I've got plenty of books about creative writing, about writing drama, about writing comedy, about getting published, about correct spelling, about usage, about grammar, about Latin, about block, about non-fiction, about punctuation, about art and fear, about creativity, about writers on artists and about many other writing-related subjects that are currently eluding me.
Yet, when someone comes over and has a gander at the bookshelf, it is always the grammar/usage books that get pointed at as if out of place. So I am told, 'But as a writer, don't you know these things already?'. This is the point reader; I know them because I took the trouble to inform myself. I am always ever so slightly suspicious of a writer who does not own any book about correct usage and don't get me started on writers who don't own dictionaries...
There is this great misconception that a native speaker does not need to be educated in grammar but, of course, there is as much truth in this as saying that a human child doesn't need to be trained in anything because instinct will teach him how to wee, eat, walk, talk and be decent to others. The more you write and the more immense your need for these books will make itself felt.
Not long ago I told you a bit about Quite Literally, which is excellent, and today I would like to introduce you to Correcting Your English by Harry Blamires. 'Avoid errors and aim for perfection' is what sold this book to me and I think that if we could all write half, or even a quarter, as well as professor Blamires, there would be no room left for misuses and misunderstandings.
The book has eight sections: comparing and contrasting, adding and elaborating, handling participles and gerunds, using verbs correctly, avoiding false connections, preserving due sequence, verbal sensitivity, vocabulary. As you can imagine, I find all of its content compelling, especially because the author chose his examples from publications where professional editors and writers work. There are plentiful misuses recorded in The Times, The Guardian, The Telegraph, The World of Interiors, Tatler, The Financial Times, The Independent, Horse and Hound and countless more, thus exemplifying what Blamires writes in the introduction:
'I must leave others to assess the relevance of my survey to the current debate about English in education. Certainly the material gathered here raises the question whether an educational system can be expected to do much to list standards of literacy when the young are pitchforked into an adult world in which professional writers and editorial staff are so careless of good usage.'
I am sharing only a minute section of the comparing and contrasting chapter with you, for I could quite easily copy the entire book down. I have selected 'comparative overkill' because this is something that crops up under multiple guises, to the point whereby I often wonder whether some writers miss a logical gear in their heads. And if you can still find this book, go and get it now.
'We must resist the temptation which besets some writers to indulge in what might be called 'comparative overkill'.
Among those who rated confidence high on their lists, there was a higher proportion of those who drank over the limit – more so than among those who wished to project other qualities. (New Woman)
What are we to make of 'more so'? It seems to pile comparative upon comparative. It does not compensate for the omission of 'than there was' which it appears to replace. Among those who rated confidence high on their lists there was a higher proportion of those who drank over the limit than there was among those who wished to project other qualities.
The administration does not want a sudden, uncontrolled mass exodus to the United States, still less if unsavoury elements are included and the purpose is to help the Castro government. (Times)
'Still less' than what? The words suggest an emphasis which they cannot grammatically supply. They should be replaced by 'especially'.
The Daily Telegraph and the Independent devote as much space, if not slightly more, to unit trusts as opposed to share prices. (Meridian)
'As opposed to' is another instance of overkill. Again it appears to represent an attempt to suggest emphasis which it cannot grammatically supply. If these newspapers devote more space to unit trusts than they do to share prices, it should be said in exactly those words.
Unlike any previous effort to enlist Western financial support, the Soviet Union's present claims for aid are more structured and sophisticated. (Independent)
This is a rarer form of overkill. You might say 'Unlike his brother, John is greedy', or you might say 'John is greedier than his brother'. What you must not do is to telescope the two constructions into 'Unlike his brother, John is greedier', which makes nonsense. So does the above, from which 'more' must be deleted: Unlike any previous effort to enlist Western financial support, the Soviet Union's present claims for aid are structured and sophisticated.'
Wow, really nice use of examples. Illuminating!
Posted by: Asatar Bair | 05 May 2010 at 19:36