Oxford Comma

Actually, it doesn’t sound like anything at all, because we’re talking about something which only is written–punctuation (commas, or the lack thereof). When someone is talking, there is no concern about such a confusion, because there is a distinct way to pronounce the sentence if one wants to claim Barney the dinosaur and Donald Trump as one’s parents. In this example, the serial comma is necessary for disambiguation only in writing precisely because there is no sound–there’s no way to disambiguate with pronunciation.

And in fact, in most instances of serials, the serial comma isn’t necessary, because it’s usually obvious from context that the final two items do not comprise an appositive.

I though drachmas were an old Greek currency. Hmmm…

I never used Strunk and White because I found something that provided the “rules” in a better way, but for the life of me I can’t recall what it was or who wrote it. It’s been years since I read Strunk and White, so while I can’t comment on it specifically in any real detail, I will say that a lot of the early “grammars” or style guides clearly were written by people with no sense of pedagogy, whose explanations could make sense only to those who already knew the “rules.” They’re like the high school English teacher who writes “awkward” in the margin of a paper, and nothing more. If the student knew it was “awkward” and how to make it not “awkward,” then s/he would have done so in the first place. It’s about as helpful as just writing, “Please try harder.”

I’m not going to give in so easily. The grammar rules in the book are usually wrong and rarely followed even in such a short book. Every time I see it cited as a useful source, I intend to point out it isn’t a good source.

I tend to agree with Exapno on this one. The Elements of Style does not contain the best set of rules but they’re not terrible and they are presented well. It’s certainly not the final word on writing well but it serves as a good foundation. A writer should master Strunk and White before, ideally, moving beyond it. But if your goal is just to achieve a level of basic competence in your writing, The Elements of Style will give you that.

Basic level of competency in my book includes understanding what passive voice is.

Even if they hadn’t used the term “passive voice” incorrectly, the knee-jerk assertion that it’s always better to use active voice demonstrated a real lack of understanding of English discourse in its various manifestations. It helped to perpetuate a rhetoric that is blindly limited to the sentence-level.

I am also a big fan of the Oxford Comma for the reason you describe (and also because I believe it acts as a natural “pause” in the flow of a list). My editor, however, is not a fan. And since he’s the one who decides what runs and what doesn’t, arguing with him about it isn’t going to acheive anything except annoying both of us.

A quote from Robb’s “complete failure” link:

How about actually reading and understanding what you’re talking about before denigrating it?

Yeah, I do. There’s not enough good material in the book to make it worth slogging through the crap.

I’m probably the only descriptivist here who actually has a fondness for Elements of Style, but maybe that’s because I found it particularly helpful in my own writing as a high schooler. Yes, later I learned a lot of stuff was incorrect or incomplete, or even ambiguous, but I felt it had a measurable effect on my writing.

Now, I’m a photographer. You see similar things in photography instruction. Concepts like “the rule of thirds,” “avoid placing the subject in the center,” and advice like “fill the frame” or “eliminate extraneous visual information.” All, to me, are analogous to Elements of Style-type rules. And all are as correct or incorrect. “The rule of thirds” is one of the first “rules” you learn to break as you develop your style. “Avoid placing subject in the center” is as nutty or sensible as “don’t use the passive voice.” Of course there are many, many compositions in which placing the subject in the center is exactly the right (or “a right”) compositional choice. “Fill the frame/eliminate extraneous information” also is just as good and useful as “eliminate unnecessary words” (or whatever it is in S&W).

And those photography basics worked equally as well for me when learning photography. They’re all little bits of bullshit in their own way, but they do work (IMHO) without bogging down a beginner in the details. And that’s kind of how I feel about S&W. I later outgrew it, but it made a measurable (and, IMHO, positive) impact on my writing.

You understand that Prof. Pullum doesn’t think the book should be venerated? It is trivially easy to find grammar books that teach the actual grammar of English and to find easily understandable books on style.

A Room for Debate where everyone agrees that the Elements of Style isn’t helpful.

Great idea. Let’s quote from that link:

The Rules of Style of SD–aka Regulations, hence prescriptive–is not to copy large blocks of text, and if you feel you must, to put them in spoilers because it fucks up posting presentation.
ETA: But I forgive you.

Sorry, are those the comments?

I’ll agree with you that the book is popular, but I don’t understand that popularity equals value.

Similarly, unpopularity among people who don’t get it does not equal lack of value.

I gave you a link where several professionals of the English language identify defects in the contents of the book. Do you know of any linguists who counter those allegations? Can you counter those allegations?
Do you believe the grammar rules in the book are correct?

Since the audience uses the book for its style rules, which all the linguists concede are useful and not the kneejerk dogmatism of its critics, I don’t care about the grammar half.

Look at those positive comments*. They’re about having their writing improved. They aren’t about the nuances of grammar. As soon as you concentrate on the grammar half, you’ve lost the argument because you’re critiquing a flaw nobody cares about. It’s the Elements of Freaking STYLE, not the Elements of Grammar.
*And I quoted 9 out of 266 comments, all from the first page. You can turn to any other page and see the same overwhelmingly high ratio of praise.

Thanks Dewey! Added some VW to my Rdio