Bird by Bird, totally reading that right now, she’s hysterical.

It’s so beautiful… What does this mean?

I’d describe Pullum and the Language Log crew as descriptivists (although I’m not sure that’s how they’d describe themselves), by which I mean linguists who contend that language is ever-evolving, and that it’s more important to learn from and understand that evolution than it is to try to enforce rules of usage. A hardcore descriptivist loves nothing more than catching a grammar cop in the act of violating his own arbitrary rules. The quintessential descriptivist defense is “You understand exactly what they’re saying, so what’s the problem here?”

That’s the thing about Geoff Pullum’s S&W takedown, which is masterfuul but seems to miss the point. We understand what S&W are saying, so what’s the problem? Sure, they rail against the passive voice when what they really hate is the verb “to be,” but we got the gist, and it made us better writers. Like Tim, I’d say Strunk & White is best read as good overall advice than as a strict series of commandments. There’s really only one rule: strive to be clear and simple in your writing. Most of the other contents of the book are ways of restating that point.

But I also think most grammar teachers and copy editors should read Pullum’s stellar critique. S&W is taught as a series of commandments, and it shouldn’t be.

And then they should read David Foster Wallace’s rousing defense of prescriptivism, especially the part when he defends it to a classroom of black students.

And then they should read LanguageHat’s takedown of same.

The end result of that whole tête-à-tête should be to convince you of the value of humility when prescribing language suggestions to others. Which humility, to finally get to the point, is the best part of Roy’s recent writing on language. Writing Tools is — and I imagine The Glamor of Grammar will be — the perfect antidote to the Lynne Trusses of the world. Roy writes about the possibilities of language, not problems of usage, and it’s refreshing and eminently useful.

Assembled at Poynter, as so often happens, is a sizable group of journalism stars, in this case TV reporters with a reputation as being great storytellers. Amongst the group is one of whom my pal said, “You couldn’t help but hate him. He’s younger than you and better looking, he’s a better reporter than you, and he’s a hell of a nice guy.”

He presents his stuff. His peers applaud, but have no questions; they’re just overwhelmed by what he’s shown them. Into the question-free breach steps RPC, adopting the slightly tweedy professorial persona some of you may recognize.

“Well, so Mr. X, there really are only four or five basic stories, don’t you agree, and all we do is tell them to one another over and over in different ways?”

Several seconds of silence. Then the star looks up mischievously and replies, “Oh, that’s deep man. Let’s go out and smoke some dope by the truck.”

Dozens of TV reporters, nearly all of whom had likely visited the control truck with their cameraman, exploded in laughter.

I mean, those guys are probably right. But you’d never want to pull up alongside somebody on I-95, roll down your window, and say “Strunk & White clearly told you, do not take the Interstate; Route 1 is the only way to reach Princeton.” That makes you a jackass.

Style guides, whether Chicago or MLA or APA or AP or whatever, are directions for local traffic. They say here, at this intersection, don’t turn right on red. Does that mean you can never turn right on a red light? Of course not, or Woody Allen’s jokes about LA in Annie Hall would be terrible.

I have to admit, I have. There’s a fair introduction at the Chronicle of Higher Education, http://liten.be//at5ii and a growing field of criticism abroad online.

P.S. I know a great Roy Peter Clark story, too, but it’s too long for this post.