BKBUGWRT.RVW   980621

"BUGS in Writing", Lyn Dupre, 1998, 0-201-37921-X, U$19.95/C$25.95
%A   Lyn Dupre dupre@CAMIS.Stanford.EDU
%C   1 Jacob Way, Reading, MA   01867-9984
%D   1998
%G   0-201-37921-X
%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   668
%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]

Apropos of nothing in particular, it is three years, almost to the
day, since I reviewed the first edition of this book.  Hopefully, my
voice is less passive than it was then.

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
    GS> that most style and writer's guides are all alike....I think
    GS> you're leaving yourself open to suggestions that you haven't
    GS> read the book carefully enough.  By the way, are we keeping
    GS> the book for our personal library?
    GS> Please.  (*1)

    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?
    LD> No, 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
    GS> reason :-)  or you should add other examples to take the
    GS> weight off that particular example.  Or perhaps just make a
    GS> generic statement...?  (*2)
 
    LD> The which/that dither is one of the most common, and for many
    LD> people the most difficult to decipher, so it's a good example.
    LD> But I do agree, naturally, that a few other examples would
    LD> indicate the scope of the book -- from punctuation marks, to
    LD> word usage, to advice on 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,
    GS> leaving lots of room for examples.  Occasionally the lack of
    GS> parallel wording between the copious "good" and "bad" examples
    GS> obscures the point.

    LD> Want to let your readers in on the secret of
    LD> bad/ugly/good/splendid?  (*3)

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,
    GS> you are back in passive voice and you are going to get dinged
    GS> for that by anyone else who has read the book.

    LD> Book is not supposed to be read sequentially.  Let's face
    LD> truth: It's the ideal bathroom book for someone who wants to
    LD> learn to write.  But you left out the important part, about
    LD> how everyone absolutely cannot live without a copy of this
    LD> book.  Right?

    GS> PS I love you.  If, at any point, my editorial comments get
    GS> too invasive, threatening, counterproductive, or otherwise
    GS> unwelcome, 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
    LD> within a year. You just have to make a leap of faith, and
    LD> start banishing passive voice, letting it sound funny at
    LD> first.  A year later, active voice will sound scholarly, I
    LD> promise.  (*4)

*1 - We did.

*2 - 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? :-)

*3 - 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.

*4 - Well, three years later, active voice doesn't sound scholarly. 
However, academic prose now sounds much more "weasly."  I think I
sound much more personally vicious in some of the reviews (and, being
an old curmudgeon, I probably am), but at least they sound more honest
that way.

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 typed the reviews in the first years, without
her this series would, quite literally, not exist.

Lyn Dupre is a very good sport for letting me do the review this way.

copyright Robert and Gloria Slade, 1995, 1998   BKBUGWRT.RVW   980621