3 ms·

Tangentially related: "Omit needless words." -William Strunk, The Elements of Style Highly recommended book for anyone who wants to be a more effective write

Tangentially related: "Omit needless words." -William Strunk, The Elements of Style Highly recommended book for anyone who wants to be a more effective writer.

mattbee 4y ago
As a writing manual, I am also a big fan of "First You Write a Sentence" by Joe Moran.
eesmith 4y ago
Have you read any of the criticism of the book? Its Wikipedia entry quotes Pullum: > The book's toxic mix of purism, atavism, and personal eccentricity is not underpinned by a proper grounding in English grammar. It is often so misguided that the authors appear not to notice their own egregious flouting of its own rules ... It's sad. Several generations of college students learned their grammar from the uninformed bossiness of Strunk and White, and the result is a nation of educated people who know they feel vaguely anxious and insecure whenever they write however or than me or was or which, but can't tell you why. (See also "50 Years of Stupid Grammar Advice" at, eg, https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-file-manager/file/5bd889926431f1de07115e6e/209-50-Years-of-stupid-grammar-advice.pdf https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-file-manager/fil... . Language Log recommends https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Strunk+site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fitre.cis.upenn.edu%2F%7Emyl%2Flanguagelog&btnG=Google+Search&gws_rd=ssl https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Strunk+site%3Ahttp%3A%... as a way to find further criticism from them.) For "Omit needless words", a problem is identifying what "needless" means. Quoting http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004552.html http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004552.h...: > Whenever you see an appeal to ONW, you should wonder what people are doing with those "needless" words. Most of the time, those extra words are serving some function that conflicts with brevity; they're doing some work. There are also examples how that phrase (likely) caused people to believe that if a word can be omitted then in must be ommitted, like http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004176.html http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004176.h... and http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000994.html http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000994.h... . Or how in White's own writings he "sometimes throws in a few extra words just for the sheer resonant fun of it" - http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001904.html http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001904.h... . FWIW, I think "don't be too wordy" is more accurate and less likely to be misunderstood than "omit needless words", and one character shorter. (Personally, I still recall my utter confusion in 11th grade English trying to figure what "passive" meant when told to avoid it. Turns out three of the four examples of passive in "The Elements of Style" ... aren't passive! And yes, I got marked off for using what may- or may-not have been the passive.)
- erellsworth 4y ago
  Sure, I wouldn't recommend anyone ever take any writing guide as some kind of scripture to be followed dogmatically. As with any art, there are no real rules, only guidelines. Unless, of course, you're taking a class, in which case the rules are whatever the professor says they are. There's a reason academic writing isn't often very enjoyable to read.
  - eesmith 4y ago
    Then Strunk and White isn't a good initial reference as they are pretty dogmatic in their many rules. White referred to "the remembered sting of [Strunk's] kindly lash", and likened the rules to a sergeant "snapping orders to his platoon." How are readers supposed to understand those orders aren't real? I don't understand the relevance of "academic writing" as 1) Strunk and White is widely recommended to authors in general, 2) 10+ million copies sold aren't mostly going to academia, and 3) examples from the book show a bias against what Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_writing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_writing characterizes as "academic writing". Eg, "The Elements of Style" really does not like the noncommittal academic writing style of the following (quoting from https://archive.org/details/elementsofstylew00stru/page/14/mode/2up?q=rule https://archive.org/details/elementsofstylew00stru/page/14/m... ): > The Taming of the Shrew is rather weak in spots. Shakespeare does not portray Katharine as a very admirable character, nor doe Bianca remain long in memory as an important character in Shakespear's works. and instead prefers: > The women in The Taming of the Shrew are unattractive. Katharine is disagreeable, Bianca insignificant.
supersrdjan 4y ago
Authors of the excellent "Clear and Simple as the Truth: Writing Classic Prose," Francis-Noël Thomas and Mark Turner, have this to say about Elements of Style: Strunk and White’s disarming treatment of what everybody really needs to know about writing has been treasured by generations of people who are occasionally forced to write something and view the prospect with a sinking feeling of dread. As a guide to writing, The Elements of Style, being little more than an apparently arbitrary mixture of grammatical digest, handy list of common mistakes, and expert hand-holding, is drastically incomplete, but it is a masterpiece of psychological insight. Its attractions derive, we suspect, first, from its implicit, cheery, and optimistic promise that if you just read its few pages and work those few surface tricks it teaches you (“In summaries, keep to one tense,” “less should not be used for fewer”), you will not embarrass yourself; second, from its exhortatory cheerleading that seems so assured and upbeat; and third, from its tone of common sense that masks, at key points, an essential vacuousness: “Choose a suitable design and hold to it.” Edit: oh and by the way, the two authors recommend this as a better alternative (I haven't read it): Style: Toward Clarity and Grace, by Joseph Williams and Gregory Colomb

Tangentially related: "Omit needless words." -William Strunk, The Elements of Style Highly recommended book for anyone who wants to be a more effective writer.

mattbee 4y ago

As a writing manual, I am also a big fan of "First You Write a Sentence" by Joe Moran.

eesmith 4y ago

Have you read any of the criticism of the book? Its Wikipedia entry quotes Pullum: > The book's toxic mix of purism, atavism, and personal eccentricity is not underpinned by a proper grounding in English grammar. It is often so misguided that the authors appear not to notice their own egregious flouting of its own rules ... It's sad. Several generations of college students learned their grammar from the uninformed bossiness of Strunk and White, and the result is a nation of educated people who know they feel vaguely anxious and insecure whenever they write however or than me or was or which, but can't tell you why. (See also "50 Years of Stupid Grammar Advice" at, eg, https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-file-manager/file/5bd889926431f1de07115e6e/209-50-Years-of-stupid-grammar-advice.pdf https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-file-manager/fil... . Language Log recommends https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Strunk+site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fitre.cis.upenn.edu%2F%7Emyl%2Flanguagelog&btnG=Google+Search&gws_rd=ssl https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Strunk+site%3Ahttp%3A%... as a way to find further criticism from them.) For "Omit needless words", a problem is identifying what "needless" means. Quoting http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004552.html http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004552.h...: > Whenever you see an appeal to ONW, you should wonder what people are doing with those "needless" words. Most of the time, those extra words are serving some function that conflicts with brevity; they're doing some work. There are also examples how that phrase (likely) caused people to believe that if a word can be omitted then in must be ommitted, like http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004176.html http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004176.h... and http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000994.html http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000994.h... . Or how in White's own writings he "sometimes throws in a few extra words just for the sheer resonant fun of it" - http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001904.html http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001904.h... . FWIW, I think "don't be too wordy" is more accurate and less likely to be misunderstood than "omit needless words", and one character shorter. (Personally, I still recall my utter confusion in 11th grade English trying to figure what "passive" meant when told to avoid it. Turns out three of the four examples of passive in "The Elements of Style" ... aren't passive! And yes, I got marked off for using what may- or may-not have been the passive.)

erellsworth 4y ago
Sure, I wouldn't recommend anyone ever take any writing guide as some kind of scripture to be followed dogmatically. As with any art, there are no real rules, only guidelines. Unless, of course, you're taking a class, in which case the rules are whatever the professor says they are. There's a reason academic writing isn't often very enjoyable to read.
- eesmith 4y ago
  Then Strunk and White isn't a good initial reference as they are pretty dogmatic in their many rules. White referred to "the remembered sting of [Strunk's] kindly lash", and likened the rules to a sergeant "snapping orders to his platoon." How are readers supposed to understand those orders aren't real? I don't understand the relevance of "academic writing" as 1) Strunk and White is widely recommended to authors in general, 2) 10+ million copies sold aren't mostly going to academia, and 3) examples from the book show a bias against what Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_writing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_writing characterizes as "academic writing". Eg, "The Elements of Style" really does not like the noncommittal academic writing style of the following (quoting from https://archive.org/details/elementsofstylew00stru/page/14/mode/2up?q=rule https://archive.org/details/elementsofstylew00stru/page/14/m... ): > The Taming of the Shrew is rather weak in spots. Shakespeare does not portray Katharine as a very admirable character, nor doe Bianca remain long in memory as an important character in Shakespear's works. and instead prefers: > The women in The Taming of the Shrew are unattractive. Katharine is disagreeable, Bianca insignificant.

supersrdjan 4y ago

Authors of the excellent "Clear and Simple as the Truth: Writing Classic Prose," Francis-Noël Thomas and Mark Turner, have this to say about Elements of Style: Strunk and White’s disarming treatment of what everybody really needs to know about writing has been treasured by generations of people who are occasionally forced to write something and view the prospect with a sinking feeling of dread. As a guide to writing, The Elements of Style, being little more than an apparently arbitrary mixture of grammatical digest, handy list of common mistakes, and expert hand-holding, is drastically incomplete, but it is a masterpiece of psychological insight. Its attractions derive, we suspect, first, from its implicit, cheery, and optimistic promise that if you just read its few pages and work those few surface tricks it teaches you (“In summaries, keep to one tense,” “less should not be used for fewer”), you will not embarrass yourself; second, from its exhortatory cheerleading that seems so assured and upbeat; and third, from its tone of common sense that masks, at key points, an essential vacuousness: “Choose a suitable design and hold to it.” Edit: oh and by the way, the two authors recommend this as a better alternative (I haven't read it): Style: Toward Clarity and Grace, by Joseph Williams and Gregory Colomb