The King's English: A Guide to Modern Usage

As he aged, British author (and he has an opinion on “British”) Kingsley Amis often got described as “irascible” or something similar. In this book on English usage, he doesn’t come across as irascible so much as tired and long-suffering. The title, honoring a classic work on usage by H.W. Fowler, is a pun; Amis’ nickname was “The King”. Amis has no objection to puns, noting that Shakespeare made them and if they’re OK with him they’re OK with Amis.


Not a style manual or grammar or reference, but instead a collection of essays that can be read for pleasure (one is a discussion of the difference between a book of essays that can be read for pleasure and a book of essays which can be read for pleasure).


Among the show more interesting stuff is a derivation of “ain’t”. I remember an elementary school teacher pouncing on me, and anybody else who used “ain’t”, with the triumphant question “Because “ain’t” has an apostrophe it must be a contraction. Of what?”. Amis proposes “Am not I?”, parallel to “isn’t he?”, “aren’t you?” etc. The simple contraction, “amn’t I”, is unpronounceable, leading to “ain’t I”. Take that, Mrs. Jones.


Just with “A” we also have “Americanisms” (Amis generally approves), “alternate” versus “alternative” (Amis notes that it should be “alternative history”, not “alternate history”, but accepts that particular use) and “-athon” (as in “telethon” or “sale-a-thon”; he comments that despite his overall acceptance, some Americanisms should be shot on sight). Lots of other fun stuff with the rest of the alphabet; he’s got some wonderful invective for journalist-speak.


Found in the remainder bin; easily worth the $3.00 paid for it. show less

Not a useful handbook, per se, but Amis' pet peeves collected and arranged in 'alphabetical' order. I put the word alphabetical in scare-quotes because sometimes the choices are rather arbitrary - would the mini-essay differentiating Uninterested and Disinterested belong in D or U?

Many of the things that bother him relate to the difference between British and American English, but he does have both good and bad things to say about both. Many of the other things that bother him are either fads already faded, or fully established by now. And of course I disagree with many of his opinions.

But he's always witty, and each entry is an enlightening read. I'm glad I'm only reading it in odd moments, a few entries at a time, so that I can savor show more it.

As it happens, this is my first exposure to the author. This book was lauded in the bibliography to [b:Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation|8600|Eats, Shoots & Leaves The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation|Lynne Truss|https://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1392135387s/8600.jpg|854886] and that's the only reason I picked it up. Now that I know more about how the man writes, I will see if there's anything else he's done that appeals to me.
---------------
Finally done. The above stands. One addendum - there is a glossary, but it seems incompletely proofread, unclear, and unhelpful. However, the book as a whole is highly recommended to all grammar nerds, novice to advanced. And to writers. And to readers translating from British to American or vice-versa.

Oh, and I'm keeping (!) my copy, and am going to reread (!) it with pen in hand (!) when I need a diversion. The man makes me want to break all the rules about what to do with books I've read.... show less

This book was published posthumously. Likely there were no readers left alive who would have been able to be amused by it. However, it is occasionally interesting, and it is always nice to find more authorities who condemn the split-infinitive rule.

In all his work, and throughout his life, the use and abuse of the English language was one of Kingsley Amis's principal concerns. This text conveys his love and knowledge of the subject to new generations of readers and writers.