Strunk and White: fifty years of stupid grammar advice http://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/2549...
The Land of the Free and the Elements of Style: everything in strunk and White is wrong http://ling.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/LandOfTheFree.pdf
That's quite a broad brush, friend.
Here's an example I'd ask you to opine upon:
"If you have received a letter inviting you to speak at the dedication of a new cat hospital, and you hate cats, your reply, declining the invitation, does not necessarily have to cover the full range of your emotions. You must make it clear that you will not attend, but you do not have to let fly at the cats. The writer of the letter asked a civil question; attack cats, then, only if you can do so with good humor, good taste, and in such a way that your answer will be courteous as well as responsive. Since you are out of sympathy with cats, you may quite properly give this as a reason for not appearing at the dedicatory ceremonies of a cat hospital. But bear in mind that your opinion of cats was not sought, only your services as a speaker. Try to keep things straight.”
What fault, dear reader, might you find in the above advice? I'd be quite interested in your assessment, given your apparent expertise.
I thought it would be informative to share a few links that might help readers and writers approach Strunk and White from other perspectives. The authors of those essays have far more expertise than I.
I couldn't agree more. In fact, I find that my own prose has benefited greatly from reading those who write well.
>This kind of criticism is supposed to be constructive, so it should not be taken as an attack.
Your point is well taken, however your characterization ("Everything is wrong") is even more extreme than what Pullum said in the piece you linked. He said "almost everything is wrong."
What's more, all the links you posted are quite critical of The Elements of Style and are not representative of the many other voices out there (cf. [0][1][2][3][4]). I'd expect that one might attempt to balance the criticism, rather than just piling on.
That's not to say I reject outright the criticisms of Pullum and Pereltsvaig. Rather, they both make interesting points.
However, from the standpoint of a lay person who wishes to write cogently and concisely (that is, most of us) rather than a grammarian or professional writer, Elements provides useful advice and numerous examples of good writing.
Are the recommendations contained therein universally apropos? Certainly not.
That said, for most people who wish to get a better sense, not only of how to write more clearly and concisely, but also what such writing looks like, Elements provides a wealth of suggestions and examples.
Whether or not you disagree with some of the recommendations in Elements, it stresses clarity, concision and direct expression of ideas.
That many will go beyond those recommendations doesn't invalidate the value of elucidating good writing habits, and utilizing them to provide cogent examples of the same.
Writing styles are inherently subjective, and a text like Elements is and can be a worthy supplement to reading widely and honing one's own style.
The Elements of Style isn't a tome with a litany of prescribed and proscribed methods and techniques. Rather it's a slim (only 52 pages) volume focused on expressing ideas clearly and concisely -- a goal it achieves for itself.
I recommend that you read it[5]. It shouldn't take more than 30-45 minutes.
[0] https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2018/why-strunk-wh...
[1] https://www.ragan.com/helpful-writing-habits-from-strunk-and...
[2] https://proofreadingpal.com/proofreading-pulse/writing-guide...
[3] https://www.writingclasses.com/toolbox/tips-masters/strunk-w...
[4] https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/2909/what-s-purp...
[5] https://www.gutenberg.org/files/37134/37134-h/37134-h.htm
