Bryson's Dictionary of Troublesome Words: A Writer's Guide to Getting It Right

Well, I suppose if I'd paid more attention to the subtitle, I might have understood, but I didn't, so I didn't. It's a really good reference tool, but not the amusing narrative I was expecting. As a reference though, it'd be a great addition to the bookshelf.

Always open on my desk or within easy reach to grab from the shelf. Very useful reference

For lovers of the English language

An enjoyable book about the language and certainly helpful for a copy editor like myself, though some of the things are (or should be) well known to writers and editors, and some are unlikely to come up if you're not British. But I highlighted a lot of things and will keep it at my desk at work as a reference.

A good reference work, clever and engaging, but not for general reading, which is what I got it for. I will have to find one of his other books I guess.

This was a quite enjoyable read - some pieces worth just skipping over, but otherwise giving you some grammatical lessons in a typically Bryson offbeat way.

This non-fiction book was the first book written by Bill Bryson in 1983, back when he was a young copy editor for the London Times. The present edition was written in 2002, updating the original book and making allowances for differences in pronunciation, usage, and spelling on this side of the Atlantic Ocean. I very much enjoyed reading this book, although I am not a writer (if one defines a writer as one who makes income from one's writing).. After an Introduction, the author treats various words and phrases in alphabetical order, from the indefinite articles of A or An to the word Zoom. There is then an appendix concerning apostrophes, a bibliography, and a Glossary defining all of the parts of speech that will be utterly confusing to all except fifth grade teachers actively teaching their students how to diagram sentences. I very much doubt that the author will be referring to this Book Review in determining material, should he ever do a Third Edition of the book; but I did note that, in my humble opinion, there were a few omissions. First, I personally despise the phrase "looking to" and its variations, as in "The Administration is looking to new ways to achieve its goals." Second, I think that the word Worcestershire should have been included; it's pronounced with only two or three syllables, and is nearly impossible to spell. (When I ask for it in a restaurant, I usually ask for the Lea and Perrins; that is much easier to say.) Finally, I think the author should have included a section on how to deal with plural possessives; should we write "Norman Bates' mother" or "Norman Bates's mother"? And while I'm dealing with pet language peeves, I may as well note here that I hate it when a sports announcer says that a football player scampered across the goal line for a touchdown. Little children scamper and squirrels scamper, but 200-pound football players do not scamper. This was a very fun book to read, and I hope that it will aid me in my writing of these Book Reviews.

I really enjoyed this, but then I do sometimes read the dictionary for fun. I found Bryson's expectations of correct usage to be insightful and realistic. I appreciate his examples of incorrect usage. An example of something I have applied to my own writing is the entry for include. He writes, "include indicates that what is to follow is only part of a greater whole. To use it when you are describing a totality is sloppy, as here: "The 630 job losses include 300 in Redcar and 330 in Port Talbot" (Times). No one ever pointed that out to me before. Thank you, Mr. Bryson!

Great book. Definitely quality reference material. I'm positive I highlighted more than half of the information. I believe that I am a good writer, and this book made me aware of several dozens of mistakes that I make.

This is a great book, one any writer should have on a shelf near their keyboard. It explains most of the words, phrases, and basic punctuation issues that regularly screw up even professional writers and editors, and is handy to have within reach when you have a, "Wait, which one was that again--?" moment. All the examples are from professional (and often highly respected) publications, showing that even the folks one looks up to screw up over and over; it's just part of the business. That said, I don't always agree with the author. For example, his distinction between "parody" and "pastiche," that a pastiche is a work inspired by a variety of sources while a parody is inspired by a single source, not only contradicts what I was taught, but also renders the concept that parody should be protected under the First Amendment of the US Constitution completely pointless. The element of sharp or humorous critical commentary has to be present in a parody, or there's no reason to protect that type of speech. Still, I agreed with Bryson far more often than not, and I'll be keeping this book near to hand when I'm writing. Good stuff, and highly recommended.