Scan barcode
crimsonking19's review against another edition
4.0
I first listened to it and would not recommend it in audio format, It was way better to read.
youniseader's review against another edition
4.0
Amazing! Precise and concise!
It gives you very practical tips about writing, style, and grammar. It can be useful not only if you write in English, but in any language, especially the part of style.
It gives you very practical tips about writing, style, and grammar. It can be useful not only if you write in English, but in any language, especially the part of style.
purplish4673's review against another edition
3.0
Better than melatonin! Four nights in a row, the syntactical musings of Strunk and White lulled me to sleep without need for melatonin, cbd, or earplugs.
Although this book is a helpful, if dated, grammar reference, I had several issues with it.
Some of the “corrected” sentences were, in my opinion, worse than the originals. For example, “This is a portrait of Benjamin Harrison, grandson of William Henry Harrison, who became President in 1899,” was changed to “This is a portrait of Benjamin Harrison, grandson of William Henry Harrison. He became President in 1889.” To me, it is more clear in the former sentence that “who” refers to William Henry Harrison than it is in the latter. Starting a new sentence and using “He” implies that the antecedent is Benjamin, as both sentences would have the same subject. There is likely a more elegant solution for this, but I found the first sentence more clear. Similarly, the removal of the word “respectively” from “The one mile and two mile runs were won by Jones and Cummings, respectively” removes clarity from the sentence. In the “corrected” example, “The one mile and two mile runs were won by Jones and by Cummings” may lead readers to believe that both races were won by both runners in a tie or as partners. These examples are subjective and some may disagree with me, but the subjectivity shows that these guidelines are not, despite how the authors present it, hard and fast rules that must always be followed.
The biggest issue I took was under Words and Expressions Commonly Misused. Most of the entries gave examples or otherwise explained the reasoning, but some simply instructed the reader not to use a word without satisfying explanation. “Dependable. A needless substitute for ‘reliable,’ ‘trust,’ ‘worthy.’” Why is this needless? Had the authors provided a reason that “Dependable” is inferior to its synonyms, I could perhaps be convinced. But they have omitted any reason and it comes across that they simply don’t like the word. In a similar example, “etc.” is, they declare, “not to be used if [‘and the rest,’ ‘and so forth’] would be insufficient.” But “etc.” is a more efficient word than either of the listed phrases, and didn’t they tell me that a sentence should be highly efficient and contain no unnecessary words? I am nitpicking here because the authors have nitpicked. They called their book “The Elements of Style,” yet authoritatively admonished anyone who styles their writing differently.
Although this book is a helpful, if dated, grammar reference, I had several issues with it.
Some of the “corrected” sentences were, in my opinion, worse than the originals. For example, “This is a portrait of Benjamin Harrison, grandson of William Henry Harrison, who became President in 1899,” was changed to “This is a portrait of Benjamin Harrison, grandson of William Henry Harrison. He became President in 1889.” To me, it is more clear in the former sentence that “who” refers to William Henry Harrison than it is in the latter. Starting a new sentence and using “He” implies that the antecedent is Benjamin, as both sentences would have the same subject. There is likely a more elegant solution for this, but I found the first sentence more clear. Similarly, the removal of the word “respectively” from “The one mile and two mile runs were won by Jones and Cummings, respectively” removes clarity from the sentence. In the “corrected” example, “The one mile and two mile runs were won by Jones and by Cummings” may lead readers to believe that both races were won by both runners in a tie or as partners. These examples are subjective and some may disagree with me, but the subjectivity shows that these guidelines are not, despite how the authors present it, hard and fast rules that must always be followed.
The biggest issue I took was under Words and Expressions Commonly Misused. Most of the entries gave examples or otherwise explained the reasoning, but some simply instructed the reader not to use a word without satisfying explanation. “Dependable. A needless substitute for ‘reliable,’ ‘trust,’ ‘worthy.’” Why is this needless? Had the authors provided a reason that “Dependable” is inferior to its synonyms, I could perhaps be convinced. But they have omitted any reason and it comes across that they simply don’t like the word. In a similar example, “etc.” is, they declare, “not to be used if [‘and the rest,’ ‘and so forth’] would be insufficient.” But “etc.” is a more efficient word than either of the listed phrases, and didn’t they tell me that a sentence should be highly efficient and contain no unnecessary words? I am nitpicking here because the authors have nitpicked. They called their book “The Elements of Style,” yet authoritatively admonished anyone who styles their writing differently.
msdish's review against another edition
I’ve read it before, absolutely love it. Just don’t need it right now