http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/04/14/the-end-of-strunk Comments On: The End of Strunk by Charles Mudede en-us Copyright 2009 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:00:01 -0800 Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:45:00 -0800 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss
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.
Posted by RobotRevolution]]> Wed, 15 Apr 2009 14:34:03 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Mud Baby]]> Wed, 15 Apr 2009 11:06:01 -0700 The Stranger
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.
Posted by Look at all those effing leaves!]]> Tue, 14 Apr 2009 22:05:18 -0700 The Stranger Posted by TVDinner]]> Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:50:49 -0700 The Stranger
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.
Posted by John D]]> Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:44:19 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Fnarf]]> Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:37:01 -0700 The Stranger Pullum on Strunk and White
Posted by Christian]]> Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:31:21 -0700 The Stranger
I'm just pining for the fjords.
Posted by GOD]]> Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:30:21 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Greg]]> Tue, 14 Apr 2009 13:55:56 -0700 The Stranger
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.
Posted by Fnarf]]> Tue, 14 Apr 2009 13:47:24 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Emmanuel Goldstein]]> Tue, 14 Apr 2009 13:30:05 -0700 The Stranger Posted by E-literate]]> Tue, 14 Apr 2009 13:26:04 -0700 The Stranger
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.
Posted by Simac]]> Tue, 14 Apr 2009 13:15:16 -0700 The Stranger Posted by a]]> Tue, 14 Apr 2009 13:10:01 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty]]> Tue, 14 Apr 2009 12:42:05 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Blah Blah]]> Tue, 14 Apr 2009 12:31:24 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Joe M]]> Tue, 14 Apr 2009 12:24:42 -0700 The Stranger Posted by gillsans]]> Tue, 14 Apr 2009 12:17:57 -0700 The Stranger
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.
Posted by Atlas]]> Tue, 14 Apr 2009 12:12:14 -0700 The Stranger Geoffrey K. Pullum is constipated.

How's that for being clear and omitting needless words?
Posted by Joe M]]> Tue, 14 Apr 2009 12:10:08 -0700 The Stranger 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."
Posted by David Wright]]> Tue, 14 Apr 2009 12:05:46 -0700 The Stranger
Posted by kinaidos]]> Tue, 14 Apr 2009 11:54:52 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Fnarf]]> Tue, 14 Apr 2009 11:43:11 -0700 The Stranger I'm in total agreement with Pullum, and by extension, Charles. Though I hate to admit that.
Posted by WordNerd]]> Tue, 14 Apr 2009 11:34:01 -0700 The Stranger
(He did later revise my negative evaluation after I complained.)

This morning's wacky flashback courtesy of Slog!
Posted by leek]]> Tue, 14 Apr 2009 11:33:31 -0700 The Stranger