[nobody9999]

William Safire's Rules for Writers:

Remember to never split an infinitive.

The passive voice should never be used.

Do not put statements in the negative form.

Verbs have to agree with their subjects.

Proofread carefully to see if you words out.

If you reread your work, you can find on rereading a great deal of repetition can be by rereading and editing.

=========

The above, plus Strunk & White[0], should be enough for most folks IMNSHO.

[0] https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/37134

[fanf2]

On the wrong-headed advice of Strunk & White http://www.languagesoftheworld.info/bad-linguistics/on-passi...

Strunk and White: fifty years of stupid grammar advice http://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/2549...

The Land of the Free and the Elements of Style: everything in strunk and White is wrong http://ling.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/LandOfTheFree.pdf

[nobody9999]

>everything in strunk and White is wrong

That's quite a broad brush, friend.

Here's an example I'd ask you to opine upon:

"If you have received a letter inviting you to speak at the dedication of a new cat hospital, and you hate cats, your reply, declining the invitation, does not necessarily have to cover the full range of your emotions. You must make it clear that you will not attend, but you do not have to let fly at the cats. The writer of the letter asked a civil question; attack cats, then, only if you can do so with good humor, good taste, and in such a way that your answer will be courteous as well as responsive. Since you are out of sympathy with cats, you may quite properly give this as a reason for not appearing at the dedicatory ceremonies of a cat hospital. But bear in mind that your opinion of cats was not sought, only your services as a speaker. Try to keep things straight.”

What fault, dear reader, might you find in the above advice? I'd be quite interested in your assessment, given your apparent expertise.

[fanf2]

If you are examining your own writing critically, it is worth critically examining the writing of others that you admire, and those you might disagree with. This kind of criticism is supposed to be constructive, so it should not be taken as an attack.

I thought it would be informative to share a few links that might help readers and writers approach Strunk and White from other perspectives. The authors of those essays have far more expertise than I.

[nobody9999]

>If you are examining your own writing critically, it is worth critically examining the writing of others that you admire, and those you might disagree with.

I couldn't agree more. In fact, I find that my own prose has benefited greatly from reading those who write well.

>This kind of criticism is supposed to be constructive, so it should not be taken as an attack.

Your point is well taken, however your characterization ("Everything is wrong") is even more extreme than what Pullum said in the piece you linked. He said "almost everything is wrong."

What's more, all the links you posted are quite critical of The Elements of Style and are not representative of the many other voices out there (cf. [0][1][2][3][4]). I'd expect that one might attempt to balance the criticism, rather than just piling on.

That's not to say I reject outright the criticisms of Pullum and Pereltsvaig. Rather, they both make interesting points.

However, from the standpoint of a lay person who wishes to write cogently and concisely (that is, most of us) rather than a grammarian or professional writer, Elements provides useful advice and numerous examples of good writing.

Are the recommendations contained therein universally apropos? Certainly not.

That said, for most people who wish to get a better sense, not only of how to write more clearly and concisely, but also what such writing looks like, Elements provides a wealth of suggestions and examples.

Whether or not you disagree with some of the recommendations in Elements, it stresses clarity, concision and direct expression of ideas.

That many will go beyond those recommendations doesn't invalidate the value of elucidating good writing habits, and utilizing them to provide cogent examples of the same.

Writing styles are inherently subjective, and a text like Elements is and can be a worthy supplement to reading widely and honing one's own style.

The Elements of Style isn't a tome with a litany of prescribed and proscribed methods and techniques. Rather it's a slim (only 52 pages) volume focused on expressing ideas clearly and concisely -- a goal it achieves for itself.

I recommend that you read it[5]. It shouldn't take more than 30-45 minutes.

[0] https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2018/why-strunk-wh...

[1] https://www.ragan.com/helpful-writing-habits-from-strunk-and...

[2] https://proofreadingpal.com/proofreading-pulse/writing-guide...

[3] https://www.writingclasses.com/toolbox/tips-masters/strunk-w...

[4] https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/2909/what-s-purp...

[5] https://www.gutenberg.org/files/37134/37134-h/37134-h.htm

[eganist]

> William Safire's Rules for Writers:

> Remember to [preserve the full] infinitive.

> [Always use] the [active] voice.

> [Always] put statements in the [positive] form.

> Verbs have to agree with their subjects. (nobody9999 corrected this one already - was "has" in place of "have")

> Proofread carefully to see if you [leave] words out.

For those not in on the joke. Not sure if this would be how Safire would correct it, but I made an effort.

[nobody9999]

I didn't "correct" anything. Those are all Safire's words and none of mine.

Safire was using sarcasm through those examples to get his point across.

[eganist]

The original:

https://www.nytimes.com/1979/11/04/archives/on-language-the-...

> • Verbs has to agree with their subjects.

But I saw what happened. Googling Safire's rules, the "helpful" top result via Google quoted a source that misquoted Safire, which I'm guessing is how it made it into your comment. So no worries.

[FemmeAndroid]

Thanks for this. I was stuck trying to figure out that line.

[nobody9999]

Thank you for the correction and the original link.

It's much appreciated!

[criddell]

> Proofread carefully to see if you [leave] words out.

Shouldn't it be left rather than leave?

[eganist]

Good catch, though the fix I don't think is quite right. "Proofread carefully to see if you [have left/are leaving] words out" probably should've been what I wrote. I invite a much more competent writer to fact-check me.

"Proofread carefully to see if you [leave] words out." I believe is grammatically correct but a bit nonsensical as I'm no longer in the act of writing words when I'm proofreading. But again, I'm also possibly just embarrassing myself at this point.

[goto11]

I disagree with two of Safires points:

There is nothing wrong with splitting an infinitive. Shakespeare does it and Star Trek does it.

Passive voice is fine. Sure it can be used to make the text impersonal and hide responsibility. But is can also be used to make the text clearer and to emphasize what is important. Use it as appropriate.

[jgrahamc]

You've missed the point entirely. Go back and reread.

[goto11]

I don't think his point is that the you shouldn't follow these rules though. Surely nobody would think you shouldn't proofread? He is just stating the rules ironically with an embedded example. Most of his rules are fine.

[loevborg]

Yeah, he's obliquely endorsing the rules, most of which — certainly the ones about infinitives, passives and negation — are moronic.

[marcosdumay]

What I take from it is that those points aren't important at all.

That's surely hyperbolic, because nobody would think about completely ignoring them. But they certainly do not make any text great, and they shouldn't be followed on the cost of something more important.

[jfk13]

Use as appropriate, yes. But there are some writers who massively over-use it.

Most such rules can sometimes be broken to good effect, but they offer a useful default. In many cases, rewriting so as to "follow the rules" will aid clarity. Deviations and exceptions should be the result of careful consideration, not just carelessness.

[goto11]

I'm questioning if these two rules are good defaults.

[ramblerman]

> Proofread carefully to see if you words out.

That omission almost seems too perfect

[GavinMcG]

That's the point. Each line violates the rule it states.

[nobody9999]

>That omission almost seems too perfect

It is perfect -- because William Safire was a wonderful writer[0].

I didn't care much for his politics, but that man could write!

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/by/william-safire

[kinghtown]

The passive voice has been used well on occasion.