Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Books The End of Strunk
Posted by Charles Mudede on Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 10:59 AM
First, God is dead. Second, The Elements of Style is dead.
April 16 is the 50th anniversary of the publication of a little book that is loved and admired throughout American academe. Celebrations, readings, and toasts are being held, and a commemorative edition has been released.I won't be celebrating.
The Elements of Style does not deserve the enormous esteem in which it is held by American college graduates. Its advice ranges from limp platitudes to inconsistent nonsense. Its enormous influence has not improved American students' grasp of English grammar; it has significantly degraded it.
The authors won't be hurt by these critical remarks. They are long dead.
Geoffrey K. Pullum, the head of linguistics and English language at the University of Edinburgh, destroys the "grammar bible." At the end of the article (the ordeal), nothing is left of the short and famous work but a heap of bad sentences and broken concepts. God is dead.
Share via
2
It did however inspire a new generation of books, many of which are far more relevant and useful. Ever read the Chicago guide to science writing?
3
Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage is the shit.
Strunk & White isn't as bad as your professor makes it out to be, though. It's in favor of plain sense, which is perhaps why college professors are unimpressed.
Even a book like "Eats, Shoots and Leaves" has its merits.
Strunk & White isn't as bad as your professor makes it out to be, though. It's in favor of plain sense, which is perhaps why college professors are unimpressed.
Even a book like "Eats, Shoots and Leaves" has its merits.
4
It may be a platitude, but "Make the paragraph the unit of composition." bears repeating to students more often than I'd like.
7
One who masks lack of meaning in big words that have no definition and no meaning; one who uses tautology as "reason"; one who makes up reality instead of arguing a point("the such and such is 'found in'" indicates the voice of an all-knowing god, not any kind of reasoning) -- well duh, that kind of "thinker" would hate Strunk.
Because Strunk says take out the clutter and the vague and nondefined words -- and most of all, know what you are saying and say it clearly, and simply, which means you have to have something to say. "Content" IOW. Those with no content of course doth hate on Strunk, duh.
Because Strunk says take out the clutter and the vague and nondefined words -- and most of all, know what you are saying and say it clearly, and simply, which means you have to have something to say. "Content" IOW. Those with no content of course doth hate on Strunk, duh.
8
"The authors won't be hurt by these critical remarks" because their work continues to be very useful. A great many of their rules may be platitudes and truisms, but anyone who has ever read undergraduate prose knows that most of them haven't mastered even platitudes and truisms about good writing.
Basically, the author of this article is a highly specialized linguistic gramarian who is unhappy that the book isn't about the highly specialized insights of linguistic gramarians.
But as Napoleon @ 5 masterfully notes, it's hardly surprising that Charles would join in an attack on Strunk and White. He clearly does his best to violate at least a half-dozen rules for clear expository writing every day before breakfast.
Basically, the author of this article is a highly specialized linguistic gramarian who is unhappy that the book isn't about the highly specialized insights of linguistic gramarians.
But as Napoleon @ 5 masterfully notes, it's hardly surprising that Charles would join in an attack on Strunk and White. He clearly does his best to violate at least a half-dozen rules for clear expository writing every day before breakfast.
9
Wow. I took a class from Geoff Pullum when he was at UC Santa Cruz. I got mono a week before the final and he refused to give me permission to make it up later. Damn you Geoff Pullum!
(He did later revise my negative evaluation after I complained.)
This morning's wacky flashback courtesy of Slog!
(He did later revise my negative evaluation after I complained.)
This morning's wacky flashback courtesy of Slog!
10
Um... did any of you read the linked essay? Do any of you know what those big grammatical words mean in a linguistic sense? The general guidelines to style are okay at best, but the grammatical rules the book espouses... suck ass. Think of it as that Microsoft Word paperclip dude "correcting" all of your writing until it doesn't make sense, or worse, says the exact opposite of that which you were intending.
I'm in total agreement with Pullum, and by extension, Charles. Though I hate to admit that.
I'm in total agreement with Pullum, and by extension, Charles. Though I hate to admit that.
13
Charles prefers the Deleuze and Guattari guide to style. Example: "The issue is not at all anarchy versus organization, nor even centralism versus decentralization, but a calculus or conception of the problems of nondenumerable sets, against the axiomatic of denumerable sets."
15
@3
You would suggest "Eat, Shoots and Leaves" is a college level text?
Of course those books have their merit, but as THE rules for grammar, S&W almost willfully disobey them on the same page in their text.
As far as the poor quality of undergraduate prose, this is failing is not corrected by reading S&W because the advice is unhelpful if you don't already know the rules.
This is about college writing, not about everyday usage. Taking out undefined modifiers meets its necessary conclusion at internet style abbreviations that not only take out "useless" modifiers but useless letters as well.
You would suggest "Eat, Shoots and Leaves" is a college level text?
Of course those books have their merit, but as THE rules for grammar, S&W almost willfully disobey them on the same page in their text.
As far as the poor quality of undergraduate prose, this is failing is not corrected by reading S&W because the advice is unhelpful if you don't already know the rules.
This is about college writing, not about everyday usage. Taking out undefined modifiers meets its necessary conclusion at internet style abbreviations that not only take out "useless" modifiers but useless letters as well.
18
Pullum brings to mind those frustrated wannabe musicians who critique Miles Davis' technical proficiency on the trumpet. Despite decades of studying theoretical linguistics, Pullum lacks the absolute command of the English language that made E. B. White great. Yes, Geoffrey, you know a lot of big words and you can analyze syntax with the best of them, but you're still an absolutely mediocre writer.
19
I suppose that it should come as no great shock that a generation which can't string ten words together to make a complete sentence would have no use for the elements of grammar. Clearly, they have little use for spelling as well. Maybe we should declare dictionaries dead too.
21
It's amazing how vociferous people are about English language and usage, isn't it. Yet, people don't really "keep up" with trends in language and usage, either. S&W has been widely regarded as crap for well over 25 years now, but it somehow holds out.
Let's say you are a professional writer, editor, or copy editor (MW) or copy editor (AHD). You don't use S&W. You probably use the Chicago Manual of Style and Merriam Webster's Dictionary of English Usage (buy both right now if you don't have them). You might use some other style guides in addition if you write for a specific field (e.g. Wired Style, Microsoft Manual of Style, etc.). If you're an academic (professor, college student, etc.). You probably use the MLA Style Guide, too.
If you're a linguist, you probably rely on the heavily technical Cambridge Guide to English Usage in addition to anything Pullum has written.
Let's say you're a communist. You don't use S&W because it's the apogee of bourgeois values in language. You hopefully have a copy of the Chinese-English Dictionary of Modern Communist Usage and the StaSi German/Russian Lexicon of Intelligence Terms, among others.
That leaves the rest of us: if you're not a linguist, academic, or professional writer/editor, or communist, you probably just rely on the squiggly lines in Microsoft Word and some online resource or two for help. Seems to me that's plenty--and already several steps up from S&W.
As for S&W, it has no place on any bookshelf, and if you care with immoderate fervor about the English language then you ought to be memorizing the CMS and the Cambridge GEU instead so that the high horse from which you speak about language is indeed high.
Let's say you are a professional writer, editor, or copy editor (MW) or copy editor (AHD). You don't use S&W. You probably use the Chicago Manual of Style and Merriam Webster's Dictionary of English Usage (buy both right now if you don't have them). You might use some other style guides in addition if you write for a specific field (e.g. Wired Style, Microsoft Manual of Style, etc.). If you're an academic (professor, college student, etc.). You probably use the MLA Style Guide, too.
If you're a linguist, you probably rely on the heavily technical Cambridge Guide to English Usage in addition to anything Pullum has written.
Let's say you're a communist. You don't use S&W because it's the apogee of bourgeois values in language. You hopefully have a copy of the Chinese-English Dictionary of Modern Communist Usage and the StaSi German/Russian Lexicon of Intelligence Terms, among others.
That leaves the rest of us: if you're not a linguist, academic, or professional writer/editor, or communist, you probably just rely on the squiggly lines in Microsoft Word and some online resource or two for help. Seems to me that's plenty--and already several steps up from S&W.
As for S&W, it has no place on any bookshelf, and if you care with immoderate fervor about the English language then you ought to be memorizing the CMS and the Cambridge GEU instead so that the high horse from which you speak about language is indeed high.
24
@15, of course not. I just said it "has its merits". It's flaws as well; I think it's a pretty crappy book, but there are some points in there that can stand being made.
Chicago Manual of Style, etc. are good for questions about formatting and basic grammar and so forth and so yadda yadda, but useless for WRITING STYLE, which can really only be developed through practice and good models. Linguists and professors of anything are not good models. If I was a professor, I'd tell my students to go out and read every book John McPhee ever wrote. Thank god I'm not one.
Chicago Manual of Style, etc. are good for questions about formatting and basic grammar and so forth and so yadda yadda, but useless for WRITING STYLE, which can really only be developed through practice and good models. Linguists and professors of anything are not good models. If I was a professor, I'd tell my students to go out and read every book John McPhee ever wrote. Thank god I'm not one.
25
Pullum makes a good case about the grammar, but he seems almost wilfully ignorant of style. Those "limp platitudes" he derides are apparently so alien to his experience as a college professor - someone who gets paid to write dense and opaque prose - that he thinks they have no use for anyone. One man's trash...
28
I love "By this logic, the Tate-LaBianca murders are part of the damage that the Beatles did in creating the White Album" as a rip on Pullum blaming Strunk & White for later bad writing tutors.
29
Um... if Pullum is such a grammar hotshot, you would think that even isolated away in Edinburgh, he might have realized that The Elements of Style is an American book and will reflect American usage (your local usage may vary).
He gives three examples of great (British) writers using "none" with a plural verb. Okay, but we don't do it that way.
It should not be news that British English differs from American English on various points. For example, Brits typically use plural verbs with mass nouns ("and the crowd are loving it, though not in the States").
Just for the record, I cannot stand Brits who view American English as a debased form of the language. They are simply wrong.
He gives three examples of great (British) writers using "none" with a plural verb. Okay, but we don't do it that way.
It should not be news that British English differs from American English on various points. For example, Brits typically use plural verbs with mass nouns ("and the crowd are loving it, though not in the States").
Just for the record, I cannot stand Brits who view American English as a debased form of the language. They are simply wrong.
31
Strunk and White, as the title hopefully indicates, is a booklet on style. Grammar is a quite different subject.
The advice to use the active voice counsels against written throat clearing intros that contribute nothing to the sentence. There were a great number of dead leaves lying on the ground is flabby verbosity. "A shitload of dead leaves lay on the ground" is good style: subject (modifying phrase) verb.
He gives three examples of great (British) writers using "none" with a plural verb.
The author of the Anne of Green Gables series was proudly North American.
The advice to use the active voice counsels against written throat clearing intros that contribute nothing to the sentence. There were a great number of dead leaves lying on the ground is flabby verbosity. "A shitload of dead leaves lay on the ground" is good style: subject (modifying phrase) verb.
He gives three examples of great (British) writers using "none" with a plural verb.
The author of the Anne of Green Gables series was proudly North American.
32
"As for S&W, it has no place on any bookshelf..." true, but ulike the Chicago Manual of Style, it does fit nicely in my back pocket. I may be old school, but I have to say this slim little book hauled my ass through four years of high school AP classes in which I was forced to write one in-class and one take-home essay each week, not to mention term papers. Whoever tries to deprive me of this book will have to pry it out of my cold, dead hands.
33
I always liked S&W because it set forth the rules very clearly.
Then it broke them.
It's a terrific tutorial for aspiring writers on how and when to break the rules (which all the best writing does). But like the advice in the book, S&W doesn't just come out and tell you how to break the rules. It shows you.
Then it broke them.
It's a terrific tutorial for aspiring writers on how and when to break the rules (which all the best writing does). But like the advice in the book, S&W doesn't just come out and tell you how to break the rules. It shows you.
Comments (33) RSS