Classical Greek and Latin Discussion Group

Patrick T. Rourke | 1 Jul 2005 02:46

Re: tan: strunk and white

Wrong genre. Strunk and White is a manual of expository prose, not
poetry (and certainly not nonsense poetry). Rather like asking how
good a short stop Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is.

PTR

On Jun 30, 2005, at 9:21 AM, Bob Bethune wrote:

> I only see S&W cited and recommended for the hard work of learning to
> write, never for bedtime reading.
>
> And by the way--I don't think they ever define "necessary."
> Prolixity can
> be an author's most charming feature, as it is with J. I. Crump's
> book on
> Chinese theater.
>
> A challenge for Strunk & Whiteans: analyze Lewis Carroll's
> "Jabberwocky"
> and define what in it is necessary and what is unnecessary.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:   david meadows [SMTP:dmeadows <at> IDIRECT.COM]
> Sent:   Wednesday, June 29, 2005 9:32 PM
> To:     CLASSICS-L <at> LSV.UKY.EDU
> Subject:        [CLASSICS-L] tan: strunk and white
>
> One of the blogs I frequent quotes strunk and white:
>
> A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no

(Continue reading)

headers

rich ratzan | 1 Jul 2005 21:56

Re: tan: strunk and white

S&W is good for teaching freshman english so that the
next year (or two)  you can tell them to forget it
when necessary. we all see the olympic skaters doing
creative programs and forget that they all do
compulsories like skating circles, which is S&W on
ice. proust would have failed a S&W course, which is
,of course, for us proustitutes,  indictment enough.
ciao
r

--- "Patrick T. Rourke" <ptrourke <at> METHYMNA.COM> wrote:

> Wrong genre. Strunk and White is a manual of
> expository prose, not
> poetry (and certainly not nonsense poetry). Rather
> like asking how
> good a short stop Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is.
>
> PTR
>
>
> On Jun 30, 2005, at 9:21 AM, Bob Bethune wrote:
>
> > I only see S&W cited and recommended for the hard
> work of learning to
> > write, never for bedtime reading.
> >
> > And by the way--I don't think they ever define
> "necessary."
> > Prolixity can

(Continue reading)

headers

James P. Holoka | 1 Jul 2005 22:17

Re: tan: strunk and white

PTR --

Not just freshman. What I mostly find myself doing, as I read papers of students right through the graduate level, is excising dead weight. In my opinion, it is the fact that it seems to me personally that the problem that most typically afflicts a great amount of the writing as it were particularly of those who are students is one that has to do mainly with using, so to say, too many words, seemingly, at any rate, you know? Students should buy two copies of S&W: one to eat immediately, the other to read cover to cover every week.

-- JPH

On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 12:56:27 -0700, rich ratzan wrote:
> S&W is good for teaching freshman english so that the next year (or
> two) you can tell them to forget it when necessary. we all see the
> olympic skaters doing creative programs and forget that they all do
> compulsories like skating circles, which is S&W on ice. proust
> would have failed a S&W course, which is ,of course, for us
> proustitutes, indictment enough. ciao r
>
>
> --- "Patrick T. Rourke" <ptrourke <at> METHYMNA.COM> wrote:
>
>> Wrong genre. Strunk and White is a manual of expository prose, not
>> poetry (and certainly not nonsense poetry). Rather like asking how
>> good a short stop Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is.
>>
>> PTR
>>
>>
>> On Jun 30, 2005, at 9:21 AM, Bob Bethune wrote:
>>
>>> I only see S&W cited and recommended for the hard
>>>
>> work of learning to
>>> write, never for bedtime reading.
>>>
>>> And by the way--I don't think they ever define
>>>
>> "necessary."
>>> Prolixity can
>>> be an author's most charming feature, as it is
>>>
>> with J. I. Crump's
>>> book on
>>> Chinese theater.
>>>
>>> A challenge for Strunk & Whiteans: analyze Lewis
>>>
>> Carroll's
>>> "Jabberwocky"
>>> and define what in it is necessary and what is
>>>
>> unnecessary.
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: david meadows [SMTP:dmeadows <at> IDIRECT.COM] Sent:
>>> Wednesday, June 29, 2005 9:32 PM To: CLASSICS-L <at> LSV.UKY.EDU
>>> Subject: [CLASSICS-L] tan: strunk and white
>>>
>>> One of the blogs I frequent quotes strunk and
>>>
>> white:
>>
>>> A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a
>>>
>> paragraph no
>>> unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a
>>>
>> drawing should
>>> have no
>>> unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary
>>>
>> parts.
>>
>>> ... which got me thinking ... did either strunk or
>>>
>> white ever write
>>> anything that people actually 'read' (as opposed
>>>
>> to 'referred to')?
>>> I've
>>> always found their elements of style to be, well,
>>>
>> stylistically
>>> barren.
>>>
>>> dm
>>> --
>>> No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-
>>> Virus.
>>> Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.7/34 -
>>>
>> Release Date:
>>> 6/29/2005
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-
>>> Virus.
>>> Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.7/34 -
>>>
>> Release Date:
>>> 6/29/2005

headers

Dr. James J. O'Donnell | 1 Jul 2005 23:49

Re: tan: strunk and white

On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, James P. Holoka wrote:

> PTR --
>
> Not just freshman. What I mostly find myself doing, as I read papers of
> students right through the graduate level, is excising dead weight
>

What I mostly find myself doing reading my own damn stuff.

Jim O'Donnell

headers

Patrick Rourke | 8 Jul 2005 16:49

Re: tan: strunk and white

Sometimes there's too fine a line between an idiom and a cliche -
students use a turn of phrase because they've heard it a lot, and it
has become in effect a single word for them, and they're so dead to
what they've actually written that they don't see how much of it is
unnecessary. This is especially true when they're trying to write
their way into the stylistic conventions of a particular community (or
to use the appropriate cliche/idiom, "discourse community"). Orwell's
*Politics and the English Language* is good on this.

Other times over-precision is the problem (it is my problem): the
writer finds himself trying to gauge the degree to which a
characteristic compares to other occurrences, or feels the exceptions
too important to elide. This leads to bloated prose.

Finally there's a kind of modesty-cliche, where the writer finds
herself unable to write "Faulkner is prolix" and instead feels she
must write "Faulkner, in my opinion, is somewhat too prolix." I
suspect it's a verbal convention that invites one's interlocutor to
elaborate his agreement or disagreement by making it clear that
disagreement will not be met with outrage, but when it carries over
into written prose, where the response is not as interactive, it
weakens the argument. I suspect some people like this convention
because it seems to lend an easy conversational tone and rhythm.

On 7/1/05, Dr. James J. O'Donnell <provost <at> georgetown.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, James P. Holoka wrote:
> 
> > PTR --
> >
> > Not just freshman. What I mostly find myself doing, as I read papers of
> > students right through the graduate level, is excising dead weight
> >
> 
> What I mostly find myself doing reading my own damn stuff.
> 
> Jim O'Donnell
> 

--

-- 
Patrick Rourke
ptrourke <at> gmail.com

headers

Ling Ouyang | 8 Jul 2005 20:13

Re: tan: strunk and white

At 10:49 2005-07-08 -0400, PTR wrote:

>Other times over-precision is the problem (it is my problem): the
>writer finds himself trying to gauge the degree to which a
>characteristic compares to other occurrences, or feels the exceptions
>too important to elide. This leads to bloated prose.

Actually, in science, it's almost a requirement. Otto Warburg, who in the
words of Manchester (1997) was "[n]ever given to modesty", neglected to do
that when he proposed "there is only one common cause into which all other
causes of cancer merge, the irreversible injuring of respiration" and
created such a mess that more than 70 years after he performed his
experiments, cancer scientists are still debating his hypothesis.

>Finally there's a kind of modesty-cliche, where the writer finds
>herself unable to write "Faulkner is prolix" and instead feels she
>must write "Faulkner, in my opinion, is somewhat too prolix." I
>suspect it's a verbal convention that invites one's interlocutor to
>elaborate his agreement or disagreement by making it clear that
>disagreement will not be met with outrage, but when it carries over
>into written prose, where the response is not as interactive, it
>weakens the argument. I suspect some people like this convention
>because it seems to lend an easy conversational tone and rhythm.

Sometimes, it's to prevent lawsuits...

Ling Ouyang
http://janusquirinus.org/

headers

Patrick Rourke | 8 Jul 2005 16:55

Re: tan: strunk and white

One last thing I did not mention, and it's genre confusion again. In
an interactive informal exchange like this, a run-on such as the first
sentence of my last posting on this thread is easily tolerable by both
writer and reader as a conversational informality. Students (and most
others) don't understand why a paper, essay, or article must be
tighter and less conversational as a matter of the conventions of the
genre because they are never told that it is a matter of conventions.

headers

Gene O'Grady | 8 Jul 2005 17:39

Re: tan: strunk and white

Not only is a matter of conventions, but the conventions exist for a reason!

gmo

----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Rourke" <ptrourke <at> GMAIL.COM>
To: <CLASSICS-L <at> LSV.UKY.EDU>
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 7:55 AM
Subject: Re: [CLASSICS-L] tan: strunk and white

One last thing I did not mention, and it's genre confusion again. In
an interactive informal exchange like this, a run-on such as the first
sentence of my last posting on this thread is easily tolerable by both
writer and reader as a conversational informality. Students (and most
others) don't understand why a paper, essay, or article must be
tighter and less conversational as a matter of the conventions of the
genre because they are never told that it is a matter of conventions.

headers

Diana Wright | 8 Jul 2005 17:06

Re: tan: strunk and white

One of the student evaluations I got from spring semester said:

"She tries to make us write her way.  She doesn't understand that people in
college have their own way of writing."

Sigh.

DW

----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Rourke" <ptrourke <at> GMAIL.COM>
To: <CLASSICS-L <at> LSV.UKY.EDU>
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 7:55 AM
Subject: Re: [CLASSICS-L] tan: strunk and white

One last thing I did not mention, and it's genre confusion again. In
an interactive informal exchange like this, a run-on such as the first
sentence of my last posting on this thread is easily tolerable by both
writer and reader as a conversational informality. Students (and most
others) don't understand why a paper, essay, or article must be
tighter and less conversational as a matter of the conventions of the
genre because they are never told that it is a matter of conventions.

headers

Al Schlaf | 9 Jul 2005 01:15

Re: tan: strunk and white

I would have returned the form, marked with my answer:  "Yes, that is what
we are here to cure."

----- Original Message -----
From: "Diana Wright" <DianaGWright <at> COMCAST.NET>
To: <CLASSICS-L <at> LSV.UKY.EDU>
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 10:06 AM
Subject: Re: [CLASSICS-L] tan: strunk and white

> One of the student evaluations I got from spring semester said:
>
> "She tries to make us write her way.  She doesn't understand that people
in
> college have their own way of writing."
>
> Sigh.
>
> DW
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Patrick Rourke" <ptrourke <at> GMAIL.COM>
> To: <CLASSICS-L <at> LSV.UKY.EDU>
> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 7:55 AM
> Subject: Re: [CLASSICS-L] tan: strunk and white
>
>
> One last thing I did not mention, and it's genre confusion again. In
> an interactive informal exchange like this, a run-on such as the first
> sentence of my last posting on this thread is easily tolerable by both
> writer and reader as a conversational informality. Students (and most
> others) don't understand why a paper, essay, or article must be
> tighter and less conversational as a matter of the conventions of the
> genre because they are never told that it is a matter of conventions.
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.11/44 - Release Date: 7/8/05
>
>

headers

James P. Holoka | 8 Jul 2005 17:38

Re: tan: strunk and white

Reminds me of the old bon mot: "All students should be required to take English Composition, because it's good for them to know a language other than their own."

-- JPH

On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 08:06:01 -0700, Diana Wright wrote:
> One of the student evaluations I got from spring semester said:
>
> "She tries to make us write her way. She doesn't understand that
> people in college have their own way of writing."
>
> Sigh.
>
> DW
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Patrick Rourke" <ptrourke <at> GMAIL.COM>
> To: <CLASSICS-L <at> LSV.UKY.EDU>
> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 7:55 AM
> Subject: Re: [CLASSICS-L] tan: strunk and white
>
>
> One last thing I did not mention, and it's genre confusion again.
> In an interactive informal exchange like this, a run-on such as the
> first sentence of my last posting on this thread is easily
> tolerable by both writer and reader as a conversational
> informality. Students (and most others) don't understand why a
> paper, essay, or article must be tighter and less conversational as
> a matter of the conventions of the genre because they are never
> told that it is a matter of conventions.

headers

Janice Siegel | 2 Jul 2005 00:18

Re: tan: strunk and white

Ditto.
I don't feel so bad now.
Janice

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dr. James J. O'Donnell" <provost <at> GEORGETOWN.EDU>
To: <CLASSICS-L <at> LSV.UKY.EDU>
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 4:49 PM
Subject: Re: tan: strunk and white

| On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, James P. Holoka wrote:
|
| > PTR --
| >
| > Not just freshman. What I mostly find myself doing, as I read papers of
| > students right through the graduate level, is excising dead weight
| >
|
| What I mostly find myself doing reading my own damn stuff.
|
| Jim O'Donnell
|

headers

Gene O'Grady | 1 Jul 2005 23:53

Re: tan: strunk and white

And not just students either. When I used to revise/edit managers' writing in the business world a remarkably large proportion of my edits were simply crossing out unnecessary words.

gmo

----- Original Message -----

From: James P. Holoka

To: CLASSICS-L <at> LSV.UKY.EDU

Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 1:17 PM

Subject: Re: [CLASSICS-L] tan: strunk and white

PTR --

Not just freshman. What I mostly find myself doing, as I read papers of students right through the graduate level, is excising dead weight. In my opinion, it is the fact that it seems to me personally that the problem that most typically afflicts a great amount of the writing as it were particularly of those who are students is one that has to do mainly with using, so to say, too many words, seemingly, at any rate, you know? Students should buy two copies of S&W: one to eat immediately, the other to read cover to cover every week.

-- JPH

On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 12:56:27 -0700, rich ratzan wrote:
> S&W is good for teaching freshman english so that the next year (or
> two) you can tell them to forget it when necessary. we all see the
> olympic skaters doing creative programs and forget that they all do
> compulsories like skating circles, which is S&W on ice. proust
> would have failed a S&W course, which is ,of course, for us
> proustitutes, indictment enough. ciao r
>
>
> --- "Patrick T. Rourke" <ptrourke <at> METHYMNA.COM> wrote:
>
>> Wrong genre. Strunk and White is a manual of expository prose, not
>> poetry (and certainly not nonsense poetry). Rather like asking how
>> good a short stop Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is.
>>
>> PTR
>>
>>
>> On Jun 30, 2005, at 9:21 AM, Bob Bethune wrote:
>>
>>> I only see S&W cited and recommended for the hard
>>>
>> work of learning to
>>> write, never for bedtime reading.
>>>
>>> And by the way--I don't think they ever define
>>>
>> "necessary."
>>> Prolixity can
>>> be an author's most charming feature, as it is
>>>
>> with J. I. Crump's
>>> book on
>>> Chinese theater.
>>>
>>> A challenge for Strunk & Whiteans: analyze Lewis
>>>
>> Carroll's
>>> "Jabberwocky"
>>> and define what in it is necessary and what is
>>>
>> unnecessary.
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: david meadows [SMTP:dmeadows <at> IDIRECT.COM] Sent:
>>> Wednesday, June 29, 2005 9:32 PM To: CLASSICS-L <at> LSV.UKY.EDU
>>> Subject: [CLASSICS-L] tan: strunk and white
>>>
>>> One of the blogs I frequent quotes strunk and
>>>
>> white:
>>
>>> A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a
>>>
>> paragraph no
>>> unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a
>>>
>> drawing should
>>> have no
>>> unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary
>>>
>> parts.
>>
>>> ... which got me thinking ... did either strunk or
>>>
>> white ever write
>>> anything that people actually 'read' (as opposed
>>>
>> to 'referred to')?
>>> I've
>>> always found their elements of style to be, well,
>>>
>> stylistically
>>> barren.
>>>
>>> dm
>>> --
>>> No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-
>>> Virus.
>>> Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.7/34 -
>>>
>> Release Date:
>>> 6/29/2005
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-
>>> Virus.
>>> Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.7/34 -
>>>
>> Release Date:
>>> 6/29/2005

headers

Dr. James J. O'Donnell | 1 Jul 2005 05:49

Re: tan: strunk and white

As I mull this, I realize there must be history here (as there usually
is).  S&W showed up in bookstores in the late 1950s or 1960s, a tiny
slender paperback, selling for 95 cents when ordinary stuff sold for 50-75
cents, and with a certain understated panache.  In a world when grammar
was taught in thick books, this one had the merit of simplicity and a
charmingly pious (towards a departed teacher) preface.  So it had a vogue
among the hipper young teacher at a time when a huge generation was
breaking free of straight jackets.  Given that so many have been taught
from it, it is sobering to read the prose of our time and see that it has
had so little effect.

Jim O'Donnell (just finishing Syme, who needed no guidance from S&W on
keeping it plain and direct)

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005, Patrick T. Rourke wrote:

> Wrong genre. Strunk and White is a manual of expository prose, not
> poetry (and certainly not nonsense poetry). Rather like asking how
> good a short stop Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is.
>
> PTR
>
>
> On Jun 30, 2005, at 9:21 AM, Bob Bethune wrote:
>
> > I only see S&W cited and recommended for the hard work of learning to
> > write, never for bedtime reading.
> >
> > And by the way--I don't think they ever define "necessary."
> > Prolixity can
> > be an author's most charming feature, as it is with J. I. Crump's
> > book on
> > Chinese theater.
> >
> > A challenge for Strunk & Whiteans: analyze Lewis Carroll's
> > "Jabberwocky"
> > and define what in it is necessary and what is unnecessary.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:   david meadows [SMTP:dmeadows <at> IDIRECT.COM]
> > Sent:   Wednesday, June 29, 2005 9:32 PM
> > To:     CLASSICS-L <at> LSV.UKY.EDU
> > Subject:        [CLASSICS-L] tan: strunk and white
> >
> > One of the blogs I frequent quotes strunk and white:
> >
> > A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no
> > unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should
> > have no
> > unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts.
> >
> > ... which got me thinking ... did either strunk or white ever write
> > anything that people actually 'read' (as opposed to 'referred to')?
> > I've
> > always found their elements of style to be, well, stylistically
> > barren.
> >
> > dm
> > --
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> > Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.7/34 - Release Date:
> > 6/29/2005
> >
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> > Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.7/34 - Release Date:
> > 6/29/2005
> >
>

headers

Patricia Lawrence | 1 Jul 2005 06:00

Re: tan: strunk and white

straitjackets.  Doubtless just a typo.

>As I mull this, I realize there must be history here (as there usually
>is).  S&W showed up in bookstores in the late 1950s or 1960s, a tiny
>slender paperback, selling for 95 cents when ordinary stuff sold for 50-75
>cents, and with a certain understated panache.  In a world when grammar
>was taught in thick books, this one had the merit of simplicity and a
>charmingly pious (towards a departed teacher) preface.  So it had a vogue
>among the hipper young teacher at a time when a huge generation was
>breaking free of straight jackets.  Given that so many have been taught
>from it, it is sobering to read the prose of our time and see that it has
>had so little effect.
>
>Jim O'Donnell (just finishing Syme, who needed no guidance from S&W on
>keeping it plain and direct)
>
>On Thu, 30 Jun 2005, Patrick T. Rourke wrote:
>
>>  Wrong genre. Strunk and White is a manual of expository prose, not
>>  poetry (and certainly not nonsense poetry). Rather like asking how
>>  good a short stop Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is.
>>
>>  PTR
>>
>>
>>  On Jun 30, 2005, at 9:21 AM, Bob Bethune wrote:
>>
>>  > I only see S&W cited and recommended for the hard work of learning to
>>  > write, never for bedtime reading.
>>  >
>>  > And by the way--I don't think they ever define "necessary."
>>  > Prolixity can
>>  > be an author's most charming feature, as it is with J. I. Crump's
>>  > book on
>>  > Chinese theater.
>>  >
>>  > A challenge for Strunk & Whiteans: analyze Lewis Carroll's
>>  > "Jabberwocky"
>>  > and define what in it is necessary and what is unnecessary.
>>  >
>>  > -----Original Message-----
>>  > From:   david meadows [SMTP:dmeadows <at> IDIRECT.COM]
>>  > Sent:   Wednesday, June 29, 2005 9:32 PM
>>  > To:     CLASSICS-L <at> LSV.UKY.EDU
>>  > Subject:        [CLASSICS-L] tan: strunk and white
>>  >
>>  > One of the blogs I frequent quotes strunk and white:
>>  >
>>  > A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no
>>  > unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should
>>  > have no
>>  > unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts.
>>  >
>>  > ... which got me thinking ... did either strunk or white ever write
>>  > anything that people actually 'read' (as opposed to 'referred to')?
>>  > I've
>>  > always found their elements of style to be, well, stylistically
>>  > barren.
>>  >
>>  > dm
>>  > --
>>  > No virus found in this incoming message.
>>  > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>>  > Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.7/34 - Release Date:
>>  > 6/29/2005
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > --
>>  > No virus found in this outgoing message.
>>  > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>>  > Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.7/34 - Release Date:
>>  > 6/29/2005
>>  >
>>

--
Patricia Lawrence
P O Box 16203
Baton Rouge, LA 70893-6203