Customer Reviews

Literally, the Best Language Book Ever: Annoying Words and Abused Phrases You Should Never Use Again

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

Wow, was I surprised to see that my report will be in the minority here. I thought more people would leave this book with the same impression I did. I was hanging around at a Barnes and Noble and picked this book up. I enjoyed the first two entries I read, so bought the book for reading in my...ahem, boudoir -- I enjoy books with short sections that can occupy my brief time therein.

The author promises to point out trite and hackneyed abuses of the language, but what I found was a simpleton's guide to expressions that had grown old and repetitive to him. Why would I call the author a simpleton? Because he is just plain wrong on over half of the expressions that he criticizes. He makes fun of some items correctly, such as abuses of "literally" and "unique", or some overworked catchphrases like "Where's the beef?", but then loses it.

Many of the expressions he abhors are actually rich in history, and represent an admirable nod to tradition, human experience, etymology, and different eras. For example, he hates, "Don't count your chickens before they hatch." and says it's silly for modern, urbanized people to be talking about chickens. Really? The "chickens" are from Aesop's Fable 'The Milk Maid' and date back to 600 BC. An old reference, for sure, but I think the expression has proven itself to have some staying power. For this writer to come along and say we should abandon classic references to such seminal works as Aesop's Fables, just because he's bored of hearing it, is just him griping - and demonstrating an ignorance of literature, history, and etymology. How can one write a book on language with that handicap?

Many others of his gripes fall into the "you don't own chickens, so find a better way to express yourself" formula. His is a sad, robotic interpretation of language. Do we really have to own chickens to talk about them, or would the world be more colorful if we allow (or rather encourage) people to talk with allegory, metaphor, and parable?

He lambastes several business expressions, and is right about a few of them. But most of them have very specific meanings, and the words were invented for a reason - to fill a hole that language didn't cover. A lot of words that he would banish are actually very useful so long as they are used correctly. "Downsized" and "Synergy" are two business words the author hates, but I'll stand to defend. When a person loses a job because a company "downsized" what it means is, yes they were fired, but through no fault of their own. That is a very different meaning than "fired" which the author says is more to the point. "Synergies", meanwhile, is certainly used too often, but nevertheless does fit on occasion: getting your chocolate in my peanut butter comes to mind. I don't agree with the author that we should banish the words.

Other expressions he dislikes are actually very useful shorthand that people can use to effectively communicate with one another. Is the expression "it'll be like finding a needle in a haystack" really so terrible, or is it actually more colorful and quicker to the point than saying "it will be extremely hard to find, because we are looking for something very small in a very big area of possible locations"? The author says the latter is preferable, because it uses plain English instead of a tired, overworked idiom. I say the former is better because it is 'language shorthand'.

Basically, the book was probably based on a few good entries, then the author had to fill up another hundred pages, and just grabbed whatever expressions he could think of, and criticized them. It looks to me like good expressions are thrown in with bad. Just to annoy the author, let me say that he has "thrown the baby out with the bathwater".

I bought this book after hearing the author go off on a funny rant about the word "issue" during a radio interview. When exactly DID "issue" stop meaning "topic" and become yet another synonym for "problem"? It was this Andy-Rooney-with-a-sense-of-humor approach to language that sold me on "Literally, the Best Language Book Ever: Annoying Words and Abused Phrases You Should Never Use Again."

The book covers hundreds of communication missteps, but deals with each one in an easily digested 1-3 paragraphs. The tone is lighthearted, but the importance of clear communication is never trivialized. It's probably the easiest and most enjoyable book about language that I've read.

When I first saw the book advertised, I made a list of the phrases and comments I thought would be covered. While not a comprehensive listing, the author really hit a home run with the breadth of comments. Some of the offending statement do make commentary more colorful but typically, they add words without understanding whether their usage is really critical to the meaning. In a way, this is using the extreme form of euphemisms and, by virtue of doing so, obscuring the meaning of the statement being made. The book does not seem intended to be deeply thought provoking and, while I did not agree with everything, I did find myself strongly agreeing with quite a few of his observations. It can be read quickly in one sitting or can be used to provide shorter, entertaining breaks in your day.

Many of these phrases are just an example of our need to be constantly talking -- constantly making noise in an attempt to turn the right phrase to make us appear glib and entertaining. I enjoyed the author taking apart language as it is commonly used. Was that literally or figuratively taking apart? Read it and decide which is correct.

While I abhor the misuse of apostrophes as much as the next guy, I don't bear the same indignation over the vernacular use of language, as Yeager does. Casual use of English doesn't always imply the speaker is an uneducated low-brow, as the tone of his book would lead you to believe.

Sure, there are some egregious examples -- using "should of" in place of "should have", for instance, makes me wince -- but many of his peeves are simply common, idiosyncratic usages that aren't all that offensive.

So I wouldn't recommend this book as a "how-not-to" reference for writing, because I think many of its examples are far too restrictive and petty. But it might come in handy as a way to prevent yourself from slipping into habitual, sloppy writing or speaking.

This book is horrible. Yeager offers virtually no reasoning behind his many prohibitions; merely telling the reader to avoid something because it's "not a word," or because it annoys him. He also lives in a ridiculously prescriptivist fantasy world, in which a modern English-speaking human being uses "okay" "only in the most informal of settings." The combination of lack of explanation with an ignorance of modern linguistic reality makes Yeager come off as the most unlikable of cranks, a know-it-all who's perpetually wrong. This is going in the garbage.

I had hoped this writer would approach the topic with some humor...alas, not one smile evident. Instead, he seems permanently annoyed. And he delivers his boring lecture from a podium high up in the sky where he can look down on the mere peons who ignorantly abuse his language. I bought it as a gift for a writer friend, but changed my mind after skimming through it.

You'll find some interesting and valid grammar points here, but you'll also find a guy whose fanatical insistence on correctness leaves no room for the delights of colloquial speech. Seriously, preferring the correct-but-weird-sounding "it's I" to the easy naturalness of "It's me" marks the author as a person for whom being right is preferable to being understood.

Again, my review is going to join the minority. I bought this before I read the reviews (mistake!), and the one from D. Kerton is right on the mark of how this book is.

The author seems to have written this book more on phrases that he dislikes, and then proceeds to explain the minute detail that is incorrect in the phrase. He has an extreme dislike for business terms, which, sure, are often made up, but they work for what is trying to be expressed.

This book looked promising, but every time I sit and read some of it, I get progressively more annoyed. I think at one point, I saw a phrase and actually said "Are you kidding me?"

This isn't the typical grammar or language book, which is probably one of the nicest things about it. I liked that instead of dealing with the same grammar errors that every other book deals with (although he does have several chapters on straight grammar errors), the author shines a light on expressions that most of us use every day without thinking.

Some of the entries are the writer's opinion, but so are a lot of the so-called grammar "errors" that I've seen in other books, and some of the entries ARE strict grammar errors that people who really know grammar would agree on. I'm surprised to see some reviewers pick on individual entries from the book; with over 350 entries, who's going to agree with ALL of them! Come on people! The author has a good sense of humor and uses it to get his points across. At least he did for me.

Just read it and enjoy it. It's a funny book. As the author says, he's not trying to be a language dictator; he's just trying to get people to think before speaking.

I love language and hate to hear college educated people say something such as "Where is John at" so this book confirmed some things for me and taught me other things.