Welcome to The Valve
Login
Register


Valve Links

The Front Page
Statement of Purpose

John Holbo - Editor
Scott Eric Kaufman - Editor
Aaron Bady
Adam Roberts
Amardeep Singh
Andrew Seal
Bill Benzon
Daniel Green
Jonathan Goodwin
Joseph Kugelmass
Lawrence LaRiviere White
Marc Bousquet
Matt Greenfield
Miriam Burstein
Ray Davis
Rohan Maitzen
Sean McCann
Guest Authors

Laura Carroll
Mark Bauerlein
Miriam Jones

Past Valve Book Events

cover of the book Theory's Empire

Event Archive

cover of the book The Literary Wittgenstein

Event Archive

cover of the book Graphs, Maps, Trees

Event Archive

cover of the book How Novels Think

Event Archive

cover of the book The Trouble With Diversity

Event Archive

cover of the book What's Liberal About the Liberal Arts?

Event Archive

cover of the book The Novel of Purpose

Event Archive

The Valve - Closed For Renovation

Happy Trails to You

What’s an Encyclopedia These Days?

Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Intimate Enemies: What’s Opera, Doc?

Alphonso Lingis talks of various things, cameras and photos among them

Feynmann, John von Neumann, and Mental Models

Support Michael Sporn’s Film about Edgar Allen Poe

Philosophy, Ontics or Toothpaste for the Mind

Nazi Rules for Regulating Funk ‘n Freedom

The Early History of Modern Computing: A Brief Chronology

Computing Encounters Being, an Addendum

On the Origin of Objects (towards a philosophy of computation)

Symposium on Graeber’s Debt

The Nightmare of Digital Film Preservation

Richard Petti on Occupy Wall Street: America HAS a Ruling Class

Bill Benzon on Whatwhatwhatwhatwhatwhatwhat?

Nick J. on The Valve - Closed For Renovation

Bill Benzon on Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Norma on Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Bill Benzon on What’s an Object, Metaphysically Speaking?

john balwit on What’s an Object, Metaphysically Speaking?

William Ray on That Shakespeare Thing

Bill Benzon on That Shakespeare Thing

William Ray on That Shakespeare Thing

JoseAngel on That Shakespeare Thing

Bill Benzon on Objects and Graeber's Debt

Bill Benzon on A Dirty Dozen Sneaking up on the Apocalypse

JoseAngel on A Dirty Dozen Sneaking up on the Apocalypse

JoseAngel on Objects and Graeber's Debt

Advanced Search

Articles
RSS 1.0 | RSS 2.0 | Atom

Comments
RSS 1.0 | RSS 2.0 | Atom

XHTML | CSS

Powered by Expression Engine
Logo by John Holbo

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

 


Blogroll

2blowhards
About Last Night
Academic Splat
Acephalous
Amardeep Singh
Beatrice
Bemsha Swing
Bitch. Ph.D.
Blogenspiel
Blogging the Renaissance
Bookslut
Booksquare
Butterflies & Wheels
Cahiers de Corey
Category D
Charlotte Street
Cheeky Prof
Chekhov’s Mistress
Chrononautic Log
Cliopatria
Cogito, ergo Zoom
Collected Miscellany
Completely Futile
Confessions of an Idiosyncratic Mind
Conversational Reading
Critical Mass
Crooked Timber
Culture Cat
Culture Industry
CultureSpace
Early Modern Notes
Easily Distracted
fait accompi
Fernham
Ferule & Fescue
Ftrain
GalleyCat
Ghost in the Wire
Giornale Nuovo
God of the Machine
Golden Rule Jones
Grumpy Old Bookman
Ideas of Imperfection
Idiocentrism
Idiotprogrammer
if:book
In Favor of Thinking
In Medias Res
Inside Higher Ed
jane dark’s sugarhigh!
John & Belle Have A Blog
John Crowley
Jonathan Goodwin
Kathryn Cramer
Kitabkhana
Languagehat
Languor Management
Light Reading
Like Anna Karina’s Sweater
Lime Tree
Limited Inc.
Long Pauses
Long Story, Short Pier
Long Sunday
MadInkBeard
Making Light
Maud Newton
Michael Berube
Moo2
MoorishGirl
Motime Like the Present
Narrow Shore
Neil Gaiman
Old Hag
Open University
Pas au-delà
Philobiblion
Planned Obsolescence
Printculture
Pseudopodium
Quick Study
Rake’s Progress
Reader of depressing books
Reading Room
ReadySteadyBlog
Reassigned Time
Reeling and Writhing
Return of the Reluctant
S1ngularity::criticism
Say Something Wonderful
Scribblingwoman
Seventypes
Shaken & Stirred
Silliman’s Blog
Slaves of Academe
Sorrow at Sills Bend
Sounds & Fury
Splinters
Spurious
Stochastic Bookmark
Tenured Radical
the Diaries of Franz Kafka
The Elegant Variation
The Home and the World
The Intersection
The Litblog Co-Op
The Literary Saloon
The Literary Thug
The Little Professor
The Midnight Bell
The Mumpsimus
The Pinocchio Theory
The Reading Experience
The Salt-Box
The Weblog
This Public Address
This Space: The Fire’s Blog
Thoughts, Arguments & Rants
Tingle Alley
Uncomplicatedly
Unfogged
University Diaries
Unqualified Offerings
Waggish
What Now?
William Gibson
Wordherders

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Strunk and White, Yuk!

Posted by Bill Benzon on 06/30/09 at 10:08 AM

Missed this one when it first appeared. Linguist Geoffrey Pullum trashes The Elements of Style on its 50th anniversary: “Its advice ranges from limp platitudes to inconsistent nonsense.” On the passive voice: “What concerns me is that the bias against the passive is being retailed by a pair of authors so grammatically clueless that they don’t know what is a passive construction and what isn’t.” On not splitting infinitives, S & W are wrong wrong wrong. And so forth.


Comments

I’m surprised you fell for Pullham’s inept critique. Do yourself a favor and read Michael Leddy’s four-blog-post dissection of Pullham’s argument.

By Matt Thomas on 06/30/09 at 02:59 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Okay, that’s it, I’ve had it.  I have had it with these lazy, sweeping denunciations of Strunk & White, created for no other reason than to get attention with lazy contrarianism.

First of all, people should be aware that it is beyond cliché to put up a “it’s not as great as everyone says” article/post when some beloved work reaches an anniversary.  See, for instance, this article from Slate on the 20th anniversary of Moore’s Watchmen. Or even better, see this “Room for Debate” piece at the New York Times website, about Elements of Style’s 50th.  The “debate” goes like this: “The book is terrible” (Pullum); “the book is obsolete” (Patricia O’Conner, author of the mediocre-at-best grammar guide Woe Is I); “I don’t hate the book as much as I used to”; “the book is weird”; and, “the book is useful but way too popular.” Anyone who thinks that they’re saying something original or interesting by simply posting the same old reassessment is deluding themselves (to say nothing of it being, currently, the end of June, more than two months since the anniversary has come and gone).

Second, to the specific charges against the book.  Now, I happen to agree that a lot of the grammar advice in The Elements of Style can and maybe should be disregarded.  In this, it’s like pretty much every other style guide out there; Strunk & White did not create the prohibition against split infinitives, and while I surely disagree with that prohibition I don’t see where their decision to use it is more arbitrary than, say, the MLA’s rule against beginning a sentence with a numeral.

However, this is not much to stake an argument on—"I disagree with them about whether to put an apostrophe-s after a noun ending in s"—is a pretty feeble attack—and so critics of S&W have to overreach.  Sometimes this is done by simply ignoring common sense—SEK, in his post on the anniversary, is reduced to maintaining that “tangledly” could ever sound good in a sentence—and sometimes by simply lying.  As Leddy’s post (helpfully linked by Matt, above) points out, Pullum (not “Pullham,” FWIW) is only able to describe advice like “Omit needless words” as “useless,” “redundant,” etc. by disingenuously ignoring the many specific and helpful examples the authors provide for this advice, thus conveniently allowing him to burn a straw book.  (Scott does this too, but I’m inclined to attribute that not to malice as much as to placidly buying in to the image of Elements of Style as unhelpfully prescriptive that competitors like Pullum and O’Conner have done their best to propagate.)

Strunk & White’s book helped me and many fellow writers more than any other book on writing that I can think of; that doesn’t make it immune from critique, but it does make me particularly impatient with critiques that proceed from false premises and have no apparent reason to exist than to cash in on that very book’s justly deserved acclaim.

(By the way, in the preview, some of my links seem to show up right and some don’t, so apologies if this looks weird…)

By tomemos on 06/30/09 at 05:47 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Yes, tomemos is right. It’s “Pullum” not “Pullham.” I regret the error.

By Matt Thomas on 07/01/09 at 01:17 AM | Permanent link to this comment

I’m not a wild-eyed contrarian and yet I find myself partial to critiques like SEK’s and Pullam’s--and I loved the book when it was assigned to me in class for the first time. I still edit other people’s papers with my ear attuned to the S/W in my mind. However, one can not simply dismiss the very common errors and simply dunderheaded advice it contains.

I doubt the book causes any harm really--the advice only rarely instructs someone to do something grammatically wrong and mostly errs on the side of making writers too cautious. But any writer likely feel pinioned by S/W probably was never going to be a particularly adventurous writer to start with.

However, it is a manual that offers semantic, syntactic and stylistic advice--I fail to see how attacking that advice as wrong headed is attacking a straw man--grammatical advice is the only man in the book. To attack or praise that advice is the only way to legitimately criticize it.

By Jim on 07/02/09 at 08:40 AM | Permanent link to this comment

Jim,

Saying that the book gives bad advice is certainly not a straw man, you’re right.  The straw man comes in distortions that Pullum (and SEK, but let’s leave him aside for now) levies against the book in order to praise it.  The part of S&W that people find most useful is the stylistic advice, and so that must be torn down ("mostly harmless”; “limp platitudes"); to do so, he pretends as though the book just makes style pronouncements unsupported by examples. “Be clear” he calls “vapid”; “Do not explain too much” is “tautologous”; “Omit needless words” is “useless.” The reasoning is that everyone knows they should be clear, it’s obvious that explaining “too much” is bad, and that “the students who know which words are needless don’t need the instruction.” The problem, as Michael Leddy points out in the post that Matt linked to, is that Strunk and White provide clear illustrating examples of all of these principles, examples which Pullum entirely ignores.  When Pullum sneers that “Following the platitudinous style recommendations of Elements would make your writing better if you knew how to follow them,” he is actually deceiving uninformed readers about what the book contains.

As a general point, I don’t object to critique of a beloved artifact, even if it doesn’t make me feel very good.  The point at which it gets annoying is when it becomes a fad, as in the New York Times “debate” piece I linked to above, in which five people (including Pullum) take turns attacking or downplaying the value of the book.  The image of people climbing over each other to dismiss a classic most thoroughly, especially when there’s a hint of professional jealousy, is not very dignified.

(By the way, it’s still Pullum, not Pullam.  Bill, do you mind changing it in the post so that we’re all working with the same vocabulary?)

By tomemos on 07/02/09 at 10:51 AM | Permanent link to this comment

Though humorlessness isn’t a crime, it’s also worth noting—as Leddy does in the posts I linked to above—that Pullum completely misses the jokes in S&W. It’s hard to take someone so serious seriously.

By Matt Thomas on 07/02/09 at 11:29 AM | Permanent link to this comment

I remember a prof I had who insisted on all the shibboleths and zombie rules from S&W, especially “hopefully,” “the fact that,” the so-called “split infinitive,” and the prohibition of “however” in sentence initial position.  The objectionable thing about the book is precisely the mindless adoration of it and the fossilization of such shibboleths.  I have found Liberman’s and Pullum’s critiques of this book immensely liberating.

By on 07/02/09 at 12:06 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Hi. An enjoyable discussion. I wrote a bit about the NY Times blog piece a couple months ago. You might be interested:
http://blog.textarts.com/2009/04/strunk-and-white-elements-of-style.html

Mark

By on 07/04/09 at 12:33 AM | Permanent link to this comment

It’s been most of a decade, I realize, since I started insisting that students and colleagues read Adios, Strunk and White before submitting academic-style essays.

I’ve always been surprised how little known the book was.

By Bill Tozier on 07/08/09 at 03:43 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Add a comment:

Name:
Email:
Location:
URL:

 

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: