Strunk & White's "The Elements of Style"

Overall, there were things I found both helpful and insightful in The Elements of Style and then certain things that I completely disagreed with.

I think that Elements of Style is a great reference tool if one needed to look up a certain literary rule, for example: punctuation, clauses, active vs. passive voice, or using the correct meaning of a word or phrase. I found the tips on punctuation to be very helpful as they pointed out where I am making certain mistakes. I had always thought that when listing only three items, you separated the first two with a comma and not the second two. Apparently not, unless the rules have changed.

I also liked the section on “Principles of Composition” because it discussed more advanced and complex rules of writing and many that I struggle with myself. I often have trouble writing in the active voice or use language that’s too poetic and wordy. In certain cases, like analyzing a poem or great novel, this isn’t usually a big problem because my style of writing fits well with what I’m writing about. I want there to be a certain poetic-ness to my analysis. However, this style of writing doesn’t work quite so well if I have to write a research paper or discuss some fact. I like writing because it allows me to express myself on paper, when I am not quite so eloquent with speech. Yet eloquence will get me nowhere when I’m trying to write a concise, persuasive argument or summarizing history and fact in a research paper.

So while I can criticize my style and see its’ weaknesses, I also felt like I had to defend it while reading this book. I took several things personally – because I take most things personally – in this book because while the book is on style, it seemed to be more about Strunk and White’s styles rather than helping individuals to make best use of their own personal style. Take for example, point #21 on page 81, “Prefer the standard to the offbeat.” I think that style is what distinguishes one writer from the next and Strunk and White recommend following a standard rather than trying to creatively express oneself. If the purpose of one’s writing is to express oneself and reach out to a larger audience by openly expressing oneself, how and why would one choose to restrain themselves to some traditional standard? I understand in a more competitive world of writing that following the standard is important because it’s the one “dialect” of writing we all understand, but really, what is so wrong with putting one’s personality into one’s writing? If we all played writing safely and followed strict standards and worked at being concise, there would be no poetry and prose and individuality and genres.

Perhaps this is just my personal opinion because my priority is in the beauty of writing and not the mechanics, but I did take offense to Strunk and White’s recommendation to play it safe. I guess writing style relates to all aspects of humanity in this way in that you have to know when to conform so that you can fit in and be accepted, and that personal expression is risky but has the potential to distinguish you from others, whether in a good way or bad.