I’ve recently dipped my toes into the editorial world, and by that I mean taking a few classes and reading a bit more, not actually DOING anything in a professional sense, because somebody would have to be crazy enough to give me money for that.
So for Christmas I was given Woe is I, because it was on my wishlist, because I had heard, or thought I had heard, good things about it.
This book is an infuriating assortment of clap trap based on outdated materials and unbridled, misguided pretension. I was barely three pages in when I was lunging for the post-its so I could start noting all the places where I disagreed or was just plain irritated by the tenets set by the author.
So after slogging through the whole damn thing, and then reading some David Crystal to calm down, I’ve organized my thoughts. I went to my trusty Swan and a few other resources to get some answers from experts I trust.
The author is a snob
One of the things I love about English is the way that our word formation allows us to make up new words. How lovely! These building blocks of prefixes and suffixes that allow us to create and expand. So when I read that “just adding –ize to a word doesn’t give it life” (p. 62) my creative wordsmithing spirit was crushed.. “Don’t coin any new ones,” we’re told, “Don’t use any recent ones you don’t like. If we ignore them, maybe they’ll go away.” What gives? Are you trying to deny language change? Why?
Here’s another jem: “If you’re tempted to use [ain’t] to show that you have the common touch, make clear that you know better.”(p.74) Wow. You can call it a variety, or informal, or slang, but let’s stay away from making this about class, okay?
There’s also a few weird ones. Like how “long-lived” should be pronounced so that “lived” has the same long vowel as in “drive.” I have never heard anyone pronounce it this way. You know why? Because they would sound like a douche.
And please, don’t pick up some British English and say that it sounds better, like that “lend/lent” sounds “more polished”(p.103) than “loan/loaned” because that’s going back to this whole idea that British English is somehow more “correct” and I get enough of that hurtful stereotype from my students.
Also, on what basis were some idioms deemed overused and listed in a whole chapter devoted to telling us what not to say anymore? It seems so arbitrary.
Then there’s the strange anti-snob sentiment that clashes with the rest. Like how we’re advised against using the phrase “at this time” as it is “overstuffed.” (p. 124) Seriously? Jargon is also dismissed as “largely meaningless, pseudotechnical terms that are supposed to lend the speaker an aura of expertise.” And I know we’re all annoyed by business jargon, but really? This attack seems like it comes from a personal place. Or an ex-boyfriend.
The author is making sweeping statements that are incorrect
My very first post-it went next to the declaration that “which” never goes with a defining relative clause. (So apparently we can’t say “Goths don’t like cats which are white, because the shedding ruins their clothes.”). The author tut-tuts and says we should always use “that” instead of “which”. I will concede to the fact that editors simplify rules so as to have a uniform standard of usage. But you CAN use “which” for defining clauses. In fact most grammar guides will say that using “that” is more informal. Gosh, I hope using it doesn’t give my speech that “common touch.”
“Instead of using did in a question or a negative statement, [the British] prefer to use these forms: Used Andre to have a good job? Andre usedn’t to have a good job.” Where did you find this? This is an informal structure and largely considered antiquated. Please don’t make statements about British English vs American English without understanding that British English is just as varied and has just as many strange turns of phrase owing to regionalisms.
Here’s something strange: apparently “advertize” is British, even though I couldn’t find anything that supported that. And all guides which compare English spelling variations say that switching /s/ to /z/ is an American characteristic. So I’m just confused about that one, and I don’t have the time to read everything in the bibliography to find out what was being cited.
Also you’d be amazed what a simple google search can come up with these days. For example, there IS a general rule for knowing when to use –ible and –able suffixes. You are not “at the mercy of your dictionary.” (p. 116) Rejoice!
And while we’re on the subject of dictionaries, there are multiple entries under some words in the dictionary. This means that it’s another possible usage, though normally what’s listed first is considered the most common. And I’ve got a stack of dictionaries that say that “avoid” can mean “prevent,” (of course with some differences). It does not just mean to shun or turn away from. Also, “myriad” is also listed as a noun, which means that you CAN say “a myriad of,” even if the author doesn’t like it.
Again, I understand wanting to streamline things and have a style guide to create uniformity, but I don’t think we should deny that we CAN say certain things. We CAN use the perfect tenses after the word “after” as in “I set out the powdered donuts after the goths had arrived” because it helps emphasize the sequence of events. What is the past perfect is for, anyways, if not that?
Also, in regards to the author’s claim that the three-or-four-dot method is the only true way, there were other trends, and there will be more to come. For a book that is designed for both professionals and layfolk, I’m surprised the Chicago Manual of Style wasn’t listed in the bibliography.
The author is selective in accepting language change
I was actually surprised to find that the author supports the use of “hopefully” as a sentence adverb (“Hopefully, we won’t be late!”) instead of insisting that it is a tried and true adverb and no more (“‘Will we get there on time?’ he asked hopefully.”). Why does this one get to pass into the gated community of acceptable language change while so many others are left in the cold? Why is your love so subjective? Why can’t “dove” be an acceptable past tense for “dive”? How can you accept “hopefully” and not “they”?
So here’s a litmus test I use to see if I’ll like another grammarian: I ask if they use “they” as a singular pronoun. Because I do, and it’s fine, and please stop saying that it was never acceptable because it dates back to the 14th century. So either people have been making the same mistake for 600 years (and believe me I see the irony in referring to the time before standardized spelling for support) or at some time someone thought it wasn’t okay and spent a whole lot of energy attempting to retrain it out of the language, and people were raised with a misconception, and those people went on to be adults and pass that misconception on to their children, and here we are. Please don’t refer to a grammar guide from the 1960s written by a sexist anglophile for support, because times they are a’changing. And when the author says that “bad English isn’t the answer” (p.16) I kind of want to light something on fire. Especially when I later read that “this book’s position is that yesterday’s custom can be safely ignored” (p. 186) as justification for using “whose” to describe inanimate objects. I don’t object with the rule, I object with the flip-flopping on this whole position of language change.
So in the end I found this “guide to better English” wrong in some places, confusing in others, and pretentious through and through. But I think it was a great Christmas present, as it gave me the opportunity to do some professional research and stretch my own grammarian skills. But it has also perpetuated my fear that I can’t always trust grammar guides, as they’re often written by persnickety dingbats.
