Marshall,

    Nice point. I would also add that part of the problem comes from treating a practitioner’s advice as if it were a scholarly study. It’s a little like comparing the work of a plant biologist  to a book about creating beautiful gardens written by an award winning gardener.

   The same is true to some extent about teaching books. We all need to ground our teaching in tested practices, but the truth is that we also need to make decisions every day on the basis of what the situation seems to call for, and we will pretty much always be imperfect at it. The scholar can pull back and take a disinterested position and ridicule the teacher for his/her mistakes, but it is very different territory.  I have learned a huge amount from books like Murray’s “A Writer Teaches Writing” or Marie Ponsot’s “Beat Not the Poor Desk” or Mike Rose’s “Lives on the Boundary,” but I am also aware of the shortcomings in those texts, written as they were by people like myself trying to be good teachers day after day after day in a very complex and uncertain world.

   Pullum is a scholar and White was a practitioner.

   Linguistics has not done a very good job of describing the nature of an effective text. White was not trying to be a linguist; he was trying to pass on his wisdom about the choices we make as writers. It’s not the final word and should not be treated as such. Students should try out his advice and see if it works. If not, then try something else.

    He tells us to sympathize with the reader, but try to be ourselves.  That’s great advice from anyone, but even more powerful when we know it comes from the writer of “Once More to the Lake” and “Charlotte’s Web.”

Craig

Srunk and White

Ask a reading specialist what he/she thinks of WHY JOHNNY CAN’T READ, and you’ll get the same reaction about ELEMENTS OF STYLE from compositionists. Both appear to be a short, clear statements of principles of how to solve problems in their given areas. Both are grossly simplistic, ignoring all kinds of research that says that both problems are much more complex than either book makes them out to be.

 By the way, STRUNK AND WHITE discuss the terrible thing the passive voice is ( something I don’t agree with at all) Near that section the text does use a passive voice construction.

Marshall

Herb (and Geoff),

    I had the book recommended to me—and still see it recommended—by people who see it as a great alternative to the usual handbook. I’m much more inclined to look for advice on writing from S&W than I would from Pullum, and that may be the point Geoff is trying to make. It’s too easy to criticize from the sidelines.

   Strunk is early 20^th century—he was White’s teacher. White is one of the premier stylists of the language.

    I am actually a fan of Strunk and White, but I also like to hear what my favorite writers say about writing, what my favorite musicians or songwriters say about their craft, and so on. You can and should take it with a grain of salt. It’s advice, even when couched in a prescriptive way.  Approached in that way, there are gems of hard earned wisdom. “Revise and rewrite.” “Be clear.” “Do not overstate.” “Use definite, specific, concrete language.” They remind  us to use commas between elements in a series and put similar ideas in similar form and place things that need emphasis at the end. That’s advice most writers can benefit from.  

    I think Pullum pretty much misses the point. You can read the entire Huddleston and Pullum student grammar and not get any good advice about writing. The fact that Strunk and White occasionally presents a dated misunderstanding about the nature of language is hardly a basis for denouncing the whole enterprise.

   What Strunk and White tries to do—and occasionally with some success—is describe the nature of an effective text.  You won’t find that in Huddleston and Pullum because they try to describe grammar in purely formal terms, only occasionally straying into usage. The strength of S&W is that it gives clear advice, some of it by one of our best writers.

   On the other hand, it’s not a grammar text. It never tries to explain how language works in any kind of comprehensive way. It’s easy to find places where it gives misleading advice, their views on the passive being one of those.

Craig

Geoff,

I agree with your take on S&W and on its appeal to an uninformed audience.  That’s where I see the parallel to the 18^th c. and the rise of the merchant class.

Herb

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/