By Elaine Carlson

I am grateful our public library has Curb Side Pickup. It is nice we can check books out of the library even in the middle of a health crisis when we aren't allowed to go inside.

Last month I wanted to get The Sense of Style by Steven Pinker. When I called the library to place my order the person I talked to said, "We have that book. But the author's first name isn't Steven. It is Rebecca." She said it again when I expressed disbelief.

I ended up saying I didn't want the book --- Rebecca Pinker might be a good author but I had my heart set on reading a book by Steven Pinker.

Was Rebecca Pinker Steven's mother, daughter, wife, sister, sister-in-law, cousin? Some women change their names when they get married and some don't. So, I am sure there are a lot of possibilities for a woman named Rebecca Pinker to be in his family tree.

Several weeks later I again decided to use Curb Side Pickup. Besides ordering a book of short stories and a novel I decide to ask for Steven Pinker's book but this time I don't mention his first name.

When I go pick up my order I get The Sense of Style and right away I see it was written by Steven Pinker. I hope by now the library has corrected this author's name in their records.

I start to read the book and immediately I like it.

Pinker starts Chapter 6 "Telling Right From Wrong" by saying, "Many people have strong opinions on the quality of language today." A reader soon learns how wrong or "phony" he considers some of those "strong opinions" to be.

He asserts, "Phony rules, which proliferate like urban legends and are just as hard to eradicate, are responsible for vast amounts of ham-fisted copyediting and smarty pants one-upmanship, Yet, when scholars try to debunk the spurious rules, the dichotomizing mindset imagines that they are trying to abolish all rules of good writing."

He directs a lot of ire towards "the purists --- also known as sticklers, peevers, snobs, snoots, nitpickers, traditionalists, language police, usage nannies, grammar Nazis, and the Gotcha! Gang.

The author recognizes the inherent difficulty of recognizing and dealing with rules and standards that have not been developed (and are not enforced) by a government.

He says, "The rules of standard English are not legislated by a tribunal of lexicographers but emerge as an implicit consensus within a virtual community of writers, editors, readers, and editors. That consensus can change over the years unplanned and as uncontrollable as the vagaries of fashion."

He compares the "implicit consensus" to rules of behavior. "No official ever decided that respectable men and women were permitted to doff their hats and gloves in the 1960s or get pierced or tattooed in the 1990s."

I admit sometimes I am a member of the Gotcha! Gang. In this book I wondered why Pinker used the word "doff" in that sentence. I thought it meant to tip a hat. So, I looked the word up (The American Heritage Dictionary Fourth Edition 2001). The first definition is to take off --- as in "to doff" one's clothes" (like before taking a shower or going to bed) and the second definition is to tip like a hat. So, he is not wrong – but still I think another word might have been better there.

Now how is a writer (or potential writer) able to recognize if a rule is one of those "Phony rules" or is a product of the "consensus"?

When the rule involves word usage Pinker doesn't think anyone needs to suffer --- "The answer is unbelievably simple: look it up. Consult a modern usage guide or a dictionary with usage notes such as [he lists five dictionaries]."

He says, "The goal of this chapter {Chapter 6] is to allow you to reason your way to avoiding the major errors of grammar, word choice, and punctuation."

He goes on to say, "In announcing this goal shortly after making fun of the language police, I might seem to be contradicting myself. If this is your reaction, you are a victim of confusion sown by the sticklers. The idea that there are exactly two approaches to usage – all the traditional rules must be followed, or else anything goes – is the sticklers' founding myth."

Why can't they just accept that his readers might want to question why he wants to give them methods "to allow you to … " so soon after "making fun of the language police."

I don't know if it would be fair to suggest that if readers have any "confusion" it might have been caused by Pinker. But I don't think it is logical to imply readers are wrong for having a "reaction" and suggest if they do they are "victim[s] of confusion."

To get to his goal it appears Pinker has a two-part strategy. First is to torpedo those substandard "rules" those "purists" love so much. After that he wants to describe and explain the grammar and usage rules he thinks are so important for careful writers to know and use.

When he talked about "spurious rules" he takes aim at the rule against splitting infinitives --- "Good writers who have been brain-washed into unsplitting their infinitives can come out with monstrosities."

He gives two examples – "permanently to surrender" and "to increase dramatically." And suggests "to permanently surrender" and "to dramatically increase" would be preferable.

This is a good book for a writer. It fulfills the promise of its title and is a good style guide.