Twitter
Email
RSSTaking Another Look at Strunk and White
April 16 was the 50th anniversary of the publication of The Elements of Style by Strunk and White, a slim grammar reference that is recommended to students and writers everywhere. I wrote a post on it not too long ago, saying that it “deserves its long popularity as a concise guide to correct usage.”
This little book has sold more than 10 million copies since 1959. Its publisher, Longman, has commemorated the anniversary by producing a black leather-bound, gold-embossed edtion containing paens to the work written by prominent literary and journalistic figures from Dorothy Parker to Dan Rather .
Dennis K. Baron, professor of English and linguistics at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, goes so far as to equate teeny Elements with Fowler’s massive and erudite Modern Usage:
“This [Elements of Style], together with…H.W. Fowler’s ‘Dictionary of Modern English Usage,’ are the two style books that are generally held up as the authorities”
Unlike many writers, I was not introduced to Elements as an undergraduate. It was not until many years later that I found it–literally–in the drawer of a desk assigned to me in a college English department. Since I already relied on Walsh’s Plain English Handbook to solve knotty usage problems, I didn’t have much occasion to consult Strunk and White. However, all my colleagues had a copy and recommended it to their students. I never doubted that it was an impeccable reference.
Until now.
A caustic review of The Elements of Style in the April 17, 2009 issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education, “50 Years of Stupid Grammar Advice,” has sent me back to Strunk and White for a closer look.
According to Professor Geoffrey K. Pullum, head of linguistics and English language at the University of Edinburgh and co-author of The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (Cambridge University Press, 2002),
The Elements of Style does not deserve the enormous esteem in which it is held by American college graduates. Its advice ranges from limp platitudes to inconsistent nonsense. Its enormous influence has not improved American students’ grasp of English grammar; it has significantly degraded it.
Harsh words, but at least two of the items in Pullum’s criticism struck a chord with me: the entry on passive verbs, and the admonition against using adverbs.
I’ve often pondered the fact that many writers, not just students, but practicing adult writers, and even (gasp) English teachers, often identify verbs as “passive” that aren’t.
The explanation may well lie in the fact that White gives four examples of the passive, three of which are incorrect.
One of White’s incorrect examples of the passive,
There were a great number of dead leaves lying on the ground
brought 187,000 Google hits.
Here’s what I found by following one of the links. It’s from a teacher’s guidelines for writing lab reports:
Use the active voice (tense) [sic], not passive voice, when writing, it is much more direct and vigorous. For example, “Dead leaves covered the ground.” (Active voice) versus “There were a great number of dead leaves lying on the ground.” (Passive voice). I highly recommend the ‘little book’ entitled The elements of style by William Strunk, Jr. and E.B. White, it costs about $7.
White’s admonition against adverbs may explain the almost religious aversion to using adverbs felt by so many writers and teachers of writers. Here’s a headline I saw over a writing post:
Fight back against beastly adverbs
Personally, I like adverbs–not Tom Swifties, of course–but adverbs have their place.
Pullum’s iconoclastic condemnation of The Elements of Style will perhaps anger the guide’s numerous worshippers, but it raises some valid criticisms.
I’m going back to Strunk and White with a critical eye this time, and may do a page by page analysis of my own.
50 Years of Stupid Grammar Advice
Longman’s Special Edition of The Elements of Style
In Priaise of The Elements of Style on its 50th Anniversary
Maeve on Passive Voice
Got Your Free eBook?
- Subscribe to Daily Writing Tips and you will be able to download our free ebook: Basic English Grammar.
- You will also get all our grammar, spelling, punctuation and writing tips.
- The download link will go along with the first email (you might need to wait up to 24 hours).
The learned professor at the University of Edinburgh should have read Struck and White more carefully before he made his accusation. Here’s the entire paragraph that introduces the examples he criticized.
“The habitual use of the active voice, however, makes for forcible writing. This is true not only in the narrative concerned primarily with action but in writing of any kind. Many a tame sentence of description or exposition can be made lively and emphatic by substituting a transitive in the active voice for some such perfunctory expressions as ‘there is’ or ‘could be heard’”
It’s quite obvious that Struck and White are NOT introducing those four examples as illustrations of passive voice. They’re expanding their previous remarks about using the active voice instead of the passive to an additional category of sentences. They are referring to “a tame sentence” in which “a transitive in the active voice” can also improve “perfunctory expressions as ‘there is’ or ‘could be heard.’” Tame and perfunctory are not the same as passive.
Note too the text that follows those examples. Struck and White do not say, “when a sentence is made ACTIVE [as opposed to passive], it usually becomes shorter.” What they say is “when a sentence is made STRONGER, it usually becomes shorter.” The contrast they intend in those four examples is not between active and passive but between strong and tame/weak, with the weakness coming from the use of “There were,” “The reason he,” and “It was” in three of the sentences and a passive voice in a fourth.
Struck and White made not be perfect and their 50-year-old book could perhaps use some revision for the twenty-first century. But Prof. Pullum’s accusation that the two didn’t know the different between the active and passive voice won’t hold up even the simplest scrutiny.
The Chronicle of Higher Education should issue a statement correcting Prof. Pullum’s grievous error.
–Michael W. Perry, author of Untangling Tolkien
Thanks for explaining that, Michael! I was just coming from my feed reader to explain this as well. The section deals with active, strong construction of sentences in general, not only active vs. passive construction of sentences. I was taught in high school (if you will excuse the passive here) to never use the construction “there is” or “it is” in formal writing, and White seems to be emphasizing this as well. Be clear and concise instead of vague and long winded.
Here is the link to the review by Prof. Geoffrey Pullum:
http://chronicle.com/free/v55/i32/32b01501.htm
Ever notice how grammar and language can be as controversial as politics? And how uppity some people can be about grammar, rules, and style?
Language is a “living thing,” ever evolving. So … maybe some of the “elements” set forth by Strunk & White no longer apply or can be interpreted differently now. I suppose this Pullman fellow is entitled to his opinions.
But isn’t it better to have some basis upon which to build our own style? Isn’t it helpful to have guidelines when we are struggling with usage?
I say, “Lighten up, Geoffrey Pullman. And by the way, I think your article is stupid.”
I like Elements of Style, but it’s probably most useful to those who need it least. If you already know what a nonrestrictive relative clause is, then perhaps you don’t need to be told it’s parenthetic. If you don’t know what it is, will you profit from the advice that it should be set off with commas?
I use passive voice too often
My spell checker’s always fusing at me about it. I think it sounds pretty…
I agree with Cindy Cotter. I find Elements of Style requires an additional, more basic grammar book to explain the words mentioned in the rules!
Interesting point about people identifying sentences as passive when they aren’t.
I was teaching a writing course last week. Again and again the participants asked, “Is that a passive sentence?” In each case it wasn’t–it was just weak writing, such as sentences starting with “there” as a placeholder for the rhetorical subject. Eventually, we had to stop and take some time to examine the structure of passive sentences.
I’m a fan of The Elements of Style, and I think most of the advice is useful: “do not overwrite,” “make the paragraph the unit of composition,” etc. The classic advice, of course, is “Omit needless words.” Most, if not all, of these so-called platitudes do offer valuable advice to those who wish to write well. I still recommend this book to my students and clients.
Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
On the other hand, the 2 guides I read every year are Line by Line by Cook (published by the MLA) and Style: 10 Lessons in Clarity and Grace by Williams.
I had a feeling people weren’t really reading Strunk and White when the recommended it. Sort of like recommending someone read War & Peace…recommending is so much easier than critically reading it.
Adverbs are enervating to fiction.
In response to:
“It’s quite obvious that Struck and White are NOT introducing those four examples as illustrations of passive voice.”
Clearly, the point was whether the Elements of Style discussion is helpful, clear, useful, and correct.
The author of the present article provides at least one argument that the effect of Elements of Style is negative: even if the authors understood the difference between an active and a passive sentence, the example from the writing lab shows that their discussion did not clarify the issue.
Geoff Pullum’s grammar with Rodney Huddleston, “The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language,” is one of the most (and arguably the most) impressive and remarkable scholarly achievements in the field of grammar. It is one of the most comprehensive grammatical descriptions of any language, ever.
The professor can be regarded as an expert and his opinion should be taken seriously.
“The professor can be regarded as an expert and his opinion should be taken seriously.”
Oh, really? Even when that opinion is demonstrably incorrect? Arguments advocating blind submission to authority on the basis of credentials are as unpersuasive, to me, as the rest of your post.