Pullum makes some good points -- his objection to the irrelevant distinction between 'that' and 'which' is apt -- but I believe that his starkly opinionated denunciation reeks of silly academic spleen and ultimately mischaracterizes this concise, helpful, and even beautiful little book.

First, although Pullum inveighs against Strunk and White, he tends to direct his barbs not toward the book itself, but toward writing teachers. For example:

"Sadly, writing tutors tend to ignore this moderation, and simply red-circle everything that looks like a passive...."

This mode of criticism is rather like blaming the Bible for the sins of the Inquisition -- you can do it, but your criticism falters right away by missing the true target.

Where Pullum does criticize the book itself, he accuses it of harboring a fussy and decontextualized view of language. Unfortunately, this very criticism can be directed back at Pullum. For example, when he criticizes the absence of a passive verb in this sentence:

"There were a great number of dead leaves lying on the ground",

Pullum ignores Strunk and White's elegant and concise rephrase:

"Dead leaves covered the ground."

Here, "covered", an active, transitive verb taking the direct object "ground", conveys vividly what the verbose and pale construction "were lying", coupled with the prepositional phrase "on the ground", does not. Pullum's fussiness about the meaning of the word "passive" obscures S&W's point: vividness and brevity come together nicely in the active construction.

Pullum falls into an abyss of self-contradiction when he concludes Strunk and White do not understand grammar:

"But despite the "Style" in the title, much in the book relates to grammar, and the advice on that topic does real damage. It is atrocious. Since today it provides just about all of the grammar instruction most Americans ever get, that is something of a tragedy."

Once again Pullum faults The Elements for the sins of its followers, not for its own qualities. But what is most important here is that Pullum first argues (implausibly) that The Elements is a grammar book, and then (incomprehensibly) accuses S&W of having written about grammar when they should have confined themselves to writing about style!

Finally, Pullum uncharitably criticizes The Elements as a "bunch of trivial don't-do-this prescriptions." He ignores the fact that S&W explicitly recommend that writers "Put statements in positive form" (section II.19), and follow through on this prescription themselves when they recommend such practices as: "Use definite, specific, concrete language," "Keep related words together," and "Omit needless words."

(Pullum criticizes this last recommendation on the ground that it unhelpfully fails to show which words are needless. Once again, Pullum fails to cite S&W's paragraph-long discussion of the matter or to recognize that they offer over a dozen illustrative examples.)

To be sure, the Elements is not a perfect book. For one thing, language is not a static object admitting of a timeless description. Furthermore, I would not argue that everyone should use The Elements as guiding light; "de gustibus non disputandum," as Cicero said, about tastes there can be no argument (meaning that tastes do not admit of rational arguments). So if you don't like the book, fine. Still, Pullum's blinkered mischaracterization of the book serves only to get him another publication in his CV, not to enlighten his readership. Although I may be blinkered myself by having grown to love this book in college, I wholeheartedly recommend it as one of the finest and most timeless style manuals available.