Seconded. The overarching principles of “The Elements Of Style” are clarity, fluidity, and effectiveness. This theme appears repeatedly in the book. I think they’d be the first to encourage breaking their rules if you could demonstrate a more fluid, clear, and unambiguous method to express an idea. That would be rather difficult, though, since IMO they have done a fine job of codifying the rules for clear and effective writing. I don’t think anyone could argue that adhering to S&W would really make anyone a worse writer.
But then it should have been “Dopers’”, with the apostrophe after the “s”, rather than “Doper’s”, right?
Yes Josh you are write. 
However, had I given my posting another glance for the second time again, the offending faux pas would have been corrected.
I will admit that I have not read Strunk and White. Okay, I’ll admit I did read Strunk but maybe it is time I read White too.
You jest, but it’s entirely possible to do just that. It was just Strunk for forty years before White came along and did his revisions and additions. The original Strunk is freely available electronically. I think it was White who put in the that/which superstition and went back and “corrected” Strunk’s violations of it.
Yes, once. I understand why its simplistic rules are attractive. I just don’t think advice about omitting adjectives and adverbs is useful, nor are any of the other myths they promulgate. A lot of their advice falls under the rubric of odd schoolmarmish superstition or else advice so reductive as to be harmful. The concepts of “clarity” as set down in The Elements of Style are not appealing to me in the slightest.
However, I stand corrected on the issue of split infinitives.
Cite? I think you’re the one promulgating a myth here.
While I have heard certain S&W fanatics say that adjectives and adverbs should be omitted, as far as I can tell this is either their own invention or a misinterpretation of the book. Having used TEOS for years, I have never seen any such exhortation.
Here is an online version of The Elements of Style to assist you in unearthing your cite.
You may have been confused about the section entitled “Omit needless words.” This section advises removing any language that could be reduced to fewer words. One such example reduces the phrase “in a hasty manner” to the single word “hastily.” It isn’t exactly a stirring reproof against the use of adverbs.
If you have other gripes with TEOS that actually exist in TEOS, I’d be interested to read them in Cafe Society, or in the Pit if you feel that strongly about them.
Oh? Do you? You have insight into why this book appeals to millions on an individual basis? I’m not even certain that you understand the meaning of simplistic.
No offense intended, but one reading just won’t do. I’m on my second copy; the first was read to pieces over the years.
One of the exceptions that is finally getting the nod from some grammarians is the split infinitive. It should show up shortly in Harbrace if it hasn’t already done so.
Unclviy, I don’t think you need to read that book about writing styles just yet. But I will tell you that I like your lists better than I do your paragraphs. If you decide to go to college or get a fancy job, then you’ll need the book. But your observations about life and people are good reading. You do want to learn how to use basic punctuation marks though. Even if you are out of school, most teachers will be happy to refresh your memory.
Just don’t stop writing.
It seems to me either you have a hazy memory or missed the point of Elements of Style. Overall, the book is not dogmatically proscriptive like other grammar treatises. It’s actually a very legel-headed and open-minded list of guidelines for writing in English. There’s very little superstition in it at all. Reduction of adjectives and adverbs certainly do improve clarity of writing in most] cases. Adverbs are yucky unnecessary words that often clutter up writing rather than improve it. This isn’t a superstition; it’s simply that adverbs often make writers lazy in their choice of verbs. This is not a steadfast rule, and S&W never claimed it to be. There are, of course, a million exception where the guildeline need be overlooked, but for most writers this is sound advice.
I’m sorry, Ex, but based on your statements, it seems you really don’t remember much of S&W and are unfairly prejudiced against it. As a way to quickly improve your writing, there is no better book than Elements of Style.
Heh. That was my schooling experience exactly. I asked my 5th grade teacher what a semicolon was, and she actually told me, “Don’t worry about that. It’s too complicated and you’ll never use it anyway.” Grr.
Seeing how you’re so open to criticism, unclviny, how do you pronounce your nickname?
Uncle Vinny, Uncle Viney, or something else entirely. 
I was “Uncle Vinny” on the radio (KPFT 90.1 FM in Houston) for 8 years and I started using UNCLVINY back when filenames were limited to 8 characters.
Since I actually became an Uncle I figured I should just keep it.
Unclviny
Language Log: Those who take the adjectives from the table sums up the nonsense that is the condemnation of descriptive words far better than I could.
My problem with Strunk and White (besides the amount of sheer nonsense, like their distinction between clauses introduced by “which” and “that”, a “grammatical feature” that was invented from whole cloth) is the notion that advice like “omit needless words” and “be clear” (and note that both sentences employ adjectives) can be useful. No one strives for unclear writing (except, perhaps, William Faulkner) and while it’s easy to mandate clarity, it’s much harder to explain how it may be achieved.
Claims that adverbs are “yucky” and “unnecessary” would be stronger had you not used the word “certainly” once and “often” twice, and “dogmatically”, “actually”, “very”, “quickly” and “unfairly” each in their own turn. The rules promulgated in that awful little rag require so many “exceptions” in their use as to provide no guidance at all; if the rule is “avoid adverbs unless you need them or, you know, really like them” then it’s of no help to the writer who wishes guidance in regard to their use. And the competent writer who is exposed to Strunk and White at an impressionable age my find the expressive power of their writing limited forever as a result.
I understand that Strunk and White is a holy text to a lot of people, but to claim that its rules are flexible is to acknowledge that the book can’t offer any real guidance as to when an adverb should be used and when it shouldn’t, and if its rules are taken literally, I certainly hope not to be exposed to the incomprehensible mess that results.
Yes, and unfortunately MS Word has adopted that lunacy.
I find it especially amusing that the original Strunk The Elements of Style not only doesn’t mention this “rule”, but violates it in a couple of places. Apparently White inserted the discussion and changed Strunk’s “offending” thats to whichs. Of course it was Fowler who invented this from whole cloth. He didn’t pretend that it was an established rule that good writers already followed.
Despite the that/which thing, I like Strunk and White. “Omit needless words” is good advice that needs to be given despite its simplicity.
Make that whichs to thats.
When I write for the Dope, I write in a way that basically mirrors my speech patterns. And that generally includes a lot of adverbs. When writing tight prose and when I have time to edit, I strike down a good portion of them, and it improves the impact and clarity of my writing a hundredfold. I rarely edit anything I write here.
I come from a journalism background in writing, where terseness is key. I prefer the stylings of writers like Hemmingway and Capote to the long-windedness of Faulkner. It’s a stylistic decision. Strunk & White is not meant for artsy fartsy writing. It’s meant for clear, concise prose, and I cannot think of any book more useful and more immediately helpful to a struggling writer.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but I vehemently disagree.
Having just looked over the link you gave, it is clear that the writer completely misses the point of Strunk & White’s advice. “Write with nouns and verbs, not adjectives and adverbs” is excellent advice for beginning to intermediate writers. The power of a sentence comes from these two parts of speech. S&W do not advocate omitting adjective and adverbs. Rather, they proscribe their more careful and judicious use. Is this advice unsound? Hardly not.
Elements of Style is a collection of guidelines, not rules. It’s all but plainly obvious to anyone who reads it. The author of your piece harps on about how S&W use adjectives in the very next sentence after their advice. Well, duh. They never intended you to completely avoid them, and no sane advocate of good writing wood. Most beginners do overuse modifiers; I have copyedited enough shitty prose to know so.
My advice to any beginning writer would be to learn S&W, use their guidelines, understand the basis for them (which your author obviously didn’t), and once you’re comfortable with the rules and understand them, break 'em. Break 'em left and right. But you need a firm grounding of solid prose before you can have the skill to break the rules. There’s never anything wrong with learning a bit of technique.
I agree. It’s like criticizing a cookbook because mixing the ingredients from all 20 recipies yields an unsavory result. That isn’t the purpose of S&W, although some unfortunately use it that way. It’s best used as a repair kit for obfuscated writing. S&W won’t help you get published in the New Yorker, but most people don’t do that sort of writing. Most people just need to drop the habit of rambling, weak prose larded with extraneous verbage.
I grant that it does contain a heavy dose of prescriptivism for grammar and punctuation, which has becoming something of a dirty word among linguists. But it isn’t prescriptivism for its own sake; it simply seeks to disambiguate. I trust we an all agree that disambiguation is a good thing, unless you’re an iconoclastic creative writing student fond of ambiguity as a literary device.
Stylebooks are, by necessity and purpose, prescriptive. Dictionaries are descriptive.
There’s nothing wrong here.