and helpful but sometimes he is overly witty in a way that makes his point vague Most of it is really good Safire covers fifty writing mistakes Most are familiar enough A few leap out as particularly goodOn whether to split an infinitive most of the debate is relaxed Doesn't matter much one way or another For Safire though it depends on what the writer wants the adverb to modify or emphasize To say or write suddenly to split the infinitive to split the infinitive suddenly to suddenly split the infinitive or to split suddenly the infinitive these all convey different shades of meaning Or
I suppose they do but it is certainly a worthwhile point to consider Safire tells us to get off our high horse when it comes to proper English We speak what he calls idiolect an almagam of standard English local pronunciation personal idiosyncrasies and downright dialect uniue to each person Here and there though Safire does seem to stray some by insisting on what he views as properEuphemisms used as an act of kindness are ok Euphemisms that are excessively prudent or that obfuscate or that engage in commercial deception are not Correct idioms are those that are so often used that it would be a mistake to correct them on the grounds of pure logic When someone asks how do you feel they want to know your state of being and not literally how one goes about feelingAs with most of these writing books each author has their ie hisher own preferences that don't really resonate well He wants him to mean humankind because he says that's what him originally meant so there's no need literally to pull female into the mix But today there's substantial baggage with identifying him with all of humankind and his explanation no longer works Safire also objects to starting a sentence with a conjunction because to conjoin means to connect two or words or thoughts or clauses in a single sentence This is a place where the writer might relax some as the two sentences can be connected with a conjunction to convey the close connection between the two As long as it's not overused it strikes me as a useful techniue to string sentence thoughts together To make a point about placing the pronoun close to the subject it references Safire makes a reference to Frank Gifford as the lonely end when it was Bill Carpenter from West Point and apparently the correct reference is the lonesome end At the end of the book Safire thanks the Gotcha Gang the Nitpickers' League and the Nitpicker's League I think the reference was to language purists not to those who correct mistakes of fact EducationalWell worth reading studying and rereading to get the full value and retention for everyday use of the important points How Not to Write is a wickedly witty book about grammar usage and style William Safire the author of the New York Times Magazine column On Language homes in on the essential misrules of grammar those mistakes that call attention to the major rules and regulations of writing He tells you the correct way to write and then tells you when it is all right to break the rules In this lighthearted guide he chooses the most common and perplexing concerns of writers new and old Each mini chapter starts by stating a misrule like Don't use Capital letters without good REASON Safire then follows up with solid and entertaining advice on language grammar and life He covers a vast territory from capitalization split infinitives it turns out you can split one if done meaningfully run on sentences and semi colons to contractions the double negative dangling participles and even onomatopoeia Originally published under the title Fumblerules I was kind of disappointed given the reverence with which I've always heard William Safire mentioned Sometimes it was funny sometimes it was affected I also felt like many parts would have been confusing for someone who didn't already know what he was talking about There was than one sexist remark in addition to his disapproval of non sexist language in general And the name dropping when he mentioned Nixon sounded really pretentious It was fine but overall I am underwhelmed Most of the rules in Safires Book are basic but they are also easy to read and entertaining Each chapter title is an example of the rule but broken For instance Chapteris titled “The passive voice should never be used” A couple of pages of enlightenment ensue along with usage where applicable Superb I am on the verge of editing a large book compiled from the writing of other people I've had no compunction about fumbling through my own knowledge of grammar concerning my work but feel a greater responsbility when handling the work of others I turned to the master for guidance and he did not disappoint Safire's particular skill is to explain things just enough for the reader to understand without belaboring any points unless he absolutely needs to He is clear as well on what is flexible and what is not No matter how many grammar books I read however I'll split infinitives all the live long day It just doesn't bother me A fun way to improve your writing and particularly your grammar It cleared up a ton of strange grammar uestions I didnt even know I had This book provides a uick read for those who want to refresh their memory on how to write properly by remaining mindful of the rules of grammar which instruct the reader what heshe should definitely NOT do A fine and stately sentence can easily be carved out if only we properly hew off all the confusing and ambiguous dross and of course those damned dangling participles An overall negative feel upon the reader can naturally result from this Safire wittily stridently tells his reader No No No Well maybe And some who pass through these fifty brief chapters on mostly what not to do may come away feeling stifled If you want a positive paean to beautiful and creative writing along with an assurance that you too will soon reside in the literary glow of sweetness and light by the end of this brief work you will be disappointed In fact Safire admits to periodically breaking many of the rules he recounts and espouses In honor of Safire's irreverence I have likewise indulged Safire is not a language dictator just its press agent Language however is a very benign dictator that truly adjusts to its subjects' needs and whims For this reason Safire is a fairly moderate grammarian and realist despite his reputation Now why should you spent an afternoon thumbing through a small book consisting of rules of grammar you should've learned in grade school and likely did Rules reuire constant attention not just for the sake of obedience or reform but also so they might be broken willfully purposefully and yes wittily What did I think of this book I think it to be entirely honest pretentious I'm not sure who died and made Mr William Safire King of Words but my suggestion is a dethroning To be fair this book would be extremely helpful if one were being forced to write formally It is useless for creative writing If imagination is sucked out of writing it is no longer really writing it is merely the alphabet rearranged Mr Safire's sense of humor is dry and snarky which I sometimes like but he knows it is which I never do Maybe I misinterpreted but it seemed to me that Mr Safire's ideal world is one void of uniueness split infinitives regional dialects archaisms and any kind of individual uirk It would behoove us I believe to write as ourselves and to not misrule uirks out The only way not to write is to never try Should you read this book aspiring writers My suggestion is to not to William Lewis Safire was an American author columnist journalist and presidential speechwriterHe was perhaps best known as a long time syndicated political columnist for the New York Times and a regular contributor to On Language in the New York Times Magazine a column on popular etymology new or unusual usages and other language related topics.