For language lovers and orthographists, this is undoubtedly a good introductory read. It's the story of English spelling as told from the slant of spelling reform through the ages.

Wolman is writing from the perspective of a bad speller and laments that English is so complicated, with so many exceptions to standardisation. Why must it be so hard to spell?

While I was never at risk of winning any spelling bees, I've never found spelling particularly challenging, but I enjoyed the history (80-90% of all English words aren't English in origins; we are the supreme linguistic magpies), and the debates, efforts and arguments to simplify spelling were ... interesting. I didn't agree with most of them, but I admired their tenacity and passion.

I found some of Wolman's assertions over simplified; for example, that the 'd' in words like sledge, wedge, edge, judge, and fudge is silent, so why is it there? An unscientific and ad hoc survey of friends shows that the 'd' is subtle, but not silent; it hardens that g sound just a tiny bit, enough that sledge sounds different that slege. The 'd's' absence becomes even more pronounced in wedge (wege) and edge (ege). There are better examples of his argument about extraneous silent letters, but even those can be argued to be useful. Not/knot for example - that 'k' is definitely silent - but handy when reading sentences like: Better not tie the knot too tight.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that this is a good book, but its strict focus on just orthography limits its scope and its argument. A conversation about spelling that doesn't take into account reading comprehension is really only half a conversation. I am, admittedly, a prescriptivist; I feel strongly that there are correct spellings and incorrect spellings, and that there's a time and place for 'text-speak', but it should not be on school exams. I think this puts me dangerously on the edge of 'fuddy-duddy', but I'm still rebel enough to drop all those u's the Brits are fond of, and I still insist on swapping my 're' for 'er' (meter/metre, etc.) so I'm not quite ready for the cane-waving just yet. ;-)

I have several of David Crystal's works (whom Wolman cites frequently), and I think this book will have served as a terrific jumping-off point for Crystal's titles. ( )

This book was somewhat disappointing. It started out okay and then fizzled. It never gave me quite the information that I was hoping for. ( )

This is a great little book about English spelling, how it got so weird and what people think of it. Wolman presents an easily digestible look at the path written English has taken to arrive at its current state. It's certainly not comprehensive and the linguistics stay pretty light, but I think it's just right for the layperson. Even more praise worthy is his handling of the subject of spelling reform. Both historical and contemporary movements are discussed and Wolman covers all sorts of angles. Good cases are made on both sides and I am pleased to report that the book gives a nuanced and fair look at a complicated and often controversial subject. Wolman's apparent stance at the end gives an optimistic nod to future linguistic developments in a manner I hadn't considered before but find fascinating. ( )

Well, Christmas present-getters can't be choosers. Surprisingly and disappointingly dull, for a word fancier. Pretty badly written too. Favorite factoid: "olde" is actually a 19th marketing invention, the word was never spelled that way in Old (or Middle) English. ( )

The book necessarily starts in Olde Englande because that's where our modern English spellings don't start from, that comes next, but was the foundation of the language. It is therefore very jarring to have the author intersperse this history of orthography with modern American cultural references, 'they didn't drink the Kool-Aid', a long chapter on Spelling Bees (did any of the popular kids in school actually go in for that, or was it reserved for teacher's best little kiddies?) and slang, 'cool' for one. A history of spelling should become a reference book, it's certainly exhausive enough, but the effect of the writing is, despite the widespread use of English and its common roots, to parochialise it to the US and also, which is worse, to date the book immediately.

Two reviewers of this book call it a 'linguistic romp'. I like my linguistics to be serious, and my 'romps' (what a word, very tabloid, so National Enquirer or Daily Mirror) to be a great deal more entertaining than this. However, the book is informative and serious at times and if two such words could go together, tediously entertaining in part.

Recommended to fans and partipants of Spelling Bees who will find themselves utterly glorified The rest of us - a dictionary is vastly more interesting.

( )