/lit/ - Literature

This book actually has a ton of bunk, nonsensical advice passed off as know-how. It's an older book and there are much better books out there to pick up pedagogical grammar, editing skills, and writing ability. I recommend sin and syntax, the writer is a bit cringe but she covers a lot of what this book does but in more salient, logical ways.

>>12845195
I enjoyed the fact that this book felt personal, even biased, it made it an enjoyable read. I find nothing wrong with exercising a critical eye towards such things as a filter if the trade-off is a more enjoyable read.

I'll check out your recommendation anon, thanks.

>>12845086
>>12845244
You shouldn't recommend Strunk & White to anyone. The authors do not even understand basic English grammar. The fact that enjoyed the book only shows your own ignorance. For example, here is an explanation of how they do not understand the difference between passive and active voice. Did you even catch the error when you read it? Do you even know the difference yourself? You certainly wouldn't if you were using this book as your guide.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrRKJrTPwYg

>>12845086
>I found this book both helpful and entertaining.

tell me more about autism

>>12845269
inb4 one of this book's retarded cultist followers tries to defend this

This has some good nuggets and is also written in a personal style.

>>12845086
As a wee lad, this book, in evil conspiracy with certain teachers, needlessly tormented me against the supple elegance of the Oxford comma, forcing me to re-cast many a sentence awkwardly. I must condemn it on those grounds alone, never mind it as an obstacle to assimilation of those with style fine enough to defy analysis.

>>12845269
>pullum
sorry, not interested in the ramblings of cult leaders
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=11248

>>12845683
What do you think that demonstrates exactly? The section on passives in Strunk & White is objectively wrong.

>>12845269
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0fpl4Unhig
a long list of randos btfo to their very core!

>>12845269
>prescriptive grammar
YIKES
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7E-aoXLZGY

>>12846509
>YIKES
>Fry

It's a good book but lacks a hard and sturdy chapter on punctuation. I've yet to find a writing book that tells me if I use " or ' for characters talking, or if it's ... or . . ., or when I can and can't use parenthesis (and should I use italics if I'm expressing a characters thought).

>>12846509
>not having consistent terminology so everybody knows what you're talking about and the discourse can progress instead of getting stuck on stupid over and over again

>>12846565
" for talking, ' for quotes within quotes (people talking)
If someone talls for more than a paragraph, omit the " at the end of the initial paragraph though keep a " at the beginning of subsequent paragraphs until the quote is finished (ending with an ")
Never use . . . (That only shows up in foreign languages due to fonts making it appear as though there's spaces. There isn't any though.)
You can use italics for thought but you don't necessarily have to.

>>12847001
Time throughout history when the english language had "consistent terminology": 0 years 0 months 0 days 0 zero 00 minutes 00.00 seconds

>>12846565
You should use the dialogue dash (similar to the em dash) for dialogue. It's the smart man's choice.

>>12847021
>Time throughout history when the english language had "consistent terminology": 0 years 0 months 0 days 0 zero 00 minutes 00.00 seconds
You could learn a thing or two from mathematical rigor, ever since it was implemented. Humanity's tendency to encourage brainletism does not faze me.

>>12847118
>gets FUCKING TOLD
>starts rambling incoherently about STEM
Lmao
keked and rekt

>>12847125
>brainlet narcissist coping this hard after discovering that Stunk & Black taught him bullshit that only further obscures discourse

bump