Rating: 
Summary: In with the new? Not this time.
Review: As a person who has long held Fowler's Grammatical works in highest esteem, this "new edition" comes as a grave disappointment to me.
It is more an inferior re-write than that which you might call a "New Edition".
Some might argue that the English language is in flux, and of course, this is true. However, when a significant part of this is entirely due to the perpetuation of improper word usage (often relegating original meanings and associated sentence structures to the archives), ratifying the inclusion of such examples, other than to point out that they are incorrect, is linguistic vandalism.
Purists and writers alike should go for the Second Edition; it is more accurate, more informative, and a more interesting and witty read.
Those people with sound knowledge of correct grammar are the only ones with any right to break the rules of grammar; they know what rules they are breaking, and why. This edition can only undermine the terrific utility of the Second Edition in this regard.
Rating:
Summary: nothing to do with Fowler and worthless
Review: Ernest Gower, as editor of the second edition of Henry Fowler's "Modern English Usage" ("The New Fowler's Modern English" is being marketed as the third), made modest stylistically and logically consistent changes in order to honestly update the original. "The New Fowler's Modern English" in contrast rewrites it completely and makes a particular point of demonstrating its contempt for Henry Fowler--yet uses Fowler's name as a selling point. Be that as it may, this, "The New Fowler's Modern English", is bloated, tedious, clumsily written, and deadly dull--constantly belaboring the obvious. It's hard to imagine a native speaker of English finding any use for it at all.
Rating:
Summary: WARNING: Fowler has been kicked out of his own book.
Review: Fans of Fowler will be greatly disappointed by this book, which seems to include nothing written by Fowler, but displays his name in large letters on the spine and cover. Burchfield admits in the preface that he does not understand Fowler's appeal, and does not even like his work: "The mystery remains: why has this schoolmasterly, quixotic, idiosyncratic, and somewhat vulnerable book, in a form only lightly revised once, in 1965, by Ernest Gowers, retained its hold on the imagination of all but professional linguistic scholars for just on seventy years?" The answer to this question, I think, can be found in the how Burchfield and Fowler advise the reader on whether to put the period inside or outside of quotation marks. Burchfield begins with a wimpy "each system has its own merit", and proceeds to an absolute rule: Quotation marks "must be placed according to the sense". Even Garner (A Dictionary of Modern American Usage, a far better book for American readers), who has great praise for Fowler, simply sets out conventional American and British usage. Only Fowler provides an analytical structure ("There are two schools of thought, which might be called the conventional and the logical") and then through clear thinking and perceptive example persuades us that "The conventional system flouts common sense, and it is not easy for the plain man to see what merit it is supposed to have to outweigh that defect". Persuasion is the element that Burchfield and other writers lack. Burchfield believes too much in the authority of the little edicts that make up each entry, even when the entry sets out nothing more than arbitrary convention, whereas Fowler believed that some conventions were bad, and he argued his positions with a passion and humanness that are absent from this book. So keep your first or second edition of Fowler. And shame on the publisher, who is misleading the public by calling the book "The New Fowler's Modern English Usage". Even when Burchfield is kind to Fowler -- for example, he refers to Fowler's entry on elegant variation as a "celebrated, leisurely essay" -- he does not include the essay.
Rating: 
Summary: Not as bad as the severest critics claim, but...
Review: Fowler's Modern English Usage has served for nearly 80 years as the indispensable guide to anyone who wants to write clear and vigorous English. Nonetheless, 80 years is a long time to retain the word "modern" in the title of a book, and clearly the examples from newspapers of the first quarter of the 20th century have lost most of their currency, and even the examples from the literature of Fowler's period have aged as well. Clearly, therefore, some modernization was needed. This was partially achieved in the 2nd edition, edited by Ernest Gowers in 1965: Gowers did away with much of Fowler's idiosyncratic arrangement of his material, but he left most of the writing unchanged. Anyway, 1965 is also a long time ago, and much has changed since then.
A thorough rewriting was therefore probably needed, and there is much to admire in Burchfield's 3rd edition. If Fowler's book had never existed, and Burchfield's were the first of its kind, one might even praise it as an excellent reference. Unfortunately for Burchfield, however, Fowler's book did precede it, and it is impossible to read Burchfield on any topic without missing Fowler's way of handling the same topic. You may not agree with every opinion that Fowler expressed, but he never left you in any doubt about what he thought and why he thought it. Burchfield emerges as a wishy-washy committee man by comparison. Before undertaking the 3rd edition he was known for his excellent work on the Oxford English Dictionary, but compiling a dictionary is a very different business from writing a continuous piece of prose, and it is not obvious that skill in the one implies skill in the other. Gowers, incidentally, was known before he undertook the 2nd edition for his own books about clear writing. It would be an exaggeration to say that he single-handedly reformed the way that British civil servants write documents to be read by the general public, but he certainly made a large contribution to this.
Burchfield's book is not as bad as some critics maintain, and it has the merit of including many genuinely modern examples and of recognizing, as Fowler barely did, that English is a world language. It is worth having on your bookshelf, therefore, but not as a replacement for Fowler. For most people the edition of choice remains the 2nd edition -- easier to find your way around than the 1st edition, and retaining all of its force. It will not be surprising if Oxford decide in due course to reissue the 2nd edition, or, if that is too much of an admission of making a mistake, to issue a 4th edition that takes the 2nd as its starting point. At present it does not appear to be possible to buy a new copy of the 2nd edition, but it is not difficult to find a used copy.
Rating: 
Summary: A grammar book that is fascinating? Yes!!
Review: I bought this simply to review my grammar. It ended up being my main reading material for weeks! This is a fascinating book, full of interesting articles. It gives plenty of guidance for proper usage but delivers much, much more. Highly recommended.
Rating:
Summary: A most unfortunate revision of an outstanding work
Review: I can but concur that while Fowler's Modern English Usage is the outstanding, seminal work on the conventions, structure and usage of English, it is the second and not the third edition that lovers of English should buy. Fowler's knowledge and wit shine through his own work; Burchfield's tendentious, plodding and pseudo-scholarly revision has left little trace of such elements. If you want to see exactly what's wrong with Burchfield, try reading his observations on 'sexist language'; he is entitled to his opinions of what is acceptable usage, but he comprehensively misunderstands that in English the generic pronoun "he" is not the same word as the masculine personal pronoun that one spells and pronounces the same way. Burchfield's is a fallacy of comprehension, and not merely (which would be quite as bad in someone affecting to advise on English usage) an inability to write clear and idiomatic English.And if you want to see why Fowler is such a marvellous source of reference and learning, read (in the second edition) his clear and authoritative exposition of the difference, which is now rarely understood, between a gerund and a participle. Fowler, second edition, is the one work of reference that you should own.
Rating:
Summary: Honestly, it isn't a bad book... it's just not Fowler's
Review: I think that the issue most people have with the third edition of this book is the big word "Fowler's" on the cover. If it had simply been called "Modern English Usage," this book would, I think, be a very useful tool to most literary folk. The second edition of Fowler's had charisma and wit on it's side. This book, the third is well... it is a good tool, and not much more. Personally, I use both editions in different ways. When I was in school once sat down and read the second edition cover to cover, and I still, occasionally consult it. Because the third edition deals with Canadian English (and I suppose American too) I use it, infrequently, like I would a regular dictionary.
Rating:
Summary: Honestly, it isn't a bad book... it's just not Fowler's
Review: I think that the issue most people have with the third edition of this book is the big word "Fowler's" on the cover. If it had simply been called "Modern English Usage," this book would, I think, be a very useful tool to most literary folk. The second edition of Fowler's had charisma and wit on it's side. This book, the third is well... it is a good tool, and not much more. Personally, I use both editions in different ways. When I was in school once sat down and read the second edition cover to cover, and I still, occasionally consult it. Because the third edition deals with Canadian English (and I suppose American too) I use it, infrequently, like I would a regular dictionary.
Rating:
Summary: The essential English usage reference
Review: If you aren't familiar with previous versions of Fowler's, don't be scared off by all the negative reviews here. If you work with words for a living (as I do), you must have a copy of the current edition. It is the only comprehensive -- and, importantly, comprehendible -- reference on English usage available. The current edition reflects modern standard usage. Perhaps it is not as prescriptive as earlier editions, but I would argue that you don't want it to be. English usage is in flux, and the author is wise enough not to enforce rules that are in the process of being naturally dismantled. He is wise enough to tell you precisely what the state of the language is now, enough to inform your own decisions. If you are an editor or a serious writer, you must have this book.
Rating:
Summary: Don't WASTE your time or money, buy the original!
Review: R. W. Burchfield has done for "Fowler" what the Mongol's did for the Chinese. Nothing good! If you enjoyed the wit and wisdom of the real "Fowler", you won't find ANY of that here. This is a dull and tedious COMPLETE rewrite. With comments such as "The mystery remains: why has this schoolmasterly, quixotic, idiosyncratic, and somewhat vulnerable book, ... retained its hold on the imagination of all but professional linguistic scholars for just on seventy years?", the only real mystery is why Folwer's name is attached to this book at all. Simple answer: MARKETING. Why would anyone buy (and read) this book? Another simple answer: DON'T! I certainly hope Oxford Press will continue to print the REAL (original) Fowler!
|
