From two pages ago: Somewhere or other (my ability to name sources, especially several years later, is dreadful) I picked up "Avoid superfluous prolixity." I've found that while I often write that in response to someone else's fiction, I rarely have to do so twice to the same writer. Though this could bring on the complaint that I'm not following the rules I'm endorsing, self-illustrating sentences can be marvelous tools. Mostly, that one seems to bring on a flinch and an, "Oh, is that what I just did? Sorry!"
Well, this shows exactly why I
don't like EoS. See, to me "Avoid Superfluous Prolixity" is not self-illustrating; or if it is, it's not equivalent to "omit needless words." There are no needless words in "Avoid superfluous prolixity". All three words perform as they should.
The common "rule" you're demonstrating is KISS ("Keep it simple, stupid"); I'm not sure if it's in EoS at all. It might be, or it could be constructed from various of their rules. Who knows?
The rules are concise, but they're not clear. Why did you respond to "Omit needless words," with "Avoid Superfluous Prolixity," in the first place?
I also read a paper for an intro-linguistics class some years ago on the use of passive voice in conversation, and how it was usually an attempt to dodge responsibility. The example was, "You know that thing of gravy you had in the refrigerator? It got dumped." The linguist observed that the signal word that kept this from being utterly abrupt was had. If your character is trying to slither out of something, a passive voice may be just the ticket.
That is a
very interesting example. Note the "got-passive". The "was-passive" wouldn't work nearly as well:
You know that thing of gravy you had in the refrigerator? It was dumped.
See how the "got", here carries a note of "accidently" that the "was" would lack?
A couple of notes:
1. I'd like to draw attention to "in conversation". Passive voice is much rarer in speech than in writing. (I've seen statistics on that somewhere, but I'm too lazy to go look for it now. I think I could be taking them from the
Longman Grammar of Written and Spoken English, but I'm not sure. I don't own that book, so I can't check.
What this means is that passive voice usage might have different implications in writing and speaking. You'd certainly need to approach it differently.
2. I'm wary about the "usually".
Thanks for that example, though. It's great!
If your character is the sort to say, "I just dumped that little thing of gravy all over the inside of your fridge and made the most horrible mess. Where are the paper towels?" she's a remarkably responsible and forthright human being. I might never have noticed the difference, though, if the linguistics paper hadn't sent up the flag.
The signal value of "had" arises from tense, not voice. "...you had..." - "Wait, I don't have it anymore?" See:
You know that thing of gravy you had in the refrigerator? I accidently dumped it. Sorry. Where are the paper towels?
Introducing things you're going to talk about is generally not a bad idea. It's especially useful to do this, if what you're going to say about it is unpleasant. The effect of the passive voice ("got dumped") is negligible, really, in that context.
Or a bit more dodgy, but still in the active voice?
A: You know that thing of gravy you had in the refrigerator? Someone dumped it.
B: I wonder who.
C: Gravy-dumping refrigerator gnomes?
Is there such a thing as useless information for writers? To me, not studying grammar and language use and wanting to be a professional writer is a bit like trying to be a professional musician without learning your scales and arpeggios until they're innate.
A scale is a scale. An arpeggio is an arpeggio. You
can practise these things. But neither Strunk nor White are precise enough to allow that sort of practise. You need to transform these general statements into practical exercises. Something to do, rather than something to pay lipservice to.
This is where Strunk & White provide little to no help. It's easier to do this if you are
already a good writer, or if you're a new writer with too much confidence (these rules mean whatever you want them to; they're not specific enough to contradict you much). But a new writer with little confidence will have more problems with the booklet. And - here's why the book makes me angry - they might think there's something wrong
them rather than with the booklet.
Unlike a good many style guides out there, S&W is at least readable foundation work, and it's rare to find a style guide...
It's readable. I'm not so sure about "foundation work". I have a hunch that the "foundation work" is what the reader has to bring to the text rather than take away from it. Again, good in the class room, out of place elsewhere.
...co-written by someone who has also written a book on the level of The Once and Future King -- something students might actually have read and enjoyed. The ability to whallop out pedantic academic prose isn't a qualification for teaching graceful writing, though it can certainly make observations about it.
Conversly, the ability to write well does not automatically confer the ability to write coherently about writing well. I read and enjoyed
Charlotte's Web; that doesn't mean I buy White's articles in EoS. If you're going to argue authority, argue with Strunk. He was at least a teacher, meaning he should have had pedagoical skill. The trouble with that argument is that the orignal EoS (and the White-less version is, in my opinion, a better book) is not supposed to be a standalone.
ETA2: Perhaps a century ago this was different, but now this "mysterious decree" makes the difference between elegantly-written fiction and pulp fiction. If you are trying to write pulp, the surest way is to drop at least one -ly ending into each paragraph and use lots of lurid, eldritch adjectives. Pulp, you see, paid by the word count back in the day. I'm no fan of utterly banning entire parts of speech, and that shows in this post, but too many -ly's, especially in the hands of a writer ignoring sentence rhythm, start to make inadvertant and stilted rhyming poetry which gets on the readers' nerves.
Given that the only example given for this rule is supposed to demonstrate when adjectives are useful, I'm kind of stumped how to turn this into anything useful.
On the one hand, it's a no-brainer. Nouns and verbs are obligatory to sentence creation in English. Adverbs and adjectives are not. So, of course, it's easier to write well without adjectives and adverbs than without verbs or nouns.
The basic question, then, is: How do I tell when an adjective/adverb is "good"? I doubt you'll find much help in S&W.
People say
Elements of Style is a slim book about style. I think it's a wordy table of contents to an unwritten book. I also think your ETA2 contains more insight than the entire
Elements of Style.
