For all those who despair of editors and writers who universally apply grammatical rules that they don't fully understand, a refreshing look at Strunk and White by a grammatical expert.
I can't say that I agree or even sympathise with the piece. The writer seems intent on either misunderstanding or misrepresenting the book with an anger and bitterness that speaks more about him and his struggles than it does about Strunk & White.
I, on the other hand, thoroughly sympathise with the piece. Possibly because I write in a genre beset with editors intent on de-wasing any piece of prose that passes through their hands, on the grounds that the passive is wrong, always, and that "was" is always passive.
I think you may be projecting your feelings, as I can't detect any anger or bitterness in the piece, merely a rueful concern! And I speak as one with an ingrained hatred of split infinitives, so I don't think I can be counted as one of Mr Pullum's camp.
I've never heard of Strunk and White, but I have come across youngsters who've developed the bizarre notion mentioned that any sentence including "was" is passive (and therefore wrong). We assumed they'd misremembered something they'd been told at school, but they seemed strangely fanatical about it.
I think you may be projecting your feelings, as I can't detect any anger or bitterness in the piece,
No anger or bitterness? Excuse me while I guffaw. To say the "book's toxic mix of purism, atavism, and personal eccentricity" doesn't display anger? And I don't call "a bunch of trivial don't-do-this prescriptions by a pair of idiosyncratic bumblers who can't even tell when they've broken their own misbegotten rules" a remark of rueful concern.
It reads to me like the rant of someone who can't bear that the US and the UK have developed different approaches to style and grammar, and who has been put upon one too many times by overimportant but underinformed people misapplying something they have half forgotten, so he's determined to skewer the source of his pain, even if it means misrepresenting it and creating strawmen to knock over. It's sort of sad, really.
"Don't use passive voice" has become one of those overstated dicta that are pounded into the heads of young writers, along with "write what you know" and "show, don't tell". Nobody seems to realize that none of them are absolutes. The primary rule of writing must be to produce effective, graceful text; everything else should be measured against that goal.
No, I agree with winterbadger: it was definitely angry and bitter.
It's Strunk & White that I find refreshing. Then again, I wasn't forced to use it as a textbook, and I haven't had to battle with copy-editors who take it as holy writ. I like it because it is concise and readable, and it has a lot of good writing tips in it. Yes, I will treat them as tips, not laws.
Any copy eds who use S&W as thier holy writ need to (a) go do a training course and (b) expand their library.
S&W is a good solid introduction to basic concepts of style and grammar for young writers. It should not be (and does not take itself to be) holy writ for anyone. And someone who has become a copy ed and doesn't have something much more detailed to fall back on (like the Chicago Manual, or the NYPL guide, or Hart's, or Butcher's) isn't terrifically professionally grounded, in my opinion.
And someone in the business of editing who doesn't grasp that almost *any* 'rule' or 'law' needs to be sacrificed occasionally for the sake of clarity, accessibility, or euphony is...going to be very, very frustrated by the English language. :-)
I was with him when it came to 'passive voice'. Some people have absolutely no clue as to what passive voice really is and simply edit out anything that sounds remotely like it without considering if they're affecting the meaning of what is said, or whether the passive voice would actually sound better.
It's become a mantra, applied without thought. (and the writer isn't a struggling rejected author, he's head of linguistics at Edinburgh university)
Some people have absolutely no clue as to what passive voice really is and simply edit out anything that sounds remotely like it without considering if they're affecting the meaning of what is said, or whether the passive voice would actually sound better.
I'll agree that that's frightful; no one who's editing should be that ignorant of grammar.
I'd only dispute that that has anything to do with Strunk & White; even Pullam admits that those who do this sort of thing are ignoring what S&W actually say about the use and usefulness of the passive voice.
I don't know about that being a "refreshing look", I got about a third of the way through it before being deafened by the sound of axes being ground.
Fine, the author is "head of linguistics and English language at the University of Edinburgh and co-author (with Rodney Huddleston) of The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language" and, yes, I don't doubt that he raises some valid points but, good grief, with those qualifications, couldn't he write something better than this?
Thank you for this interesting article. As a non-native user of English, I am always scared by the academic rules...which are far beyond my reach anyway. *Grins* I am happy to be able to USE English, always grateful for your help.
One thing which puzzles me slightly is how people get so emotional about defending their own grammatical and usage beliefs. Opponents are typically characterized as stupid, lazy, malicious, etc. Proponents happily describe themselves as "nazis". Why is the psychology so extreme? Whether one sees them as technical issues or as preferences, surely there's no reason to get so emotionally invested.
(I've been thinking about doing a post in my own journal logically critiquing grammatical prescriptivism, but frankly I'm a bit wary of the responses.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
no subject
I've never heard of Strunk and White, but I have come across youngsters who've developed the bizarre notion mentioned that any sentence including "was" is passive (and therefore wrong). We assumed they'd misremembered something they'd been told at school, but they seemed strangely fanatical about it.
no subject
No anger or bitterness? Excuse me while I guffaw. To say the "book's toxic mix of purism, atavism, and personal eccentricity" doesn't display anger? And I don't call "a bunch of trivial don't-do-this prescriptions by a pair of idiosyncratic bumblers who can't even tell when they've broken their own misbegotten rules" a remark of rueful concern.
It reads to me like the rant of someone who can't bear that the US and the UK have developed different approaches to style and grammar, and who has been put upon one too many times by overimportant but underinformed people misapplying something they have half forgotten, so he's determined to skewer the source of his pain, even if it means misrepresenting it and creating strawmen to knock over. It's sort of sad, really.
no subject
"Don't use passive voice" has become one of those overstated dicta that are pounded into the heads of young writers, along with "write what you know" and "show, don't tell". Nobody seems to realize that none of them are absolutes. The primary rule of writing must be to produce effective, graceful text; everything else should be measured against that goal.
no subject
It's Strunk & White that I find refreshing. Then again, I wasn't forced to use it as a textbook, and I haven't had to battle with copy-editors who take it as holy writ. I like it because it is concise and readable, and it has a lot of good writing tips in it. Yes, I will treat them as tips, not laws.
no subject
S&W is a good solid introduction to basic concepts of style and grammar for young writers. It should not be (and does not take itself to be) holy writ for anyone. And someone who has become a copy ed and doesn't have something much more detailed to fall back on (like the Chicago Manual, or the NYPL guide, or Hart's, or Butcher's) isn't terrifically professionally grounded, in my opinion.
And someone in the business of editing who doesn't grasp that almost *any* 'rule' or 'law' needs to be sacrificed occasionally for the sake of clarity, accessibility, or euphony is...going to be very, very frustrated by the English language. :-)
no subject
I'll try not to completely forget that.
no subject
It's become a mantra, applied without thought. (and the writer isn't a struggling rejected author, he's head of linguistics at Edinburgh university)
no subject
I'll agree that that's frightful; no one who's editing should be that ignorant of grammar.
I'd only dispute that that has anything to do with Strunk & White; even Pullam admits that those who do this sort of thing are ignoring what S&W actually say about the use and usefulness of the passive voice.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Fine, the author is "head of linguistics and English language at the University of Edinburgh and co-author (with Rodney Huddleston) of The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language" and, yes, I don't doubt that he raises some valid points but, good grief, with those qualifications, couldn't he write something better than this?
no subject
no subject
no subject
(I've been thinking about doing a post in my own journal logically critiquing grammatical prescriptivism, but frankly I'm a bit wary of the responses.)