Editing The Elements of Style (section)

==Reception==
''The Elements of Style'' was listed as one of the 100 best and most influential non-fiction books written in English since 1923 by ''[[Time magazine|Time]]'' in its 2011 list.<ref name=Time/> Upon its release, Charles Poor, writing for ''[[The New York Times]]'', called it "a splendid trophy for all who are interested in reading and writing."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/books/97/08/03/lifetimes/white-strunk.html |title=Books of the Times |work=[[The New York Times]] |date=1959-06-09 |access-date=2015-04-10}}</ref> 

In ''[[On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft|On Writing]]'' (2000, p.&nbsp;11), [[Stephen King]] writes: "There is little or no detectable [[bullshit]] in that book. (Of course, it's short; at eighty-five pages it's much shorter than this one.) I'll tell you right now that every aspiring writer should read ''The Elements of Style''. Rule 17 in the chapter titled Principles of Composition is 'Omit needless words.' I will try to do that here."

In 2011, University of Vienna professor in biochemistry Tim Skern argued in ''Writing Scientific English: A Workbook'' that ''The Elements of Style'' "remains the best book available on writing good English".<ref>Skern, Tim (2011). . (UTB 3112) Vienna (facultas.wuv). p. 35.</ref>

In 2013, [[Nevile Gwynne]] reproduced ''The Elements of Style'' in his work ''[[Gwynne's Grammar]]''. Britt Peterson of ''[[The Boston Globe]]'' wrote that his inclusion of the book was a "curious addition".<ref>Britt Peterson (31 August 2014). [https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/08/30/why-love-language-police/AL7pZtx1StOOyz5VaeYkPI/story.html "Why we love the language police"]. ''The Boston Globe''. Retrieved 9 January 2015.</ref>

In 2016, the [[Open Syllabus Project]]<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://opensyllabusproject.org/faq/ |title=FAQ – the Open Syllabus Project |access-date=2016-02-05 |archive-date=2016-02-04 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160204013011/http://opensyllabusproject.org/faq/ |url-status=dead }}</ref> lists ''The Elements of Style'' as the most frequently assigned text in US academic [[syllabus]]es, based on an analysis of 933,635 texts appearing in over 1 million syllabuses.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://explorer.opensyllabusproject.org/|title=The Open Syllabus Project|website=explorer.opensyllabusproject.org}}</ref>

Criticism of ''Strunk & White'' has largely focused on claims that it has a [[Linguistic prescriptivism|prescriptivist]] nature, or that it has become a general anachronism in the face of modern English usage.  In criticizing ''The Elements of Style'', [[Geoffrey Pullum]], professor of [[linguistics]] at the [[University of Edinburgh]], and co-author of ''[[The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language]]'' (2002), said that: {{blockquote|The book's toxic mix of [[Linguistic purism|purism]], [[atavism]], and personal [[eccentricity (behavior)|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&nbsp;... 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.<ref name="pullum-50years">{{cite journal | last=Pullum | first=Geoffrey K. | author-link=Geoffrey Pullum | date=April 17, 2009 | title=50 Years of Stupid Grammar Advice | journal=[[The Chronicle of Higher Education]] | volume=55 | issue=32 | pages=B15 | url=http://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/25497 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160413043333/https://www.chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/25497 | archive-date=2016-04-13 | access-date=2017-11-27 | url-status=dead }}</ref>}}

Pullum has argued, for example, that the authors misunderstood what constitutes the [[English passive voice|passive voice]], and he criticized their proscription of established and unproblematic English usages, such as the [[split infinitive]] and the use of ''which'' in a restrictive [[English relative clause#That or which|relative clause]].<ref name="pullum-50years"/> On ''[[Language Log]]'', a blog about language written by [[linguists]], he further criticized ''The Elements of Style'' for promoting [[linguistic prescriptivism]] and [[hypercorrection]] among [[Anglophones]], and called it "the book that ate America's brain".<ref>Pullum, Geoffrey (2009). "[http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1505 Sotomayor loves Strunk and White]" (June 12).  "[http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1485 Drinking the Strunkian Kool-Aid]" (June 6). "[http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1369 Room for debate on Strunk and White]" (April 25). Retrieved 2009-06-13. <br />&nbsp; See also [http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?cat=5 "prescriptivist poppycock"] (tag): other postings on the subject by Pullum, [[Mark Liberman]], and others.</ref>

Jan Freeman, reviewing for ''[[The Boston Globe]]'' in 2005 described the latest edition of ''The Elements of Style Illustrated'' (2005), with illustrations by Maira Kalman, as an "aging zombie of a book&nbsp;... a hodgepodge, its now-antiquated [[pet peeve]]s jostling for space with 1970s taboos and 1990s computer advice".<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/10/23/frankenstrunk|title=Frankenstrunk|last=Freeman|first=Jan|date=October 23, 2005|newspaper=[[The Boston Globe]]|access-date=2009-04-12}} {{subscription required}}<!--2014-05-14--></ref>