Comparing Strunk & White with Williams

Joseph Williams, in his book Style: Toward Clarity and Grace, did not address all of the issues I had with Strunk & White. For example, the main rule I disagree with in Strunk & White is "form the possessive singular of nouns by adding 's." Williams didn't address this rule at all, so I suppose my question will have to go unanswered. And Joseph Williams never weighed in on the "all right/alright" controversy. To be fair, these were not exactly burning questions, so I think Williams can be forgiven for skipping them. If Williams' main goal is "Clarity and Grace," then these other issues are perhaps beyond the scope of his book. But just because these points are a bit fine doesn't mean that Williams doesn't have an eye for detail--he is incredibly thorough, and this is his book's strength.

Two of the principles I found useful in Strunk & White were to "use the active voice" and to "omit needless words." We can find these principles in Williams too, but Williams is not writing a "little book." Williams dissects these principles to see what makes them work, and to see why they work well. Williams puts using the active voice into a larger context; he shows how this concept is interrelated with others like "characters/events" and "nominalizations." Williams is incredibly thorough and takes pains to connect every dot to every other dot. If the examples in Strunk & White could be said to be insufficient, Williams examples are ample. Rather than a quick, handy reference, Williams' book is meant to be more of an in-depth study of the nuts and bolts of writing. My experience has been that Strunk & White provides a lot of solid information that makes a lot of sense. Williams, in turn, shows why these principles make sense, and how they can be used effectively in a variety of contexts.

The question as to which book is more effective, to me, seems to be the wrong question. I think that the books swim in different waters. I think what I got from Williams will be helpful, but I don't see myself going back to it again and again. It is very dense and it was difficult to get through. For me, the primary function of Strunk & White is as a reference, or a reminder of things easily forgotten; Williams deals with the most basic level of style--clarity, cohesion, empahsis, coherence--for me, these are things that become internalized to a large extent. I think the information in Williams needs to be digested and absorbed; it doesn't make sense to me as a reference book.

It is revealing to consider the perspectives and backgrounds of the authors of these books. Williams is a language historian, and he knows the nuts and bolts of the language because he has studied its origins (and he tells us about them in a couple of his digressions). And he is a University professor, so he deals with a lot of academic writing and, presumably, students' papers. His goal is to get people to communicate clearly so that a) society benefits and b) he can make sense of your homework. It is important to Williams to lay a solid foundation, and he can do it because he knows how English is put together.

E. B. White comes from a much different background: he is a professional writer. The issues that bug White are those of his peers, in magazines, newpapers, books, etc. White is, along with Williams, concerned with basic construction, to a certain extent, but I think White aspires to a higher level of polish. White's audience includes not only those who want merely to be understood, but also those who are trying to bring a more professional quality to their writing. White is shooting not just for intelligible homework, but for writing that is effective and reading that is enjoyable.