Personally I have not read it, but I was under the impression that it carried at least some popular appeal, or at least use to. I was thinking about acquiring it for a read to see what it had to offer, but after reading some reviews of it, it appears doing so would do my writing more harm than good. Least according to some, and some of which seem to know what they are talking about. Here is some of the criticism of it. In criticizing The Elements of Style, Geoffrey Pullum, professor of linguistics at Edinburgh University, and co-author of The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (2002), said that: "The book's toxic mix of purism, atavism, and personal eccentricity is not underpinned by a proper grounding in English grammar. It is often so misguided that the authors appear not to notice their own egregious flouting of its own rules . . . It's sad. 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. Specifically, Pullum said that the authors misunderstood what constitutes the passive voice, and criticized their proscription of established popular usages, such as the split infinitive and the use of which in a restrictive relative clause. He further criticized The Elements of Style in Language Log, a linguists' log about language usage in the popular media, for promoting linguistic prescriptivism and hypercorrection among Anglophones, and called it "the book that ate America's brain". The Boston Globe's review described The Elements of Style Illustrated (2005), by Maira Kalman, as an "aging zombie of a book . . . a hodgepodge, its now-antiquated pet peeves jostling for space with 1970s taboos and 1990s computer advice". And some more criticism - http://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/25497/ An excerpt from another goes on to agree. "Well, I know many of you love that book, but Pullum backs up every one of his criticisms, for example pointing out that Strunk and White's examples in the "Use Active Voice" section are strangely contrived, and the examples of passive voice sentences aren't actually passive voice sentences. It's hard to argue with that." "Even before Pullum's review I gave an interview to Time Out New York in which I noted that the most striking thing about The Elements of Style is that nobody seems to pay attention to the introduction in which White himself undermines much of the book's credibility, or at least takes great pains to point out that the book is not the inerrant grammar ruling of God that so many people seem to think it is." Now this was just some of the negative views expressed regarding this supposedly held in high regard book. I was slightly surprised that that's what came up when I first searched about it, especially since I was searching merely for the book and opinions on it. Even when searching for positive reviews, I got negative ones. With the exception of a blogger who thought highly of it, yet was less convincing in reasoning or showing evidence to back up his claims of excellence, but nonetheless he heaped his approval on. I am sure I could find some more positive ones if I continued but yet at least some of the criticism direct toward the book appears to be merited, self-evident and agreed upon according to some who know what they are talking about. Nevertheless, I am curious what people on this forum think of The Elements of Style, or know of it. If people here feel the same as those reviewers or differently. Does anyone here have opinions on it?