Oh, no he didn't!

Recently, a Chronicle of Higher Ed article by Geoffrey Pullum entitled "50 Years of Stupid Grammar Advice" spewed forth venom (thinly couched in academese) about Strunk and White'sThe Elements of Style. Among the author's issues is the volume's increasingly apparent lack of pedagogical application:

"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."

Much of Pullum's article is a sanely reasoned journey through the contradictions found in the text--in short, Strunk and White do not seem to practice what they preach, and several of their examples do not even fit with the rules they are attempting to discuss. Point taken. But there is a subtext to the piece that I, as someone gearing up to teach a course in advanced argumentation, find just plain sad--it is Pullum's insistence on tapdancing on Strunk and White's graves (metaphorically) through incessant name calling. In prefacing his "ad grammarian" attack (in which he dubs Strunk and White bossy and "idiosyncratic bumblers"), where he cites both Strunk and White as "grammatical incompetents," Pullum simply assures us that "The authors won't be hurt by these critical remarks. They are long dead." It's almost as though Pullum takes great delight in the fact that these men have long since been six feet under, because their inability to retaliate allows him carte blanche to say whatever without fear of refutation--his glee at having the last word just seems rather offputting. I mean, really--put yourself in Strunk and White's shoes. Or, better yet, I'll use myself as an example. Let's say I write some little tome that enjoys some popularity but has some real flaws. And let's say I kick off, and somewhere down the road, someone smarter than I am decides to write a scathing review and mentions that, hey, it's not like Pace can say anything--she's dead, you know--so, nyaaa nyaaa nyaaahhh! I believe that Aristotle would hang his head in shame at such a cheap shot.

Though, despite the name calling, I do find much of Pullum's perspective intriguing, I do take issue with one particular point he makes, and since he is not long dead, I will handle my response with more tact than he has shown. Pullum writes:

"Several generations of college students learned their grammar from the uninformed bossiness of Strunk and White, and the result is a nation of educated people who know they feel vaguely anxious and insecure whenever they write "however" or "than me" or "was" or "which," but can't tell you why. The land of the free in the grip of The Elements of Style."

I truly find this claim a bit optimistic, but perhaps I am simply hampered by geography. Dr. Pullum, can you point me to the location of this "nation of educated people" who feel twinges of insecurity over their choices of which/who/whom/than/however? Because, you see, I have taught introductory composition for around ten years, and I'm pretty sure these hordes of overconscientious would be grammarians do not live in my vicinity.