Strunk and White versus Williams

When I read Strunk and White I thought it was the best book for writers ever written. It was short and easy to read. Then, I read Williams' Style. Williams' book was certainly not easy to read. In fact, it was a little difficult at times. Williams wrote a better book, though, because he told the reader why they should or shouldn't write a certain way. Strunk and White simply told you not to do this and offered a suggestion of what would be better. Williams even says in the very first paragraph that he is going to do this saying, "but I want to do more than just urge writers to...".

Was it intentional that in the first paragraph he wants to urge writers to do more than "omit needless words" and then he wrote an entire chapter on how to write a clear and concise sentence that has 18 clauses? That chapter actually made me crazy. I praised Strunk and White for telling readers to write short concise sentences. Then, along comes another writer who says you can write 50 word sentences and get away with it.

I think Williams also did a better job of discussing style rather than just a bunch of grammar rules. While grammar rules are neccessary in good writing, there is so much more to style than grammar. The two chapters on coherence were definitely my favorites. Creating organized paragraphs are my downfall.

I had mixed thoughts about Chapter 10 of Williams' book. I agree that we should not judge a person based on their dialect. I do not feel that dialect should show in writing unless you are writing a book based on a specific area where the characters need to speak a certain dialect for the book to be realistic. Every language should have a standard for writing that way even if two people have difficulty communicating with spoken word, they can still communicate with written word.

All in all, I think the two books complement each other. They each cover subjects that the other doesn't. Williams offers the history and causes of "bad writing" while Strunk and White merely tell you what is bad writing. Williams closes his book by saying that not all grammar rules are in fact rules. Even good writers break rules that teachers would tell you to never break. Strunk and White, however, just make you feel as though you are a bad writer if you ever break a rule.

Revising with Williams

Original:
"Student Government at EMU is committed to improving the quality of student life on campus. The student body each spring elects a president, vice president and 24 senators who, along with representatives appointed from various organizations, compose the Student Senate. The executive officers and members provide input to the administration of the University to help solve problems and improve programs and services. Student Government also sponsors campus-wide events. The student services office, known as REACT, provides assistance to students with legal, rental or University-related problems."

My Revision:
Student Government at EMU is committed to improving the quality of life on campus. They provide input to University administration to help solve problems and improve services. The student services office, known as REACT, provides assistance to students with legal, rental or University-related problems. Student Government also sponsors campus-wide events.

The Student Senate is composed of a president, vice president, 24 senators and organization representatives. The student body elects the president, vice president and senators each spring. The representatives are appointed by various organizations.

I chose this passage because the sentences did not flow together. It seemed like the writer just wrote four sentences about the student government at random and stuck them together to create a paragraph.

In chapter three of Style:Toward Clarity and Grace, Joseph Williams discusses cohesion of sentences. His main pointis that each sentence should have a topic and that the topic is clear to the reader. He also discusses the difference between a psychological subject and a grammatical subject. The pyschological subject, he says, is the topic of a sentence. Williams also says that often times the psychological subject and grammatical subject are the same(50).

The first sentence of the above paragraph was the topic sentence. The topic is the "quality of student life on campus". The rest of the sentences didn't flow with that topic. The very next sentence had to do with how the members of the student government are appointed.

After reading that student government is committed to improving quality of life readers will most likely ask how. This is answered through the next question: "by providing input". Readers might also be asking themselves what else does the student government do? sponsors campus-wide events. I left in the part about student services, but I wasn't sure if this group was a part of the student government.

How the members of the government are appointed had nothing to do with the topic so I created a new paragraph. Williams says, "at the beginning of a series of sentences, create a reasonably consistent topic string"(52). By putting the information about elections into the same paragraph as the committment of the student government the writer is not creating a reasonably consistent topic string.

Strunk and White: First Impressions

I really like this book. In fact, I like it so much that I am considering buying it for future use as I am currently borrowing it from my local library. If I were following the rules of the book I would not have started the second sentence with the words "in fact". Strunk and White believes this is unnecessary. I disagree with him. I think it makes it makes the previous sentence stronger.

One of the rules in the book that I strongly agree with is to use orthodox spelling. I think one of my biggest pet peeves is misspelled and loosely spelled words. Even if a person is just writing a casual blog, they should spell correctly.

I think the rule that I follow most is: Do not overwrite. I believe texts should be written to the point without added nonsense meant to fill up the page. I rarely read novels because they are usually filled with pages and pages of adjectives and other nonsense. It bores me to read books written in that fashion.

When reading the book I didn't see too much that seemed out of date. Perhaps my ideas of grammar rules are out of date. I did see one particular word that he preferred people not use contradict an earlier rule.

The book says that instead of using the word currently is redundant and that one should use a more precise reference of time. The example used is:

We are currently reviewing your application
We are at this moment reviewing your application

The latter sentence being the preferred sentence. This, however, contradicts the rule: Omit needless words. currently and at this moment mean the same thing. So according to his first rule we should omit needless words. These words would be at this moment. We could replace those words with currently and say the same thing.

Inventing a writing technology.

I know this is a little behind, but here is my writing technology. I dug up some red clay and wrote on a sidewalk with it.

What is style?

To me, style is how you say the things you write. I guess you could say it's your "voice". Some writers are very poetic. Some writers beef up what they write with a lot of adjectives. My style is short and to the point. I don't like to add in a bunch of nonsense just to fill up the page. I say what needs to be said and I'm done.

First Entry

Welcome to my Eng. 328 Blog. I personally hate the word blog. I use journal instead. So, welcome to my Eng. 328 online journal.

I like to try and make graphics for my online communities. I'm not very good at it because I don't practice often enough. Since the Red Wings are in the playoffs right now, I made an icon to show my support: