Lapsing Into a Comma : A Curmudgeon's Guide to the Many Things That Can Go Wrong in Print--and How to Avoid Them

Very fun piece. Recommended for the writer/editor/satirist, when Anguished English just isn't enough and Chicago is a little too much. Great with a martini.

In his first sentence of his first chapter, Bill Walsh quips that the point of his stylebook (style book?) is to make you skeptical of stylebooks. He's right that existing stylebooks are inconsistent and often ruinously outdated, but there's reason to be skeptical about this here guide as well. Walsh is a longtime (long-time?) copy editor (copyeditor?) in the newspaper business, so the reader certainly benefits from his practical experience. Walsh has plenty of entertaining anecdotes about mistakes and poor decisions made by writers and editors when they try to follow established stylebooks to the letter, and he also has plenty of useful pointers on how tricky matters of grammar and punctuation should be done correctly. Unfortunately, in the end this book does little to alleviate the ongoing style difficulties that Walsh brings to light, albeit in his usually engaging and curmudgeonly fashion.

While he admits that his examples of editing issues are arbitrary and merely meant to highlight his biggest pet peeves, one must wonder how such examples benefit the serious reader. Granted, some are entertaining, like the proper way to cite a Playboy Bunny vs. the Playmate of the Month. But some are too curmudgeonly for true usefulness - Walsh should probably get over his annoyance with improper pluralization of the Airborne Warning and Control System; and some are just plain bizarre - like Walsh's weird obsession with the use of "Star Wars" for films other than Episode IV. A more fundamental problem is Walsh's inconsistent opinions on the evolution of language over time. Sometimes he's for it, but other times he becomes the type of strict anti-change language snob that he cracks jokes about earlier in the book. And whenever Walsh comes across a situation in which there is no established style rule, he just gives what he freely admits is the solution that he prefers, as a matter of opinion. But how does this really solve the underlying problems with stylebooks that are the point of most of Walsh's endeavor?

This book is good for some laughs about weird mistakes and snooty editors in the newspaper biz, with some useful solutions to common difficulties. But Walsh's larger goal of instilling skepticism about stylebooks has worked a little too well for his own good. [~doomsdayer520~]

At last, a worthy successor to Strunk and White! No, I have not abandoned my loyalty to those old masters whose THE ELEMENTS OF STYLE retains its utility and authority after 40 years (however badly I may apply their lessons in practice), but we were sorely in need of an update. Language is alive and usage shifts. The basics may endure for years or decades, perhaps very occasionally for centuries, but change is the only constant. Bill Walsh here offers an invaluable update. From advice on how to use common sense and a dictionary, to punctuation, quotations, headlines and the new electronic media, Walsh pulls together the lessons of 19 years of editing and offers useful, witty and thoroughly rational guidance on usage and writing. A winner.

I was walking around the local library the other day and came across multiple books on writing. To my surprise, the public library had more books on writing than the college library. I thought to myself, "I've been looking for these kind of books to enhance my writing!" So I grasped this book in my hands and began reading away. As I continued through this book, I began to notice the editorial commas. I slowly connected the truth of the book's title to the content of the book: This was a book based around press and media writing. I found a nice and quiet place to read at the library's local history room and then sat down near a desk.

While reading, I decided to give this book a review, so I wrote down notes in a notebook. However, my logic and learned way of writing may or may not conflict with one from the press; but I felt that errors and other press related style and/or punctuation was not pointed out soon enough. Therefore, I was confused as to the difference between press writing and academic writing, and may have created a biased review. I would have liked the differences pointed out. Please don't smack me with the stupid stick for having errors in this review: I'm still working on my English. With that being said, onto the online *evil smirk* book review.

E-mail vs. email:

As much as I admire a businessman becoming a writer for The Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, he forgot one thing: E stands for electronic! Instead of being 1337, he went on this long rant about being an "oldbie" on the web and a javaslinger; he coded his first page in raw HTML (javascript). I'm oldschool, but at least I understand why it was called "e-mail." Something that I found silly was his inability to appeal to authority. Let me ask you something: If the owner of eBay were to write up a report about his or her company and list the company's name multiple times through the report, then would you accept that as the correct spelling? I would. Case closed. Appeal to creator wins.

Possible error at the top paragraph on page 59: "The first example, however, places 'and added' in a parallel position; thus the 'and added' clause is made dependent on the..."

Let's look at the semicolon and the word "thus".

Last time I checked, a person is suppose to use a comma after and independent marker; thus, a comma comes after 'thus'. Is the missing comma suppose to be some type of Associated Press (AP) writing editorial punctuation? You could smack me with a stick for not reading the AP style guide, but it would have been nice if the author and the copyeditors noted what was going on. Some of the material and possible errors at this point make me question if I should continue reading the book. I looked up semicolon in the index, and it was about 30 or so pages ahead of the past page I was at. I noticed the semicolon was feared by the author and not brought out in detail. I'm not chuckling. I've questioned a few of the matters in this book. I've been able to accept press vs. academic so far, but I'm starting to get concerned if what I'm learning is correct or not. I grabbed the book from the library to learn. However, if these are mistakes, then I'm a novice writer learning mistakes that weren't meant to be mistakes. I don't think that's a good way to learn how to write. Do you?

Let's go to the their vs. his or her debate:

I don't care who or what you are, I'm going to use his or her. If something is singular, it's going to stay that way. I don't approve of the media or some other brainwashing superpower to change the rules of English grammar. This is why I've got to love some of the reviews on Amazon.com. People don't seem to care about grammar. Makes me feel like someone is trying to sell me snake oil and the people around me are conspiring with the retailer. Apparently, I'm not the only one that feels this way. Not after reading the rest of the reviews here. May I mention that Amazon.com was advertised in the book? Yeah. Thanks for dumbing down grammar.

Another section was where he used a comma instead of a semicolon to creates sentences like the following:

Page 91:
I like Trix, I like Lucky Charms, and I like Cocoa Pebbles.

Maybe I'm missing something here; maybe he was trying to detail something; maybe he's ADHD and forgot; and maybe the book is ADHD.

I like Trix, Lucky Charms, and Cocoa Pebbles.
Thank you parallelism.

A person is suppose to use a semicolon instead of this serial comma junk he's selling; however, this could be a style concern. Another entry about style and its concerns with semicolons could have been inserted.

Yeah. I'm done reading after 60 pages or so. At least I read more than a fifth of the book.

Parts of the book I liked:

Introduction to brackets. It may not have been correct, but I understand what it's about.

"I've written a stylebook that I hope makes the following point: Be skeptical of stylebooks."

You seem to have accomplished your goal: Your book makes me borderline schizophrenic.

Walsh's book is excellent, and a fun read. He even responded quickly to an e-mailed question asking for clarification on a rule regarding quote marks and other punctuation.

One caveat about some of the rules -- The book is written with newspaper writing primarily in mind, so some of the rules about how to handle titles may not apply to academic writing. Check the style of what you're working on.