White purports to be talking about “style” but is really advocating a particular style. It is a style of absence: absence of grammatical mistakes, breeziness, opinions, jargon, clichés, mixed metaphors, wordiness and, indeed, anything that could cloud the transparency of the prose and remind readers that a real person composed it. [Ben Yagoda]
[...]
If “Strunk and White” were a movie, it would be a blockbuster, but I find its hallowed status disturbing. White seemed to share this concern and later wrote, “I felt uneasy at posing as an expert on rhetoric, when the truth is I write by ear, always with difficulty and seldom with any exact notion of what is taking place under the hood.” In an apparent attempt to temper Strunk’s commanding book sections, White’s introduction spends a lot of ink providing anecdotes that humanize Strunk, yet undermine his credibility. [Mignon Fogarty]
I find it odd that the small book, which has been roundly criticized by linguists and English professors, is even highlighted on its 50th birthday. It's really off putting, if you ask me.
I think, too, as most of these links have acknowledged, there are some good points in the book (such as, "don't be wordy!") that new writers could take some lessons from. However, as I feel a little guilty ending my last sentence with a preposition, I realize that people just took every piece as the gospel truth. It was black or white. Right or wrong. I remember my daughter's law professor (not Obama!) taking points off on a paper because she wrote "Charles' case" and not "Charles's case."
I do think White tended to realize that it wasn't his way or the highway (particularly since he didn't follow his own rules in his wrting), and he tried to relay that. It was Strunk who etched it in stone.
