Customer Reviews

The Writer's Art

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Since I was a child, reading has always a favorite passtime, but writing always a chore.Through high school, college and law school, I wrote often, but only when I was required to do it. And I learned nothing about the joy of writing, and the enormous satisfaction writing can bring.

I bought my first copy of Jack Kilpatrick's "The Writer's Art" out of desperation. I knew I didn't write well, but I didn't know why. And then I read about the writer's "ear" for words and usage, read the humor of the Master Wordsmith, and learned the simple rules that someone should have (and probably did) explain years ago.

Jack Kilpatrick brings the English language to life, gives it motion and beauty in a way that no other writer has for me. "The Writer's Art" teaches rather than preaches. It tells you the whys and wherefores of "why" and "wherefore". It demonstrates, in terms anyone can understand, the powerful tools our language provides us. It shows the force of logic, and the weakness of confusion. It provides anyone who must write anything more complicated than a bank check a long string of lessons which can be used in everyday life.

All of us are judged by how well we speak and write. Get this book and read it. Set it aside for two months then read it again. You will think better of yourself, and others will think better of you.

It would be a shame if only writers read this one.

This is a book about the English language and what has happened and is happening to it. Kilpatrick writes that his purpose is to " venture a few suggestions, based on a lifetime as a writer, on how good writers can get to be better writers." He certainly does that,and in doing so, has put together one of the most entertaining as well as useful books extant on our language.

According to Kilpatrick, people care passionately about their language. (At least they used to.) He discusses some pet peeves: reundancies like "true facts," "free gift," rain shower,"free verse." "Free verse is to prosody as drip-and-dribble is to painting," he says.

He points out that all off us speak a variety of sub-languages. Kilpatrick claims to "speak a little Printing, fluent "Government," and pretty fair "Law." His wife, he says, speaks "Art. Whenever she reads of a 'light shade' or a 'dark tint,' she climbs a wall."

William F. Buckley, Jr. begins the book with a typically scintillating forward.

This book is full of tips for writers. Its information on the English language and Kilpatrick's poetic and witty style make it a delight for everyone.

In his introduction to The Writer's Art, James J. Kilpatrick states "My purpose in this book is primarily to venture a few suggestions, based upon a lifetime as a writer, on how good writers can bet to be better writers." To that end, Mr. Kilpatrick applies knowledge, wit, and wisdom in distinguishing levels of writing and offers advice and examples that will help any serious writer hone his or her skills.

He supports the idea that "English composition does indeed have standards of excellence and levels of quality." It's hard not to despair, however, the current state of the language: language arts teachers rarely include writing as part of the curriculum; rap and hip-hop "artists" make butchering the language a sport; officials crank out numbing reports full o jargon and passive voice construction; few politicians have the backbone to decree English our official language much less communicate precisely.

Still, those who wish to write well should have this book close at hand. Mr. Kilpatrick spends equal effort telling us what we ought not to do and what we ought to be doing to improve our writing. The breadth of examples he cites to make his points should cause most readers to wince at some point. Yet I find this book inspiring and even uplifting.

It's true some sections are dated now. The chapter called "The Tools We Live By" mentions a number of books and references that have since been updated or sadly gone out of print. Yet, these are still relevant, useful texts.

After a whimsical explanation as to why he titled the seventh chapter "My Crochets and Your Crochets," Mr. Kilpatrick covers a myriad of usage issues: the distinction between such pairs as appraise and apprise, blatant and flagrant, and prescribe and proscribe; the use and misuse of words such as impact, only, and verdict; and the proper usage of words such as hopefully and impact.

The time spent with The Writer's Art, whether perusing for favorite topics or pursuing his broader themes, is time well spent.

The Writer's Art by James J. Kilpatrick came out in 1984, the year I began my free lance writing career. I read the book that year and again several times since. I just bought another copy for my niece, a budding (and gifted) writer. Kilpatrick made his way as a political commentator, and while I don't know that I always agreed with or even understood his observations on politics, I have never found fault with his observations on writing. The Writer's Art is clear, concise, and a ton of fun to read. (My favorite chapter: My Crotchets and Your Crotchets, where he examines his pet peeves.) Adhere to the rules Kilpatrick puts forth and you'll exorcise ninety percent of the troubles plaguing most writers.

Isn't English "wonderfully confusing"?

Almost Carlinesk (George Carlin) in his whit. Kilpatrick, though sounding like a stern father, is also able to artfully interject humor amongst his lessons on becoming better writers. There is also a wonderful forward by William F. Buckley.

He sounds a familiar tone, to "read insatiably and to write incessantly". And maybe a little discouraging, but "most of us write on sand, but let us write clearly on sand". We should sympathize for the reader, "you know the trail, he has never been down it before". We sometimes forget to keep our writing simple, short and to the point. Kilpatrick thinks that writing is becoming a lost art (and this book was written in 1984); partly to blame are the schools, computers, and tv. Is it getting worse?

Interwoven throughout are examples of authors with beautiful skill of composition. As Kilpatrick shows us, the same authors can also make horrific mistakes. In addition, is a list of reference books on words and usage that have been helpful to him. The lengthy but entertaining alphabetized final chapter deals with word and phrase usage. Another excellent book with similar themes of rules to live by (write by) is "Elements of Style".

As I discovered in "Reading like a writer": we miss so much if we don't learn to slow down and read each word; its like listening for each instrument in a complex song instead of just hearing a conglomeration of noise.

It is all too evident I need to make use of this book.

Wish you well

Scott

As entertaining as it is informative. Writing is personal, so there is some opinion-based content, but it is all right on the money! I gave this to my son, who is an aspiring writer, and he treasures it! So much to think about here; you'll be rereading it for years to come!

I am sorry to see no indication that this book has been updated. I used to like it a lot, but I've just pulled it out of storage & reread it, and I can't say I'd recommend it now.

For instance, he rants against things that just sound dumb now.

Starting with political correctness: no, "bastard" does NOT mean the same thing as "child born out of wedlock". I can sympathize with the desire to keep to the minimum number of syllables, but, quite frankly, nobody who cares passionately about our language should be so tone-deaf as to fail to 'hear' the difference between these two terms. You may disagree politically - maybe you think things were better back in the days when illegitimate kids were called bastards. Whether this is good or bad, morally speaking, life IS better for these children now that we just call them "children", modified when necessary.

Or how about when this fellow predicts that military "wives" will be mortally offended at being called "spouses". The military has long gone to using "spouse" instead of "wife". I have known many military spouses - I've been one - and, while I've never known a woman who minds being called a "spouse", I have met men who really dislike being called a "Navy wife".

So is it just political correctness that I object to? I think not; this fellow doesn't want language to change. While I agree that most of the misuse he describes is "bad", I don't think that all changes to the language are "bad" just because they're changes, or even just because they have more syllables. He doesn't take into account things like, does the new phrase serve a purpose? Is it more specific? Is it somehow separate from the thing it leaves behind?

I am tempted, on the face of it, to agree that it is wrong to "collateralize" instead of merely "securing" a loan, but - as I stop to think about it - it strikes me that the word "secure" really isn't very precise or specific, while "collateralize" is. I could see where "secure" could - and probably did - lead to misunderstandings. (A loan to Bill Gates might be viewed as "secure" even if it is "uncollateralized", for instance.)

I am also amazed that any writer - one who by definition should be attuned to language and its nuances and its meanings and its ramifications - could be so outraged that: "Lawyers objected [to newer, simpler language, on the grounds] that old terms of contract law had been judicially construed so as to fix their meaning; they wanted no truck with newfangled clarity". Is this guy really suggesting that it is worth the cost and trouble to change long-established legal phrases into "plain English"? For whose benefit? Yes, it really would involve re-defining everything all over again, and it would cost a lot of money. Is this really a priority?

And there's another objection: when "plain English" is employed in legalese, the results are often disastrous. How many juries have wished they had a more precise guide than "beyond a reasonable doubt"? What does "reasonable" mean? And then there's the "separate evolution" problem, most notable in - of all things - the evolution debate: the word "theory" once had only one meaning, but it has evolved into two different words - with two different meanings: when proponents of "Intelligent Design" say "it's ONLY a THEORY", they are misunderstanding the scientific meaning of the word "theory".

This fellow has lots of opinions, & no doubt all of them were very contemporary, fresh, & controversial two decades ago. Now, the best has been absorbed in new how-to-write books. I'd suggest getting one of those instead of this one. This book is just too old.

I purchased the book "The Writer's Art" by James Kirkpatrick on the day of his death. I was to receive a "used - very good" condition copy of the book for $39.34 from quality 7. The book never arrived by the due date, and when I contacted the seller they said they would give me a full refund as the book was apparently (though "unlikely") lost by USPS. The seller has a copy "used - good condition", but lists it for $162.84. My guess is that when they realized the book might ultimately be collectable they never sent my copy and upped the price.