English 328

2003-10-21T12:44:00.000-04:00

Style Blog Writing Prompt 5

Although these two books were written for different purposes and are difficult to compare in many ways, they do have a lot of overlap in regards to what is considered good or bad style in writing. It might be easy for a person to stay that style cannot really be judged, and that it pertains to the individual rather than being something that can be evaluated by criteria laid out in a book by English professors, but I think that Williams and Strunk and White make many valid points about what constitutes good style.
One common element between the two that makes a lot of sense is the saying that less is more. Williams has a whole chapter on the importance of concise writing as well as his chapter on length, and Strunk and White address the issue of concision in several places as they talk about stating statements positively, omitting needless words and avoiding what they call “overwriting.” Efficiency of language is always appreciated by a reader, even when it comes to fiction. I find that an author like William Gibson, who is able to capture an entire scene with only a phrase, a much more enjoyable read than say Charles Dickens, who likes to spend pages describing one element of a scene. This element of good style links with clarity as well, which is also a topic that is addressed by both authors. Actually, I think that one could make a case in saying that in one way or another, all of the elements of good style within both books can relate back to the concepts of concision and clarity, especially in Strunk and White. It is worth noting that both of these concepts also directly address the reader’s needs from a writer.
All of the usage lessons and grammar lessons in The Elements of Style are intended to help a writer make his point efficiently and clearly. Proper punctuation always makes things easier for a reader, and suggestions such as placing emphasis at the end of a sentence (made by both authors) also assist in the flow of the writing. Each time that Williams revises a paragraph, as a reader I find that the revision is both more enjoyable to read as well as being better at conveying the information. Writing is done to convey information to readers, whether it is technical information regarding something like property laws in the state of Michigan, or the emotional information presented by authors in poems or stories. Streamlining this information is what makes for good style, because it caters to the needs that the reader has. These needs are ease of reading and retaining information. I think that both authors would agree to at least some extent that good style is writing that considers the needs of its audience.

2003-10-16T12:53:00.000-04:00

Style Blog Writing Prompt 4

I think that in a lot of ways, these two books are difficult to compare, because Strunk and White can be used as a reference book where you can look up something specific, but with Williams, you really have to read the whole thing. As Kelly states, if you are looking for a “quick fix,” then Strunk and White is the way to go. There is also the fact that Strunk and White have grammar rules that are easy to refer to. As Amy states, “Strunk and White give rules that every writer is apt to forget…rules concerning mechanics and other such grammar elements are always helpful.” I agree. I think that overall, Williams is a good book to start thinking about overarching principles of style and good writing, but if you need to know how to correctly use a semicolon, then Strunk and White better serves that purpose.
Kelli states that Williams goes more in depth with his examples than Strunk and White, and I certainly think that this is the case. Williams’ often lengthy examples really force the reader to think about the style guideline being discussed, and they provide a good model for revising his own writing. I think that this type of presentation lends itself to more experienced writer’s who have at least a partial grasp of most of the elements in Strunk and White, which leads me to disagree with Jamie when she states that William’s is better for a non-professional writer. I guess we could debate the semantics of “professional,” but I am thinking along the lines of experience, and writing that has publishing potential in any genre. For a writer who is seeking publication, Strunk and White can certainly be helpful, but Williams would help the writer go above and beyond the basic mechanical rules in the former book.
I wanted to make one last comment on something that Eric said about style. He mentions that a poem or a novel is not style, it is form, and I think that this idea is a good starting point for a general discussion of style. Several questions come to my mind when thinking about style within form, such as Does form limit style? Can a particular style become its own form? How exactly does form or genre relate to style? Style is a term that we throw around quite a bit and do not often take the time to actually define.

2003-10-14T12:32:00.000-04:00

Style Blog Writing Prompt 3

I found the section on misused words in Strunk and White to be useful, and I think that Williams’ chapter on Concision addresses the same issue of verbosity in bad or mediocre writing. While Strunk and White point to specific words that are often unnecessary, Williams addresses the broader concept of "less is more." He gives many examples of sources of wordiness such as pompous diction and meaningless modifiers. I think that Williams advice is more useful when thinking about writing in a more general manner, but Strunk and White help with specific word usage, but both authors defend the point that good writing should use words carefully and deliberately. If it can’t be said in a sentence, it probably isn’t worth saying.

One of the major problems I had with a Strunk and White recommendation comes from the statement that a good writer should "prefer the standard to the offbeat." Williams has an interesting discourse on this topic in his final section on usage, and his conclusion seems to be that many of our standards are arbitrary. For example, the phrase, "I am here, ain’t I" makes more sense when the contraction is pulled apart than the grammatically correct "I am here, aren’t I." I think that Williams point is ultimately that standard grammar rules have been, to some extent, the result of an evolution in language that breeds efficiency, but good, standard grammar is not the essential mark of quality prose. Concise, clear and coherent prose results from the writer’s style, which can make deliberate use of standard grammar or bend the rules a little. I think that Williams would defend standard English as the better form of prose, but I also think that he would not let the appearance of good grammar be the determining factor.

2003-10-09T12:50:00.000-04:00

Style Blog writing assignment prompt 2:

Original: “EMU's focal point is southeastern Michigan--an area surrounded by small cities and towns of which its hometown, Ypsilanti, with 25,000 people, is one.”

Revised: With a population of 25,000, Ypsilanti is EMU’s hometown. Ypsilanti is located in southeastern Michigan, which is the focal point of EMU.

One of the major problems with the original sentence in regards to Williams’ book was a matter of emphasis. The original sentence ends rather anticlimactically, and is a bit convoluted. The substance of this sentence is in stating where EMU is located and what its regional focus is. The population of Ypsilanti is relatively unimportant for this sentence so I moved it to the left according to Williams’ recommendation. Stating that southeastern Michigan is an area surrounded by small cities and towns is completely irrelevant and could apply to most regions throughout the country, so I just cut that part. Also, the ideas gain more clarity when they are split up into two sentences. In the original,
there was too much there for one sentence. The newly revised sentence communicates the same information that the original did, but the shift in emphasis makes the prose a little less muddy, and simply rolls off of the tongue a little better.

2003-10-07T13:17:00.000-04:00

Ah, Strunk and White, the infamous grammar gurus. I do find many of their recommendations to be useful. One of my favorite sections is the one that describes often misused or overused terms such as "literally" or "the foreseeable future." Terms like these tend to get tossed around even in good writing, but I believe that this book has a good point in stating that they are often weak words that do not really make a strong point. They are often used to show off vocabulary, which ultimately makes the writer seem less intelligent, and they often undermine the validity of an argument. This book is about formal writing (playing with words is one of the best parts of creative writing) and formal writing should be concise and to the point, without extraneous words. It's funny how many of these terms have been misused so often that they are now colloquialisms, such as the American usage of the word "fix." Strong formal writing does not rely on colloquialisms, and I find this little guide helpful in my own attempts to use fewer gratuitous words. Hopefully, anyway.

One recommendation in the section on approach to style that I do not find useful is the recommendation that one should "Prefer the standard to the offbeat." Yes, there is a standard form of English, and yes, if you are writing a formal piece that is arguing a point, then formal, standard English is probably the best way to go, but I do not believe that enough emphasis is placed on experimental writing. It is much easier for me to be given a topic and write a formal essay on it than to push my writing outside conventional forms and really try something new. In order to succeed in the professional world, a writer needs to have a proficient command of standard English, but in order to explore ourselves and our relationships to one another, writers must find ways to break the mold. The book makes the point that this experimenting is often a coping device to avoid the difficult task of formal writing, but I believe that formal writing can be an avoidance of creative thinking. I don't want to read standard English in everything. I want to see the language come alive and reflect personal, social and cultural trends. Language is living and offbeat writing helps keep it breathing.

2003-10-01T18:04:00.000-04:00

2003-09-09T15:01:00.000-04:00

Apparently this is my blog. I don't know what is going to appear here in the future, so details will follow at a later date...