This book rests on my short shelf with Fowlers', the Chicago Guide, and the other books which help me navigate extensive reading and writing. For those of us who continue to enjoy the bon mot this book is a window into the past with a perspective for the present.
It is also available on google. Well worth the perusal.

Bierce was a crabby old malcontent, which is one reason I'm a fan. The fun to be had from many of his black-humored stories, such as "The Bottomless Grave" proves his disdain for things like familial love. But, as he was also a journalist, his peevish ways extended to words and the way they were misused, or in many ways, the ways in which they irritated just him. Reading this book made me think that Bierce had written it with the dear hope of being called on to correct the wrongs of the English language across America.
This book is not a pleasurable read, no matter how much one likes Bierce. It is a book to correct the reader of their mistaken usage of many words. The problem is that many of the words and terms aren't in use these days and so much of the time I found myself saying, "Well, nobody says that now." I wouldn't recommend it, for that reason, to someone looking for help in this area.Instead, I would recommend it to someone who said, "I really wish there was someone to harangue for my misuse of the word 'to'." Bierce is the man for that job. ( )

I suppose I owe Jan Freeman an apology. I thought my love of the English language in all its messy, creative glory would equip me to enjoy an update of the guide written by, "the baddest-ass lexicographer." Alas, I find my fascination with words and my joy in being able to write correctly (though I reserve the right NOT to), is not enough to overcome my distaste for this book.
Long before the entry for "Honeymoon" --the list is in alphabetical order-- I had grown weary of this project. Couldn't Freeman find something more productive to do than smugly shoot down Bierce's opinion of which word or phrase best suits a given application? It seems quite unsporting to argue with a dead man.
Since Freeman admits on page 5 of the introduction, that 3/4 of Bierce's 441 entries are either "resolved" or "extinct", I doggedly pursued the 110 usage questions that might still help me. I found but a handful of archaic curiosities and nothing truly helpful.
Suitably humbled, I shall now turn in my lexicographer's card, or should that be my logophile or linguist's card?

If you're anything like me, the most exposure you've ever had to Ambrose Bierce is his famous short story "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge," and it's hard to tell from that story alone what one would expect from this particular volume, particularly since texts on grammar and style tend to be more caustic than constructive. That would be the case with this edition, an "annotated" version of Bierce's original work with contemporary commentary that reads far livelier than one would expect.

After a brief foreword by Jan Freeman, our scholarly guide, the text consists of Bierce's original introduction, followed by his so-called "Black List" of words and phrases that are, to put it bluntly, never to be used in print. Bierce's original entries are, as you would expect, inflexible and definite: he wraps quotations around constructions that ought never see the light of print and, with few exceptions, his explanations for why the errors are as such are extremely terse and rather didactic. Those familiar with classic grammar texts like Strunk & White's The Elements of Style will find many familiar examples herein, as well as plenty that are baffling but, according to Bierce, equally damnable.

Freeman, as the annotator, does a fine job in several respects, the first and most obvious of which is lending readability to a work that is otherwise almost devoid of interest as a cover-to-cover read. Since Bierce's words are often so brief, she does an admirable job of trying to elucidate the reasons why Bierce would object to a particular construction, attempting to provide a type of narrative to the many individual points he harps on. In that respect, she gives the text a fresh update--even if it's at the expense of making the book feel less like a textbook and more like a history lesson.

History, however, is clearly Freeman's strong suit, as the text betrays the fact that she is extremely well-read in points of grammar and usage. In addition to a nine-page bibliography of recommended reading at the back of the book--a selection of works that spans multiple centuries--Freeman incorporates specific points of order from newspapers, magazines, and books by other authors throughout her annotations. The result is a work that is highly scholarly but doesn't always read like it is.

If there is criticism to be had, it is in the often uneasy balance between lighthearted commentary and fierce criticism of the original work. Though the annotations are essential and, frankly, pleasurable to read, Freeman often gives very little credence to Bierce's points. While her research is very adept at providing reasons why Bierce is bunkum, it does become a bit tiresome to read over and over why a particular rule is rubbish. (More often than not, it can be attributed to Bierce's background in journalism.)

Even more frustrating is Freeman's tendency, while putting down many of Bierce's rules, to reduce grammar to something that is perhaps far more flexible than a grammarian would want to admit. Certainly Bierce was a radically bitter cynic--one would think a true grammarian could be no less--but Freeman is often guilty of claiming that, because others have written with a particular word or phrase, then either usage is technically correct. It's a bit too loose for my liking, the kind of thing that irks writers of Standard Written English when confronted with the idiosyncrasies of spoken language. One senses that Freeman's playing fast and loose to counter Bierce's strictness, but the result is not necessarily balance as much as it is discomforting dissonance.

Ultimately, if there is a problem with the text, it is that it's a bit unsure of its identity: does it want to be a grammar text, or does it want to be a well-researched look into Bierce's ideas and thoughts? Truth be told, when it tries to be the latter, it succeeds in spite of its flaws. Freeman seems to know that she, like all great grammar cynics, is never going to be authoritative, and she treats Bierce's source work with the appropriate amount of reverence and respect while also keeping it as contemporary as possible. As an artifact of language change, Freeman's annotated edition of Write It Right is a both valuable and entertaining contribution to the never-ending language wars.

What an entertaining take on a style and usage book! It's a fun book to pick up and peruse, but I also felt compelled to read the whole thing--partly because I think Bierce himself was a pretty fascinating guy and partly because of Freeman's engaging commentary on Bierce's rules. What I found most interesting was Bierce's insistence that each word or phrase in the English language should have only one meaning, and that for each intended meaning there is one word that says it best. I enjoyed this book! ( )

It is a little intimidating writing a review for a book about proper grammer and writing! I loved this book and I did read it cover to cover! I thought it was very entertaining as well as informative. Never having studied Latin I was unaware of many of the root words covered in this book! I loved Bierce's perspickity nature as well as Jan Freemans responses to many of Beirce's decrees and rules. I would definately recommend this book to anyone who loves words or writing. ( )

Write It Right is a great book to peruse casually. It is not something I would want to sit and read cover to cover, anymore than I would want to read a dictionary or encyclopedia cover to cover.However, it is entertaining and I found Freeman's explanations interesting and helpful. All in all a fun book. ( )

The Americans say "peek-a-boo" and the British say "peep-bo." Who knew? Certainly, I didn't. I had never heard of "peep-bo" excepting in Giblert & Sullivan's "Mikado," where Peep-bo was a character.

Jan Freeman's commentary on Ambrose Bierce's pronouncements in "Write It Right" is replete with such interesting illustrations of English language usage. I keep her book by my bedside, and I read a bit from it before going to sleep. I frequently find myself laughing out loud, which may irritate (or is it "aggravate?) my upstairs neighbors; but I don't mind if it does. It's "get even" time.

Anyway, I'm sleeping much more soundly since I put Jan's book at my bedside.

I sometimes find myself agreeing with Ambrose Bierce, and disagreeing with Jan Freeman's annotations: such as concerning the Proper usage of the verbs "Will or Shall". I think Bierce got it exactly right, and the Bierce way is the way I was taught and the way I use the words to this day.

Jan Freeman says that Wilson Follett's 20 page excursus on the subject.... seems to have killed Americans' enthusiasm for the distinction once and for all. Well, I'm taking Bierce over Follett, and laying 2-1 odds if there are any takers.

The entry itself, under "Will and Shall" in Jan's book, is an absolute howler! I'm sure I woke my neighbors up with my laughter.

Jan also gives a wonderful introduction to the book, introducing Ambrose Bierce to a readership which may not be familiar with Bierce's, "The Devil's Dictionary" and his Civil War writings. He was always a favorite of mine, and I have been misquoting him forever.

Bierce was occasionally wrong. For instance, he was viciously wrong about Oscar Wilde, but he was right about most things
.
Jan mentions that Ambrose Bierce disappeared into Mexico around 1913, but I don't think she mentions that Carlos Fuentes wrote a novel called "The Old Gringo," purportedly about Ambrose Bierce's Mexican experience.

B. Traven (author of The Treasure of The Sierra Madre, and many excellent novels, especially "The Bridge in The Jungle" one of the most "unappreciated" great novels of all time,) also vanished in Mexico, but we know a bit more about Traven in Mexico than we know about Bierce's time there..

Bierce and Traven are both excellent studies in literature and in the nature of man and they should be better known and admired.

Finally, there is a wonderful bibliography which directs the reader to such fine books of English usage as "Miss Thistlebottom's Hobgoblins."

I give Jan Freeman's book a strong 4 star rating, and highly recommend it for your pleasure and entertainment. ( )

I doubt I will ever sit down and read this book cover to cover, but it is an fascinating one to pick up and flip through. Although Ambrose Bierce's opinions on etymology and word usage are unlikely to change how I speak or write, it is interesting to read about what 19th century linguist thought was important. Keep a copy in your bathroom for your more erudite visitors!

Thanks to Walker & Company and author Jan Freeman for sending along a preview copy of the book. Freeman updates Bierce's 1909 text with extensive documentation, all to decipher whether Bierce's strict and sharp criticisms for language usage were justified, even then. Freeman takes an unfeeling scalpel to Bierce's work, a refreshing departure from the modern editions of most guides to English usage, which glorify their curmudgeonly authors and decry what the age of the Internet has done to the language of Shakespeare. In this text, the reader explores the history and etymology of Bierce's forbidden words, finding famous authors and grammarians (including, not a few times, Shakespeare) who used the words and examining many of Bierce's outdated tips in a modern light. The book's greatest weakness is its frequent use of the great authors as the ultimate authorities on language use: just because Shakespeare or Donne used a word does not necessarily make the word proper. Still, Freeman deserves a great deal of credit for examining the work critically (which, you'll find out, has been used as a negative form of critique for quite some time, despite Bierce's objections) and for abiding by the chief tenant of modern linguistics: language use is not right or wrong. It just is. ( )

As someone who enjoys reading books on language usage and word origins, I found this book quite interesting, a quick read. Ambrose Bierce's "Write It Right" was originally published in 1909 as a reference for proper (correct) language usage. Approximately 300 entries were arranged alphabetically. Today, many of the forms Bierce insisted were incorrect are, in fact, in common usage.

Many of his entries are especially interesting, I think, simply because of his attempts to 'split hairs.' For example, "I am afraid it will rain" is incorrect, according to Bierce. You should instead say "I fear it will rain." Another entry goes into the difference between "generally" and "usually." He also thought the word "pants" (when used instead of "trousers") was vulgar. And he disapproved of using the words "forecasted" and "fix" among others.

For this new edition of Bierce's book, Jan Freeman has annotated each entry to give more context to the original explanations of the language usage, showing quite often that Bierce was not the expert he claimed to be. For instance, Bierce complained in some of his entries of how America was corrupting the language, when the usage could be found in Samuel Johnson's Dictionary (published 1700s), or even earlier. And he blamed "the weather bureau" for "forecasted," when in fact, it had been used since the 16th century.

I thought Bierce's "Devil's Dictionary" was wonderful satire, but here he comes off as picky and condescending. (According to another Bierce rule of language, I just misused the word "but" in the sentence above.) Familiarity with Bierce's name is what caught my attention, but Freeman's annotation is what kept me interested in reading. "Write It Right" was first published 100 years ago, and a lot (or maybe not so much, after all) has changed since then. ( )

If you are really interested in the proper use of words as a writer then you may need to check out this annotated edition of Ambrose Bierce's Write It Right by Jan Freeman. There are words and phrases that I was not familiar with but quite a few that I am familiar with and found that this was a nice refresher. It was interesting to have some explanation as to why some words are not used any more or why some are better suited than others. ( )