What do you think?
Rate this book
The Elements of Eloquence: How to Turn the Perfect English Phrase
The idiosyncratic, erudite and brilliantly funny new book from Mark Forsyth, bestselling author of The Etymologicon and The Horologicon.
In an age unhealthily obsessed with substance, this is a book on the importance of pure style.
From classic poetry to pop lyrics and from the King James Bible to advertising slogans, Mark Forsyth explains the secrets that make a phrase - such as ‘Tiger, tiger, burning bright’ or ‘To be or not to be’ - memorable.
In his inimitably entertaining and witty style he takes apart famous lines and shows how you too can write like Shakespeare or Oscar Wilde. Whether you’re aiming for literary immortality or just an unforgettable one-liner, The Elements of Eloquence proves that you don't need to have anything to say - you simply need to say it well.
In an age unhealthily obsessed with substance, this is a book on the importance of pure style.
From classic poetry to pop lyrics and from the King James Bible to advertising slogans, Mark Forsyth explains the secrets that make a phrase - such as ‘Tiger, tiger, burning bright’ or ‘To be or not to be’ - memorable.
In his inimitably entertaining and witty style he takes apart famous lines and shows how you too can write like Shakespeare or Oscar Wilde. Whether you’re aiming for literary immortality or just an unforgettable one-liner, The Elements of Eloquence proves that you don't need to have anything to say - you simply need to say it well.
205 pages, Hardcover
First published November 7, 2013
About the author
Mark Forsyth
15 books814 followersMark Forsyth is a writer, journalist and blogger. Every job he’s ever had, whether as a ghost-writer or proof-reader or copy-writer, has been to do with words. He started The Inky Fool blog in 2009 and now writes a post almost every day. The blog has received worldwide attention and enjoys an average of 4,000 hits per week.
Mr. Forsyth currently resides in London.
Mr. Forsyth currently resides in London.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 906 reviews
June 17, 2015
I don’t have all that much to say about this book (not counting the whole lot of nonsense I append to the end of this review). It’s a short read—charming, light. It promises the key to eloquence, but is probably better for a quick laugh. Nevertheless, I’ve been looking for a book to summarize some of the old techniques for turning a phrase, and Forsyth does an admirable job of it. So the ratio of payoff to pleasure is actually quite high.
So, without further ado, I present a half-hearted summary of this book's contents.
So, without further ado, I present a half-hearted summary of this book's contents.
38 Ways of Saying “This Book is Good.”
1. Alliteration: Verily, this vivacious volume is very diverting.
2. Polyptoton: I loved Mark Forsyth’s witty witticisms.
3. Antithesis: Some books are a slog; this book is breezy.
4. Merism: One will find many laughs in these pages, chapters, and sentences.
5. Blazon: Forsyth’s style is like a tickling feather; Forsyth’s knowledge is like a musty old volume.
6. Synaesthesia: You can smell the charm from this book, and it smells a little like daffodils.
7. Aposiopesis: This book is…
8. Hyperbaton: Good, this book is; read it, you must.
9. Anadiplosis: Learning rhetoric leads to good style; good style leads to good writing; good writing leads nowhere (professionally speaking).
10. Periodic Sentence: One of the great things—indeed, perhaps the greatest thing—about this book, is that, throughout every paragraph and every line, lurking behind every turn of the page, and nestling within every clause, there’s a laugh.
11. Parataxis and Hypotaxis (respectively): This book is good. Although, one sometimes wonders, indeed, one often wonders, if it may be considered polite to do so, and if such wondering may not offend anybody, for wondering is often not a neutral activity, and may sometimes cut like a dagger, if used incorrectly, or perhaps correctly, depending on what one wishes to do, whether Mark Forsyth is really that bright.
12. Diacope: Read it, buddy. Read it.
13. Rhetorical Question: Why not read it?
14. Hendiadys: I read through Forsyth’s impressiveness and his knowledge.
15. Epistrophe: If you’re wondering if you should read it, you should. If you’re wondering if you should start today, you should.
16. Tricolon: The information contained within this book is useful, amusing, and probably all untrue.
17. Epizeuxis: Read. Read. Read.
18. Syllepsis: Read this book and then, if you can manage it, my mind.
19. Isocolon: Lack of rhetoric makes one seem coarse; rhetoric makes one seem mannered.
20. Enallage: Do I need to gives yous guys any mo’ reason to read this here book?
21. Zeugma: Some writers write about life; others, writing. Shakespeare is of the former; Forsyth, the latter.
22. Paradox: This book is useful and useless.
23. Chiasmus: Tomorrow, I shall write pretty sentences and phrases flowering.
24. Assonance: I read so I can feed my needs.
25. The Fourteenth Rule: There are exactly thirty-eight reasons to read this book.
26. Catachresis: Now I shall be able to write chrysanthemum phrases.
27. Litotes: This book is not unpleasant.
28. Metonymy and Synecdoche: Forsyth’s pen is skilled.
29. Transferred Epithets: On the subway, I read some chuckling sentences.
30. Pleonasm: The idea that an idea should be expressed in the tersest and briefest manner is absurd, ridiculous lunacy—and crazy, too.
31. Epanalepsis: Reviewing is tedious; I’m getting tired of reviewing.
32. Personification: Rhetoric is a beautiful, ageless maid whose face is normally hidden underneath a large hat.
33. Hyperbole: This book is the greatest book of all time and has changed my life.
34. Adynaton: If you want to resist this book’s charm, you might as well try to go skinny dipping on the sun.
35. Prolepsis: It is pretty good, this book.
36. Congeries: Forsyth uses many examples, specimens, anecdotes, excerpts, quotes, genres, and sources to tell his story.
37. Scesis Onomaton: Rhetoric: the flower of learning.
38. Anaphora: I believe that hard work pays off. I believe that good writing just takes persistence. I believe rhetoric is the key to style.
February 8, 2015
Witty, clever, fascinating, compulsive, delightful. That first sentence is an example of Scesis Onomaton and merely five of the words I use to describe myself – well, and this book too, obviously. To be honest, I’m not going to remember the names of all of the rules that are discussed here.
You could, if the mood took you, do exactly that and learn all of the Greek names for the rhetorical tricks discussed here, but I don’t think that is completely necessary. What this very short book does beautifully is to give you a series of examples of what works in forming a lovely, memorable sentence and, more importantly, why it works. It also shows you, if not used properly, why these tricks also might not work.
And this guy is funny – often making me stop and chuckle to myself in a way that made me glad I wasn’t reading this book on a train. Now, that isn’t necessarily what I had expected to happen while reading a book on rhetoric. I’ve read Aristotle’s rhetoric too, years ago, and can’t remember a single smile, never mind a chortle.
One of the things that I found particularly interesting in this was how often symmetry played a part in making sentences beautiful and memorable. Or how frequently adding colours to sentences set them off. So, jealousy doesn’t just look deep into your soul, but it is the green-eyed monster, jealousy that does. Beautiful sentences are often formed by the unexpected, however, the problem is that after it has struck us as beautiful, it too often becomes overused and conventional and so, the surprise factor diminishes with time and so too does the beauty. We are constantly open to new surprises and constantly in the process of becoming bored with things that surprised us yesterday, but no longer do today. I think this is why humour ages so badly.
This book shows us that there are structural rules about how to go about making these surprises.
You will probably know about lots and lots of what is discussed in this book and it is just possible that you will learn nothing from it at all – although, I have to say that I learnt a lot and I have been pretty interested in this stuff for quite some time – all the same, even if you know this stuff like the back of your hand, buy this book anyway. The book is so well put together that, well, it just gives you a good feeling reading it: it is delightful, it is charming. I just love watching people smarter than me doing endlessly clever things. This guy explaining why some of the most memorable sentences in our language are, in fact, memorable, is a joy to watch. I particularly loved it when he made simple changes to our most memorable sentences to show how they needed to be just as they are. Or, even better, when he showed how we ‘misremember’ sentences from books or plays, but actually, our misremembering ‘improves’ the sentences according to one of the rules discussed here.
This needs to go onto your shopping list, this needs to scurry its way up your to-read list – as close to the top as you can make it. Get this book, read this book, enjoy this book. I need say no more…
You could, if the mood took you, do exactly that and learn all of the Greek names for the rhetorical tricks discussed here, but I don’t think that is completely necessary. What this very short book does beautifully is to give you a series of examples of what works in forming a lovely, memorable sentence and, more importantly, why it works. It also shows you, if not used properly, why these tricks also might not work.
And this guy is funny – often making me stop and chuckle to myself in a way that made me glad I wasn’t reading this book on a train. Now, that isn’t necessarily what I had expected to happen while reading a book on rhetoric. I’ve read Aristotle’s rhetoric too, years ago, and can’t remember a single smile, never mind a chortle.
One of the things that I found particularly interesting in this was how often symmetry played a part in making sentences beautiful and memorable. Or how frequently adding colours to sentences set them off. So, jealousy doesn’t just look deep into your soul, but it is the green-eyed monster, jealousy that does. Beautiful sentences are often formed by the unexpected, however, the problem is that after it has struck us as beautiful, it too often becomes overused and conventional and so, the surprise factor diminishes with time and so too does the beauty. We are constantly open to new surprises and constantly in the process of becoming bored with things that surprised us yesterday, but no longer do today. I think this is why humour ages so badly.
This book shows us that there are structural rules about how to go about making these surprises.
You will probably know about lots and lots of what is discussed in this book and it is just possible that you will learn nothing from it at all – although, I have to say that I learnt a lot and I have been pretty interested in this stuff for quite some time – all the same, even if you know this stuff like the back of your hand, buy this book anyway. The book is so well put together that, well, it just gives you a good feeling reading it: it is delightful, it is charming. I just love watching people smarter than me doing endlessly clever things. This guy explaining why some of the most memorable sentences in our language are, in fact, memorable, is a joy to watch. I particularly loved it when he made simple changes to our most memorable sentences to show how they needed to be just as they are. Or, even better, when he showed how we ‘misremember’ sentences from books or plays, but actually, our misremembering ‘improves’ the sentences according to one of the rules discussed here.
This needs to go onto your shopping list, this needs to scurry its way up your to-read list – as close to the top as you can make it. Get this book, read this book, enjoy this book. I need say no more…
May 28, 2015
This is one of those highly lauded books (with an average GR rating of 4.32 stars no less), which lay in my lap like a flabby hippo.
It was not my thing.
I read non-fiction. I like to LEARN. But this collection of rhetorical terms swept over me like high tide in the Bay of Fundy. Nothing stayed put, or nothing that I did not already know. Merism, polyptoton, aposiopesis, diacope, hendiadys, epizeuxis? My brain registered their meanings for the minute or so that I read the relevant pages - and then whoosh - all sense rushed out as the tide retreated - and that happened pretty quickly.
I've learnt one important thing though. It doesn't matter if a book is thoroughly researched and well written, if my little brain can't learn from it, or remember its essentials, it might as well be written in Chinese.
Please don't let my whinging deter you though. As mentioned before, many people loved this book, and certainly the author does a great analysis of what rhetorical devices are, and how they work. It's just as far as I was concerned nothing would stick. And I like things that stick. (That is an epistrophe - sentences or phrases ending in the same word - and no, I didn't remember that, I just looked it up.)
Its one useful role in my life would be as a reference book, a companion to something like Fowler's Modern English Usage, but I don't have shelf space for something I regard - rightly or wrongly - as quite a fusty topic.
It was not my thing.
I read non-fiction. I like to LEARN. But this collection of rhetorical terms swept over me like high tide in the Bay of Fundy. Nothing stayed put, or nothing that I did not already know. Merism, polyptoton, aposiopesis, diacope, hendiadys, epizeuxis? My brain registered their meanings for the minute or so that I read the relevant pages - and then whoosh - all sense rushed out as the tide retreated - and that happened pretty quickly.
I've learnt one important thing though. It doesn't matter if a book is thoroughly researched and well written, if my little brain can't learn from it, or remember its essentials, it might as well be written in Chinese.
Please don't let my whinging deter you though. As mentioned before, many people loved this book, and certainly the author does a great analysis of what rhetorical devices are, and how they work. It's just as far as I was concerned nothing would stick. And I like things that stick. (That is an epistrophe - sentences or phrases ending in the same word - and no, I didn't remember that, I just looked it up.)
Its one useful role in my life would be as a reference book, a companion to something like Fowler's Modern English Usage, but I don't have shelf space for something I regard - rightly or wrongly - as quite a fusty topic.
April 13, 2014
4.5, rounded up for the binding.
Informative and hilarious. Laughed out loud in public through many pages. Got asked by a creepy stranger what book was I reading, and got to say, "A primer on the classical forms of rhetoric." Stranger did not bother me again. Booyah!
Informative and hilarious. Laughed out loud in public through many pages. Got asked by a creepy stranger what book was I reading, and got to say, "A primer on the classical forms of rhetoric." Stranger did not bother me again. Booyah!
June 9, 2017
I am so in love with Elements of Eloquence by Mark Forsyth that only a few chapters in, I added it to my paperback wishlist. You have to understand--me owning treeware means I know that I'll want to read and reread it several times. Otherwise, I check it out from the library so it doesn't take up space in my house and other people can enjoy it (or occasionally buy eBooks.)
I had no idea there were this many rhetorical tricks, just waiting to be appreciated in other people's writing, or waiting to be used in mine! Discovering them all was a delight and a joy, and Forsyth makes it easy to understand with the clever trick of using the technique under discussion in the opening bars of each section (although sometimes he's so damn smug about it that I rolled my eyes. But! Adorable.)
A sampling of his treats:
Clouds are not lonely. Especially in the Lake District where Wordsworth wrote that line. In the Lake District clouds are remarkably sociable creatures that bring their friends and relatives and stay for weeks.
I mean, I am now picturing my own Aviva with emoji-heart-eyes. Master-freaking-ful (which reminds me -- he left out expletive infixation! :P )
Litotes isn't the best figure to use when you're trying to be grand. Litotes does not stir the soul; it's more suited to stirring tea.
and
Over the centuries and over the classes, consonants tend to stay roughly the same, while vowels slip around like eels.
I'm wriggling like an eel myself, with delight!
I remember there being moments of "eh" here and there (I actually can't remember what they were ETA: I found a note I'd written to myself that there is fatphobia in the "hyperbole" chapter), so if you run into a faily or oppressive isolated line, I'm sorry. But overwhelmingly I found it to be a super awesome resource that turned what could have been dry facts into little treats of mini-chapters full of wit and very clear examples.
Of course I'm not going to remember what all of the techniques were, but I plan on trying them out as an exercise to practice, once I have my own copy of the book.
I had no idea there were this many rhetorical tricks, just waiting to be appreciated in other people's writing, or waiting to be used in mine! Discovering them all was a delight and a joy, and Forsyth makes it easy to understand with the clever trick of using the technique under discussion in the opening bars of each section (although sometimes he's so damn smug about it that I rolled my eyes. But! Adorable.)
A sampling of his treats:
Clouds are not lonely. Especially in the Lake District where Wordsworth wrote that line. In the Lake District clouds are remarkably sociable creatures that bring their friends and relatives and stay for weeks.
I mean, I am now picturing my own Aviva with emoji-heart-eyes. Master-freaking-ful (which reminds me -- he left out expletive infixation! :P )
Litotes isn't the best figure to use when you're trying to be grand. Litotes does not stir the soul; it's more suited to stirring tea.
and
Over the centuries and over the classes, consonants tend to stay roughly the same, while vowels slip around like eels.
I'm wriggling like an eel myself, with delight!
I remember there being moments of "eh" here and there (I actually can't remember what they were ETA: I found a note I'd written to myself that there is fatphobia in the "hyperbole" chapter), so if you run into a faily or oppressive isolated line, I'm sorry. But overwhelmingly I found it to be a super awesome resource that turned what could have been dry facts into little treats of mini-chapters full of wit and very clear examples.
Of course I'm not going to remember what all of the techniques were, but I plan on trying them out as an exercise to practice, once I have my own copy of the book.
July 8, 2019
Delightfully charming, witty and illuminating on a topic which could've been dry and droll. Mark Forsyth's own brand of eloquence made this book immensely enjoyable. I especially loved how his references ranged from the classics to even modern pop songs.
I'll be reaching for this, time and again.
I'll be reaching for this, time and again.
August 4, 2016
When you giggle uncontrollably while reading an introduction to the classical forms of rhetoric, generously sprinkled with the best quotes from Shakespeare, Churchill, Wilde and many other more or less known heroes of the good turn of phrase, then you known you've got the right book for you. Besides his witty and hilarious way of presenting his material, the author manages to illuminate why we are often deeply affected rather by the phrasing of an idea, than by its essence (Churchill's We Shall Fight on the Beaches speech, where he actually hinted that military disaster was around the corner, is remembered in history as one of the most upheaving speeches ever delivered thanks to the perfect use of anaphora). My personal favorite? Litotes, not the worst figure for the kind-hearted reviewer of books. I've never been called a woman of few words, and now I know why.
August 3, 2018
An excellent reference on the elegant turn of a phrase.
Many of the tricks used by great writers and orators were first discovered and documented by ancient Greek rhetoricians. The author goes through a generous collection of them by name, giving examples and theories as to why they work.
Plus its funny.
Many of the tricks used by great writers and orators were first discovered and documented by ancient Greek rhetoricians. The author goes through a generous collection of them by name, giving examples and theories as to why they work.
Plus its funny.
January 18, 2021
The Elements of Eloquence: How to Turn the Perfect English Phrase is entertaining, educational and erudite.
Bravo Mark Forsyth. I suspect I bought this as an Audible deal of the day. Whatever the origin story, there it was in my Audible library awaiting the right moment.
There's so much information in this book and it's all delivered with wit and panache. For example, did you know that multiple adjectives are always ranked accordingly: opinion, size, age, shape, colour, origin, material, purpose. It's a rule that every English speaker abides by, few know about, and yet we all do it instinctively. You can't say Green Jolly Giant, or My Greek Fat Big Wedding.
Likewise, when you create an order or words the vowels always follow a specific order: I, then A, then O. Hence it's never flop flip, hop hip, bosh bash bish etc.
Virtually all of the techniques have technical Greek or Latin names (polyptoton, merism, synaesthesia etc) however do not be put off by that. For those who enjoy words, phrases, meaning and trivia, this book is solid gold. At the book's conclusion you'll have been enthralled and you'll be better able to turn an elegant phrase.
4/5
The idiosyncratic, erudite and brilliantly funny new book from Mark Forsyth, bestselling author of The Etymologicon and The Horologicon.
In an age unhealthily obsessed with substance, this is a book on the importance of pure style.
From classic poetry to pop lyrics and from the King James Bible to advertising slogans, Mark Forsyth explains the secrets that make a phrase - such as ‘Tiger, tiger, burning bright’ or ‘To be or not to be’ - memorable.
In his inimitably entertaining and witty style he takes apart famous lines and shows how you too can write like Shakespeare or Oscar Wilde. Whether you’re aiming for literary immortality or just an unforgettable one-liner, The Elements of Eloquence proves that you don't need to have anything to say - you simply need to say it well.
Bravo Mark Forsyth. I suspect I bought this as an Audible deal of the day. Whatever the origin story, there it was in my Audible library awaiting the right moment.
There's so much information in this book and it's all delivered with wit and panache. For example, did you know that multiple adjectives are always ranked accordingly: opinion, size, age, shape, colour, origin, material, purpose. It's a rule that every English speaker abides by, few know about, and yet we all do it instinctively. You can't say Green Jolly Giant, or My Greek Fat Big Wedding.
Likewise, when you create an order or words the vowels always follow a specific order: I, then A, then O. Hence it's never flop flip, hop hip, bosh bash bish etc.
Virtually all of the techniques have technical Greek or Latin names (polyptoton, merism, synaesthesia etc) however do not be put off by that. For those who enjoy words, phrases, meaning and trivia, this book is solid gold. At the book's conclusion you'll have been enthralled and you'll be better able to turn an elegant phrase.
4/5
The idiosyncratic, erudite and brilliantly funny new book from Mark Forsyth, bestselling author of The Etymologicon and The Horologicon.
In an age unhealthily obsessed with substance, this is a book on the importance of pure style.
From classic poetry to pop lyrics and from the King James Bible to advertising slogans, Mark Forsyth explains the secrets that make a phrase - such as ‘Tiger, tiger, burning bright’ or ‘To be or not to be’ - memorable.
In his inimitably entertaining and witty style he takes apart famous lines and shows how you too can write like Shakespeare or Oscar Wilde. Whether you’re aiming for literary immortality or just an unforgettable one-liner, The Elements of Eloquence proves that you don't need to have anything to say - you simply need to say it well.
October 9, 2016
Have you always wanted to write like Shakespeare? Or is reaching literary immortality your thing? If you have nothing of any note to say, but still want to have maximum effect in your prose then you need to learn the finer arts of rhetoric. In this expose of the one liner, Mark Forsythe details the way to write that will give you much more style than you thought possible. Its origins are Greek, who formulated the concepts; these were built on by the Romans, before the baton was handed to the English when they finally got around to their Renaissance. Beginning with the always alluring alliteration, he moves through merism, hyperbaton and diacope before asking some rhetorical questions and considers periodic sentences. It would not be complete without the fourteenth rule, nor elements of paradox or hyperbole…
I have read and loved the The Etymologicon and The Horologicon before so was really looking forward to this, and mostly it didn’t disappoint. I liked the way he expanded the 39 elements of rhetoric, moving neatly onto the next from the previous chapter. And it is very readable too, he has a knack of explaining things with the barest hint of wit and using examples that bring a smile to your face. Well worth reading, even if you haven’t got a degree in English!
I have read and loved the The Etymologicon and The Horologicon before so was really looking forward to this, and mostly it didn’t disappoint. I liked the way he expanded the 39 elements of rhetoric, moving neatly onto the next from the previous chapter. And it is very readable too, he has a knack of explaining things with the barest hint of wit and using examples that bring a smile to your face. Well worth reading, even if you haven’t got a degree in English!
December 29, 2015
“Who needs sense when you have alliteration?”
“So Shakespeare stole; but he did wonderful things with his plunder. He’s like somebody who nicks your old socks and then darns them.”
’there’s absolutely no point in historians getting indignant about language. It's never going to stop changing – they're trying to hold back the tide…’
The sheer witticism and timeless truism within Mark Forsyth’s writing, fashions a unique reading experience for a diverse readership. His edgy, original style cleverly draws upon both classic literature and contemporary culture. Incorporating song lyrics, prose and poetry with a sprinkling of notable nostalgia
Forsythe ingeniously takes a singular slant, without smothering the core essence of rhetorical usage in writing. His scrupulous analysis of proverbs and unfading sayings, accentuates an alternate angle of perception.
”Speak only if it improves upon the silence”
A must-read for any writer!
Read
July 15, 2017Very informative and extremely funny at points. It's basically an explanation of various rhetorical devices we all use in some ways, which used to be formalised and taught but no longer. Picked up a lot of interesting nuggets, and it's a very good way to make you consciously aware of what you're doing in writing and how effects are achieved.
January 2, 2020
“The figures of rhetoric are the beauties of all the poems we have ever read. Without them we would be merely us: eating, sleeping, manufacturing and dying. With them everything can be glorious. For though we have nothing to say, we can at least say it well.”
I had no idea that there were so many different types of rhetorical phrases. Seriously, there are so many. I learned a lot from The Elements of Eloquence, but I had fun while doing it. Some of these terms weren’t unfamiliar (alliteration hyperbole, personification), but most of them were completely new to me. (Epizeuxis, anyone? How about Zeugma? Anadiplosis?) There’s no way that I’ll remember them all, but thanks to the lovely TS who gifted me a copy of Forsyth’s book after having enjoyed it herself, I’ll always be able to look back and find them again.
“Rhetorical terminology is a catastrophe and a mess.”
This book is without a doubt the most entertaining grammatical work I’ve read. I love the various pop culture examples that Forsyth utilizes in each chapter. The phrases are so varied that all of the different examples used were very appreciated. I also love that he does his very best to not only bring in various examples of each phrase, but uses them himself in the writing of each chapter. What blows my mind is that every single one of these phrase types is something used and familiar. We use them often and without thinking. Gaining more knowledge about what these phrases are and why they work so well was very gratifying.
“The aim of this book has been to make clear what is done, a clarity and knowledge that has been abandoned for a couple of centuries now.”
I didn’t expect to enjoy a nonfiction work about rhetoric anywhere near as much as I did, but Forsyth is an incredibly amusing author. I enjoyed ending a decade and starting the next with him. I know far more than I did before I opened this book, even if I can’t manage to retain all of that knowledge.
November 25, 2013
I very much enjoyed Mark Forsyth's fluffy but inspiring earlier books on words, notably The Etymologicon, and his new title The Elements of Eloquence is equally enjoyable (and anything but a hard read). But it is also a book that makes you stop in your tracks. Because this stuff really matters.
Forsyth has revealed a startling truth that should have been obvious - in all those hours spent in English lessons we aren't taught how to write well. Yet there is a way to do this that has been around since the time of the ancient Greeks and that was, until it went out of fashion, a major part of the school curriculum - rhetoric.
Now, if you told me a couple of weeks ago that I would wax lyrical about a book on rhetoric, I would not have believed you. 'Rhetoric' just sounds really dull. As a subject, it sounds as if it would make politics look engaging. Yet, as Forsyth so ably demonstrates, rhetoric is simply the key tools and techniques of getting something across in words in a way that will catch the attention and engage the reader. Although originally aimed primarily at speeches, these techniques are equally important for the written word.
A couple of hundred years ago children were taught rhetoric - now we have to pick it up by osmosis as our English teachers rabbit on about 'what the author was feeling when she wrote this' or 'what the author really means.' How much more valuable to teach us 'what techniques and tricks the author is using to reel the reader in.'
Admittedly the whole field could do with a bit of a work over. If their science was anything to go by, I can't believe the ancient Greeks had the last word on rhetoric - there are probably key tools and techniques they weren't aware of. And the current terminology is horrendous. Forsyth points out that experts can't agree on what the rhetorical terms mean - but even if they could, many of them are obscure Greek words that are almost impossible to remember. If we were to teach rhetoric again, I'm sure we could come up with more memorable terms than aposiopesis, polysyndeton and epizeuxis (to name but three). But the fact remains that rhetoric is a treasury that most modern writers have never consciously explored - and our writing life would be much richer if they had. It's a brilliant conceit to do this, Mr Forsyth.
Is the book perfect? No. I find Forsyth's writing style a little too jovial and jokey, while some of the approaches he uses (cramming paragraphs full of the rhetorical technique covered by that chapter, and ending each chapter with an example of the next technique, for instance) are irritatingly clever-clever. For me, some of his examples of hendiadys just don't make sense (though to be fair, he says you can never really be sure this technique has been used.) But I can forgive anything for a book that has educated me more about the use of English than several years in English classes at school.
if writing were building construction, grammar and vocabulary would give us the raw materials and the basic skills to assemble them, but rhetoric provides the abilities of the architect. To write without an awareness of these tools and techniques is like expecting a bricklayer to create a cathedral. Anyone with the faintest interest in writing, or the English language, should be rushing out and buy this book.
Forsyth has revealed a startling truth that should have been obvious - in all those hours spent in English lessons we aren't taught how to write well. Yet there is a way to do this that has been around since the time of the ancient Greeks and that was, until it went out of fashion, a major part of the school curriculum - rhetoric.
Now, if you told me a couple of weeks ago that I would wax lyrical about a book on rhetoric, I would not have believed you. 'Rhetoric' just sounds really dull. As a subject, it sounds as if it would make politics look engaging. Yet, as Forsyth so ably demonstrates, rhetoric is simply the key tools and techniques of getting something across in words in a way that will catch the attention and engage the reader. Although originally aimed primarily at speeches, these techniques are equally important for the written word.
A couple of hundred years ago children were taught rhetoric - now we have to pick it up by osmosis as our English teachers rabbit on about 'what the author was feeling when she wrote this' or 'what the author really means.' How much more valuable to teach us 'what techniques and tricks the author is using to reel the reader in.'
Admittedly the whole field could do with a bit of a work over. If their science was anything to go by, I can't believe the ancient Greeks had the last word on rhetoric - there are probably key tools and techniques they weren't aware of. And the current terminology is horrendous. Forsyth points out that experts can't agree on what the rhetorical terms mean - but even if they could, many of them are obscure Greek words that are almost impossible to remember. If we were to teach rhetoric again, I'm sure we could come up with more memorable terms than aposiopesis, polysyndeton and epizeuxis (to name but three). But the fact remains that rhetoric is a treasury that most modern writers have never consciously explored - and our writing life would be much richer if they had. It's a brilliant conceit to do this, Mr Forsyth.
Is the book perfect? No. I find Forsyth's writing style a little too jovial and jokey, while some of the approaches he uses (cramming paragraphs full of the rhetorical technique covered by that chapter, and ending each chapter with an example of the next technique, for instance) are irritatingly clever-clever. For me, some of his examples of hendiadys just don't make sense (though to be fair, he says you can never really be sure this technique has been used.) But I can forgive anything for a book that has educated me more about the use of English than several years in English classes at school.
if writing were building construction, grammar and vocabulary would give us the raw materials and the basic skills to assemble them, but rhetoric provides the abilities of the architect. To write without an awareness of these tools and techniques is like expecting a bricklayer to create a cathedral. Anyone with the faintest interest in writing, or the English language, should be rushing out and buy this book.
July 20, 2020
Wondrous word wit Mark Forsyth, who gave us such books as THE HOROLOGICON and THE ETYMOLOGICON, outdid himself with THE ELEMENTS OF ELOQUENCE, that deals not with individual words but entire figures of speech. Its thirty-nine chapters include fairly common tropes like alliteration ("wondrous word wit"), but also intermediate-level goodies like metonymy and synechdoche, all the way up to high-level definitions like pleonasm ("the use of unneeded words") and tricolon, the linking of triples ("sun, surf and sex").
This guy's humor is amazing. Here's where we learn that even the most secular poem in iambic pentameter can be sung to the tune of "O Little Town of Bethlehem," like:
The time has come, the Walrus said, to talk of many things /
Of shoes -- and ships -- and sealing-wax -- of cabbages and kings (p. 111, UK ed.).
Not all the old tropes work so well: "Poor zeugma!," the author opines. "So elegant in the classical world! So silly in ours! Like a toga." In other cases, even the most obscure figures of speech are going strong. Like Leonard Cohen's song "Hallelujah," with its startling second line: "You saw her bathing on the roof / her beauty and the moonlight overthrew you." That use of "and the moonlight" instead of "in the moonlight" is called hendiadys, by the way.
Hendiadys. Tricolon. Enallage ("a deliberate grammatical mistake"). Litotes and Paradox and Congeries, and so on. This is a must-read for people who care about our language, want to learn more, and have a great time doing so.
This guy's humor is amazing. Here's where we learn that even the most secular poem in iambic pentameter can be sung to the tune of "O Little Town of Bethlehem," like:
The time has come, the Walrus said, to talk of many things /
Of shoes -- and ships -- and sealing-wax -- of cabbages and kings (p. 111, UK ed.).
Not all the old tropes work so well: "Poor zeugma!," the author opines. "So elegant in the classical world! So silly in ours! Like a toga." In other cases, even the most obscure figures of speech are going strong. Like Leonard Cohen's song "Hallelujah," with its startling second line: "You saw her bathing on the roof / her beauty and the moonlight overthrew you." That use of "and the moonlight" instead of "in the moonlight" is called hendiadys, by the way.
Hendiadys. Tricolon. Enallage ("a deliberate grammatical mistake"). Litotes and Paradox and Congeries, and so on. This is a must-read for people who care about our language, want to learn more, and have a great time doing so.
January 18, 2017
This a pithy, witty little book which benefits and suffers from its constricting format. While it sets itself up as a guidebook to "how to turn the perfect English phrase" it´s really an explanation of the different classical terms used in rhetoric. Some names, like hyperbole, are familiar, while most are not.
Forsythe´s strength is his sense of clarity in explaining and demonstrating use of the terms and also his sense of humour, which is lively and genuinely funny. The book suffers, though, from its tiresome structure - short, punchy chapters linked by a similiar teaser at the end of each - which quickly becomes tiresome.
It makes a short book seem long and turns what might have flowed like a great river into a series of jerky rapids.
Forsythe´s strength is his sense of clarity in explaining and demonstrating use of the terms and also his sense of humour, which is lively and genuinely funny. The book suffers, though, from its tiresome structure - short, punchy chapters linked by a similiar teaser at the end of each - which quickly becomes tiresome.
It makes a short book seem long and turns what might have flowed like a great river into a series of jerky rapids.
October 11, 2023
I find I like it less and less the more I think about it. I will likely keep this book on my shelves because I tend to hoard books on writing, but I am not sure I can recommend it. Frequently, dear readers, Forsyth is wrong.
Forsyth borrows from others' research and then overstates with satire and sarcasm and perhaps people mistake that for wit, originality, and genuine scholarship. The Introduction is entertaining and very funny and I suspect that is all most reviewers have read. Forsyth continues to be amusing, but despite his much-lauded research, there are slips. He has chosen mostly obscure devices to play with. Perhaps he hopes to avoid argumentative people like me, picking at his declarations. However, the author often makes broad claims that seem to be, as Twain might say, stretchers.
For example, in his first chapter "Alliteration," he cites a passage from Shakespeare's Anthony and Cleopatra that describes Cleopatra on her barge. He insists "There is no possible way that Shakespeare didn't have [Thomas North's 1579 translation of Plutarch's Lives of the Nobel Greeks and Romans] open on his desk while he was writing" and that "All [Shakespeare] did was add some alliteration" (8).
Well. Really? First, Forsyth cannot help dragging out the old line about Shakespeare having "small Latin and less Greek." What Shakespeare had was a grammar school education centered on those languages—years of them. I had two years of Latin in high school, likely far less rigorous than any two of Shakespeare's years, and I can still pick out words forty years later. It is quite possible that Shakespeare could have made his own labored translation of the Greek that would have done for his purposes. Whether he did or not is another question. He could have done without North. (I see no evidence that Forsyth has any Greek or Latin at all, btw. His work seems based primarily of others' research. He adds humor and pop references.)
Assume he used the English version by North. How much of North did he use? There are eight verbs in the passage quoted from North. Shakespeare seems to have used only "was." (I would have taken "disdained.") Of nouns, he had sixteen and took "she, barge, poop, sails, stroke ['kept stroke'], flutes." So not half, including the pronoun. Perhaps I missed a few.
Forsyth also missed some things in claiming that all Shakespeare did was add alliteration and ignore most of the instruments being played.
Shakespeare added language, line breaks, and music of his own. Yes, the oars are still silver, but while North used repetition of noun followed by a descriptor: "the poop whereof was of gold, the sails of purple, the oars of silver . . . the sound of the music of flutes, howboys, zitherns, viols, and such other instruments as they played up on the barge." Shakespeare's "poop was beaten gold; / Purple the sails and so perfumed that / The winds were lovesick with them; the oars were silver, / Which to the tune of flutes kept stroke . . ." North's "the sound of the music of flute . . ." would have most editors reaching for a pen to cross out either "sound of" or "music of." Thank goodness the "whereof was" is gone.
Though I grant Shakespeare's poetry added alliteration, it also includes full rhyme, rhythm, assonance . . . other details entirely missing from North including her "burnished throne" and that "perfume" above. Shakespeare might very well have used North, but his contribution was not merely the addition of a single literary device. (Granted, Forsyth doesn't think much of assonance or seem to understand the concept of slanted rhyme.)
The probable source of Forsyth's North/Shakespeare connection, other than school, might be the Royal Shakespeare Company's website which cites a more complete and convincing "most well-known" passage but also concedes that Shakespeare made "significant changes" to his source material. This was in 2006. https://www.rsc.org.uk/antony-and-cle...
I found that if I only took one chapter each evening, I was less likely to run around looking up his stretchers. But I have to say that he absolutely failed to convince me that when Wilde wrote: "All women become like their mothers. That is their tragedy. No man does, and that is his" what he meant was "Why is it that your girlfriend's mother is always so annoying but your male friends' mothers are always lovely?" Paradoxes aside, Forsyth misses the point rather badly.
His trick of using a device in the last paragraph to introduce it for the next loses some of it's appeal after 30 or 40 repetitions. And then he uses a device several times in the first paragraph. He concedes that paradox is difficult to define and then fails to even try. Sometimes he explains how to pronounce a term, sometimes not. He provides a guide to pronouncing hyperbole ( hi-PER-boh-lee) though he also acknowledges it "is one of the few Greek rhetorical terms that absolutely every knows." Why not a little help with diacope or anadoplosis? Sigh.
I took off a star for Forsyth's overreaching—this undermines his overall credibility. If you enjoy knowing what things are called—the official titles of devices you use without naming them (I do)—and how they function, this will be an entertaining read. Take it with a grain of salt. [There must be another name for use of idiom, but I have not found it here. This book has no index, a detail I always feel counts in nonfiction and cost the review another star.] It also states as absolute fact many interpretations that are weak at best so I am inclined to take off another star for pure arrogance and for his absurd contention that Shakespeare was writing devices rather than plays and because he seems not to have done much primary research. He stitches together the revelations of others.
My favorite chapter is on personification where he makes the distinction between non-personification such as "duty calls" and the real deal. He is not actually as clear about the distinction as I might have wished, but he does better in this chapter than most.
Looking back at this review seven years later, I am only perplexed that I gave it two entire stars.
Forsyth borrows from others' research and then overstates with satire and sarcasm and perhaps people mistake that for wit, originality, and genuine scholarship. The Introduction is entertaining and very funny and I suspect that is all most reviewers have read. Forsyth continues to be amusing, but despite his much-lauded research, there are slips. He has chosen mostly obscure devices to play with. Perhaps he hopes to avoid argumentative people like me, picking at his declarations. However, the author often makes broad claims that seem to be, as Twain might say, stretchers.
For example, in his first chapter "Alliteration," he cites a passage from Shakespeare's Anthony and Cleopatra that describes Cleopatra on her barge. He insists "There is no possible way that Shakespeare didn't have [Thomas North's 1579 translation of Plutarch's Lives of the Nobel Greeks and Romans] open on his desk while he was writing" and that "All [Shakespeare] did was add some alliteration" (8).
Well. Really? First, Forsyth cannot help dragging out the old line about Shakespeare having "small Latin and less Greek." What Shakespeare had was a grammar school education centered on those languages—years of them. I had two years of Latin in high school, likely far less rigorous than any two of Shakespeare's years, and I can still pick out words forty years later. It is quite possible that Shakespeare could have made his own labored translation of the Greek that would have done for his purposes. Whether he did or not is another question. He could have done without North. (I see no evidence that Forsyth has any Greek or Latin at all, btw. His work seems based primarily of others' research. He adds humor and pop references.)
Assume he used the English version by North. How much of North did he use? There are eight verbs in the passage quoted from North. Shakespeare seems to have used only "was." (I would have taken "disdained.") Of nouns, he had sixteen and took "she, barge, poop, sails, stroke ['kept stroke'], flutes." So not half, including the pronoun. Perhaps I missed a few.
Forsyth also missed some things in claiming that all Shakespeare did was add alliteration and ignore most of the instruments being played.
Shakespeare added language, line breaks, and music of his own. Yes, the oars are still silver, but while North used repetition of noun followed by a descriptor: "the poop whereof was of gold, the sails of purple, the oars of silver . . . the sound of the music of flutes, howboys, zitherns, viols, and such other instruments as they played up on the barge." Shakespeare's "poop was beaten gold; / Purple the sails and so perfumed that / The winds were lovesick with them; the oars were silver, / Which to the tune of flutes kept stroke . . ." North's "the sound of the music of flute . . ." would have most editors reaching for a pen to cross out either "sound of" or "music of." Thank goodness the "whereof was" is gone.
Though I grant Shakespeare's poetry added alliteration, it also includes full rhyme, rhythm, assonance . . . other details entirely missing from North including her "burnished throne" and that "perfume" above. Shakespeare might very well have used North, but his contribution was not merely the addition of a single literary device. (Granted, Forsyth doesn't think much of assonance or seem to understand the concept of slanted rhyme.)
The probable source of Forsyth's North/Shakespeare connection, other than school, might be the Royal Shakespeare Company's website which cites a more complete and convincing "most well-known" passage but also concedes that Shakespeare made "significant changes" to his source material. This was in 2006. https://www.rsc.org.uk/antony-and-cle...
I found that if I only took one chapter each evening, I was less likely to run around looking up his stretchers. But I have to say that he absolutely failed to convince me that when Wilde wrote: "All women become like their mothers. That is their tragedy. No man does, and that is his" what he meant was "Why is it that your girlfriend's mother is always so annoying but your male friends' mothers are always lovely?" Paradoxes aside, Forsyth misses the point rather badly.
His trick of using a device in the last paragraph to introduce it for the next loses some of it's appeal after 30 or 40 repetitions. And then he uses a device several times in the first paragraph. He concedes that paradox is difficult to define and then fails to even try. Sometimes he explains how to pronounce a term, sometimes not. He provides a guide to pronouncing hyperbole ( hi-PER-boh-lee) though he also acknowledges it "is one of the few Greek rhetorical terms that absolutely every knows." Why not a little help with diacope or anadoplosis? Sigh.
I took off a star for Forsyth's overreaching—this undermines his overall credibility. If you enjoy knowing what things are called—the official titles of devices you use without naming them (I do)—and how they function, this will be an entertaining read. Take it with a grain of salt. [There must be another name for use of idiom, but I have not found it here. This book has no index, a detail I always feel counts in nonfiction and cost the review another star.] It also states as absolute fact many interpretations that are weak at best so I am inclined to take off another star for pure arrogance and for his absurd contention that Shakespeare was writing devices rather than plays and because he seems not to have done much primary research. He stitches together the revelations of others.
My favorite chapter is on personification where he makes the distinction between non-personification such as "duty calls" and the real deal. He is not actually as clear about the distinction as I might have wished, but he does better in this chapter than most.
Looking back at this review seven years later, I am only perplexed that I gave it two entire stars.
October 3, 2019
I love how this often shows the boring way to write something next to the more memorable way. And the author uses a lot of the 'tricks'/'tools' in his exposition, just to show that you don't need to be Shakespeare or George Lucas to be able to write engagingly.
I'd like to be able to use this book in reverse. I'd like to be able to consider more carefully how authors work their magic in books that I consider well-written. I can see alliteration, because that's one of the elements of rhetoric we did learn in public school. But generally (as you know if you read my reviews), I'm reduced to declaiming "I don't know the author worked the magic, but this is so effortlessly graceful, so lucid and yet so beautiful...." Well, Forsyth's point is that it is *not* magic.
Many bookdarts. Too many for 'fair use?' Let's start typing them in and see....
Rhetoric... includes logic (or the kind of sloppy logic most people understand, called enthymemes)....
It was Moses' wife who said "stranger in a strange land" (a polyptoton).
"Quaquaversally" means "in every direction."
"Merism searches for wholes, and leaves holes" which is why lawyerese has lists but also says "including but not limited to."
Synaesthesia is also a figure of rhetoric, one used to create metaphors. What's interesting is that there are habits of which two sense are being related, for example visual impressions can be used to describe auditory stimuli, like a 'bright clang.' I'd love to see someone reverse the use of the senses in "the warm color of a painting" for example... 'blue with cold' doesn't quite cut it because it's drawn from the literal fact that if we're cold we do turn bluish. Can anyone improve on the line by Raymond Chandler, "She smelled the way the Taj Mahal looks by moonlight?" For that matter, can anyone describe an abstract noun, for example, 'victory,' by what it looks, sounds, or tastes like?
Anadiplosis is a neat trick, can even be used by non-fiction writers. Consider St. Paul's: "We glory in tribulations also, knowing that tribulations worketh patience, and patience, experience, and experience, hope, and hope maketh man not ashamed."
(Just took a peek at the author's "Inky Fool" blog and learned "Lind is Linden tree (or lime tree as we usually call it). " I'd been wondering how citrus grew in England.... A little further research reveals that it's also called basswood, which is a tree I've heard of in the US.)
Wherefore actually means why. Juliet is frustrated because she's discovered that the young man who stole her heart is from that rival family.
Tricolons are so effective that longer lists are remembered in truncated versions. Consider the original: "the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short" to the well-known truncation.
"[A]napaests and dactyls are the nursery rhyme feet."
Chiasmus: like a palindrome, but with larger units (adj. noun noun adj.) or (time activity activity time) such as 'By day the frolic and the dance by night.' Or even by vowel sounds, such as 'In Xanadu did Kubla Khan.'
Adynaton: insufficiently defined by Forsyth, but a terrific example includes the line 'break a hurricane to harness' and can be found in all its glory here: https://books.google.com/books?id=KOI... (Exasperatingly, I had to look that up myself. Fortunately it wasn't difficult. Some of his other references are more elusive.)
No index or notes are major flaws that decrease the likelihood that I'll actually buy this... even though I do want it, as indicated above, to help me understand what tools my favorite writers use.
I'd like to be able to use this book in reverse. I'd like to be able to consider more carefully how authors work their magic in books that I consider well-written. I can see alliteration, because that's one of the elements of rhetoric we did learn in public school. But generally (as you know if you read my reviews), I'm reduced to declaiming "I don't know the author worked the magic, but this is so effortlessly graceful, so lucid and yet so beautiful...." Well, Forsyth's point is that it is *not* magic.
Many bookdarts. Too many for 'fair use?' Let's start typing them in and see....
Rhetoric... includes logic (or the kind of sloppy logic most people understand, called enthymemes)....
It was Moses' wife who said "stranger in a strange land" (a polyptoton).
"Quaquaversally" means "in every direction."
"Merism searches for wholes, and leaves holes" which is why lawyerese has lists but also says "including but not limited to."
Synaesthesia is also a figure of rhetoric, one used to create metaphors. What's interesting is that there are habits of which two sense are being related, for example visual impressions can be used to describe auditory stimuli, like a 'bright clang.' I'd love to see someone reverse the use of the senses in "the warm color of a painting" for example... 'blue with cold' doesn't quite cut it because it's drawn from the literal fact that if we're cold we do turn bluish. Can anyone improve on the line by Raymond Chandler, "She smelled the way the Taj Mahal looks by moonlight?" For that matter, can anyone describe an abstract noun, for example, 'victory,' by what it looks, sounds, or tastes like?
Anadiplosis is a neat trick, can even be used by non-fiction writers. Consider St. Paul's: "We glory in tribulations also, knowing that tribulations worketh patience, and patience, experience, and experience, hope, and hope maketh man not ashamed."
(Just took a peek at the author's "Inky Fool" blog and learned "Lind is Linden tree (or lime tree as we usually call it). " I'd been wondering how citrus grew in England.... A little further research reveals that it's also called basswood, which is a tree I've heard of in the US.)
Wherefore actually means why. Juliet is frustrated because she's discovered that the young man who stole her heart is from that rival family.
Tricolons are so effective that longer lists are remembered in truncated versions. Consider the original: "the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short" to the well-known truncation.
"[A]napaests and dactyls are the nursery rhyme feet."
Chiasmus: like a palindrome, but with larger units (adj. noun noun adj.) or (time activity activity time) such as 'By day the frolic and the dance by night.' Or even by vowel sounds, such as 'In Xanadu did Kubla Khan.'
Adynaton: insufficiently defined by Forsyth, but a terrific example includes the line 'break a hurricane to harness' and can be found in all its glory here: https://books.google.com/books?id=KOI... (Exasperatingly, I had to look that up myself. Fortunately it wasn't difficult. Some of his other references are more elusive.)
No index or notes are major flaws that decrease the likelihood that I'll actually buy this... even though I do want it, as indicated above, to help me understand what tools my favorite writers use.
March 11, 2016
Marvelous! For a writer like me, without a formal writing education and largely self-taught, this book is a must. It talks about the rules of rhetoric – the rules for creating a memorable phrase. A writer must follow those rules, those rigid formulas, if she wants her writing to sound good, to invoke emotions, to inspire convictions. Those rules are called figures of rhetoric.
Forsyth explains the rules in simple words, not once resorting to the incomprehensible linguistic vernacular. Well, except for their Greek or Latin names, but they surely don’t count.
He offers tons of examples, many of them from Shakespeare and other classics. He examines the history of those rules and their usage over the centuries, from ancient Greeks and the Bible to now. He shows that those rules can be learned. It doesn’t take a genius. It takes determination and practice. I can learn those rules. So can you, and the knowledge makes them less scary. In a way, this book is a DIY of beautiful writing.
Once upon a time, rhetoric was a part of classic education. Every gentleman had to learn it, together with Latin and Greek. Alas, no more. Most schoolchildren nowadays don’t even know the meaning of the word ‘rhetoric’, much less its rules. Most young writers don’t know them either, and the result is a flood of badly written books we all waddle through to get to the rare gems.
Forsyth’s book is written in a language so exquisite, so delicious, it made me weep with joy. The author knows his English. Oh, yes, he does! I wish most fiction writers were as good with their English as he is with his. I wish I was.
His erudition is overwhelming, his research deep and persuasive, and his irreverent repartees and mocking little asides extremely amusing. I laughed aloud, I chuckled, I giggled. I enjoyed myself tremendously while reading this book.
I even used some of the rules of rhetoric in this review.
The book is immensely quotable, but I can’t retype here all his text – that would be plagiarism – so I will give you only a small selection, a whiff of the author’s wit, to whet your appetite. (Alliteration is one of the rules of rhetoric. Hooray!)
About the rule of Blazon:
Forsyth explains the rules in simple words, not once resorting to the incomprehensible linguistic vernacular. Well, except for their Greek or Latin names, but they surely don’t count.
He offers tons of examples, many of them from Shakespeare and other classics. He examines the history of those rules and their usage over the centuries, from ancient Greeks and the Bible to now. He shows that those rules can be learned. It doesn’t take a genius. It takes determination and practice. I can learn those rules. So can you, and the knowledge makes them less scary. In a way, this book is a DIY of beautiful writing.
Once upon a time, rhetoric was a part of classic education. Every gentleman had to learn it, together with Latin and Greek. Alas, no more. Most schoolchildren nowadays don’t even know the meaning of the word ‘rhetoric’, much less its rules. Most young writers don’t know them either, and the result is a flood of badly written books we all waddle through to get to the rare gems.
Forsyth’s book is written in a language so exquisite, so delicious, it made me weep with joy. The author knows his English. Oh, yes, he does! I wish most fiction writers were as good with their English as he is with his. I wish I was.
His erudition is overwhelming, his research deep and persuasive, and his irreverent repartees and mocking little asides extremely amusing. I laughed aloud, I chuckled, I giggled. I enjoyed myself tremendously while reading this book.
I even used some of the rules of rhetoric in this review.
The book is immensely quotable, but I can’t retype here all his text – that would be plagiarism – so I will give you only a small selection, a whiff of the author’s wit, to whet your appetite. (Alliteration is one of the rules of rhetoric. Hooray!)
About the rule of Blazon:
When healthy people fall in love, they buy a bunch of flowers or an engagement ring and go and Do Something About It. When poets fall in love, they make a list of their loved one’s body parts and attach similes to them. Your lips are like cherries, your hair is like gold, and your eyes are like traffic lights that make my heart stop and go. These lists are almost universally awkward.About the rule of Tricolon [a list of three]:
Tricolons sound great if the third thing is longer. The American way is (as outlined in their mutinous Declaration of Independence) made up of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The pursuit of happiness is, if you think about it, the least of the promises here. You can pursue happiness as much as you like, and most of us do anyway. It rarely ends in capture. Life and liberty were the more important guarantees. But it sounds so good when you go on a bit at the end.Recommended to anyone who likes English.
December 18, 2020
Although I’ve been writing professionally for 48 years, there’s always more to learn about writing. That’s why I read this book: to learn the “secrets of the perfect turn of phrase.”
Author Mark Forsyth opens the preface by saying, “Shakespeare was not a genius.” Instead, he says, Shakespeare learned how to write well, and we can see his growth in writing skills between his early and his later plays. In particular, Shakespeare learned to use figures of rhetoric. The Bard of Avon isn’t the only one who has been using turns of phrase to good advantage, either. Other authors, songwriters of all kinds, and speech writers use the same techniques.
Forsyth goes on to explain 39 different figures of speech. I already knew some of them, like alliteration and personification. Some of the others, like epistrophe and chiasmus, I recognized the moment I saw them, but I’ve never thought deeply about them and how to use them well.
Although Forsyth’s writing is full of jokes and fun, I read the book in one brief chapter per day. Lessons, like strong spirits, are best drunk in sips. I’ll keep the book for reference, too. Most of all, I hope to write a little better — with a little more intentional rhetorical flourish. If it worked for Shakespeare, it might work for me.
Author Mark Forsyth opens the preface by saying, “Shakespeare was not a genius.” Instead, he says, Shakespeare learned how to write well, and we can see his growth in writing skills between his early and his later plays. In particular, Shakespeare learned to use figures of rhetoric. The Bard of Avon isn’t the only one who has been using turns of phrase to good advantage, either. Other authors, songwriters of all kinds, and speech writers use the same techniques.
Forsyth goes on to explain 39 different figures of speech. I already knew some of them, like alliteration and personification. Some of the others, like epistrophe and chiasmus, I recognized the moment I saw them, but I’ve never thought deeply about them and how to use them well.
Although Forsyth’s writing is full of jokes and fun, I read the book in one brief chapter per day. Lessons, like strong spirits, are best drunk in sips. I’ll keep the book for reference, too. Most of all, I hope to write a little better — with a little more intentional rhetorical flourish. If it worked for Shakespeare, it might work for me.
January 14, 2014
As a writer, I’m interested in the technical information in the book - how some of the best authors in history utilized these building blocks called the figures of rhetoric in their craft. He doesn’t explain every figure in existence — just some of the ones more commonly used. What’s great about this book is how the author provides specific examples from classic literature.
Aside from the fascinating content, what makes this book unique is the engaging manner in which it’s written. Forsyth makes learning about the figures of speech fun and entertaining. He cracks jokes and doesn’t take himself or the language too seriously.
If you’re a word nerd, purveyor of prose, or literature lover, such as myself, then you should check out this book. Note: I just used several of the elements of rhetoric in that last sentence, but I won’t tell you which ones or how many. You’ll have to read the book for yourself to figure it out!
Note: More complete review heret
Aside from the fascinating content, what makes this book unique is the engaging manner in which it’s written. Forsyth makes learning about the figures of speech fun and entertaining. He cracks jokes and doesn’t take himself or the language too seriously.
If you’re a word nerd, purveyor of prose, or literature lover, such as myself, then you should check out this book. Note: I just used several of the elements of rhetoric in that last sentence, but I won’t tell you which ones or how many. You’ll have to read the book for yourself to figure it out!
Note: More complete review heret
July 4, 2014
THE SHORT
The Elements of Eloquence is a cleverly crafted book about the English language, that both amuses and enlightens. Forsyth's writing is witty and humorous, and I loved that he often implemented the language techniques he was describing and discussing. In addition to these aspects, creating such fluidity between the chapters makes this a really interesting read that many readers and writers could appreciate and learn from.
THE LONG
Video Review: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jfBF...
The Elements of Eloquence is a cleverly crafted book about the English language, that both amuses and enlightens. Forsyth's writing is witty and humorous, and I loved that he often implemented the language techniques he was describing and discussing. In addition to these aspects, creating such fluidity between the chapters makes this a really interesting read that many readers and writers could appreciate and learn from.
THE LONG
Video Review: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jfBF...
July 12, 2022
It is commonly thought that writers trade in words, but vocabulary does not a wordsmith make. In truth, phrases are the basic unit of writing, and it's hard to imagine a better guide to phraseology than Forsyth's Elements of Eloquence. Its brief chapters (curated, one imagines, from the author's blog the Inky Fool), each cleverly constructed so that the final example of each rhetorical devices doubles as an introduction to the next, offer concise deconstructions of each device and explanations of why they resonate in the ear (or eye). Shot with humor and riddled with in-print examples from just about every era of English history, Elements of Eloquence carries Forsyth's entertaining manner of direct address and fun-poking so well, it almost obscures the level of scholarly obsession he brings to his subject. Almost.
An indispensable read-and-reference for writers and analysts of language; recommended reading as young as a budding writer's mind can attend to it. Some familiarity with the classics (Greek, Latin, and English) will help, as will a broad vocabulary, but they're not required. This book carries its own education.
An indispensable read-and-reference for writers and analysts of language; recommended reading as young as a budding writer's mind can attend to it. Some familiarity with the classics (Greek, Latin, and English) will help, as will a broad vocabulary, but they're not required. This book carries its own education.
May 23, 2021
BOOKSTAGRAM | BOOK BLOG | AMAZON
I listen to this via audiobook. This was such a great nonfiction book to listen to though it took me almost 2 1/2 months to finish it it was so worth it to listen to it in small doses. It’s awesome to learn how the English language came about and how William Shakespeare is like the GOAT. It was also nice to finally put a word to certain things that I would be saying like all words that start with the letter B has a word for it all words that rhyme have a certain word for it it’s very interesting. Half the fun of the book is figuring out what these “words” are which are grouped by chapters.
I listen to this via audiobook. This was such a great nonfiction book to listen to though it took me almost 2 1/2 months to finish it it was so worth it to listen to it in small doses. It’s awesome to learn how the English language came about and how William Shakespeare is like the GOAT. It was also nice to finally put a word to certain things that I would be saying like all words that start with the letter B has a word for it all words that rhyme have a certain word for it it’s very interesting. Half the fun of the book is figuring out what these “words” are which are grouped by chapters.
November 19, 2013
The Elements of Eloquence; its very title an example of the first chapter’s rhetoric, alliteration. This charming little book from the man who brought you The Etymologicon and The Horologicon reveals the secrets of all great poets (and songwriters) with tongue firmly in cheek. Whilst we all learned about alliteration at school, the rest of rhetoric has been thrown out with the bathwater.
Before the Romantics came along, the figures of rhetoric were studied extensively and used by the likes of Shakespeare to make some of the greatest lines in literary history. Shakespeare was not a genius, he just learned what makes words sound good and memorable. And that is where this book sets off, picking apart poems, songs and political speeches (but don’t worry, only tiny bits of them) and pointing out what technique makes them work. All in a friendly, and at times amusing, tone.
Whilst it’s a book that can be dipped into now and then, the chapter structure tricks you into reading more than you intended. There are 39 chapters, to deal with 39 figures of rhetoric. Each example ends with an example of the next term. So one chapter ends:
“Striking down and blind” is, by the way, an example of syllepsis.
And, of course, the next chapter is syllepsis so you think you might as well spend a few more minutes finding out what that is and next thing you know, it’s the middle of the night and you’ve finished the whole book.
I actually tried writing a review in poetry using all the techniques but it started to get a bit silly:
The Elements of Eloquence, an entertaining endeavour.
Book yourself in for a weekend alone with this book.
Read these words; read to be educated and read to chuckle.
I wonder…
Read, I tell you, read!
You see where that was going. But I did fit in alliteration, polyptoton, antithesis, aposiopesis and diacope. The personification in iambic pentameter didn’t make the cut… I’m not a natural at poetry but after reading this book, it’s become a lot easier to see why some poems, and quotes, work better than others.
One thing I did learn, it that I’ve been using ellipsis all wrong. I don’t think anyone noticed though.
If you enjoyed Mark Forsyth’s other books, you’re bound to enjoy this one and it’s the perfect gift for any word geeks. Although if you’ve got a PhD in English language, you may already know a lot of this, but I would hope it’s still got enough enjoyment factor to it. I think it could also have its place in the classroom. There should be room for learning to be fun too
Before the Romantics came along, the figures of rhetoric were studied extensively and used by the likes of Shakespeare to make some of the greatest lines in literary history. Shakespeare was not a genius, he just learned what makes words sound good and memorable. And that is where this book sets off, picking apart poems, songs and political speeches (but don’t worry, only tiny bits of them) and pointing out what technique makes them work. All in a friendly, and at times amusing, tone.
Whilst it’s a book that can be dipped into now and then, the chapter structure tricks you into reading more than you intended. There are 39 chapters, to deal with 39 figures of rhetoric. Each example ends with an example of the next term. So one chapter ends:
“Striking down and blind” is, by the way, an example of syllepsis.
And, of course, the next chapter is syllepsis so you think you might as well spend a few more minutes finding out what that is and next thing you know, it’s the middle of the night and you’ve finished the whole book.
I actually tried writing a review in poetry using all the techniques but it started to get a bit silly:
The Elements of Eloquence, an entertaining endeavour.
Book yourself in for a weekend alone with this book.
Read these words; read to be educated and read to chuckle.
I wonder…
Read, I tell you, read!
You see where that was going. But I did fit in alliteration, polyptoton, antithesis, aposiopesis and diacope. The personification in iambic pentameter didn’t make the cut… I’m not a natural at poetry but after reading this book, it’s become a lot easier to see why some poems, and quotes, work better than others.
One thing I did learn, it that I’ve been using ellipsis all wrong. I don’t think anyone noticed though.
If you enjoyed Mark Forsyth’s other books, you’re bound to enjoy this one and it’s the perfect gift for any word geeks. Although if you’ve got a PhD in English language, you may already know a lot of this, but I would hope it’s still got enough enjoyment factor to it. I think it could also have its place in the classroom. There should be room for learning to be fun too
January 22, 2019
My father bought me Mark Forsyth's valuable little book of thirty-nine rhetorical devices. I am sure that it has helped me with my writing style, even though I have not deliberately employed any of them.
It starts with a very familiar example: alliteration.
I adore alliteration, but it is possible to overdo it, and there is even a term for that appalling affliction.
The cleverest aspect of this book, in my humble opinion, is that each chapter flows naturally into the next. A chapter will typically conclude with a possible example of the rhetorical device which has been discussed in that chapter, but is actually an example of the tool which will be discussed in the next.
I am pleased that there will be no test of the terminology used in this book, because I could not possibly remember them all. Nor could I remember what the names mean without reference to the book.
There were times when I felt a bit overwhelmed. Perhaps the content is too intellectually challenging for me. Or maybe I was suffering from information overload at the time.
The Elements of Eloquence: How to Turn the Perfect English Phrase is a book that I shall keep close at hand, and I'll be referring to it whenever I am stuck for writing inspiration.
It starts with a very familiar example: alliteration.
I adore alliteration, but it is possible to overdo it, and there is even a term for that appalling affliction.
The cleverest aspect of this book, in my humble opinion, is that each chapter flows naturally into the next. A chapter will typically conclude with a possible example of the rhetorical device which has been discussed in that chapter, but is actually an example of the tool which will be discussed in the next.
I am pleased that there will be no test of the terminology used in this book, because I could not possibly remember them all. Nor could I remember what the names mean without reference to the book.
There were times when I felt a bit overwhelmed. Perhaps the content is too intellectually challenging for me. Or maybe I was suffering from information overload at the time.
The Elements of Eloquence: How to Turn the Perfect English Phrase is a book that I shall keep close at hand, and I'll be referring to it whenever I am stuck for writing inspiration.
August 29, 2022
This is frightfully clever, maybe ingenious. I have read several books about figures of speech and this is the best one: clear, witty, practical, encouraging.
One thing off with the audio version is that I feel like the narrator should have had an English accent, not American.
One thing off with the audio version is that I feel like the narrator should have had an English accent, not American.
July 7, 2017
Entertaining and informative. I doubt you will come away from this book fully understanding rhetoric, but it will make you much more aware of it - at least it has for me - and that is a good place to start.
If you don't write or want to make impressive speeches this may be if marginal interest, but many will find the authors writing style amusing, if occasionally a little smug.
If you don't write or want to make impressive speeches this may be if marginal interest, but many will find the authors writing style amusing, if occasionally a little smug.
October 9, 2017
A fun and engaging book about rhetorical figures. There's a sentence I never thought I'd type.
The Elements of Eloquence by Mark Forsyth takes the reader, one chapter at a time, through the individual techniques that deliver emotional power to language. Technically these are called rhetorical figures, and they include ones we're all familiar with, such as alliteration (the use of the same first letter or sound in multiple words in a sentence) to more obscure ones such as scesis onomaton (a sentence without verbs).
Okay, that probably didn't sound incredibly compelling.
What's unusual about The Elements of Eloquence is that does three things incredibly well: it makes these rhetorical techniques easy to understand, it does so in an entertaining way, and along the way you find yourself learning some remarkably interesting anecdotes about writers from Shakespeare to the Beatles. Just read the opening chapter's reveal of how Shakespeare stole large tracts of his Anthonie and Cleopatra from Plutarch – and the major difference between the two versions is found in the rhetorical figures he used to rewrite Plutarch's paragraphs – and you find yourself both marvelling at Shakespeare's cheek in so blatantly ripping of another's text but also the power that quite simple rhetorical techniques have in making Shakespeare's version so much more compelling.
That, is really the power of Forsyth's book on rhetoric: he demonstrates so effectively that the modern notion of "economical writing" is nowhere near as powerful as we think it is. Rhetoric used to be a required subject – in fact, one of the few that people were expected to learn with precision. The Elements of Eloquence delivers a fascinating exploration of a subject that many of us missed out on.
The bite-sized delivery (each chapter takes less than ten minutes to read and is complete in and of itself), skillful explanations and entertaining voice combine to make The Elements of Eloquence a wonderful book for both writers and readers who want a sense of why some passages in literature and poetry have such a powerful influence on us.
The Elements of Eloquence by Mark Forsyth takes the reader, one chapter at a time, through the individual techniques that deliver emotional power to language. Technically these are called rhetorical figures, and they include ones we're all familiar with, such as alliteration (the use of the same first letter or sound in multiple words in a sentence) to more obscure ones such as scesis onomaton (a sentence without verbs).
Okay, that probably didn't sound incredibly compelling.
What's unusual about The Elements of Eloquence is that does three things incredibly well: it makes these rhetorical techniques easy to understand, it does so in an entertaining way, and along the way you find yourself learning some remarkably interesting anecdotes about writers from Shakespeare to the Beatles. Just read the opening chapter's reveal of how Shakespeare stole large tracts of his Anthonie and Cleopatra from Plutarch – and the major difference between the two versions is found in the rhetorical figures he used to rewrite Plutarch's paragraphs – and you find yourself both marvelling at Shakespeare's cheek in so blatantly ripping of another's text but also the power that quite simple rhetorical techniques have in making Shakespeare's version so much more compelling.
That, is really the power of Forsyth's book on rhetoric: he demonstrates so effectively that the modern notion of "economical writing" is nowhere near as powerful as we think it is. Rhetoric used to be a required subject – in fact, one of the few that people were expected to learn with precision. The Elements of Eloquence delivers a fascinating exploration of a subject that many of us missed out on.
The bite-sized delivery (each chapter takes less than ten minutes to read and is complete in and of itself), skillful explanations and entertaining voice combine to make The Elements of Eloquence a wonderful book for both writers and readers who want a sense of why some passages in literature and poetry have such a powerful influence on us.
August 20, 2018
A fun, quick read full of Greek terms for rhetorical techniques that we all periodically use without being consciously aware of it. Although I doubt I’ll remember many of the Greek terms themselves, the techniques themselves and the examples of their application are very compelling. To select a random example, I was struck by the revelation that vowels were probably pronounced differently in Shakespeare’s time. So we have lost some of his rhymes and gained new ones thanks to changing pronunciation. It’s always interesting to read something that systematises and classifies knowledge that you already have without realising it. I was never taught the correct order of adjectives in English lessons, yet I know what sounds right and wrong. ‘The Friendly Big Giant’ is wrong; it has to be ‘The Big Friendly Giant’. Why? Who knows. Forsythe also notes that certain rhetorical techniques are particularly hard to achieve in English, being better suited to Latin and its more direct heirs. He explains an ostensibly dry topic clearly and amusingly, so this was a charming Sunday afternoon diversion. As well as being highly readable, it's also prettily presented.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 906 reviews