing him is justified by facts and logic, or not.

"Adding needless words is a virtue" is an interesting way of interpreting his position. i haven't so far read that he advocates anything like that.

And, lastly, the context of this conversation was explicitly stated in the first post of this thread. i'd like to know who is right about the book: the professor, or the majority who embrace it. i can't tell, since i am not a expert in the matter, and i'd rather not go blindly following anybody if i can avoid it.

[aka eraser]

i'd like to know who is right about the book: the professor, or the majority who embrace it. i can't tell, since i am not a expert in the matter, and i'd rather not go blindly following anybody if i can avoid it.

Well, I guess you have your work cut out for you.

For me, it's a no-brainer. The "majority" includes the editors who read and determine whether or not to pay me for my words. I like being paid for my words. After a while, it becomes a habit.

I guess if the professor switches jerseys and becomes a giant in the publishing field I'll have to check out his book and maybe play by his rules.

[detante]

@reph:

i thought i made it clear that i hadn't read The Elements of Style?

You made it clear that you had not previously heard of Strunk and White.

By the way, that was me, not reph. I get that a lot when I'm in public. The resemblance is uncanny.

(i also note that while you say the book isn't intended to address grammar, the professor describes it as addressing grammar, so that itself is apparently another point of dispute...)

I did not say it isn't intended to address grammar. I said it is not a grammar guide. It is a style guide.

Few things in the English language are set in stone. Style guides are necessary because the English language is a flexible tool. In order to maintain a sense of uniformity most news outlets have a style guide so all writers follow the same guidelines. Elements of Style is an excellent style guide because it is elegant in its simplicity and common sense.

Instead of dismissing the answers you are getting, perhaps it would be wise for you to do your due diligence. Review Elements of Style, compare it to other style guides and grammar guides, then form your own opinion.

Jen

[Crusader]

For me, it's a no-brainer. The "majority" includes the editors who read and determine whether or not to pay me for my words... I guess if the professor switches jerseys and becomes a giant in the publishing field I'll have to check out his book and maybe play by his rules.

[thoughtful nod] Fair enough.

i guess what bothers me, is that the above seems like "truth is in the eye of the beholder" in these cases--i.e. if nine out of ten make up their minds that something is true, then it's true, and they'll gladly tell any newcomer that it's true.

That just doesn't sit well in my head or heart, even if the item in question IS true. i'd rather see things for what they are, even despite my prejudices, blind spots, or practical considerations getting in the way. But, eh, i digress.

[Writing Again]

It is hilarious in and of itself that anyone would presume to use logic to defend a linguist. A linguist would use semantics as a form of reason and would disdain logic. The simple truth is that semantics is a more reasonable and less cumbersome form of reason.

The fact is this: The Elements of Style has been the standard by which all other style books and grammars have been measured for a long long time. It is the standard by which writing of all kinds have been measured for a long long time.

To say that it is conservative, to say that it is old, to say that it is conventional, is to state the obvious: It is. In fact part of its usefulness is that it has given continuity to writing for a long long time.

To say that it is out of date on certain issues such as the use of "they" as a singular pronoun is to state that it is in fact performing its function. Its function is not to "set the standard yet to be" but to "report the standard that has been decided." When the dust has settled and it has been accepted how the gender versus number issue is to be handled in pronoun use the Elements of Style will once again be updated to reflect this.

To say that it "states the obvious" or even "the ridiculously obvious" is once again a compliment to its function.
It is a small book covering the basics. It is not a tome attempting to cover every possible contingency: For that you need to obtain The Chicago Manual of Style.

To say that current writers routinely ignore many of its injunctions such as beginning a sentence with "however" or using "ongoing" does not lessen its usability. It merely means that no matter what you read you should read intelligently, think reasonably, judge fairly, and reach your own conclusions. It is not mean to be obeyed, it is meant to be a guide to good writing style.

And ounce for ounce and pound for pound it beats anything else around.

[Fillanzea]

I am a writer, and I majored in linguistics in undergrad. I also find Professor Pullum to be quite intelligent and right and amusing in many areas.

But what many people, including Pullum, are mistaken about, is this. Linguistics has NOTHING to do with writing. Nothing at all. Linguistics is descriptive; linguists describe how people actually talk, they don't say how people should talk (never mind how they should write; the written language and the spoken language are different beasts). A book on style can be prescriptive, telling people how they ought to write. Linguists don't know much about style. Read a linguistics journal sometimes if you want to see whether this is true.


1.) Do you have any published papers on linguistics that would prove you are qualified to describe what is and isn't covered by the expertise of a linguist?

From my introductory linguistics textbook, which I think is in storage somewhere, so I'm paraphrasing:
The main areas of linguistics are phonetics (which deals with sounds), phonology (which deals with sound patterns), morphology (word formation), syntax (sentence structure), and semantics (deriving meaning from sentences). Throw in language acquisition and historical linguistics (how languages change over time, and how languages are learned), and that's my undergrad courseload.

Syntax doesn't address how to write a good sentence, mind you. Syntax addresses why we can't write things like "What will you wonder where he will put," which is wrong in a way totally different from the way that sentences full of adjectives are wrong.

(Did Pullum write a $230 grammar of the English language? Yes. But it's a book for linguists, not for lay people or even for writers. No one expects you to buy that book instead of Strunk & White).

I'm not crazy about Strunk & White, but I think it's pretty good. It's as terrible as Pullum thinks it is if you view it as a list of Absolute Commandments; it's a lot better if you see them as general suggestions. "Write with nouns and verbs, not adjectives and adverbs" doesn't mean "NEVER use an adjective or an adverb, EVER". It means that "The young, pretty girl ran gaily down the road" is not as strong as "the starlet skipped down the road." And I have read amateur prose where every noun was paired with an adjective, and every verb with an adverb.

(I am for singular 'they,' but never in formal writing).

[Velleity]

The Elements of Style is a how-to book on using the English language, not a style guide. Like all decent how-to books, it doesn't correlate well to absolute truth or falsehood. It will work well for some people and poorly for others. (There is such a thing as poor how-to books that give bad advice, of course. EoS isn't one of them.)

I like it because it is short, engaging, and accessible. The downside is that its advice is stated forcefully, encouraging some writers to interpret its guidelines as absolutes.

I hope it's not too ad hominem to point out that Pullum appears to have something of a stick up his behind when it comes to EoS; he pretty much admits it himself. ("Don't make me go on; if you want an hour-long lecture on the demerits of this beastly little book, that can be arranged.") It takes a fair amount of effort to, for example, interpret "Write with nouns and verbs, not with adjectives and adverbs" to mean "never use adjectives and adverbs." A better translation would probably be "don't let adjectives and adverbs carry the weight of your prose." But the latter is far more difficult to argue with. (I believe that's the straw man fallacy, yes?)

On the other hand, there are areas where EoS is obviously outdated. 'Hopefully' now does mean 'it is to be hoped,' 'in a hopeful manner' is now obsolete, and if you don't like it you're better off just not using the word altogether. (I don't own the 2000 edition, but I seem to recall checking, and it wasn't changed from the 1957 edition.)

I still think it's indispensable and filled with great advice. Bad mandates, maybe, but great advice.

[Writing Again]

It's as terrible as Pullum thinks it is if you view it as a list of Absolute Commandments; it's a lot better if you see them as general suggestions.


The Elements of Style is a how-to book on using the English language, not a style guide. Like all decent how-to books, it doesn't correlate well to absolute truth or falsehood


The application of intelligence to information.

[Crusader]

@Writing Again:
It is hilarious in and of itself that anyone would presume to use logic to defend a linguist.

[sigh] Point to where i'm "defending the linguist with logic" and i'll be happy to clarify. i sought no such end; i'm seeking arguments that aren't based on hyperbole, unsubstantiated opinion, and bad logic, that's all.

The rest of your reply... is intriguing. i'm at something of a loss for words, since a.) i'm tired of pointing out that a strongly worded opinion is not the same as a proven fact, and b.) your strongly worded opinion is nonetheless as compelling to me as the professor's critique.

(i note for the record that in quoting the professor, i was not endorsing his views, merely indicating that i found them to be worthy of exploration. Likewise, i'm not endorsing your views by saying that they also seem worthy of exploration.)

* * *
@detante:
Instead of dismissing the answers you are getting, perhaps it would be wise for you to do your due diligence. Review Elements of Style, compare it to other style guides and grammar guides, then form your own opinion.

The point i'm seeking, is to determine the facts of whether the book is correct or not in its "guidelines", "rules", or whatever you wish to say it is that the book "does". i'm putting my personal opinion to one side until the facts are clarified, the same way i would put them aside in a discussion of "can this car top 200 miles per hour or not?"


I did not say it isn't intended to address grammar. I said it is not a grammar guide. It is a style guide.

Odd. i don't want yet another tangent, but: a style guide that makes commentary on points of grammar, is addressing grammar. It is not specifically addressing grammar; however, i never said it was. Substitute "talking about" or "touches on" if "addressing" has an unappealing flavour, but all the same i find the meaning unchanged.


You made it clear that you had not previously heard of Strunk and White.

Mm, and you were asking me if i had, so i did you a disservice by answering with a question. D'oh. (And imagine conducting an entire conversation like that. Yikes.)


By the way, that was me, not reph. I get that a lot when I'm in public. The resemblance is uncanny.

[jaw goes through the floor] Sometimes i wonder if i'm going senile, and episodes like this don't help. Believe it or not, i swear i saw "reph" with the name. i wouldn't confuse you two otherwise, i don't find you to be the same at all...

... oh, now i remember why. The last time reph addressed me, she started with "Crusader". Brain glued the two posts together. [sigh] i'm ready for my rubber room, Mr. DeMille...

* * *

@Fillanzea and Velleity:

ABSOLUTELY BLOODY BRILLIANT! =) THANK YOU!

[pepperlandgirl]

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>

-You can't go wrong using Strunk & White, and what was good writing and good style in 1857 remains good writing and good style today.

It would be helpful to offer some evidence that the writing and style of 1857 are still in fact applied and applicable today.<hr></blockquote>

Oh, I don't know. I'm sure you could much worse as a writer than what was being produced in and around 1857. In fact, if I could ever write like Hawthorne, Poe, Whitman, Emerson, Melville, and Thoreau, to name a few, I imagine I would be extremely pleased. Of course, not all of the men listed were writing or publishing in exactly 1857, but one can assume they were still held in high regard.

[Crusader]

I'm sure you could much worse as a writer than what was being produced in and around 1857. In fact, if I could ever write like Hawthorne, Poe, Whitman, Emerson, Melville, and Thoreau, to name a few, I imagine I would be extremely pleased.

This somewhat diverges from answering the question, but is still an interesting point. If memory serves me correctly, Edgar Allan Poe was not an author of particular note until posthumously (i can't speak about the rest).

At any rate, i think one would have to identify that the specific styles of those writers were a result of, or greatly influenced by, the principles specific to Strunk. Even then, however, you would only have proved that a number of writers succeeded in that bygone era with those principles. You would not have directly answered the question (thought as i reread it, i sense the need for a rephrase; i'm not sure i hit the right note with it.)

[pianoman5]

It seems we have unwittingly strayed here into a long-running and often vitriolic debate among linguists and grammarians about the issue of prescriptive versus descriptive grammar.

Perhaps surprisingly, Professor Pullum is not a prescriptivist grammar pedant, he is the writer's friend - a descriptivist linguist who is more concerned about the actual use of words rather than rules chiselled in (old or new) stone. See his foreword to Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0521431468/ref=sib_dp_pt/104-6452010-8307939#reader-page) at Amazon if you don't believe it.

I'm mildly suprised by the vehemence of his attack on Strunk and White, but not greatly, since it's common for academics to get their jollies from public controversy. It's good for keeping the profile up, so useful when promoting their latest tract. (Wow, I used a plural possessive with a singular noun!)

The fact that some of the prescriptions in Strunk and White are now outdated is, in my view, less important than the truth that the little book has cheaply, briefly, and understandably set a standard writing style for several generations of Americans. To writers and Joe Public alike, its valuable service in that respect arguably deserves more respect from him, its hoary advice in a couple of areas notwithstanding.

Also interesting here is the strength of feeling and affection for S&W this debate has engendered. Shows how much we need to believe in something, even when it's wrong. (Anyone care for a vigorous religious debate?)

[mr mistook]

It's not possible to 'prove' the veracity of any style guide or lexicon for a living language. The matter is inherently one of opinion.

[pepperlandgirl]

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>
This somewhat diverges from answering the question, but is still an interesting point. If memory serves me correctly, Edgar Allan Poe was not an author of particular note until posthumously (i can't speak about the rest).<hr></blockquote>

Hawthorne, Melville, and Poe weren't terribly successful money wise, but they thought a great deal of each other (heh). Most people don't know it, but Poe wrote a great many critical essays--one of which is where he described the formula for a short story, which happened to be a semi-harsh criticism of Hawthone...

Emerson, Thoreau, and Whitman were all writers of note in their time.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I'm mildly suprised by the vehemence of his attack on Strunk and White, but not greatly, since it's common for academics to get their jollies from public controversy. It's good for keeping the profile up, so useful when promoting their latest tract. (Wow, I used a plural possessive with a singular noun!)<hr></blockquote>

This is true. It's not a logical fallacy to point out that as an academic, he does have a very good motivation to create this controversy. I'm helping a prof edit a book right now (as in, I'm listening to him read it) and the only reason he writes and publishes books is to tell other academics they're wrong and while they're wrong. Then they'll do the same thing to him, and that way, they all remain gainfully employed.

[reph]

pianoman posted: I'm mildly suprised by the vehemence of his attack on Strunk and White, but not greatly, since it's common for academics to get their jollies from public controversy. It's good for keeping the profile up, so useful when promoting their latest tract. (Wow, I used a plural possessive with a singular noun!)

You may have done so sometime, but you didn't do it in that paragraph.

[Crusader]

Subject: An open letter, on matters of Strunk and White


Dear Professor Pullum,

For about two months or so, i've read your posts on Language Log, and have enjoyed the majority. One item which you brought to my attention, was Strunk and White's book on style and grammar; i had prevously never heard of it.

Well, your comments about the book could be generously described as "perturbed". As those comments seem to contain logical arguments made by a man of credentials, i feel compelled to take them seriously. The problem is that the comments apparently represent a minority viewpoint on the matter, leaving me confused on two questions:

-Is there an objective final authority here, as far as disputes of grammar or style?

-Regardless of authority, how should such disputes be best resolved?

In seeking enlightenment, i took my confusion to the Internet bulletin board upon which i participate. However, i am not entirely convinced by the answers i have received so far. i am thus hoping that you might have the time and inclination to help me find some sort of definitive resolution.

The relevant topic, in case you desire to read what has transpired, is here:

p197.ezboard.com/fabsolut...=973.topic (http://p197.ezboard.com/fabsolutewritefrm3.showMessage?topicID=973.topic)

And, i thank you in advance for any assistance you may offer, as well as for reading this email.

Sincerely,
Crusader


* * *

Dear Crusader:

I am terribly sorry to have introduced you to Strunk & White. I have done
you a disservice. But let me try to rectify the damage with a short answer
to your two questions.

The only way to settle a question of grammar or style is to LOOK AT
RELEVANT EVIDENCE. You have to look at how the language is used by the
sort of people you admire, or the sort of people you would like to be
counted among, or regarded as similar to. Strunk & White doesn't do this.
It offers prejudiced pronouncements on a rather small number of topics,
completely unsupported by evidence.

It SIMPLY ISN'T TRUE that the constructions they tell you not to use
are not used by good writers. Take just one illustrative example, the
advice not to use "which" to begin a restrictive relative clause (the
kind without the commas, as in "anything else which you might want").
The truth is that once E.B. White stopped pontificating and went back to
writing children's books (excellent writing, by the way), he couldn't even
follow this advice himself (nor should he; it's stupid advice). You can
see him breaking his own rule in the second paragraph of STUART LITTLE.
It isn't the only such example.

Evidence of what decent writers really do is what you need. But there is
a shortcut you can use to get to that evidence: get hold of a really good
usage book. The best usage book I know of right now is MERRIAM-WEBSTER'S
CONCISE DICTIONARY OF ENGLISH USAGE (ISBN: 0-87779-633-5). This book ---
I'll call it MWCDEU for short --- is absolutely wonderful. Detailed, but
tight-packed, and great value (exactly 800 pages for $16.95 --- that's 2
cents per page plus the cost of a small regular coffee at a student coffee
house).

I own no stock in the Merriam-Webster company and get no commissions
on sales. If they published a rubbishy book, I'd say so. If THE CAMBRIDGE
GRAMMAR OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (www.cambridge.org/cgel/) (http://www.cambridge.org/cgel/)) were better
for what you need, I'd DEFINITELY say so, because I coauthored that one.
But THE CAMBRIDGE GRAMMAR is too big and too technical. The book you need
is MWCDEU. Trust me.

So throw your Strunk & White away (or if you have a parrot, an alternative
would be to tear out the pages and overlay them as liner paper in the
bottom of the cage; change weekly, and wash your hands afterwards). Then
get hold of MWCDEU, and keep it away from the parrot (parrots are jealous
birds and will tear up things they can see you value). It's a really
good guide that actually explains what the evidence is, and shows you
examples, and tells you what other books say, and leaves you to make your
own reasoned decision. What I mean by that is that MWCDEU won't tell you
that you should split infinitives, or that you shouldn't. It will just
give you a lot of examples of all the writers who do, and point out that
the construction has always occurred in English literature over the last
six or seven centuries and most modern usage books agree it is grammatical,
and it will leave you to decide. It treats you like a grown-up. Strunk &
White treat you like the abused 9-year-old daughter of a pair of grumpy
dads ("Omit needless words, damn you, and bring my slippers. And be home
by ten!"). Don't put up with the abuse.

Best wishes,
GKP

[AnneMarble]

This somewhat diverges from answering the question, but is still an interesting point. If memory serves me correctly, Edgar Allan Poe was not an author of particular note until posthumously (i can't speak about the rest).
It's been a while since I visited the Edgar Allan Poe house during a field trip -- and we never did figure out if that was a gunshot or a car backfiring that we heard. :) But I seem to recall learning that he was critically acclaimed in Europe, even while he was alive. Bauderlaire even translated some of his works.

It's hard to get any straight facts on Poe. He made up some of the "facts" himself. :) Also, IIRC we learned that most of the perceptions about him as an alcoholic and all around evil loser were created by materials written by a guy who Poe had unknowingly p*ssed off because of a bad review. :rolleyes Then again, perhaps a person named Rufus Wilmot Griswold is bound to write vituperative essays. :p

BTW in college, I had a teacher who couldn't avoid telling us all how much he hated Poe, yada yada yada. Maybe it was a Southern thing? He even claimed that "tintinnabulation" wasn't a word. Guess he had never heard of a ... dictionary? Then again, this was the same professor who corrected my spelling because I included the subtitle "A Weird Story" on one of my stories. In red ink, he wrote "Wierd"? :eek He did give me some remarkably good (considering that he apparently couldn't be bothered to use a dictionary;) ) advice about my fiction writing. (For example, he told me my characters should stop glaring and shouting at each other.)

[detante]

Honestly, why would you reject advice to re-word "anything else which you might want"? I sense a lot of pathos in the professor's reply, but not much logic.

Jen

[Euan Harvey]

pg 42.

Can. Means "am (is, are) able." Not to be used as a substitute for may.

Oh really?

Strunk and White contains a lot of good advice, but it also contains some things that are downright silly (such as the above). I still think it's worth buying and reading though, just take it as advice and opinion, not commandments from on-high.

Good writing does not follow a single pattern or a single form -- compare Lovecraft to Hermingway for example.

The only way to settle a question of grammar or style is to LOOK AT
RELEVANT EVIDENCE.
Umm, excuse me if I'm wrong, but isn't this what has been suggested again and again in this forum? That people get hold of copies of good novels and then analyze them?

Seems to me that the professor is just repeating the same advice that many people on this board give.

[katdad]

I used Strunk & White in college, but that was a very long time ago. How long ago?

"When I was in school, history class only lasted 15 minutes."

It has been a valuable assist for many students, but has fallen into disfavor in recent years. I find the book outdated for today's modern English style, especially in the modern novel. S&W is still okay for formal English academic papers, I suppose.

For style, I use the Chicago Manual of Style.

[mr mistook]

I've got to admit. It's a little alarming to realize that as writers, we are expected to regress to the 1950's and compose every novel as though it were written in that era.

Not that the 50' was a bad era for fiction. It may have been one of the best, but do car designers still include tail-fins? Are musicians judged by the "style" of bebop? Are poets forced to mimic Ginsberg in perpetuity?

Is novel writing a 'finished' process that has been completely discovered and quantized?

[detante]

Interesting question. What if we turn it around? Should every novel published before 1960 be discarded because it's old? Should car designers re-invent the wheel every time they design a car because tail fins are out of style? Should musicians be discouraged from listening to bebop for fear it might affect their sound? Should poets be prevented from writing in rhyming couplets because that is so last millennium?

I understand what you are saying. A living language adapts to the needs of its users. But lets not throw the baby out with the bath water, here. Are there more current style guides out there? Yes. Are they better? That depends on your needs as a writer. The good professor has said Elements of Style is only fit for lining a bird cage. He's wrong.

Frankly, it's no skin off my nose if no one on this board follows the advice of Strunk and White. To each his own. But it is folly to say Elements of Style is worthless.

[Writing Again]

The rest of your reply... is intriguing. i'm at something of a loss for words, since a.) i'm tired of pointing out that a strongly worded opinion is not the same as a proven fact, and b.) your strongly worded opinion is nonetheless as compelling to me as the professor's critique.

Thank you.

I took to heart some of my mother's dictums about opinions.

A weak opinion is not worth having.

An uninformed opinion is worse than a weak opinion.

There is no disgrace in saying, "I don't have enough interest in the subject to bother taking the time and effort to have an informed opinion on it."

Here is a fact. It can be easily proven if you wish to do so. Most people in the writing / publishing industry respect Strunk and White's Elements of Style to one degree or another. Virtually everyone in the industry owns a copy -- This means the people who are in a position to accept or reject your work -- People who are either signing your check or authorizing your check. Most of these are intelligent, thoughtful people who use good sense in applying the mandates; a few are prescriptive to the nth degree and follow it as though it were carved in stone.

There is really only one conclusion a writer can make; familiarity with the book is a must.

On the other hand Professor Pullum recommends MERRIAM-WEBSTER'S CONCISE DICTIONARY OF ENGLISH USAGE (ISBN: 0-87779-633-5) At less than $20 I see no reason not to get it and compare them.

[James D Macdonald]

On the other hand Professor Pullum recommends MERRIAM-WEBSTER'S CONCISE DICTIONARY OF ENGLISH USAGE (ISBN: 0-87779-633-5) At less than $20 I see no reason not to get it and compare them.

Given the bizarre nature of Pullum's other opinions, I'd be slow to take this suggestion.

A better choice would be H. W. Fowler's Modern English Usage. Get the first or second edition; the third edition (1996) is an abomination that has rightfully gone out of print while the delightful first edition (1926) remains available.

[Writing Again]

Actually I have about a dozen books on style piled in a corner somewhere that I have read but seldom use any more. I have three times that many on grammar and I am buzzing through them to brush up.

The advice to buy Pullum Ups suggestion was for Crusader who appears to wish to spend time and effort developing an informed opinion. I figure Crusader might spend a little money as well. I already have an opinion that is formed and informed and it would take more than the pet peeve of professor Pullum Leg to change it. Although I do have to admit that, aside from his rant, linguistics, semantics, transformational grammar, et al. are interests of mine and his book does look interesting if unaffordable.

My favorite method of mastering style is to go through novels by the masters, or simply authors I enjoy reading -- Tear their sentences apart, especially the complex ones -- All the while asking how they did what they did and why they did it. I will also try alternative ways of writing the same thing.

I have a book budget and go down my list. Right now at the top of my list is "Logical Chess Move by Move" by Chernov, "Understanding Comics by Scott McCloud" and a couple of books on screen writing.

[Crusader]

There are too many useful items to respond to, here. i'm learning that part of the result of a thread like this, is that responding to each point in suffficient depth becomes quite the task.

So, i simply will urge anyone who reads this thread, to approach all the perspectives rationally, as there is much wheat and not too much chaff on both sides of the row.

In that vein, i thank everyone who put forth rational and well-worded commentary that stood apart from insult, bias, ignorance, or assumption. i have been helped very much in my analysis, and i'm grateful.

Finally: i was asked to pass along these further words on the topic, so without further ado...

* * *

I'm not a registered poster on the bulletin board, but I'd be grateful to you if you would pop a brief comment from me on the list of replies at <p197.ezboard.com/fabsolut...973.topic> (http://p197.ezboard.com/fabsolutewritefrm3.showMessage?topicID=973.topic>)
to bring these four points to the readers' attention:

1. Everyone on this site has taken to calling me "The Professor". That's what lawyers do to professors who serve as witnesses in court, to make sure the jury won't like them! My name's Geoff Pullum. Don't hold it against me that I am forced to earn my humble living teaching lingustics at the University of California, Santa Cruz. It's honest work. I wanted to go into shoe repair, but I didn't have the skills.

2. Don't believe James D. Macdonald when he says "Professor Pullem has no published fiction." First, the name, as I said, is Pullum. And second, my first published short story, "The incident of the node vortex problem" appeared in 1989. It is reprinted in my collection of satirical essays on linguistics, "The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax" (1991). (I admit it's about linguists. But it is published fiction.)

3. And don't believe "pianoman5" or "aka eraser" when they say I can't be trusted because of my work on "The Cambridge Grammar". It's not a competitor to Strunk and White. It's a huge scholarly reference grammar (due mainly to the efforts of senior author Rodney Huddleston, the best English grammarian alive). I wouldn't dream of telling a novelist to buy it ("Fillanzea" is exactly right about that). I would recommend "Merriam-Webster's Concise Dictionary of English Usage" (about $16), which is highly accurate and absolutely wonderful.

4. My beef with Strunk and White is that they don't confine themself to style; they make claims about grammar, and those claims are junk. The reason I point out that Strunk was born seven years before Custer's last stand is that the ideas about grammar he imbibed from his teachers are from the early 19th century, and they are laughable. Strunk (and White, who changed very little in 1957 when he did the new version) repeat things (like that "they" isn't used with singular antecedents like "everyone") that are not just wrong for 19th-century and 20th-century English alike, but were NEVER correct in any century. We really have discovered a bit about the grammar of English since then. Omit needless words and avoid overwriting if you like (though I'm surprised you need a book to give you advice like that), but don't believe Strunk and White when they tell you things about what grammar forbids. They get most of it wrong.

GKP

[detante]

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm done with this thread. I am not going to debate by proxy with someone that can't be bothered with free registration.

Geoff Pullum obviously hates Elements of Style and his writing clearly reflects it. The one useful piece of advice he has given is "to look at how the language is used by the sort of people you admire, or the sort of people you would like to be counted among, or regarded as similar to."

If Geoff's style is more your cup of tea, then ducky for you. Use it with wild abandon. No one is going to stop you.

[Writing Again]

pg 42.

Can. Means "am (is, are) able." Not to be used as a substitute for may.

Oh really?

Strunk and White contains a lot of good advice, but it also contains some things that are downright silly (such as the above). I still think it's worth buying and reading though, just take it as advice and opinion, not commandments from on-high.

Not everyone will consider that silly, although the distinction is not as important as it once was. May, as in "Mother may I," denotes permission, not ability. Can denotes ability as in this exchange with my seven year old daughter, "I know you can drive the car, honey, but you may not because the law forbids it."

"Yes, dear, you may fly to the moon, but only if you can," sounds extremely silly but makes perfect sense when the difference in meaning of the two words are clear.

Different languages draw different distinctions. In English "wait" and "hope" are two entirely different words with different meanings. In Spanish the same word, "esperanza" means both. Thus while it is very easy to wait without hope in English it is more difficult to do in Spanish. On the other hand English has one word for corner and Spanish has two: rincón and esquina, one meaning outside corner and the other meaning inside corner.

I don't think the distinction between may and can is yet extinct.

In my hometown you can jay walk with impunity, as no one will bother you, but in the town twenty miles away you may not unless you wish to risk a $1,000 fine.

[Writing Again]

Geoff Pullum obviously hates Elements of Style and his writing clearly reflects it. The one useful piece of advice he has given is "to look at how the language is used by the sort of people you admire, or the sort of people you would like to be counted among, or regarded as similar to."

It is useful, but isn't that the whole point of grammar and language anyway? To communicate with each other while separating each other from the nokd's ("Not our kind, darling").

[Euan Harvey]

Geoff Pullum obviously hates Elements of Style
Um. he said (at least in one place):
Strunk (and White, who changed very little in 1957 when he did the new version) repeat things (like that "they" isn't used with singular antecedents like "everyone&quot;) that are not just wrong for 19th-century and 20th-century English alike, but were NEVER correct in any century.
That sounds like a factual statement to me. Are you saying that he's wrong? That S&W is correct in all instances?
and his writing clearly reflects it
Tut tut. Either you are saying that the content of someone's posts on a message board is an accurate and complete reflection of someone's writing ability (which is utter tosh) or you are saying that you've read his books and found them badly written (which opinion you're entitled to, but it remains only an opinion, as obviously some people found them worth paying money for).

[Euan Harvey]

I don't think the distinction between may and can is yet extinct.
Of course not. What I have a problem with is S&W saying that you shouldn't use 'can' to mean that 'you have my permission to' (or thereabouts). 'Can' has two distinct meanings, and S&W have fixed on one of them and arbitrarily declared it to be the only meaning.

It would have been better phrased perhaps as "When using 'can', check that it is clear whether you mean 'physically able to' or 'have permission to'."

Or maybe not.

[Crusader]

Bah. Couldn't resist.

@Writing Again:
It is useful, but isn't that the whole point of grammar and language anyway?

Unfortunately, language and grammar and syntax and semantics and logic and all other constructs of the human mind, can fall into the category of "tools" and thus be appropriated--or mis-appropriated--to many different purposes.

Oddly enough, in focusing on the more dispassionate and most accurate comments both for and against The Elements of Style, i am seeing a common, critical point being made about misappropriation... sort of a warning against grammar "rules" or "guidelines" misused as a hammer on someone's creativity, instead of used as a lens to bring better focus.

* * *

@Fillanzea:

Just wanted to state more clearly that i appreciate your comments, insofar as you gave me a peek at what a professor and their field of expertise can look like from the perspective of a student.

But what many people, including Pullum, are mistaken about, is this. Linguistics has NOTHING to do with writing...

[nodding] Bear in mind i am a novice, so when someone with knowledge states something that is, er, a little 'absolute' like that, i have little way of knowing if you are exaggerating for effect, speaking to within 99.9 percent accuracy, talking at random, or whathaveyou.

But, aside from that, it really helps to have a clarification of what a linguist does, and how their field might influence what they might know or not know about style and grammar.


It's as terrible as Pullum thinks it is if you view it as a list of Absolute Commandments; it's a lot better if you see them as general suggestions.

As has been pointed out, this sort of attitude towards the book seems quite reasonable on the surface. If i posed further questions to get beneath the surface, i'd focus on things like "does it matter if some, most, or all of the principles can be proven as outdated, even when they are only used as general suggestions?"


Linguists don't know much about style. Read a linguistics journal sometimes if you want to see whether this is true.

As above, i think it might be safer to avoid generalisations like that, since proving such a statement might require looking up the journals and books of every linguist and then looking for statistical trends in how much 'style' each one has relative to another. =) And if any significant percentage of them does indeed show lack of style, i faint at the thought of the task.

* * *

@pianoman5:
It seems we have unwittingly strayed here into a long-running and often vitriolic debate among linguists and grammarians about the issue of prescriptive versus descriptive grammar.

Mm, if you're willing to amend that to "we have been pushed and prodded and begged by one demented lunatic here", i'll agree. i seriously wanted to hear people made good arguments; it's often more instructive than something like digging out ten textbooks and comparing them.


Perhaps surprisingly, Professor Pullum is not a prescriptivist grammar pedant, he is the writer's friend - a descriptivist linguist who is more concerned about the actual use of words rather than rules chiselled in (old or new) stone.

If i were to use the rhetoric of others on this board, my words might spew out the conclusion that Geoff Pullum is only "the writer's friend" insofar as how much the friendship can fatten his checkbook. [wincing] Ugh.

Thankfully, the case seems to instead point to what you've said above, that the interest of his critique is to help the writer/a writer/any writer.


I'm mildly suprised by the vehemence of his attack on Strunk and White, but not greatly, since it's common for academics to get their jollies from public controversy. It's good for keeping the profile up, so useful when promoting their latest tract.

Eh. Just when i was starting to like your argument...

Look, it's one thing to say "to my eyes, the sun is gold, not yellow". That's an opinion, and it's fair game.

And it's another thing to say "i can prove that the sun is gold, not yellow." That's a theory, and while it's likely a failed task from the get-go, there's no harm in trying.

But when it is said, "anybody who thinks the sun is yellow, is an idiot / is out for profit / has an agenda / wants attention", then that statement crosses into a no-man's land of distracted and irrational discussion.

i swear, if it wasn't for the cooler heads here, i'd feel like a one-man act in trying to toe the line of "defeat the argument, not the person making the argument". And i ask: why are "adults" sometimes unwilling to play fairly? Why do discussions ever have to break down into covert and not-so-covert acts of childlike mudslinging? Aren't we as a society and individuals tired of seeing that garbage done by significant numbers of our politicians and media celebrities and news outlets? Would it kill a person to give the benefit of the doubt and be polite when faced with an unverified proposition?


To writers and Joe Public alike, its valuable service in that respect arguably deserves more respect from him, its hoary advice in a couple of areas notwithstanding.

Ah. Is that my answer? Something like, "if you disrespect the arguments of our institution, you've disrespected us"?

Regardless, i note that it's hard to tell if you personally subscribe to either what you said, or to what i paraphrased/theorized. So, your rhetorical fling at Geoff Pullum's motives, was confusing; what was your motive?


Also interesting here is the strength of feeling and affection for S&W this debate has engendered. Shows how much we need to believe in something, even when it's wrong. (Anyone care for a vigorous religious debate?)

[grinning] Indeed. You've made a good point [b]and bloody confused me even more. i have no idea where you stand.

Beyond that: sure, i'll debate you. You have to let me win, though; i get surly when i'm losing. ("Don't make me surly--you wouldn't like me, when i'm surly.")

[detante]

Euan, do not put words in my mouth so you can argue against points I did not make.

It takes a mighty leap to say "Geoff Pullum obviously hates Elements of Style" equals "S&W is correct in all instances".

It is equally incorrect to say that "and his writing clearly reflects it" equals "you've read his books and found them badly written". I have made no statement on the quality of his writing. I only pointed out that he does not follow the advice of the book he refers to as "a horrid little compendium of unmotivated prejudices." He stands by his convictions.

[Euan Harvey]

It takes a mighty leap to say "Geoff Pullum obviously hates Elements of Style" equals "S&W is correct in all instances".
You say 'Geoff Pullum obviously hates Elements of Style'.

I take this to mean that: His opinions are not worth listening to, as they arise only from an uninformed dislike, and are not based on factual evidence (which I think is a reasonable interpretation).

However, some of what is stated in S&W is just plain wrong, as Geoff Pullum has pointed out. That indicates to me that his dislike is based (at least partly) on factual evidence, and thus that your (implied) dismissal of his evalution of the book as being based only on irrational opinions is not valid.

I have made no statement on the quality of his writing.
Really?
Saying that: But Elements of Style is considered The Writer's Bible for a reason. Ignore it at your own risk. seems to me to contain a clear implication that 'good writing' follows the dictates of S&W. I don't think that's an unreasonable assumption to make. So when you say: Geoff Pullum obviously hates Elements of Style and his writing clearly reflects it. What you are saying is that Geoff PUllums writing does not follow the guidelines given in S&W, and thus his writing is not 'good writing'. The implication seems pretty clear to me.

Personally, I think S&W is useful in some areas (like the exampels of the kinds of things to omit), and utterly useless in others (just why shouldn't I start a sentence with 'however'?). I also think Geoff Pullum's opinions are over the top. However, that doesn't make him a bad writer.

On the topic of style guides in general, S&W is only one among many. For linguistics, the most commonly used style guide would be the APA handbook (which incidentally contains much of the same advice as is found in S&W, but none of the silly grammatical proscriptions).

[Crusader]

@detante and Euan Harvey:

i see one misunderstanding and one sort of off-target question. Let me, under pain of death, take a stab:

Geoff Pullum obviously hates Elements of Style and his writing clearly reflects it.

could mean

Geoff Pullum obviously hates Elements of Style so much that he refuses to use its principles. And his writing clearly is bad enough to reflect that he doesn't use those principles.

but actually means

Geoff Pullum obviously hates Elements of Style; everything he's said in his posts reflects/verifies that hatred.

which was perhaps implying that

Geoff Pullum obviously hates Elements of Style; everything he's said in his posts reflects/ verifies that hatred, so his argument is a bit too biased for me.

The last sentence is what i interpret, so if i'm wrong, then by all means correct me.


As for the off-target question that Euan Harvey posed...

That sounds like a factual statement to me. Are you saying that he's wrong? That S&W is correct in all instances?

The proposition "Geoff Pullum could be wrong" does not automatically mean that "S&W are correct in every instance." Mr. Pullum could be wrong about the specific points in question, and that would mean that those points are correct... but the book itself could still have other incorrect points that just haven't been addressed.

Or, Mr. Pullum might have framed his argument with poor logic or lacking evidence, thus making his argument bad, even though the instances are honestly incorrect.

Either way, i do not find that detante meant what you think she said.

[detante]

What you are saying is that Geoff PUllums writing does not follow the guidelines given in S&W, and thus his writing is not 'good writing'.

No, it's not. You are searching for subtext where there is none.

Jen

[Euan Harvey]

Right. :rolleyes

[mr mistook]

What if we turn it around? Should every novel published before 1960 be discarded because it's old? Should car designers re-invent the wheel every time they design a car because tail fins are out of style? Should musicians be discouraged from listening to bebop for fear it might affect their sound? Should poets be prevented from writing in rhyming couplets because that is so last millennium?

Of course I say no to all these questions. In fact I'm a big Bebop and Jazz fan, though I also love punk rock. I like old cars with tail fins - wish I owned one.

I believe that people should take time to understand and enjoy every trinket and gem of our cultural treasure. I certainly don't think old styles should be poured down the drain like foul bathwater and forgotten.

My point was only that every generation deserves the chance to make their own innovations and form their own styles. Is it any wonder that the reading public is diminishing every year? Is it really because 'these kids today' are all too lazy or too illiterate to read a 'decent' novel, or is it that the publishing industry is gradually losing touch?

[Euan Harvey]

Is it any wonder that the reading public is diminishing every year?



Is it diminishing? I thought overall sales were increasing.

[Writing Again]

What I have a problem with is S&W saying that you shouldn't use 'can' to mean that 'you have my permission to' (or thereabouts). 'Can' has two distinct meanings, and S&W have fixed on one of them and arbitrarily declared it to be the only meaning.


E. B. White was a writer. He wrote for the New Yorker, a magazine that is still a stickler for perfect, conservative English. It is outdated and I would be just as happy if "may" were eliminated from the vocabulary today instead of a hundred years from now, but in the mean time when writing for submission it is safest to follow S&W's rule on this.

[mr mistook]

Check out this NEA (http://www.nea.gov/news/news04/ReadingAtRisk.html) link. Published July 8th of '04...


Reading at Risk: A Survey of Literary Reading in America reports drops in all groups studied, with the steepest rate of decline - 28 percent - occurring in the youngest age groups.

Hmmm... that doesn't seem to support my crazy claim does it?


The study also documents an overall decline of 10 percentage points in literary readers from 1982 to 2002, representing a loss of 20 million potential readers. The rate of decline is increasing and, according to the survey, has nearly tripled in the last decade.

Oh, I'm sure that's nothing to worry about either.


Contrary to the overall decline in literary reading, the number of people doing creative writing increased by 30 percent, from 11 million in 1982 to more than 14 million in 2002.


But I guess that wouldn't reflect any kind of a black-lash by people bored with conventional novels.

[Writing Again]

i swear, if it wasn't for the cooler heads here, i'd feel like a one-man act in trying to toe the line of "defeat the argument, not the person making the argument". And i ask: why are "adults" sometimes unwilling to play fairly? Why do discussions ever have to break down into covert and not-so-covert acts of childlike mudslinging? Aren't we as a society and individuals tired of seeing that garbage done by significant numbers of our politicians and media celebrities and news outlets? Would it kill a person to give the benefit of the doubt and be polite when faced with an unverified proposition?

I would like to believe I am one of the cooler heads, and I even like to think of myself as reasonable -- But my form of reasoning and yours is worlds apart.

When I was a teenager I became enamored of logic as a form of reason and even swam around in such light hearted tomes as Bertrand Russell's "theory of Knowledge" and "Our Knowledge of the External World." Actually I read everything he ever wrote. As I was not going to school and was not required to this may account for possible brain damage.

However one day I stumbled upon semantics and discovered that Logic and Grammar have something in common. Both are highly prescriptive and deny the adherent the right to apply their intelligence to the problem at hand.

You are right in one sense: It is not an intelligent act to dismiss Professor Pullum's criticism of S&W simply because he is a professor, an academic, who will benefit through controversy and publication: However it is not an act of intelligence to ignore this datum completely.

However herein seems to lie a problem: What seems obvious to many grad students, to wit:

I'm mildly surprised by the vehemence of his attack on Strunk and White, but not greatly, since it's common for academics to get their jollies from public controversy. It's good for keeping the profile up, so useful when promoting their latest tract.

and is obvious to me because I have helped a few academics write speeches and self publish some of their writings, seems to be, to you, unproven statements that have no basis in fact and you are upset that we provide no quantitative proof of this opinion. I don't really know how to prove it except to point you toward a college where you will eventually find out it is a fact of academic life.

However logic says, "Ignore the source of the argument and deal strictly with the argument itself."

But people who deal with sorting out the truth of people's arguments on a daily basis state the "First Law of Journalism: Consider the source."

If we do consider the source in this case we note the following:

He is not a publisher faced with the problem of trying to set a standard quality of writing that everyone will have access to, will not be overwhelmingly complex, and will meet basic publishing goals. Publishers and editors have limited space and pay by the word so anything that helps to reduce word usage on the part of writers is a good thing from their POV. S&W fits their needs to a T-bone.

He is not aiming his grammar at people who are trying to sell manuscripts to the publishers who find that S&W is a wonderful little book for their purposes.

He is a linguist whose objective is to understand how people talk, what they mean when they talk, and who is trying to form a grammar around the needs of those who use the language and the needs of those who are trying to understand the people who use the language.

Does this say anything bad about Professor Pullum? No, it does not. Does this sling mud at him? No, it does not. Even pointing out that he is probably responding to the law of the academic world "publish or die" is saying no more than he is an able survivor, which is not a bad thing.

What it says is that we are apples and he is an orange. We can use his grammar to better understand the people around us, we can use it to improve our writing, we can use it to help us write better dialog -- But we cannot use his grammar to break convention and then cite him as an authority for doing so. A publisher would laugh us out of their office and into the slush pile of "Never to be read authors."

To satisfy editors and publishers we need S&W, the Chicago Manual of Style, or as Uncle Jim suggests, H. W. Fowler's Modern English Usage the first or second edition.

[Writing Again]

Oddly enough, in focusing on the more dispassionate and most accurate comments both for and against The Elements of Style, i am seeing a common, critical point being made about misappropriation... sort of a warning against grammar "rules" or "guidelines" misused as a hammer on someone's creativity, instead of used as a lens to bring better focus.

If it is important to you and what you are doing:

Everything you hear, everything you see, everything you read, you should process through your faculties of judgment and apply your intelligence to it. Consider it, critique it, analyze it, process it.

Never accept anything out of hand.

[Writing Again]

The study also documents an overall decline of 10 percentage points in literary readers from 1982 to 2002, representing a loss of 20 million potential readers. The rate of decline is increasing and, according to the survey, has nearly tripled in the last decade.


I think a lot of readers are spending time on the net and many are on forums such as this one. I know it cuts into my reading time.

[mr mistook]

That study also mentioned that while the number of creative writers is increasing, their interest in taking courses or seeking advice on writing is declining.

For the record, I'm here to better learn the craft, knowing full well that standards are standards. It's easy to go off into the desert and eat locusts, decrying the injustice of Strunk & White, or any other yardstick of the industry, but the only way to gain the authority to improvise is by first mastering the status quo.

That's my goal, and if I can't accomplish it, then I'll gladly eat my locusts in quiet.

I think a lot of readers are spending time on the net and many are on forums such as this one. I know it cuts into my reading time.

Take a step back and look at this situation and you'll realize that we're in the middle of a huge cultural shift. Never before have the written words of ordinary folks been so public, so immediate, and so free in form.

I'm talking about the forums, the blogs, and the e-mails. It's bound to change our expectations of fiction. And by "bound" I mean in the S&W sense of "unavoidable consequence".

I don't think established modes will ever cease to exist, but When I look at the information in this thread, together with the thread on slush piles, and every other post that deals with the state of the industry. The inescapable conclusion is that many greats really are falling through the cracks, because the system can only accomodate a certain shape of peg.

I don't argue that many writers simply suck - and I may well be one of these hopeless hacks, but look at the NEA study. Readers are losing interest and turning to other avenues for their reading pleasure.

[Euan Harvey]

Book readership declines in the US (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040708-113557-6153r.htm) but if you read through the article, you'll see that the decline in prportion of readers does not mean a shrink in book sales. In fact, book sales have increased in recent years. (http://www.publishersweekly.com/index.asp?layout=article&articleid=CA282503)
And as for the reason, if it was a backlash against the conventional novel, why haven't sales of alternative works soared?

[mr mistook]

why haven't sales of alternative works soared?


Because nobody publishes them. You can't sell what isn't on the market.

[Crusader]

@Writing Again:
But my form of reasoning and yours is worlds apart.

i find this very puzzling. But i'll shut up and listen.


... Bertrand Russell's "theory of Knowledge" and "Our Knowledge of the External World."...

[amused] We share a similarity of poking our noses into odd vicinities at young ages, then. And i now have another name to hunt at the library (thank you).


What seems obvious to many grad students ("... it's common for academics to get their jollies from public controversy&quot;) and is obvious to me (because I have helped a few academics...) seems to you to be unproven statements that have no basis in fact and you are upset that we provide no quantitative proof of this opinion.

i hope you can forgive my butchering of your words, i just wanted to condense them a bit.

First, the statements are indeed unproven--to me. The same as if i tell you that i have a huge furry elephant in my bathtub; i may indeed have a huge furry elephant in my bathtub, and so the proposition itself would be true and obvious to me. But i haven't proven that to you yet, so you could not be expected to take the proposition as true simply because i said so.

Second; the above is all moot, since "gaining quantitative proof of this opinion about academics" wasn't ever my point.

My point, instead, was this: i really don't want a discussion to be distracted by subjective citations like "people often do X action for Y reason" unless it can be shown that "Y reason" is relevant.

Now, allow me to illustrate what i mean by relevancy.

Method #1
Person A says "the sun is yellow, not purple".

The counterpoint is "Person A is an academic; academics are prone to attention-seeking; a case made to get attention is suspect; therefore Person A's case may be suspect before we even examine it".

Ok, so let's look again. "The sun is yellow, not purple." Right: how do i apply "academics are often attention-seekers" to determining whether the sun is actually yellow or not?

Well, i can't. It's not relevant. What i need to do is go outside. Oh, the sun is yellow? Hey, that's relevant! And so Person A is correct--independent of whether he's as pure as the driven snow or as rotten as a month-old apple.


Method #2
Suppose we go this way: "Well, in order to figure out if the sun is yellow or purple, let's consider the source of who is questioning the yellowness. The source is an academic; academics are prone to attention-seeking, etc."

So i sat here, and i typed out all the reasonable steps i would take to make sure the evidence at each stage was reliable--

(... have to verify the motives of the people mentioning the stereotype; have to identify a usable statistical sample of academics; have to use that sample to verify that the stereotype applies often enough to be valid; have to verify that the stereotype fits Person A; have to verify that the motives of the stereotype were truly Person A's motivation in this particular case...)

--and it was more wordy than my usual babbling. And involves ten times more work than the other method. And in the end?

None of it is relevant to proving whether the sun is yellow or not. Which is what i identified in the first method after about five seconds, you recall.

So...

Logic... is highly prescriptive and denies the adherent the right to apply their intelligence to the problem at hand.

... i find this false. Let me correct it.

"Logic denies the adherent the right to apply their intelligence to the problem at hand if that intelligence is not truly relevant."

(i note, if applying the type of "reason" you describe, then the Christian Church was entirely correct to attack Galileo Galilei for daring to say that our planet circles the sun. I.E., everybody knows the sun circles the earth; anybody who says different is probably a wacko; wackos by definition don't make logical arguments; Galileo is saying different, so he is likely a wacko and therefore his argument is probably illogical.)


If we do consider the source in this case we note the following... we are apples and he is an orange. We can use his grammar [in certain ways]... but we cannot use his grammar to break convention and then cite him as an authority for doing so.

Sounds compelling. Sounds reasonable. And then i realize that the ground has shifted, the argument gradually changing from "is the argument true or false?" to "is this argument practical?"

That is called appeal to consequences, and the process of arguing that way creates a strawman.

And i note that if i go tilting after those windmills, whether i win or lose as far as debating the consequences of the argument, i still have not identified if the argument is actually true or false.

* * *

Here, i wish to note: i'm not a logician. i have no formal education in logic. i don't even practice formal logic as a rule; i only tend to resort to it as a counterweight to blustering rhetoric.

So, i could entirely be wrong in every single point of reasoning i have made here. And if so, i welcome corrections.

[Crusader]

@Velleity:

i've been playing catch-up here. i wanted to let you know i really appreciated your comment.

I hope it's not too ad hominem to point out that Pullum appears to have something of a stick up his behind when it comes to EoS...."

Mm. i'm not seeing a fallacy there, unless it was used to support an argument against whether his critique is true or based in fact. For example, saying what you said in a context of "he's such a [negative adjective], and therefore he is wrong" is definitely ad hominem.

But, i note that it's not ideal to describe anyone that way regardless, since such things are distracting from the heart of the matter.


"It takes a fair amount of effort to, for example, interpret 'Write with nouns and verbs, not with adjectives and adverbs' to mean 'never use adjectives and adverbs.' A better translation would probably be 'don't let adjectives and adverbs carry the weight of your prose.' But the latter is far more difficult to argue with. (I believe that's the straw man fallacy, yes?)"

Yes, he has made some statements of hyperbole, that definately don't need to be that aggressive to make his point... and since those statements amplify the negatives in his opposition, it threatens a strawman. It might depend upon whether those statements are serious support to his argument, or else just thrown in for shock effect; for the record, his emails give me the impression of the latter.

Still, i wonder if some of the friction in this thread may link directly back to those aggressive statements rubbing certain people the wrong way? In any case, it's usually less controversial to just stick with accurate and moderate comments, like you and others have done, and as he did in later statements.

[Writing Again]

(i note, if applying the type of "reason" you describe, then the Christian Church was entirely correct to attack Galileo Galilei for daring to say that our planet circles the sun. I.E., everybody knows the sun circles the earth; anybody who says different is probably a wacko; wackos by definition don't make logical arguments; Galileo is saying different, so he is likely a wacko and therefore his argument is probably illogical.)

Ahhh, you are approaching enlightenment. If you are going to understand what a person is saying you must first assume it is true and then attempt to determine what it could be true of.

The Church attacked Galileo primary because of fear: Fear of the wrath of God -- Galileo was a heretic committing heresy: Fear of any form of curiosity or investigation into anything at all: Fear that God would come down as he did on those who built the Tower of Babel and scatter everything they had spent their lives building into the four and a half winds.

Taken strictly from their viewpoint, yes, they were right.

We can pompously sit in the safety of our modern heated house with our two car garage wherein and call them ignorant, self serving, and superstitious, but how many, if born in that day would have championed his cause, or hidden him from the authorities -- And how many would have cowered behind their doors praying that the wrath of God spared their souls?

We might possibly ask, "We they entirely wrong? In the light of modern knowledge and hindsight, is there any justification for their reactions?" and we might notice that while science has brought us many wondrous things it has not been an unmitigated blessing. Even the apparently benevolent act of extending the average life span has brought problems.

And was Galileo totally and unequivocally right? Or was he a man driven by his own demons? Would a sane man, no matter what his convictions, have risked his freedom, his life, his very soul to prove such a silly point?

We won't go into the fact the ancient Greeks had already proven the argument scientifically and had made pretty accurate measurements of the circumference of the Earth distance from the sun, etc.

What I am saying here is that while it is unreasonable to dismiss an argument in its entirety because of the motives of the people doing the arguing, it is equally unreasonable to dismiss the motives out of hand. To do either one as a blanket argument is to either over use or dismiss an important datum in the equation.

Logic, by its demand that we ignore, rather than take reasonable recognition of, the motives of the speaker literally forbid us from any understanding of the human element in any argument.

To put it another way: This is a writer's board. A writer achieves understanding through story and anecdote.

If you were to write a story about Galileo and his time would you make him the unqualified hero of the scientific method as elementary school books do? Or would you show him as a complex driven man filled with both desire and uncertainty?

Once you had researched his character what would you learn?

And would you make the leaders of the Church ignorant superstitious fools, as modern elementary school books imply, or would you picture them as complex individuals who were trying to preserve the world and life they knew and understood?

Logic does little to aid a writer in their endeavor. Semantics in fact does a lot, but it is more difficult in many ways than logic. Read a bit of the works of that most outrageous of men, S. I. Hayakawa. "Language in Thought and Action" might be a good choice.

[Writing Again]

Sounds compelling. Sounds reasonable. And then i realize that the ground has shifted, the argument gradually changing from "is the argument true or false?" to "is this argument practical?"

I would never debate the truth or falsehood of any argument.

All arguments are, to some degree, at some time and place, and in some context false; and at another time and place, in another context, true.

If you are going to understand an argument you must first assume the person speaking is stating some kind of truth and you must attempt to determine what it could be true of.

In order to understand what an argument is not you must first assume it to be false and then attempt to determine what it could be false of.

Is S&W a piece of literary garbage?

If you are attempting to understand humanity through language then the answer is an unmitigated "Yes."

Is S&W a book that deserves a front row seat on your bookshelf and should it be referred to often?

If you are a writer striving for publication the answer is a resounding "Yes."

What is S&W?

A little book that serves one purpose well and another not at all.

[mr mistook]

Rearing my ugly head once more on this thread, I want confirmation.

What I'm getting is that Strunk & White is the official yardstick against which stylistic integrity is measured, for the entire publishing industry.

This is true, no?

[Euan Harvey]

I'm sure one of the people who is more qualified than me (which is practially anyone) will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the answer to that would be both yes and no.

Yes, for the general principles outlined in the book (Omit needless words, get to the point, cut the waffle).

No, for the very specific and sometimes off the wall proscriptions about things like (for example) 'can' and 'may'.

[Crusader]

@mr mistook:
What I'm getting is that Strunk & White is the official yardstick against which stylistic integrity is measured, for the entire publishing industry.

A yardstick that doesn't measure the whole 36 inches, apparently.

Here is what i'm seeing in this thread:

-S&W can be called "biased" in their ideas, and it can be shown that they did not accurately or wholly take into account the writing styles and grammar of their time or of the past. Likewise, it can also be shown that S&W's ideas contain significant mistakes of interpretation and application of style and grammar.

-The Elements of Style has arguably influenced generations of students, teachers, writers, editors, and publishers into believing that its alleged mistakes and biases are actually correct and proper. As such, nobody has yet seen fit to rewrite the book; and, the book is an accepted standard in many writing-related industries.

-There is an ongoing debate about whether the book is a how-to, or a style guide, or a style and grammar guide, or a guideline, or a bible.

-New writers with the book who aren't told about the book's flaws--or who are told there are no flaws--are at risk to spend their careers making significant errors of judgement in writing, editing and revising. However, the status quo is such that their errors will likely blend into the background, since many of their peers are making the very same errors.

-There are other books of style and grammar available that apparently do not contain the mistakes alleged to be within The Elements Of Style. The list includes but is not limited to:

H. W. Fowler's Modern English Usage

Merriam-Webster's Concise Dictionary of English Usage

The Chicago Manual of Style

[Writing Again]

Rearing my ugly head once more on this thread, I want confirmation.

What I'm getting is that Strunk & White is the official yardstick against which stylistic integrity is measured, for the entire publishing industry.

This is true, no?

Yes: True and correct.




Yes, for the general principles outlined in the book (Omit needless words, get to the point, cut the waffle).

No, for the very specific and sometimes off the wall proscriptions about things like (for example) 'can' and 'may'.

Most editors and publishers will use their intelligence and allow reasonable latitude in specific cases -- But not all -- And even some of the reasonable ones may have specific prejudices against certain usages (such as "may" and "can"). Note I agree with Euan Harvey as to usage -- I just won't run the risk when submitting.



-There are other books of style and grammar available that apparently do not contain the mistakes alleged to be within The Elements Of Style. The list includes but is not limited to:

H. W. Fowler's Modern English Usage

Merriam-Webster's Concise Dictionary of English Usage

The Chicago Manual of Style

It is in a writer's best interests to obtain the style manual used by the publishing house they are submitting to -- And most houses have them or subscribe to a particular manual.

Let's look at some comparisons.

S&W costs $8 top end new and can be found at second hand bookstores for $1. Pinch over 100 pages. Fits in pocket, backpack or purse with ease and weighs a third of a pound, less than 5 ounces.. Takes up little or no room on the desk. Can be read in one sitting.

H. W. Fowler's Modern English Usage
$25 weighs in at over two pounds almost 900 pages.

Merriam-Webster's Concise Dictionary of English Usage
Is only about $15 and only weighs about 2 pounds at about 800 pages -- But wait a minute. They recommend that along with it you use Merriam-Webster's Manual for Writers and Editors at another $10 bucks or so.


The Chicago Manual of Style costs $40 new and is almost never found in second hand shops, is the size of a small backpack, weighs in at over three pounds, is almost 1,000 pages. takes up too much room on the desk and to heavy to keep lugging back and forth from shelf to desk and has almost a thousand pages to trudge through -- I wonder if anyone, except maybe reph, has ever sat down and read it cover to cover?

One quick note: The fact there are so many books on both style and grammar should indicate that no one has gotten it right yet.

[Writing Again]

For Crusader who contends that the argument "Academics seek publication (and often controversy) in order to maintain their standing I bring in a reliable witness (Illogical to rely upon the expertise of a witness -- But standard court procedure).

This is a small excerpt from Physics Today.org discussing the sad state that "Publish or Perish" has fallen into.

Academic institutions in the US have made it imperative for faculty members to publish in order to survive and prosper. The publish-or-perish mantra became a household motto for faculty. There is nothing wrong with that principle if it emphasizes quality rather than quantity. For the most part, that emphasis on publishing has worked for many decades. The number of publications was reasonable, and tenure and promotion decisions in research universities were largely based on the impact of a candidate's scholarly work, as measured by the number of citations and, less quantitatively, by expert opinions. The number of journals and consequently the number of requests for refereeing were both manageable. Overall, technical books were published when a senior researcher with years of experience had something significant to write about.

Unfortunately, today we witness a different environment from that of a generation ago. The publish-or-perish emphasis for some, but not all, institutions has deteriorated into bean counting, and the race is on to publish en masse.

[Crusader]

@Writing Again:

Thank you for elaborating on each of the listed books. i realize now, i should have put links for each one.

As for your past three posts: Very impressive writing... and very unreasonable arguments.

See, the bottom line demands that we treat each old, current, and new question appropriately. Some questions can be solved accurately and wholly by a punchy, short answer. Some questions can't.

So, if trying to figure out questions like "can my car squeeze by on a tank of gas for the week", or "did S&W detour from canon ideas of style and grammar", or "does the earth circle the sun", then...

... it is appropriate to look at evidence of how far your car goes on a tank of gas. And inappropriate to look at the mileage of other cars, or to examine the history of auto-making.

... it is appropriate to look at the grammar and style before, during, and after Strunk. And inappropriate to speculate about the motives of linguists, academics, published writers or editors.

... it is appropriate to look for evidence that the earth circles the sun. And inappropriate to discuss the religion, prejudices, or material needs of Christians of any era.

If it is necessary to change or widen context in order to get at the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, then do so. If it is not, then don't.

[reph]

The Chicago Manual of Style costs $40 new and is almost never found in second hand shops, is the size of a small backpack, weighs in at over three pounds, is almost 1,000 pages. takes up too much room on the desk and to heavy to keep lugging back and forth from shelf to desk and has almost a thousand pages to trudge through -- I wonder if anyone, except maybe reph, has ever sat down and read it cover to cover?

I have the 12th edition, which you might find in second-hand shops. I can lift it. Its last page number is 546. I haven't read every word. I also have two Fowlers (different titles), two Bernsteins (different), a Strunk, an APA publications manual, and a few dictionaries. Each of these books has a different purpose. You don't go to Chicago with the same questions you take to Strunk.

[Medievalist]

I like Geoff Pullum/Language Log. Pullum's a rarity among current linguists; he writes clearly and understandably about a difficult and sometimes confusing subject. Don't dismiss him lightly. I understand his points about Strunk and White as well. I've also used Strunk and White in classes, and sometimes checked it for my own work, and may or may not have followed the advice given.

But.

1. Strunk and White <cite>The Elements of Style</cite>, William Zinsser <cite>On Writing Well: The Classic Guide to Writing Nonfiction</cite> John Trimble <cite>Writing with Style: Classic Conversations on the Art of Writing</cite>—they're all pretty good. I've used all of them.

These guides weren't intended for people writing fiction. They were intended for, and are primarily sold to, the textbook market for college composition and writing classes.

Strunk and White has been updated, though very gingerly; how do you think graduate students get through graduate school? They ghost write.

Any and all of these books can help you master the intricacies of English prose style.

There are others too. I'm especially fond of Richard Lanham's <cite>Revising Prose</cite> and <cite>Analysing Prose</cite>; the first likely won't do much for people writing fiction, and the second, while useful, may be scary.

2. If you're a writer, you should have a copy of Fowler. He's witty, observant and helpful. There are other usage manuals as well. None, and I've looked, literally, at just under a hundred, are nearly as good.

3. Get a copy of the fourth edition unabridged <cite>American Heritage Dictionary</cite>; Websters is still favored by many publishers, but AHD has useful entries on style and usage that more clearly label standard and colloquial use. Plus, everybody should be exposed to Indo-European roots <g>

4. If you're a writer, of any stripe, you need to learn the rules, then learn how people use the language in actual practice, then be able to determine when to flout, and when not to flout. Keep in mind that you don't want to look like a doofus when you submit to a publisher. And the acquisition editors, copy editors, slush pile readers and agents are more than likely intimate, if not enamored with, Strunk and White. It's a two-hour read, tops. Read it, then go back when you want to see what Strunk and White advise. White, by the way, published broadly in fiction, essays and even poetry. He wasn't talking out of his hat.

5. You do know that there are earlier additions of Strunk and White, and Fowler (he's much wittier in the earlier editions), and a variety of other useful references, available free at http://www.bartleby.com?

http://www.bartleby.com/usage/

And the complete fourth edition of the sacred <cite>American Heritage Dictionary</cite> is available at Bartleby as well, in all its luscious glory, including digitized audio for <em>every single lemma</em>, and all the I.E. roots.

http://www.bartleby.com/61

[anatole ghio]

I'd be surprised if there weren't more words in this single thread, than there are in the entire S&W. At what point does something begin to yield diminishing returns?

- Anatole

[Crusader]

Hm. i hope that's not how it works.

Besides... this thread was started by a clueless soul, and could likewise appeal to other clueless spirits out there. Like other threads on this board, it pays for itself through the erasure of cluelessness, which is a neverending pursuit (heh, i can see the big sign, "5,000,000,000 clueless told!")

i just think it's better for someone to page through 10,000 words and get the straight dope, than take 300 words as gospel and be led astray. Or something like that.

In that vein, i again thank everyone who commented with useful and relevant material. For example, the post by Medievalist included another knowledgeable perspective, and some more reference books, too. And, i forgot: AnneMarble set me straight earlier, about Edgar Allen Poe, which was cool. (A reminder that his anthology needs to come out of my storage, haven't read him in awhile...)

[sc211]

I was reminded of this post when reading a bit by Orson Scott Card this morning. When asked about style, he answered in part with this:

Every writer -- no, every human being -- has a distinctive voice, which emerges when we speak and, with luck, when we write. In certain kinds of writing -- process writing, for instance, and legal writing, and highly formal discourse -- such quirkiness needs to be held under control, or even completely submerged. That is the only value of such guides as Elements of Style, which is often touted as a writer's guide to "good style," but which in fact is utterly useless to writers of fiction; no, worse than useless, because it tears the soul out of phrase, sentence, and paragraph, leaving only a lifeless skeleton behind.

Fiction writing is the opposite of these. The living voice of the individual author needs to be heard; the reader is hungry for it, and delights in the music of it. However, a contradictory force is also at work: The reader wants to be guided through the story so as to be able to follow what happens and why without confusion or uncertainty. The author's rhetoric, therefore, must be employed in such a way as to achieve the latter purpose -- clarity -- without killing the individuality of his style.

[sc211]

Someone may have posted this already, but you can read the book here:

www.bartleby.com/141/ (http://www.bartleby.com/141/)

[Writing Again]

As for your past three posts: Very impressive writing... and very unreasonable arguments.

Illogical arguments -- Not unreasonable.

There are many forms of reason.

Logic reasons by elimination -- Its first step is to eliminate the human element in reason. Logic deals with what we can know and only what we can know.

Semantics reasons by rational inclusion -- Primarily of language and experience -- and applying various values to data rather than discarding it. Semantics deals with the human beings knowledge of the world through the use of language.

Systems (theory, practice, analysis) is a holistic form of reason that deals with the physical world as processes -- literally little boxes of input and output detailing the inner process as needed. It deals with those physical things we know and want to know without excluding those things we either do not know or do not want to know.

Principles of evidence and proof in the judicial system is a form of legal reasoning that is necessary to modern social functions. It deals largely with what we can infer from the past and the future using what we can establish now.

Science is based upon methods of investigating the universe that can be defined as a system of reasoning of its own.

You preference is for logic, which I'm afraid I view much as Pullum views S&W's EOS. I use the two S's, Systems and Semantics.

You appear to believe there is a truth and a way to obtain it and that all else is false. This is incorporated into the very premise of logic by its Grecian creators who debated the existence of absolute truth hotly at the time.

Unfortunately in the almost 2,500 since that debate little if anything has ever been brought forward to support the concept of any form of independent truth. Science, the primary investigator of "truth" insists upon proper context to prove or disprove anything and contends that the observer effects the event being observed -- thus implying that even if there were a truth it would be almost impossible for us to know it.

Logic does have a place in the world -- As boolean algebra stuffed inside of a computer.

If you find yourself curious and you don't want to tackle the likes of Hayakawa you might read "Drive Yourself Sane" which is about using semantics in everyday life and "A Systems View of the World, a holistic approach" which gives a nice over view of Systems theory without getting too technical.

[mr mistook]

Any method of reason that can provide accurate predictions is trustworthy.

Applied science has given us fairly reliable computers, cars, televisions, etc. Meteorology gives us a decent idea of the coming week's weather. Logic may have it's limitations, but it does a damn good job of producing results.

There are situations where logic alone is useless. Instinct, or faith, or some other method of reasoning may be more useful in getting to the heart of a complex matter, but the system that cannot make a meaningful prediction is uselsess, and should be considered garbage.

[Crusader]

@mr mistook:
Any method of reason that can provide accurate predictions is trustworthy.

Interesting angle. i've been focusing on the context of "weighing the methods of reason in terms of verifying a specific claim of fact".

So let's see... prediction, compared to verification. With prediction, we're trying to correctly guess what is most likely to happen or be true, based on evaluating evidence at hand.

With verification, we're trying to find whether a claim about the evidence at hand is correct--or trying to establish if the evidence itself is factual or fabricated.

Is that a fair breakdown? Am i missing anything?

Regardless, it's interesting that your point seems to mirror mine: the method or methods appropriate to a situation are the methods that should be used; and, bias to one method or another is not reasonable if the method of choice is clearly inappropriate.

Am i seeing your point correctly?

[mr mistook]

it's interesting that your point seems to mirror mine: the method or methods appropriate to a situation are the methods that should be used;


Yes, but I'm also in support of W.A. whose alternative methods of reason I believe can lead to accurate predictions just as logic can do.

When disagreements arise between two parties who may both be using different methods of reason, not only to draw conclusions, but even to argue their points - things can get messy very quickly.

This is why men make bets.