Wednesday, October 29, 2003
After reading both Strunk and White's Elements of Style and Williams' Style: Lessons Toward Clarity and Grace I believe I have a better understanding of what is looked at for a writing to be successful. This does not mean I agree with all that was written by these authors, but it does make me stop and think before writing that next paper. I realized that what may be clear to me, is not always to someone else. This is a point I believe is expressed in both of these text. You need to be clear for your paper to have understanding. Both Williams and Strunk and White mention not being too wordy and as I read some of their passages I found myself thinking that is me. I have always wrote with the "fancy" words, as Strunk and White described it. I always felt they added more to the text and allowed the reader to visualize better what I was writing about. The reality though, is that this probably caused the reader to either lose interest and start skimming the pages or made their minds drift off and never really concentrate on what they were reading.
Strunk and White also gave me insight on some things I had never known before. I still think it is funny every time I read about the misuse of the word inflammable and have even asked others what this word means. After they have all given me the same answer I realize that it just isn't children and illiterates this is meant for, but a misused definition that has been taught to us over the years. I also found some of his titles amusing in themselves, such as "breezy manner". This to me is a fancy word, but it does catch your attention and make you want to know what a breezy manner is.
Williams was unlike these authors though. He gave insight and listed examples of what common mistakes were, but it was not as if he was preaching to you. He let you see what most people would write and how it would sound if you just tweaked it a little bit. He even said that the way he may rewrite something does not mean that everyone should. Everyone should follow what they believe is right and helps the flow of their writing.
I did not find either of these books entertaining, but I am sure that is not the audience they are writing for. These are not for the light readers and do contain a lot of information. It just seems hard to digest all of it at times. I will be happy if I can take away at least a handful of these observations and apply them to my own writings.
Strunk and White also gave me insight on some things I had never known before. I still think it is funny every time I read about the misuse of the word inflammable and have even asked others what this word means. After they have all given me the same answer I realize that it just isn't children and illiterates this is meant for, but a misused definition that has been taught to us over the years. I also found some of his titles amusing in themselves, such as "breezy manner". This to me is a fancy word, but it does catch your attention and make you want to know what a breezy manner is.
Williams was unlike these authors though. He gave insight and listed examples of what common mistakes were, but it was not as if he was preaching to you. He let you see what most people would write and how it would sound if you just tweaked it a little bit. He even said that the way he may rewrite something does not mean that everyone should. Everyone should follow what they believe is right and helps the flow of their writing.
I did not find either of these books entertaining, but I am sure that is not the audience they are writing for. These are not for the light readers and do contain a lot of information. It just seems hard to digest all of it at times. I will be happy if I can take away at least a handful of these observations and apply them to my own writings.
Tuesday, October 28, 2003
While reading through everyone's Blog entries it actually helped me gain a clear insight on William's and Strunk and White. I had my own opinions on both, but was able to see things differently or even have a better understanding by the opinions of others. It seems that most of us did agree that these authors wrote two different books dealing with the same subject. In Amy's Blog she wrote about the difference in William's and Strunk and White's intended audience. I agree that these were intended for different readers. If you read Willams' he does write to an audience that already has some prior knowledge on the subject of style. I even found some passages unapproachable for me to even begin to understand. In Strunk and White's text though the intended audience seems to be for more of a beginner and the passages were easily spelled out, with simple directions. Amy made a statement that Strunk and White was written for the college student and I believe that this is true just by the lay out of the text. The second half is just a list of rules and dealing with myths of writing.
Tara's Blog entry also brought up a good point about the difference in the approaches of Williams and Strunk and White. She believed that Williams let you make your own decisions on the rules, while Strunk and White said these are the rules and you must follow them. While reading Williams he does state rules and then gives examples using the rules, but then lets you decide if that rule should be applied to your writing. I found this much more approachable then Strunk and White who want you to stick to the rules regardless of the situation. I also felt that some of the rules Strunk and White mentioned where not up to date, since this book was written in the 1920's, where as Williams' text is more of a modern text. He also notes that not all writers that follow the rules are good writers. There are still great writers who write with their own rules and their writing is still clear and approachable.
Tara's Blog entry also brought up a good point about the difference in the approaches of Williams and Strunk and White. She believed that Williams let you make your own decisions on the rules, while Strunk and White said these are the rules and you must follow them. While reading Williams he does state rules and then gives examples using the rules, but then lets you decide if that rule should be applied to your writing. I found this much more approachable then Strunk and White who want you to stick to the rules regardless of the situation. I also felt that some of the rules Strunk and White mentioned where not up to date, since this book was written in the 1920's, where as Williams' text is more of a modern text. He also notes that not all writers that follow the rules are good writers. There are still great writers who write with their own rules and their writing is still clear and approachable.
Tuesday, October 07, 2003
(Original Sentences) The University is committed to providing opportunities for learners of varying interests, abilities, backgrounds, and expectations.
It seeks to attract, serve, and accommodate a highly qualified and pluralistic student body, drawn from a variety of ethnic, social, and economic backgrounds and to make a special effort to provide access to the campus' educational opportunities for non-traditional students and underrepresented populations.
(Revised Sentence) The University is commited to providing opportunities for learner of varyin interest, abilities, backgrounds, and expectations. It will make all efforts to provide equal opportunities for all of the attending student body.
This seems to be a long, dragged out sentence that is repeating information already given in the first sentence. In Style, Williams writes about clarity in Chapter 2 and this second sentence would not fall under that. This is not a clear sentence, but one that makes us work too hard at keeping all of the actions of the sentence apart. In one sentence, the University is going to attract, serve, accommodate, draw from backgrounds, and provide access to opportunities. There is too many things listed in this one sentence to be able to keep each action apart. When you are done reading the sentence you could think the University is going to only accommodate the under represented populations. The revisions I made were to make it simpler to read. It sums up everything that the original sentence was saying only making it with less fancier and clear words.
It seeks to attract, serve, and accommodate a highly qualified and pluralistic student body, drawn from a variety of ethnic, social, and economic backgrounds and to make a special effort to provide access to the campus' educational opportunities for non-traditional students and underrepresented populations.
(Revised Sentence) The University is commited to providing opportunities for learner of varyin interest, abilities, backgrounds, and expectations. It will make all efforts to provide equal opportunities for all of the attending student body.
This seems to be a long, dragged out sentence that is repeating information already given in the first sentence. In Style, Williams writes about clarity in Chapter 2 and this second sentence would not fall under that. This is not a clear sentence, but one that makes us work too hard at keeping all of the actions of the sentence apart. In one sentence, the University is going to attract, serve, accommodate, draw from backgrounds, and provide access to opportunities. There is too many things listed in this one sentence to be able to keep each action apart. When you are done reading the sentence you could think the University is going to only accommodate the under represented populations. The revisions I made were to make it simpler to read. It sums up everything that the original sentence was saying only making it with less fancier and clear words.
Strunk and White
One of the elements I found helpful was the misuse of the word “flammable”. I had assumed, like most others, that this was the correct word to use when describing something combustible. I have also used inflammable, but know that flammable has showed up more than once in writing. I now laugh every time I pass a truck with it plastered on the back and think of the last line, "Unless you are operating such a truck and hence are concerned with the safety of children and illiterates, use inflammable.(47) Every time I need to use this word now I will remember the correct way, only because it is used incorrectly around use everyday.
Another element I found useful was the use of the word get. This is one word I was brought up to never use and told there is always another word to use in its place. I now have in writing that get and got are words. The sentences are still awkward for me to say, but they do bring a smile to my face knowing I can say them and they are correct sentences.
One of the elements I found may have been wrong was “form the possessive singular of nouns by adding ‘s.” Strunk and White believed that you followed this rule regardless of what the last letter was in a word. I found this interesting, since I had always been taught otherwise. I was taught since elementary school that you added ‘s to all words except those ending in -s. Examples of this are Charles’, Paris’, Mike’s, and George’s. The last two example have the ‘s because they do not end in -s while the first two do.
Another element I did not agree with was (12) “Choose a suitable design and hold to it.”They feel that you should choose your design first and then do your writing. I disagree with this only because I find it easier to write and then as I am going find a form that is suitable to what I have wrote. Generally, I think it easier to write all of your thoughts first and then go back and form and edit what is in front of you. Otherwise, you may have points that you feel are important, but may not fit into the form you are already writing in.
One of the elements I found helpful was the misuse of the word “flammable”. I had assumed, like most others, that this was the correct word to use when describing something combustible. I have also used inflammable, but know that flammable has showed up more than once in writing. I now laugh every time I pass a truck with it plastered on the back and think of the last line, "Unless you are operating such a truck and hence are concerned with the safety of children and illiterates, use inflammable.(47) Every time I need to use this word now I will remember the correct way, only because it is used incorrectly around use everyday.
Another element I found useful was the use of the word get. This is one word I was brought up to never use and told there is always another word to use in its place. I now have in writing that get and got are words. The sentences are still awkward for me to say, but they do bring a smile to my face knowing I can say them and they are correct sentences.
One of the elements I found may have been wrong was “form the possessive singular of nouns by adding ‘s.” Strunk and White believed that you followed this rule regardless of what the last letter was in a word. I found this interesting, since I had always been taught otherwise. I was taught since elementary school that you added ‘s to all words except those ending in -s. Examples of this are Charles’, Paris’, Mike’s, and George’s. The last two example have the ‘s because they do not end in -s while the first two do.
Another element I did not agree with was (12) “Choose a suitable design and hold to it.”They feel that you should choose your design first and then do your writing. I disagree with this only because I find it easier to write and then as I am going find a form that is suitable to what I have wrote. Generally, I think it easier to write all of your thoughts first and then go back and form and edit what is in front of you. Otherwise, you may have points that you feel are important, but may not fit into the form you are already writing in.
Wednesday, September 10, 2003
Hi! My name is Cristy Busch. I am a second year senior here at EMU and am majoring in English Language, Literature, and Writing. I am not quite sure what I am going to do with it, but I was going into teaching and then changed my mind at the last minute. This left me with all my credits being in English, so I decided to continue forward with it and finally receive my degree.
I work full time, usually 50-60 hours a week, for our family owned grocery stores. So, even with my degree I pretty much already have a job. I am an assistant to the Vice President of Operations, which basically means anything that is a function I have to deal with, this is from scheduling to guest issues. It's stressful at times, but I do take pride for what our family has accomplished.
I live in the small town of Clinton, which most people have never heard of. It is about 25 miles west of Ypsilanti, straight down US-12. This is my hometown where I grew up and have moved away from more times than I can count, but I always seem to find my way back here.
I work full time, usually 50-60 hours a week, for our family owned grocery stores. So, even with my degree I pretty much already have a job. I am an assistant to the Vice President of Operations, which basically means anything that is a function I have to deal with, this is from scheduling to guest issues. It's stressful at times, but I do take pride for what our family has accomplished.
I live in the small town of Clinton, which most people have never heard of. It is about 25 miles west of Ypsilanti, straight down US-12. This is my hometown where I grew up and have moved away from more times than I can count, but I always seem to find my way back here.
Thursday, September 04, 2003
Test Blog entry
