May 12, 2004

• "A Writer's Reference", Diana Hacker
• "Strunk" is very good too
• Follets "Modern American Usage" is another
• I'm sorry, theoss, but I thoroughly disrecommend Strunk and White. And not just me: here's Geoffrey K. Pullum with a complaint or two. I like Fowler's Modern English Usage, though. It's also a good example of English style itself.
• Take a look at the list of books in the alt.usage.english FAQ. More books there than you can throw a banana at. As to which one is best for you? Dunno. You'll have to experiment.
• Strunk and White is handy when you've forgotten one little rule and need it quickly. Fowler's is good, although a bit formal for modern writers, but if you're working for the Wall Street Journal it may be just what you need. After these, the book I reach for first is the Chicago Manual of Style, which has saved my sorry butt more times than I can count.
• Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" is also definitely worth a look. Come for the sentence structure, stay for the content.
• Wretched Strunk's is also totally hated by me (yeah, that was intentional). I guess I understand their point -- they're trying to keep us all from writing "Harry Potter"-style prose (I read an article, once, that quoted an entire paragraph in which every sentence ended in "-ly," but I can't find it). I had a TA who took Strunk's as his Bible. My papers tend to be loaded with contractions and first-person references -- and why shouldn't they be? I have no interest in an academic writing career. As someone who'll probably end up writing kids' books, I have a hard time writing anything that doesn't flow smoothly when read aloud; little sounds clunkier than a run-of-the-mill piece of student-written literary criticism. When I'm taking an informally-run class on children's film, there's nothing worse than seeing every paper returned to me bleeding with red ink (but still given an "A" grade -- was the relentless editing just helpful advice? It may have been, and that'd be to his credit; he was a good TA in all other respects. Strunk's, to me, just isn't something I need help with: it's something I willfully defy). I'm still quite the grammar nazi, but I just don't see the point in codifying anything in a manner contrary to common usage. Sorry for the derail. Strunk's is useful when you're looking for basic grammatical structure, but you don't have to take any of their more annoying suggestions as law.
• The Strunk book is good. Also, over here in the UK, Eats Shoots & Leaves is quite popular at the moment. It's about the importance of correct punctuation. The title is based on a (very bad) joke.
• ah, yes, the old prescriptive v. descriptive argument. language -- so malleable, yet utterly dependent on certain formal structures. colorless green ideas sleep furiously. here's prehaps the definitizzle worizzle on the subjizzle, dizzle. pig latin is for white people, or should i say "ermudabay ortshay ooklay otthay onyay hiteway enmay". disbelieve here
• p.s. -- strunk and white: like donuts, only good for you.
• I like "Sin and Syntax" by Constance Hale. She also edited "Wired Style", which has proved helpful on many occasions. "The Deluxe Transitive Vampire" by Karen Elizabeth Gordon has gotten good reviews. I haven't read it yet, but it's next on my list.
• put me in the pro-Strunk side. Other good ones, though, include Zinnser's "On Writing Well", "The Essential Writer's Companion" (a Houghton-Mifflin thing), and a Roget's - whenever you find yourself using the same words over and over, it never hurts to see what else is available. But, imo, the finest tool for learning to be a good writer is first learning to be a good reader. Read widely, on diverse subjects, and (to make no bones about it) steal the finest aspects of tone and structure that you find, incorporating them into your own work. Eventually, the architecture of grammar and syntax will gave way to your own style and voice; Frank Lloyd Wright constructed buildings using the same principles of engineering that Bill the Handyman-from-down-the-street does - but the end product is markedly different.
• This probably isn't a perfect answer to your question, but for those of you interested in legal writing, I've found Bryan Garner's Element of Legal Style and Dictionary of Modern Usage to be useful references.
• I heart the Chicago Manual of Style.
• OK, there are two separate issues here. One is the actual facts of how English is used; this is emphasized by "descriptivists." The other is the ideal of "good usage," regardless of what people actually say; this is emphasized by "prescriptivists." Both are important; unfortunately, much as in politics, most people are so committed to one approach or the other that they go overboard. Since I make my living as a (prescriptivist) editor but was trained as a (descriptivist) linguist, I understand and appreciate both sides, although I tend to get much more irritated with prescriptivists because of their typical smug elitism ("we're going to patiently explain to you ignorant yahoos how you should be using your own language, and if you're lucky we may even toss in a little humor to help the medicine go down"). That having been said, I'll try to answer your question; I'll start by pointing to the book recommendations of the alt.usage.english group Skrik mentioned, especially their first item: The best survey of the history of usage disputes and how they correlate with actual usage is Webster's Dictionary of English Usage, Merriam-Webster, 1989 (WDEU -- recently reprinted as Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage, ISBN 0-87779-131-7). I cannot recommend this book highly enough; it does a superb job of describing actual usage and its history (with plenty of citations) and giving whatever caveats are necessary because of the strictures of usage mavens (distinguishing between those that have some basis in reality and those that are pure inventions, as well as between those that are widespread and those that only a few intransigeants will complain about). There is also a very well done concise edition. Beyond that, Fowler is a delightful book as long as you take it with a lot of salt; he was surprisingly permissive for his day, but had his strange personal shibboleths, and of course he was an amateur in all senses of the word, bad and good. I would get the first edition, though (easily available for not much money from used bookstores); what's the point in getting later versions that do a half-assed job of updating while leaching out most of Fowler's marvelous idiosyncrasy? The same goes for Strunk and White. Will Strunk's original little pamphlet of 1918 was a charming thing, and White's 1957 revision was very well done and prodded a lot of people into tightening their prose and thinking more carefully about what they were saying; his subsequent versions (1969, 1972, 1979, if I remember correctly) updated some of the examples but were basically unchanged. However, after his death the thing has been rewritten by person or persons unknown (it's quite strange that the book gives no indication of who's responsible for the changes), and a lot of White's style has gone and a lot of political correctness has entered by the side door. For a full description, see the long review in The Massachusetts Review, the beginning of which is online here. If you're going to get S&W, I'd recommend (as with Fowler) getting an early edition done by the master himself rather than the bland new version. (The same goes, by the way, for The Joy of Cooking.)
• Books aside, the best advice that can be given is contained in Fes's second paragraph. "Read widely, on diverse subjects, and... steal the finest aspects of tone and structure that you find" is absolutely on the money. Remember that most languages have no equivalent of our "usage guides"; in Russian, for example, I've simply had to read as much as I can of the best writers and learn from them what Russian style can be, and there's really no substitute for that. Usage books are, at best, convenient references and reminders. And since fritz_underblade has linked to that fucking David Foster Wallace essay, I am compelled to link to my own deconstruction of it (scroll down to DAVID FOSTER WALLACE DEMOLISHED). Wallace is a good writer but a lousy style guide. You have been warned.
• hat seems to have given a definitive response. I'll say too that Fowler is an utterly loveable curmudgeon, and what I aspire to become when I'm old. The best advice I can give to someone seeking elegant clear English style, though, is simply to read George Orwell. Read it all, read it now, read it again and again.
• Thank you all very much for the recs and advices. I can't wait to check out the books mentioned here and from Skrik's link. Hopefully I won't fall into the same ol' pattern (search on Amazon... if you like this you'll like those... customer reviews... reviewer's profile... best-of lists...). Fes's advice of reading-to-write is a great one, though it assumes certain skills that I may not possess (can usually discern good prose; can sometimes say why; can rarely imitate it). languagehat's comments are enlightening and very helpful. Again, thanks. I have the fourth edition of Strunk. My only complaint is that the book discourages me from writing.
• the "hat" has spoken? when does the "hat" find time amid all the pedantic deconstructions? i linked the david foster wallace article for an overview of the argument, well before monsieur hat felt the need to unburden his overpriced education on us. wow, 13 languages and an encyclopedic knowledge of the porkpie. i bet you get laid thrice daily. it was not an endorsment of DFW's thesis, per se. just something one seeking an interesting discussion of style might find interesting. mickey, to help clarify, this is to what i referred: "colorless green ideas sleep furiously" is noam chomsky's famous formulation of a grammatically correct yet meaningless sentence, bolstering his linguistics-altering notion of a hardwired universal grammar that is part and parcel of the human condition. the pig latin is a play on snoop dogg's recent attempt to get white people to stop putting "izzle" in every slang formulation out of our mouths. he hosted snl this past saturday and called folk to the carpet, saying "it was my gift of cool to you, but seriously, cut it out". his recommendation to fill the void left without all the "izzling"? pig latin. hope that helps. languagehat, deconstruct THIS!
• Wow. Where did that come from? I'll look for an earlier copy of Strunk's, lh. I've always liked White, and I wondered why that book put me off so.
• Anyway, kenshin, I hope your question has been answered sufficiently. I, being a poor and untalented student-cum-essay writer not too long ago, relied heavily on Hacker, but only because my writing professor recommended it.
• fritzle, congratulations: you've proved a point I've insisted on for years, namely that typos can be found in anything. When you learn to use capital letters and avoid absurdly contorted constructions like "this is to what i referred," perhaps I'll take you seriously. Oh, but wait -- you take Chomsky's claptrap seriously. Never mind. (Incidentally, I never claimed you endorsed DFW's thesis, I merely said you linked to it. Learn to read.)
• tracicle: Yes, this thread's given me plenty of leads. I'll be busy checking them out.
• Damn grammar thugs.
• Also, the hat's spelling "intransigeant" for "intransigent" means he's subbed the French spelling for the English one. I'd call that a pretty classy slip. Oh, and next time you can pick up 13 or so languages by virtue of how much money you spend, let me know. Yes, you need education to do it, but you also need a faculty
• "colorless green ideas sleep furiously" Am I strange if I can actually picture this? (taking colourless less as literal than as a description of a particularly bland green. And of course ideas always have corporeal form - I see them in their little tight white sheeted beds, tossing and turning, so angry, but too asleep to do anything about it.) LH - what about Chomsky's theory is claptrap? I am curious - I have only every taken one course on linguistics, but I thought the idea of our languages pre-programmed for language (any kind of language) was interesting and made sense. So I would be interested in hearing arguments against it.
• Oh - and speaking of George Orwell - he's a great writer, but I once applied his guidelines from "Politics and the English language" to the essay of "Politics and the English Language" and found that he didn't quite follow them himself. (All style guidelines are meant to be broken, of course, in the interest of variety.) But I also found Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" followed the guidelines wonderfully - rich, robust English prose, only a little dripping with satire. I really should read more Swift, to improve my own English - and kenshin, I dare say your English will be a darn sight better than half of us anglos, myself first in line. They say few native speakers ever know their own language like those who have conciously studied it.
• There's no better way to learn your own language than to study another, imho. (Not that I could explain some of the probably basic aspects of English grammar, still, but I'm better at picking up on my own mistakes.)
• *dreads teaching four straight units of French tomorrow* And yes, Orwell is easily taxed with inconsistency. May I take the opportunity to add my name to the list of zillions who are similarly afflicted? Consistency, bastion, foolish, mind, etc.
• I suppose the rules are there so you know when you're breaking them and why. I don't think that consistency is such a big issue, but probably more important to a learner than one already fluent in the language. One problem I have between the (measly) two languages I am fluent in is converting certain terms and ideas from one language to another.
• PF, it's a sad but undeniable fact that assholes can actually do anagrams and other party tricks. Doesn't make them any less assholish. for a guy who "makes a living as an editor" you sure have a cavalier attitude toward typos I wouldn't bother responding to a troll, but this is actually an interesting issue, and I figure others here might enjoy an explanation. Expecting an editor or proofreader to "catch everything," while infuriatingly common among employers, is as dumb as expecting fielders to catch all balls hit their way. It's an ideal to strive for, sure, and one wants as high a fielding percentage as possible, but every fielder misses one now and then. A good manager claps him on the back and says "Hey, whaddaya know, you're human!" A bad one makes him feel so bad about it he goes right out and makes errors out of sheer nervousness. Similarly, when a typo gets past the eagle eye of an editor and the client (or art department or whoever) complains, a good department head will firmly tell the complainant "Look, we're all human, and this is an excellent editor; at least it was caught before getting into print," and if he or she mentions it to the editor at all will do so sympathetically, with full understanding that it could have happened to anyone. A bad department head will tell the complainant "I'm terribly sorry, it won't happen again, I'll make that very clear to the editor" and will go and chew the editor out. I try not to work for that sort. When I say typos can be found in anything, I mean anything. When I used to work for an idiot who needed the point reinforced, I used to carry a little sheaf of Xeroxed pages from the Bible, the OED, an Oxford Classical Text, and various other supposedly unimpeachable books, each with a misprint marked. (Yes, like most good editors, I'm constantly editing, and tend to mark typos in whatever I'm reading.) If you're the type who expects perfection in everything, you wring your hands and rant about sloppiness and torment those around you and go to an early grave; if you understand that there is no such thing as perfection, you accept errors as an inevitable part of the world, perhaps even as the necessary Persian flaw. As for the thread, it sure was nice before it was pissed in. If I were running this site, I'd delete fritz's first comment and everything subsequent, since the question had been answered to the satisfaction of the questioner, which is the point of Curious George as I understand it. But I don't run the site, I just try to provide information, entertainment, and the occasional banana. If others prefer to piss, that's their lookout.
• I'm a bit late to this rapidly decaying thread, but if it's not too late to offer some concrete advice... Kenshin, you mentioned that, while you can usually spot good prose, you have a hard time imitating it. You might want to try a technique that Ben Franklin used when he was a young man frustrated with his own poor writing: 1. Find a piece of prose that you consider extremely well written. 2. Read the first paragraph. 3. Cover up the first paragraph, and try to reconstruct it from memory. 4. Uncover the first paragraph. Note the differences between your version and the original version. Reflect on why the original writer made the choices he did. 5. Repeat with subsequent paragraphs. It certainly worked for old Ben--he's a superb prose stylist.
• As the grammar folks have spoken (and some of the linguists as well), I thought I'd mention two books you might be interested in to help tap the muse in writing...if in fact that is something you'd like to do as well as write with grammatical precision (normally a good thing). The first is "If you want to write" by Brenda Ueland. Although it was written over half a century ago, I found the sentiments very fresh and inciteful, especially in regards to understanding that you do have something to say and how to say it with your own voice. As my voice teacher (and countless other voice teachers no doubt) was fond of pointing out: babies have no problem projecting their voices. We train ourselves to be silent. Likewise, you can train yourself to be uncreative, with the aiding hand of society (did someone mention Orwell?). The second muse-tapping book I'd recommend is "Writing Down the Bones" by Natalie Goldberg. This is more about creating exercises and unlearning the rules you've learned as a writer, but it is likewise, very inciteful. I should mention that both books, being that they deal with artistic creation, traipse along the edge of spirituality in a way which may make some readers uncomfortable. Ueland makes no bones about feeling divine inspiration is in fact divine for her and Goldberg in "Bones" frequently quotes Zen masters. So I'd suggest leafing through a copy of either book to see if the tone taps into you or simply taxes you. Of course, one monkey already mentioned that you should read great English-language authors, like Orwell, more Orwell...and after that, a helping of Orwell. (Which reminds me, I need to read more Orwell). I would heartily suggest Conrad, "Nostromo" being one of my favourites.
• ay! [me, I like Nabokov's Pnin the best, but that's this week]
• Since the delightful fritz is so keen to derail this thread and has turned it into a sanctuary for all the crap that I for one was hoping not to see here, I'm hoping that he will make an attempt to redeem himself by easing up on the "assholery" elsewhere on the site. I left his original comment up because, despite the stupid goatse link, he was defending his post on the Wallace essay. I wanted everyone involved to have a chance to a) state their point and b) get through the argument over Wallace sufficiently to move on (as has happened on MoFi most of the time thus far). As that hasn't happened and this is an otherwise useful topic, I'll be weeding out the useless bullshit and hoping like hell that that'll be the end of it. I don't like censoring posts unless absolutely necessary. I don't consider it my job to edit what you all say, and I am annoyed by people that make it necessary to do so.
• Bye Bye Andy.
• got me again! zing! snip! censor!
• Try reading your email, fritz, and then maybe we can sort something out. If it's not relevant to the topic, it's not staying.
• My advice (which is by far the best advice) is to by all those style books previously mentioned, put them on a shelf, and dust them once a month. Sure you could read Strunk & White from cover to cover, you could even take notes. But you'll learn more about the usage of English for speaking and writing if you go out and read every novel, good or bad, you can get your hands on.