What do you think?
Rate this book
A World Without "Whom": The Essential Guide to Language in the BuzzFeed Age
A World Without "Whom" is Eats, Shoots & Leaves for the internet age, and BuzzFeed global copy chief Emmy Favilla is the witty go-to style guru of webspeak.
As language evolves faster than ever before, what is the future of "correct" writing? When Favilla was tasked with creating a style guide for BuzzFeed, she opted for spelling, grammar, and punctuation guidelines that would reflect not only the site's lighthearted tone but also how readers actually use language IRL.
With wry cleverness and an uncanny intuition for the possibilities of internet-age expression, Favilla makes a case for breaking the rules laid out by Strunk and White: A world without "whom," she argues, is a world with more room for writing that's clear, timely, pleasurable, and politically aware. Featuring priceless emoji strings, sidebars, quizzes, and style debates among the most lovable word nerds in the digital media world--of which Favilla is queen--A World Without "Whom" is essential for readers and writers of virtually everything: news articles, blog posts, tweets, texts, emails, and whatever comes next--so basically everyone.
As language evolves faster than ever before, what is the future of "correct" writing? When Favilla was tasked with creating a style guide for BuzzFeed, she opted for spelling, grammar, and punctuation guidelines that would reflect not only the site's lighthearted tone but also how readers actually use language IRL.
With wry cleverness and an uncanny intuition for the possibilities of internet-age expression, Favilla makes a case for breaking the rules laid out by Strunk and White: A world without "whom," she argues, is a world with more room for writing that's clear, timely, pleasurable, and politically aware. Featuring priceless emoji strings, sidebars, quizzes, and style debates among the most lovable word nerds in the digital media world--of which Favilla is queen--A World Without "Whom" is essential for readers and writers of virtually everything: news articles, blog posts, tweets, texts, emails, and whatever comes next--so basically everyone.
311 pages, Hardcover
First published November 14, 2017
90 people are currently reading
1351 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 118 reviews
July 17, 2020
Not to be mistaken for an English-usage manual on par with The Chicago Manual of Style, A World Without "Whom" is all about BuzzFeed's unique usage guide--how it came to be and why it was needed in the first place. Favilla and her fellow copy editors, as part of an online publication that has its finger on the pulse of what's current, found that the traditional Associated Press Stylebook And Libel Manual (APS) didn't fully meet their needs. Favilla initiated the creation of BuzzFeed's usage guide and was so successful that online publications similar to BuzzFeed adopted it.
APS is typically used by journalists but is ideal for those journalists who write for serious, formal publications such as The Washington Post. Lighthearted BuzzFeed is concerned first and foremost with connecting with its young readership. The writing and editing team believe that that means employing the most up-to-date, if stupid, slang and internet abbreviations, but also bending standard rules of grammar, punctuation, spelling, and syntax when they don't truly need to be bent: Spaces surrounding an em dash (long "hyphen," for the unversed) make no difference whatsoever in whether or not the young readership will relate to the content.
This book doesn't seem to know what it is. Certain pieces of Favilla's laid-back advice and an entire section explaining each punctuation mark seem aimed at everyone who writes. On the other hand, A World Without "Whom" seems suitable only for editors as other pieces of advice are irrelevant to all but them. She also discusses the nitty-gritty of traditional grammar, punctuation, and syntax in a way that would bore the average reader.
However, confusingly, Favilla then somewhat contradicts all the lessons in traditional rules by expressing unapologetic scorn toward those who value traditional rules. At best, she tosses out "stodgy" and "curmudgeon." At worst, she rudely mocks those who insert a comma after "Hi" in e-mail salutations and labels those who like to diagram sentences "losers," to cite a few examples. (By her own admission, she has trouble with diagramming.) If she was trying to persuade other editors, those "curmudgeons" who are more likely than most to like diagramming and to use commas in salutations, she failed.
The majority of Favilla's arguments are unconvincing and her overall tone and flippant attitude toward English-language standards irritating. In her world, almost everything is debatable, from comma splices to spelling.
Her constant argument is that language is "alive" and evolves, which is fair, but there's accepting natural language evolution, and then there's forcing it. In the most extreme example of Favilla trying to force a change--an example that made me embarrassed for her--she relays how she tried to get her team to adopt a ridiculous word she coined: "faceful." Her team disliked the word, and they instead opted for "face full," the (existing) choice that made sense from the beginning.
There's also the problem of embracing language change too quickly. Merriam-Webster waits many years before adding slang, reasoning that much slang doesn't have staying power. Favilla and her Buzzfeed team don't have that standard, adopting all no matter how stupid and then promoting them with an anything-goes, "language is alive" attitude.
To further bolster her core argument, Favilla cites famous writers such as Shakespeare and Mark Twain as those who used incorrect forms of words centuries ago (Shakespeare) or more than 100 years ago (Twain). Twain in particular she cites as proof that "alright" is acceptable, even though "all right" is the correct form according to every reputable usage manual. Her sole reasoning is that he used this word more than 100 years ago. She never considers that perhaps Twain was simply wrong. If a long-dead famous writer used a word incorrectly, to Favilla, that makes that word either the correct form or an acceptable alternative form.
A World Without "Whom" has format and readability going for it. Though it doesn't quite know its identity, the book at least holds reader interest enough, and even those bored by the nitty-gritty aspects may really enjoy the integration of screenshots showing discussions between Favilla and her team; memes; and the results of usage polls (presumably from BuzzFeed's usage guide Twitter page). The most bored can skim A World Without "Whom" and glean some interesting information.
This book is interesting as a curiosity. It's hard to take seriously an editor who employs internet abbreviations (IDK, JK, FWIW, etc.) throughout her book and says
Favilla is trying to convince the English-speaking world to throw out 99% of rules and "follow your heart" (a mantra she lives by), without considering that before one can break the rules, one must first know the rules inside and out. She does say it, at the beginning: "It's fine to flout 'the rules' when you have a solid understanding of what the rules are and a calculated reason for doing so . . . " but then...she wrote this book for all and seems to want all to take her advice. It's unwise, and confused.
A World Without "Whom" has to be taken with a grain of salt. I understood Favilla's every (over-intellectualized) point but rejected them all because they were so ludicrous and because she sounds like she has a generous amount of air between the ears. Anyone serious about writing like an educated person should study The Chicago Manual of Style or A Writer's Reference, at the least.
APS is typically used by journalists but is ideal for those journalists who write for serious, formal publications such as The Washington Post. Lighthearted BuzzFeed is concerned first and foremost with connecting with its young readership. The writing and editing team believe that that means employing the most up-to-date, if stupid, slang and internet abbreviations, but also bending standard rules of grammar, punctuation, spelling, and syntax when they don't truly need to be bent: Spaces surrounding an em dash (long "hyphen," for the unversed) make no difference whatsoever in whether or not the young readership will relate to the content.
This book doesn't seem to know what it is. Certain pieces of Favilla's laid-back advice and an entire section explaining each punctuation mark seem aimed at everyone who writes. On the other hand, A World Without "Whom" seems suitable only for editors as other pieces of advice are irrelevant to all but them. She also discusses the nitty-gritty of traditional grammar, punctuation, and syntax in a way that would bore the average reader.
However, confusingly, Favilla then somewhat contradicts all the lessons in traditional rules by expressing unapologetic scorn toward those who value traditional rules. At best, she tosses out "stodgy" and "curmudgeon." At worst, she rudely mocks those who insert a comma after "Hi" in e-mail salutations and labels those who like to diagram sentences "losers," to cite a few examples. (By her own admission, she has trouble with diagramming.) If she was trying to persuade other editors, those "curmudgeons" who are more likely than most to like diagramming and to use commas in salutations, she failed.
The majority of Favilla's arguments are unconvincing and her overall tone and flippant attitude toward English-language standards irritating. In her world, almost everything is debatable, from comma splices to spelling.
Her constant argument is that language is "alive" and evolves, which is fair, but there's accepting natural language evolution, and then there's forcing it. In the most extreme example of Favilla trying to force a change--an example that made me embarrassed for her--she relays how she tried to get her team to adopt a ridiculous word she coined: "faceful." Her team disliked the word, and they instead opted for "face full," the (existing) choice that made sense from the beginning.
There's also the problem of embracing language change too quickly. Merriam-Webster waits many years before adding slang, reasoning that much slang doesn't have staying power. Favilla and her Buzzfeed team don't have that standard, adopting all no matter how stupid and then promoting them with an anything-goes, "language is alive" attitude.
To further bolster her core argument, Favilla cites famous writers such as Shakespeare and Mark Twain as those who used incorrect forms of words centuries ago (Shakespeare) or more than 100 years ago (Twain). Twain in particular she cites as proof that "alright" is acceptable, even though "all right" is the correct form according to every reputable usage manual. Her sole reasoning is that he used this word more than 100 years ago. She never considers that perhaps Twain was simply wrong. If a long-dead famous writer used a word incorrectly, to Favilla, that makes that word either the correct form or an acceptable alternative form.
A World Without "Whom" has format and readability going for it. Though it doesn't quite know its identity, the book at least holds reader interest enough, and even those bored by the nitty-gritty aspects may really enjoy the integration of screenshots showing discussions between Favilla and her team; memes; and the results of usage polls (presumably from BuzzFeed's usage guide Twitter page). The most bored can skim A World Without "Whom" and glean some interesting information.
This book is interesting as a curiosity. It's hard to take seriously an editor who employs internet abbreviations (IDK, JK, FWIW, etc.) throughout her book and says
" . . . my test for determining the "right" capitalization, punctuation, or spelling of something I’m editing is this: I ask myself, How would I write this in an email to a friend, or in a Facebook status? If the answer is that I would not, under any circumstance, capitalize the word laundromat--even though many dictionaries (and apparently Microsoft Word) suggest I do--or spell goosebumps as goose bumps, then, well, that settles it."The few rules Favilla respects can be counted on one hand, and strangely, she gripes about the overuse, to the point of meaninglessness, of "lol" while arguing in favor of things that are just as worth griping about.
Favilla is trying to convince the English-speaking world to throw out 99% of rules and "follow your heart" (a mantra she lives by), without considering that before one can break the rules, one must first know the rules inside and out. She does say it, at the beginning: "It's fine to flout 'the rules' when you have a solid understanding of what the rules are and a calculated reason for doing so . . . " but then...she wrote this book for all and seems to want all to take her advice. It's unwise, and confused.
A World Without "Whom" has to be taken with a grain of salt. I understood Favilla's every (over-intellectualized) point but rejected them all because they were so ludicrous and because she sounds like she has a generous amount of air between the ears. Anyone serious about writing like an educated person should study The Chicago Manual of Style or A Writer's Reference, at the least.
October 29, 2019
The first thing to get out of the way in reviewing A World Without “Whom” is the title itself. Author Emmy Favilla, drawing from her experience as global copy chief of the website BuzzFeed, avers that she hates “whom” and would like it to disappear. “And if you do use whom in conversational speech,” she writes, “you will never see yourself on an invite to a dinner party at my place” (151). But if you search for “whom” on BuzzFeed, you find it in hundreds of articles, the most recent example of which features the subheading “Whom among us doesn’t want to feel a lil sophisticated?” A lot of the “whom” examples on BuzzFeed are in set phrases such as “many of whom” and “both of whom.” Is Favilla suggesting that we make those “many of who” and “both of who,” or is she saying we just shouldn’t get to use that turn of phrase at all?
This is reflective of a lot of the book. Favilla repeatedly encourages the reader to “follow your heart” and “you do you” when making decisions about stylistic choices in writing and editing. Except for the things that she feels are important, in which case if your heart should lead you to transgress those rules, you are quickly dismissed as “the worst person on the planet,” “loser,” “weirdo,” “creepy.” I found Favilla’s quick, harsh judgment of people who disagree with her a little frightening and very sad. She wants us to see language as something that brings all people together, but she also reveals a bitterness and anger that dismantles that potential for community.
This kind of self-centered, judgmental attitude is something I’ve also seen in other writers who spend much of their time keeping up with moment-by-moment activities of a select group of celebrities on a select range of social media platforms. I feel bad for Favilla and others who confine themselves to what seems like a really small, narrow world. It brings you the feeling that you are connecting to other people, but the result seems to be that you lose the ability to truly be with people. Reading Favilla’s book, I see nothing about the things in life that have meant a lot to me and, I hope, have kept me a real, connected person. There’s plenty in Favilla’s writing about the Kardashians, Harry Styles, and viral memes, but nothing at all about family members, books written before 1996, or friendships that include more than crass joking around at work and getting drunk together. There is a gloriously uncool world outside of the screen, and I think that unguarded uncoolness helps keep us alive and growing.
It’s not that Favilla doesn’t care about people. She devotes a chapter to “writing about sensitive topics” (chapter 3, “How to Not Be a Jerk”). The problem is, first, that she does act like a jerk relatively often and unashamedly. Second, her guidelines for being sensitive toward others feel distanced, as though she doesn’t know any people like this in real life, but she’s pretty sure this is how we should be writing about them. Her writing in that chapter demonstrates what is not right about public discourse in the US right now. She is somewhat dismissive of other opinions and ways of seeing the world, and so issues that are actually very complex are waved away with simplistic decisions, after which anyone who disagrees with her is obviously either (a) thoughtless or (b) old (or, probably, both). Favilla settles the proper way to write about people in the abortion discussion, for example, with a single sentence; but there is more to that discussion, and the reason it’s contentious is that it can’t be resolved in a single sentence.
Most writing, and certainly almost all news writing, thrives within an openness of communication that is clear and honest, giving readers a fair opportunity to learn and then engage in the discussion. In Favilla’s writing, I see instead the kind of snap-judgment, instant us-vs.-them perspective that hurts the potential for human community. Favilla’s constant “You know what, though, you do what you want to do, what do I know” hedging is disingenuous and can’t cover the obvious fact that there are clear lines of coolness and correctness that you’d best not cross; once you cross those lines, we have nothing more to say to each other. “Sensitivity” does not mean that when I disagree with a position you hold, I just wave my hand and say “Haters gonna hate” and then walk away. That flippant attitude ignores real connection and conversation that ought to be happening. Walking away from it is only very marginally more compassionate than sticking around and arguing about it. The best option is to really talk together, find out why you’ve come to different opinions, learn to respect one another. A website that helps people learn to do that has my respect; a website that creates a steady stream of content like “21 Tweets About Having an iPhone That Are Incredibly Real” does not.
Favilla does make a number of points in A World Without “Whom” that I agree with, and the topic of language change here in the early 21st century is fascinating. Unfortunately, her book wants the reader to accept that the writing style used in internet and text communication is all language is or aspires to be. Trying to read this published, print book that uses emojis, “lol” (despite Favilla’s assertion that she dislikes “lol”), and “See what I did there” makes it clear to me that language style choices in one medium don’t necessarily transfer smoothly into another medium. And I’m pretty sure Favilla isn’t suggesting that scientific journal articles start being freer and more internet-style–informed (certainly there are ways to make academic prose more readable, but it doesn’t require use of emojis). But her focus is so completely and so narrowly the BuzzFeed world that the bigger issues about language change can’t be discussed. The best the reader can do is turn to David Crystal, whom (see what I did there, lol) Favilla quotes often and who writes in the customary style of published books.
In the end, I doubt this book will have a lasting influence on most writers and editors. Favilla herself is no longer the copy chief at BuzzFeed, and from what I’ve read online, BuzzFeed is undergoing difficulties, having reduced its staff by 15 percent at the beginning of this year. If we ever were living “in the BuzzFeed Age,” it seems that we are now moving out of it. I don’t mind. I look forward to other, better, books about the language change that is happening all around us.
This is reflective of a lot of the book. Favilla repeatedly encourages the reader to “follow your heart” and “you do you” when making decisions about stylistic choices in writing and editing. Except for the things that she feels are important, in which case if your heart should lead you to transgress those rules, you are quickly dismissed as “the worst person on the planet,” “loser,” “weirdo,” “creepy.” I found Favilla’s quick, harsh judgment of people who disagree with her a little frightening and very sad. She wants us to see language as something that brings all people together, but she also reveals a bitterness and anger that dismantles that potential for community.
This kind of self-centered, judgmental attitude is something I’ve also seen in other writers who spend much of their time keeping up with moment-by-moment activities of a select group of celebrities on a select range of social media platforms. I feel bad for Favilla and others who confine themselves to what seems like a really small, narrow world. It brings you the feeling that you are connecting to other people, but the result seems to be that you lose the ability to truly be with people. Reading Favilla’s book, I see nothing about the things in life that have meant a lot to me and, I hope, have kept me a real, connected person. There’s plenty in Favilla’s writing about the Kardashians, Harry Styles, and viral memes, but nothing at all about family members, books written before 1996, or friendships that include more than crass joking around at work and getting drunk together. There is a gloriously uncool world outside of the screen, and I think that unguarded uncoolness helps keep us alive and growing.
It’s not that Favilla doesn’t care about people. She devotes a chapter to “writing about sensitive topics” (chapter 3, “How to Not Be a Jerk”). The problem is, first, that she does act like a jerk relatively often and unashamedly. Second, her guidelines for being sensitive toward others feel distanced, as though she doesn’t know any people like this in real life, but she’s pretty sure this is how we should be writing about them. Her writing in that chapter demonstrates what is not right about public discourse in the US right now. She is somewhat dismissive of other opinions and ways of seeing the world, and so issues that are actually very complex are waved away with simplistic decisions, after which anyone who disagrees with her is obviously either (a) thoughtless or (b) old (or, probably, both). Favilla settles the proper way to write about people in the abortion discussion, for example, with a single sentence; but there is more to that discussion, and the reason it’s contentious is that it can’t be resolved in a single sentence.
Most writing, and certainly almost all news writing, thrives within an openness of communication that is clear and honest, giving readers a fair opportunity to learn and then engage in the discussion. In Favilla’s writing, I see instead the kind of snap-judgment, instant us-vs.-them perspective that hurts the potential for human community. Favilla’s constant “You know what, though, you do what you want to do, what do I know” hedging is disingenuous and can’t cover the obvious fact that there are clear lines of coolness and correctness that you’d best not cross; once you cross those lines, we have nothing more to say to each other. “Sensitivity” does not mean that when I disagree with a position you hold, I just wave my hand and say “Haters gonna hate” and then walk away. That flippant attitude ignores real connection and conversation that ought to be happening. Walking away from it is only very marginally more compassionate than sticking around and arguing about it. The best option is to really talk together, find out why you’ve come to different opinions, learn to respect one another. A website that helps people learn to do that has my respect; a website that creates a steady stream of content like “21 Tweets About Having an iPhone That Are Incredibly Real” does not.
Favilla does make a number of points in A World Without “Whom” that I agree with, and the topic of language change here in the early 21st century is fascinating. Unfortunately, her book wants the reader to accept that the writing style used in internet and text communication is all language is or aspires to be. Trying to read this published, print book that uses emojis, “lol” (despite Favilla’s assertion that she dislikes “lol”), and “See what I did there” makes it clear to me that language style choices in one medium don’t necessarily transfer smoothly into another medium. And I’m pretty sure Favilla isn’t suggesting that scientific journal articles start being freer and more internet-style–informed (certainly there are ways to make academic prose more readable, but it doesn’t require use of emojis). But her focus is so completely and so narrowly the BuzzFeed world that the bigger issues about language change can’t be discussed. The best the reader can do is turn to David Crystal, whom (see what I did there, lol) Favilla quotes often and who writes in the customary style of published books.
In the end, I doubt this book will have a lasting influence on most writers and editors. Favilla herself is no longer the copy chief at BuzzFeed, and from what I’ve read online, BuzzFeed is undergoing difficulties, having reduced its staff by 15 percent at the beginning of this year. If we ever were living “in the BuzzFeed Age,” it seems that we are now moving out of it. I don’t mind. I look forward to other, better, books about the language change that is happening all around us.
December 12, 2020
I enjoy a good language book, and this one was great fun. Despite her breezy, devil-may-care tone, I have a feeling Favilla could quote the rules from various style books until whoever listening drifted into a coma. She doesn't follow all of them, but I like that she knows them.
The author is the Buzzfeed global copy chief and author of their style guide, and her approach makes a lot of sense for online writing—know your audience, follow the rules that exist for clarity, bend or break a bunch of the rest in keeping with how language is evolving.
Besides the grammar and usage stuff that I love to read about, there's a lot about modern language, specifically how language has changed and is used on social media. I learned a few things that made me feel rather old and that I likely won't remember. Apparently I'm over-punctuating my tweets and texts, but I don't think I can stop, so... call me Granny Harkins.
The book references other great-sounding language books—I've already ordered Shady Characters: The Secret Life of Punctuation, Symbols, and other Typographical Marks from the library—and language-related Buzzfeed articles which I had fun reading and sharing with friends. Screenshots of nerdy language questions and debates among Buzzfeed writers gave an inside look, often quite funny, at their process.
Despite all the shrugging and follow-your-hearting that goes on, there are rules she's partial to, and she does have her pets—use of the em dash is one. I'm oddly embarrassed to admit that I had never even heard of an em dash until a year ago. Oh, the shame. Hyphens, my Kryptonite these many years, served in their place, and no one ever said boo about my using them. Until I got a gentle suggestion to change a hyphen to an em dash about a year ago. But I promptly forgot about the incident until I read this book. And now I'm becoming a little obsessed with them. Maybe it will pass. But they are prettier than hyphens. Just saying.
I can't get on board with everything. She does a surprisingly goofy thing with the word dammit, although I don't think she ever stops to explain why, which is to insist on spelling it damnit. I can see the logic behind it, but it's distracting, it looks horrible, and I've never seen anyone spell it this way before. Seems like something she would poke fun at rather than do, based on the tone of the rest of the book. But it's kind of endearing and makes her seem a little less unattainably cool.
And for now, I'm going to keep saying whom because I think it makes me sound posh.
I read a little of this book each day—it's not really a read-in-one-sitting book— and Favilla's sassy tone made it a blast to read about grammar, punctuation, and the language of the internet.
The author is the Buzzfeed global copy chief and author of their style guide, and her approach makes a lot of sense for online writing—know your audience, follow the rules that exist for clarity, bend or break a bunch of the rest in keeping with how language is evolving.
Besides the grammar and usage stuff that I love to read about, there's a lot about modern language, specifically how language has changed and is used on social media. I learned a few things that made me feel rather old and that I likely won't remember. Apparently I'm over-punctuating my tweets and texts, but I don't think I can stop, so... call me Granny Harkins.
The book references other great-sounding language books—I've already ordered Shady Characters: The Secret Life of Punctuation, Symbols, and other Typographical Marks from the library—and language-related Buzzfeed articles which I had fun reading and sharing with friends. Screenshots of nerdy language questions and debates among Buzzfeed writers gave an inside look, often quite funny, at their process.
Despite all the shrugging and follow-your-hearting that goes on, there are rules she's partial to, and she does have her pets—use of the em dash is one. I'm oddly embarrassed to admit that I had never even heard of an em dash until a year ago. Oh, the shame. Hyphens, my Kryptonite these many years, served in their place, and no one ever said boo about my using them. Until I got a gentle suggestion to change a hyphen to an em dash about a year ago. But I promptly forgot about the incident until I read this book. And now I'm becoming a little obsessed with them. Maybe it will pass. But they are prettier than hyphens. Just saying.
I can't get on board with everything. She does a surprisingly goofy thing with the word dammit, although I don't think she ever stops to explain why, which is to insist on spelling it damnit. I can see the logic behind it, but it's distracting, it looks horrible, and I've never seen anyone spell it this way before. Seems like something she would poke fun at rather than do, based on the tone of the rest of the book. But it's kind of endearing and makes her seem a little less unattainably cool.
And for now, I'm going to keep saying whom because I think it makes me sound posh.
I read a little of this book each day—it's not really a read-in-one-sitting book— and Favilla's sassy tone made it a blast to read about grammar, punctuation, and the language of the internet.
May 16, 2021
oh lmao I forgot to update that I finished this—it was enjoyable, but nothing special lol
November 4, 2017
John and Hank Green spent a third of a Dear Hank and John episode trying to decide how to spell the colloquial form of casual. Cash would be confused with money. Instead of a 17-minute discussion, they could have just asked BuzzFeed. In growing from clickbait quizzes asking “Which pie are you?” to a massive media platform targeting the most internet savvy, they’ve had to keep a grasp on current language trends. In her new book, A World Without “Whom”, Emmy Favilla discusses how language has changed, how to use it, and why precise controls don’t matter.
Oh, and casual should be shortened to caj.
A World Without “Whom” is the book all marketers and writers need to read. When we get caught up on comma placement and correct English, we need Emmy’s reminder that “A good piece of writing is engaging, interesting, and thorough. Duh, right”. Technical correctness isn’t part of that. Our audiences will relate to engaging, interesting, and thorough; they won’t notice—or care—if you capitalize laundromat or not.
This sounds like it’s a book that says language no longer matters. That’s not right. It does matter, but it’s also fluid. Local colloquialisms now spread and evolve with the internet, faster than ever before. Our audiences are now more geographically and culturally diverse. Language matters more than ever, but the old rules (and style books) are having trouble keeping up. That’s the premise of Emmy’s book. In a discussion of this continual evolution, we learn how to use English as it is today. It’s more about consistency and being understood.
Emmy’s style is entertaining and BuzzFeed-flippant. Oh, and informative. I childishly giggled at some of the examples, like the pipe parentheses butt ( | ). Emmy includes screen grabs of discussions within her team and on Twitter seeking clarifications. I agree we need a better non-gender specific term for fisherman. Speaking of gender-specific terms, there’s an important section on unnecessary mentions of gender and race. If the person’s gender or race isn’t pertinent to the discussion, please DON’T use it. And it’s rarely pertinent to the discussion. I’m thinking I need to start using man doctor — just to see the reaction.
The other section that stood out is the localization. It’s mainly comparing U.S. and U.K. English, with a little Canadian and Australian thrown in. The British swearwords guide is hilarious. Thank you for not using the cute version of bugger. My sister’s baby nickname was buggerlugs, but since discovering its full meaning I can never use it.
I read an eArc, courtesy of NetGalley. It was incomplete (missing some images and with messy formatting). I’d love to see the final copy. There are a couple of not-quite-there chapters that I don’t want to comment on in case they didn’t make the final cut.
Who Should Read A World Without “Whom”?
Everyone publishing on the internet or for non-academic/formal audiences. The final chapter is BuzzFeed’s house style guide, that’s also openly published online. It’s the most current guide available. Remember Chicago’s 2017 update is the first in 16 years. Reading A World Without “Whom” helps you stay relevant in your career and to your audiences.
A World Without “Whom” is released November 14. I recommend you get a copy.
First published at: https://tapdancingspiders.com/book-re...
Oh, and casual should be shortened to caj.
A World Without “Whom” is the book all marketers and writers need to read. When we get caught up on comma placement and correct English, we need Emmy’s reminder that “A good piece of writing is engaging, interesting, and thorough. Duh, right”. Technical correctness isn’t part of that. Our audiences will relate to engaging, interesting, and thorough; they won’t notice—or care—if you capitalize laundromat or not.
This sounds like it’s a book that says language no longer matters. That’s not right. It does matter, but it’s also fluid. Local colloquialisms now spread and evolve with the internet, faster than ever before. Our audiences are now more geographically and culturally diverse. Language matters more than ever, but the old rules (and style books) are having trouble keeping up. That’s the premise of Emmy’s book. In a discussion of this continual evolution, we learn how to use English as it is today. It’s more about consistency and being understood.
Emmy’s style is entertaining and BuzzFeed-flippant. Oh, and informative. I childishly giggled at some of the examples, like the pipe parentheses butt ( | ). Emmy includes screen grabs of discussions within her team and on Twitter seeking clarifications. I agree we need a better non-gender specific term for fisherman. Speaking of gender-specific terms, there’s an important section on unnecessary mentions of gender and race. If the person’s gender or race isn’t pertinent to the discussion, please DON’T use it. And it’s rarely pertinent to the discussion. I’m thinking I need to start using man doctor — just to see the reaction.
The other section that stood out is the localization. It’s mainly comparing U.S. and U.K. English, with a little Canadian and Australian thrown in. The British swearwords guide is hilarious. Thank you for not using the cute version of bugger. My sister’s baby nickname was buggerlugs, but since discovering its full meaning I can never use it.
I read an eArc, courtesy of NetGalley. It was incomplete (missing some images and with messy formatting). I’d love to see the final copy. There are a couple of not-quite-there chapters that I don’t want to comment on in case they didn’t make the final cut.
Who Should Read A World Without “Whom”?
Everyone publishing on the internet or for non-academic/formal audiences. The final chapter is BuzzFeed’s house style guide, that’s also openly published online. It’s the most current guide available. Remember Chicago’s 2017 update is the first in 16 years. Reading A World Without “Whom” helps you stay relevant in your career and to your audiences.
A World Without “Whom” is released November 14. I recommend you get a copy.
First published at: https://tapdancingspiders.com/book-re...
Read
July 15, 2021--22 Jan 2020
Hmm so it was less riotously funny than I remembered (alas) but I still enjoyed the reread and it still made me laugh! I also think I'm less engaged because it is now even further from 2017 than it was when I first read this in 2019 and because of the nature of the internet, there's a lot that was outdated already with regards to that.
--8 June 2019
This was absolutely hilarious.
Would I actually use what it says as a reference for how I use grammar? heck no. Was it comprehensive? not quite. Did most of the stylistic choices recommended here come from the author's own opinion? absolutely, and I definitely did not agree personally with all her takes. But it was a thorough discussion on elements of grammatical style and what's acceptable in the modern age in both formal(er) writing and, especially as the book progressed, internet slang and the unique way language has developed in an internet context.
(Also, it had the clearest explanation of the en-dash I've ever seen.)
I was laughing constantly and sending images of bits and pieces to my fellow high-school-newspaper copy editor, probably to the point of okay, Marilla, chill, it's not THAT funny, you need to leave her alone now because I needed to share the humor with someone because the comments on grammar and language usage were just so good (and my mother had already made it clear that no, grammar is NOT funny, not even those seven excerpts you just read me). I'm not going to even attempt to exemplify good lines here because there are so many that i'd never be able to choose which to include.
The value of the book, however, isn't just in its humor (though that certainly made it much easier to read). It makes valid discussions of language trends over time, and I especially enjoyed the explanations of internet connotations and expression of tone simply because it's a personal interest of mine and I haven't actually read a book discussing that before.
Hmm so it was less riotously funny than I remembered (alas) but I still enjoyed the reread and it still made me laugh! I also think I'm less engaged because it is now even further from 2017 than it was when I first read this in 2019 and because of the nature of the internet, there's a lot that was outdated already with regards to that.
--8 June 2019
This was absolutely hilarious.
Would I actually use what it says as a reference for how I use grammar? heck no. Was it comprehensive? not quite. Did most of the stylistic choices recommended here come from the author's own opinion? absolutely, and I definitely did not agree personally with all her takes. But it was a thorough discussion on elements of grammatical style and what's acceptable in the modern age in both formal(er) writing and, especially as the book progressed, internet slang and the unique way language has developed in an internet context.
(Also, it had the clearest explanation of the en-dash I've ever seen.)
I was laughing constantly and sending images of bits and pieces to my fellow high-school-newspaper copy editor, probably to the point of okay, Marilla, chill, it's not THAT funny, you need to leave her alone now because I needed to share the humor with someone because the comments on grammar and language usage were just so good (and my mother had already made it clear that no, grammar is NOT funny, not even those seven excerpts you just read me). I'm not going to even attempt to exemplify good lines here because there are so many that i'd never be able to choose which to include.
The value of the book, however, isn't just in its humor (though that certainly made it much easier to read). It makes valid discussions of language trends over time, and I especially enjoyed the explanations of internet connotations and expression of tone simply because it's a personal interest of mine and I haven't actually read a book discussing that before.
November 13, 2017
Word nerds rejoice! Favilla's A World Without Whom is the nerdy, compelling, and hilarious guide to grammar/spelling/punctuation the world didn't know it needed (unlike the word "whom," which Favilla posits the world definitely *does not* need). This fast-paced read is filled with in-depth discussions of how, thanks to the internet, language is quickly evolving — and how that's a good thing. (Tbh it's a descriptivist's daydream and a prescriptivist's ammunition — aka fun for all!) While professors, copy editors, and English majors may be the novel's core audience, it's sure to please anyone with a passing interest in language due the brevity of the author's voice and the fun screenshots of Slack conversations, memes, and emails scattered among the text. Favilla also offers an intimate glimpse into the BuzzFeed copydesk, with entire chapters devoted to explaining the difficult decisions behind memey phrases such as cash me ousside, howbow dah. (Even her coworkers, who appear just in screenshots, are hilarious.)
A World Without Whom is the rare book that transcends genre: It's part teaching tool, part style guide, part biography, and part beach read. But overall it's a can't-miss novel from one of the freshest and funniest new voices of our language-evolving times.
A World Without Whom is the rare book that transcends genre: It's part teaching tool, part style guide, part biography, and part beach read. But overall it's a can't-miss novel from one of the freshest and funniest new voices of our language-evolving times.
December 11, 2018
In trying to quantify how much of a nerd I am, I feel like one item on the list would be how much genuine fun I had reading A World Without “Whom” and Word by Word this year. I want both Stamper and Favilla to just continue talking about what it’s like to work for a dictionary and as a copy editor pretty much forever, because it is almost endlessly fascinating to me. New dream job: copy editor. A World Without “Whom” is funny and engaging; it’s sure to delight word nerds everywhere.
Reading this book took me a surprisingly long time, because I really wanted to absorb the information. I didn’t want to miss a word about words, when usually I consume words very quickly. I am actually deeply fascinated about debates about how when to use a hypen or not. I have strong feelings about punctuation.
Something I’d never really given a ton of thought to before (though I was aware of it) was the war between prescriptivists and descriptivists (this war is solely with pens and judgmental witticisms) and precisely where I fall. Like Favilla herself, I fall somewhere in the middle; while I love a lot of the ways in which language is changing and evolving, sometimes I am that pedantic person who just cannot get over the figurative “literally.” There’s literally already a word for that, MY GOD. It was also very enjoyable that on most grammatical questions, my opinions match with Emmy’s, which is always satisfying, because I feel as vindicated as Dashboard Confessional. Except, of course, that I have totally embraced the non-literal lol, which is more sardonic and less I-just-fell-out-of-my-chair-laughing-rn.
If you’re the type of person who would enjoy sitting down and reading about the swift evolution of language in the internet era, you should absolutely read this book. Unless you hate Buzzfeed, in which case it might annoy you. I don’t, and it was awesome.
Reading this book took me a surprisingly long time, because I really wanted to absorb the information. I didn’t want to miss a word about words, when usually I consume words very quickly. I am actually deeply fascinated about debates about how when to use a hypen or not. I have strong feelings about punctuation.
Something I’d never really given a ton of thought to before (though I was aware of it) was the war between prescriptivists and descriptivists (this war is solely with pens and judgmental witticisms) and precisely where I fall. Like Favilla herself, I fall somewhere in the middle; while I love a lot of the ways in which language is changing and evolving, sometimes I am that pedantic person who just cannot get over the figurative “literally.” There’s literally already a word for that, MY GOD. It was also very enjoyable that on most grammatical questions, my opinions match with Emmy’s, which is always satisfying, because I feel as vindicated as Dashboard Confessional. Except, of course, that I have totally embraced the non-literal lol, which is more sardonic and less I-just-fell-out-of-my-chair-laughing-rn.
If you’re the type of person who would enjoy sitting down and reading about the swift evolution of language in the internet era, you should absolutely read this book. Unless you hate Buzzfeed, in which case it might annoy you. I don’t, and it was awesome.
January 26, 2018
A didactic attempt to dumb down the English language. Aimed at those who need to justify their own laziness in learning to write in English -- or those who have tried and failed to write (or speak) properly. Promoting ignorance as our least common denominator -- it's been working in politics and entertainment and mathematics -- now in language.
I didn't finish this book. My hands refused to hold it.
I didn't finish this book. My hands refused to hold it.
May 21, 2018
The reason I picked this book up is because I have found myself increasingly irritated by people misusing "whom." More specifically, I am annoyed when people use "whom" to sound fancy when the grammatical option is actually "who."
I am happy to report that Emmy J. Favilla agrees with me:
Right—so if you didn't understand that grammatical explanation above, you are better off avoiding "whom" altogether and just sticking with "who" all the time.
Misuse of "whom" I have seen in real life:
"I don't know who is whom." (IT'S WHO!)
"They are good at finding people whom are skilled at hiding their money." (IT'S WHO!)
"Thanks to whomever left me that present." (IT'S WHO!)
Phew. I am glad I got that off my chest.
I am happy to report that Emmy J. Favilla agrees with me:
The worst offense? When whom is used incorrectly, like in the sentence They were not sure whom would do a better job. I understand the confusion here, and the assumption that because they is the subject of the sentence there can be only one subject—and therefore only one noun in the subjective case—so of course whom is the object, spelled as such. Unfortunately, English is a little more complicated than that, and the clause do a better job is a hint that the doer of that action must be in the subjective case as well. (Still with me? You wouldn't have to be if whom were eradicated! Just saying.) They were not sure who would do a better job is in fact the grammatically correct sentence. Easy solution? Avoid whom altogether, for a as long as you shall live!
Right—so if you didn't understand that grammatical explanation above, you are better off avoiding "whom" altogether and just sticking with "who" all the time.
Misuse of "whom" I have seen in real life:
"I don't know who is whom." (IT'S WHO!)
"They are good at finding people whom are skilled at hiding their money." (IT'S WHO!)
"Thanks to whomever left me that present." (IT'S WHO!)
Phew. I am glad I got that off my chest.
July 12, 2018
I read this book because I liked the title and I am a nerd. I think Emmy Favilla writes succintly and engagingly about language. I did not necessarily agree with all the calls she made, but I liked that she was fully up front about acknowledging that they are just calls for consistency, not hard and fast rules. The book was more dull than I expected, though; like John Oliver, she relies on humour to be engaging, and this is less compelling than Last Week Tonight. I don't mind either in small doses, but I wanted to binge this book, you know? Also, she is heavily reliant on screenshots of largely inane and sometimes irrelevant conversations with colleagues and Buzzfeed posts and tweets. I get that this is ~the BuzzFeed way~, quirky tildes included, but I wish that she'd explained why she was using those illustrations at some point. I don't want to read about her saying 'follow your heart' or 'that's new' to her colleagues in Slack. Interestingly, the copyright is registered to BuzzFeed, so they are obviously fully supporting this book/trying to (re)cement their role as The definitive internet content platform...by putting their copyright to books, which is A Choice I guess. Anyway I think sub-editing is fascinating and I'm still glad that I read this.
July 8, 2022
★ ★ ★ 1/2 (rounded up)
This originally appeared at The Irresponsible Reader.
---
WHAT'S A WORLD WITHOUT "WHOM" ABOUT?
This could easily—very easily—be a book I take 10 paragraphs to describe, so I'm going to have mercy on you and me and borrow the description from the Publisher.
At one point, Favilla cites a book, Internet Linguistics: A Student Guide, noting that it "was published in 2011, aka eons ago in internet time." This book was published in 2017, making it eons-old by that standard, and a tad dated. But it still works and may even trigger a pleasant memory or two with a then-topical joke/reference.
THE OVERALL TONE/VOICE
This is a funny book. Favilla writes with a lot of passion, which helps in addressing what most would consider a dry and arid topic. But even better than the intensity of some of her thoughts, it's the humor. I don't know if I made it 3 pages without coming across a solid laugh line—and generally, it was fewer.
Granted, it may take a particular and peculiar sense of humor to find joes about conjunction use fodder for laughter, but if that's your poison...
Even when she's not going for the big laugh, but simply explaining something her style is fun. You can't not have a good time reading this (even when she encourages something like "verbifying with abandon." Just quoting those three words makes me want to scrub my hands like Adrian Monk.
A COUPLE OF NICE BONUSES
As one should expect from a book that invokes BuzzFeed twice on the cover, the book is filled with graphics and lists—and even a couple of quizzes.
My favorite lists are "Standard Punctuation Marks, Ranked from Worst to Best," (I'd literally have a poster of this hanging next to my desk if there was room for anything but bookshelves there) and "Old-Timey Words You Need to Start Using Again" (there's a version on BuzzFeed)
SO, WHAT DID I THINK ABOUT A WORLD WITHOUT "WHOM"?
This is not a book for the die-hard prescriptivist when it comes to language use. Favilla bases her positions and stylistic choices on feelings (and literally tells you that on page 1—which is not to say that there's no thought involved) and what she thinks will communicate more clearly. But she'll say time after time, that her rules are subjective and writers should make up their own minds. Especially when it comes to the internet—she will draw a line between print and online writing and doesn't seem to have a problem with more formal writing being done for traditional/print publications—as long as the internet can be the Wild West.
I'm reflexively a prescriptivist and will tend toward that kind of usage/take/book. But anyone who's read this particular site for any length of time (even if this post is your first!), will know I'm clearly not a strict practitioner of the rules Mrs. Hammer and Mr. Nelson pounded into me in Middle School. She didn't convince me on some points, and I'd still side with Strunk, White, and Dreyer at any point they disagreed with her. But I had so much fun reading this—and learning from it, I have to admit—that I don't mind her somewhat anarchical approach.*
*I halfway expect that in 2053, if someone reads this book they'll find that this is a straightjacket in terms of free expression.
And since this is supposed to be what I thought about the reading experience, not if I agree with her on every jot and tittle, I have no problem recommending it. If you're the kind of person who gets worked up about getting your phrasing juuuuuust right or are bothered when someone doesn't. If you think reading tributes to commas and em dashes is a good time. Or if you're curious about why someone would want to eliminate whom or is fine with letting the English subjunctive mood die...this is the book for you. I'm very glad that Jodi recommended this one to me.
And, I think I came away from this with an idea for my next tattoo. So, right there, this was worth the time for me.
This originally appeared at The Irresponsible Reader.
---
World peace Is a noble ideal, but I’d like to step that goal up a notch: A world with peace and without whom is the place I’d like to spend my golden years, basking in the sun, nary a subjunctive mood in sight, figurative literallys and comma splices frolicking about.
This is a book about feelings, mostly—not about rules, because how can anyone in good conscience create blanket rules for something as fluid, as personal, and as alive as language? Something that is used to communicate literally (literally) every thought, every emotion humans are capable of experiencing, via every medium in existence, from speech to print to Twitter to Snapchat? We can’t. Nearly everything about the way words are strung together is open to interpretation, and so boldly declaring a sentence structure “right” or “wrong” is a move that’s often subjective, and we'd be remiss not to acknowledge that most of the guidelines that govern our language are too. Communication is an art, not a science or a machine, and artistic license is especially constructive when the internet is the medium.
WHAT'S A WORLD WITHOUT "WHOM" ABOUT?
This could easily—very easily—be a book I take 10 paragraphs to describe, so I'm going to have mercy on you and me and borrow the description from the Publisher.
A World Without "Whom" is Eats, Shoots & Leaves for the internet age, and BuzzFeed global copy chief Emmy Favilla is the witty go-to style guru of webspeak.
As language evolves faster than ever before, what is the future of "correct" writing? When Favilla was tasked with creating a style guide for BuzzFeed, she opted for spelling, grammar, and punctuation guidelines that would reflect not only the site's lighthearted tone, but also how readers actually use language IRL.
With wry cleverness and an uncanny intuition for the possibilities of internet-age expression, Favilla makes a case for breaking the rules laid out by Strunk and White: A world without "whom," she argues, is a world with more room for writing that's clear, timely, pleasurable, and politically aware. Featuring priceless emoji strings, sidebars, quizzes, and style debates among the most lovable word nerds in the digital media world—of which Favilla is queen—A World Without "Whom" is essential for readers and writers of virtually everything: news articles, blog posts, tweets, texts, emails, and whatever comes next . . . so basically everyone.
At one point, Favilla cites a book, Internet Linguistics: A Student Guide, noting that it "was published in 2011, aka eons ago in internet time." This book was published in 2017, making it eons-old by that standard, and a tad dated. But it still works and may even trigger a pleasant memory or two with a then-topical joke/reference.
THE OVERALL TONE/VOICE
This is a funny book. Favilla writes with a lot of passion, which helps in addressing what most would consider a dry and arid topic. But even better than the intensity of some of her thoughts, it's the humor. I don't know if I made it 3 pages without coming across a solid laugh line—and generally, it was fewer.
Granted, it may take a particular and peculiar sense of humor to find joes about conjunction use fodder for laughter, but if that's your poison...
Even when she's not going for the big laugh, but simply explaining something her style is fun. You can't not have a good time reading this (even when she encourages something like "verbifying with abandon." Just quoting those three words makes me want to scrub my hands like Adrian Monk.
A COUPLE OF NICE BONUSES
As one should expect from a book that invokes BuzzFeed twice on the cover, the book is filled with graphics and lists—and even a couple of quizzes.
My favorite lists are "Standard Punctuation Marks, Ranked from Worst to Best," (I'd literally have a poster of this hanging next to my desk if there was room for anything but bookshelves there) and "Old-Timey Words You Need to Start Using Again" (there's a version on BuzzFeed)
SO, WHAT DID I THINK ABOUT A WORLD WITHOUT "WHOM"?
Hey, remember Latin and its roughly 18,239,721 conjugations for every word? (If you don’t, your high school days were much brighter and probably filled with many more cool parties than mine.) We survived the evolution away from declensions, and we will survive this free-for-all era unscathed as well. Simpler doesn’t necessarily equate to a loss of impact or clarity. It just means fewer strict guidelines to follow. And that’s okay. Have you read the news lately? We have enough utterly horrifying, faith-in-humanity—destroying stuff going on in our day-today to worry about.
The fear that our language is deteriorating because we're making calculated decisions to nix periods or because more people are pretending that whom doesn’t exist or they’re swapping emojis for words is as irritating as the performance that die-hard carnivores often put on of a paralyzing fear of trying vegan food. Pull yourself together. It’s not going to kill you, and it might actually make you a more well-rounded person with a new perspective.
This is not a book for the die-hard prescriptivist when it comes to language use. Favilla bases her positions and stylistic choices on feelings (and literally tells you that on page 1—which is not to say that there's no thought involved) and what she thinks will communicate more clearly. But she'll say time after time, that her rules are subjective and writers should make up their own minds. Especially when it comes to the internet—she will draw a line between print and online writing and doesn't seem to have a problem with more formal writing being done for traditional/print publications—as long as the internet can be the Wild West.
I'm reflexively a prescriptivist and will tend toward that kind of usage/take/book. But anyone who's read this particular site for any length of time (even if this post is your first!), will know I'm clearly not a strict practitioner of the rules Mrs. Hammer and Mr. Nelson pounded into me in Middle School. She didn't convince me on some points, and I'd still side with Strunk, White, and Dreyer at any point they disagreed with her. But I had so much fun reading this—and learning from it, I have to admit—that I don't mind her somewhat anarchical approach.*
*I halfway expect that in 2053, if someone reads this book they'll find that this is a straightjacket in terms of free expression.
And since this is supposed to be what I thought about the reading experience, not if I agree with her on every jot and tittle, I have no problem recommending it. If you're the kind of person who gets worked up about getting your phrasing juuuuuust right or are bothered when someone doesn't. If you think reading tributes to commas and em dashes is a good time. Or if you're curious about why someone would want to eliminate whom or is fine with letting the English subjunctive mood die...this is the book for you. I'm very glad that Jodi recommended this one to me.
And, I think I came away from this with an idea for my next tattoo. So, right there, this was worth the time for me.
August 12, 2021
I love language and I love the internet so this was the perfect book for me. It’s all about writing on the internet. It’s specifically about grammar and usage.
You will find the following: Getting Things Right aka the Stuff that Matters, How to Not Be a Jerk aka Writing about Sensitive Topics, Getting Things as Right As You Can aka The Stuff That Kinda-Sorta Matters, How Social Media Has Changed the Game, “Real” Words and Language Trends to Embrace, How the Internet Has Changed Punctuation Forever, From Sea to Shining Sea aka Regional Stylistic Differences, At the Intersection of E-Laughing and E-Crying, Email and We’re All Going to Be Okay.
The best chapters were the ones about writing about sensitive topics, “real” words and the E-Laughing one.
The sensitive topics chapter is just plain helpful. You’ll find tips on how to deal with Abortion, Adoption, Immigration, Migrants/Refugees, Slavery, Suicide, LGBT (a big section), Race and ethnicity (also a big section), Disabilities/Diseases/Disorders, Rape/Sexual Assault and Bodies/Body Image.
The “Real” Words chapter deals with what makes a word real and how language changes over time. This section also includes a Copy Editor’s Calendar. It has the correct spelling and capitalization of holidays and special days like Super Bowl, Happy St. Paddy’s Day (NOT Patty’s), Olympics etc.
The E-Laughing one was just plain fun to read. I hadn’t really thought about it but the author points out how lol used to be LOL and actually stood for Laughing Out Loud. It still means that technically but we use it ALL THE TIME, even when we don’t laugh out loud.
The book is full of comics and tweets that fit the theme. I feel like this is an important book for anyone who writes for the web to read.
You will find the following: Getting Things Right aka the Stuff that Matters, How to Not Be a Jerk aka Writing about Sensitive Topics, Getting Things as Right As You Can aka The Stuff That Kinda-Sorta Matters, How Social Media Has Changed the Game, “Real” Words and Language Trends to Embrace, How the Internet Has Changed Punctuation Forever, From Sea to Shining Sea aka Regional Stylistic Differences, At the Intersection of E-Laughing and E-Crying, Email and We’re All Going to Be Okay.
The best chapters were the ones about writing about sensitive topics, “real” words and the E-Laughing one.
The sensitive topics chapter is just plain helpful. You’ll find tips on how to deal with Abortion, Adoption, Immigration, Migrants/Refugees, Slavery, Suicide, LGBT (a big section), Race and ethnicity (also a big section), Disabilities/Diseases/Disorders, Rape/Sexual Assault and Bodies/Body Image.
The “Real” Words chapter deals with what makes a word real and how language changes over time. This section also includes a Copy Editor’s Calendar. It has the correct spelling and capitalization of holidays and special days like Super Bowl, Happy St. Paddy’s Day (NOT Patty’s), Olympics etc.
The E-Laughing one was just plain fun to read. I hadn’t really thought about it but the author points out how lol used to be LOL and actually stood for Laughing Out Loud. It still means that technically but we use it ALL THE TIME, even when we don’t laugh out loud.
The book is full of comics and tweets that fit the theme. I feel like this is an important book for anyone who writes for the web to read.
July 25, 2025
Such fun! How often are legitimate advice about grammar and punctuation juxtaposed with questions like the correct spelling of "butthole" (one word , two words, or hyphenated?)
I worried a little when the author first stated that she wasn't a language expert (then why write a book about language?!), but my fears were allayed a few pages later when she used "comprised" correctly in a sentence. Admittedly, I rolled my eyes a little when she used the word for the 4th time. Twice per book is enough, IMHO.
I think the reviewer who called the author judgmental may have taken it a little too seriously. I found the whole tone quite lighthearted, and even though I disagree with Favilla on a number of points about language usage, I get the feeling she would be a cool person to discuss those disagreements with.
I laughed a lot, and I learned a few things I hadn't known, like the proper usage of the n-dash (which, I confess, I hadn't even been aware of as a separate entity from the hyphen -- an embarrassing admission for someone who loves the m-dash as much as I do). The author's writing advice largely boils down to "comprehensibility is more important than technical correctness" and "when there are multiple potentially correct options, just pick one and stick with it."
That said, she does have a few pet peeves that are utterly irrational given the above rules, including hatred of "s" at the end of the words "afterward" and "toward," even though I'd argue that those are fairly standard variants at this point and certainly have no effect on the reader's ability to understand a sentence. Additionally, this being a book about internet language use, some of the references and slang are already outdated, but that's only to be expected. Overall, I enjoyed the book greatly, and literally laughed out loud on more than one occasion.
I worried a little when the author first stated that she wasn't a language expert (then why write a book about language?!), but my fears were allayed a few pages later when she used "comprised" correctly in a sentence. Admittedly, I rolled my eyes a little when she used the word for the 4th time. Twice per book is enough, IMHO.
I think the reviewer who called the author judgmental may have taken it a little too seriously. I found the whole tone quite lighthearted, and even though I disagree with Favilla on a number of points about language usage, I get the feeling she would be a cool person to discuss those disagreements with.
I laughed a lot, and I learned a few things I hadn't known, like the proper usage of the n-dash (which, I confess, I hadn't even been aware of as a separate entity from the hyphen -- an embarrassing admission for someone who loves the m-dash as much as I do). The author's writing advice largely boils down to "comprehensibility is more important than technical correctness" and "when there are multiple potentially correct options, just pick one and stick with it."
That said, she does have a few pet peeves that are utterly irrational given the above rules, including hatred of "s" at the end of the words "afterward" and "toward," even though I'd argue that those are fairly standard variants at this point and certainly have no effect on the reader's ability to understand a sentence. Additionally, this being a book about internet language use, some of the references and slang are already outdated, but that's only to be expected. Overall, I enjoyed the book greatly, and literally laughed out loud on more than one occasion.
December 22, 2017
What a great book! I learned a lot about some things that I imagine copy editors have always grappled with, as well as the particular style of writing that is common in texts and in many sites on the internet.
The theme that runs through this book is that there are certain things that writers ought to be sticklers about: inclusive language that shows respect for and validation of people, and information that's presented accurately and clearly. For everything else, it's all just subjective, so you should just "follow your heart" and "just be consistent" when making choices about how to write. The author still thinks it's important to use commas and hyphens to make the meaning of sentences logically clear even when it's obvious from context what the writer intended. Likewise for using the correct word when homonyms have different meanings.
I thought some of the prescriptivist rules were helpful. This book convinced me that the serial comma actually does make more sense than not to use it. I was taught not to use it in school but never gave that rule much thought. When deciding whether to make a word that ends in the letter s plural, base your decision on how you want the reader to read it, s', or s's if you want it to sound like "zes." When more than one adjective is used before a noun, use commas between adjectives whose order can be swapped. An n-dash is used to indicate range, distance or in a similar way to a slash, as opposed to an m-dash, which is to set off part of a sentence. An ellipsis should be 3 dots in a row with no spaces (which could still be preceded by a period, which would be a fourth dot).
Other prescriptivist rules were rejected by the author. Some I agree with, some I don't. I agree that it is stupid to "correct" the "improper" use of "healthy" or "hopefully." On the other hand, it personally rubs me the wrong way when people say "the reason why" or "the reason is because." (It wasn't in the book, but to me, assure, ensure and insure are also 3 different words with 3 different meanings, although I know that people don't usually make the distinctions that I make.) Given the author's preference for gender-neutral language, she inexplicably prefers "you guys" to "you all." The author also has no use for the distinction between lie and lay, which is fine, but that gives me free license to let my imagination run wild if she says she's laying in bed.
I think there's a big difference between someone like the author, who knows all of the "rules" of standard English but then chooses to break them to be witty and creative, and a writer who doesn't know the rules in the first place. An impressionist artist like Picasso wouldn't have been able to do what he did if he had not been classically trained to paint portraits that actually looked like his models. Likewise, I don't think you can use a sentence fragment or a run-on sentence effectively if you don't actually know whether you have written a grammatically standard sentence.
There were a bunch of neologisms and stylistic elements that were discussed in this book. I learned that using asterisks around words can either mean the same as making the word bold, or it could mean the writer is doing an action. Double colons on either side of a word can also mean the writer is doing an action. Apparently putting tildes on either side of a word means the word is being used sarcastically or ironically. I also learned about "Neville Longbottoming," Left-Shark, shruggie ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, nom nom nom, and *pausing for applause after using his first Oxford comma in 37 years* being a "stan."
The author likes emojis. I think emojis are fun, but different devices/operating systems have different emojis, and sometimes if you text an emoji, the person on the other end just gets random shapes (yes, I still use the word "random"; I'm gen X, so there). Also, I think emojis are intentionally ambiguous and would not be effective if you're trying to make your meaning accurate and clear. In fact, I think a lot of the stylistic elements in this book are for the purpose of intentionally adding ambiguity that is different from the literal meaning of the words, in the same way that body language, facial expression and tone of voice do in spoken communication.
Many of the sentences in this book were actually not clear at all, and even after spending a few minutes on the internet trying to figure out what certain acronyms meant, I still wasn't sure. But that's the whole point, right? As soon as "old people" start using facebook or "lol," they're no longer cool, so you have to switch to something else to stay one step ahead.
This book is witty and well-written, but I think the author is somewhat disingenuous. She is trying to paint BuzzFeed as being a source of news that has a style suited to the internet. But I have always thought of BuzzFeed as just being clickbait, not a source of news. Usually the headline/dek is misleading hype intended to get people to view a bunch of advertisements on the false premise that the article would be of interest. I think the style of this website is intended to appeal to its target demographic. The way it is written is intended to be hip, which appeals to the people who might buy what the advertisers are selling.
The author is self-deprecating, calling herself a "dweeb" and such because she's a copy editor. She even writes "tl;dr" after certain passages, as if she doesn't believe parts of the book are even worth reading. But in reality, she, like BuzzFeed itself, it just trying to be hip. She'll bend over backwards to respect the wishes of people who don't want to be referred to with male/female pronouns (by using they, Mx., ze, zir, hir, zirs, hirs, xe, xem, xyrs, if that's what the person prefers), but in the end, she admits that she thinks all writers should adhere to the BuzzFeed guidelines. According to this book, studies have shown that people who care about grammar are not nice. People who don't like pet cats and dogs are heartless. People who don't agree with her writing-style choices should "get a life" or "get a hobby." If she doesn't like the way something looks, it's an "eyesore." People who write in a more traditional style are losers who she would not hire or befriend. She disparages people who are old and traditional, and she obviously couldn't care less that some people are offended by profanity.
I can't believe that the author really believes that everyone should adhere to the BuzzFeed style. If I started writing that way, people would think I was having a midlife crisis. Everyone, including the author, writes for their intended readers. Nearly everyone employs "code-switching" to some extent, but I'm not going to completely alter my style to match the style of the people who are reading what I'm writing. That would be completely inauthentic.
The author also seems to think that the stuff that she looks at online is "the internet." I read and compose things in texts and email and on facebook, wikipedia and this site (goodreads), and I hardly ever see things written in the style the author uses. I think the author has a ways to go before she can truly state that ~to each his own~ (see what I did there?) is her philosophy of copyediting.
The theme that runs through this book is that there are certain things that writers ought to be sticklers about: inclusive language that shows respect for and validation of people, and information that's presented accurately and clearly. For everything else, it's all just subjective, so you should just "follow your heart" and "just be consistent" when making choices about how to write. The author still thinks it's important to use commas and hyphens to make the meaning of sentences logically clear even when it's obvious from context what the writer intended. Likewise for using the correct word when homonyms have different meanings.
I thought some of the prescriptivist rules were helpful. This book convinced me that the serial comma actually does make more sense than not to use it. I was taught not to use it in school but never gave that rule much thought. When deciding whether to make a word that ends in the letter s plural, base your decision on how you want the reader to read it, s', or s's if you want it to sound like "zes." When more than one adjective is used before a noun, use commas between adjectives whose order can be swapped. An n-dash is used to indicate range, distance or in a similar way to a slash, as opposed to an m-dash, which is to set off part of a sentence. An ellipsis should be 3 dots in a row with no spaces (which could still be preceded by a period, which would be a fourth dot).
Other prescriptivist rules were rejected by the author. Some I agree with, some I don't. I agree that it is stupid to "correct" the "improper" use of "healthy" or "hopefully." On the other hand, it personally rubs me the wrong way when people say "the reason why" or "the reason is because." (It wasn't in the book, but to me, assure, ensure and insure are also 3 different words with 3 different meanings, although I know that people don't usually make the distinctions that I make.) Given the author's preference for gender-neutral language, she inexplicably prefers "you guys" to "you all." The author also has no use for the distinction between lie and lay, which is fine, but that gives me free license to let my imagination run wild if she says she's laying in bed.
I think there's a big difference between someone like the author, who knows all of the "rules" of standard English but then chooses to break them to be witty and creative, and a writer who doesn't know the rules in the first place. An impressionist artist like Picasso wouldn't have been able to do what he did if he had not been classically trained to paint portraits that actually looked like his models. Likewise, I don't think you can use a sentence fragment or a run-on sentence effectively if you don't actually know whether you have written a grammatically standard sentence.
There were a bunch of neologisms and stylistic elements that were discussed in this book. I learned that using asterisks around words can either mean the same as making the word bold, or it could mean the writer is doing an action. Double colons on either side of a word can also mean the writer is doing an action. Apparently putting tildes on either side of a word means the word is being used sarcastically or ironically. I also learned about "Neville Longbottoming," Left-Shark, shruggie ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, nom nom nom, and *pausing for applause after using his first Oxford comma in 37 years* being a "stan."
The author likes emojis. I think emojis are fun, but different devices/operating systems have different emojis, and sometimes if you text an emoji, the person on the other end just gets random shapes (yes, I still use the word "random"; I'm gen X, so there). Also, I think emojis are intentionally ambiguous and would not be effective if you're trying to make your meaning accurate and clear. In fact, I think a lot of the stylistic elements in this book are for the purpose of intentionally adding ambiguity that is different from the literal meaning of the words, in the same way that body language, facial expression and tone of voice do in spoken communication.
Many of the sentences in this book were actually not clear at all, and even after spending a few minutes on the internet trying to figure out what certain acronyms meant, I still wasn't sure. But that's the whole point, right? As soon as "old people" start using facebook or "lol," they're no longer cool, so you have to switch to something else to stay one step ahead.
This book is witty and well-written, but I think the author is somewhat disingenuous. She is trying to paint BuzzFeed as being a source of news that has a style suited to the internet. But I have always thought of BuzzFeed as just being clickbait, not a source of news. Usually the headline/dek is misleading hype intended to get people to view a bunch of advertisements on the false premise that the article would be of interest. I think the style of this website is intended to appeal to its target demographic. The way it is written is intended to be hip, which appeals to the people who might buy what the advertisers are selling.
The author is self-deprecating, calling herself a "dweeb" and such because she's a copy editor. She even writes "tl;dr" after certain passages, as if she doesn't believe parts of the book are even worth reading. But in reality, she, like BuzzFeed itself, it just trying to be hip. She'll bend over backwards to respect the wishes of people who don't want to be referred to with male/female pronouns (by using they, Mx., ze, zir, hir, zirs, hirs, xe, xem, xyrs, if that's what the person prefers), but in the end, she admits that she thinks all writers should adhere to the BuzzFeed guidelines. According to this book, studies have shown that people who care about grammar are not nice. People who don't like pet cats and dogs are heartless. People who don't agree with her writing-style choices should "get a life" or "get a hobby." If she doesn't like the way something looks, it's an "eyesore." People who write in a more traditional style are losers who she would not hire or befriend. She disparages people who are old and traditional, and she obviously couldn't care less that some people are offended by profanity.
I can't believe that the author really believes that everyone should adhere to the BuzzFeed style. If I started writing that way, people would think I was having a midlife crisis. Everyone, including the author, writes for their intended readers. Nearly everyone employs "code-switching" to some extent, but I'm not going to completely alter my style to match the style of the people who are reading what I'm writing. That would be completely inauthentic.
The author also seems to think that the stuff that she looks at online is "the internet." I read and compose things in texts and email and on facebook, wikipedia and this site (goodreads), and I hardly ever see things written in the style the author uses. I think the author has a ways to go before she can truly state that ~to each his own~ (see what I did there?) is her philosophy of copyediting.
September 5, 2017
What a fun read! I enjoyed discovering the thought process and history behind BuzzFeed's style guide (because nerd!). Emmy gives an insider's look at the unique style issues that come up in BuzzFeed content. She also recognizes that BuzzFeed's style is not for everyone ("you do you," etc.), yet she invites readers (presumably editors) to question the rules we've held onto since grade school, as if the English language hasn't evolved thanks to, y'know, the internet. 10/10 would recommend this book to anyone writing or editing online content. Even if you disagree with BuzzFeed's style, you'll learn how to communicate more effectively (or at the very least how to avoid embarrassing yourself online).
November 13, 2017
Style guide for the social media generation and those that want to communicate with them.
Based on the Buzzfeed Style Guide (https://www.buzzfeed.com/emmyf/buzzfe...) and written by the same author, A World Without Whom goes further by explaining the whys behind the rules. Emily also pokes fun at herself and fellow copy editors along the way. She states “there is no such thing as correct style. And sometimes there’s no such thing as correct spelling.” Emily understands that words and grammar have a way of morphing through daily usage especially with today’s social media highway speeding along. However, she has a few rules drawn in the sand. Avoidance of typos, adding hyphens for clarity, using commas where necessary (including this one before the “and”), and fixing danglers (such as this). Emily also suggests using respectful language for sensitive topics like immigration, disease, suicide, race, and gender.
I learned a few things. I resolve to spend extensive time from this point forward trying not to reside in 1965 with its double spaces after sentences. Black is now preferred over African-American. Hispanic only refers to people from the Americas that were colonized by Spain (so not Brazil). However, Latino is everyone with a Latin-American origin. Periods go outside of quotes unless an entire sentence is being quoted. Other readers will also find answers to questions that have been nagging them for years.
Within this review, I used the author’s first name, which I rarely do because I usually use the book title or generic, the author. This book seems like a friend, who is also a copy editor, is telling you what she thinks about spelling and grammar. It doesn’t preach or talk down to the reader at all. Emily is humorous even when writing about her favorite subject “picking up a dictionary (lol, by which I mean, obviously, checking the internet)”. It is a fun little book about words. If you are interested in words, either as a reader or a writer, this is a great book to pick up. It is not for everyone so I give it 3 stars.
Thanks to the publisher, Bloomsbury USA, and Netgalley for an advanced review copy.
Based on the Buzzfeed Style Guide (https://www.buzzfeed.com/emmyf/buzzfe...) and written by the same author, A World Without Whom goes further by explaining the whys behind the rules. Emily also pokes fun at herself and fellow copy editors along the way. She states “there is no such thing as correct style. And sometimes there’s no such thing as correct spelling.” Emily understands that words and grammar have a way of morphing through daily usage especially with today’s social media highway speeding along. However, she has a few rules drawn in the sand. Avoidance of typos, adding hyphens for clarity, using commas where necessary (including this one before the “and”), and fixing danglers (such as this). Emily also suggests using respectful language for sensitive topics like immigration, disease, suicide, race, and gender.
I learned a few things. I resolve to spend extensive time from this point forward trying not to reside in 1965 with its double spaces after sentences. Black is now preferred over African-American. Hispanic only refers to people from the Americas that were colonized by Spain (so not Brazil). However, Latino is everyone with a Latin-American origin. Periods go outside of quotes unless an entire sentence is being quoted. Other readers will also find answers to questions that have been nagging them for years.
Within this review, I used the author’s first name, which I rarely do because I usually use the book title or generic, the author. This book seems like a friend, who is also a copy editor, is telling you what she thinks about spelling and grammar. It doesn’t preach or talk down to the reader at all. Emily is humorous even when writing about her favorite subject “picking up a dictionary (lol, by which I mean, obviously, checking the internet)”. It is a fun little book about words. If you are interested in words, either as a reader or a writer, this is a great book to pick up. It is not for everyone so I give it 3 stars.
Thanks to the publisher, Bloomsbury USA, and Netgalley for an advanced review copy.
November 9, 2017
I liked this, even as someone who can admittedly be a stickler about language and grammar, always has an opinion about the Oxford comma, and is not 100% down for the social acceptance of run-on sentences. Favilla covered all of these subjects and much more in her book, which is essentially a style guide with a narrator. Reading this is about as much fun as reading a style guide can be if you plan to read it like a regular book; it’s a style guide with funny screenshots and familiar memes scattered about, but it still reads like one long style guide, in my opinion. The book is impressively detailed and doesn’t only cover language, but also how social media has changed it. Should you read it like it’s a novel? I wouldn't recommend it. Should you buy it as a reference/skim-read for your digital marketing agency employees (copy editors, copywriters, social media managers)? Yes. It’s great for people who write for the web/social media professionally or who want to but are confused by the current customs and language style—the type who would log onto Twitter today and be completely lost on every joke/meme/method of complaining.
I wasn’t terribly bothered by the author’s casual writing style, although her tendency to constantly put long sentences in parenthesis in the middle of another sentence was driving me crazy. Don’t expect to agree with her and with BuzzFeed’s style guide on everything, as I didn’t. It makes me unreasonably annoyed to see spaces around an em dash which Favilla, much to my horror, suggested is okay. These were the things that I enjoyed reading about though, and will probably buy a hardcopy of “A World Without Whom” for times when I find myself wanting a second opinion on if I should use Facebook as a verb (“Facebooking”…the answer is no) or, for the hundredth time, forgetting what “tfw” stands for.
*This review is based on a free digital advance copy provided by the publisher. The opinions expressed are my own.
I wasn’t terribly bothered by the author’s casual writing style, although her tendency to constantly put long sentences in parenthesis in the middle of another sentence was driving me crazy. Don’t expect to agree with her and with BuzzFeed’s style guide on everything, as I didn’t. It makes me unreasonably annoyed to see spaces around an em dash which Favilla, much to my horror, suggested is okay. These were the things that I enjoyed reading about though, and will probably buy a hardcopy of “A World Without Whom” for times when I find myself wanting a second opinion on if I should use Facebook as a verb (“Facebooking”…the answer is no) or, for the hundredth time, forgetting what “tfw” stands for.
*This review is based on a free digital advance copy provided by the publisher. The opinions expressed are my own.
March 23, 2019
Written by the global copy cheif of BuzzFeed this is a breezy meditation on how language should be depicted on the internet. As a descriptivist, I was down for Ms. Favilla's various pronouncements and I especially appreciated the chapter: "How not to be a jerk: writing about sensitive topics" and also her tracking the loss of meaning of lol (aka LOL, aka Laughing Out Loud) from it's origins in the early internet era to today's proliferation and loss of meaning.
There's also a handy "terms you should know" section, a helpful section on headlines (now that we're free of space constraints, just what should that headline be?) and many paragraphs of practical advice such as this:
To that end, let's talk a little about a language trend I'd be negligent to ignore: everything eventually becoming one word. The AP Stylebook is a fantastic resource for very many things, and I realize BuzzFeed's job listings explicitly request "no haters" but holy crud—it took until 2011 for APS to say sayonara to the hyphen in email. Wut? Way, way back in the '90s—when people were more likely to ask Jeeves than ask Google—Wierd's style guide boldly asserted, "We know from experience that new terms often start as two words, then become hyphenated, and end up as one word. Go there now." Descriptivists for the win! Go forth, young internetters, and close up those words (unless, you know, they look weird).
There's also a handy "terms you should know" section, a helpful section on headlines (now that we're free of space constraints, just what should that headline be?) and many paragraphs of practical advice such as this:
To that end, let's talk a little about a language trend I'd be negligent to ignore: everything eventually becoming one word. The AP Stylebook is a fantastic resource for very many things, and I realize BuzzFeed's job listings explicitly request "no haters" but holy crud—it took until 2011 for APS to say sayonara to the hyphen in email. Wut? Way, way back in the '90s—when people were more likely to ask Jeeves than ask Google—Wierd's style guide boldly asserted, "We know from experience that new terms often start as two words, then become hyphenated, and end up as one word. Go there now." Descriptivists for the win! Go forth, young internetters, and close up those words (unless, you know, they look weird).
November 12, 2017
Must-read for writers: How to adapt to language changes and maintain consistency
Language changes and it is difficult to get used to new vocabulary or syntax and this is what the book is about. Emmy J. Favilla, BuzzFeed Copy Chief, in a fun-to-read manner, walks the reader through the changes but I see her main point as consistency in writing, as reflected by a large part of the book being a discussion of the Buzzfeed style guide. Indeed, the book is a great starting point for creating your own style guide. Favilla also discusses the need to tailor language to the vehicle. Favilla is not dogmatic; she sometimes displays a “who cares” attitude about some style points and she is not wrong. And although I didn’t agree with everything she wrote, I feel that Favilla wouldn’t care if I had a well-considered reason for disagreeing with her. This book is a must-read for writers who have to stay up-to-date with current trends.
Disclosure: I received a complimentary copy of this book via Netgalley for review purposes.
Language changes and it is difficult to get used to new vocabulary or syntax and this is what the book is about. Emmy J. Favilla, BuzzFeed Copy Chief, in a fun-to-read manner, walks the reader through the changes but I see her main point as consistency in writing, as reflected by a large part of the book being a discussion of the Buzzfeed style guide. Indeed, the book is a great starting point for creating your own style guide. Favilla also discusses the need to tailor language to the vehicle. Favilla is not dogmatic; she sometimes displays a “who cares” attitude about some style points and she is not wrong. And although I didn’t agree with everything she wrote, I feel that Favilla wouldn’t care if I had a well-considered reason for disagreeing with her. This book is a must-read for writers who have to stay up-to-date with current trends.
Disclosure: I received a complimentary copy of this book via Netgalley for review purposes.
August 5, 2020
*Sigh*. Linguistic nonfiction is my literary security blanket. I've read pretty much every pop linguistics nonfiction book out there and enjoyed them all. But not this one!
Emmy Favilla seems to have no sense of who her audience is: she veers wildly between offering highly specific advice for those developing a style guide for heavily perused blogs and pedantically defining "prescriptivism." No sooner does she tell people to follow their own instincts than she derides those whose instincts include "whom." She comes off as pretentious, self-important and judgey. My biggest problem with the book is that I didn't like her. But I didn't like the book either: without much central structure, it wanders through half-hearted odes to descriptivist language use, punctuated with screenshots of the author's slack chats and buzzfeed articles.
Because Internet covered many of the same topics more comprehensively and was much more fun to read.
Emmy Favilla seems to have no sense of who her audience is: she veers wildly between offering highly specific advice for those developing a style guide for heavily perused blogs and pedantically defining "prescriptivism." No sooner does she tell people to follow their own instincts than she derides those whose instincts include "whom." She comes off as pretentious, self-important and judgey. My biggest problem with the book is that I didn't like her. But I didn't like the book either: without much central structure, it wanders through half-hearted odes to descriptivist language use, punctuated with screenshots of the author's slack chats and buzzfeed articles.
Because Internet covered many of the same topics more comprehensively and was much more fun to read.
January 6, 2020
This was so much fun to read. I felt like I'd slid down a waterslide into a pool of likeminded benevolent grammar nerds, splashing around gleefully while hell-bent on using our shared superpower/affliction to make the world better.
Just a couple things I disagreed with:
- the author advocates for "person-first language" ("person with a disability") over "identity-first language" ("disabled person") which is generally not preferred (while I personally think there are valid uses for both PFL and IFL, the disability justice community has by and large taken the position that IFL is best, and I think that's the position that should be taken by contemporary style guides).
- the author fails to critique cultural misappropriation, resulting in tacit permission for oppressor groups (i.e. white people) to engage in misappropriation freely.
Just a couple things I disagreed with:
- the author advocates for "person-first language" ("person with a disability") over "identity-first language" ("disabled person") which is generally not preferred (while I personally think there are valid uses for both PFL and IFL, the disability justice community has by and large taken the position that IFL is best, and I think that's the position that should be taken by contemporary style guides).
- the author fails to critique cultural misappropriation, resulting in tacit permission for oppressor groups (i.e. white people) to engage in misappropriation freely.
November 9, 2017
Language is a dynamic dance and Emmy Favilla knows all the steps. From the archaic and formal waltz with words to the new social media rhythms and improvisational internet jigs, this guide is for both linguists and learners, anyone who notices the nuances of the English language and those advanced second language people who want to really get native-speak down. You'll learn a thing or two and totally enjoy the process!
January 24, 2018
More entertaining than a book on copy-editing has a right to be. BuzzFeed appears to operate on the frontier of incomprehensible language use, which the author spends her life trying to wrestle into sense. I doubt I'll being adopting its voguish neologisms, nor seeing the full stop as passive-aggressive (or aggressive aggressive) but it's intriguing to learn how language is changing.
December 20, 2017
Great book, especially for writers. I love that it is REAL talk. The way we communicate is constantly evolving. This book helps navigate the tricky ways to get your message across without sounding silly, old, or stupid. Now if I can wrangle my lol usage... (and ellipsis.)
June 5, 2018
I got a big kick out of this book. I enjoyed her writing style; it might be a bit too hip for some. Learned a lot of new terms. Fun. 3.5
July 28, 2018
DNF page 123
Not bad, but I think I overestimated my willingness to read a grammar book from cover to cover, regardless of how many memes it contains.
Not bad, but I think I overestimated my willingness to read a grammar book from cover to cover, regardless of how many memes it contains.
December 26, 2018
Written by the chief copy editor at BuzzFeed, *A World without ‘Whom’* addresses language in a fast-changing world. The title of the book refers to one of the greatest markers of this change, the use of the word “whom,” often deliberately avoided for its datedness or unconsciously substituted with “who.” Favilla provides an accessible take on various rules regarding spelling, punctuation, grammar, and style that are becoming obsolete in many areas, particularly in internet media such as BuzzFeed itself. She also provides helpful comment on developing conventions in different media, such as what to do in a text vs. an email, a tweet, etc. Published in 2017, it is perhaps not surprising that even now some of the content is appearing a little dated! Nonetheless, it is still an important read.
Favilla’s copy-editing philosophy is particularly notable. Early on, she writes, “Inaccurate information, insensitive language, and sentences that have egregious structural issues all put wear and tear on credibility…. You never want a reader to be jolted from their engrossment from a story because they’ve been distracted by an awkwardly structured, unclear, or offensively worded sentence” (33). Of course, there are exceptions to this. I would prefer to use the inclusive language of “pregnant people,” rather than simply “pregnant women,” despite it likely causing some readers a little jolt, for example, and there will be many similar situations. Perhaps this observation relates to Favilla’s critical take on the “just be consistent” mantra that often appears as a bottom-line in style guides. “There isn’t always a one-size-fits-all approach to language. And that’s really been the basis of the BuzzFeed Style Guide since day one: a fluid, evolving set of standards that shouldn’t be thought of as the iron-fisted rulers of prose… but as a thing that exists to just sorta help everyone out” (35). And quite a bit later: “How do you form an electrifying relationship with your reader? By speaking their language! Not by using the grammar rules our teachers taught us in 1989… or pretending that people aren’t really saying things like ‘I forgot how to person.'” (194).
Below I would like to offer critical comment on some of Favilla’s conclusions and suggestions. This should not be taken as a dismissal of her overall project though, which I think is basically brilliant.
In her chapter on “How Not to be a Jerk,” Favilla accepts *APS* style on the distinction between a refugee and a migrant. “Use *refugee* when referring to ‘a person who is forced to leave his home or country to escape war, persecution or natural disaster.’ Use *migrant* when referring to someone seeking economic oportunity” (62). But this is problematic. First, there is not always a clear-cut distinction between the migrant and the refugee. Can this persecution be the spectre of growing far-right groups in someone’s vicinity, or must it be state-sponsored violence? What constitutes a natural disaster that is significant enough to warrant refugee status? Seasonal flooding? Second, the implication that migrants seek economic opportunity overlooks a whole lot of other factors. What about those seeking education or family? Etc? Even if the distinction appears in legal texts, the responsibility of journalists and other writers involves being critical of inhumane laws, especially those that uphold such a distinction in order to prevent particular people from migrating. (*APS*: I am assuming this refers to the *American Physical Society,* but please let me know otherwise).
In the same chapter, Favilla commends “LGBT” and “queer” as collective terms, against such as “gay,” for example in “the gay community.” This is not simply her own conclusion but the result of many discussions with LGBTQ+ people. While I’m hetero myself, it would have been good to see comment here in regard to different approaches to the acronym. At the very least, surely a + could be included so as not to confuse say intersex people with trans people or pansexual people with bi people? L, G, B, and T don’t quite cut it as representatives themselves of a much larger collection of people. Then there is “queer,” which, while many may find it a helpful umbrella term, is potentially problematic when non-queer writers use it (especially as it originates as a slur or exonym and still carries those connotations for some), and also fails when some people who might otherwise be identified as queer reject the term altogether, even as a self-designation.
Also in this section, Favilla rejects the use of -phobic words such as “homophobic” or “transphobic,” preferring “anti-gay” and “anti-trans.” Her reasoning is that “the suffix *-phobic* implies a fear, and although this fear may or may not be figurative, it also implies something inherent that cannot be helped, and its use can perpetuate stereotypes.” This, however, is simply etymological fallacy, confusing a word’s meaning with its origin. I’m sure people are smart enough to be able to differentiate between agoraphobia, claustrophobia (and, it may need some work, but both the term as it is used clinically and its perhaps more common, colloquial form), and homophobia. Moreover, the noun form of the word disappears altogether. Are we to replace “transphobia” with “anti-transness?” Think also of the often helpful “xenophobia.” Don’t be so “anti-other”! I’ve had it up to here with “anti-otherness!”
On quite a different topic, I didn’t find myself quite agreeing with Favilla on capitalisation, though she suggests a great rule. “In general … you’re safer capitalizing anything derived from a proper noun than you are lowercasing it” (118). But this means that we end up with “Brussels sprouts” and “French fries”! Admittedly, Favilla reveals, “I’ll take ’em either way” (118). For such common terms, I’m much more inclined to lowercase, though perhaps this derives from my experience in theological writing where I consistently lowercase “christological” and “trinitarian” (but not “Christian” or “Triune God,” whoops). Maybe though, this whole paragraph stems from my offence at the great cheese appearing in the appendix as capital-B “Brie.” Favilla also argues that “G/god” should be lowercased “in common expressions” so: “thank god” and “god only knows,” etc. whereas it should often otherwise be capitalised (124). The reasoning is, quite rightly, that “someone’s god could be a saltshaker” (124). I wonder though, if this overlooks the other side, that someone’s god in those expressions could be quite real to them. Even atheists and agnostics (not all, I’m sure!) can harbour a poetic or literary appreciation for a G/god or two, and one that may find expression in letter case as well.
The book’s namesake also warrants comment. I wonder if Favilla is being ironic when in her very first paragraph she employs such as “nary” and “frolicking” (1). Just a few pages on a “hodgepodge” can be spotted (4). Are these not the glorious companions of the departing “whom”? (Perhaps only “frolicking”; I find the other two significantly less glorious). Why, then, does Favilla proceed to argue: “Face it: You hate *whom.* If you don’t, you’re likely a liar or someone with an English degree who actually still really hates *whom* but can’t bear to come to terms with your traitorous hatred for fear of your overpriced degree being snatched from your cold dead hands” (151)? She compares it with “shall,” as both are rarely used, unless ironically, in spoken language. (Notably, my American friends living in NZ recently asked, “Why does everyone say ‘shall’ over here?”). Her most compelling argument, however, is in an example of its incorrect usage. “They were not sure whom would do a better job” (151). Now, I can accept “whom” going out of style in spoken language (though I have often heard it and am happy to use it myself in spoken language), and this being reflected in some forms of written media (virtually all forms within another fifty years, I’m sure). But maybe I’m still in the grieving stages as “whom” enjoys continued use in my academic writing (a use also enjoyed by me), so I’m being all nit-picky about Favilla’s half-archaisms (datedisms?) in the first few pages. And, really, I’m all on board with farewelling “whom” if we can finally agree that “me and [person]” as the subject of a sentence is now acceptable English (because usage!).
I don’t know if this is just me either, but I found Favilla’s rejection of the verb “to Facebook” a little frustrating. “Why? Because Facebooking sounds silly; that’s why” (156). But Favilla is quite happy in the same chapter to accept the verbs “to Instagram” and “to Snapchat.” Hmmm. Maybe it’s because the first is ambiguous. If you Instragram something, you post it on Insta. If you Snapchat/snap someone, you send them a snap. If you Facebook something you… look it up on FB search? If you Facebook someone you… contact them over Messenger? Actually, this is the form of the verb I have used and still use. It probably derives from the earlier days before Messenger became a second thing. I’m quite happy telling someone I’ll either Messenger them or Facebook them, just as much as I am telling them I’ll “send [them] a message on Facebook/Messenger.” Also of note here is that the BuzzFeed Style Guide in the appendix lowercases “google” as a verb. Perhaps this is because it’s the most common? But I think there is a need for an executive decision here. Either all verbs deriving from proper nouns retain their capitals, so “to Google [something],” or they automatically lose them in becoming a verb, so “to snap(chat) [someone].” There is precedent for the former, in much older words such as “Judaise,” though I think I would prefer a blanket lowercasing, even on the older words. (See MW on "Judaise": https://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti... ).
Finally, I’m likely to be outvoted here, but I’d like to offer a little apology for the !? interrobang, as opposed to the ?! one that Favilla favours, writing, “the logic being that the sentence it punctuates is a question more so that it is an exclamatory phrase; the *!* is just an added bonus” (250). I find the !? much more aesthetic, however. The question mark hints at enclosing the exclamation mark, somewhat like a bracket. Compare (thing!) with (thing)! The other thing is that I read a phrase or sentence with an interrobang in quite the opposite way to Favilla. When someone says, “What!?” it is their surprise, anger, enthusiasm, etc. that is apparent to me ahead of their asking a question. The logic of the exclamation-first interrobang follows this (though perhaps this symbol should have another name, as its order does not reflect “interrobang”: a “banginter?” “bangative?”).
Reposted by me from my blog with my permission.
Favilla’s copy-editing philosophy is particularly notable. Early on, she writes, “Inaccurate information, insensitive language, and sentences that have egregious structural issues all put wear and tear on credibility…. You never want a reader to be jolted from their engrossment from a story because they’ve been distracted by an awkwardly structured, unclear, or offensively worded sentence” (33). Of course, there are exceptions to this. I would prefer to use the inclusive language of “pregnant people,” rather than simply “pregnant women,” despite it likely causing some readers a little jolt, for example, and there will be many similar situations. Perhaps this observation relates to Favilla’s critical take on the “just be consistent” mantra that often appears as a bottom-line in style guides. “There isn’t always a one-size-fits-all approach to language. And that’s really been the basis of the BuzzFeed Style Guide since day one: a fluid, evolving set of standards that shouldn’t be thought of as the iron-fisted rulers of prose… but as a thing that exists to just sorta help everyone out” (35). And quite a bit later: “How do you form an electrifying relationship with your reader? By speaking their language! Not by using the grammar rules our teachers taught us in 1989… or pretending that people aren’t really saying things like ‘I forgot how to person.'” (194).
Below I would like to offer critical comment on some of Favilla’s conclusions and suggestions. This should not be taken as a dismissal of her overall project though, which I think is basically brilliant.
In her chapter on “How Not to be a Jerk,” Favilla accepts *APS* style on the distinction between a refugee and a migrant. “Use *refugee* when referring to ‘a person who is forced to leave his home or country to escape war, persecution or natural disaster.’ Use *migrant* when referring to someone seeking economic oportunity” (62). But this is problematic. First, there is not always a clear-cut distinction between the migrant and the refugee. Can this persecution be the spectre of growing far-right groups in someone’s vicinity, or must it be state-sponsored violence? What constitutes a natural disaster that is significant enough to warrant refugee status? Seasonal flooding? Second, the implication that migrants seek economic opportunity overlooks a whole lot of other factors. What about those seeking education or family? Etc? Even if the distinction appears in legal texts, the responsibility of journalists and other writers involves being critical of inhumane laws, especially those that uphold such a distinction in order to prevent particular people from migrating. (*APS*: I am assuming this refers to the *American Physical Society,* but please let me know otherwise).
In the same chapter, Favilla commends “LGBT” and “queer” as collective terms, against such as “gay,” for example in “the gay community.” This is not simply her own conclusion but the result of many discussions with LGBTQ+ people. While I’m hetero myself, it would have been good to see comment here in regard to different approaches to the acronym. At the very least, surely a + could be included so as not to confuse say intersex people with trans people or pansexual people with bi people? L, G, B, and T don’t quite cut it as representatives themselves of a much larger collection of people. Then there is “queer,” which, while many may find it a helpful umbrella term, is potentially problematic when non-queer writers use it (especially as it originates as a slur or exonym and still carries those connotations for some), and also fails when some people who might otherwise be identified as queer reject the term altogether, even as a self-designation.
Also in this section, Favilla rejects the use of -phobic words such as “homophobic” or “transphobic,” preferring “anti-gay” and “anti-trans.” Her reasoning is that “the suffix *-phobic* implies a fear, and although this fear may or may not be figurative, it also implies something inherent that cannot be helped, and its use can perpetuate stereotypes.” This, however, is simply etymological fallacy, confusing a word’s meaning with its origin. I’m sure people are smart enough to be able to differentiate between agoraphobia, claustrophobia (and, it may need some work, but both the term as it is used clinically and its perhaps more common, colloquial form), and homophobia. Moreover, the noun form of the word disappears altogether. Are we to replace “transphobia” with “anti-transness?” Think also of the often helpful “xenophobia.” Don’t be so “anti-other”! I’ve had it up to here with “anti-otherness!”
On quite a different topic, I didn’t find myself quite agreeing with Favilla on capitalisation, though she suggests a great rule. “In general … you’re safer capitalizing anything derived from a proper noun than you are lowercasing it” (118). But this means that we end up with “Brussels sprouts” and “French fries”! Admittedly, Favilla reveals, “I’ll take ’em either way” (118). For such common terms, I’m much more inclined to lowercase, though perhaps this derives from my experience in theological writing where I consistently lowercase “christological” and “trinitarian” (but not “Christian” or “Triune God,” whoops). Maybe though, this whole paragraph stems from my offence at the great cheese appearing in the appendix as capital-B “Brie.” Favilla also argues that “G/god” should be lowercased “in common expressions” so: “thank god” and “god only knows,” etc. whereas it should often otherwise be capitalised (124). The reasoning is, quite rightly, that “someone’s god could be a saltshaker” (124). I wonder though, if this overlooks the other side, that someone’s god in those expressions could be quite real to them. Even atheists and agnostics (not all, I’m sure!) can harbour a poetic or literary appreciation for a G/god or two, and one that may find expression in letter case as well.
The book’s namesake also warrants comment. I wonder if Favilla is being ironic when in her very first paragraph she employs such as “nary” and “frolicking” (1). Just a few pages on a “hodgepodge” can be spotted (4). Are these not the glorious companions of the departing “whom”? (Perhaps only “frolicking”; I find the other two significantly less glorious). Why, then, does Favilla proceed to argue: “Face it: You hate *whom.* If you don’t, you’re likely a liar or someone with an English degree who actually still really hates *whom* but can’t bear to come to terms with your traitorous hatred for fear of your overpriced degree being snatched from your cold dead hands” (151)? She compares it with “shall,” as both are rarely used, unless ironically, in spoken language. (Notably, my American friends living in NZ recently asked, “Why does everyone say ‘shall’ over here?”). Her most compelling argument, however, is in an example of its incorrect usage. “They were not sure whom would do a better job” (151). Now, I can accept “whom” going out of style in spoken language (though I have often heard it and am happy to use it myself in spoken language), and this being reflected in some forms of written media (virtually all forms within another fifty years, I’m sure). But maybe I’m still in the grieving stages as “whom” enjoys continued use in my academic writing (a use also enjoyed by me), so I’m being all nit-picky about Favilla’s half-archaisms (datedisms?) in the first few pages. And, really, I’m all on board with farewelling “whom” if we can finally agree that “me and [person]” as the subject of a sentence is now acceptable English (because usage!).
I don’t know if this is just me either, but I found Favilla’s rejection of the verb “to Facebook” a little frustrating. “Why? Because Facebooking sounds silly; that’s why” (156). But Favilla is quite happy in the same chapter to accept the verbs “to Instagram” and “to Snapchat.” Hmmm. Maybe it’s because the first is ambiguous. If you Instragram something, you post it on Insta. If you Snapchat/snap someone, you send them a snap. If you Facebook something you… look it up on FB search? If you Facebook someone you… contact them over Messenger? Actually, this is the form of the verb I have used and still use. It probably derives from the earlier days before Messenger became a second thing. I’m quite happy telling someone I’ll either Messenger them or Facebook them, just as much as I am telling them I’ll “send [them] a message on Facebook/Messenger.” Also of note here is that the BuzzFeed Style Guide in the appendix lowercases “google” as a verb. Perhaps this is because it’s the most common? But I think there is a need for an executive decision here. Either all verbs deriving from proper nouns retain their capitals, so “to Google [something],” or they automatically lose them in becoming a verb, so “to snap(chat) [someone].” There is precedent for the former, in much older words such as “Judaise,” though I think I would prefer a blanket lowercasing, even on the older words. (See MW on "Judaise": https://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti... ).
Finally, I’m likely to be outvoted here, but I’d like to offer a little apology for the !? interrobang, as opposed to the ?! one that Favilla favours, writing, “the logic being that the sentence it punctuates is a question more so that it is an exclamatory phrase; the *!* is just an added bonus” (250). I find the !? much more aesthetic, however. The question mark hints at enclosing the exclamation mark, somewhat like a bracket. Compare (thing!) with (thing)! The other thing is that I read a phrase or sentence with an interrobang in quite the opposite way to Favilla. When someone says, “What!?” it is their surprise, anger, enthusiasm, etc. that is apparent to me ahead of their asking a question. The logic of the exclamation-first interrobang follows this (though perhaps this symbol should have another name, as its order does not reflect “interrobang”: a “banginter?” “bangative?”).
Reposted by me from my blog with my permission.
February 14, 2018
I'm not sure where else you could find a comprehensive list of British swearwords; the proper definition of "TL;DR" (too long; didn't read); and the word "Callipygian", which means having a shapely booty. What I got out of this book was that while there are grammar rules in this world, rules were made to be broken, and copy editors often just go with what looks right. Also, anyone who ranks the exclamation mark at the number one punctuation mark is a winner in my book!
October 13, 2017
Full review!
In this book, Favilla explores the language changes and trends that have shaped the way we communicate on the internet. As the creator of the BuzzFeed Style Guide, Favilla is uniquely positioned to detail the unique, pliable language of the internet. And she does so with lovely humor and a motto that seems to be "do what you want".
My experience with language on the internet is a combination of struggling to keep up and making stuff up to get my point across. Over all, I have come to really understand language on the internet as something that functions completely differently, with more flexible rules, than written language anywhere else. This book is an easy, enjoyable way to approach understanding the evolution of internet language and the pliable nature of written communication in general.
Favilla manages to describe complicated issues in grammar and language in a way that will be perfectly accessible to all reader, no matter their background. She develops a logical, humorous approach to determining how to best express an idea on the internet, where words and grammar can change in the blink of an eye. People who have really grown up with the internet (like myself) have really come to take fluency in the language of the internet for granted. But the truth is that we understand communication on the internet in nuanced, specific ways that would be hard to describe to someone who does not have firsthand experience with it. As a result, this book serves the purpose of providing an objective, fascinating analysis of language that (for me, at least) had gone unquestioned.
My one big worry when I picked up this book was that it would end up being basically an indictment of the way language has evolved on the internet. But Favilla really comes down on the opposite side of that, arguing in multiple places that language on the internet has evolved to express a variety of meaning and emotion that was previously not possible in written language. She accompanies this with examples, funny exchanges with fellow editors, and even examples from memes and pop culture.
While she does provide something of a glossary and set of rules, she ultimately says that these are the meanings and rules that work best for her at this time and that any of that can change at any moment, which is greatly appreciate. Viewing language as something that changes and redefines itself to suit the needs of the people using that language is refreshing makes for a pretty informative and funny book.
I especially enjoyed her discussion of how punctuation has come to be used to convey new meaning, how to alter the language you use to not be a jerk to other people, and the regional variations of language that can make for hilarious misunderstandings. But this entire book is pretty golden, filled with good information, and presented in an enjoyable and hilarious way.
I gave this book 8 out of 10 stars.
In this book, Favilla explores the language changes and trends that have shaped the way we communicate on the internet. As the creator of the BuzzFeed Style Guide, Favilla is uniquely positioned to detail the unique, pliable language of the internet. And she does so with lovely humor and a motto that seems to be "do what you want".
My experience with language on the internet is a combination of struggling to keep up and making stuff up to get my point across. Over all, I have come to really understand language on the internet as something that functions completely differently, with more flexible rules, than written language anywhere else. This book is an easy, enjoyable way to approach understanding the evolution of internet language and the pliable nature of written communication in general.
Favilla manages to describe complicated issues in grammar and language in a way that will be perfectly accessible to all reader, no matter their background. She develops a logical, humorous approach to determining how to best express an idea on the internet, where words and grammar can change in the blink of an eye. People who have really grown up with the internet (like myself) have really come to take fluency in the language of the internet for granted. But the truth is that we understand communication on the internet in nuanced, specific ways that would be hard to describe to someone who does not have firsthand experience with it. As a result, this book serves the purpose of providing an objective, fascinating analysis of language that (for me, at least) had gone unquestioned.
My one big worry when I picked up this book was that it would end up being basically an indictment of the way language has evolved on the internet. But Favilla really comes down on the opposite side of that, arguing in multiple places that language on the internet has evolved to express a variety of meaning and emotion that was previously not possible in written language. She accompanies this with examples, funny exchanges with fellow editors, and even examples from memes and pop culture.
While she does provide something of a glossary and set of rules, she ultimately says that these are the meanings and rules that work best for her at this time and that any of that can change at any moment, which is greatly appreciate. Viewing language as something that changes and redefines itself to suit the needs of the people using that language is refreshing makes for a pretty informative and funny book.
I especially enjoyed her discussion of how punctuation has come to be used to convey new meaning, how to alter the language you use to not be a jerk to other people, and the regional variations of language that can make for hilarious misunderstandings. But this entire book is pretty golden, filled with good information, and presented in an enjoyable and hilarious way.
I gave this book 8 out of 10 stars.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 118 reviews