328 Blog

last post style

2005-03-13T16:32:00.000-08:00

I found Williams to be less useful than Strunk and White. A major complaint by many in our class is that Strunk and White don’t offer advice: they instead give commandments. Williams, on the other hand, is more forgiving, and would allow for less in the way of play with the language.
Untrue, I think. S and W only command these things for the sake of brevity; besides, they assume the readers are already interested in bettering their ability with the pen, so they don’t need to assume a defense of what they are saying. In other words, S and W give us more credit as writers and scholars than Williams does. Williams assumes we don’t really want this knowledge badly; and so he offers his opinions, which are mostly true, and tells us why. But his telling us why is more of a defense of why to study it in the first place, instead of a defense of why this way instead of some other.
Because S and W give us more credit, I found them more useful. By not explaining everything in boxes and the like, we are forced to think about it, if we badly enough want the knowledge, and by thinking about it, we are sure to come to our own conclusions and therefore cement the proper rules in our heads.

jake

Metaphors

2005-03-08T11:29:00.000-08:00

Writing is fishing, technology is the fishing pole.

-- technology is the process by which we go about some act

Technology is fishing, writing is a fish.

-- we are tempted to use technology, and some of us take the bait more readily, and this will perhaps be their demise, i guess

jake

williams post three

2005-03-08T11:26:00.000-08:00

I thought the Williams book was too wordy, too explained for my taste.
The Strunk and White text was much more abbreviated, and it is this that I like: a straightforward, easily accessible list of rules to follow in trying to attain a good writing style.
Williams couldn't help but elaborate on every minor point. Especially problematic from my POV was his use of those damn boxes. They looked like a small matrix and they were designed to inform us about something: verbs and their objects, etc. The matricies did nothing.
Williams made good points, however, in his discussion of usage and elegance. I am studying prescriptive grammar in my LING 402 course, and he was right. The rules were chosen, largely, in an arbitrary manner, and the language is used as a sort of educational code today.

jake

williams 4-7

2005-02-22T18:43:00.000-08:00

Williams, 4-7, applied Rochelle’s paper

Rochelle did a poor job with a lot of things, but particularly applicable is her use of transitions.
Williams tells us to put our issue at the start of a paragraph, usually within three sentences. Rochelle fails in this completely. She often has many points in any particular paragraph. In the second one, for instance, she indicates that her issue is going to be how many amusement parks she has been to, because “ . . . I have been to a lot of them” is at the end of her first sentence. We expect next to read, “I have been to X, Y, and Z.” Instead, we get a further discussion of Cedar Point. Perhaps she should have written something along the lines of, “I have been to a lot of amusement parks, but the best I’ve visited, by far, is Cedar Point.” This would set her up to write something like “Cedar Point is X, Y and Z.”
Her fifth paragraph holds to this premise fairly well. Although it is a little disjointed too, she sets up the Gemini discussion at the end of the third sentence. From there she intuitively finishes the paragraph with a discussion of the Gemini. Her problem is in setting up the issue: the first two sentences, in other words. The best revision would be to cut the second sentence, which would leave her with a cascading type of logic: 1. there are many roller coasters at CP 2. Most people’s favorite is THE GEMINI . . .

jw

Williams, post one

2005-02-18T06:55:00.000-08:00

Jake Walters
Joseph Williams: STYLE, 1-3

I found Williams’s text useful, but pretty obvious. I don’t need what he’s saying. That isn’t to say that I write everything perfectly, because I don’t, but I thought the Strunk and White text was sufficient in explaining good writing and style.
I thought his explanation of verbs and nouns derived from verbs (nominalization) was excellent, however. Some scholars believe that this is an evolution of a language, which happens because of an evolution in the thought-processes of that civilization. Through nominalization (pg 30), our writing becomes harder to understand. It has been argued that in some fields, this is the goal. By turning simple verbs into nouns, one can make his thoughts seem to acquire more depth than they would normally seem to have. Williams gives the example of Michael Creighton, who spoke of medical school students.
From his discussion of style, Williams discussed the coherence of your writing. This goes beyond what he calls “local coherence,” which is the coherence of individual sentences, free of context. Coherence refers to your writing as a whole, more on the paragraph level.
Sentences themselves should start with already discussed ideas, and work their ways into new or surprising ones. This way, the reader has an anchor in something he should already understand.
I agree, and I try to write this way all the time.

jw.
and now for the assignment:
“When Britain gave independence to the entire subcontinent in 1947, two distinct Dominions were created: India and Pakistan.”
What I want to do here is emphasize the creation of the Dominions, rather than Britain. I’ll also drop the nominalization “gave independence” in favor of a verb.
Rewrite: “Two distinct Dominions were created when, in 1947, Britain freed the subcontinent. They were India and Pakistan.” (The reference of “subcontinent” refers to something preceding this sentence, so it’s covered).
I have a good example of ambiguity, from a Political Science paper. Just as background knowledge, when conducting polls, it’s important to have questioners without speech deviances. That means no accents, and not allowing chewing gum for pollsters.
“These people will have been randomly chosen by a computer that randomly dials numbers for our interviewers. These interviewers will not have an accent and will not be chewing gum.”
The problem is in the second sentence, and it arises from the fact that chewing can operate either as a verb (which is the intended meaning) or as part of a compound noun, where chewing gum is really one word, referring to the gummy substance one chews. If interpreted this way, the sentence reads: Chewing gum is not allowed to be a pollster.
In rewrite: “These interviewers will not have an accent, nor will they be allowed chewing gum.”

jw

Strunk and White Post One

2005-02-09T10:48:00.000-08:00

The Strunk and White book was a good book for teaching writing. I thought some of it was a bit tedious: mostly in the section titled “Elementary Rules Of Usage.” This was a recap of a lot of the prescriptive grammar we have all been taught through school, but instead of teaching grammar, it taught only those points so many of us commonly do wrong. For this reason, the book is clearly aimed at those who are already literate and able with the English language.
The second section, “Elementary Principles of Composition,” was more helpful. This looks at writing as a thing—in other words, not the minute details of writing, but the writing. Rule 17, “Omit needless words,” may be the one I most closely adhere to. If not, then it is at least my favorite of them.
I think that rule (17) appeals to the need for writing to deliver a message and be done with it. This is not so in fiction, but when I read science or some general account of a thing, I want the information, not the frills. Rule 17 and how Strunk says we should write dates (12 February 2005) are closely related, in that both are designed to relay information quickly.
I agreed with all of his few matters of form.
Strunk is right with almost every one of the misused words and expressions that he complains about in his fourth part to the book. Some of the distinctions he makes are subtle (farther vs. further), yet they are important distinctions to know. Some were less important (aggravate vs. irritate). Some were ridiculous, as in his rant about “flammable.” Flammable, Strunk says, isn’t a word, only a replacement for inflammable so that “children and illiterates” can understand. He took it a little far, I think. And despite his problems with –ize (as in making a noun into a verb), it has happened. Finalize, prioritize, and customize are all commonly used and accepted today, and I have no problems with them.

jw

328 Blog

2005-02-04T10:30:00.000-08:00

Hi, I'm Jake Walters, a junior at Eastern Michigan University. I live in Tecumseh, a few miles south of Ann Arbor/Ypsi. I work in the kitchen at Herrick Hospital.
I wrote for my high school newspaper, although that experience doesn't count toward a lot. I've written quite a bit of fiction, including a book or two. The one I think has the best prospect of ever getting published is called Motorcycle Kid, and it's about a kid who, at about the age of four, is run over by a lawnmower driven by his mother. He loses the bottom third of his face and wears a motorcycle helmet to hide his disfigurement in school-- hence his nickname, Motorcycle Kid.
There are different styles for different situations. For the newspaper, I wrote mostly comical things, but really, you should follow journalistic rules for such writing. Who, What, When, etc., plus a focus on brevity. In fiction, I try to be brief, and in this way, the two styles of writing are not entirely different from each other.