ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (02/07/84)
-- >>> I suppose I should add that the reason I have no urge to get a copy of >>> Strunk & White is that I have little regard for such "manuals of style", mainly >>> because I find that most entries in such are the result of some person's warped >>> view of aesthetics rather than simple reasoning. (I was absolutely thrilled (oh, >>> frabjous day!) when I found out that a few years ago, it was decided that ending >>> a sentence with a preposition was acceptable.) Just out of curiosity, could those >>> of you who use Strunk & White explain why you find it to be a reasonable set of >>> guidelines? "Strunk & White" is not only a manual of style, it is a short, succinct, and delightful piece of prose. It is the work of literate, orderly minds and a thing of joy forever. Read it. If you yourself are literate, you will agree. If you are not literate, then it makes no difference--you need it. Dictionaries are fine. We need them, too. But they only give us the tokens of the language and a soupcon of the syntax. They can't help much with semantics. Semantics is hard. Most compilers of even simple languages can't diagnose semantic errors. After all, English lets us put all sorts of words, even syllables, end-to-end and make perfectly legal, grammatically correct constructions. Unfortunately, it does not always let us mean something by doing so. That's why. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 07 Feb 84 [18 Pluviose An CXCII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7261 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***
amigo2@ihuxq.UUCP (John Hobson) (02/08/84)
I want to applaud Ken Perlow's statements on Strunk & White. It is like learning how to play a musical instrument. The dictionary is where you learn where the notes are, a Manual of Style is where you learn about tempo, phrasing, etc. To say that all you need to know is what the notes are is like saying that the Oshkosh (Wisconsin) High School band is as good as the Chicago Symphony Orchestra. They both know where the notes are, and could read them just as well. There is an episode of M*A*S*H where Major Winchester says to a soldier who is a concert pianist "I can play the notes, but I can't make music." No, I am not trying to turn everyone into Hemingways and Steinbecks, but I agree with Sir Winston Churchill who said that every school boy should be given Latin for pleasure and Greek for a treat, but must be able to write a simple English sentence. (And yes, the study of Latin can be a pleasure. I well remember reading St. Augustine's Confessions in Latin and feeling joy, both for his love of God and for the beauty of his prose.) John Hobson AT&T Bell Labs Naperville, IL (312) 979-0193 ihnp4!ihuxq!amigo2
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (02/10/84)
Strunk & White is a nice little book, as I have said before, but it is not what some people think it is. It was written for Freshman college students. I was around when it came out in the first printing and still have my copy. For the serious pedantrist, I would point to Fowler or Follet. Now these are usage guides you can sink your teeth into. (And, I can dangle things if I wish.) S&W only scratch the surface. T. C. Wheeler
jsq@ut-sally.UUCP (John Quarterman) (02/12/84)
The main problem I found with Strunk and White was that this
"manual of style" was unreadable. If you want to be literate,
read literature, not a collection of misapplied arbitrary rules.
--
John Quarterman, CS Dept., University of Texas, Austin, Texas
jsq@ut-sally.ARPA, jsq@ut-sally.UUCP, {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!jsqjsq@ut-sally.UUCP (John Quarterman) (02/26/84)
Following Strunk and White, practically everything Vladimir Nabokov,
Thomas Wolfe, Tom Wolfe, or Gene Wolfe ever wrote is in poor style.
I'd rather read them than pay attention to a pair of pedants pontificating.
--
John Quarterman, CS Dept., University of Texas, Austin, Texas
jsq@ut-sally.ARPA, jsq@ut-sally.UUCP, {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!jsqken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (02/29/84)
-- >>> Following Strunk and White, practically everything Vladimir Nabokov, >>> Thomas Wolfe, Tom Wolfe, or Gene Wolfe ever wrote is in poor style. >>> I'd rather read them than pay attention to a pair of pedants pontificating. >>> -- >>> John Quarterman, CS Dept., University of Texas, Austin, Texas >>> jsq@ut-sally.ARPA, jsq@ut-sally.UUCP, {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!jsq Sloppy thinking, John. If you could write as well as they did (or do, depending), you wouldn't have any need for Strunk & White. Of course, even following their suggestions to the letter will not make you a good writer, just as ignoring them won't necessarily make you a bad one. Confused? Well, just consider Richard Mitchell's analogy: "Knowing the difference between 'who' and 'whom' is like knowing how to finger scales; the one doesn't make you literate and the other doesn't make you a musician." If you do know good grammar and style, you can choose to ignore it, just as Victor Borge can ignore his virtuoso piano technique, when he so chooses, for comedic effect. If you don't know good grammar and style, you'd better be very talented. Some are. Most of us are not. We latter folks are S&W's intended audience. If you believe you write well enough to throw away S&W, prove it--your speciousness belies it. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 29 Feb 84 [10 Ventose An CXCII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7261 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***