The first part of the article annoyed me. The author rails against Strunk and White for decrying the passive voice, saying that there are plenty of times when the passive is a good choice, then noting rather grudgingly that S&W go on to say the same:
Quote:
|
The authors explicitly say they do not mean "that the writer should entirely discard the passive voice," which is "frequently convenient and sometimes necessary." They give good examples to show that the choice between active and passive may depend on the topic under discussion."
|
The author then ignores that S&W basically agree with him and goes back to railing at them again.
However, as the article continued the points made were accurate and interesting, but I do think a little picky. Sure, perhaps S&W are guilty of not following their own advice but
Elements of Style is hardly a verbose, padded, unclear text. It's survived for 50 years precisely because it's small, clear and handy.
Should you follow it blindly? Of course not. Should you be aware that people critiquing your work may be following it? Of course.
Graham