What do you think?
Rate this book
The Reader Over Your Shoulder: A Handbook for Writers of English Prose
In late October 1939, Robert Graves wrote to Alan Hodge: “I have begun a new book, about English.” Graves and Hodge had recently completed a social history of the between-wars period called The Long Week-End. Now they embarked on this new project, “a handbook for writers of English Prose,” to be called The Reader Over Your Shoulder.
The world was in total upheaval. Graves had already fled Majorca three years earlier at the start of the Spanish Civil War. As they labored over their new writing project, Graves and Hodge witnessed the fall of France and the evacuation of Allied forces at Dunkirk. In early September 1940 began the bombing of London by the German Luftwaffe, a concentrated effort to destroy the resolve of the English people. Graves’s and Hodge’s idea was simple enough: at a time when their whole world was falling apart, the survival of English prose sentences, of writing that was clear, concise, intelligible, had become paramount if hope were going to survive the onslaught. They came up with forty-one principles for writing, the majority devoted to clarity, the remainder to grace of expression. They studied the prose of a wide range of noted authors and leaders, finding much room for improvement. Quoting grammarian and bestselling author Patricia T. O’Conner from her new introduction, “With a new war to be won, the kingdom couldn’t afford careless, sloppy English. Good communication was critical.”
The book they would write would turn out to be one of the most erudite, and at the same time one of the most spontaneous and inspired, ever to take on the challenge of writing well. O’Conner in her introduction describes The Reader Over Your Shoulder as nothing less than “the best book on writing ever published.” The present edition restores, for the first time in three-quarters of a century, the original, 1943, text, which in subsequent printings and editions had been shortened by over 150 pages, including much of the heart of the book.
The world was in total upheaval. Graves had already fled Majorca three years earlier at the start of the Spanish Civil War. As they labored over their new writing project, Graves and Hodge witnessed the fall of France and the evacuation of Allied forces at Dunkirk. In early September 1940 began the bombing of London by the German Luftwaffe, a concentrated effort to destroy the resolve of the English people. Graves’s and Hodge’s idea was simple enough: at a time when their whole world was falling apart, the survival of English prose sentences, of writing that was clear, concise, intelligible, had become paramount if hope were going to survive the onslaught. They came up with forty-one principles for writing, the majority devoted to clarity, the remainder to grace of expression. They studied the prose of a wide range of noted authors and leaders, finding much room for improvement. Quoting grammarian and bestselling author Patricia T. O’Conner from her new introduction, “With a new war to be won, the kingdom couldn’t afford careless, sloppy English. Good communication was critical.”
The book they would write would turn out to be one of the most erudite, and at the same time one of the most spontaneous and inspired, ever to take on the challenge of writing well. O’Conner in her introduction describes The Reader Over Your Shoulder as nothing less than “the best book on writing ever published.” The present edition restores, for the first time in three-quarters of a century, the original, 1943, text, which in subsequent printings and editions had been shortened by over 150 pages, including much of the heart of the book.
640 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1914
146 people are currently reading
543 people want to read
About the author
Robert Graves
639 books2,064 followersRobert von Ranke Graves was an English poet, soldier, historical novelist and critic. Born in Wimbledon, he received his early education at King's College School and Copthorne Prep School, Wimbledon & Charterhouse School and won a scholarship to St John's College, Oxford. While at Charterhouse in 1912, he fell in love with G.H. Johnstone, a boy of fourteen ("Dick" in Goodbye to All That) When challenged by the headmaster he defended himself by citing Plato, Greek poets, Michelangelo & Shakespeare, "who had felt as I did".
At the outbreak of WWI, Graves enlisted almost immediately, taking a commission in the Royal Welch Fusiliers. He published his first volume of poems, Over the Brazier, in 1916. He developed an early reputation as a war poet and was one of the first to write realistic poems about his experience of front line conflict. In later years he omitted war poems from his collections, on the grounds that they were too obviously "part of the war poetry boom". At the Battle of the Somme he was so badly wounded by a shell-fragment through the lung that he was expected to die, and indeed was officially reported as 'died of wounds'. He gradually recovered. Apart from a brief spell back in France, he spent the rest of the war in England.
One of Graves's closest friends at this time was the poet Siegfried Sassoon, who was also an officer in the RWF. In 1917 Sassoon tried to rebel against the war by making a public anti-war statement. Graves, who feared Sassoon could face a court martial, intervened with the military authorities and persuaded them that he was suffering from shell shock, and to treat him accordingly. Graves also suffered from shell shock, or neurasthenia as it is sometimes called, although he was never hospitalised for it.
Biographers document the story well. It is fictionalised in Pat Barker's novel Regeneration. The intensity of their early relationship is nowhere demonstrated more clearly than in Graves's collection Fairies & Fusiliers (1917), which contains a plethora of poems celebrating their friendship. Through Sassoon, he also became friends with Wilfred Owen, whose talent he recognised. Owen attended Graves's wedding to Nancy Nicholson in 1918, presenting him with, as Graves recalled, "a set of 12 Apostle spoons".
Following his marriage and the end of the war, Graves belatedly took up his place at St John's College, Oxford. He later attempted to make a living by running a small shop, but the business failed. In 1926 he took up a post at Cairo University, accompanied by his wife, their children and the poet Laura Riding. He returned to London briefly, where he split with his wife under highly emotional circumstances before leaving to live with Riding in Deià, Majorca. There they continued to publish letterpress books under the rubric of the Seizin Press, founded and edited the literary journal Epilogue, and wrote two successful academic books together: A Survey of Modernist Poetry (1927) and A Pamphlet Against Anthologies (1928).
In 1927, he published Lawrence and the Arabs, a commercially successful biography of T.E. Lawrence. Good-bye to All That (1929, revised and republished in 1957) proved a success but cost him many of his friends, notably Sassoon. In 1934 he published his most commercially successful work, I, Claudius. Using classical sources he constructed a complexly compelling tale of the life of the Roman emperor Claudius, a tale extended in Claudius the God (1935). Another historical novel by Graves, Count Belisarius (1938), recounts the career of the Byzantine general Belisarius.
During the early 1970s Graves began to suffer from increasingly severe memory loss, and by his eightieth birthday in 1975 he had come to the end of his working life. By 1975 he had published more than 140 works. He survived for ten more years in an increasingly dependent condition until he died from heart
At the outbreak of WWI, Graves enlisted almost immediately, taking a commission in the Royal Welch Fusiliers. He published his first volume of poems, Over the Brazier, in 1916. He developed an early reputation as a war poet and was one of the first to write realistic poems about his experience of front line conflict. In later years he omitted war poems from his collections, on the grounds that they were too obviously "part of the war poetry boom". At the Battle of the Somme he was so badly wounded by a shell-fragment through the lung that he was expected to die, and indeed was officially reported as 'died of wounds'. He gradually recovered. Apart from a brief spell back in France, he spent the rest of the war in England.
One of Graves's closest friends at this time was the poet Siegfried Sassoon, who was also an officer in the RWF. In 1917 Sassoon tried to rebel against the war by making a public anti-war statement. Graves, who feared Sassoon could face a court martial, intervened with the military authorities and persuaded them that he was suffering from shell shock, and to treat him accordingly. Graves also suffered from shell shock, or neurasthenia as it is sometimes called, although he was never hospitalised for it.
Biographers document the story well. It is fictionalised in Pat Barker's novel Regeneration. The intensity of their early relationship is nowhere demonstrated more clearly than in Graves's collection Fairies & Fusiliers (1917), which contains a plethora of poems celebrating their friendship. Through Sassoon, he also became friends with Wilfred Owen, whose talent he recognised. Owen attended Graves's wedding to Nancy Nicholson in 1918, presenting him with, as Graves recalled, "a set of 12 Apostle spoons".
Following his marriage and the end of the war, Graves belatedly took up his place at St John's College, Oxford. He later attempted to make a living by running a small shop, but the business failed. In 1926 he took up a post at Cairo University, accompanied by his wife, their children and the poet Laura Riding. He returned to London briefly, where he split with his wife under highly emotional circumstances before leaving to live with Riding in Deià, Majorca. There they continued to publish letterpress books under the rubric of the Seizin Press, founded and edited the literary journal Epilogue, and wrote two successful academic books together: A Survey of Modernist Poetry (1927) and A Pamphlet Against Anthologies (1928).
In 1927, he published Lawrence and the Arabs, a commercially successful biography of T.E. Lawrence. Good-bye to All That (1929, revised and republished in 1957) proved a success but cost him many of his friends, notably Sassoon. In 1934 he published his most commercially successful work, I, Claudius. Using classical sources he constructed a complexly compelling tale of the life of the Roman emperor Claudius, a tale extended in Claudius the God (1935). Another historical novel by Graves, Count Belisarius (1938), recounts the career of the Byzantine general Belisarius.
During the early 1970s Graves began to suffer from increasingly severe memory loss, and by his eightieth birthday in 1975 he had come to the end of his working life. By 1975 he had published more than 140 works. He survived for ten more years in an increasingly dependent condition until he died from heart
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
September 18, 2018
In late October 1939, Robert Graves wrote to Alan Hodge: “I have begun a new book, about English.” Graves and Hodge had recently completed a social history of the between-wars period called The Long Week-End. Now they embarked on this new project, “a handbook for writers of English Prose,” to be called The Reader Over Your Shoulder.
This is a hardcore book with a morsel of tersely written humor thrown in, and adequate piss-taking of the self to make any reader realise that, yes, this is the real shit, y’all. This book makes for a great companion to Strunk/White, not to mention the prose of Arthur Conan Doyle and Graham Greene – two of my favourite writers, of whom the latter gets a bashing.
The first parts of the book contain guidelines and principles on writing of English prose, with plenty of tips and critique concrete enough for any interest in language and the writing of prose to sate all, I believe. The last two thirds of the book are modern examples – mind you, from when the book was written, in England, in the middle of the Second World War – of how brilliant writers succumb to bad grammar, torpid use of doublets, far too complex sentences, and simply using words that are too hard to understand.
Even though the book is written with a fair amount of direct and indirect racism and sexism, it’s deeply meaningful, especially as one considers how much one gains per sentence in the book. In fairness, the last time I read advice this well written, I picked up what is broadly loved as The Book on technical writing. Reading this one is like listening to Glenn Gould playing piano; over all, and foremost, it’s technically brilliant, but deep in the mix, there’s style.
All in all, an excellent chop of English. I give it 4/5.
To finish, remember that self-insight is the best way to understand others.
This is a hardcore book with a morsel of tersely written humor thrown in, and adequate piss-taking of the self to make any reader realise that, yes, this is the real shit, y’all. This book makes for a great companion to Strunk/White, not to mention the prose of Arthur Conan Doyle and Graham Greene – two of my favourite writers, of whom the latter gets a bashing.
The first parts of the book contain guidelines and principles on writing of English prose, with plenty of tips and critique concrete enough for any interest in language and the writing of prose to sate all, I believe. The last two thirds of the book are modern examples – mind you, from when the book was written, in England, in the middle of the Second World War – of how brilliant writers succumb to bad grammar, torpid use of doublets, far too complex sentences, and simply using words that are too hard to understand.
Even though the book is written with a fair amount of direct and indirect racism and sexism, it’s deeply meaningful, especially as one considers how much one gains per sentence in the book. In fairness, the last time I read advice this well written, I picked up what is broadly loved as The Book on technical writing. Reading this one is like listening to Glenn Gould playing piano; over all, and foremost, it’s technically brilliant, but deep in the mix, there’s style.
All in all, an excellent chop of English. I give it 4/5.
To finish, remember that self-insight is the best way to understand others.
Read
July 11, 2018On the surface, a book could not be more dull: a language-usage handbook with hundreds of examples of sloppy diction and composition. Assembled during the early days of World War II, this guide to precise usage of the English language is the epitome of “keep calm and carry on,” and is laced throughout with the famous “dry” English wit. As my current students would likely confirm (with some disgruntlement), this book has sharpened my capacity for critical analysis of undergraduate essays.
April 15, 2016
It's too bad that this very funny book is no longer widely distributed. I suppose publishers fear Robert Graves' irony, sarcasm, and scorn does not send a peppy message to aspiring writers. No matter. In this "take no prisoners" handbook, passages written by Churchill, John Maynard Keynes, and even religious leaders are dissected and openly mocked. It's a wonderful sight to behold.
July 10, 2013
I leant my original copy of this to a proofreader and never saw it again. Not sure who I leant the second one to so this one is not going off the desk.
Graves at his best, arguing the case for clear and unambiguous writing. Part of the fun of the book is the last section where having set out a list of common faults Graves and Hodge "examine" prose passages from famous writers and having exposed their flaws rewrite a 'fair copy'. Wells, Shaw, T.S.ELiot and I A. Richard get the treatment (along with many others), but there is something admirably cheeky about taking on Bertrand Russell.
The aim of the book is to help the reader of the book be a better writer.
It's a pity Graves isn't around to do the same with some of the sludge that passes for prose these days, especially in literary studies.
Graves at his best, arguing the case for clear and unambiguous writing. Part of the fun of the book is the last section where having set out a list of common faults Graves and Hodge "examine" prose passages from famous writers and having exposed their flaws rewrite a 'fair copy'. Wells, Shaw, T.S.ELiot and I A. Richard get the treatment (along with many others), but there is something admirably cheeky about taking on Bertrand Russell.
The aim of the book is to help the reader of the book be a better writer.
It's a pity Graves isn't around to do the same with some of the sludge that passes for prose these days, especially in literary studies.
June 16, 2011
One of the best books out there for learning to make your writing clear and logical.
Apart from the usefulness of the book, it's also interesting historically. Written during the Second World War, many of the passages dissected are editorials and speeches from the period, giving the reader an insight into the mind of the British populace at the time. You'll read an editorial on Operation Barbarossa from George Bernard Shaw, explanations of the government's rationing policy, Parliamentary speeches, etc.
Apart from the usefulness of the book, it's also interesting historically. Written during the Second World War, many of the passages dissected are editorials and speeches from the period, giving the reader an insight into the mind of the British populace at the time. You'll read an editorial on Operation Barbarossa from George Bernard Shaw, explanations of the government's rationing policy, Parliamentary speeches, etc.
February 13, 2020
On the cover of this reissue, the name Robert Graves appears in a much larger type size than that of co-author Alan Hodge. This is not just for the sake of marketing. The voice throughout this book is unmistakably that of Graves. Yet it was not false modesty on Graves’s part to credit Hodge as co-author (indeed, I’m not aware of Graves ever being accused of modesty, false or true). Hodge was twenty years younger than Graves, the two had recently collaborated on a social history of Britain after World War I, The Long Week-End, and Graves viewed him as a partner in this enterprise of expressing principles of good English prose and illustrating them with examples of the failure to respect them.
Graves and Hodge list twenty-five principles of clear statement and sixteen principles of graceful prose. According to the authors, they arrived at these by reading, at their normal pace, whatever came to hand. That included many of the leading literary figures of the time (Shaw, Pound, Eliot), government press releases, newspaper columns, and local church bulletins. Whenever they encountered difficulty in understanding, they sought to identify the reason for it. The second half of the book is devoted to excerpts from their reading. Numbers (for principles of clear statement) and letters (for those of graceful prose) set in superscript flag the violations. The reasoning used in citing these violations follows, listed under these numbers and letters. Thirdly, the authors present a “fair copy,” that is, their rewrite of how the author could have better expressed him or herself. Finally, a comment, in many cases exculpating the author, who perhaps had to write quickly and didn’t have the chance to edit what he or she wrote. At other times, they surmise, the writer’s official position forbade them saying what they really meant, which resulted in a muddle.
In general, they stress that not even the most careful of authors is free of committing these faults. Their inclusion of a passage of their own is proof of this.
Their attempts at fairness didn’t go so far as to prevent the comments from causing me to laugh out loud at times. One example, about J. Middleton Murry: “Mr. Murry has often apologized to his readers for the confusion of his thought, but ascribed it to the difficulty of conveying novel and important intuitions of spiritual truth. The confusion is due rather to the mystical ecstasy which overtakes him and blunts his critical sense of what he is writing.”
In many cases, these examples of faulty writing are found in texts that address the non-specialist reader. Many of the authors represented are known as poets or novelists. Mostly, the excerpts here are not from their novels, but from works of criticism or commentary on current affairs. There is one exception: the dissection of a passage of Hemingway’s Farewell to Arms is savagely memorable.
If you can’t find a used copy of the original edition of The Reader Over Your Shoulder, which appeared in 1943, then this, from 2017, is the edition to get, for it restores portions cut from the book in the reprintings in between (this has 615 pages, rather than the 290 erroneously given in the book description). Regrettably, this edition is marred by typos. I suspect they crept in when the book was reset for publication, but the only way of knowing for sure would be to compare side by side with the original. Especially irritating are the errors in the intricate system of cross-references between text excerpts and the principles cited.
The book includes an overview of the history of English prose. Some readers may be put off by the manner of presentation, which seems like a series of ex-cathedra pronouncements, but these are based on close-reading of the authors discussed and are worth savoring. For instance: “Anglo-Saxon was the language of the belly; Norman-French, that of the heart — the Normans had learned to have hearts since they had settled in France; Latin, that of the brain. English, as Chaucer used it, was a reconciliation of the functions of all these organs. But in Chaucer’s as in all the best English prose, the belly rules: English is a practical language.” Graves has his favorite periods, for instance, the “classical prose” of Dryden and Defoe, but his love of English as a living language keeps him from seeking to freeze the language in any period and display it in a museum. For that reason, it is beside the point to complain that one wouldn’t take Graves and Hodge either a model of writing style now, eighty years later. Style changes, but the principles endure. That seems to be the point of this book.
Graves and Hodge list twenty-five principles of clear statement and sixteen principles of graceful prose. According to the authors, they arrived at these by reading, at their normal pace, whatever came to hand. That included many of the leading literary figures of the time (Shaw, Pound, Eliot), government press releases, newspaper columns, and local church bulletins. Whenever they encountered difficulty in understanding, they sought to identify the reason for it. The second half of the book is devoted to excerpts from their reading. Numbers (for principles of clear statement) and letters (for those of graceful prose) set in superscript flag the violations. The reasoning used in citing these violations follows, listed under these numbers and letters. Thirdly, the authors present a “fair copy,” that is, their rewrite of how the author could have better expressed him or herself. Finally, a comment, in many cases exculpating the author, who perhaps had to write quickly and didn’t have the chance to edit what he or she wrote. At other times, they surmise, the writer’s official position forbade them saying what they really meant, which resulted in a muddle.
In general, they stress that not even the most careful of authors is free of committing these faults. Their inclusion of a passage of their own is proof of this.
Their attempts at fairness didn’t go so far as to prevent the comments from causing me to laugh out loud at times. One example, about J. Middleton Murry: “Mr. Murry has often apologized to his readers for the confusion of his thought, but ascribed it to the difficulty of conveying novel and important intuitions of spiritual truth. The confusion is due rather to the mystical ecstasy which overtakes him and blunts his critical sense of what he is writing.”
In many cases, these examples of faulty writing are found in texts that address the non-specialist reader. Many of the authors represented are known as poets or novelists. Mostly, the excerpts here are not from their novels, but from works of criticism or commentary on current affairs. There is one exception: the dissection of a passage of Hemingway’s Farewell to Arms is savagely memorable.
If you can’t find a used copy of the original edition of The Reader Over Your Shoulder, which appeared in 1943, then this, from 2017, is the edition to get, for it restores portions cut from the book in the reprintings in between (this has 615 pages, rather than the 290 erroneously given in the book description). Regrettably, this edition is marred by typos. I suspect they crept in when the book was reset for publication, but the only way of knowing for sure would be to compare side by side with the original. Especially irritating are the errors in the intricate system of cross-references between text excerpts and the principles cited.
The book includes an overview of the history of English prose. Some readers may be put off by the manner of presentation, which seems like a series of ex-cathedra pronouncements, but these are based on close-reading of the authors discussed and are worth savoring. For instance: “Anglo-Saxon was the language of the belly; Norman-French, that of the heart — the Normans had learned to have hearts since they had settled in France; Latin, that of the brain. English, as Chaucer used it, was a reconciliation of the functions of all these organs. But in Chaucer’s as in all the best English prose, the belly rules: English is a practical language.” Graves has his favorite periods, for instance, the “classical prose” of Dryden and Defoe, but his love of English as a living language keeps him from seeking to freeze the language in any period and display it in a museum. For that reason, it is beside the point to complain that one wouldn’t take Graves and Hodge either a model of writing style now, eighty years later. Style changes, but the principles endure. That seems to be the point of this book.
March 10, 2023
Here Robert Graves demonstrates the penchant for the British writers of his time to become too brisk, too formal and, in general, too fond of the types of circumlocutions that mark bad journalism. As seen from the examples he cites of poor writing, which typically is about the perils associated with life in England during World War II, you get a sense of the type of 'betrayal by propaganda' that was associated with the war against the Axis powers. Luckily, that war was won by the Allies, so that the military consequences for the lives of the poets were mostly insignificant; the derangement of the senses promised by Rimbaud was ushered into the modern period by e.e. cummings, W.H. Auden and Wallace Stevens and, after the second World War, by William Carlos Williams, Robert Duncan and John Ashbery. I must admit I always have a sense of the presence of these literary icons as readers who are at my elbows, proverbially reading 'over my shoulder' every time at leisure, whether writing or not.
August 18, 2020
Tempted to make this a 'memorable' one except large portions are exceedingly boring even for the aspiring wordsmith. So, I'd read Claudius and Belisarius, and checked Graves bibliography for another fun historical fiction. Came upon this. At the time I was between the MA program and starting either a PhD program or law school. I was not a good writer. Went through this pretty carefully taking copious notes and then distilling them down to one page of do's and one of don'ts. Stood me in good stead in the PhD program, but more importantly as a grad assistant reading essays/bluebooks on approximately fifty students in Latin America I or Intro to Russian Communism. Proofing this review, I probably need to find those old notes :(
September 28, 2021
I think this book is more useful as an 'istorical document than as a style guide
i disagree with most of what G+H have written
eg,
given as an example of an erroneous antithesis "good soil deserves digging, bad soil needs it"
oh, get a grip ! if g+h were alive i'd recommend the elements of eloquence by Forsyth, where the rhetorical device employed here is explained
eg,
poetical expressions should not be used in prose.
D du Maurier writes "all that remained of the gallantry, the courage , the brotherhood and sacrifice , of four years in Flanders, were the graves of the fallen and the blown and scarlet poppies"
I think that is a good , strong piece of writing
eg, from p119
metaphors should not . . .absurdity. . .
G Greene writes "Kay Rimmer sat with her head in her hands and her eyes on the floor"
G+H write . .and her teeth on the mantelpiece
but g+h have failed it demonstrate that Greene is not being literal
i disagree with most of what G+H have written
eg,
given as an example of an erroneous antithesis "good soil deserves digging, bad soil needs it"
oh, get a grip ! if g+h were alive i'd recommend the elements of eloquence by Forsyth, where the rhetorical device employed here is explained
eg,
poetical expressions should not be used in prose.
D du Maurier writes "all that remained of the gallantry, the courage , the brotherhood and sacrifice , of four years in Flanders, were the graves of the fallen and the blown and scarlet poppies"
I think that is a good , strong piece of writing
eg, from p119
metaphors should not . . .absurdity. . .
G Greene writes "Kay Rimmer sat with her head in her hands and her eyes on the floor"
G+H write . .and her teeth on the mantelpiece
but g+h have failed it demonstrate that Greene is not being literal
March 31, 2025
What an incredible book. They tear apart bits of writings by various important people then rewrite the passage in what they consider the proper way. Such detailed explanations of their edits.
These two men, if not already dead, would die in horror at what has become of proper writing.
These two men, if not already dead, would die in horror at what has become of proper writing.
August 12, 2024
This is really snarky, and really neat. Like the section where they improve on other authors' writing.
November 4, 2025
Important, perhaps, but unenjoyable
May 10, 2016
This book hasn't stood the test of time. Graves and Hodge sound stiff and wordy to today's mental ears. Example, from the first paragraph of chapter 5:
"We here record our own principles for writing prose. They are concerned partly with the secure conveyance of information and partly with its decent, or graceful, conveyance, and have been suggested by our recent examination of a great mass of miscellaneous writing."
Good written English has changed since the book was written in the 1940s. Zinsser's "On writing well," although already an aging text, is more readable and helpful.
The book has three acts. In the first act (chapters 1-4) the authors cover generalities about the English language and its use. I liked chapter one, where the authors discuss the "peculiar qualities" of English.
In act two (chapter 5-8), and despite the authors' better judgement, they insist on cataloguing writing flaws into exactly 41 categories. Twenty-five of those categories concern clarity, the other 16 are about "grace of expression." I say "despite their better judgement" because the authors themselves, in the third paragraph of chapter 5, say they are aware that a handful of their principles contain all the others. Principle One, for example, is "It should always be made clear who is addressing whom, and on the subject of whom." Principle Six is "There should never be any doubt left as to how much, or how long." Few readers will remember the 41 principles, and even fewer will apply them wholesale to their writing. A handful of more general rules would have served the reader better.
After the principles, in the final act of the book the authors edit 18 samples of published writing, painstakingly pointing out and correcting each flaw using the principles listed earlier. This is the part the book is famous for, because Graves and Hodge pick on the writing of famous authors.
Besides it being tedious to apply every one of the 41 principles to each line of every text sample, I'm afraid some of the editing is not fair. For example, the sample by J.M. Keynes is not considered in its integrity. Graves and Hodge extract passages from Keynes' book and then edit them as if they were a self-contained text. When I read Keynes' complete text (chapter one of "How to pay for the war") I found that, although admittedly cluttered and ambiguous, the original was more readable than Graves and Hodge imply.
Besides chapter one, I liked a bit of advice from chapter five. There the authors suggest a method to de-clutter your writing. First, re-write your draft "as if it were to be cabled at a shilling a word," leaving out the articles and other "unimportant but comforting parts of speech." The result will read like a telegram. Then add the bare minimum number of connecting words to make it sound like real prose. I liked this advice because in my editing I usually proceed the other way, slowly pruning away from the forest, rather than adding to a bare landscape.
My verdict: avoid this book. Read something more recent.
"We here record our own principles for writing prose. They are concerned partly with the secure conveyance of information and partly with its decent, or graceful, conveyance, and have been suggested by our recent examination of a great mass of miscellaneous writing."
Good written English has changed since the book was written in the 1940s. Zinsser's "On writing well," although already an aging text, is more readable and helpful.
The book has three acts. In the first act (chapters 1-4) the authors cover generalities about the English language and its use. I liked chapter one, where the authors discuss the "peculiar qualities" of English.
In act two (chapter 5-8), and despite the authors' better judgement, they insist on cataloguing writing flaws into exactly 41 categories. Twenty-five of those categories concern clarity, the other 16 are about "grace of expression." I say "despite their better judgement" because the authors themselves, in the third paragraph of chapter 5, say they are aware that a handful of their principles contain all the others. Principle One, for example, is "It should always be made clear who is addressing whom, and on the subject of whom." Principle Six is "There should never be any doubt left as to how much, or how long." Few readers will remember the 41 principles, and even fewer will apply them wholesale to their writing. A handful of more general rules would have served the reader better.
After the principles, in the final act of the book the authors edit 18 samples of published writing, painstakingly pointing out and correcting each flaw using the principles listed earlier. This is the part the book is famous for, because Graves and Hodge pick on the writing of famous authors.
Besides it being tedious to apply every one of the 41 principles to each line of every text sample, I'm afraid some of the editing is not fair. For example, the sample by J.M. Keynes is not considered in its integrity. Graves and Hodge extract passages from Keynes' book and then edit them as if they were a self-contained text. When I read Keynes' complete text (chapter one of "How to pay for the war") I found that, although admittedly cluttered and ambiguous, the original was more readable than Graves and Hodge imply.
Besides chapter one, I liked a bit of advice from chapter five. There the authors suggest a method to de-clutter your writing. First, re-write your draft "as if it were to be cabled at a shilling a word," leaving out the articles and other "unimportant but comforting parts of speech." The result will read like a telegram. Then add the bare minimum number of connecting words to make it sound like real prose. I liked this advice because in my editing I usually proceed the other way, slowly pruning away from the forest, rather than adding to a bare landscape.
My verdict: avoid this book. Read something more recent.
December 18, 2024
A terrific if lengthly book, especially funny when he points out poor prose and gives it a good polish, often citing speeches, newspaper reports, etc.
It's a bit old-fashioned these days, and some now-embarrassing topics are described (and then improved upon, but still embarrassing), and in many cases one wishes a third writer to come along and fix his fixes. E.g. this example, and the parantheticals are Graves' own:
'The pupils at Smith Town Engineering College were negroes [here he remembers that most of them were too light-coloured to be called negroes] or rather mulattoes [but here he remembers two or three of inky blackness] for the most part; [here he remembers the staff] as were also the majority of the teachers, except for a Chinese demonstrator in physics [here he does not want to suggest that any white men taught] and some negroes.' A neater form of the sentence is : 'Most of the pupils, and also of the teachers, at Smith Town Engineering College were mulattoes; the remainder, except for a Chinese demonstrator in physics, were negroes.'
And of course now I'd just say "Most of the pupils and teachers" rather than "most of the pupils and also of the teachers" which sounds distinctly odd to modern ears. It must have been correct back then, though!
(Note: I'm a writer, so I suffer when I offer fewer than five stars. But these aren't ratings of quality, they're a subjective account of how much I liked the book: 5* = an unalloyed pleasure from start to finish, 4* = really enjoyed it, 3* = readable but not thrilling, 2* = disappointing, and 1* = hated it.)
It's a bit old-fashioned these days, and some now-embarrassing topics are described (and then improved upon, but still embarrassing), and in many cases one wishes a third writer to come along and fix his fixes. E.g. this example, and the parantheticals are Graves' own:
'The pupils at Smith Town Engineering College were negroes [here he remembers that most of them were too light-coloured to be called negroes] or rather mulattoes [but here he remembers two or three of inky blackness] for the most part; [here he remembers the staff] as were also the majority of the teachers, except for a Chinese demonstrator in physics [here he does not want to suggest that any white men taught] and some negroes.' A neater form of the sentence is : 'Most of the pupils, and also of the teachers, at Smith Town Engineering College were mulattoes; the remainder, except for a Chinese demonstrator in physics, were negroes.'
And of course now I'd just say "Most of the pupils and teachers" rather than "most of the pupils and also of the teachers" which sounds distinctly odd to modern ears. It must have been correct back then, though!
(Note: I'm a writer, so I suffer when I offer fewer than five stars. But these aren't ratings of quality, they're a subjective account of how much I liked the book: 5* = an unalloyed pleasure from start to finish, 4* = really enjoyed it, 3* = readable but not thrilling, 2* = disappointing, and 1* = hated it.)
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews