I just received in the mail this illustrated edition of The Elements of Style, William Strunk, Jr., and E. B. White, with illustrations by Maira Kalman and a foreword by Roger Angell, White’s stepson.

Angell calls it “this quiet book,” but notes that it “has been in print for forty years, and has offered more than ten million writers a helping hand.” The little volume provided “a compendium of specific tips” and “larger principles . . . to be kept in plain sight,” and “They help — they really do. They work. They are the way.”

One reason stems from the easy and straightforward style of the prose, along with the relaxed approach to stylistic matters. Here is a sample:

“Who can confidently say what ignites a certain combination of words, causing them to explode in the mind? Who knows why certain notes in music are capable of stirring the listener deeply, though the same notes slightly rearranged are impotent? These are high mysteries, and this chapter is a mystery story, thinly disguised. There is no satisfactory explanation of style, no infallible guide to good writing, no assurance that a person who thinks clearly will be able to write clearly, no key that unlocks the door. . . . Since the book is a rule book, these cautionary remarks, these subtly dangerous hints, are presented in the form of rules, but they are, in essence, mere gentle reminders.”

Now, compare that manner to this one from The Chronicle a few weeks back:

“April 16 is the 50th anniversary of the publication of a little book that is loved and admired throughout American academe. Celebrations, readings, and toasts are being held, and a commemorative edition has been released.

“I won’t be celebrating.

“The Elements of Style does not deserve the enormous esteem in which it is held by American college graduates. Its advice ranges from limp platitudes to inconsistent nonsense. Its enormous influence has not improved American students’ grasp of English grammar; it has significantly degraded it.”

It comes from “50 Years of Stupid Grammar Advice,” by Geoffrey K. Pullum. The Chronicle published a follow-up of letters received in reply, with an answer by Pullum. Both article and reply are humorless statements, the voice of a linguist altogether annoyed by the popularity of Elements. At The Weekly Standard, Andrew Ferguson reviews Pullum’s piece and judges it a “bilious essay” packed with “hostility.” In the reply Pullum objects to the “irrelevant personal insults” and the “ethnic slurs” correspondents fling at him, but one who accuses the authors first of being “grammatical incompetents” who peddle “advice rang[ing] from limp platitudes to inconsistent nonsense” should expect heated rejoinders and acquire a thicker skin.

I’m not equipped to judge the technical value of Elements of Style, though I do find that the stylistic advice in the book serves undergraduates well. In any case, though, we should wonder why linguists react so angrily to positions that smack of prescriptivism. Why are they so quick to respond to people who insist on right and wrong usages? And not just respond, but rebuke, chasten, renounce.

Here is Ferguson’s explanation:

“It’s etiquette, and etiquette, properly understood, is a branch of morality. Pullum and many of his fellow critics suffer from a double bind common to a relativistic age. They refuse to tolerate a person who they think might be intolerant; it is their judgment that judgmentalism should be condemned. But in their unbudgeable disdain for other people’s certainty, they’re just as bossy as they believe Strunk and White to be.”

For a powerful statement from the other side, here is a new edition of Forum, a publication of the Association of Literary Scholars and Critics, entitled “The Latest Illiteracy,” with essays by Jim McCue and Bryan A. Garner, with a preface by Christopher Ricks.