Customer Reviews

Ambrose Bierce's Write It Right: The Celebrated Cynic's Language Peeves Deciphered, Appraised, and Annotated for 21st-Century Readers

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

After having read this over a few months I believe I have formulated a just opinion. It is very unfortunate that Bierce's original "A Little Blacklist of Literary Faults" is not longer than it is. Surely it's among the wittiest books on grammar available today. It is a delectable little book, somewhat amateurish compared to scholarly and esoteric "Dictionary of Modern English Usage" by Fowler but also a very short read. After having skimmed its contents, there feels like nothing to be savoured afterward. Most of Bierce's objections are justifiable and carries on to the 21st century. Some are profound, some are trivial. Others are tired and ancient (the split-infinitive). Some errors that were apparently common in his time are not heard of any more. He never misses a chance to show off his knowledge of Latin. Sometimes we are informed more than what the objection is as to why.

Under almost every entry language expert Jan Freeman has something to say, sometimes because it warrants commentary, but more often seemingly just to say Bierce is wrong. This is because very clearly Bierce is a prescriptive grammarian, and Freeman a descriptive one. To Bierce language has an immutable ruleset; anything that does not adhere to those rules is wrong even if it has been used for hundreds of years. Freeman's take is that if a solecism has been used for that long, it's not a solecism. This clash of opinions is basically the whole book. In her commentary, Freeman cites dozens of historical works to support her claim (again mostly that Bierce is wrong) but nothing more than the method of citing precedent. Sometimes we agree with Freeman, sometimes with Bierce. One of them is the entry for sideburns, which Bierce says is an erroneous transposition of the name Burnsides - a false etymology. It seems as well to me to bicker over the origin of the word Indians used to refer to American aboriginees. I don't think it is worthwhile to fight over who's right and who's wrong, which essentially reflects the opinions of the grammarian. But I don't think it is to say Freeman must be right because she is an expert on the language and Bierce is mostly a self-taught man. Both present convincing arguments. But I got the feeling that Freeman was contradicting Bierce to avenge the common man whom Bierce had lampooned in his book "The Devil's Dictionary" and to a lesser extent this one, not because Bierce was actually wrong, though sometimes it seems he was.

I had read Bierce's original first on Project Gutenberg but this edition with Freeman's annotations certainly enhanced my impression on Bierce whom I supposed infallible. It is in the preface where he professes to be far from impeccability but it is Freeman's voice that affirms this. But then I'm sorry to say her insight is not that much profound as I thought it would be. Sure according to some obscure author you've never heard of so-and-so has been used in a way contrary to Bierce's instruction since the 13th century. Anyone care? This book would be much too short to be worth publishing without Freeman's input but I think she could've done better.

Decades ago, in a dusty used book store, I came across a real find. It was a little book by a writer I admired, Ambrose Bierce, who will forever be known as the author of the brilliant _The Devil's Dictionary_. It was a little book I didn't know existed. Bierce had written it 1909, _Write It Right_, his guide to avoiding the slang, vulgarities, and unhappy idioms he was horrified to see creeping into the English language (or even claiming long-term residence). He obviously loved English and could wield it with vigor. His book of guidance in language use was sharp and cranky and fun to read. It was more idiosyncratic and less universal than Strunk and White's _Elements of Style_. It was dated, but of course even White had to update Strunk. It was a bunch of decrees from a man who might be a cynic but who wasn't cynical enough to think language use could never be improved. Now Bierce is back, in an edition with commentary and notes. _Ambrose Bierce's Write It Right: The Celebrated Cynic's Language Peeves Deciphered, Appraised, and Annotated for 21st-Century Readers_ (Walker) has all of Bierce's short, pithy commandments, but is mostly commentary on each one by Jan Freeman. Freeman writes a weekly language column; she is one of the language mavens readers call upon to guide them through the complexities of speaking and writing properly. She doesn't have the biting wit of Bierce, but she has a good sense of humor, and an obvious affection for Bierce's indignation. This does not, however, keep her from pointing out when Bierce's advice is outdated; of course, Bierce could do nothing about inevitable changes in the language. She also does not refrain from pointing out when Bierce is dead wrong, which is distressingly often, though it must be said that Freeman has research tools, like the _Oxford English Dictionary_ to which she frequently refers, that Bierce would not have had at hand.

It is, in fact, seldom that Freeman can wholeheartedly accept a Bierce pronouncement. When he says, "Authoress. A needless word - as needless as `poetess,'" Freeman can answer "Indeed." But she often has to make corrections. Bierce wanted writing to have clarity. Unfortunately, he often wanted it at the expense of acceptance of the breadth of meaning a word could take. Wheeler points out this tendency toward literalism over and over again. Bierce writes of the mistake "Dilapidated for Ruined. Said of a building or other structure. But the word is from the Latin lapis, a stone, and cannot properly be used of any but a stone structure." Wheeler shows that not even the Romans had used the term literally, and (using the historic research tools she frequently cites) that "dilapidate" was used in the sense of "fritter away funds" even in the 15th century. She says, "Bierce enjoyed the role of etymological fundamentalist, but he was virtually alone in suggesting that wood and brick buildings could not be `dilapidated.'" Many of Bierce's other cautions are obsolete or irrelevant. American English has often found useful the changes Bierce decried. The use of "reliable" for "trustworthy" he said was "not yet admitted to the vocabulary of the fastidious," but it is certainly there now. He wanted people to continue to say "trousers," not "pants," of which he writes, "Abbreviated from pantaloons, which are no longer worn. Vulgar exceedingly." He wanted people to say "Joe was graduated from college," not "Joe graduated from college," a form that was creeping into use in Bierce's time and has become standard, even though Freeman points out that "... the Biercean orthodoxy was stoutly defended into the 1980s. And then, of course, along came `Joe graduated college' to scandalize traditionalists. The goalposts have moved, but the contest goes on."

This is an important point. None of us uses English perfectly, but some of us fret over usage more than others, and some of us fret over the usage of others more than our own. Freeman invites us to ask, looking at what are now Bierce's irrelevancies and superannuated bits of advice, whether we ought to be so vexed at the next misplaced apostrophe we see. "Would a little more historical knowledge help us keep our cool in the face of language change?" I don't think so; it is fun to spot others using the language in ways we don't think proper, and certainly Bierce had fun railing against usage mistakes, even when his barbs were misdirected. This edition is less a book of language advice than a partial portrait of a man who loved good language use. It is interesting, for instance, to read that Bierce, a proud Union veteran, wanted to make sure we did not use "jackies" for "sailors": "Vulgar, and especially offensive to seaman." It is fun to read him fulminating against commercial encroachments which he especially hated, like "casket" for "coffin": "A needless euphemism affected by undertakers." And sometimes, he is simply, practically right. He says not to use "partially" for "partly", as it is "A dictionary word, to swell the book." Wheeler corrects that "partially" was not dictionary padding since it had been in use since 1475, and that the words are interchangeable. They may be, but if they are interchangeable, there is nothing wrong with preferring the shorter one just as Bierce did.

As someone who enjoys reading books on language usage and word origins, I found this book quite interesting, a quick read. Ambrose Bierce's "Write It Right" was originally published in 1909 as a reference for proper (correct) language usage. Approximately 300 entries were arranged alphabetically. Today, many of the forms Bierce insisted were incorrect are, in fact, in common usage.

Many of his entries are especially interesting, I think, simply because of his attempts to 'split hairs.' For example, "I am afraid it will rain" is incorrect, according to Bierce. You should instead say "I fear it will rain." Another entry goes into the difference between "generally" and "usually." He also thought the word "pants" (when used instead of "trousers") was vulgar. And he disapproved of using the words "forecasted" and "fix" among others.

For this new edition of Bierce's book, Jan Freeman has annotated each entry to give more context to the original explanations of the language usage, showing quite often that Bierce was not the expert he claimed to be. For instance, Bierce complained in some of his entries of how America was corrupting the language, when the usage could be found in Samuel Johnson's Dictionary (published 1700s), or even earlier. And he blamed "the weather bureau" for "forecasted," when in fact, it had been used since the 16th century.

I thought Bierce's "Devil's Dictionary" was wonderful satire, but here he comes off as picky and condescending. (According to another Bierce rule of language, I just misused the word "but" in the sentence above.) Familiarity with Bierce's name is what caught my attention, but Freeman's annotation is what kept me interested in reading. "Write It Right" was first published 100 years ago, and a lot (or maybe not so much, after all) has changed since then.

Ambrose Bierce's Write it Right: The Celebrated Cynic's Language Peeves Deciphered, Appraised, and Annotated for 21st-Century Readers is a fun 'must' for any general or language collection: it offers fun observations about applications of nouns, verbs and more, and is a fine, revealing dictionary of insights perfect for any general or literary collection!

Here the author, Jan Freeman, takes Ambrose Bierce's century ago advice on the English language usage to task, word by word. And always wins.

If you are reading to obtain clear knowledge of correct current usage, there are many better books readily available. I think this book will confuse many with a number of language disputes that have long been settled.

If you will be reading for entertainment, I suggest you read books by Ambrose Bierce rather than Jan Freeman: Bierce clearly wrote in a more interesting and vibrant way.

Ms. Freeman's relentless and deadening way of going back in time for evidence by respected authors to show that Bierce was almost always wrong eventually became annoying to me. Bierce is dead and cannot defend himself. I think his long ago attempt to improve the language was noble, even if sometimes, if not often, he was wrong in his strongly held and colorful opinions.

Finally, Ms. Freeman does not care about keeping the word "unique" pure and unmodified. Why have any standards?

This is a great book for people who share Bierce's fanaticism for precision in writing. Casual fans of the writing art may find this too picky to matter.

How did I get by so long without the opinionated offerings of this brilliant writer? This stays in the library as any good reference book should.