Scan barcode
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
katherinebriggs's review against another edition
5.0
Wonderfully practical. Even though many of my writing classes have been steeped in this book, it was wonderful learning more!
omnificer's review against another edition
4.0
I don't believe I've read such an opinionated rulebook before. Its statements are decisive which can be amusing since some of what it condemns has changed over time, as language does. I don't think the co-authors would change their opinions if shown some of that modern usage, but they aren't ignorant.
They show this understanding, if not approval, with a sharp wit. They declare a rule and then break it immediately to show what sounds best is what is important, as long as your meaning is clear. And even if some of the advice is out of date or even just Strunk's taste (such as using forcible) there is a massive amount of usable information. I haven't absorbed the book in one reading and I don't plan to shackle myself to their rules but I will reference it often and take to heart the need for clarity.
They show this understanding, if not approval, with a sharp wit. They declare a rule and then break it immediately to show what sounds best is what is important, as long as your meaning is clear. And even if some of the advice is out of date or even just Strunk's taste (such as using forcible) there is a massive amount of usable information. I haven't absorbed the book in one reading and I don't plan to shackle myself to their rules but I will reference it often and take to heart the need for clarity.
leahreadsstuff's review against another edition
informative
medium-paced
5.0
I took so many notes while reading this. This is the kind of book you buy and reference constantly, not the sort you write a review on. It’s written with a dry sense of humor and in a direct tone. The content is invaluable. If you have any interest in writing I would highly suggest reading and possibly rereading this book.
“All writing is communication; creative writing is communication through revelation—it is the Self escaping into the open.”
wdkilpackiii's review against another edition
5.0
Contains guidelines for writing that are applicable in almost every field. Everyone should have this book on their shelf. I recommend this to all of my students, regardless of their major. Highly recommended!