Writing Style :: Writing Style Styles Essays

Writing Style When constructing a piece of writing, a student may sometimes find herself struggling to remember grammar rules or style principles. A handy reference guide would help her out immensely. William Strunk Jr. and E.B. White’s book, The Elements of Style, and Joseph Williams’ book, Style: Toward Clarity and Grace, assist writers improve their work in various ways. Strunk and Whites’ book took a simple approach, while Williams went more in-depth, with elaborate explanations and varying choices for each writing style. Strunk and White’s approach was directed towards basic principles of composition, elementary rules and a general approach to style. Each principle was stately plainly, but without much explanation. Rules were meant to be strictly followed, and not questioned. They weren’t hard to follow, but some did seem unhelpful. An example is Strunk and Whites’ rule about not using the word â€Å"nature†; they believe that â€Å"the reader cannot tell whether the poems have to do with natural scenery, rural life, the sunset, the untracked wilderness, or the habits of squirrels† (53). This rule seems strange to me. Nature doesn’t need to be that structured. But, possibly the odd aspects of this book are connected to the date it was written. Strunk and White’s book was first published in 1935, and revised over the years. But, somehow the book hasn’t grasped the idea of change. The book seems to still be stuck in 1935; for instance, some of the examples refer to Moses and Isis. As we discussed in class, this seems fairly outdated. I’m ashamed to say I’m even unaware of who Isis is. Strunk and White also warn against using the phrase â€Å"the foreseeable future†, stating it is â€Å"a clichà ©, and a fuzzy one†¦How much of the future is foreseeable?...By whom is it foreseeable?† (Strunk and White 59). I don’t quite understand this rule; it seems old-fashioned to advise against referring to the future. It seems useless and unnecessary to state. Other principles in Strunk and Whites’ book were useless, as well. One rule describes the use of the word â€Å"clever†. Strunk and White claim that â€Å"the word means one thing when applied to people, another when applied to horses. A clever horse is a good-natured one, not an ingenious one† (Strunk and White 43). I may seem picky, but this just seems ridiculous. How often is a person going to write about a clever horse? Not only were many principles in Strunk and Whites’ book useless, but many were also vague and unclear.