Status
Available
Publication
New York : Little, Brown and Co, c2010.
Description
Early in the history of English, the words "grammar" and "glamour" meant the same thing: the power to charm. Roy Peter Clark, author of Writing Tools, aims to put the glamour back in grammar with this fun, engaging alternative to stuffy instructionals. In this practical guide, readers will learn everything from the different parts of speech to why effective writers prefer concrete nouns and active verbs. THE GLAMOUR OF GRAMMAR gives readers all the tools they need to"live inside the language"--to take advantage of grammar to perfect their use of English, to instill meaning, and to charm through their writing. With this indispensable book, readers will come to see just how glamorous grammar can be.
User reviews
LibraryThing member atimco
Roy Peter Clark's The Glamour of Grammar is one of those books that starts out promising and then turns into an utter chore to finish. I have to admit I didn't get through the whole thing... just couldn't make myself pick it back up. And this after being initially delighted with the subject matter
Here's what I initially liked. Clark does make a nice connection between glamour (magic) and language, spells and spelling. His philosophy of grammar as tools instead of rules is an attractive one, but pretty simplistic for people already interested in grammar and language (i.e., everyone who would read this book). The tone is light and humorous (but more on that in a minute). The chapters are nice and short. And that's about all the positive stuff I can think of.
So here's why I dropped this book. The humor starts off fun but quickly becomes wearing. Clark gets overly cute and is clearly oh so impressed with his own punning. There are few things more tiresome than an author cackling over his own inane wordplays.
What really got old fast, however, were the political slams. Is it really necessary for you, Clark, to constantly use examples like, "When hell freezes over, when all the rivers run dry, and when swallows forget to come back to you-know-where, that's when I'll vote Republican" (71)? Or are you so smugly supercilious that you don't think anyone of that political persuasion might also be interested in your topic?
Clark probably thinks he's being funny, but comments like that are distracting and unnecessary. And I can't avoid the impression that he's really something of a jerk toward anyone who holds convictions different from his own. In the chapters I read he makes several nasty comments about another grammarian, Lynne Truss, and obviously thinks himself quite clever for making a pun on her last name. The sad thing is that Clark probably subscribes to all kinds of modern, high-sounding creeds of tolerance... but he displays this intolerant bigotry toward people of different beliefs and makes them the butt of his jokes. The hypocrisy there just isn't funny.
Maybe you'll be able to enjoy this book if you have a high tolerance level for bad puns and mean-spirited political and personal jabs. Maybe there is even something worthwhile about grammar and language in the chapters I did not read. But I just couldn't subject myself to any more of Clark's ego to get to it.
Show More
and fun style. It's astonishing how an author's bad habits can turn a reader so decidedly off his books.Here's what I initially liked. Clark does make a nice connection between glamour (magic) and language, spells and spelling. His philosophy of grammar as tools instead of rules is an attractive one, but pretty simplistic for people already interested in grammar and language (i.e., everyone who would read this book). The tone is light and humorous (but more on that in a minute). The chapters are nice and short. And that's about all the positive stuff I can think of.
So here's why I dropped this book. The humor starts off fun but quickly becomes wearing. Clark gets overly cute and is clearly oh so impressed with his own punning. There are few things more tiresome than an author cackling over his own inane wordplays.
What really got old fast, however, were the political slams. Is it really necessary for you, Clark, to constantly use examples like, "When hell freezes over, when all the rivers run dry, and when swallows forget to come back to you-know-where, that's when I'll vote Republican" (71)? Or are you so smugly supercilious that you don't think anyone of that political persuasion might also be interested in your topic?
Clark probably thinks he's being funny, but comments like that are distracting and unnecessary. And I can't avoid the impression that he's really something of a jerk toward anyone who holds convictions different from his own. In the chapters I read he makes several nasty comments about another grammarian, Lynne Truss, and obviously thinks himself quite clever for making a pun on her last name. The sad thing is that Clark probably subscribes to all kinds of modern, high-sounding creeds of tolerance... but he displays this intolerant bigotry toward people of different beliefs and makes them the butt of his jokes. The hypocrisy there just isn't funny.
Maybe you'll be able to enjoy this book if you have a high tolerance level for bad puns and mean-spirited political and personal jabs. Maybe there is even something worthwhile about grammar and language in the chapters I did not read. But I just couldn't subject myself to any more of Clark's ego to get to it.
Show Less
LibraryThing member anna_in_pdx
I fully expected to like this book. I was not disappointed. I did like this book.
I have lots of discussions about language with those near and dear to me, because language is my "thing". (You'd have to ask those near and dear to me what they think about this state of affairs. I think it is great.)
What was nice about this book is that it did give helpful advice to new/young writers about language and grammar, stressing clarity of meaning (YES!). I think I'd get along great with the writer, who referenced many works of which I am fond (see what I did there?) such as Susan Fadiman's Ex Libris: Confessions of a Common Reader. I also liked the author's method of putting a little bulleted list at the end of each chapter to further reinforce the message he wanted to leave with the reader. It was a little more like a Power Point than I would have liked myself, but it was probably useful for a person who's actually reading the book to get a better understanding of grammar.
This person was not me. And that's why, though I liked the book, I think it left me a bit cold. I think the targeted reader was someone who is not very experienced with writing and perhaps has not read a lot, but who wishes to write better. The author made frequent references to pop culture, the Internet, movies and TV that, while entertaining, were not really necessary and sometimes sounded a bit "he's trying to hard" (like your mom using teenage lingo with your best friend). But these kinds of judgments are so subjective! And as I went on I liked the book more and more and these judgments became less and less frequent.
So, overall, I recommend this book for writers-to-be, new college students, anyone taking a composition or creative writing class, and anyone out there who is still intimidated by "grammar" (I believe that ship sailed a long time ago, but in case anyone out there still exists who's in this category, do yourself a favor and go read this book). Enjoy.
I have lots of discussions about language with those near and dear to me, because language is my "thing". (You'd have to ask those near and dear to me what they think about this state of affairs. I think it is great.)
Show More
My partner and I often debate descriptivism vs. prescriptivism (I am the grammar nazi and he is the person that says "usage rules!"). So the issues raised in this book were not new to me. What was nice about this book is that it did give helpful advice to new/young writers about language and grammar, stressing clarity of meaning (YES!). I think I'd get along great with the writer, who referenced many works of which I am fond (see what I did there?) such as Susan Fadiman's Ex Libris: Confessions of a Common Reader. I also liked the author's method of putting a little bulleted list at the end of each chapter to further reinforce the message he wanted to leave with the reader. It was a little more like a Power Point than I would have liked myself, but it was probably useful for a person who's actually reading the book to get a better understanding of grammar.
This person was not me. And that's why, though I liked the book, I think it left me a bit cold. I think the targeted reader was someone who is not very experienced with writing and perhaps has not read a lot, but who wishes to write better. The author made frequent references to pop culture, the Internet, movies and TV that, while entertaining, were not really necessary and sometimes sounded a bit "he's trying to hard" (like your mom using teenage lingo with your best friend). But these kinds of judgments are so subjective! And as I went on I liked the book more and more and these judgments became less and less frequent.
So, overall, I recommend this book for writers-to-be, new college students, anyone taking a composition or creative writing class, and anyone out there who is still intimidated by "grammar" (I believe that ship sailed a long time ago, but in case anyone out there still exists who's in this category, do yourself a favor and go read this book). Enjoy.
Show Less
LibraryThing member SheilaDeeth
So, what do you think about when you hear the word “grammar”? As a kid, I would think “Uh oh; I guess I wrote something wrong again.” As a young adult I’d say, “Hey, that’s just the way I speak.” As an Englishwoman moving to America I’d groan that it’s not just the spellings
So, what about my punctuation above? Why did I put that question mark outside the quotes when the exclamation point went inside at the end of the paragraph? I’d often wondered how to punctuate quotes, and since I want to be a writer, I’d often thought I really ought to learn. At last I have.
Clark’s book starts by pointing out that “glamour” and “grammar” come from the same root. I guess is makes sense. After all, we “spell” words correctly or otherwise, and wizards cast “spells.” Grammar’s just the next step.
I used to teach chess, and I’d explain to the kids that there are two types of rules. Some have to be obeyed (pawns move forwards for example), or else you’re not playing chess. Others are there to be understood and used judiciously (such as “Don’t get your queen out too soon”) to set or avoid falling into traps. Once you know the rules, you know what it means when they’re broken.
Spelling’s probably the first sort of rule, and Clark includes a chapter on how meanings can change where the wrong spelling or wrong word is used. Suddenly you’re not saying what you thought; your reader’s dragged out of the writing; you’re not playing the same game. But other grammar rules can be judiciously broken. We just have to know what we’re doing and why—be prepared for what the reader will see, and be ready to make sure it’s what we intend.
Clark’s chapters are written with delightful style, great voice, amazing examples, and just pure fun. (Yes, grammar can be fun!) There’s advice for aspiring writers that any of us could use—the value of the well-chosen long or short word, the nuances of sound or foreign phrase, the alliteration of short and long sentences… And then there are chapter endings with quick and easily read “Keepsakes.” There he might emphasize a point, help the reader practice a technique, or simply list the rules. (That’s how I learned how to punctuate my first paragraph.)
Clark doesn’t want to regiment our writing. He acknowledges how different countries (UK and US for example), industries (newspaper vs book), and even publishers have their own chosen styles. Obey the rules of your intended audience he says. But then he frees us to shift those chess pieces round and win the game.
Is grammar glamorous? It certainly is now. I love this book, and I’d recommend that everyone who loves reading or writing really should read it. I can hardly believe how lucky I was to get a copy to review—you’ll hardly believe how lucky you are if you get your own copy too. And, just for reference, since Roy Peter Clark is vice president and senior scholar at the Poynter Institute, I have no qualms about trusting him to give me, and you, the right facts.
Show More
that are different here but the grammar rules as well. And after reading this book I’d say, “Wow!”So, what about my punctuation above? Why did I put that question mark outside the quotes when the exclamation point went inside at the end of the paragraph? I’d often wondered how to punctuate quotes, and since I want to be a writer, I’d often thought I really ought to learn. At last I have.
Clark’s book starts by pointing out that “glamour” and “grammar” come from the same root. I guess is makes sense. After all, we “spell” words correctly or otherwise, and wizards cast “spells.” Grammar’s just the next step.
I used to teach chess, and I’d explain to the kids that there are two types of rules. Some have to be obeyed (pawns move forwards for example), or else you’re not playing chess. Others are there to be understood and used judiciously (such as “Don’t get your queen out too soon”) to set or avoid falling into traps. Once you know the rules, you know what it means when they’re broken.
Spelling’s probably the first sort of rule, and Clark includes a chapter on how meanings can change where the wrong spelling or wrong word is used. Suddenly you’re not saying what you thought; your reader’s dragged out of the writing; you’re not playing the same game. But other grammar rules can be judiciously broken. We just have to know what we’re doing and why—be prepared for what the reader will see, and be ready to make sure it’s what we intend.
Clark’s chapters are written with delightful style, great voice, amazing examples, and just pure fun. (Yes, grammar can be fun!) There’s advice for aspiring writers that any of us could use—the value of the well-chosen long or short word, the nuances of sound or foreign phrase, the alliteration of short and long sentences… And then there are chapter endings with quick and easily read “Keepsakes.” There he might emphasize a point, help the reader practice a technique, or simply list the rules. (That’s how I learned how to punctuate my first paragraph.)
Clark doesn’t want to regiment our writing. He acknowledges how different countries (UK and US for example), industries (newspaper vs book), and even publishers have their own chosen styles. Obey the rules of your intended audience he says. But then he frees us to shift those chess pieces round and win the game.
Is grammar glamorous? It certainly is now. I love this book, and I’d recommend that everyone who loves reading or writing really should read it. I can hardly believe how lucky I was to get a copy to review—you’ll hardly believe how lucky you are if you get your own copy too. And, just for reference, since Roy Peter Clark is vice president and senior scholar at the Poynter Institute, I have no qualms about trusting him to give me, and you, the right facts.
Show Less
LibraryThing member moibibliomaniac
The Glamour of Grammar: A Guide to the Magic and Mystery of Practical English by Roy Peter Clark. If I could use only one word to describe this book, that word would be grammarous. You won't find grammarous in Webster's. But you will find it in The Urban Dictionary. Edward Butts, a linguist from
The Glamour of Grammar is a "how-to" book. And it is also a "why not?" book. Clark gives us all the rules of grammar, and then he tells us we can break them. In his section on Gender Equality, the author recommends the following usage:
A politician can kiss privacy good-bye when they run for office.
If that were the first thing I had read in this book, I would have heeded the author's advice and thrown the book out my nineteenth story window, only I don't have a nineteenth story window.
The first thing I looked at in Clark's book was the index. I wanted to see if he mentioned Strunk and White and The Elements of Style. Clark paid them and their book due homage, mentioning all of them a number of times. That is one thing in the author's favor. Another is that Clark is a fellow Floridian. Yet another is that he enjoys browsing at book fairs and book stores.
It is too early to tell if The Glamour of Grammar will be the next classic. But it already has my vote, and a place on my bookshelf close to my thirty-one copies of The Elements of Style.
If I had to choose, I would have called myself a diehard prescriptivist. I followed all the rules of grammar. But after reading The Glamour of Grammar, I am a wavering prescriptivist. Maybe even a - a … d-e-s-c-r-i-p-t-i-v-i-s-t! If a sentence fragment sounds better than a complete sentence, by golly, I'm gonna use it.
I did disagree with one thing in Clark's book. In his section on Standards, Clark chastised another author for writing that Republican e-mail senders were foaming at the mouth. Clark believed it was impossible for the author to know this for sure. Believe me! I have several Republican friends. And they all foam at the mouth. Especially when they talk or write about Obama!
Show More
Canada, even wrote a poem about it.The Glamour of Grammar is a "how-to" book. And it is also a "why not?" book. Clark gives us all the rules of grammar, and then he tells us we can break them. In his section on Gender Equality, the author recommends the following usage:
A politician can kiss privacy good-bye when they run for office.
If that were the first thing I had read in this book, I would have heeded the author's advice and thrown the book out my nineteenth story window, only I don't have a nineteenth story window.
The first thing I looked at in Clark's book was the index. I wanted to see if he mentioned Strunk and White and The Elements of Style. Clark paid them and their book due homage, mentioning all of them a number of times. That is one thing in the author's favor. Another is that Clark is a fellow Floridian. Yet another is that he enjoys browsing at book fairs and book stores.
It is too early to tell if The Glamour of Grammar will be the next classic. But it already has my vote, and a place on my bookshelf close to my thirty-one copies of The Elements of Style.
If I had to choose, I would have called myself a diehard prescriptivist. I followed all the rules of grammar. But after reading The Glamour of Grammar, I am a wavering prescriptivist. Maybe even a - a … d-e-s-c-r-i-p-t-i-v-i-s-t! If a sentence fragment sounds better than a complete sentence, by golly, I'm gonna use it.
I did disagree with one thing in Clark's book. In his section on Standards, Clark chastised another author for writing that Republican e-mail senders were foaming at the mouth. Clark believed it was impossible for the author to know this for sure. Believe me! I have several Republican friends. And they all foam at the mouth. Especially when they talk or write about Obama!
Show Less
LibraryThing member Voracious_Reader
My worst fear when writing a review of a grammar or style manual is that I’ll make some sort of typographical error that will lead readers to think things, like “Did she even read this thing? Skimming doesn’t count” or “See there’s a fine example of what American schools produce today:
The Glamour of Grammar receives cautious thumbs up from me. Roy Peter Clark is obviously a wonderful writer; he appreciates the magic of words; he distills difficult concepts down to first principles in an easy to follow way; however, he’s really a bit politically intolerant in a smart ass kind-of-way. His side comments and political statements are distracting and off-putting. He also pours it on a little heavy with his appeal to contemporary readers through his use of so many pop culture examples. The beginning and end work better for me than some of the middle. It really could be a great little manual if Clark would embrace a less abrasive political tenor.
Show More
illiterates.” The Glamour of Grammar receives cautious thumbs up from me. Roy Peter Clark is obviously a wonderful writer; he appreciates the magic of words; he distills difficult concepts down to first principles in an easy to follow way; however, he’s really a bit politically intolerant in a smart ass kind-of-way. His side comments and political statements are distracting and off-putting. He also pours it on a little heavy with his appeal to contemporary readers through his use of so many pop culture examples. The beginning and end work better for me than some of the middle. It really could be a great little manual if Clark would embrace a less abrasive political tenor.
Show Less
LibraryThing member pmarshall
One day I sat down to read “The Glamour of Grammar” and didn’t even finish the first chapter. Obviously it was not the right time to read this book. Or perhaps it was not the right way for me to read this book. What I have done since is pick it up and read a chapter or two of it, put it down
I didn’t know that many Jews write the word God as G-d. The reason for this is found in the biblical story of Moses and the burning bush. This is in the chapter on “Master the elliptical art of leaving things out.”
The chapter “Adopt a favorite letter of the alphabet.”
was fun. I liked the idea of selecting your favourite letters to form an initial and selecting a baby’s name using the initials.
Clark pulls examples from newspaper headlines in “Place modifiers where they belong,” or the musician who legally changed his name to Question Mark. How computers, unlike typewriters, allow you to control how the text will look on the screen and the printed page.
The Keepsakes at the end of chapters are useful in summarizing a chapter, reminding you as you flip through the pages what the key elements are from that section. An example from the Keepsake for “Make sentence fragments work for you and the reader;” show ways to shock the reader, provide a moment of relief or focus the reader on a key point.
Regardless of your approach to reading “The Glamour of Grammar: A Guide to the Magic and Mystery of Practical English” you will learn from it as well as enjoy this different and entertaining way to look at grammar. I certainly recommend it.
Show More
and return later. In this way I have enjoyed and learned from this book. I didn’t know that many Jews write the word God as G-d. The reason for this is found in the biblical story of Moses and the burning bush. This is in the chapter on “Master the elliptical art of leaving things out.”
The chapter “Adopt a favorite letter of the alphabet.”
was fun. I liked the idea of selecting your favourite letters to form an initial and selecting a baby’s name using the initials.
Clark pulls examples from newspaper headlines in “Place modifiers where they belong,” or the musician who legally changed his name to Question Mark. How computers, unlike typewriters, allow you to control how the text will look on the screen and the printed page.
The Keepsakes at the end of chapters are useful in summarizing a chapter, reminding you as you flip through the pages what the key elements are from that section. An example from the Keepsake for “Make sentence fragments work for you and the reader;” show ways to shock the reader, provide a moment of relief or focus the reader on a key point.
Regardless of your approach to reading “The Glamour of Grammar: A Guide to the Magic and Mystery of Practical English” you will learn from it as well as enjoy this different and entertaining way to look at grammar. I certainly recommend it.
Show Less
LibraryThing member NorthernStar
I received this book through Early Reviewers. Although my (former English teacher) mother corrects my grammar pretty much every time we are together, I've always read a lot and think my general grasp of grammar is pretty good compared to the average. I really didn't care that much until a few years
Show More
ago, when, due to cutbacks, I was suddenly faced with having to teach English grammar. A good textbook with a good answer key saved me. Having to teach it to others made me realize how much I really knew, and the areas I was really pretty weak in. I'm a long way from perfect, but I no longer avoid semicolons like the plague. I really like the approach in this book. Roy Peter Clark breaks things down into 50 short chapters organized into five main sections; each chapter closes with a brief summary (keepsakes). He gives lots of examples, and discusses where rules have changed or have exceptions. Some of the issues he brings up are things we've discussed in class - because they confuse almost everyone. He is enthusiastic and tries to show the reader why we should care about grammar, but not get too stuck on the rules. On the downside, I do feel that this book suffers from being very American, with lots of contemporary political references which may date it in a few years. Show Less
LibraryThing member laneave
As an experienced writing coach and one-time writing teacher, this is a great resource for cut-and-dry tips. The history included is nice, but I could always have more history about a language. And for others who like history and dictionaries, Clark constantly refers to the OED and the AHD. The
The content itself is clear and uncomplicated so that any writer (well, almost any) can understand Clark and his concepts. And even though he doesn't get too advanced, this professional copyeditor still learned and grew as a writer/editor. For instance, Clark kindly reminded me that all those em dashes I'm inclined to use often need only be commas.
I like the appendices with lists of misspelled and misused words. I need keep some of those near my computer. (I never realized "predominantly" and "predominately" are different words! Yikes!)
I don't see this becoming a classic because it's very conscious of is 2010 publication with countless mentions of Obama and Facebook and Twitter. But everyone, yeah, everyone, falls into writing and proofreading traps, and all writers should work to keep those traps at bay with help from wonderful grammarians like Clark.
Show More
fifty chapters or lessons are short, and they end with "Keepsakes." While I find that heading a little trite, the information within is useful; you'll find reminders, review, and tips from the chapter.The content itself is clear and uncomplicated so that any writer (well, almost any) can understand Clark and his concepts. And even though he doesn't get too advanced, this professional copyeditor still learned and grew as a writer/editor. For instance, Clark kindly reminded me that all those em dashes I'm inclined to use often need only be commas.
I like the appendices with lists of misspelled and misused words. I need keep some of those near my computer. (I never realized "predominantly" and "predominately" are different words! Yikes!)
I don't see this becoming a classic because it's very conscious of is 2010 publication with countless mentions of Obama and Facebook and Twitter. But everyone, yeah, everyone, falls into writing and proofreading traps, and all writers should work to keep those traps at bay with help from wonderful grammarians like Clark.
Show Less
LibraryThing member kittycrochettwo
Roy Peter Clark has taken the dull subject of Grammar and turned it into an interesting topic that I found quite enjoyable to read.
I really had no idea that the word grammar and glamour actually meant the same thing, but I do now, thanks to the author. He tells us to embrace grammar as a box of
I really like how he ends each chapter with a little segment called Keepsakes, reviewing the most important points of the chapter in a way that would be great for quick reference.
The authors wit and storytelling peppered throughout the chapters make this a fun book to read, who knew reading about grammar could actually be fun.
I was provided a copy of this book by the publisher in return for an honest review.
I really had no idea that the word grammar and glamour actually meant the same thing, but I do now, thanks to the author. He tells us to embrace grammar as a box of
Show More
tools not a set of rules, and encourages us to read the dictionary for fun.I really like how he ends each chapter with a little segment called Keepsakes, reviewing the most important points of the chapter in a way that would be great for quick reference.
The authors wit and storytelling peppered throughout the chapters make this a fun book to read, who knew reading about grammar could actually be fun.
I was provided a copy of this book by the publisher in return for an honest review.
Show Less
LibraryThing member sweeks1980
I have long had a love-hate relationship with grammar. Although it is necessary for effective writing, I also have nightmares of the grammar exercises from school, and I always dreaded having to teach grammar to my high school students.
However, Roy Peter Clark’s "The Glamour of Grammar: A Guide
"The Glamour of Grammar" consists of 50 super-short chapters divided into five sections: Words, Points, Standards, Meaning, and Purpose. Within these sections, Clark covers every topic grammatical and writing topic imaginable, such as the difference between literal and figurative, and how to properly use an exclamation point. I particularly appreciated the “Keepsakes” he includes at the end of each chapter. These sections provide pithy sound bites of the chapter’s main points.
One of the main draws of "The Glamour of Grammar" is the writing. He takes what, in other people’s hands, could be an uninspiring topic and makes it fascinating. Furthermore, Clark does not just give lip service to language; he obviously loves words and grammar, as illustrated by the many writing samples he includes. His selection and analysis of these samples offer a glimpse of how Clark must approach reading. Rather than merely reading for information, I can imagine him savoring the language and feeling a great deal of excitement when he finds a great piece of writing.
All in all, this is one of the best books on grammar and writing I have encountered, and it would work equally well as a reference book or as a cover-to-cover read. Although I was skeptical before I started reading it, Clark does an excellent job emphasizing the beauty (and, yes, the “magic and mystery”) found in grammar.
However, Roy Peter Clark’s "The Glamour of Grammar: A Guide
Show More
to the Magic and Mystery of Practical English" illustrates that grammar does not have to be the dry, lifeless subject found in schools. By inviting readers to “embrace grammar… not as a set of rules but as a box of tools” (p.2), Clark manages to make a somewhat imposing subject into something that seems both approachable and relevant."The Glamour of Grammar" consists of 50 super-short chapters divided into five sections: Words, Points, Standards, Meaning, and Purpose. Within these sections, Clark covers every topic grammatical and writing topic imaginable, such as the difference between literal and figurative, and how to properly use an exclamation point. I particularly appreciated the “Keepsakes” he includes at the end of each chapter. These sections provide pithy sound bites of the chapter’s main points.
One of the main draws of "The Glamour of Grammar" is the writing. He takes what, in other people’s hands, could be an uninspiring topic and makes it fascinating. Furthermore, Clark does not just give lip service to language; he obviously loves words and grammar, as illustrated by the many writing samples he includes. His selection and analysis of these samples offer a glimpse of how Clark must approach reading. Rather than merely reading for information, I can imagine him savoring the language and feeling a great deal of excitement when he finds a great piece of writing.
All in all, this is one of the best books on grammar and writing I have encountered, and it would work equally well as a reference book or as a cover-to-cover read. Although I was skeptical before I started reading it, Clark does an excellent job emphasizing the beauty (and, yes, the “magic and mystery”) found in grammar.
Show Less
LibraryThing member ellynv
It would make sense that Roy Peter Clark, author of The Glamour of Grammar would have once played in a band which had its greatest moment in opening for ? and the Mysterians. Clark is a writer and writing educator whose passion for the “the magic and mystery of practical English” would lure
There is more to the Oxford (i.e. serial) comma debate than the usual “my parents, Ayn Rand and God” example and Clark has converted me. I am also going to take his advice against becoming a ‘hypergrammarian.’ As someone who has been correcting the Rolling Stones for forty-five years on the subject of Satisfaction – yes, I was an insufferable ten year old hypergrammarian back in ’65 - I know that there is still much to learn and I will take the advice of The Glamour of Grammar to heart. I would recommend to any teachers of grammar who would like something to supplement Warriner’s Handbook etc. and to all readers who find language fun.
Show More
even the grammar-averse reader into this fascinating book of language history and practical advice. (For example, have you ever thought about the relationship of glamour/glamour/grammar, punctual/puncture/punctuation, or at least two of the meanings of the word “spell?”)There is more to the Oxford (i.e. serial) comma debate than the usual “my parents, Ayn Rand and God” example and Clark has converted me. I am also going to take his advice against becoming a ‘hypergrammarian.’ As someone who has been correcting the Rolling Stones for forty-five years on the subject of Satisfaction – yes, I was an insufferable ten year old hypergrammarian back in ’65 - I know that there is still much to learn and I will take the advice of The Glamour of Grammar to heart. I would recommend to any teachers of grammar who would like something to supplement Warriner’s Handbook etc. and to all readers who find language fun.
Show Less
LibraryThing member soylentgreen23
Before you buy this book, you have to answer one simple question: do you already know a bit about the grammar of the English language? If you answer yes, I'd recommend skipping this volume and looking elsewhere for further enlightenment. Otherwise, dive in.
I previously read Roy Peter Clark's
Unfortunately, as an experienced teacher of English as a foreign language, I already knew very nearly everything that Clark wanted to discuss here, and I have taught much of the same material or content points in far great depth to my own students. For example, the chapter on 'articles' (a, an, and the) is far too slight, and does not offer anything useful by way of differentiation between the different forms. To make matters worse, the zero article (so called because no article is present - 'England' has a zero article, whereas 'The United Kingdom' takes the definite article) is completely overlooked.
Where Clark is strongest is where there is overlap between this book and his Writing Tips. His discussion of the different ways in which sentences can be said to 'branch' was both interesting and informative, and carried with it enough examples - which Clark analyses - to be worth reading. This chapter is almost double the length of the one on articles, which is a curious thing to note given how tenuous the connection is between 'branching sentences' and 'English grammar'.
And that's the problem through much of this short text - there's simply not enough grammar to justify the glamour.
I previously read Roy Peter Clark's
Show More
excellent book on Writing Tips, learning a massive amount that I was able to apply to my own writing immediately. The short chapters suited his material, and I felt like it was a good book to turn to for a few minutes each day to learn something new.Unfortunately, as an experienced teacher of English as a foreign language, I already knew very nearly everything that Clark wanted to discuss here, and I have taught much of the same material or content points in far great depth to my own students. For example, the chapter on 'articles' (a, an, and the) is far too slight, and does not offer anything useful by way of differentiation between the different forms. To make matters worse, the zero article (so called because no article is present - 'England' has a zero article, whereas 'The United Kingdom' takes the definite article) is completely overlooked.
Where Clark is strongest is where there is overlap between this book and his Writing Tips. His discussion of the different ways in which sentences can be said to 'branch' was both interesting and informative, and carried with it enough examples - which Clark analyses - to be worth reading. This chapter is almost double the length of the one on articles, which is a curious thing to note given how tenuous the connection is between 'branching sentences' and 'English grammar'.
And that's the problem through much of this short text - there's simply not enough grammar to justify the glamour.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Justjenniferreading
What I liked the most about this book is that it wasn't written like a grammar book. It was written more like a story that had grammar tips added into it. It was kind of like a copy of Writer's Inc. with a story behind it. And while I'd never get rid of my copy of Writer's Inc. I think this will
I have to admit that I'm not the best grammatical writer. I don't remember most of the rules I learned in school (frankly I didn't care to really remember them). So while I was reading this some of it seemed new to me. The greatest thing about this book is that it taught me something without making me realize I was being taught. Since I'm finishing up my degree, reading for learning isn't something I want to do with my spare time. After reading this I have to admit that I didn't get that feeling even once throughout the book. I think that was a great feat within itself, writing a book that is meant to teach something not feel like it was teaching anything at all.
I still don't remember all the rules that were in this one, but I think I have a better understanding of why some rules of grammar exist and why some are breakable. I'm sure this one will be quite worn out before I finally finish my degree. It's already helped me write a few papers.
A review copy of this book was provided by the publisher. This is not a paid review and is a truthful and honest review.
Show More
make a nice addition to my grammar tools arsenal. I have to admit that I'm not the best grammatical writer. I don't remember most of the rules I learned in school (frankly I didn't care to really remember them). So while I was reading this some of it seemed new to me. The greatest thing about this book is that it taught me something without making me realize I was being taught. Since I'm finishing up my degree, reading for learning isn't something I want to do with my spare time. After reading this I have to admit that I didn't get that feeling even once throughout the book. I think that was a great feat within itself, writing a book that is meant to teach something not feel like it was teaching anything at all.
I still don't remember all the rules that were in this one, but I think I have a better understanding of why some rules of grammar exist and why some are breakable. I'm sure this one will be quite worn out before I finally finish my degree. It's already helped me write a few papers.
A review copy of this book was provided by the publisher. This is not a paid review and is a truthful and honest review.
Show Less
LibraryThing member kanata
One of the easier to read books on grammar that I've come across. Most guides tend to lose me in technical language whereas this one renewed the joy I used to have with words and helped me brush up on a subject that I've forgotten a lot about since I've left school and most formal writing behind.
LibraryThing member annbury
This is a useful survey of the way English can most effectively be used, constructed not as a "rule book" but as a "tool box". Starting with the single word, the author works up through "points" (punctuation), "standards" (words in use), "meaning" (sentences), and "purpose" (style). It is less
This seemed to me a perfect guide for my 14-year old nephew, who loves to write and is interested in how to do it. The book is accessible and fun to read. It is also very well structured as a learning aid: the chapters are short and focussed, and the "keepsake" sections at the end of each chapter are helpful summaries.
For a long-term language maven, it is an enjoyable read, but may not add that much new information. Also, the author does have some crotchets (like most writers on grammar) and some of these can become irritating. Finally, the author is very much there in this book, which can get in the way of the information he is providing.
Show More
rule-driven than many older grammars, but doesn't throw rules out the window -- rather, it discusses them as something to be worked with. The style is breezy and the range of quotations wide. This seemed to me a perfect guide for my 14-year old nephew, who loves to write and is interested in how to do it. The book is accessible and fun to read. It is also very well structured as a learning aid: the chapters are short and focussed, and the "keepsake" sections at the end of each chapter are helpful summaries.
For a long-term language maven, it is an enjoyable read, but may not add that much new information. Also, the author does have some crotchets (like most writers on grammar) and some of these can become irritating. Finally, the author is very much there in this book, which can get in the way of the information he is providing.
Show Less
LibraryThing member jlford3
Interesting read with lots of good information. He uses examples from many texts and tries to make the topic entertaining (and mostly succeeds). A little forewarning that he mentions politics, curse words, etc. that may be distracting to people.
LibraryThing member JNSelko
Practical English indeed.
What a marvelous book Roy Clark has written on what many think of as a decidedly unmarvelous subject: Grammar.
Succinct, pithy, without the English Garden mazes one so often wanders dazedly through in dry recitations of rules, Mr. Clark's book is not only informative but
The book is divided up into five categories of usage: Words; Points (punctuation); Standards (acceptable usage); Meaning (applications); and Purpose (using the spice rack of our native tongue). Each of these larger concepts is in turn further honed by various specific subsets of the point Mr. Clark is making, each replete with lively and often humorous examples of just exactly what it is he is trying to show his audience.
For example, under the rubric of "Words", we find hints about your personal lexicography (think Humpty-Dumpty), the importance of distinction in clear writing and the joy of homophones and alliteration when used in moderation. "Points" refers to punctuation, and includes sections on the possessive apostrophe, the colon/dash/parenthesis battlefield and even "reclaiming" the exclamation point! "Standards" includes the difference (disappearing in public discourse) between literal and figurative (No John, the safety did not “literally” knock the receiver’s head off), and the constant battle (in my mind, at any rate) between the various uses and tenses of Lay and Lie. “Meaning”, among other things, highlights the flaccidity of the passive voice (politician-speak for when they have been caught with their hand in the till (or on a page)), and the isthmusian duties of the complex sentence. Finally, “Purpose” makes clear the to-often-misunderstood difference between Connotation and Denotation, the pox of the creeping CAPITAL, and the correctness of the “incorrect” (nonstandard and dialect) English in your writing.
A two-night read, this was an eight sticky-note book which gave me leads to four other books and/or authors- not bad for a grammar text.
What a marvelous book Roy Clark has written on what many think of as a decidedly unmarvelous subject: Grammar.
Succinct, pithy, without the English Garden mazes one so often wanders dazedly through in dry recitations of rules, Mr. Clark's book is not only informative but
Show More
fun, no small task given the subject's normal dry-as-dust theme. I have many books on style and accepted usage, but I have found none to be as readily translatable into the freeing (although frequently frustrating) act of putting words to paper as The Glamour of Grammar.The book is divided up into five categories of usage: Words; Points (punctuation); Standards (acceptable usage); Meaning (applications); and Purpose (using the spice rack of our native tongue). Each of these larger concepts is in turn further honed by various specific subsets of the point Mr. Clark is making, each replete with lively and often humorous examples of just exactly what it is he is trying to show his audience.
For example, under the rubric of "Words", we find hints about your personal lexicography (think Humpty-Dumpty), the importance of distinction in clear writing and the joy of homophones and alliteration when used in moderation. "Points" refers to punctuation, and includes sections on the possessive apostrophe, the colon/dash/parenthesis battlefield and even "reclaiming" the exclamation point! "Standards" includes the difference (disappearing in public discourse) between literal and figurative (No John, the safety did not “literally” knock the receiver’s head off), and the constant battle (in my mind, at any rate) between the various uses and tenses of Lay and Lie. “Meaning”, among other things, highlights the flaccidity of the passive voice (politician-speak for when they have been caught with their hand in the till (or on a page)), and the isthmusian duties of the complex sentence. Finally, “Purpose” makes clear the to-often-misunderstood difference between Connotation and Denotation, the pox of the creeping CAPITAL, and the correctness of the “incorrect” (nonstandard and dialect) English in your writing.
A two-night read, this was an eight sticky-note book which gave me leads to four other books and/or authors- not bad for a grammar text.
Show Less
LibraryThing member mykl-s
I'd somehow forgotten to list this book on this site, even though I still own a copy.
A guide to many aspects of writing clearly by using good grammar. Clark explains his points well, but the absence of an index, at least in the ebook version, makes it less useful as a reference.
A guide to many aspects of writing clearly by using good grammar. Clark explains his points well, but the absence of an index, at least in the ebook version, makes it less useful as a reference.