Early Review: Ambrose Bierce's Write It Right
Having fallen horribly behind on my Early Review books for LibraryThing, I am proud to say that I am, perhaps for the first time, publishing an "early review" for a book that has not actually been published yet!
The lucky recipient of my first timely review is, interestingly, a nonfiction work, Ambrose Bierce's Write It Right: The Celebrated Cynic's Language Peeves Deciphered, Appraised, and Annotated for 21st-Century Readers, edited and annotated by language maven Jan Freeman and due to be published on November 10, 2009. I have reprinted my review below for the benefit of language lovers like me who may want to pick this title up.
------------------------
If you're anything like me, the most exposure you've ever had to Ambrose Bierce is his famous short story "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge," and it's hard to tell from that story alone what one would expect from this particular volume, particularly since texts on grammar and style tend to be more caustic than constructive. That would be the case with this edition, an "annotated" version of Bierce's original work with contemporary commentary that reads far livelier than one would expect.
After a brief foreword by Jan Freeman, our scholarly guide, the text consists of Bierce's original introduction, followed by his so-called "Black List" of words and phrases that are, to put it bluntly, never to be used in print. Bierce's original entries are, as you would expect, inflexible and definite: he wraps quotations around constructions that ought never see the light of print and, with few exceptions, his explanations for why the errors are as such are extremely terse and rather didactic. Those familiar with classic grammar texts like Strunk & White's The Elements of Style will find many familiar examples herein, as well as plenty that are baffling but, according to Bierce, equally damnable.
Freeman, as the annotator, does a fine job in several respects, the first and most obvious of which is lending readability to a work that is otherwise almost devoid of interest as a cover-to-cover read. Since Bierce's words are often so brief, she does an admirable job of trying to elucidate the reasons why Bierce would object to a particular construction, attempting to provide a type of narrative to the many individual points he harps on. In that respect, she gives the text a fresh update--even if it's at the expense of making the book feel less like a textbook and more like a history lesson.
History, however, is clearly Freeman's strong suit, as the text betrays the fact that she is extremely well-read in points of grammar and usage. In addition to a nine-page bibliography of recommended reading at the back of the book--a selection of works that spans multiple centuries--Freeman incorporates specific points of order from newspapers, magazines, and books by other authors throughout her annotations. The result is a work that is highly scholarly but doesn't always read like it is.
If there is criticism to be had, it is in the often uneasy balance between lighthearted commentary and fierce criticism of the original work. Though the annotations are essential and, frankly, pleasurable to read, Freeman often gives very little credence to Bierce's points. While her research is very adept at providing reasons why Bierce is bunkum, it does become a bit tiresome to read over and over why a particular rule is rubbish. (More often than not, it can be attributed to Bierce's background in journalism.)
Even more frustrating is Freeman's tendency, while putting down many of Bierce's rules, to reduce grammar to something that is perhaps far more flexible than a grammarian would want to admit. Certainly Bierce was a radically bitter cynic--one would think a true grammarian could be no less--but Freeman is often guilty of claiming that, because others have written with a particular word or phrase, then either usage is technically correct. It's a bit too loose for my liking, the kind of thing that irks writers of Standard Written English when confronted with the idiosyncrasies of spoken language. One senses that Freeman's playing fast and loose to counter Bierce's strictness, but the result is not necessarily balance as much as it is discomforting dissonance.
Ultimately, if there is a problem with the text, it is that it's a bit unsure of its identity: does it want to be a grammar text, or does it want to be a well-researched look into Bierce's ideas and thoughts? Truth be told, when it tries to be the latter, it succeeds in spite of its flaws. Freeman seems to know that she, like all great grammar cynics, is never going to be authoritative, and she treats Bierce's source work with the appropriate amount of reverence and respect while also keeping it as contemporary as possible. As an artifact of language change, Freeman's annotated edition of Write It Right is a both valuable and entertaining contribution to the never-ending language wars.
The lucky recipient of my first timely review is, interestingly, a nonfiction work, Ambrose Bierce's Write It Right: The Celebrated Cynic's Language Peeves Deciphered, Appraised, and Annotated for 21st-Century Readers, edited and annotated by language maven Jan Freeman and due to be published on November 10, 2009. I have reprinted my review below for the benefit of language lovers like me who may want to pick this title up.
------------------------
If you're anything like me, the most exposure you've ever had to Ambrose Bierce is his famous short story "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge," and it's hard to tell from that story alone what one would expect from this particular volume, particularly since texts on grammar and style tend to be more caustic than constructive. That would be the case with this edition, an "annotated" version of Bierce's original work with contemporary commentary that reads far livelier than one would expect.
After a brief foreword by Jan Freeman, our scholarly guide, the text consists of Bierce's original introduction, followed by his so-called "Black List" of words and phrases that are, to put it bluntly, never to be used in print. Bierce's original entries are, as you would expect, inflexible and definite: he wraps quotations around constructions that ought never see the light of print and, with few exceptions, his explanations for why the errors are as such are extremely terse and rather didactic. Those familiar with classic grammar texts like Strunk & White's The Elements of Style will find many familiar examples herein, as well as plenty that are baffling but, according to Bierce, equally damnable.
Freeman, as the annotator, does a fine job in several respects, the first and most obvious of which is lending readability to a work that is otherwise almost devoid of interest as a cover-to-cover read. Since Bierce's words are often so brief, she does an admirable job of trying to elucidate the reasons why Bierce would object to a particular construction, attempting to provide a type of narrative to the many individual points he harps on. In that respect, she gives the text a fresh update--even if it's at the expense of making the book feel less like a textbook and more like a history lesson.
History, however, is clearly Freeman's strong suit, as the text betrays the fact that she is extremely well-read in points of grammar and usage. In addition to a nine-page bibliography of recommended reading at the back of the book--a selection of works that spans multiple centuries--Freeman incorporates specific points of order from newspapers, magazines, and books by other authors throughout her annotations. The result is a work that is highly scholarly but doesn't always read like it is.
If there is criticism to be had, it is in the often uneasy balance between lighthearted commentary and fierce criticism of the original work. Though the annotations are essential and, frankly, pleasurable to read, Freeman often gives very little credence to Bierce's points. While her research is very adept at providing reasons why Bierce is bunkum, it does become a bit tiresome to read over and over why a particular rule is rubbish. (More often than not, it can be attributed to Bierce's background in journalism.)
Even more frustrating is Freeman's tendency, while putting down many of Bierce's rules, to reduce grammar to something that is perhaps far more flexible than a grammarian would want to admit. Certainly Bierce was a radically bitter cynic--one would think a true grammarian could be no less--but Freeman is often guilty of claiming that, because others have written with a particular word or phrase, then either usage is technically correct. It's a bit too loose for my liking, the kind of thing that irks writers of Standard Written English when confronted with the idiosyncrasies of spoken language. One senses that Freeman's playing fast and loose to counter Bierce's strictness, but the result is not necessarily balance as much as it is discomforting dissonance.
Ultimately, if there is a problem with the text, it is that it's a bit unsure of its identity: does it want to be a grammar text, or does it want to be a well-researched look into Bierce's ideas and thoughts? Truth be told, when it tries to be the latter, it succeeds in spite of its flaws. Freeman seems to know that she, like all great grammar cynics, is never going to be authoritative, and she treats Bierce's source work with the appropriate amount of reverence and respect while also keeping it as contemporary as possible. As an artifact of language change, Freeman's annotated edition of Write It Right is a both valuable and entertaining contribution to the never-ending language wars.
posted by Dave at 10/31/2009 08:15:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home