Blog Post #2 – (Angell, White, Leyba, Provost)

The first two readings giving us context for “The Elements of Style” certainly make it sound like a profound, almost sacred text. I would never have thought a book on such a seemingly dry topic – concise and error free prose – would arouse such strong emotion. However, after reading the foreword and introduction, I must confess that my curiosity is piqued and I would like to delve a little deeper into “The Elements of Style.”

In my schooling thus far I have not had much direct instruction that I can recall on the nitty-gritty how of writing well. For my bachelors degree certain courses were designated as “writing intensive” but this merely meant we were expected to write a great deal. There was no expectation for writing lessons. To this point I have certainly learned from my mistakes, but more than that, I think the majority of my writing knowledge stems from my reading. Unconsciously I am stealing from other authors. I imagine that this is typical. The sentences, phrases, words, structures, and styles that you read likely crop up in your own work.

Angell’s second point is well taken: “Writing is hard even for authors who do it all the time. Less frequent practitioners...often get stuck.” This is of course where I sit. During the course of the average week my writing amounts to only a few short, informal emails. Over a school year I may be obliged to a formal review, or a paper for a class. Rarely would I write more. Angell summarizes some of the main points: be concise, write in a natural style, revise and rewrite. The final one I mention here is something that I recall being told in my schooling. I must give credit where credit is due, and I remember my 10th grade English teacher, Mrs. Murphy, imparting that wisdom. She would tell us the best writing doesn’t happen right away. You put down some thoughts, create a draft, and fix it later. It’s something that I typically do practice by making a first draft, re-reading and making revisions on a paper.

In my own life I had to get over that barrier when writing song lyrics. For some reason it seemed to me that song lyrics needed to be perfect the first time or else they weren’t worthwhile. Over time I’ve been able to break down that internal barrier to where I can edit my lyrics without hesitation in the search for improvement. When Angell reminds us to write naturally, I hear him meaning ‘in a style that is your own.’ Don’t try to write like someone else. I think the same can be said of musicians. Though it is also true that while a student is still a student, the path to mastery can often lie further down the road of imitation.

E.B. White’s description of the contents I also found illuminating. He gives us a sense of the man behind the book. He opines that if medals were given for pithiness, this book would surely take the gold. He tells us that even he is still guilty of some of the mistakes contained within. I am sure that my writings would be littered in errors that would made Professor Strunk’s blood boil. The issue of commas is one I know I do not understand. I can’t say with honesty that I am not clear on clauses or how to reliably identify one. How then do I know when to enclose in commas? Likewise, my writing is often verbose. By which I do not mean it rambles on for page after page. I what I mean is that Strunk’s mantra of “Omit Needless Words!” can most likely be applied with vigour to my writing. I fear each sentence is weighed down unnecessarily. Perhaps with more more rounds of revision, like that of an architect working with a small plot of land, I could come up with a more efficient design.

The Provost poem I think ties in nicely to make one point clear. Vary the sentence structure or else it gets old, really fast! I have always been prone to run-on sentences. As long as I can remember I was connecting thought after thought, idea after idea, in a long string of never-ending cadences building up to what I didn’t realize was a poorly constructed and poorly executed piece of prose. I’m trying to do better. The idea of variety may be discussed in the Strunk book, but I didn’t see it mentioned explicitly in either the foreword or the introduction. From the descriptions I read it seems that the professor’s preoccupation with brevity, and pith may have precluded the idea of variation for taste. Perhaps that is something E.B. White discusses in the chapter he added later on, but I could also see it appearing in the idea of “writing naturally.”

The Leyba article didn’t quite fit in with the other three. It is about reading, and strategies for reading. Strunk, we are told, felt sympathy for the reader and sought to end his plight by providing materials of the best possible quality. Leyba took the opposite approach and gave advice directly to the reader. Both are helpful for us as we are straddling the fence in this class. My favorite part of this piece were the questions for primary and secondary sources. When I’m reading or watching a show I often find myself wondering about who created this material and what are their goals. Are there things I should know about this person which may influence their conclusions or how I take in the material. It may be that I am too suspicious. It also can be something of an avoidance technique: If I research the author I can put off actually reading for a bit. Mostly I think I come by it honestly and am just curious. My mind asking: “How does this fit into a larger construct? Does the answer matter in this case?” I am speaking here in generalities but I think when we start sifting through skads of sources for our bibliography project these questions will be ones that help us decide, “In or Out?”