 2008-10-12 - Totally unnecesary
If you have been through college (which, assuming you are in law school or are a lawyer, you have) you probably already know how to write concisely. This book is worthless . . . and lame.
 2008-07-29 - Totally Awesome
I'm usually concerned about purchasing items online, especially books. However, I can honestly say that this shopping experience was wonderful. I would definetly recommend anyone interested in shopping for books to check this seller out.
 2007-06-13 - The exercises really do help.
Most of the stuff just summarizes points from Strunk and White.
The practice exercises are really what's helpful.
Also a good reference when editing.
2006-06-08 - Dumbed-down English for people who can't write
This book advocates the use of a Procrustean bed to turn every kind of writing, good and bad, into mediocre but understandeable prose. The advice offered ranges from avoiding use of the passive voice, to reducing the word count of sentences, avoiding double negatives, using shorter words (i.e., using Germanic roots over Latin roots, say, "begin" over "initiate"), etc. Incidentally, all these techniques were used in Orwell's 1984's "Newspeak" if I remember correctly. I have no doubt many people will benefit from the treatment - just not the kind of people who should do much writing. It's not that overwrought writing does not get in the way of effective communication (a double negative!). It's just that good writing can (and should) be achieved by hard work and practice, and not by the shortcut of dumbing down one's style.
2006-01-10 - One of those style books that ranscebds its genre.
I'm a lawyer who is considered a wordsmith by colleagues and judges. This is one of the most important books I've ever encountered. I was exposed to it in my first law school year's writing class, and its lessons have remained with me since. Banish the passive voice! (unless deliberately and thoughfully chosen and used). This is not merely a key to fluidity in writing, but in a sense a moral imperative. Actions are attributable to actors - they don't simply occur. If you're asserting an action took place, you and your reader should know who or what you claim set it in motion. This necessitates intellectual rigor and clarity. Also, I remember and have employed for twenty-five years Wydick's apt metaphor that good legal writing is like fine cabinetmaking: the skill of the craftsman is shown by the crafted joints not requiring glue, just as the quality of a piece of prose is shown by its lack of reliance on "glue words" (read the book). I've used the lessons of Wydick's brief book as a lawyer, writer and writing teacher. I've given it to colleagues, non-lawyers and young relatives. Their writing uniformly improved.
|
