Can someone please redpill me on Strunk and White? Is this book really essential reading if I want to be a writer?

Can someone please redpill me on Strunk and White? Is this book really essential reading if I want to be a writer?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=ZrRKJrTPwYg
twitter.com/AnonBabble

It's an awful book full of arbitrary style rules and grammatical errors. For example, the authors issue the absurd ruling to not use the passive voice and then fail to understand what the passive voice is and give false examples of it. For a comprehensive explanation of why it is terrible, with examples included, see the article "50 Years of Stupid Grammar Advice" by linguist Geoffrey K. Pullum. You should be able to find it if you Google it.

It is on the "hard" aspects of writing, I.E. grammar, punctuation, syntax. You know, the technical stuff. I have only managed to burn about a third of the way through it though I have 3 copies and have owned it for a while. It's a text that should be studied and practiced, imo, else it's hard to retain. Struck and White make complex ideas easy because of how well its written and because of the great examples they provide.

It was slow reading and dry (difficult) so I put it down, but all three copies shout at me every time I see them on my book shelf.

There is some stuff on how to write tersly etc ("softer" aspects of writing) as well.

Backstory explained in intro is that Strunk was a great writing teacher and E.B. White was his student and he took his ideas and put them in a manual with his help. Or something.

Nothing is essential reading, but this book is highly recommended as an effective guide to better writing and stands out from many other works which claim to have this effect but don't, or can't in as few words.

I highly suggest that you read the article I mentioned here before continuing to study Strunk & White.

Ok done.

Don't treat it like commandments on writing. You could write prose that purposely breaks all the rules outlined in the book and it would be considered by many to have artistic merit for just that reason.

I found it to be a generally helpful guide, there are some basic rules in there that hold true though they may be self evident to some. It's also a short read so even if you hate it it was little time wasted.

Edit: guidelines

You're avoiding the main point, which is that the book issues factually incorrect information on a variety of topics and is written by grammatical incompetents.

>You could write prose that purposely breaks all the rules outlined in the book
Also this is disingenuous. Take S&W's imperative not to begin a sentence with 'however,' when meaning 'nevertheless'. There is no such rule in English. But you defend the book by telling me that it's okay to break it. It isn't a rule to begin with, so why do I need to be informed of it so that I can then break it? The book is simply wrong.

While style is useful, it's important to understand that it's completely a matter of taste. The consensus of modern science is that there's nothing inherent about language that says splitting the infinitive, ending a sentence with a preposition, etc. is wrong or incorrect.

youtube.com/watch?v=ZrRKJrTPwYg

>The consensus of modern science is that there's nothing inherent about language that says splitting the infinitive, ending a sentence with a preposition, etc. is wrong or incorrect.
It actually never was. Analysis of English literature shows that such things have always been present in educated usage.

Thanks for the redpill friend. What book would you recommend in it's place?

I didn't come here to argue, but to share my opinion and provide background on the book as OP requested. I have read the article you suggested and as with EOS I found I agreed with some points and disagreed with or did not fully understand others. This will be my last response to this thread.

A Student's Introduction to English Grammar by Huddleston and Pullum for a modern introductory grammar text.
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage is becoming outdated but is still the best descriptivist usage guide. There is also a concise version available.
For other matters such as punctuation, Merriam-Webster's Guide to Punctuation and Style is fine and inexpensive.

This.

I'll bet you take the Bible literally.

Also, and believe me when I say it, I guarantee I could write a better block of prose than you, and I use several aspects of the devices in TEoS. Literally if you want to write great literature (on par with the great novelists, and other forms alike) you apply the themes you wish to have into compelling text. Note the word compelling. Cherry pick ideas--it's not like you don't eat a good berry because there's a wormhole in the one beside it.

And yet another defender of EoS refuses to engage with the inaccuracies and falsities with which the text is filled. What a surprise. It's clear that the attachment people have to this book is more emotional than rational.

So you're either a shill or a troll; or, "god forbid!" ignored what I said.
My faith in humanity opts for number two, but my gut feel off. Though, it usually does. And I did eat Mexican--Who knows!

I really liked Exercises in Style (Raymond Queneau) and Clear and Simple as the Truth (Francis-Noël Thomas).

I'm with the naysayers, not that my data point means much.

It's an emperor wears no clothes book for me. I've seen people I consider extremely bright, solid writers gush about how great it is.

For me it was complete shit; a quick an easily forgotten hate read.

Why not just read good writers I say. And if you want to learn the rules of grammer there are better ways.

Just read it and decide for yourself, it's pretty short.

Horrible examples. Strunk & White agrees about both of those things:
>Some infinitives seem to improve on being split, just as a stick of round stovewood does. ‘I cannot bring myself to really like the fellow.’ The sentence is relaxed, the meaning is clear, the violation is harmless and scarcely perceptible.
>Not only is the preposition acceptable at the end [of the sentence], sometimes it is more effective in that spot than anywhere else.

It's the Elements of Style, not the Elements of Grammar. All his complaints come down to stupid teachers using S&W to teach grammar when that's not its actual purpose.

>Horrible examples
Note that the split infinitive is still referred to as a "violation" even in the exception. There is no violation. A split infinitive is not wrong in any way and is a normal part of English. I also noticed that you didn't make any reference to the video he posted, which provides a striking example of Strunk and White's lack of grammatical understanding.
>It's the Elements of Style, not the Elements of Grammar.
The book nonetheless provides grammatical explanations and uses said erroneous grammar as the basis of style advice. This is just another way to paper over its errors, which are undeniably wrong and indefensible.

Thankful to see Pullum brought up here.