Well, sorry this is so late everyone, but here goes. Two for Strunk and White, two against? I think I can do that, let me go one and one.
One argument for Strunk is actually comes on page 23, something talked about in the introduction, and that's the elimnation of needless words. Makes a lot of sense to me. Adding more words just clutters up your sentances and can really confuse your readers. Shortening your sentances makes it simple and sweet, and easy to read.
Strunk and White tell us to refrain from using words. I don't think this is necessary, because using larger words increases our vocabulary. Why should we refrain from using larger words if we know how to use them? As long as it does not impede the writing process by having to look up the word, then I say go for it.
On page 28, Strunk and White tell us to keep related words together. I think this is an excellent idea, because then the message has a less likely chance of being mixed up. The examples for these are perfect. Two sentances both trying to convey the same thing. One sounds like George only paid two dollars to take us out to dinner, the other one saying it only costs us two dollars to call mother that George took us out to dinner. The second is much more on target (unless it really did cost only George two dollars).
On page 7, the rule they state is to not break sentances in two. While most of the time, this is a great idea, I don't think this should be a permanent rule. I like the idea of breaking the sentance to add effect.
I write a column online. To add a more dramatic effect to my point, sometimes I break my sentances. For instance, I wrote a column on change recently, and it went like this,
"Hell, change is not only necessary, but it's vital. I have one older brother who is 23, not too much older than me. His name is Chris. He still acts like he was 7. No joke. He still watches Saturday morning cartoons, still plays with action figures, still talks to himself and has a problem working with people. We have tried to get Chris to change, but he refuses to do so. Me and my younger brothers all agree that if he does not change, he will never move out of the house, never get a job, and never become a productive member of society. He will eventually drive my parents insane, and they will kick him out, and he will have no where to go. So he needs to change, or else. Same with the gas situation. Either a new fuel system is found, or our future generations are going to suffer a serious setback. Same with social security. That will need to be changed, otherwise, it might be us who are 75 and eating cat food, because it's the only thing we can afford."
To drive my point home, I broke the sentances, so I could expand off of them. Instead of saying, "Social Security and the gas situation need to be changed for these reasons," I broke them up so I could talk about the individualy.
