Enough Is Enuf: Our Failed Attempts to Make English Eezier to Spell

by Gabe Henry

A brief and humorous 500-year history of the Simplified Spelling Movement

Why does the first "g" in "George" sound different from the first "g" in "gorge"? Why does "c" begin both case and cease? And why is it funny when a philologist faints, but not polight to laf about it? Anyone who has ever had the misfortune to write in English has, at one time or another, struggled with its spelling.

So why do we continue to use it? If our system of writing words is so tragically inconsistent, why haven’t we standardized it, phoneticized it, brought it into line? How many brave linguists have ever had the courage to state, in a declaration of phonetic revolt: “Enough is enuf”?

The answer: many. In the comic annals of linguistic history, legions of rebel wordsmiths have died on the hill of spelling reform, risking their reputations to bring English into the realm of the rational. This book is about them: Mark Twain, Benjamin Franklin, Eliza Burnz, C.S. Lewis, George Bernard Shaw, Charles Darwin, and the innumerable others on both sides of the Atlantic who, for a time in their life, became fanatically occupied with writing "thru" instead of "through," "tho" for "though," "laf" for "laugh," "beleev" for "believe," and "dawter" for "daughter" (and tried futilely to get everyone around them to do it, too).

Gabe Henry takes his humorous and informative chronicle right up to today as the language seems to naturally be simplifying to fit the needs of our changing world thanks to technology—from texting to Instagram to emojis, the Simplified Spelling Movement may finally be having its day.

Genres: Nonfiction, History, Language, Linguistics, Writing, Audiobook, Humor

304 pages, Hardcover

First published April 15, 2025

About the author

Gabe Henry is the author of three books including the poetry anthology "Eating Salad Drunk" (Vulture's Best Comedy Books of 2022), a humor collaboration with Jerry Seinfeld, Margaret Cho, Ray Romano, Mike Birbiglia, Janeane Garofalo, Roy Wood Jr., Michael Ian Black, Bob Odenkirk, George Wallace, Maria Bamford, and other titans of comedy.​

His forthcoming book, "Enough is Enuf" (HarperCollins), is about the little-known "Simplified Spelling Movement" and its many (failed) attempts to change "through" to "thru," "laugh" to "laf," and "enough to enuf" (tu naim a few) in an effort to pare down all words to their simplest spelling.

Reviews

[Nataliya · Rating 4 out of 5]

English spelling is quite a mess, I think we can all agree. It can be arbitrary and illogical, based on antiquated conventions and etymological misunderstandings, disastrous and annoying, and seems frozen in time without taking into account changes in pronunciation. No wonder spelling bee is an odd phenomenon that really should not be a thing in the world where spelling would be sensible.

“Our spellings today are therefore anchored to a pronunciation spoken sometime between Chaucer and Shakespeare, back when we voiced the S in aisle, the G in gnarl, and the K in knife.”

Picture young Nataliya at seven years old in Eastern Europe, having diligently memorized English alphabet, being called to the blackboard to spell “cat” and innocently coming up with mortifying “K-E-T”. That was my first encounter with the completely illogical and puzzling thing that is English orthography.

It seems easy to shrug off any issues with the “traditional” spelling as something irrelevant, but it appears that the push to make the spelling make sense goes back centuries. It may seem silly now, when children learn it early, but in the times when literacy meant ability to advance in the world for adults who previously have been illiterate, having non-phonetic spelling was an artificial roadblock to better things in life. And once I see it from this angle, the efforts to improve this suddenly seem was less frivolous.

Nevertheless, it seems that those efforts to improve everything by insisting on an immediate change to something that looks offputting and strange to those used to traditional ways of writing attracted people with specific personality traits — from simply pedantic to those used to being in power, although they all seemed to be fueled by genuine desire to improve. The problem is — humans are resistant to sudden changes forced in them from above. Andrew Carnegie probably had the best idea of introducing changes slowly (but Roosevelt bulldozed that pretty quickly), and Noah Webster stealthily excised extraneous “u” in worlds like “color” and “k” in “magic” — but those who tried to barrel them through (like Teddy Roosevelt) were met with strong resistance. (The book doesn’t mention it, but an example of a successful simplifying of archaic orthography was done in Russian after the Soviet Revolution, but it only worked because it was forced from above without room for discussion, like everything in the Soviet state).

The common approach to simplifying spelling is, of course, based on phonetics — which to an eye unused to it looks a bit strange and childlike and generally incomprehensibly offputting (“Speling Reform Asoshiēshun”, anyone?), but some went as far as adding numbers in place of letters (and here I was, assuming that was the result of textspeak and calculators made to spell “boobies” via 5318008) or even creating completely new alphabets. Some proposed doubling up on letters (“catt” and “dogg” and other similar nonsense). Some preferred “tho” and “thru”, and others - like many of us now - prefer donuts to doughnuts, even if they are equally delicious.

The Star-Spangled Banner in several “sensible” styles

The proponents of ‘sensible’ orthography included Benjamin Franklin, George Bernard Shaw, Mark Twain, Noah Webster, Charles Darwin, Andrew Carnegie, Theodore Roosevelt, Melvil Dewey, Upton Sinclair. For some it was a true lifelong passion (those seem to be people of, ummmm, certain type of uptight character) and for others a passing fad. But in general, the public seemed to get tired pretty quickly of increasingly odd-looking words, just as people roll their eyes at ridiculous spelling we see in textspeak (out of which many luckily seem to grow out). As for textspeak, Henry devotes an entire chapter to it, as well as to “creative” 90s song titles (some by Artist Formerly Known as Prince), reminding me that some things I took for silly affectations actually have root in numeric keyboards, SMS character limits and prices per SMS sent.

And yet, given the long tradition of spelling bees glorifying people being able to memorize ridiculously spelled words, we the people are clearly Stockholm-syndromes into this silly orthography of ours. Enuf sed.

Now, this book is meant to be entertaining above all. It lacks academic focus of deep dive into the subject, remaining a light read often full of chuckles. Depending on what you are looking for, this may be a curse or a blessing. Henry is not as good at combining the two as, for instance, John McWhorter, but he’s not bad, with the end result being light and fun, even if not that deep. Not a bad way of ending a few hours, feeling a bit better about thinking twice of all the letters in “connoisseur” (my personal spelling nemesis).

3.5 stars, rounding up.

[Katie B · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thank you Dey Street Books for sending me a free copy! #MorrowPartner

ENOUGH IS ENUF by Gabe Henry caught my eye because the Simplified Spelling Movement is something I hadn’t heard of and it sounded intriguing. Glad I took a chance on this one because it was chock full of interesting info. The book explores the 500 year history of this reform movement with some notable names like Benjamin Franklin and Mark Twain pushing for change.

The idea is simple, make spelling English words easier because as it is there are way too many random rules and exceptions to those rules. Letters have different sounds depending on the word and it can be confusing. So why not go with a more phonetic approach? Sounds like a great plan but it’s never really been implemented because everyone has their own idea of how the alphabet would need to be tweaked in order to accomplish it. Gradually though some changes have been made over the years as Americans have veered slightly from the British way of spelling words. For example, the letter u has been dropped from words like favourite and colour. Advertisements and text messaging have also simplified our spelling habits.

I thoroughly enjoyed this book and loved sharing the bits of info I learned with my husband. Recommend to anyone who is a fan of nonfiction.

[Shannon A · Rating 5 out of 5]

As someone who has struggled with spelling my entire life, this book intrigued me. I’m not the only one that thinks spelling was a waste of good time and has wanted desperately to simplify the spelling process.
From monks, Benjamin Franklin to Prince; sorting out spelling has been happening right along the evolution of language for generations. All the failed attempts led us to the texting and shorthand that is part of our daily lives 2day.

[Leilani W · Rating 5 out of 5]

I greatly enjoyed this thoroughly researched and well-written look back at the many attempts to tame our language's many peculiarities. I had no idea there had been so many different plans and methods invented. I particularly liked the passages written in some of the proposed alphabets/writing systems, to see how easy they would be to pick up and to imagine what might have been. Highly recommend this book for anyone interested in microhistories or the English language in particular.

(Bookseller advance reader copy)

[Lori Tatar · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was incredibly fascinating, worth a few giggles, quite a bit of contemplation and despite all the frustration most of us have likely felt at times, all I can say is, Whoda’ thunk?

[Rebecca · Rating 5 out of 5]

When I saw this book was coming out, I knew I had to read it and am so glad that I did. There were so many things in there that I hadn't thought about for so long, like the joke about the kid who tries to spell fish and comes up with ghoti. I had to stop and think when the author said there are seven different ways to pronounce ough.

I loved reading the history of the different people who are trying to simplify our spelling. Then, of course, men arguing over whose spelling would be better. I really loved all the political cartoons mocking President Roosevelt. Good political cartoons are extremely undervalued.

This is an amazing book!!!

Thanks so much to NetGalley for the free Kindle book. My review is voluntarily given, and my opinions are my own.

[Lisa Ahlstedt · Rating 5 out of 5]

As a former English major, I really enjoyed reading this book about the many unsuccessful attempts to reform English spelling. The book is very entertaining and gives both a background of enthusiastic reformers of the past, such as Benjamin Franklin and Mark Twain, all the way through to the shorted and simplified spelling that has come about as part of the texting revolution. The end of the book even includes some simplified spelling lists that Noah Webster championed.

I received a copy of this book from a GoodReads giveaway.

[Audrey · Rating 4 out of 5]

this was so fun!!! I feel like it was tailor-made for me.
Gabe Henry combines a niche slice of humor with witty writing and some fun bonus content at the end of this book. I read an advanced ebook copy and can tell that this is going to be beautiful in its finished, physical form—from the formatting of the ebook, it looks like this will have call-outs/quotes/pictures that make "enough is enuf" a contender for my coffee table.
such a fascinating, forgotten piece of history

[Karen · Rating 5 out of 5]

I luvd this buk! It wuz veree funee; I lafd owt lowd sevril tiims. It wuz also veree informativ. I had no ahdeeuh that so menee difirent simplifiid speling sistems hav bin sugjestid over the yeers.

Ok, enuf -- I mean enough -- of that. Just writing those few sentences phonetically took more time than the whole rest of this review.

As confusing and inconsistent as English spelling is, we've still memorized it so thoroughly that learning a whole new method is more than we want to tackle. That's one of the reasons why simplified spelling has never really caught on, as this book explains in hilarious detail.

It traces the history of the simplified spelling movement from its beginning in the 12th century with Middle English, all the way up to modern textspeak with its emoji characters, acronyms, alphanumeric combinations, and abbreviated spellings.

The author also gives us portraits of some of the personalities who have championed simplified spelling, which include some very famous people such as Benjamin Franklin, Mark Twain, Theodore Roosevelt, Andrew Carnegie, George Bernard Shaw, and Noah Webster.

He also reproduces -- as far as he is able to with modern type fonts -- some of the simplified spelling systems that have been in use over the years. One which was based on musical notation evolved into Pitman shorthand writing, which was of great use to journalists and stenographers for many years (and became a symbol of women's equality when women moved into those fields).

Most simplified spelling systems, however, were just as confusing as traditional English, and some were downright incomprehensible!

This book is highly recommended for word nerds, or anyone who's ever been frustrated with English spelling.

[Tyler Critchfield · Rating 3 out of 5]

Hav yu evr wunderd wy Eenglish speling iz so weerd? If yu cud create yor own speling sistem, how wud yu structur it?

This buk haz sum intreeging ideeas and historee. Tho it kwikly becam redundant 4 me az most ov the chapters seemd to repeet the same storee ov faled reform. The chapter on the Deseret langwaj waz a fun surpriz tho. I wudn't try to lisen to this won - otherwize yu'l mis out on the point ov the buk :)

[Kara Bowyer · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting topic. I never knew this world of simplified spelling even existed. The book dragged a little in the middle but then picked up once it got into more modern times.

[Jason Furman · Rating 4 out of 5]

A deliteful, amuzing and ocasionally even lauf-out-loud history of the simplifid speling movement in English.

OR

A delytful, amewzing an okayshnaly eeven laf-owt-lowd histor-ee uv tha simplifyd speling moovmunt in Inglish.

OR

A delɪtfəl, əmuzɪŋ and əkejʒənli ivən laf-owt-lowd hɪstəri ov ðə simplɪfaɪd spelɪŋ muvment in Ŋgliʃ.

OR

Ā dēlītful, ămūzing and ōkāzhunaly ēv’n läf-owt-loud hystōry ov thə simplīfīd spĕl’ing mōovm’nt in Ĭngglish.

OR

Uh deleitfl, umoozing an uhkaezhnuhlee eevn laf-owt-lowd histori uv thuh simpliefied speling moovmunt in Inglish.

OR

𐐈 𐐔𐐇𐐢𐐆𐐙𐐚𐐭, 𐐈𐐣𐐭𐐞𐐆𐐢 𐐈𐐤 𐐈𐐿𐐯𐐖𐐲𐐤𐐢𐐆 𐐀𐐨𐐉𐐤 𐐢𐐰𐐙-𐐲𐐤𐐢-𐐢𐐭𐐶𐐔 𐐐𐐮𐐢𐐻𐐲𐐪𐐨 𐐲𐐺 𐐞𐐯 𐐝𐐮𐐣𐐹𐐮𐐙𐐆𐐞 𐐝𐐯𐐢𐐆𐐤𐐺 𐐣𐐭𐐶𐐣𐐲𐐤𐐻 𐐆𐐤 𐐆𐐤𐐶𐐮𐐛.

These are different ways to spell the opening sentence of this review using different simplified spelling systems that have been developed over the last two hundred years. These reformers were all motivated by the fact that the English language has 26 letters for 44 sounds. But English also has, on average, four different letters for any given sound. As a result scissors could theoretically be spelled millions of different ways and “ghoti” could be pronounced “fish” (as in touGH WOmen noTIon). Gabe Henry gives example after example after example of these types throughout the book, in many cases drawing on the examples used by different reformers, but it never gets old or repetitive.

I wish Henry provided a bit more context, like comparative data on English compared to other languages or rigorous data on dyslexia, learning length or other consequences of our orthographical challenges. But that was beyond his scope (although there is a lively, high-level chapter on the history of English from Celtic through Anglo Saxon through Norse and how the spelling changes did not keep up with the language language changes).

Instead the book is largely a chronological chronicle from the Middle Ages through the present with mostly failures to develop alternative alphabets, remove silent letters (but some succeeded, more in the United States where we don’t labour over colours that each have different flavours), add letters, and more. Mark Twain, Andrew Carnegie, Theodore Roosevelt, Mark Twain and many more are deeply involved. For months the U.S. government printed with simplified spelling and for decades the Chicago Tribune did, ending in 1975 with the headline, “‘Thru Is Through’ As Chicago Tribune Ends Spelling Fight”.

The book ends on a more optimistic note than I would have—noting all the ways in which simplified spelling, phonograms, pictograms (e.g., emojis) and more are infiltrating our language from texting to rock lyrics to whimsical product names (Krispy Kreme).

The one possibility of true optimism he does not mention is an idea I heard from Paul Romer (I don’t know if it’s original to him) that we could transition to simplified spelling by taking advantage of the fact that most reading is on screens, old people could read in the old style, younger people in the new style, and it would all effortless transliterate across texts, emails and the like. Maybe that would work? But would be worth better understanding just how large the fixed cost of current spelling is to decide if the big cost of changing would be worthwhile.

[Renato · Rating 5 out of 5]

Uppairintlee, thu reedeeng and speleeng uv Eenglish iz naat an eezee task---okay enough of that.

In Enough is Enuf, Gabe Henry does an excellent job (channelling a Bill Bryson feel) of illustrating the problem at hand:

⦿ English is a language of the conquered, where much of it has been absorbed by its differing invaders
⦿ The English alphabet is one with 21 consonants (accounting for 24 sounds) and 5 vowels (accounting for 20 sounds).
⦿ As a result, the alphabet forms a language where there is not only super redundancy, but also where some letters are pulling 4 times their weight.
⦿ Many people believe that English students spend way too much time learning the exceptions in spelling words (especially when comparted to other languages), and that the language should be simplified

And the final problem:

⦿ Over the past 200 years, there have been too many opinionated white men in positions of power who thought that their Simplified Spelling solution was the only way to go, and tried to force new rules of language on the vox populi

This book is an excellent tour of all of these (mostly) failed efforts to simplify English spelling, rife with educational tidbits about language itself and humours stories.

I find myself charmed at some of the strategies that were employed to solve the problem of spelling, which include: using colour to denote pronunciation (Words in Color), converting the alphabet into numbers (Major system) and adapting the musical notation of curves and dots (Stenographic Sound Hand).


I, for one, cannot wait to see the future of Simplified Spelling, as dictated to us by our A.I. overlords.

[Bronwyn Ceridwen · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a reasonably interesting surface-level overview of the history of simplified spelling, the sort of book that's chock full of little fun facts with which to annoy your significant other. Hey, babe, did you know that Melvil Dewey was so obsessed with decimal-based organization that he even slept for ten hours every night, which he referred to as "sleeping decimally"? And also, that he was a TOTAL CREEPO? However, if you're looking for a book that explores the topic at hand with any actual depth, it might not be enough. (Or enuf, as the case may be.)

My main issue is that the author refuses to grapple with the reasons that spelling reform hasn't taken hold, however well-intentioned it may be. All too often, Mr. Henry simply handwaves his subjects' failure by blaming closed-minded journalists and politicians, or the vague notion that the public simply "wasn't ready". And then he'll spel sum wordz phunny b4 movin on. (Yes, this is largely the extent of the humor present here.) Only in the closing pages does he briefly acknowledge what seemed obvious to me from the start: that language can and will evolve, but it must do so organically, not by one bored author / lexicographer / monk / U.S. President attempting to bend the general public to their monomaniacal will.

If you do decide to check this out, I'd recommend going with the physical dead tree-based book, as the various alphabets proposed use special characters that don't display correctly on a Kindle. Don't make the same mistake I did!

[Sree · Rating 4 out of 5]

Over the decades, I have wrestled with three foreign (for me, obviously) languages and come out with varying degrees of success (and brain damage). The generous sprinkling of silent and (IMO) completely unnecessary vowels by the French has left my mind embrouillé and désorienté. The infinite number of articles (der, die, das, dem, den...) the German language has to offer has left me bregenklöterig and seemingly unending compound words, that the Deutsch love, has left me breathless and with Sehnenscheidenentzündung literally and physically.
But despite all that, what I am incredibly thankful is to the fact that I got to learn English at a very young age where I am not supposed to ask questions and just learn by rote. If some noob learning English at ripe old age (like I am with German) ask me as to why through, rough and though do not rhyme, I can, just like a native, say "Because.... History...stop asking too many questions!!".

The book gives a quick short and funny run through the history of how the words in English are spelled and pronounced. It is witty and reasonably informative. After reading it I have to say

Enough should be enuf, because enuf is enough

[Jerry Edward Stephens · Rating 5 out of 5]

Why don't we English language speakers spell words like "tough" as "tuf" or "though" as "tho"? Or, for that matter why do we write "enough" that way instead of "enuf"? The title of this intriguing book by Gabe Henry sets out this amazing historical line in its very title. The author is identifying many attempts over the years to simplify English spelling. These many attempts actually go back more than one thousand years. There was an early effort which included double vowels and consonants. Henry identifies this early effort as a Mississippi-level of superfluous. Then there is the silent "b" in words like "debt" and "doubt". Finally, the author notes the reason why the final letter in the English alphabet is pronounced "zed" by British English speakers and "zee" by American English speakers. It all comes down to the realities of the history of the British Isles; the historical migration of peoples from Europe to the islands; and the many languages from Celtic to Latin, and French which have influenced the evolutionary growth of the English language. Gabe Henry has authored a wonderful history of the many attempts at simplifying our spelling. None have taken root permanently. Yet I do still on occasion write "tho" for "though". I have, in fact, been influenced as a librarian by Melville Dewey. It is, however, his Dewey Decimal Classification that I most thoroughly understand. Thoroughly? I'm not sure I can simplify that word. I do, however, recommend this book to every reader interested in the historical development of our English language. It is good reading at the best.

[Blaise Keller · Rating 5 out of 5]

Have you always struggled with spelling? You’re likely not alone and it’s, likely, not entirely your fault - english is a hard language to spell; 26 letters that can produce 44 sounds. Comb and tomb are spelt nearly the exact same way minus the first letter but they do not sound similar whereas you can rhyme home and comb.

In his book, Gabe Henry takes the reader back decades and revisits the many failed attempts to reform how we spell words; why can’t we spell enough like enuf? Reformers like Theodore Rosevelt, the founder of Webster’s dictionary, the founder of the Dewey Decimal System and Mark Twain, to name a few, have all tried to simplify english. By adding or subtracting letters, writing based on phonetics, numbers and/or a combination of some… all attempts have failed.

An interesting, short and fascinating read, that will m@k3 u konsider if u wnt 2 chanj how wee spell.

[Erin · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was such a delightful little history. I don't think anyone would disagree that the written English language needs a makeover. Sadly, every attempt to make this happen over the last few centuries has only added more inconsistent and nonsensical rules. I loved learning about Caxton's and his Flemish assistant's influences on English (thanks a lot for the silent Es and Gs). I learned some fun new-to-me Chicago history about McCormick, the Trib, and the White Sox, I didn't see that coming when I pickedup this book! And it re-inforced this feeling that I often get when reading history books, that when one single influential guy gets a hang up about something, he inevitably makes it everybody else's problem too. Lookin' at you Sir James Pitman, Noah Webster, and Benjamin Franklin. Highly recommend.

[Linda · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting to this word lover. I learned a lot, like the fact that trying to make English an easier language to spell has been going on even before the U.S. developed its own form of English. This book does dovetail well with Autobiography of Mark Twain, Volume 2: The Complete and Authoritative Edition (Volume 11) that I've been reading.
Some of the illustrations of "easier" spelling were still easy for me to read and understand and others seemed impossible.

[Micala · Rating 5 out of 5]

"English is not accessible even to Englishmen" (George Bernard Shaw).

Loved it!!! I found this so fun, engaging, enlightening, and intersectional across so much of time and culture! I was amazed at how simplified spelling movements have touched such important people and moments from history (we bounce from Ancient Egypt, to Mark Twain, to 2Pac, to Abraham Lincoln, to Noah Webster, to Marie Bolden, to the emancipation of enslaved people, to txting lingo, to the Dewey Decimal system, and soooo much more). It was fun all the way through and really painted a clear picture of how and why we ended up with our language as it is today. Sooper Kool!

[Nikole · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have a degree in linguistics and I found this book very interesting because English is a notoriously difficult language to learn, and the phoneticization of words would really make it much easier. However, because we've been indoctrinated into a world of insane spelling, change is hard. This book took me a long time to read because the simplified spelling makes sense to me as a language science person but oh my god reading it is awful. Yay for being raised in a society and a culture I guess.

[Louis · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed this book a lot! It dragged a little at some points but I audibly laughed at basically every chapter.

[Erin Slay Slay-Wilson · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 rounded down! I enjoyed most of this book but felt it got a little long with certain periods of history. Interesting overall!

[Ross · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a great book! I started listening to the audiobook then quickly realized that "see the attached PDF" was happening way too often, so I switched to the physical book.

I appreciated all the historical insight and dialogue related to spelling and the people hoping to reform English spelling. Current dialogue about "texting language" or other forms of writing English words has nothing on the complicated history and story of the English language. I'd recommend the physical book and diving into this content.

[Josh Davino · Rating 3 out of 5]

Az sum1 hoo haz strugld with speling hiz hol lyf this book radikalized me. It waz a litle dificult to get thru tho and a bit redundant. Stil it iz uneek and funy and I l lerned lodes

[Melissa · Rating 3 out of 5]

I never knew there were multiple attempts to simplify American English spelling. I listened to the audio, which did make it harder to understand the nuances of the spelling changes, but I got the gist of it. Suffice it to say, words look weird if spelled phonetically. While the English language can be a pain at times, all the various spellings and meaning and pronunciations, I can't image spelling any other way.

There was mention of modern texting and how that fundamentally changed how we spell, in informal settings anyway. Text spelling can be chaotic and hard to interpret too. Often, I have to look up acronyms. Oh well.

I used to be a great speller, but with the inventing of spell check and of course the internet, my spelling has declined. But I at least know when it's not right!!! :D

[DJ · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was holding on to this book because I thought I marked a lot more pages, but I actually didn't! But it was a fun and fascinating read, especially for this English teacher. :)

from the intro:

"English has 44 sounds but only 26 letters."

page 12:

the history of the silent final e to change short vowels into long vowels, such as "win" into "wine" and "fin" into "fine"

[sam · Rating 3 out of 5]

this book was fun! i probably would have enjoyed it more if i read it as a physical book and could see the spellings rather than hear them spelled out. but, alas

[Todd Stockslager · Rating 4 out of 5]

Review title: The power of the written word

What does it say that the first two books (see also Algospeak: How social media is transforming the future of language) in my reading database that were published in 2025 are both about how our rapidly evolving language is changing? Perhaps it says more about the purchasing choices of my local public library (both books were on the new-books shelf there) and my interests as a reader, since I found and read them based on a shelf scan, not a search for the specific books or topic.

But social media and how we use them definitely are changing language and spelling, and quickly too, regardless of what we think about the rightness (and righteousness!) of the changes. For one thing that Gabe Henry makes clear in this succinct history of efforts to simplify English spelling is that over the many attempts over many centuries (the first formal attempt dates from the 12th century, p. 11) the responses have been intense, usually negative, and sometimes couched in moralistic terms.

Why so serious? A British politician who had introduced a simplified spelling bill in Parliament in 1949 (it failed) wrote of Winston Churchill's opposition to the idea: "As the greatest English orator of the century, he seemed to think that there was something that bound beauty of language with the symbols that formed the written form of it." (p. 179). And I believe he has hit on one key contributing factor to the almost total failure of the many efforts to simplify English spelling: most speakers associate the power of the spoken word in some perhaps mystical or emotional way with the spelling of the written word, no matter how anachronistic the spelling.

Yet as Henry documents, some simplification takes root and lives organically because of its shortening of length (bar-b-q, Dunkin' Donuts) for marketing and signage (p. 186). In short, if the new spellings and resulting words and sentences are fun, functional in time-savings, and instinctively understandable, we'll adopt them without guidance or command from experts in law or language.

Henry is both serious and tongue-in-cheek as he writes this history, both of which approaches are helpful for a topic which seems equally amenable to both approaches. When you read--or attempt to--examples (the Lord's Prayer being a popular exemplar) of some of these proposals to make spelling match pronunciation in a "simplified" and logical way, it becomes immediately obvious why they never became standards. Henry helpfully provides translations back to English for the worst case examples that are simply indecipherable. And he provides footnotes for those who want to torture their brains further in the weeds of the topic.

As I began to see in Algospeak and now Enough, the use of social media on small devices by a huge portion of the world's population is driving linguistic change from the bottom up. Our linguistics experts and classroom teachers may be shocked and horrified, but change is and will continue to be driven by this rapid innovation and adoption. No amount of hand-wringing or attempted enforcement of policies and standards guidelines will change that. Literacy is ultimately defined by understanding the meaning of written text, not by standardized tests.

So staying informed by reading books like this one is our best preparation and defense in this changing world of words.

[Pauline · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book is not particularly sincere about spelling reform, like a carny employing a stable of freak shows, not because he has any good in his heart, but because he, like his audience, sees something funny about them. I don't have any issue with pop linguistics books—I read McWhorter's Pronoun Trouble last year and enjoyed his wit and wealth of knowledge—but this is not that. Why has English gone hundreds of years without a successful spelling reform? Why has there never been a central authoritative body in the English-speaking world to promote spelling reform like the RAE or the Académie française? These aren't questions the author has any real insight into. What he has instead is surface level commentary on the Cliff notes of several proposed spelling reforms, sumtaims speld laik dis! Iznt speling laik dis fuhnee?

Put bluntly, it got old.

That's not to say that there's nothing of value here, especially for the layperson who likely hasn't consciously thought much about spelling since their schooling days. It *is* amusing, and it is, as far as I understand it, an accurate overview of the evolution (and stagnation) of English orthography since the Old English period. The problem for me has less to do with its retelling of history and more with its implicit thesis. Having finished this book, you would think the ultimate and inevitable cause for the failure of English spelling reform is the mockery of self-serving journalists, the pomposity of the literate elite, and, perhaps most of all, the apathy of the hoi polloi. But this Anglocentric view only works if you don't look anywhere else. There have been many successful spelling reforms, and there are many languages whose orthographies reflect the spoken language with near one-to-one accuracy. Spanish is one of them. As are German, Portuguese, and others. Even in French, a language whose spelling is as ancient as that of English, you can still largely derive pronunciation from spelling. All have regulating bodies who've passed spelling reforms either historically or in the past century (though of course adoption is a slow and not always consistent process). So why must this be so hard for English?

The book does not address this, depicting spelling reform instead as the misguided goal of many well-intentioned historical figures who wasted their time, money, and effort. Why bother? the author might as well have said. He is not interested in dissecting any of these systems, seeing what worked and what didn't—to him they are just curios, little side stories in the lives of such people as Benjamin Franklin and Mark Twain, proposals not worth sincere critique or respect. As far as the book is concerned, the mere proposal of spelling reform is a joke. I understand well enough that a pop linguistics book is meant to be fun and not a research paper, but you can be funny and genuine and insightful at once. This book is just funny.