Customer Reviews

Working with Words: A Handbook for Media Writers and Editors

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

 

 

I first bought Working With Words in 1991 as a journalism student at University of Missouri, where the authors are profs. This book is as responsible for preparing me for my current job as section editor at a major metropolitan newspaper as was any class I ever took.

Executives, assistants, sales reps -- anyone who needs to write and speak like an intelligent human being -- should own this book.

The first thing I do when get a new copy editor is buy them a copy of Working with Words. Buy one yourself and you'll be amazed at how much you don't know.

BTN, Chicago Tribune, MU BJ '92

In many ways, "Working with Words" differs little from other grammar books. It accomplishes its task very well, though. A highlight of this book has to be its organization. The book is divided into 11 chapters and 4 appendixes. All the basics are covered: sentences, phrases and clauses; the parts of speech; punctuation, etc. Other sections cover tight writing, muddled language and "sexism, racism and other '-isms.'"

But the absolute best parts of this book are the lists and appendixes. "What to Tighten A-Z" offers a quick guide to getting rid of phrases that are wordy, redundant or cliche. "Confused words" helps you decide whether to use continual or continuous, fortuitous or fortunate among many others. Sections on common mistakes and frequently misspelled words also help you avoid errors. But my favorite section has to be the one called "One word, two words or hyphenated?" It is a fabulously quick and easy reference.

This is simply the best single text on writing. It is well written and clear. It covers all the aspects of mechanics that are necessary for good writing. It also gives the necessary teaching about proper grammar. There are many good (as well as confusing) books on the market about this topic, but, for me, this is the "writing bible." I have multiple copies of this book so I can loan them out from time to time, but I also have a personal copy at home as well as at work that no one gets to "touch" except me. I recommend this text to all my students.

I have a tore up version of this book from my college days! It's the 1993 version, but I use it frequently. This book is a great tool on grammar that explains things simplisticly. Whether you are looking for answers on where to put an apostrophe or whether a comma goes inside or outside of quotation marks, this book will tell you in simple terms. Love it!!

This book always with me in addition to my AP Stylebook. It's wonderfully helpful in all areas of writing, including glossaries of confused words, hyphenation as a spelling problem, and a glossary of common redundancies. They even have a section on American versus British spelling. I don't understand how someone couldn't find helpful information in this book, it tells you very plainly what is right and wrong. (I'm looking two examples in the book right now, one labeled RIGHT, one labeled WRONG) How anyone would be confused with the information is beyond me. This is a must have resource.

I'm a master's level journalism student who really needed to brush up on grammar and fine tune my writing skills. This book was a fantastic resource; I keep it at work at my desk for an occasional consult. It is easy to read, explanations are clear and concise, writing style is conversational without being patronizing, examples are spot on. If you diligently read and apply the principles you learn, you will see results. All is not lost. You will finally understand how to identify the damned comma splice. :)

It is a good book, but it wasn't what other reviewers had built it up to be. Some items in the text are rather simple. Yet it is a good book that I plan to use.

I haven't found a better one yet. Not that you'd want to curl up with it, or anything. The most useful part is the chapter on "-isms" by Jean Gaddy Wilson.

Imagine my suprise as a college journalism student to discover the racist term "spearchucker" was NOT considered OK for publication. Really? It said right there in the "S" section: "Do not use." And you know what? That stuck with me. I've written thousands of articles and have never used it once. But it ain't just racism that's covered. Get ready to learn how to control your inherent ageism, you durn kids. "Well-preserved," for instance, is an "offensive phrase applied to women and senior citizens; avoid." Also, "without rhythm," is a stereotype that implies whites can't dance, which angers me, a white man who can really cut a rug. On the other hand, "with rhythm" is also defined as an offensive stereotype for African-Americans, implying they are able to dance, and to dance well. This leaves me confused. Is it good or bad to have rhythm? Should we just avoid the whole topic of rhythm? I suppose so.

Other specified terms to avoid: buxom, foxy, fragile, full-figured, wetbacks, wench, white bread, wheat bread (just kidding, you can use wheat bread) trollop, tart, loose woman, hussy, wop, dago, working man, workmen's comp.

Yep, you read it right. A newspaper lede that reads, "ROME--The Wop president yesterday sacked four top cabinet officials as his government came under increasing attack for blah blah blah....." just doesn't cut it in the professional world of journalism.

Thanks to this fine book, there will no longer be any confusion about that.

(This text refers to the 1993 ed.)

Appears to be a good exercise book, but "big problem" you have no idea if you are right or wrong. No answer list is provided. buyer beware.