- Joined
- Jul 30, 2008
- Messages
- 471
- Reaction score
- 59
- Location
- California
- Website
- talktoyouniverse.blogspot.com
Don't trust Strunk and White
- Thread starter Juliette Wade
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2007
- Messages
- 629
- Reaction score
- 264
Fascinating!
I came to American writing-style as an adult, and after my first encounter with an editor, was told many of these rules. I modified my writing to match. Now I know where they originated.
Of course, good writing (beyond simple clarity), spelling, and grammar are matters of convention. Whether or not the Elements were true when they were written, they're true now. It really is an area where if enough people believe it, it comes true.
Clap hands if you believe in unsplit infinitives.
I came to American writing-style as an adult, and after my first encounter with an editor, was told many of these rules. I modified my writing to match. Now I know where they originated.
Of course, good writing (beyond simple clarity), spelling, and grammar are matters of convention. Whether or not the Elements were true when they were written, they're true now. It really is an area where if enough people believe it, it comes true.
Clap hands if you believe in unsplit infinitives.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2009
- Messages
- 24,466
- Reaction score
- 12,761
- Location
- Enchanted Forest and/or editing cave
- Website
- bettielee.wordpress.com
Good article.
Of course, linguists have a much different view on grammar than the rest of us. I remember walking out of my first linguistics class with a feeling akin to learning that God is actually a bum living outside a row of apartments in New York. My mind was blown.
Just a hint of what I mean is when I was told that we chose to have 8 different parts of speech--not because we had 8 parts of speech, but because that's what the Latin language had, and all things educational had to follow Latin. Also, that it's perfectly okay for nouns to modify nouns (boy scouts), verbs to modify nouns (the running man), and almost any other type of word to modify any other type of word.
Not that linguists are wrong, quite the opposite, but they destroyed my view of the English language.
Of course, linguists have a much different view on grammar than the rest of us. I remember walking out of my first linguistics class with a feeling akin to learning that God is actually a bum living outside a row of apartments in New York. My mind was blown.
Just a hint of what I mean is when I was told that we chose to have 8 different parts of speech--not because we had 8 parts of speech, but because that's what the Latin language had, and all things educational had to follow Latin. Also, that it's perfectly okay for nouns to modify nouns (boy scouts), verbs to modify nouns (the running man), and almost any other type of word to modify any other type of word.
Not that linguists are wrong, quite the opposite, but they destroyed my view of the English language.
I've said this many many times on AW.
I'm saying it again.
Strunk and White wrote their book, and the book is still very much primarily directed to . . .
Freshman composition students writing literary essays.
Yep. That's what the book is actually about. And it's not even the best book these days for that.
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2005
- Messages
- 16,339
- Reaction score
- 4,111
- Location
- East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
- Website
- www.jlevitt.com
Still, it contains what to me is one of the great bits of writing advice ever:
Omit Needless Words
The rub is trying to figure out which ones those are, of course.
That's a lot of needless words for rather vague advice.
Although I agree with most of his fume, Pullum claimed Elements of Style was "loved and admired throughout American academe."
Not at the college or grad school I attended, nor at the university where I instructed English. It was considered a guide for British style, not for U.S. publications.
... my prose would still be portulent if not for Strunk and his buddy. Kudos to the duo!
ps The last third of Elements I could've done w/o. Spot-on for some sorts of writing but not for all sorts, imo.
ps The last third of Elements I could've done w/o. Spot-on for some sorts of writing but not for all sorts, imo.
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2008
- Messages
- 13,979
- Reaction score
- 1,533
- Location
- Wisconsin's (sore) thumb
- Website
- www.firefromthesky.org
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2009
- Messages
- 530
- Reaction score
- 59
Wow, that writer needs to get his head out of his ass. The entire tone of the article is one of jealousy more than anything.
And just for the record, yes, "The bill was paid by an anonymous benefactor" does sound perfectly natural. Just not as strong as "An anonymous benefactor paid the bill."
And just for the record, yes, "The bill was paid by an anonymous benefactor" does sound perfectly natural. Just not as strong as "An anonymous benefactor paid the bill."
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2006
- Messages
- 18,014
- Reaction score
- 5,094
- Location
- dunking doughnuts at Dunkin' Donuts
Wow. He lost me with the title of the article. So I guess I should buy his style guide, then?
Last edited:
Passive voice is something I'm working on a lot in my novel... it wasn't something I caught until I recently began hunting for it specifically. The thing is that it's not technically wrong gramattically, it's just not as strong as the active voice.
That's super advice. They swiped it from Cicero. But yes, I like it too.
Here's a better way of saying from an anonymous medieval scribe; I can't cite the mss. I wish I could. I've been looking for the primary source for years:
The written word should be clean as a bone,
clear as light, hard as stone.
Two words are not so good as one.
Just don't think it's a tool of Satan. Sometimes we honestly don't know who is actually responsible for something. Sometimes in science writing the passive voice is exactly what you want.
The thing you want to be able to do is control your prose, including the tone, the syntax, and the diction.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 43,746
- Reaction score
- 8,654
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- www.amazon.com
Sometimes passive voice is preferred because it sounds better, has better flow, and calls for the right focus: "I was fired" is so much stronger than "someone fired me!"
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2009
- Messages
- 530
- Reaction score
- 59
I don't know...I mean, to me, saying the latter is much stronger than saying the former. I guess I would concede that it depends on emotion too. If I was exhausted by the ordeal, I'd probably tell my wife, "I was fired." But if I was pissed, I'd say "Someone fired me!"
Exactly. The example I've always called upon is this: If you're writing an article on Martin Luther King, it is entirely proper and preferable to use the passively-constructed sentence "Martin Luther King was assassinated by James Earl Ray" than it is to use the standardly active construction "James Earl Ray assassinated Martin Luther King." Because King is the focus of your article, not Ray. If you're writing about Ray, then the opposite would be true.
BUT, this does not mean you should consider passive constructions equally strong writing as active constructions are. I'd venture that 95% of the time you'll be better off rendering your sentences in the active, rather than passive, mode. Use passive contructions only when there's a good reason for doing so.
And I don't give a rat's that you might be able to find a crappy but wildly successful published writer who uses passive constructions a lot.
caw
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2006
- Messages
- 10,881
- Reaction score
- 5,368
Huh. I didn't take that at all from the article. I found it an interesting perspective that I will give consideration. I found some of his arguments not only intriguing but credible. There IS a time and a place for passive writing and adjectives.
An opposing point of view doesn't necessarily find its birthplace in jealousy. Sometimes it comes from one's life long studies as this author has the credits to back up.
Nope. He's suggesting Jospeh Williams's Style: Toward Clarity and Grace.
Here; in a comment by Chris Kerns
Geoff Pullum said:
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2009
- Messages
- 557
- Reaction score
- 41
That advice is much of a tautology. What is "needless" also depends on the situation. You can even use words just to make a sentence flow more gracefully, but then they are all of a sudden not needless anymore.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2007
- Messages
- 471
- Reaction score
- 110
- Location
- Oregon Coast
- Website
- www.catherinebusinelle.com
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2008
- Messages
- 471
- Reaction score
- 59
- Location
- California
- Website
- talktoyouniverse.blogspot.com
Sorry it took me so long to get back to the discussion. I agree that Dr. Pullum is passionate, but in my experience that is the way he is about his chosen vocation of linguistics, and I know he's not trying to sell books. Thanks for pulling out that comment, Dawnstorm.
I can't help but agree with his argument on many levels, perhaps because I'm a linguist myself. I am firmly in the "descriptive" camp rather than the "prescriptive" camp - which doesn't at all mean that I don't care about grammar, just that I like to observe it and use it as I encounter it. In fact I analyze writing from the perspective of linguistic discourse analysis (even when revising my own writing) rather than using a style guide.
I think Medievalist has a point when saying it's geared toward freshman composition students. Its guidelines I suppose would tend to lead toward a single type of voice, the composition voice? I prefer to dig further into grammar and look at what kind of usages are associated with regional flavors and personal quirks etc.
I think "omit needless words" is a little bit like "show don't tell" in that it's all very well to say, but if you need the advice badly you're unlikely to understand it - and once you understand what it means you hardly ever need it.
I can't help but agree with his argument on many levels, perhaps because I'm a linguist myself. I am firmly in the "descriptive" camp rather than the "prescriptive" camp - which doesn't at all mean that I don't care about grammar, just that I like to observe it and use it as I encounter it. In fact I analyze writing from the perspective of linguistic discourse analysis (even when revising my own writing) rather than using a style guide.
I think Medievalist has a point when saying it's geared toward freshman composition students. Its guidelines I suppose would tend to lead toward a single type of voice, the composition voice? I prefer to dig further into grammar and look at what kind of usages are associated with regional flavors and personal quirks etc.
I think "omit needless words" is a little bit like "show don't tell" in that it's all very well to say, but if you need the advice badly you're unlikely to understand it - and once you understand what it means you hardly ever need it.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 43,746
- Reaction score
- 8,654
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- www.amazon.com
To me, "omit needless words" doesn't mean you have to cut everything to the bare bones or consolidate multiple meanings into one word. Writing has more to do with succinctness or using big, complex words. It's also about voice, flow, rhythm, etc. "Needless" is subjective. Or else, everyone would be writing the same way.
However, it is a good advice to remember, especially during rewrites/edits.
However, it is a good advice to remember, especially during rewrites/edits.
- Status