RoR: Forum

Rebirth of Reason

Forum : Books : Eats, Shoots and Leaves

Eats, Shoots and Leaves by Lynne Truss

This is a book for those who take their punctuation seriously : and I do mean seriously! "Punctuation really does matter, even if it is only occasionally a matter of life or death." So says the author! Who, after all, would want to get shot by a panda? -- and if you don't get the panda joke* after which this book is titled, then this book .... (See the whole review)

(Added by Peter Cresswell on 8/19/2004, 2:49pm)

Discuss this Book (17 messages)

Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 5:17pm

Great stuff! All you English language “innovators” with your dropping of capital letters, your ‘f’ instead of ‘ph’ and your ‘&’ instead of ‘and’ (yes … even that!) – take note!

English is like the game of chess. The rules might not seem to make sense, (why do knights move the way they do? And what’s up with “castling”?) but that’s just the way it’s played. If you move your bishop like you’re playing checkers (even in the name of “objective orthografy”) expect to get thrown out on your ear!
(Edited by Glenn Lamont on 8/19, 5:30pm)

Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 6:49pm

Heavens, Glenn - is my immortal soul in peril because of '&'? Am I on the same low rung of hell as the orthografer? Oh, woe, woe, woe!

One thing, though: "If you move your bishop like you’re playing checkers ... " should be, "If you move your bishop as though you were playing checkers ..."

I'll forgive you yours if you forgive me mine. Anything but that other awphul phate!

Linz

Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 8:21pm

Peter: Thanks for posting this. I plan to buy it! A book along similar lines is Kingsley Amis's often-hilarious The King's English.

Friday, August 20, 2004 - 6:27pm

As a professional editor, I am naturally chary of linguistic carelessness and liberties taken. For example, I would not support Mr. Stolyarov’s new orthography.

Strangely, I am now reminded of what are apparently the original lyrics to a famous song:

Greenfleeves

Alas, my love, you do me wrong,

To caft me off difcourteoufly.

For I have loved you well and long,

Delighting in your company.

Greenfleeves was all my joy,

Greenfleeves was my delight.

Greenfleeves was my heart of gold,

And who but my lady Greenfleeves.

(Edited by Rodney Rawlings on 8/24, 6:01pm)

Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 2:49am

I came across something similar to the Panda joke recently. Perhaps it was here on SOLOHQ (probably!) but as I can't remember I'll post it again.

Some white trash racist shop owner puts up a sign saying:

"Nigger's out!"

Under which someone more educated has scrawled:

"But he'll be back soon." :-)

BTW, I noticed a misplaced apostophe even on CNN's website the other day. Barbarians at the gates!

:-)

Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 10:22am

Cameron wrote:

Some white trash racist shop owner puts up a sign saying:

"Nigger's out!"

Under which someone more educated has scrawled:

"But he'll be back soon." :-)

I love it! In fact, you've just reminded me of the non-apostrophe-related retort to the graffiti that read:

"My mother made me a homosexual."

And underneath:

"If I give her the wool, will she make me one, too?"

:-)

Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 10:47am

Seriously, though, the misuse of apostrophes should be a hanging offence. Even more irritating than the misuse of the possessive "its" is the oddly selective insertion of apostrophes into plurals. And so we read that Mr X has a number of friend's, and that he also has a few CD's, and that he was born in the 1960's. Grrrrr! As Kingsley Amis writes, an accomplished apostrophe-wielder must be able to distinguish instantly between the following:

He is staying with Jones.
He is staying at Jones's.
He is staying with the Joneses.
He is staying at the Joneses'.

I wonder how many of our Nanny state-educated contemporaries would even be able to comprehend the meaning of these sentences?

(Whoops - make that "sentence's" :-))

Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 11:29am

And of course, one must mention the case in which the person is somewhat exalted:

He is staying at Sophocles'.
The sin was Jesus', not mine.

Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 1:27pm

you rotten language nazi bastard's!

: )
eli

Saturday, September 4, 2004 - 4:14am

There's a slightly different version of this title, typically Aussie, although I got it from a visiting Canadian. He said the wallpaper inside the Qantas plane they come over on had them all in hysterics with its Aussie wildlife motif, including pictures of a wombat with the phrase that it "eats roots shoots and leaves"!!!

Saturday, September 4, 2004 - 8:48pm

There's a very slightly different version of this joke, this time about kiwis, and to which I alluded at the end of the review:

You've heard no doubt about the small, blind, evolutionary loser we have as a national symbol here in New Zealand. Apparently, the genuine Kiwi eats, roots and leaves. [Ba-da-boom] :-)

And for those who don't know what 'root' means as a verb ... :-0

Sunday, September 5, 2004 - 9:30am

Peter,

I read a long article in the newspaper about six months ago about an argument between Lynne Truss and a journalist from the New York Times. Eats, Shoots and Leaves was released in the states in original form - not changed for Americans.

Anyway, the New York Journalist claimed that there were many mistakes in the book - and that the book was sloppy. His arguments were quite convincing.

I wish I could find the article again, but unfortunately I didn't think to keep it at the time.

Sunday, September 5, 2004 - 2:33pm

Marcus:

Was this the review by any chance?
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE2D9143BF936A15757C0A9629C8B63

Monday, September 6, 2004 - 7:36am

Hi Peter,

Thanks for that. I found the article now and it appears that it was in fact about Menand from the New Yorker versus Truss's editor.

Here is the link.

http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/referenceandlanguages/story/0,6000,1252098,00.html

Monday, September 6, 2004 - 1:43pm

Interesting, Marcus, thanks. (Note all the commas.) :-)

Interesting that it was the New Yorker that took her to task for, in part, too few commas, since it was the New Yorker's pedantry she used as a foil for her commas chapter.

The Grauniad piece gives a fairly balanced account doesn't it - it makes Menand look the dry pedant he probably is.

(Edited by Peter Cresswell on 9/06, 1:45pm)

Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 3:29am

I only read a few pages of the book in the bookshop and then decided not to buy it.

One reason I didn't buy it was I realised that the book is supposed to be more humorous than informative. That's annoying. It is similar to how Michael Moore's films pretend to be documentaries, when in fact they are really political rants. And so Lynne Truss's book is just a scatological rant as well, but pretends to be an authority on use of English grammar.

In this respect I agree with Menand. I also agree with him about the use of semi-colons. A friend of mine who had read the book told me that he realised he did not use semicolons nearly enough. Warning bells sounded. There must be something wrong with a book such as this; that promotes the use of semicolons!!!!

Also the humour in the book is only supplied through understatement and verbal puns – and to a certain extent “sniggering superiority”. This is OK for a few pages, but after a while it gets rather boring, repetitive and depressing.

Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 4:04am

You probably wouldn't like Wagner either, Marcus.