The Elements of Style, Fourth Edition

There is an extensive (by this book's standards, at least) section about words that are frequently used incorrectly, as well as rules regarding composition, form, and style. He instructs us with examples of correct and incorrect word, punctuation, and grammar use, and briefly explains each example. One possible complaint is that perhaps at times, he is too brief; this is not a book for someone who doesn't understand the basic parts of speech. If you loathe the idea of relearning those little buggers, may I suggest _The Deluxe Transitive Vampire_, which is a bit more engaging than the standard basic grammar book.

Whenever a writer is unsure of what is the correct way to express him- or herself, that person should reach for this book. Heck, reading it over in spare moments to refresh one's memory of the rules. _Elements of Style_ will make a better writer of anyone who pays attention to it. Keep it by your writing space, keep it in mind.


It was Just Too Simplistic   April 7, 2004
 17 out of 51 found this review helpful

Based on reviews I read, I eagerly obtained a copy of this book. When I got home and perused it, I was vastly disappointed it didn't measure up to all its hype. Why? It is too simplistic! When looking for information regarding numerals, all it carries is a small paragraph about numerals in dates. I was also looking for uses of the apostrophe. Again, it only contains very limited data. In continuing to look through this book, I have not found a single answer to my questions!

A person who already has style basics under their hat should not spend their money on this book. Instead, they should gravitate towards a larger style manual, which gives much more detailed information. That is what I have done. Many of these are available.


Get the 3rd Edition   September 5, 2003
 16 out of 16 found this review helpful

The second edition of this classic work improved on the first edition, and the third was the best of all. It was perfection. The fourth, posthumous edition slips a little bit. It's still better than any other style guide, but a hint of Political Correctness has crept into some of its advice and examples. Why did the publishers feel the need to tinker with perfection? If you already have the third edition, don't bother getting the new one. If you don't have any copies of this great book, check the used bookstores for the previous edition.


Surprisingly Funny   September 25, 2003
 16 out of 27 found this review helpful

This book, which, while not sacrosanct, surely deserves its reputation. I found it surprisingly funny. E.B. White in the Introduction tells us that his old professor William Strunk once seriously advocated introducing the word "studentry" in place of the phrase "student body," which he found horrid. Now studentry is worse, and we can all be glad it was never adopted. But Strunk, despite his observations on fiction writing in the last chapter (including, surprisingly, the old saw that any rule can be broken in capable hands), is primarily a teacher not a writer. The most famous single bit of advice he gives is "Omit needless words," which Stephen King recycles in his On Writing book. (Stephen King seems to recycle other things-I just noticed that Theodore Sturgeon, the real life model for Vonnegut's science fiction writer Kilgore Trout-made his name with a story called "It." Oh well-Shakespeare did it: talented artists borrow, great ones steal.) This, of course, is sound advice-although pretty much completely ignored by all politicians, scientists and philosophers. Hemingway took the advice and look what happened to him. I digress. One of the funny bits for me was Strunk's analysis of roadside signs and their effect on linguistic evolution. The correct adjective for being capable of catching fire is "inflammable," Strunk reminds us-but it had to be shortened (as did Throughway into Thruway) in order to fit on those sloshing trucks full of toxic liquids. It also, Strunk happily sneers, appears to illiterates to be negated by the prefix, which might make idiots to think something was fireproof rather than the opposite. (Something somewhat similar happened in one of Dr. Ruth's books, when the word "conception" and "contraception" somehow switched places; the book had to be "recalled.") Strunk is very good on giving us shortcuts to distinguish between "which" and "that," in analyzing and correcting common mistakes and showing how they both reflect, and perpetuate, a sloppiness of thinking. Some of his pet peeves, however, such as "enormous"-a word, he tells us, which should always contain a connotation of the hideous, and not be used simply to mean "very big"-have been superceded (as in fairness he suspected they might) by the continuing evolution (devolution?) of the language. Some people considered to be good writers flagrantly flout Strunk's elements (elements?) of style. Umberto Eco, for example, routinely interpolates foreign phrases (which for him would be non-Italian ones) into his prose. Stephen Jay Gould is guilty both of foreign phrase insertion and the putting of quotes-to distance himself from them-around idiomatic phrases (which he nonetheless apparently feels compelled to use). I recently heard on the radio an executive editor at Miriam-Webster say that, because of the internet and global communications, new words make it to the dictionary in twice the time they used to-in five years on average rather than ten. Other words, like "microrecorder" (used to read microfiche, a pre-computer technology) have been removed from the dictionary. I received a form letter from a well-respected Southern lawyer yesterday that would have struck out with Strunk because of its adverb "hopefully"-which is almost always means more than you want it to. Hopefully I will end this review. (Hoping referring to my mood, that I will, say, rise in the Amazon reviewer ranks? Or do I hope I will end the review?) Sloppy language is rampant: among the biggest blah-blah phrases are: "the fact that," "it is interesting to note," and "as evidenced by." Strunk busts pretentious writing wide open. And yet he is acutely aware of the limits of his analysis. This book, a labor of love by a lover of language, is great to read if you want to communicate (and think) more clearly.


Still Good, but the 3rd Edition is the Best   March 4, 2005
 16 out of 18 found this review helpful

I agree with several other reviewers here that the third edition is a little better than this new one. The 3rd is the last to be edited by E. B. White himself. The 4th has been "updated" with some new examples and advice, in a misguided attempt to remove nonexistent "sexist" language, which the anonymous new editor foolishly imagines has ruined previous editions. Most of the new examples, however, are inferior and some of the new advice too PC for my taste. (That wonderful passage from Jean Stafford's short story is gone, now replaced by an insipid contemporary piece that won't risk offending Irish alcoholics.)

This is still a great book, overall, but I prefer the older version, so I will hang on to my tattered, trustworthy old copy of the 3rd edition. When it finally falls apart, I will look for another copy in a secondhand shop.