What do you think?
Rate this book
Strictly Speaking: Will America be the Death of English?
One man's funny war against loose talk!
Mass Market Paperback
First published October 1, 1974
5 people are currently reading
88 people want to read
About the author
Edwin Newman
54 books2 followersEdwin Newman, narrator of the Science and Discovery series, is a celebrated journalist, author, and lecturer. He was for thirty-five years a television journalist for NBC News, and he's familiar to millions as a moderator of presidential debates. Mr. Newman tells the story of science and discovery in his distinctively clear and direct style.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
February 15, 2019
Reread.
If Neil Postman were alive today over thirty years after his book, "Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business," was published, he would be even more appalled by the new and countless ways that Americans have devised to amuse themselves.
And if Edwin Newman were alive today, over forty years after the publication of his book, he would surely answer yes to the question posed in the subtitle of his book: "Will America Be the Death of English?" He was curmudgeonly grouchy about the state of written and oral communication during that era, but I can't even come close to imagining what he would have to say about e-mail, texting, and tweeting.
In more than one instance he criticized President Richard Nixon for the clumsiness of his language. What in the world would he say about a president who speaks in incomplete sentences filled with hyperbole and lies, and who communicates with the nation on twitter? It boggles my mind, but it might explode his.
If Neil Postman were alive today over thirty years after his book, "Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business," was published, he would be even more appalled by the new and countless ways that Americans have devised to amuse themselves.
And if Edwin Newman were alive today, over forty years after the publication of his book, he would surely answer yes to the question posed in the subtitle of his book: "Will America Be the Death of English?" He was curmudgeonly grouchy about the state of written and oral communication during that era, but I can't even come close to imagining what he would have to say about e-mail, texting, and tweeting.
In more than one instance he criticized President Richard Nixon for the clumsiness of his language. What in the world would he say about a president who speaks in incomplete sentences filled with hyperbole and lies, and who communicates with the nation on twitter? It boggles my mind, but it might explode his.
February 8, 2021
The subtitle on this book’s cover—Will America be the Death of English?—oddly does not capitalize the verb, making me suspicious about the permanence, inviolability, and sanctity of language/grammar rules even before I open the book…
This book is a breezy, light read for people, like myself, who consider themselves well versed in language and its use, and who actually write for professional purposes (thus are compelled to follow some guide, eg, Chicago Manual of Style). Newman himself is such an amateur wordy, and he brings no real linguistic scholarship to the table, but he is very fluent and capable of reading and noting the nuances of other fluent, well-written/spoken speakers of English. Hence, out of a sort of professional pride, he and other word mavens (Safire, Simon, Barzun, Bloom, et al.) periodically rise up and lambast the masses for using the language profligately, in a manner that spells its eventual erosion into unintelligible babble.
What’s not to enjoy in these periodic, quixotic sallies against those who would erode and make meaning less clear is the high degree of dudgeon these authors can achieve? While stating preservation of language and thought is the foremost objective, Newman and his tribe attempt to achieve this by presenting arguments at different degrees and pitches of peevishness, hectoring, and condescension. A poor rhetorical strategy, but if you’re on the right side of the argument, it’s all good fun…
Published in 1974, Newman’s book had the whole business of Watergate to draw on: political misadventure and discourse that was marred by pretension, obfuscation, and sports-speak. The chapter and sections that touch on these aspects of political language are reminiscent of Philip Roth’s Our Gang, in which the pandering language of Nixon, Agnew, Mitchell, Erlichmann, et al. is skewered in a series of hyperbolic parodies of their language and actions. Newman indulges in similar parodies, no less entertaining (and damning).
However, the rest of the book is pretty lightweight, but it has the advantage of offering up some good anecdotes about events in Newman’s long history as a journalist. There is a very weak section about hyphenate and compound surnames, which has absolutely nothing to do with declining standards in English speech or the erosion of language, but it obviously tickled Newman’s funnybone. There’s another chapter that highlights Newman and his wife’s penchant for puns, which runs on a bit long, but does illustrate a fluency to pun across English and French.
There’s nothing to recommend this particular book over other such Chicken Little outcries about declining standards in the language: all are pretty much on par, each in its own way advocating prescriptivist principles while the real trained language experts—linguists—are descriptivists who write boring, taxonomical texts that seldom become bestsellers. Still, it’s always fun to see just how crotchedy a pundit can be… just one remove from the grumpy old man yelling at the children who cross his lawn.
This book is a breezy, light read for people, like myself, who consider themselves well versed in language and its use, and who actually write for professional purposes (thus are compelled to follow some guide, eg, Chicago Manual of Style). Newman himself is such an amateur wordy, and he brings no real linguistic scholarship to the table, but he is very fluent and capable of reading and noting the nuances of other fluent, well-written/spoken speakers of English. Hence, out of a sort of professional pride, he and other word mavens (Safire, Simon, Barzun, Bloom, et al.) periodically rise up and lambast the masses for using the language profligately, in a manner that spells its eventual erosion into unintelligible babble.
What’s not to enjoy in these periodic, quixotic sallies against those who would erode and make meaning less clear is the high degree of dudgeon these authors can achieve? While stating preservation of language and thought is the foremost objective, Newman and his tribe attempt to achieve this by presenting arguments at different degrees and pitches of peevishness, hectoring, and condescension. A poor rhetorical strategy, but if you’re on the right side of the argument, it’s all good fun…
Published in 1974, Newman’s book had the whole business of Watergate to draw on: political misadventure and discourse that was marred by pretension, obfuscation, and sports-speak. The chapter and sections that touch on these aspects of political language are reminiscent of Philip Roth’s Our Gang, in which the pandering language of Nixon, Agnew, Mitchell, Erlichmann, et al. is skewered in a series of hyperbolic parodies of their language and actions. Newman indulges in similar parodies, no less entertaining (and damning).
However, the rest of the book is pretty lightweight, but it has the advantage of offering up some good anecdotes about events in Newman’s long history as a journalist. There is a very weak section about hyphenate and compound surnames, which has absolutely nothing to do with declining standards in English speech or the erosion of language, but it obviously tickled Newman’s funnybone. There’s another chapter that highlights Newman and his wife’s penchant for puns, which runs on a bit long, but does illustrate a fluency to pun across English and French.
There’s nothing to recommend this particular book over other such Chicken Little outcries about declining standards in the language: all are pretty much on par, each in its own way advocating prescriptivist principles while the real trained language experts—linguists—are descriptivists who write boring, taxonomical texts that seldom become bestsellers. Still, it’s always fun to see just how crotchedy a pundit can be… just one remove from the grumpy old man yelling at the children who cross his lawn.
September 15, 2007
Long before "Eats, Shoots and Leaves" or other newer proper usage books, we had Edwin Newman, a TV newscaster of the old school who wrote his own books on the importance of speaking and writing clearly, gramatically and without pretense. For those old enough to remember him, he was a fine newsman, too.
July 17, 2019
Brilliant but dissuasively pedantic; gave up at page 59.
September 17, 2025
Edwin Newman was a laughing Cassandra. Some of us grew up with his dry wit and sardonic sense of humor on NBC News. In STRICTLY SPEAKING Edwin declared war on the manglers of the English language he encountered every day in the news, popular culture and academia, among other ghettos. Here's a wry sample: "The media reported last week that Juan D. Peron had been elected President of Argentina; that's so you won't confuse him with the Juan S. Peron who was also elected President of Argentina last week". Or, how about, "why do we in America refer to some Third World leaders as 'strongmen?. Do you know any designated weak men in politics?" Trifles? Not at all. These slips and cliches deaden the use of language through mind-numbing repetition, and in so doing poison the public discourse. Quoting Ezra Pound, "bad language gives you bad government. Good language is not necessarily going to produce good government , but it does not lead inexorably towards bad government". Edwin, we sorely miss you.
March 15, 2019
Still an important book, although I found some irony in the convoluted sentences and complex structures used by a person who advocates plain speaking.
March 25, 2022
I love this and A Civil Tongue. He's such a curmudgeon. The biggest take-away is this: it makes you mindful of lazy speech, deceitful speech, and imprecise speech.
previously-owned
February 27, 2023Language evolves. The book has become dated.
March 20, 2017
This book is too dated for me to really enjoy. I think Mr. Newman would be disheartened to hear the state of the English language today. Many of the poor language examples are used so often today that they no longer seem wrong.
March 31, 2012
Strictly Speaking is subtitled Will America be the Death of English?
It was first published in the 70s, and I read it in probably 1977 or 78, when I was in high school. I still remember one passage from the book; Edwin Newman is talking about peculiarities of sports commentary:
Strictly Speaking helped form my thinking about the English language; Newman's sequel, A Civil Tongue was one of the first books I was able to read following my car accident and brain injury. It was also the first time I laughed aloud after waking from my coma—a milestone, in my opinion. Thanks, Edwin.
It was first published in the 70s, and I read it in probably 1977 or 78, when I was in high school. I still remember one passage from the book; Edwin Newman is talking about peculiarities of sports commentary:
"'Is your team hungry enough, Coach?'
'Oh, I don't think you can ever be hungry enough.'" (Newman goes on to remark that in the South, the sportscaster will ask, "Is your team hongry enough?")
Strictly Speaking helped form my thinking about the English language; Newman's sequel, A Civil Tongue was one of the first books I was able to read following my car accident and brain injury. It was also the first time I laughed aloud after waking from my coma—a milestone, in my opinion. Thanks, Edwin.
October 11, 2012
In the beginning, I considered this the most hilarious book, well, ever, but as page turned to page, I found only more of the same but diluted more and more. The author even thought it would be funny to list the names of University Presidents for 4 pages, which I admit was "interesting," but not really all that exciting. I went from Newman fanatic to Newman bleh-guy.
June 12, 2013
He would have some good things to say about language and culture. But Newman weighs down his good point with more obsessional collections of grammar violations and two few moments of light touch and humor. Would that William Buckley were alive to face off against Newman as he once did against James Baldwin
July 16, 2009
a touch pedantic in places but generally quite a bit of fun. If you want to use language precisely this will help.
April 26, 2015
The best thing about this book was that it is short. The author writes poorly and comes across as terribly conceited, which makes what he is trying to say particularly amusing.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews