For experimental contrast: I have no problem with a house style, but the claim that following one particular stylebook makes one a "better writer" annoy me. W

For experimental contrast: I have no problem with a house style, but the claim that following one particular stylebook makes one a "better writer" annoy me. Worse, the linked article claims that "the elision of all adverbs from any technical writing," and "the removal of the passive voice," "constitute a net positive." Good writing, technical or otherwise, requires adverbs. Notwithstanding the claims of a variety of self-proclaimed experts, no good writer will omit adverbs, and no writer can successfully omit all adverbs without sounding incredibly choppy and awkward. The author of the linked article included a few; counting those adverbs that end in "-ly," I found ten (fortunately mechanically really genuinely personally frequently unfortunately solely rightfully technically), and in the sentence condemning adverbs he included an adverb ("so"). As for the passive, the author acknowledges the difficulty of avoiding them, but claims that their removal still improves writing, though without explaining why. In fact, it makes the writing seem rather choppy (as if the author had to spend too much time paralysed by a set of rules to follow and had none left to make the text flow). And despite putting in a great deal of effort to avoid them, the author still included two or more that I found in a quick reread: "drawn for them" in the "beholder words" section, and "accepted for publication" at the bottom. In both cases, I find the result perfectly readable, not at all fuzzy, and entirely unremarkable--which shoots a rather gaping hole in the argument against the passive voice. I feel sorry for his grad students, and hope that when they come out the other end, they discard the silly mandates of their advisor, rather than perpetuating the myths....