6 ms·

William Safire's Rules for Writers: Remember to never split an infinitive. The passive voice should never be used. Do not put statements in the negative form

William Safire's Rules for Writers: Remember to never split an infinitive. The passive voice should never be used. Do not put statements in the negative form. Verbs have to agree with their subjects. Proofread carefully to see if you words out. If you reread your work, you can find on rereading a great deal of repetition can be by rereading and editing. ========= The above, plus Strunk & White[0], should be enough for most folks IMNSHO. [0] https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/37134 https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/37134

ramblerman 6y ago
> Proofread carefully to see if you words out. That omission almost seems too perfect
- GavinMcG 6y ago
  That's the point. Each line violates the rule it states.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >That omission almost seems too perfect It is perfect -- because William Safire was a wonderful writer[0]. I didn't care much for his politics, but that man could write! [0] https://www.nytimes.com/by/william-safire https://www.nytimes.com/by/william-safire
goto11 6y ago
I disagree with two of Safires points: There is nothing wrong with splitting an infinitive. Shakespeare does it and Star Trek does it. Passive voice is fine. Sure it can be used to make the text impersonal and hide responsibility. But is can also be used to make the text clearer and to emphasize what is important. Use it as appropriate.
- jgrahamc 6y ago
  You've missed the point entirely. Go back and reread.
  - goto11 6y ago
    I don't think his point is that the you shouldn't follow these rules though. Surely nobody would think you shouldn't proofread? He is just stating the rules ironically with an embedded example. Most of his rules are fine.
    - loevborg 6y ago
      Yeah, he's obliquely endorsing the rules, most of which — certainly the ones about infinitives, passives and negation — are moronic.
    - marcosdumay 6y ago
      What I take from it is that those points aren't important at all. That's surely hyperbolic, because nobody would think about completely ignoring them. But they certainly do not make any text great, and they shouldn't be followed on the cost of something more important.
- jfk13 6y ago
  Use as appropriate, yes. But there are some writers who massively over-use it. Most such rules can sometimes be broken to good effect, but they offer a useful default. In many cases, rewriting so as to "follow the rules" will aid clarity. Deviations and exceptions should be the result of careful consideration, not just carelessness.
  - goto11 6y ago
    I'm questioning if these two rules are good defaults.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
eganist 6y ago
> William Safire's Rules for Writers: > Remember to [preserve the full] infinitive. > [Always use] the [active] voice. > [Always] put statements in the [positive] form. > Verbs have to agree with their subjects. (nobody9999 corrected this one already - was "has" in place of "have") > Proofread carefully to see if you [leave] words out. For those not in on the joke. Not sure if this would be how Safire would correct it, but I made an effort.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  I didn't "correct" anything. Those are all Safire's words and none of mine. Safire was using sarcasm through those examples to get his point across.
  - eganist 6y ago
    The original: https://www.nytimes.com/1979/11/04/archives/on-language-the-fumblerules-of-grammar.html https://www.nytimes.com/1979/11/04/archives/on-language-the-... > • Verbs has to agree with their subjects. But I saw what happened. Googling Safire's rules, the "helpful" top result via Google quoted a source that misquoted Safire, which I'm guessing is how it made it into your comment. So no worries.
    - FemmeAndroid 6y ago
      Thanks for this. I was stuck trying to figure out that line.
    - nobody9999 6y ago
      Thank you for the correction and the original link. It's much appreciated!
- criddell 6y ago
  > Proofread carefully to see if you [leave] words out. Shouldn't it be left rather than leave?
  - 6y ago
kinghtown 6y ago
The passive voice has been used well on occasion.
fanf2 6y ago
On the wrong-headed advice of Strunk & White http://www.languagesoftheworld.info/bad-linguistics/on-passive-aggressive-and-other-wrong-headed-advice-of-strunk-whites-style-manual.html http://www.languagesoftheworld.info/bad-linguistics/on-passi... Strunk and White: fifty years of stupid grammar advice http://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/25497 http://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/2549... The Land of the Free and the Elements of Style: everything in strunk and White is wrong http://ling.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/LandOfTheFree.pdf http://ling.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/LandOfTheFree.pdf
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >everything in strunk and White is wrong That's quite a broad brush, friend. Here's an example I'd ask you to opine upon: "If you have received a letter inviting you to speak at the dedication of a new cat hospital, and you hate cats, your reply, declining the invitation, does not necessarily have to cover the full range of your emotions. You must make it clear that you will not attend, but you do not have to let fly at the cats. The writer of the letter asked a civil question; attack cats, then, only if you can do so with good humor, good taste, and in such a way that your answer will be courteous as well as responsive. Since you are out of sympathy with cats, you may quite properly give this as a reason for not appearing at the dedicatory ceremonies of a cat hospital. But bear in mind that your opinion of cats was not sought, only your services as a speaker. Try to keep things straight.” What fault, dear reader, might you find in the above advice? I'd be quite interested in your assessment, given your apparent expertise.
  - fanf2 6y ago
    If you are examining your own writing critically, it is worth critically examining the writing of others that you admire, and those you might disagree with. This kind of criticism is supposed to be constructive, so it should not be taken as an attack. I thought it would be informative to share a few links that might help readers and writers approach Strunk and White from other perspectives. The authors of those essays have far more expertise than I.
    - 6y ago

ramblerman 6y ago

> Proofread carefully to see if you words out. That omission almost seems too perfect

GavinMcG 6y ago
That's the point. Each line violates the rule it states.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
nobody9999 6y ago
>That omission almost seems too perfect It is perfect -- because William Safire was a wonderful writer[0]. I didn't care much for his politics, but that man could write! [0] https://www.nytimes.com/by/william-safire https://www.nytimes.com/by/william-safire

goto11 6y ago

I disagree with two of Safires points: There is nothing wrong with splitting an infinitive. Shakespeare does it and Star Trek does it. Passive voice is fine. Sure it can be used to make the text impersonal and hide responsibility. But is can also be used to make the text clearer and to emphasize what is important. Use it as appropriate.

jgrahamc 6y ago
You've missed the point entirely. Go back and reread.
- goto11 6y ago
  I don't think his point is that the you shouldn't follow these rules though. Surely nobody would think you shouldn't proofread? He is just stating the rules ironically with an embedded example. Most of his rules are fine.
  - loevborg 6y ago
    Yeah, he's obliquely endorsing the rules, most of which — certainly the ones about infinitives, passives and negation — are moronic.
  - marcosdumay 6y ago
    What I take from it is that those points aren't important at all. That's surely hyperbolic, because nobody would think about completely ignoring them. But they certainly do not make any text great, and they shouldn't be followed on the cost of something more important.
jfk13 6y ago
Use as appropriate, yes. But there are some writers who massively over-use it. Most such rules can sometimes be broken to good effect, but they offer a useful default. In many cases, rewriting so as to "follow the rules" will aid clarity. Deviations and exceptions should be the result of careful consideration, not just carelessness.
- goto11 6y ago
  I'm questioning if these two rules are good defaults.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

eganist 6y ago

> William Safire's Rules for Writers: > Remember to [preserve the full] infinitive. > [Always use] the [active] voice. > [Always] put statements in the [positive] form. > Verbs have to agree with their subjects. (nobody9999 corrected this one already - was "has" in place of "have") > Proofread carefully to see if you [leave] words out. For those not in on the joke. Not sure if this would be how Safire would correct it, but I made an effort.

nobody9999 6y ago
I didn't "correct" anything. Those are all Safire's words and none of mine. Safire was using sarcasm through those examples to get his point across.
- eganist 6y ago
  The original: https://www.nytimes.com/1979/11/04/archives/on-language-the-fumblerules-of-grammar.html https://www.nytimes.com/1979/11/04/archives/on-language-the-... > • Verbs has to agree with their subjects. But I saw what happened. Googling Safire's rules, the "helpful" top result via Google quoted a source that misquoted Safire, which I'm guessing is how it made it into your comment. So no worries.
  - FemmeAndroid 6y ago
    Thanks for this. I was stuck trying to figure out that line.
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    Thank you for the correction and the original link. It's much appreciated!
criddell 6y ago
> Proofread carefully to see if you [leave] words out. Shouldn't it be left rather than leave?
- 6y ago

kinghtown 6y ago

The passive voice has been used well on occasion.

fanf2 6y ago

On the wrong-headed advice of Strunk & White http://www.languagesoftheworld.info/bad-linguistics/on-passive-aggressive-and-other-wrong-headed-advice-of-strunk-whites-style-manual.html http://www.languagesoftheworld.info/bad-linguistics/on-passi... Strunk and White: fifty years of stupid grammar advice http://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/25497 http://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/2549... The Land of the Free and the Elements of Style: everything in strunk and White is wrong http://ling.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/LandOfTheFree.pdf http://ling.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/LandOfTheFree.pdf

nobody9999 6y ago
>everything in strunk and White is wrong That's quite a broad brush, friend. Here's an example I'd ask you to opine upon: "If you have received a letter inviting you to speak at the dedication of a new cat hospital, and you hate cats, your reply, declining the invitation, does not necessarily have to cover the full range of your emotions. You must make it clear that you will not attend, but you do not have to let fly at the cats. The writer of the letter asked a civil question; attack cats, then, only if you can do so with good humor, good taste, and in such a way that your answer will be courteous as well as responsive. Since you are out of sympathy with cats, you may quite properly give this as a reason for not appearing at the dedicatory ceremonies of a cat hospital. But bear in mind that your opinion of cats was not sought, only your services as a speaker. Try to keep things straight.” What fault, dear reader, might you find in the above advice? I'd be quite interested in your assessment, given your apparent expertise.
- fanf2 6y ago
  If you are examining your own writing critically, it is worth critically examining the writing of others that you admire, and those you might disagree with. This kind of criticism is supposed to be constructive, so it should not be taken as an attack. I thought it would be informative to share a few links that might help readers and writers approach Strunk and White from other perspectives. The authors of those essays have far more expertise than I.
  - 6y ago