Thursday, July 8, 2010

Does "The Elements of Style" offer bogus writing advice?

Although most consider it the handbook of good writing practice, it has at least one critic.  The blog Lawyerist reports on a column that appeared last year in the Chronicle of Higher Ed (I must have missed it too the first time around) that states:

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.

The authors won't be hurt by these critical remarks. They are long dead. William Strunk was a professor of English at Cornell about a hundred years ago, and E.B. White, later the much-admired author of Charlotte's Web, took English with him in 1919, purchasing as a required text the first edition, which Strunk had published privately. After Strunk's death, White published a New Yorker article reminiscing about him and was asked by Macmillan to revise and expand Elements for commercial publication. It took off like a rocket (in 1959) and has sold millions.

This was most unfortunate for the field of English grammar, because both authors were grammatical incompetents. Strunk had very little analytical understanding of syntax, White even less. Certainly White was a fine writer, but he was not qualified as a grammarian. Despite the post-1957 explosion of theoretical linguistics, Elements settled in as the primary vehicle through which grammar was taught to college students and presented to the general public, and the subject was stuck in the doldrums for the rest of the 20th century.

Notice what I am objecting to is not the style advice in Elements, which might best be described the way The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy describes Earth: mostly harmless. Some of the recommendations are vapid, like "Be clear" (how could one disagree?). Some are tautologous, like "Do not explain too much." (Explaining too much means explaining more than you should, so of course you shouldn't.) Many are useless, like "Omit needless words." (The students who know which words are needless don't need the instruction.) Even so, it doesn't hurt to lay such well-meant maxims before novice writers.

The criticism gets worse (and you can read it here).  Even Lawyerist thinks that some technical problems notwithstanding, The Elements of Style serves up good lessons on the importance of brevity and clarity.

Hat tip to Above the Law.

I am the scholarship dude.

(jbl)

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legalwriting/2010/07/does-the-elements-of-style-offer-bogus-writing-advice.html

| Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef0133f223484f970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Does "The Elements of Style" offer bogus writing advice?:

Comments

Post a comment