Counterpoint

Colin Bertram in his blog (http://collinsb.blogspot.com/) said that he didn’t “follow or agree” with me on my point about Strunk and White being redundant in the case of their rules of “Don’t Overwrite”, and “Do not Explain Too Much”. Colin claims that “The book isn’t trying to help people write other instructional books. The rules or suggestions at the end would be very different if it was supposed to advise you on writing a book similar to itself.”
My stance on the subject is completely counter to this. Strunk and White are trying to teach the reader how to write anything, regardless of the format. I do not believe Strunk ever intended to take on an attitude of “Do what I say, not what I do”. The introduction to the book makes it clear just how avidly he believed in his rules on a personal level. I doubt highly that he would then go and break these rules while explaining them knowingly. The very fact that they put two rules that basically both said that one should not write redundantly or too much should say quite a bit about how much credibility as teachers these two have.
Colin himself says that “William Strunk and E. B. White made me feel foolish”. Strunk and White make the writer who reads them feel at fault for their mistakes because of the strict formalistic, almost fascist style that they write their book in the first place. It is not until the very end of the book that they even acknowledge that any rules whatsoever for English composition can be altered or ignored in any way. (Even then, that is only White talking, Strunk having long since finished his points.) Obviously, these two writers intend the book to be the be-all end-all authority when it comes to writing and style guides. They don’t expect to ever be proven wrong in any way, shape or form. So obviously they fully do expect it upon themselves to follow their own rules when writing the very text that teaches the rules. It cannot be ignored, however, that they do not follow these rules, making the writer/reader all the more confused and unhappy with their own works.
I do agree, however, with what Colin says about Williams’s work, especially in comparison to Strunk and White. The most concise bit on his opinion comes when he states that “reading Joseph Williams made me feel like a fool for feeling foolish about my Strunk and White experience.” If anything, Williams is flexible when it comes to the rules he writes about. There are many cases in his book where he’ll actually say that the particular rule he’s writing about isn’t without several exceptions, and that there are places where acceptable alternatives are available. In one section, he even devotes a whole chapter to debunking age-old set-in-stone rules to grammar.
As anyone can see, two students can read the same books, as Colin and I did, and easily come up with both different opinions, such as the ones we have on Strunk and White, or the same opinions, such as those we share on Williams. 
 

What is Style?

If just a month ago, someone were to ask me what I thought “style” in writing was, I probably would give the simple answer of “How a writer chooses to write their piece.” After reading the texts by Strunk and White, and by Williams, my answer today is something entirely different. While that’s not to say the initial answer is wrong, it is, however, far too vague and simple for the question presented. Style itself is an ambiguous term at best, especially in the context of writing. One could go on about the virtues of technically precise writing, or one could go on (possibly much further,) on the beauty and infinite possibility of language as an art. And both styles would be absolutely correct.
Style is something that I don’t honestly believe can be seen as a quantifiable measurement to use as a science. Style is instead an art form, to be used and reused as an outward expression of the inner creative mind. To create poetry or prose, one must possess their own particular styling, just as style is an intrinsic part of painting or sculpture. But like painting and sculpture, style in writing can still be seen from an acute, scientific point of view.
This analytical process is, in my opinion, what the books we have read for this class are really about. While at first glance, they appear to be bereft of any major artistic grace in and of themselves, they still have an underlying message about them, urging the reader to express themselves through the beauty of writing. These men aren’t envious of beautiful writing, they don’t make these technical manuals with the intent of abolishing the creative forces of the brain created through pen and paper; rather, they are attempting to force these epiphanies trapped within the minds of writers everywhere out in fuller, riper form, like a gardener fertilizing a strawberry bush to make the fruit sweeter when it is ready to be eaten.
Perhaps that is why writing is so unique to anything else that we as a people do. Writing is at once both a simple form of communicating messages that as easily could be relayed through verbal speech (especially in this day and age of telecommunications,) and at the same time is a medium in which all our hopes, dreams, thoughts, and fears can be spread throughout the entire world. Unlike most art forms, anyone who has a desire to write simply can. You do not need to have a steady hand to write well, you do not even need any supplies to be a writer, as our first project proved. Writing is the one medium that is truly a globally conscientious phenomenon.
That is why I chose to be a writing minor - as a telecommunications and film major I was already acutely aware of the power that the transmittal of ideas has on our race. Yet, film, television, and even radio still today suffer from a surprisingly limited area of exposure. There are still millions who have not seen a TV broadcast ever. Yet anyone can find the written word as easily as opening their eyes. And though they might not necessarily be able to read, they most certainly know someone who can, and reading is a skill that can be used aloud, to bridge the gap between the written medium, and the oral tradition.
Sorry, I’ve sort of gotten off track in my topic. But the power of writing, the intense influence it has had on people in the last millennium is so great, that when talking about what style is to me, I cannot help but then not only extol the virtues of style, but of the great and powerful effect of writing itself.

Evaluation of "Style Toward Clarity and Grace" By Joseph M. Williams

This next assignment, much like the first, was for me to evaluate the book “Style toward clarity and grace” by Joseph M. Williams. This book is in many ways similar, and many ways different from Strunk and White’s “The Elements of Style”. Firstly, Williams assumes that the reader is already competent in the English language, and is instead trying to make it more professional in appearance and style. Strunk and White instead used a grammar school approach to their writing, giving brief, concise lessons.
Williams’s approach to lessons works so much better from a teaching perspective. He’ll use several examples, and go into depth explaining why the better sentence actually is better. In my opinion, when one teaches, there is no such thing as over-explaining one’s self. By getting so elaborate in his lessons, I found that I could better understand why the rules were set up in the way they were.
Also, like Strunk and White’s book, I found that I’d probably keep this book as a handy reference. This rule holds especially true for Chapter 10, which deals with the various rules of writing that don’t have to be followed. I found myself again and again noticing points where I was specifically and explicitly taught rules that were shown in this book, through examples from highly respectable writers, to be largely ignorable.
I did find myself having problems on chapter 9, however. This chapter deals in “elegance”, instead of simple English methods. For some reason, this only served to make my head spin. The idea of trying to teach the artistic measure of writing is almost futile. That would be like an art class that first taught how to perform proper brush strokes, then went on to try to explain which subjects are more imaginative or which colors are more expressive. That method of teaching an art simply doesn’t work. Imagination isn’t something that can be taught, it must come from within. After all, isn’t that the very definition of art in the first place? I feel that I cannot take anything from a chapter that tries to teach me how to think, rather than how to write.
Overall, however, Williams has a far better teaching voice than that of Strunk and White. With the first book, I felt that I was being fully lectured in the strictest sense of the word, and that I would have no say in any matter discussed in the book. Meanwhile, in Williams’ work, I felt much more of an easy going pace, and felt that under the right circumstances, any rules brought forth in the book could be bent or even broken. While it is true that I would still like to keep both books and refer to them both frequently in my writing, I would have to say without hesitation that Williams is the better teacher between the two books, and is one I would prefer to see as an official text book of a writing class of any level.

Evaluation of "Style Toward Clarity and Grace" By Joseph M. Williams

This next assignment, much like the first, was for me to evaluate the book “Style toward clarity and grace” by Joseph M. Williams. This book is in many ways similar, and many ways different from Strunk and White’s “The Elements of Style”. Firstly, Williams assumes that the reader is already competent in the English language, and is instead trying to make it more professional in appearance and style. Strunk and White instead used a grammar school approach to their writing, giving brief, concise lessons.
Williams’s approach to lessons works so much better from a teaching perspective. He’ll use several examples, and go into depth explaining why the better sentence actually is better. In my opinion, when one teaches, there is no such thing as over-explaining one’s self. By getting so elaborate in his lessons, I found that I could better understand why the rules were set up in the way they were.
Also, like Strunk and White’s book, I found that I’d probably keep this book as a handy reference. This rule holds especially true for Chapter 10, which deals with the various rules of writing that don’t have to be followed. I found myself again and again noticing points where I was specifically and explicitly taught rules that were shown in this book, through examples from highly respectable writers, to be largely ignorable.
I did find myself having problems on chapter 9, however. This chapter deals in “elegance”, instead of simple English methods. For some reason, this only served to make my head spin. The idea of trying to teach the artistic measure of writing is almost futile. That would be like an art class that first taught how to perform proper brush strokes, then went on to try to explain which subjects are more imaginative or which colors are more expressive. That method of teaching an art simply doesn’t work. Imagination isn’t something that can be taught, it must come from within. After all, isn’t that the very definition of art in the first place? I feel that I cannot take anything from a chapter that tries to teach me how to think, rather than how to write.
Overall, however, Williams has a far better teaching voice than that of Strunk and White. With the first book, I felt that I was being fully lectured in the strictest sense of the word, and that I would have no say in any matter discussed in the book. Meanwhile, in Williams’ work, I felt much more of an easy going pace, and felt that under the right circumstances, any rules brought forth in the book could be bent or even broken. While it is true that I would still like to keep both books and refer to them both frequently in my writing, I would have to say without hesitation that Williams is the better teacher between the two books, and is one I would prefer to see as an official text book of a writing class of any level.

Revising the EMU undergrad catalogue

This Assignment calls for me to revise some sentences from the Eastern Michigan University Undergraduate Catalog, using the rules set forth in “Style Towards Clarity And Grace” by Joseph Williams. I decided, going off the EMU webpage, to use the welcome message (http://www.emich.edu/public/catalogs/current/ugradinfo/welcome.html) as a place to locate messages such as the following:
“Advantageous to all students are not only the cultural activities of the metropolitan areas, both within a 45-minute drive from the campus, but also the resources of its sister city, Ann Arbor, home of The University of Michigan.”
After analyzing the sentence, I used the rules for cohesion (chapter 3) and emphasis (chapter 4) to rearrange the information in the following, more sensible format:
“The Cultural activities of the metropolitan areas within a 45 minute drive from the campus, and the resources of sister city, Ann Arbor, home of The University of Michigan, are both advantages for students.”
The cultural activities and resources of Ann Arbor are clearly the objects of the verb set fourth through the idea of them being advantageous to the students. On page 50 of “Style”, Williams states that “...we can create a topic out of the object of a verb if we shift that object to the beginning of its sentence, before the subject...” The subject is, of course, students.
Also, in this sentence it’s apparent that the intended important information is the advantages to the students. In its original format, the sentence’s stressed point appears to be U of M, something that Eastern is obviously not trying to point out. On page 68, Williams advises that writers “Shift less important information to the left”, and that the desired result is “...leaving [important] information in that final position”.
There are many other examples on that short page alone I could revise. The goal behind this exercise, in my opinion, was to show how deep a mark that a lack of style can leave on writing, especially in the professional world. Obviously, those who wrote these statements for Eastern did not take the classes that Eastern requires for those seeking any sort of writing degree.

Reflections on "The Elements of Style" By Strunk and White

For those of you viewing this blog that are not a part of my class, “The Elements of Style” by William Strunk Jr. and E. B. White is a guidebook for writers, teaching the proper ways of becoming a proficient writer. Using this book, on the other hand can become quite a trial. Sometimes the book is incredibly useful and informative, other times the book refers to rules that go against everything I was taught in grammar school.
For example, the very first rule is “Form the possessive singular of nouns by adding ‘s.” (page 1). This rule, according to Strunk, should be obeyed at every turn, including words that end in “s”, for example “Charles’s”. Now, I was always taught to use the form “Charles’ ”, but according to this book, my teachers have all been wrong this whole time. For some reason, I doubt the validity of that idea.
Don’t get me wrong, I do not mean to say that the book is without point. In fact, I think that the entirety of its third section is a reference guide any and every writer should have at their disposal. This would be the section on commonly misused words. For example, on page 42, it illustrates a phrase that often bothers me: commonly people say “I could care less” when they mean “I COULDN’T care less”; if they could care less, then they must care a great deal.
The fifth section of the book should be almost considered a separate entity all its own, as it was written exclusively by White, years after the original publication. This section concerns the use of style, not as a specific tool, but as the subtext, and emotional output of the message. This section can be infuriating, because it is full of suggestions to being a good writer, and most of the messages in fact contradict the overall style of the manual itself.
One of the most glaring examples of this comes on page 80, when White advises that the writer “use figures of speech sparingly.” Yet White himself, meanwhile, has used the book to wax poetic at virtually every chance he gets, throwing out prose wherever he sees fit. At one point he even advises to “not be tempted by twenty dollar words, when there’s a ten-center handy, ready and able” (pgs 76-77). If that’s not using a figure of speech, then I don’t know what is.
Another case of self contradiction comes in the form of two rules that basically are both breaking themselves by each existing. Rule 6 is “Do not Overwrite”, and then rule 11 is “Do not Explain too much”. Obviously White is explaining too much and overwriting simply by making both rules when one would do.
As you can see, “The Elements of Style” is a handy book to have if you are a writer, but it has far too many flaws to make it the end-all authority on writing, and would never make a good textbook for early composition classes.

The Story Begins

Raarr!! The horror begins now! BWA HA HA HA!!!!!