The Economist Style Guide

by Ann Wroe

Rare is the style guide that a person--even a word person--would want to read cover to cover. But The Economist Style Guide, designed, as the book says, to promote good writing, is so witty and rigorous as to be irresistible. The book consists of three parts. The first is the Economist's style book, which acts as a position paper of sorts in favor of clear, concise, correct usage. The big no-noes listed in the book's introduction are: "Do not be stuffy.... Do not be hectoring or arrogant.... Do not be too pleased with yourself.... Do not be too chatty.... Do not be too didactic.... [And] do not be sloppy." Before even getting to the letter B, we are reminded that aggravate "means make worse, not irritate or annoy"; that an alibi "is the proven fact of being elsewhere, not a false explanation"; and that anarchy "means the complete absence of law or government. It may be harmonious or chaotic."

Part 2 of the book describes many of the spelling, grammar, and usage differences between British and American English. While many Briticisms are familiar to most Americans and vice versa, there are some words--such as homely, bomb, and table--that take on quite different meanings altogether when they cross the Atlantic. And part 3 offers a handy reference to such information as common business abbreviations, accountancy ratios, the Beaufort Scale, commodity-trade classifications, currencies, laws, measures, and stock-market indices. The U.S. reader should be aware (but not scared off by the fact) that some of the style issues addressed are specifically British. --Jane Steinberg

Genres: Writing, Reference, Nonfiction, Language, Business, Economics, Journalism

288 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1986

About the author

Ann Wroe is a journalist and author - working as Briefings and Obituaries editor of The Economist. She is a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, the Royal Society of Literature and the English Association.

Reviews

[Leona · Rating 1 out of 5]

Save your money. Most of the content is available through normal editing and help functions with your software package, or with a simple "google" search.

However, if you want something concise sitting on your bookshelf rather than searching for it on the web, there are other books that offer the same content in a much more appealing, easier to read manner.

[Alice · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some great content, but the presentation of the information was far from easy to understand. I'd prefer fewer sentences explaining the rules/guidelines, and more examples demonstrating them.

I also found the tone of "This isn't offensive to you, and here's why." grated on me. Mate, I'm all for keeping language useable, but it's not up to you to decide what groups you are not a part of should or do find offensive.

[Wael Gharib · Rating 5 out of 5]

amzing book and important for everyday speech

[Hank · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you want to use the English properly, you MUST read this bible for English usage.

[Nicholas Whyte]

http://nhw.livejournal.com/681975.html[return][return]Mandatory reading for those of us doing editing for a living, of course. Full of useful snippets and helpful hints, though I dare to disagree on a few points:[return][return]Dominicans Take care. Do they come from Dominica? Or the Dominican Republic? Or are they friars?[return][return]*Snerk!*[return][return]federalist in Britain, someone who believes in centralising the powers of associated states; in the United States and Europe, someone who believes in decentralising them.[return][return]Perhaps that one was a bit more tongue-in-cheek.[return][return][return]Abbreviations that can be pronounced and are composed of bits of words rather than just initials should be spelt out in upper and lower case[return][return]Agreed, but their examples include "Kfor" and "Sfor" which I would always spell KFOR and SFOR, since that is and was the capitalisation preferred by the peacekeepers themselves.[return][return][return]Put the accents and cedillas on French names and words, umlauts on German ones, accents and tildes on Spanish ones, and accents, cedillas and tildes on Portuguese ones: Fran

[Wei · Rating 5 out of 5]

As a non native English speaker, I found this book very helpful. It was recommended by one of my business professor at my university. It really helped me to use the right word for saying the right thing. It is not only English related but in Business as well. As a technology fan and a business student, I really liked the abbreviation part where the most common business abbreviation and technology abbreviation are listed. I don’t feel embarrassed not to know that EBITDA means when it is mentioned in the lecture class, because I can find it on the list. In addition, it helps me to differentiate UK spelling and US spelling for most common words. I think it is a very good book to have as a student, even if it not for reading, even if the reader is a native English speaker.

[Christopher Intagliata · Rating 5 out of 5]

Hands down - the best style guide. Written in comedic fashion with irony that jumps off the page. Who wouldn't love a book that pokes fun at George Bush's scholastic abilities while explaining the difference in usage between 'may' and 'might'?

Also available in [almost] entirety online at http://www.economist.com

[Tim · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Economist is one of the best-written magazines around; its house style is justly celebrated - plain, clear and elegant. There are plenty of interesting entries in this book.

However, it has the typical weakness of a style guide masquerading, as per its front-cover quasi-subtitle, as a general "guide to English usage": it often gives instructions without offering justification.

In a style guide for a house style, that is perfectly fine: 'Economist' writers can simply write as they are told to, whether or not they personally share the publication's official preferences.
For the general reader, though, it isn't enough just to be told: "do it like this"; "that is wrong", without being told on what basis these judgements are made. Expressed principles for usage decisions would enable such readers to apply them to other cases of similar types, as well as to assess the principles themselves.

A couple of examples:

(1) "Avoid verbing and adjectiving nouns" - meaning, don't use nouns as verbs or adjectives (nouns such as access, action, author, haemorrhage, pressure, gun (+down) - all the examples given in the guide are of verbs formed from nouns - no adjectives). This is a pleasingly simple rule, but it is stated very briefly, without argument, and with just 13 example nouns listed of the thousands in current usage, not to mention the thousands more in long-established usage. It is a controversial position (as would the contrary position be) and extremely unlikely to be observed in practice in any issue of the Economist or in any other sizeable chunk of text. In short, it's dogmatic and practically useless.

(2) "You do not prescribe someone something; you prescribe something for someone." That is the full entry for "prescribe", and it is just wrong, and silly with it. "Prescribe" offers the same pair of constructions as many other two-complement verbs - "give" for example: you can give something to someone or you can give someone something. If the Economist feels that "prescribe" should be limited to the longer version only, the least it can do is say why.

(3) The entry for "mutual" is a classic of incoherence: briefly, it says usage A is right, usage B is wrong, but that in fact usage B "goes back respectably to 1632", and you the reader should (consequently) feel free to use either. Eh? So where does the right/wrong come in?

In some cases rationales are given for positions taken - but many are applied inconsistently, raising the further, unresolved (and unacknowledged), question: when should I apply this or that principle for a usage decision, and when should I ignore it?

There is also a lot of practically useful material in here, both reference lists of problem spellings and the like, and short essay-type entries on subjects such as "horrible words", "euphemisms", and "journalese and slang".
In general I thoroughly recommend this book to anyone looking for help in thinking about how they write. Just tread carefully and don't take it all as gospel.

[Поли E.]

You want to learn how to write an awesome article (or anything, really)? And also do it with style?
You want to know how an earthquake is measured? Which Geological eras have passed? Some Latin? Paper sizes?
This is not a book, this is a guide that should have been handed to me on my first day of English Philology.

[Saad · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good resource for financial writers

I found it to be a very good resource for financial writing. Clear and concise. Found many words which I was using incorrectly. Good for light reading where you’re squeezing it in in between work and/or other readings. Would recommend to anyone involved in Finance.

[André LR · Rating 5 out of 5]

A sharp companion for anyone who works with text. I still reach for it. If you ever need to cut through corporate waffle or win an argument about phrasing, this book settles it with quiet authority. Clear, brisk and unforgiving — exactly what a style guide should be. It ages well too. The core guidance holds up: short sentences, plain words, clear logic, no fuss.

[Darren Lipomi · Rating 3 out of 5]

By no means comprehensive. Really just a glossary of terms and lots of appendices for things that are easily Googled. I was hoping for more in the way of constructing an article, style, and cohesion. Interesting mostly to the readers of The Economist.

[Seth Woodley · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a style guide that teaches you how to write more clearly and effectively. Some portions have a bit of comedy added to them. Overall, this is a great resource to use and to have nearby to check rules/guidelines quickly.

[Marcus Goncalves · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent resource in teaching you how to communicate more clearly and concise. For me, being Latino, and having a more implicit form of communication, this book is of tremendous help. Well, I could have been more concise here. 😉

[Jamad · Rating 5 out of 5]

A joy an absolute joy.


Only put only as close as you can to the words that it qualifies. This “these animals mate only in June” to say “they only mate in June” implies that in June, they do nothing else

[Brian Leung · Rating 3 out of 5]

It is for professional writers. Sorry that I am a amateur.

[Ietrio · Rating 2 out of 5]

Language dogma according to one, Mr. Economist. Amusing to browse while in store, useless to have, unless you are writing for the said individual.

[Paiman Chen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Superb.

[Drake Finlay]

It's a good style guide.

[Tobin South · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good reference, and a decently entertaining light read.

[pokupine · Rating 5 out of 5]

Cathartic for a grammar Nazi to have all your pet peeves in one place. :)

[Joe Reddington]

I read the 2000 version, which is dated enough to be racist.

There’s good stuff about writing and, bizarrely, accounting, but I would definitely get a more recent copy.

[Gregor Schafroth · Rating 2 out of 5]

Cool but this should be an online tool, not a book

[Tamara · Rating 3 out of 5]

To be used more as a reference guide for using certain words than a read through guide to style. Structure resembles that of a dictionary.

[Richard · Rating 5 out of 5]

Useful. This is mostly a reference-style guide to specific word usage. The text is also available on the economist web site for free.

[Mong · Rating 5 out of 5]

I keep a copy on my desk at all times. It has helped our team untangle many knots in the style and grammar. While I have not thrown away AP or Chicago (I still reference them), I appreciate The Economist Style Guide the most as it focuses on the understandability of the text to the reader.

[Miebara Jato · Rating 5 out of 5]

I’m such a poor writer, partly because i went to mediocre schools. So, with all my inadequacies and poor English usage, reading this book was like finding a cold beer in a desert. It was timely and satisfying.

What’s in the book: The book is The Economist in-house manual for English usage. The book gives a general advice on writing, points out common errors and cliches, offers guidance on consistent use of punctuation, abbreviations and capital letters, and contains an exhaustive range of reference material - covering everything from accountancy ratios and stock market indices to laws of nature and science. It is such an invaluable companion for everyone who wants to communicate with clarity, style and precision. “Clarity of writing usually follows clarity of thought,” it writes in the introduction”. And, of course, the Economist is renowned for such precise and clear writing.
“Decimate means to destroy a proportion (originally a tenth) of a group of people or things, not to destroy them all or nearly all”.
“Compound (verb), does not mean make worse. It may mean combine or, intransitively, it may mean to agree or come to terms. To compound a felony means to agree for a consideration not to prosecute. (It is also used, with different senses, as a noun and adjective.)”
“Demographics is no more a word than geographics is; it should be demography.”
And several more guides on useful English usage.

Who should read the book: A reference book highly recommended for everyone. After all, everyone is now a writer, thanks to social media and the internet. So, both professional writers like journalist, columnists, editors, and casual writers here in the cyberspace will find this book useful.

[^ · Rating 5 out of 5]

Exceedingly useful. Concise. To the point. Enlightening.

"Decimate means to destroy a proportion (originally a tenth) of a group of people or things, not to destroy them all or nearly all"

Whilst working in the UK for an American owned company, I found the section on American and British English utterly invaluable.

This book ought to be a compulsory textbook in every British State school.

[Fred Voon · Rating 4 out of 5]

This guide takes the format of an extended glossary - no long essays so fairly easy to read. Quite a number of entries are bitingly funny. The prevailing tone also tends to be dogmatic and anti-American. To the book's discredit, the entry for Singaporean names is horribly misguided - the sole example given being 'Lee Kuan Yew'. And saying the Chinese language 'may be Mandarin or Cantonese' without elaboration is misleading if not inaccurate.

[Gregor Erbach · Rating 3 out of 5]

disappointing in some places - advocates short words and easy sentences, but does not follow this advice in the most complicated explanation of Ohm's law. On another page, Ohm is spelled as "öhm". I am surprised how much is left to the judgement of the writer, even in the areas of capitalization and punctuation.