Aha! Well then thanks again. It's a great article.I am guilty of posting that link here more than once.
A Strunk and White quote
- Thread starter Charlie Bernstein
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.
Jon S.
Tele-Afflicted
It is. And yet, as I posted earlier, I can't necessarily agree with all of Hunter's positions.
Here's an example. Hunter wrote:
>> There is nothing inherently better about a dumb song than one which calls attention to the intelligence of its writer. It's a matter of taste, but meaning is often a subterfuge to distract the listener's attention from a writer's lack of multiple resources. This is often true of blatant "message" songs.
Of course, Hunter hedged his bets. I've highlighted the key word he used twice to do so. Often is not, obviously, always. But he meant, it seems to me in context, to mean mostly, if not usually.
Yet we can all think of many "blatant 'message' songs" with wonderful lyrics. I'll throw out 3 quick examples;
Pusher Man (Hoyt Axton)
Ohio (CSN&Y)
War Pigs (Black Sabbath)
In no way can the lyrics to each of these songs be construed accurately as "a subterfuge to distract the listener's attention from a writer's lack of multiple resources."
To paraphrase my own prior response to Strunk and White: It's not one size fits all.
And this one more than once, I see!I am guilty of posting that link here more than once.
I'll allow it. What he'd say shouldn't be what you'd say or I'd say. That would be your one-size-fits-all. Often seems to pass the truth test. It's one of those words ESL students struggle with. They're given scales of degree that say things like:
- never = 0%
- occasionally = 20%
- sometimes = 40%
- often = 60%
- usually = 80%
- always = 100%
Those guides are never (0%) right because (a) our brains don't work that way and (b) it's always (100%) a matter of context.
Well, shore! Neither can his "U.S. Blues" or "Blues for Allah," right? He's not fighting honest, straightforward lyrics. Just lame lyrics. Likewise, Strunk and White were fighting lame prose.
Good prose can't be codified. We all know that. But I admire their spirited attempt.
Nope. And to paraphrase mine, those guys would heartily agree.
Now back to raking!
Last edited:
Jon S.
Tele-Afflicted
"Lame lyrics" ... now that's the epitome of in the eye (or ear) of the beholder.
Heh heh. "Tie a yellow ribbon . . . .""Lame lyrics" ... now that's the epitome of in the eye (or ear) of the beholder.
Jon S.
Tele-Afflicted
Yellow ribbons, now, have a different meaning than when that one was penned. With some slight lyrical adjustments, the song could be quite topical today.
I've posted this before (and probably in this thread but I'm not going back to look): Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist. ~Picaso
Makes sense, no?
There are a lot of basic rules for good writing--for good reason. But they're really only guides. Just because rules can be broken effectively doesn't make them fallacies.
Another rule: Head hopping in fiction is a no-no. And although I've seen Stephen King do it to great effect in a particular story, I do not recommend it for 99.99% of fiction writers.
And another good quote: The rules governing literary art require that the author shall use the right word, not its second cousin. ~Mark Twain. Not an easy rule to not break. Oops, I broke the fragment rule! Hopefully S&W aren't cursing me from above...or below.
Jon S.
Tele-Afflicted
The problems occur when people cite so-called "rules" are not rules at all but mere idiosyncratic conventions or, worse, flat out wrong. E.g., beginning sentences with and or but.
>> In the past, schools were rigid in their ruling that sentences could not start with coordinate conjunctions, such as "and," "but," and "or." However, those teachers were missing a key point: when used at the start of a sentence, "and," "but," and "or" are not coordinate conjunctions, but conjunctive adverbs.
Source: Grammar-Monster
Silent Otto
Tele-Afflicted
"When inspiration arrives, she better find you working."
-not S&W
-not S&W
Yup! And:
"When you've understood this scripture, throw it away." Jack Kerouac
"Throw away your books; stop letting yourself be distracted..." Marcus Aurelius
"Absorb what is useful, discard what is useless and add what is specifically your own." Bruce Lee
Learn the book, then throw it away. Old jazz saying
"It's an old observation that the best writers sometimes disregard the rules of rhetoric." William Strunk
Right. The book is a launch pad. Strunk also said, "After he has learned, by their* guidance, to write plain language adequate for everyday uses, let him look, for the secrets of style, to the study of the masters . . . ."
For us songwriters, that means paying attention to Hunter, Dylan, Waits, Pomus, Ellington, Simon, Simone, Davies, Nyro, Gershwin, Berlin, Petty, Zevon, Walker, Clarke, Dixon, and hundreds of others.
---------
* Their, as in the masters. Strunk knew he wasn't one of them. He was just an Engish teacher.
Best line advice I've ever seen here!
(So I Googled it. Picasso: "Inspiration exists, but it has to find you working." Your version is more elegant.)
I understand and appreciate where you are coming from, Jon S.
Great observation!
Since starting with and matters to you guys, you and Dudex would probably get a kick out of:
Harry Styron
Friend of Leo's
I agree. I enjoy and admire Whites stories and essays, but not his and Strunk’s rules.Different thing. For example, you can write in a hard-boiled Mickey Spillane style if your audience wants retro pulp fiction. The musical equivalent would be giving the audience "Wagon Wheel"
Now where is this discussed in the Chicago Manual Of Style?
Am I the only one who thinks Strunk and White is not very good? It's all over the place. Real style guides are organised.
I'm with this criticism, from the Wiki page:
The book's toxic mix of purism, atavism, and personal eccentricity is not underpinned by a proper grounding in English grammar. It is often so misguided that the authors appear not to notice their own egregious flouting of its own rules ... It's sad. Several generations of college students learned their grammar from the uninformed bossiness of Strunk and White, and the result is a nation of educated people who know they feel vaguely anxious and insecure whenever they write however or than me or was or which, but can't tell you why.
xxxxxxx
Last edited:
I resemble one of those remarks
Heh heh. Not complaining, this is fun, but it's interesting how a question about writing for an audience of one — ourselves — has morphed into another critique of Strunk and White.
