How Not to Write: The Essential Misrules of Grammar

by William Safire

These fifty humorous misrules of grammar will open the eyes of writers of all levels to fine style. How Not to Write is a wickedly witty book about grammar, usage, and style. William Safire, the author of the New York Times Magazine column "On Language," homes in on the "essential misrules of grammar," those mistakes that call attention to the major rules and regulations of writing. He tells you the correct way to write and then tells you when it is all right to break the rules. In this lighthearted guide, he chooses the most common and perplexing concerns of writers new and old. Each mini-chapter starts by stating a misrule like "Don't use Capital letters without good REASON." Safire then follows up with solid and entertaining advice on language, grammar, and life. He covers a vast territory from capitalization, split infinitives (it turns out you can split one if done meaningfully), run-on sentences, and semi-colons to contractions, the double negative, dangling participles, and even onomatopoeia. Originally published under the title Fumblerules .

Genres: Writing, Nonfiction, Reference, Language

162 pages, Paperback

First published July 15, 2005

About the author

William Lewis Safire was an American author, columnist, journalist and presidential speechwriter.

He was perhaps best known as a long-time syndicated political columnist for the New York Times and a regular contributor to "On Language" in the New York Times Magazine, a column on popular etymology, new or unusual usages, and other language-related topics.

Reviews

[Jeanne · Rating 4 out of 5]

William Safire's How Not to Write: The Essential Misrules of Grammar is short and sassy: 50 very short chapters, 50 "fumblerules." What's a fumblerule? "[A] mistake that calls attention to the rule. The message: See how wrong this looks? Do as I say, not as I do" (Kindle 59). For example, Chapter 3's fumblerule is "A writer must not shift your point of view." I said sassy. Safire concludes his discussion of this fumblerule with

If you have chosen a frog’s point of view, do not suddenly leap over to the mind of the princess. Stick to your person, stay in your place and you will discover how a frog of a writer, kissed by consistency, can become a prince. (Kindle 126).

How Not to Write was written in 1990, so it was interesting how much of American grammar has stayed the same – and to note the places where things have changed (e.g., moving from male pronouns as an inclusive pronoun).

The following quotations are here just because they made me smile while making me think:

* "When you find yourself in a preposition-ending pickle, be like a Broadway producer with a recalcitrant star: Recast." (Kindle 1018)

* "But when the softening or prettifying panders to prudishness, or is motivated by commercial deception or bureaucratic obfuscation, the euphemism deserves termination with extreme prejudice." (Kindle 925)

* "Like brief-forms in shorthand, save-gets in computer programming or prefabricated modules in homebuilding, clichés are evidence of thought-free writing." (Kindle 1038)

[William Mego · Rating 2 out of 5]

ideclinetowritearevelantrevieworevenusepunctuationonthegroundsthattodosoistoinvitecriticismmadnessanddespairduetothesubjectmatterofthebookbutiwillsayididnotloveitandfounditgenerallytoosimplemindedandiwishiknewofacompleteresourcetoimprovemygrammarsoicouldconfidentlyuseactualpunctuationandwriteaproperreview

Period.

[J.D. Steens · Rating 3 out of 5]

Safire covers fifty writing mistakes. Most are familiar enough. A few leap out as particularly good.

On whether to split an infinitive, most of the debate is relaxed. Doesn't matter much one way or another. For Safire though, it depends on what the writer wants the adverb to modify or emphasize. To say or write, "suddenly to split the infinitive," "to split the infinitive suddenly," "to suddenly split the infinitive" or "to split suddenly the infinitive" these all convey different shades of meaning. Or I suppose they do, but it is certainly a worthwhile point to consider.

Safire tells us to get off our high horse when it comes to "proper" English. We speak what he calls "idiolect," an almagam of standard English, local pronunciation, personal idiosyncrasies, and "downright" dialect unique to each person. (Here and there, though, Safire does seem to stray some by insisting on what he views as "proper").

Euphemisms used as an act of kindness are ok. Euphemisms that are "excessively prudent," or that obfuscate, or that engage in commercial deception are not.

"Correct idioms" are those that are so often used that it would be a mistake to correct them on the grounds of pure logic. When someone asks, "how do you feel," they want to know your state of being and not, literally, how one goes about feeling.

As with most of these writing books, each author has their (i.e. his/her) own preferences that don't really resonate well. He wants "him" to mean "humankind" because he says that's what "him" originally meant, so there's no need literally to pull "female" into the mix. But today there's substantial baggage with identifying "him" with all of humankind and his explanation no longer works. Safire also objects to starting a sentence with a conjunction, because "to conjoin" means to connect two or more words or thoughts or clauses in a single sentence. This is a place where the writer might relax some as the two sentences can be connected with a conjunction to convey the close connection between the two. As long as it's not overused, it strikes me as a useful technique to string sentence thoughts together.

To make a point about placing the pronoun close to the subject it references, Safire makes a reference to Frank Gifford as "the lonely end," when it was Bill Carpenter from West Point and apparently the correct reference is "the lonesome end" At the end of the book, Safire thanks "the Gotcha Gang, the Nitpickers' League and the Nitpicker's League." I think the reference was to language purists, not to those who correct mistakes of fact.

[Paul O'Leary · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book provides a quick read for those who want to refresh their memory on how to write properly by remaining mindful of the rules of grammar, which instruct the reader what he/she should definitely NOT do. A fine and stately sentence can easily be carved out, if only we properly hew off all the confusing and ambiguous dross, and, of course, those damned dangling participles. An overall negative feel upon the reader can naturally result from this. Safire wittily & stridently tells his reader: No!; No!; No!; Well, maybe. And some who pass through these fifty brief chapters on mostly what not to do may come away feeling stifled. If you want a positive paean to beautiful and creative writing, along with an assurance that you, too, will soon reside in the literary glow of sweetness and light by the end of this brief work, you will be disappointed. In fact, Safire admits to periodically breaking many of the rules he recounts and espouses. In honor of Safire's irreverence, I have likewise indulged. Safire is not a language dictator; just its press agent. Language, however, is a very benign dictator that truly adjusts to its subjects' needs and whims. For this reason, Safire is a fairly moderate grammarian and realist, despite his reputation. Now, why should you spent an afternoon thumbing through a small book consisting of rules of grammar you should've learned in grade school, and likely did? Rules require constant attention, not just for the sake of obedience, or reform; but also so they might be broken, willfully, purposefully, and, yes, wittily.

[Neil Pasricha · Rating 5 out of 5]

Did you ever read the On Language column in The New York Times Magazine? It was a thing of beauty. One full page, every week, examining every detail of a different word from all angles. Written by William Safire, Pulitizer-Prize winning journalist, former Presidential speechwriter, and NYT columnist for forty years. He died in 2006. (Sidenote: One of my most prized moments while writing The Happiness Equation was getting a letter from his 90+ year old widow allowing me to use some of his “Never Retire” Op-Ed in the book.) This book is a treasure. It contains fifty grammar rules like “#50 Last but not least, avoid clichés like the plague” and “#27 Never use a long word when a diminutive one will do.” The whole book is completely meta since he’s constantly using and stylistically breaking his examples. A fave example from #44 De-accession euphemisms: “The U.S. Embassy in Budapest used to hand each arriving diplomat a packet that included this warning: ‘It must be assumed that available casual indigenous female companions work for or cooperate with the Hungarian government security establishment.’ It would have been better for our counterintelligence efforts if somebody had said, ‘The local whores are spies.’” Fun book for grammar junkies.

[Jocelyn · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 rating. When I first read this book in the early 1990s I would have rated it 5 stars, but, for me the Internet, GoodReads, and ratings were still things of the future. I kept the book, along with other Writing Favourites, on my bookshelves all these years. Now as I give The Essentials of Grammar a re-read — still enjoying Safire’s lively writing, the humour, and the short pithy chapters — I realize how we’ve all moved on, language along with everything else has changed and some of these rules/misrules are showing their age. Still, a lot of the good grammatical advice remains.
The humorous headings for each chapter citing a misrule are fun, and clever. Like chapter 28: The rigid rule of “i before e except after c” raises spelling to a sceince.

Remember, never to misplace your modifiers.

“The Republican candidate for Mayor, standing in front of a City department building in the South Bronx, disguised with decals of windows and flower pots…”

“Abraham Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address while travelling from Washington on the back of an envelope.” (HeHe.)

[JV]

Onde estão os gramáticos nos jornais e na televisão? Sou órfão dos programas gramaticais. Mesmo assim odiei as aulas de português na escola. Reti, já adulto, um pouco do Mário Barreto, Silveira Bueno e Vasco Botelho de Amaral mas julgo ainda não saber escrever.

Conheci William Safire enquanto assistia a "The Story of English"(PBS, apresentado por Robert MacNeil) e lhe fui ver os títulos; dentre os quais caiu este em minhas mãos. "How Not to Write" preconiza clareza e objetividade na escrita em 50 breves conselhos - muitos valem a ambas as línguas. Aprendi alguma coisa sobre escrever em inglês e talvez também valha qualquer coisa aos senhores(as).

[Katy · Rating 5 out of 5]

I love the English language, and I pride myself on knowing how to use it. But something recently made me think, "It's been a long time, girlfriend. Do you need a refresher course on basic and intermediate grammar?"

So I started looking for a good book. When I saw Saffire's book from 1990, I recognized whose advice I needed or wanted. I was NOT disappointed.

He reviewed the rules for speaking and writing, tongue in check titles and a good explanation. All of us know the rules, but have we become lax, not using what we know.

[Dennis Hogan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Finished How Not to Write: The Essential Misrules of Grammar by William Safire, an author, columnist, journalist and speechwriter. He served on the Pulitzer Board from 1995-2004. He was a long-time syndicated political columnist for The New York Times and wrote the "On Language" column in The New York Times Magazine about popular etymology, new or unusual usages, and other language-related topics. This is a clever book that highlights fifty example of grammar misuse. I confess to being on the wrong side of most of the examples. I really wish I paid more attention in high school.

[Mike Jorgensen · Rating 4 out of 5]

I loved this book. The writing is clever, concise, and almost always worthy of a chuckle. As a grammar nut, I heartily agreed with almost everything he said. Frankly, it is less important whether you agree with him or not. His points and rationale will force you to make more intentional choices when writing rather than regurgitating cliches from the zeitgeist.

Note: A few of his statements are a bit dated, but the book is about 20 years old so I graded it on that curve.

[Donna]

Most of the rules in Safire’s Book are basic, but they are also easy to read and entertaining. Each chapter title is an example of the rule, but broken. For instance, Chapter 24 is titled “The passive voice should never be used.” A couple of pages of enlightenment ensue, along with usage, where applicable.

[Lynn · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is amusing and contains mostly good advice with an abundance of examples but is mostly a retread of his older book Fumblerules, which I read years ago. For people with a deep interest in the English language, such things are always worth reviewing.

[James · Rating 5 out of 5]

Educational

Well worth reading, studying and rereading to get the full value and retention for everyday use of the important points.

[Jude Flurry · Rating 4 out of 5]

Funny and helpful, but sometimes he is overly witty in a way that makes his point vague. Most of it is really good.

[Joshua Johnson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Superb.

[Dillan Taylor · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fun way to improve your writing, and more particularly, your grammar. It cleared up a ton of strange grammar questions I didn’t even know I had

[Nate Hansen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent in spots, confusing in others (”And never start a sentence with a conjunction?” But why?), charming throughout.

[Emma · Rating 1 out of 5]

What did I think of this book? I think it, to be entirely honest, pretentious. I'm not sure who died and made Mr. William Safire King of Words, but my suggestion is a dethroning. To be fair, this book would be extremely helpful if one were being forced to write formally. It is useless for creative writing. If imagination is sucked out of writing, it is no longer really writing; it is merely the alphabet rearranged. Mr. Safire's sense of humor is dry and snarky, which I sometimes like, but he knows it is, which I never do. Maybe I misinterpreted, but it seemed to me that Mr. Safire's ideal world is one void of uniqueness, split infinitives, regional dialects, archaisms, and any kind of individual quirk. It would behoove us, I believe, to write as ourselves, and to not misrule quirks out. The only way not to write is to never try. Should you read this book, aspiring writers? My suggestion is to not to.

[Martin · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am on the verge of editing a large book compiled from the writing of other people. I've had no compunction about fumbling through my own knowledge of grammar concerning my work, but feel a greater responsbility when handling the work of others. I turned to the master for guidance, and he did not disappoint. Safire's particular skill is to explain things just enough for the reader to understand, without belaboring any points unless he absolutely needs to. He is clear as well on what is flexible and what is not. No matter how many grammar books I read, however, I'll split infinitives all the live-long day. It just doesn't bother me.

[Miri Gifford · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was kind of disappointed, given the reverence with which I've always heard William Safire mentioned. Sometimes it was funny; sometimes it was affected. I also felt like many parts would have been confusing for someone who didn't already know what he was talking about. There was more than one sexist remark, in addition to his disapproval of non-sexist language in general. And the name-dropping when he mentioned Nixon sounded really pretentious. It was fine, but overall... I am underwhelmed.

[Mary · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this while getting highlights at the beauty school for 3 hours. It was a better read than trashy magazines, but short and pithy chapters made it great in spurts between conversation.Fun rules and misrules, but sometimes it's hard to see where the rule ends and the exception begins. Still witty and astute, this book made me miss William Safire. I'm sure he's in grammar-maven heaven.

[Rose · Rating 5 out of 5]

As an international student, this book for me is so amazing and helpful. Because of this book, I learned how the grammar mistakes that are so wrong but people just do not know. Especially with Safire's interesting tone, English grammar turns so easy and fun.
If you want to write, you need this book.

[Angie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great book - included mistakes that I am embarrassed to admit that I often make. If I had one criticism it would be that some of the examples weren't as easy to understand as I would have liked - I find the easier it is to understand something, the easier it is to remember it. I imagine I might have some trouble trying to recall some of these gems in the future.

[Bruce · Rating 3 out of 5]

Great little book with funny examples of "bad" grammar and poor writing. It makes its point very well though. Worth a read for any English Language Arts teacher out there.

[R. Elise Elrod · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great for new writers raised in the southeastern US.

[James · Rating 2 out of 5]

Too dry for my tastes.

[Linda · Rating 3 out of 5]

quick read explaining sometime confusing grammar rules

[Sharon · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very funny and pretty accurate with how to NOT write.