Usage evolves itself little disturbed by their likes & dislikes

There is a review by Warren Clements of a facsimile version H.W. Fowler's classic A Dictionary of Modern English Usage first published in 1926 in The Globe and Mail. Language enthusiasts can get kind of boring sometimes in their myopic enthusiasms but I have always enjoyed Fowler whether I agreed with him or not on particualr points. He has a distinctive voice and is clever in his comments in a way that is quite refreshing even though times and usages have moved on.

Crystal acknowledges the long polarization between descriptivists, who observe the way language usage is changing, and prescriptivists, who often lament those changes and insist on rules that buck current trends. Fowler was largely a prescriptivist. Crystal, like Burchfield, is more of a descriptivist, but where Burchfield was unkind to Fowler, Crystal is of two minds: "Although the book is full of his personal likes and dislikes, his prescriptivism - unlike that practised by many of his disciples - is usually intelligent and reasoned."

Fowler was aware of the tension. "What grammarians say should be," he writes, "has perhaps less influence on what shall be than even the more modest of them realize; usage evolves itself little disturbed by their likes & dislikes. And yet the temptation to show how better use might have been made of the material to hand is sometimes irresistible." Crystal comments: "I sense a linguist inside him crying to get out, but being held back by a prescriptive conscience."

Fowler has a large following and he is an instance of that circumstance that raises the question - why is a book popular and how can we tell that it will be popular? I did a study a while ago of the comparison of books that receive awards and their longevity in terms of remaining in print as well as compared to other books that did not receive awards. The conclusion was that our capacity to accurately predict the enduring popularity of a book is vestigial. Only one book out of six awarded a prestigious prize seventy-five years ago remained in print. At the same time, even with a very cursory search, I was able to identify more than a dozen books published the same year and which did not receive prizes but remain strong sellers today. What makes the difference? Charm of the author, distinctiveness of style, enduring relevance of issues/emotions, communicated passion or sincerity or motivation all might be candidates but none lend themselves to being measured and so far there is no good way to tell.