Strunk and White's elements of style?

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ongoing), arbitrary stipulations (don't begin a sentence with however), and fatuous advice ("Be clear"), ridiculously out of date in its positions on appropriate choices among grammatical variants, deeply suspect in its style advice and grotesquely wrong in most of the grammatical advice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

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

um...

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.

Re: um...

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 sells for UKP120, a cool US$230.

Strunk

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.

Re: Strunk

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.)

Good For "The Masses"?

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

Re: Strunk

-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

* * *

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

* * *

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

Re: Strunk

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.

Re: Strunk

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.

Re: Strunk

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.

Re: Strunk

Crusader, have you read Elements of Style? You can find a copy of the 1918 version here. 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.

Re: Strunk

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...)

Re: Strunk

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.

Re: Strunk

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.)

Re: Strunk

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.

Re: Strunk

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.

Re: Strunk

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Strunk

@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

Re: Strunk

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.

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.

Re: Strunk

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).

Re: Strunk

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.

Re: Strunk

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

The application of intelligence to information.

@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!

1857

<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.