Garner on Language and Writing

by Bryan A. Garner

The nations' foremost expert on writing, style, and usage, Bryan Garner, now collects his finest essays on writing, language, and style, and offers them in this in this massive anthology. These articles cover the gamut from advice for beginning writers, to essays on writing successfully as a professional. Also included are hilarious chapters on puns, curiosities, vocabulary use, and other comical writing escapades. Further chapters contain solid advice on making oneself a great writer, grammarian, and stylist. It's perfect for anyone who works with the written word.

Genres: Writing, Reference, Law, Nonfiction, Language

876 pages, Hardcover

First published September 1, 2007

Reviews

[Greg]

Dear Goodreads.com First Reads Program,

I regret that I have been unable to bring myself to read this book you so graciously gave to me. I thought it would somewhat about legal writing, but more about writing in general. I was wrong. I just don't have the interest in legal writing. I am not a lawyer. The essays are probably delightful. I have read passages in Garner's usage guide and enjoyed what he has written. I also read the DFW review for Garner's usage guide and choose to agree with DFW that Garner knows what he is talking about.

I have given the book away to the only person I know that is either a lawyer or in law school. The book will be better loved and more possibly be read or looked at in its new home.

Sorry for not reading what I won.

Greg

[Toe · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bryan Garner impresses me for me three reasons, but worries me for one. First, his resume is stellar. He is an attorney, lexicographer, author, speaker, and professor. He completed his Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage when he was 29—starting when he was a first-year law student at 22. (Who has time to write a dictionary while in law school? Answer: Bryan Garner. And possibly other UT law grads. I knew I shouldn’t have wasted all that time at No. 3 on the Corner in Charlottesville.) Garner is the editor-in-chief of Black’s Law Dictionary. He has authored something like 14 books, mostly on language and effective communication. He teamed up with Justice Scalia to write two books. I am confident in his prescriptions to resolve sticky definitional and grammatical questions. He doesn’t fall victim to the urge of describers, who simply parrot what they read and hear without judgment. He takes a stance on correct and incorrect usage. And it’s nice to have an authority to reference. The man knows his stuff.

Second, he writes clearly and insightfully. He eschews fancy language and complex sentence structure with nested clauses ad infinitum. Despite being an obvious lexicomane, he behaves exactly the opposite of Christopher Hitchens: he wants to educate you, not impress you—which impresses me. When he employs unusual vocabulary, it’s because the word choice encapsulates a necessary distinction or more precise idea. He does not do it to remind you of the effortless superiority of Balliol men à la Hitchens. Garner clarifies; Hitchens and many others obfuscate. For this reason, Garner is an excellent source to emulate. The man knows his stuff.

Third, his goals are worthwhile and laudable: he champions the plain English movement in law. He values effective communication above all. He calls for moving away from legalese and towards comprehensible communication. Though perhaps counterintuitive, the plainer your legal writing, the more intelligent you seem (and are?). Avoiding legalese forces you to understand what you say. It lays bare any faulty reasoning. Garner carefully acknowledges, however, the distinction between legalese and terms of art. The former is undesirable while the latter may be critical. In the same vein, Garner insists that legal citations should be moved to footnotes rather than remaining in text. And those footnotes should never contain substantive information, or be “talking footnotes.” (When Garner pointed out how awful talking footnotes are, I was immediately reminded of Malcolm Gladwell’s “David and Goliath”—super annoying, those talking footnotes.) A reader should be able to keep his eyes in the paragraphs and avoid checking the footnotes until he needs to look up the source for the proposition. Moreover, newer attorneys fresh off Law Review editing (like me) tend to provide too many citations. The advantages of plain English over legalese become self-evident in examples. And the same is true for footnotes over in-text citations. Garner provides examples and proves himself right. The man knows his stuff.

But Garner briefly threw me into despair. He revealed to me how much room I have to improve as a writer. It is disheartening. I can never know as many words as Big G. And I am now more unsettled than ever about my word choice, punctuation, and grammar. How many bad habits do I have? How many misconceptions? How long to repair them? How many embarrassments before I do? Avoiding mistakes and errors are just the basics. How much further is it to actually develop decent, then good, then excellent style? The road ahead is steep and fraught with peril. But it looks to be an exciting journey.

Garner’s book was my next step in that journey. Despite Garner’s obvious genius, this book is just ok. It contains a wealth of valuable information, which I summarize below. But the work compiles other essays, speeches, book reviews, etc., and therefore suffers from some problems. It is lengthy, repetitive, and not necessarily a coherent whole. It is functional, and I read the whole thing. But it could have shed perhaps half its pounds and been better for it. Oh well. The work, done, yielded these invaluable lessons.

Writing is a skill that takes a lifetime to master. It is painful and time-consuming. One only becomes better at writing by writing. And reading. A lot. There are no shortcuts. Garner says he has read two books on writing every week for 20 years. That’s 2,080 books for those doing the math. That’s what it takes to become a leading expert on words and language. I'll pass. But there are tips, tricks, and generalizations for us mere mortals.

Good (legal) writers tend to:

• Simplify without oversimplifying.
• Use active voice.
• Economize words. That is, shorten their writing by removing extraneous words wherever possible. Average sentence length is 20 words or less, and certainly under 30 words.
• Vary sentence length and structure to avoid monotony.
• Evoke imagery.
• Employ the correct words in the correct places.
• Prefer short words to long words, simple to fancy.
• Keep related words together—especially subject and verb, and verb and object.
• Consult dictionaries and language authorities.
• List or bullet strings of ideas. Like this.
• Start sentences with conjunctions like “and” or “but.” There is no rule against it. And anyone who says otherwise is wrong. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Swift, Madison, Franklin, Shelley, Murray, Carlyle, Twain, Einstein, Holmes, Posner, Scalia, and major publications like “The Economist” and “U.S. News & World Report” start their sentences with conjunctions. Like any tool, it should not be overused. But good writers will start somewhere in the neighborhood of 15-20% of their sentences with conjunctions. (This paragraph, including this sentence, starts 29% of its sentences with conjunctions.)

Garner provides a list of genteel words and plainspoken alternatives. He advocates using the alternatives. You naturally sound smarter by using them. Delight in the pleasure of simplicity.

Genteel Plainspoken
Approximately about
Assistance help
At this time now
Beverage drink
Cease stop
Corridor hall
Depart leave; go
Endeavor try
Inquire ask
In regard to about
Peruse read
Previous to before
Prior to before
Proceed go
Purchase buy
Subsequently later
Subsequent to after
Sufficient enough
Transpire happen

I’d add replacing “utilize” with “use.”

Writing has important visual components. Lengthy blocks of text in small print are much more difficult to read than appropriately spaced paragraphs, sentences, and lists. The ugliness of lawyers’ writing becomes evident in judicial opinions, briefs, and memos. Garner makes these suggestions for improvement:

1. Use a serif typeface in the body, such as Bookman, Garamond, or Times New Roman. But avoid Courier. Serif fonts have feet and other short strokes that project from letters. Sans-serif fonts do not. Sans-serif fonts, like Arial, can be good in headings, but can be tiresome in lengthy blocks of text.
2. Use white spaces meaningfully.
3. Supply headings as needed.
4. Put more space above headings than below.
5. Avoid all-caps and initial-caps text.
6. Use boldface type exclusively in headings and never in text. Italicize if you must, but do so sparingly.
7. Avoid underlining.
8. Use vertical lists when possible, with hanging indents.
9. Use bullets for lists as needed.
10. Don’t create “fine print” or wall-to-wall type. Limit your characters per line to between 45 to 70.

Garner advocates the “deep issue.” It’s a term he coined for the process of framing a legal issue. I was taught to put the issue in a single sentence. Garner calls that hogwash. There is no need to jam it all into one inconceivably long sentence. But you must keep the whole deep issue under 75 words. He’s been doing it for decades, and never failed to keep it under 75 words. (I’d like to see him tackle some tax issues—more for my own edification than because I don’t think he could do it. He actually does provide one tax example. See below.) The goal of the deep issue is compactness and clarity. You give the reader the goods right up front. Then you develop it more in the remainder of the memo, brief, or opinion you are writing. Readers are impatient, and they resent having to work harder or wait longer than absolutely necessary to know what you’re saying. Garner’s deep issue should:

• Consist of separate sentences.
• Be limited to 75 words.
• Incorporate enough detail to convey a sense of story.
• End with a question mark.
• Appear at the outset of a memo, brief, or judicial opinion, not after a statement of facts.
• Be simple enough that even a nonlawyer can read and understand it.

Note that these rules are just for the issues. Brief answers should immediately follow. Garner does not mention how many words he would allow for a brief answer, but shorter is better. IRAC (issue, rule, application, conclusion) is useful for law school exams, but not much else. Summarizing complex information both succinctly and accurately, and always beginning with summaries, will reward lawyers again and again throughout their careers. As this is maybe the most practically useful thing to me as an attorney, and probably the most difficult to master, here are three examples of Garner’s deep issue.

“A Turk, having three wives, to whom he was lawfully married, according to the laws of his own country, and three sons, one by each wife, comes to Philadelphia with his family, and dies, leaving his three wives and three sons alive, and also real property in this State to a large amount. Will it go to the three children equally, under the intestate law of Pennsylvania?” A Question of the Conflict of Laws, 14 Am. Jurist 275, 275 (1835).

Deep issue of an article or memo doesn’t suggest the answer.

“The Internal Revenue Service requires all persons who receive more than $10,000 in cash in a trade or business to report the payment and provide the name of the payor. Paul Smith, an attorney, receives $14,000 in cash from a client and reports the payment but omits the client’s name in the belief that disclosure would violate the attorney-client privilege. Is there an attorney-client privilege exception to the IRS disclosure requirements?”

Deep issue for a memo doesn’t suggest the answer.

“Since first considering the issue 30 years ago, this Court has consistently held that the word “produced”—as used in the habendum clause of an oil-and-gas lease—means “capable of being produced in paying quantities.” Should this Court now adopt a novel interpretation that would cast doubt on the validity of tens of thousands of leases in the State?”

Deep issue for a brief suggests the answer.

Garner’s suggestions for better drafting of contracts or legislation:

1. Average sentence length of 20 words or fewer.
2. Prefer short words to longer ones, simple to fancy.
3. Avoid double and triple negatives.
4. Prefer the active voice.
5. Keep related words together—especially subject and verb, and verb and object.
6. Break up the text with headings.
7. Use parallel structures for enumerations.
8. Avoid excessive cross-references.
9. Avoid overdefining.
10. Use recitals and purpose clauses.

Garner hates citations in text, much preferring footnotes that don’t “talk,” i.e., say nothing substantive. In-text citations only exist because of tradition and history in the legal profession. Before modern computers, it was difficult or impossible to use footnotes. But now we can, and we should. No need to continue an antiquated process when technological progress liberates us from it. Garner cites these advantages to non-talking footnotes over in-text citations:

1. You can strip down your argument and focus on what you’re really saying—and how you’re saying it.
2. You can write more fully developed paragraphs.
3. You can simultaneously shorten your paragraphs.
4. You can connect your sentences smoothly, with simple transitional words.
5. You can introduce greater variety in sentence patterns, especially through subordinate clauses.
6. You have a better chance of discovering a patch of poor writing—or poor thinking—since it’s no longer camouflaged by a flurry of citations. And you won’t be tempted to bury important parts of your analysis in parentheticals.
7. String citations become relatively harmless.
8. You’ll find it necessary to discuss important cases contextually, as opposed to merely relying on bare citations to do the work for you.
9. You’ll give emphasis where it is due.
10. The page ends up looking cleaner, more inviting, more accessible.

Garner’s suggested reading:

• 30 Days to Better English by Norman Lewis. For grammatical novice.
• Writing with Style (2d ed. 2000) by John R. Trimble. Single best book for starting as a serious writer.
• The Elements of Style by William Strunk and E.B. White. Writing primer.
• Thinking Straight (4th ed. 1975) by Monroe C. Beardsley. Guidance on critical thinking.
• The Five Types of Legal Argument by Wilson Huhn. Guidance on legal reasoning.
• How to Write Plain English by Rudolf Flesch. Plain English guidance.
• The Complete Plain Words by Ernest Gowers. Plain English guidance.
• In Defense of Rhetoric by Brian Vickers. Guide to classical rhetoric.
• The Art of Rhetoric by Aristotle. Seminal rhetoric text.
• On Oratory and Orators by Cicero. Seminal rhetoric text.
• Similes Dictionary by Elyse Sommer and Mike Sommer. Compilation of similes.
• There’s a Word for It: A Grandiloquent Guide to Life by Charles Harrington Elster. Vocabulary expansion.
• The Highly Selective Dictionary for the Extraordinarily Literate by Eugene Ehrlich. Vocabulary expansion.
• Weird and Wonderful Words by Erin McKean. Vocabulary expansion.
• Verbal Advantage by Charles Harrington. Vocabulary expansion.
• The Economist. Examples of good writers.
• The New Yorker. Examples of good writers.
• The Green Bag. Best law journal.
• The Scribes Journal of Legal Writing. Best journal on legal writing.

Memorable quotes:

“[J]ust in the 50 years from 1936 to 1986, the average opinion doubled in length.”

“In the history of the Supreme Court, Marshall, Holmes, and Robert H. Jackson are the first rank of judicial stylists.”

“Judge Richard A. Posner suggests that the power of Holmes’s famous dissent in Lochner v. New York derives more from rhetorical devices than from close reasoning.”

“I once defended the use of unfamiliar words on grounds that they are sometimes the only ones available to convey one’s precise meaning. But in recent years I have retreated from that position because an approximate meaning is usually much better than a wholesale failure to communicate.”

“I think of smellfungus, meaning ‘a captious critic,’ or ultracrepidarian, meaning ‘one who pontificates about matters of which he or she knows nothing.’ We need such words if only because the meanings are so exquisite.”

“Some British lawyers insist that their idiom—one bite at the cherry—makes more sense because the cherry is a fruit that, by its nature, is eaten in only one bite: it makes little sense to think of multiple bites at a cherry. . . . But by the 1920s, cherry had assumed another sense in American English, namely ‘hymen’ or ‘virgin.’ . . . So one bite at the cherry may well be the only legal idiom that has changed because its users felt embarrassed over a newfound double entendre.”

“Lon Fuller, Anatomy of the Law (1977): Like Wright and Gilmore, Fuller proves that great legal minds write about complex legal subjects in a simple, direct way. (Mediocre minds, on the other hand, move towards muddlement.)”

“Les Perelman, a writing director at MIT, had studied the recently ‘improved’ SAT, with its requirement for written essays, and found that the graders were giving top scores based solely on length of the essays, not their quality.”

“According to the American Literacy Council, English has 42 sounds spelled 400 ways. So what’s been done about it? . . . President Teddy Roosevelt . . . ordered the Government Printing Office to use the Board’s spellings in all government publications, but Congress quickly blocked that order.”

[Karina · Rating 4 out of 5]

I won this book through Goodreads First Reads. Odds: 50 copies available, 772 people requesting.

A word that is missing from the title of this book is "legal". Garner's focus is on improving legal writing. And at first when I entered the giveaway I didn't realize that bit. Still it could be useful, as law is one possibility I'm considering if I need a change from accounting at some point. And the omission of this word from the title may actually have a purpose. Most of the advice I've read so far can be applied to any type of writing.

I'm really liking this book. His writing style is easy, and fun, and it's obvious that he cares about the usage of the language. Foreword says: "Garner's essays not only instruct by prescription; they also teach by example. His prose is a model of precision, elegance, and clarity." I quote because I agree based on what I've read so far (chapter 1 and part of chapter 5 - skipping around to the topics that interest me).

Neat feature of the book that surprised me were the illustrations - caricatures of the famous people in the law.

In Chapter 5 there are a bunch of language quizzes. I liked them a lot, even if I didn't do as well as I'd wished on them. Only one "superb" result, and "good" on others, haha ;)

This was a neat way to express the ideas on page 216: "Of course, ill repute is sometimes ill-deserved. The split infinitive is no abomination--one need merely know when to properly use it. Prepositions are not bad words to end sentences with. And it often serves the writer well to begin a sentence with and or but."

The essay on page 245 (Word Karma) had me laughing out loud. Maybe in part because it was so unexpected, and because I think I'd feel the same way as the author in the situation.

This book makes me want to get Garner's Modern American Usage, because I care about proper usage, and this author makes a lot of sense, and I realize that there are things I don't know.

This is a very thick book. I think I'm going to mark this as read, even though I haven't read every word -- I'm just going to read bits and pieces over time. I think it's useful, and funny at times.

[Natalie · Rating 4 out of 5]

I received this book in a Goodreads giveaway, and I asked my husband, a lawyer and legal writer, to read and review it. He liked it very much:


Author Bryan Garner is undeniably the world's leading English language
authority on the craft of legal writing, with enough books to his credit
to support a Hummer with a flat. This collection of his essays and
speeches is less structured than his other works; therein lies both its
charm and challenge.

It charms in its simple and compelling message that lawyers aren't very
good writers who need to up their game, although they think of
themselves as Hemingways of their generation. It challenges in its
weighty 839 pages, where the core message is repeated over and over
again.

The title might have better been Garner on Legal Language and Writing.
Although there is lots here for open-minded lawyers who want to shine,
the general public needs to be warned that most of this book is devoted
to legal writing. Garner himself might fairly counter that good writing
is universal, but having entire chapters devoted to topics like Writing
in Law School and Judicial Writing make this a very legally-focused
book.

Anyone with an interest in good writing skills will benefit from this
very readable work. Those who wonder why legal documents are so
difficult to read will find a great ally in Garner who insists those
impenetrable legal tomes just don't need to be that way. And any lawyer
brave enough to embrace Garner's message that lawyers need to simplify
and clarify their writing will do the public a great service.

[Robin · Rating 5 out of 5]

I won this book on goodreads firstreads. And I sheepishly admit I didn't read the description of the book before putting my name in to win it. I saw the words "Language and Writing" in the title and dove in headfirst. I had no idea this was a tome on legal writing. So when I got the book and saw what I'd signed up for, I could only groan and brace myself for a torturous journey of self-important, impossible-to-understand prose.

This book turned out to be the best mistake I've ever made. Garner hooked me in the introduction. The man is clearly briliant. But he is unpretentious and clear in his writing. I had no trouble following his instruction on writing. I was delighted at his sense of humor. Most of all, I was relieved to find so much of his instruction that I can apply to myself as a novelist. This book is geared towards those in the legal prefession, but remains accessable to non-lawyers.

I must admit, there were portions I skipped over because they were so completely focused on legal writing that they couldn't be applicable to me. But just as often, I found myself getting drawn into inapplicable sections. It is interesting enough to read from start to finish, but is set up as a reference book. You can jump from section to section as needed.

My initial intention was to read enough of the book to write a review and trade the thing for something I can use. Having read much more than I planned, I've now cleared a spot on my shelf for Garner. Sorry people. This is MY copy. You'll just have to get your own.

[Rose · Rating 5 out of 5]

I received this text as a part of the Goodreads "First Reads" Giveaway, and I have to say it's one of the best resource guides to writing that I've come across. Granted, one might note that this is a specific guide to legal writing and may be most helpful in that plane of writing. However, from perusing the chapters as a writer in general, I've found several resources and practical tips for writers of all walks. Some topics that Garner touches on include writing groups, English grammar and usage, persuasive writing, style, and even the basics of interpreting what stage of a writer you are (Flowers paradigm).

I found it a great resource and it will definitely be a book I return to regularly when I need a consulting guide for writing, especially with the amount of resources Garner uses in the writing plane.

Overall score: 4.5/5

[Nina · Rating 5 out of 5]

Garner’s latest book is an impressive collection of his essays on writing and language. Although intended for legal writers, these essays are an essential read for anybody who loves language, is picky about grammar, and enjoys serious commentary laced with wit. Garner takes shots at legal writing with specific examples from law review articles, judges’ decisions, and briefs. The chapters cover a wide range of topics, including persuasive writing.

Language and Writing is a book to read slowly and mindfully. It is a book that will serve as a crucial reference. Anybody who writes as part of their professional duties would benefit from the quotes and guidance related to word usage and effective writing. This book would be an ideal gift for a college student or recent grad from any program, not just law school.

[Eric · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm having a hard time believing that I just gave five stars to a book about language and writing--but this book is fabulous. I never thought that a book like this could be so entertaining and readable. The book is full of very useful information that is presented in a fun way. I recommend this book to students of all types and ages or to anybody who likes an entertaining nonfiction read. It is a book that can be used as a quick and easy reference, read cover-to-cover, and it actually makes a fantastic bathroom book. This book is a very valuable addition to any library.

[Robyn · Rating 4 out of 5]

I won this as a Goodreads Giveaway . As a lawyer, I agree with Garner that needing to know how to actually write is important. I've read books of his on the English language. This definitely took a while to get through--especially since I read it along with my usual casual reading.

The book is quite helpful, especially if you are a lawyer. However, you don't need to be a lawyer to enjoy it. Although I do feel that this book is also not something you sit and read all day. Most of the essays I found to be enjoyable and thought-provoking. A few repeated themselves and were a little dry.

[LuAnn · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was particularly impressed with this book. I have quite a collection of writing books (as do most writers I know) and if I’m going to add another to my reference shelf, it has to be useful to me. Otherwise, it just takes up space.
“On Language and Writing” is a great addition for me. This huge book (700-plus pages) covers such a variety of topics that I’m sure I will refer to it often.
This is a wonderful book and if you do any type of writing, you’ll want to consider adding it to your collection of reference books. I’m definitely glad it’s now on my shelf.

[Mhairi · Rating 3 out of 5]

Originally I thought that the focus of this book would have been simple on the English Language and writing, however it is more about law and legal writing. The sections which I did read were enjoyable, at the moment I am at university doing english language and linguistics so I can see in some instances how this will be useful.
I also gave this book to a friend who is studying law to read and he said that it was extremely useful and informative for his studies.
I think book would be very good for law students but perhaps it should mention on the front cover that it's more to do with law.

[Julie · Rating 3 out of 5]

I should've read the description of this book more closely before I requested it on FirstReads. I have enjoyed reading some of Garner's essays on language in his Modern American Usage, and it is my go-to book for questions of usage. This book, however, is primarily about legal language, and so it is far less useful and appealing to me. I skimmed some of the essays, and they appear to be written in his same clear, readable style, but the subject matter is not really my thing.

[Giselle · Rating 4 out of 5]

I won this book through goodreads first-reads!
Great book for any writer especially those that need help in that area. Garner does a masterful job breaking down the process so as to be easily digestable to the layperson. "Garner on Language and Writing" is enthusiastically recommended reading for law students or anyone who wants a better understanding of the jungle of the law. Highly recommend this book to anyone trying to improve their writing skills

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book made me realize that I'm a poor writer. I suppose that's the highest compliment I can give the book. But despite that depressing realization, I enjoyed this collection of articles and essays. At times the book is repetitive (I skipped substantial portions). Nevertheless, Garner's love of language always shines through.

[James Steinmann · Rating 5 out of 5]

A collection of Garner's essays, mostly regarding legal writing. An absolute "must read" for any law student or lawyer, but also an exceptional guide for anyone who wants to really craft his writing. And not only that, it's entertaining, too!

[Denise]

I won this on goodreads. I have a good friend that teaches English to High School students and I hope she can use this and I hope it can give me some insight as well. We'll see soon!

I received this today (22Jun).

[Taylor · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really liked this book. I like Garner's writing style and I enjoyed his essays. There is some great information about writing and usage. I highly recommend it to anyone looking to improve writing skills and especially if you are going into Law, as this is Garner's target audience.

[Stephen P. · Rating 4 out of 5]

The title is misleading, as it didn't seem to specify it would be a LEGAL writing book, but overall it's a useful addition to my library. I work as a proposal writer and frequently deal with contracting issues. I will definitely be giving this book a lot of attention.

[Kris · Rating 4 out of 5]

Garner on Writing and Language is a great reference book. Although it is primarily law orientated, he provides a wealth of knowledge and tips for anyone who needs to write papers or journal articles. I would recommend this book to anyone in grad school.

[Kris · Rating 4 out of 5]

Garner on Writing and Language is a great reference book. Although it is primarily law orientated, he provides a wealth of knowledge and tips for anyone who needs to write papers or journal articles. I would recommend this book to anyone in grad school or who reviews/edits articles.

[Katherine Elizabeth]

I won a copy through the Goodreads giveaway and I'm really excited to receive my copy.

[Gina]

Won through First Reads, can't wait to get it!!!

[Austin Surridge]

Looks interesting, will be excited to read it!

[Athena]

I've won a copy on First Reads. Language is my passion, so I hope to enjoy the book.

[Lisa · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really enjoyed reading this book. Mr. Garner is an excellent writer. The book is both informative and entertaining. I highly recommend it. Everyone can gain something from this book.

[Heather · Rating 2 out of 5]

It was ok I guess...not really my cup of tea.

[Clare]

Whenever I've taken his quizzes, I flunk! I need this book.