Date: Mon, 14 Aug 1995 15:25:33 EST From: "Rob Slade, the doting grandpa of Ryan Hoff" Subject: "BUGS in Writing" by Dupre BKBUGWRT.RVW 950626 "BUGS in Writing", Lyn Dupre, 1995, 0-201-60019-6, U$19.95/C$25.95 %A Lyn Dupre dupre@CAMIS.Stanford.EDU %C 1 Jacob Way, Reading, MA 01867-9984 %D 1995 %G 0-201-60019-6 %I Addison-Wesley Publishing Company %O U$19.95/C$25.95 800-822-6339 617-944-3700 Fax: (617) 944-7273 %O 416-447-5101 fax: 416-443-0948 markj@aw.com %P 649 %T "BUGS in Writing" [I have used a variation on the Fidonet "reply" conventions in this review. "Original" review material starts at the left margin. Comments preceded by "GS>" are those of the book review series editor, Gloria J. Slade. Comments preceded by "LD>" are those of Lyn Dupre, author of "BUGS" in writing. Footnotes (*1 etc.) are found at the end of the review. - rms] There are any number of style and writer's guides. Whoever wrote the first GS> does "first" refer to the style guide, as opposed to following GS> writer's guides? would likely win a "look and feel" lawsuit against the others: they are basically identical. GS> I don't know, Rob. I think it would be simpler just to say that most GS> style and writer's guides are all alike....I think you're leaving GS> yourself open to suggestions that you haven't read the book carefully GS> enough. By the way, are we keeping the book for our personal library? GS> Please. LD> Assuming "the book" is mine own, many thanks Gloria. Dupre's is significantly different in structure, with short articles on specific topics. This, LD> Dare I suggest that you read the segment on unreferenced this? No, LD> not a good idea to antagonize friendly reviewers. and a good indexing job, make GS> "this-and" would mean a plural verb construction, right? LD> Right on, Gloria it easy to determine, for example, the difference between "that" and "which". GS> either this difference is significant to you for some personal reason GS> :-) or you should add other examples to take the weight off that GS> particular example. Or perhaps just make a generic statement...? *1 LD> The which/that dither is one of the most common, and for many people LD> the most difficult to decipher, so it's a good example. But I do LD> agree, naturally, that a few other examples would indicate the scope LD> of the book -- from punctuation marks, to word usage, to advice on LD> presentations and proposals. The explanations are brief and to the point, leaving lots of room for examples. The examples are copious, although occasionally the lack of parallel wording between the "good" and "bad" illustrations obscures the point. GS> How about: The explanations are brief and to the point, leaving lots GS> of room for examples. GS> Occasionally the lack of parallel wording between the copious "good" GS> and "bad" examples obscures the point. LD> Want to let your readers in on the secret of bad/ugly/good/splendid? *2 The book is more reference than tutorial in structure. The style is expository, however, and the novice writer can use it as a series of lessons to be practiced. GS> I'm sorry, I've had far too much to say on this one. HOWEVER, you are GS> back in passive voice and you are going to get dinged for that by GS> anyone else who has read the book. LD> Book is not supposed to be read sequentially. Let's face truth: It's LD> the ideal bathroom book for someone who wants to learn to write. LD> But you left out the important part, about how everyone absolutely LD> cannot live without a copy of this book. Right? GS> PS I love you. If, at any point, my editorial comments get too GS> invasive, threatening, counterproductive, or otherwise unwelcome, GS> please let me know.] LD> I must remember that line next time I destroy someone's prose. Postscriptum - as can be plainly seen (is that passive voice? how about "as you can, quite easily, see"?), the book is not a panacea. With academic and technical writing colleagues, I share a predilection for the passive voice. I therefore read chapter one, on active and passive voice, very closely, but I am still not completely sure what makes a given voice passive. Dupre calls for the development of "ear" for writing: all I can say is that a conversion to the active voice means that a given section of writing no longer "sounds" scholarly. No doubt this is a reflection of bias and aculturization, but it means that the maturation of "ear" is a difficult task indeed. LD> Yes, you got it. But I can generally undo a severe mistuning within a LD> year. You just have to make a leap of faith, and start banishing LD> passive voice, letting it sound funny at first. A year later, active LD> voice will sound scholarly, I promise. *1 - The "personal reason" that Gloria refers to is the fact that the copy editor for my virus book must have done a global search on "which" and replaced all occurrences with "that". A number of sentences no longer made sense after that. (After which? :-) *2 - For those who haven't yet figured it out, BUGS is an acronym for the Bad/Ugly/Good/Splendid rating system that is used in the book. Gloria, by the way, is copy, literary and developmental editor for this series, and, as my wife, holds the right to be my severest critic. Since she also types the reviews, without her this series would, quite literally, not exist. copyright Robert M. Slade and Gloria J. Slade, 1995 BKBUGWRT.RVW 950626 ============== Vancouver ROBERTS@decus.ca | My infected haiku Institute for Robert_Slade@sfu.ca | Jerusalem has added Research into Rob.Slade@f733.n153.z1/| more Jerusalem User .fidonet.org| Security Canada V7K 2G6 | - virus haiku