A Canadian Writer's Reference

Riзa Night is a Toronto-based communications consultant who teaches
courses in business writing and in successful freelancing. She edits
CBRA.

This well-designed, thorough, handy desktop reference for students and
business writers could serve as a text only with careful coaching. Its
chief flaw: it tries to be three things—a composition text, a quick
reference, and a Canadian reference—and manages to be only one of
those things magnificently. And it doesn’t acknowledge its limits.

The design and layout are distinctive. The extensive index proves a
blessing. A spiral binding lets the book lie flat for easy consultation.

Explanations and examples are set in a different type, for readability
and ease of use. A second color is effectively used.

Coverage is reasonably thorough for a handbook (though not for a text)
and is accurate on the whole. The book comprises eight main sections:
Composing and Revising; Grammatical Sentences; Effective Sentences; Word
Choice; Punctuation; Mechanics; Documentation; Review of Basic Grammar.
Hacker separates grammatical details from rules and examples, so readers
can skip the former if they so choose.

Hacker’s matter-of-fact tone and easy-to-read style represent a major
strength. She offers lucid, thorough explanations supported by numerous
helpful examples. She manages to be prescriptive without, in general,
being rigid. Throughout, she makes clear “when an improvement is
simply one among several possibilities and when it is more strictly a
matter of right and wrong.”

As a handy reference, the book succeeds admirably. Its weakness lies in
its attempt to be more—a composition text, a book on improving
sentence styling, a basic grammar text, and a general grammar/usage
guide.

As a composition text it is at its weakest. No doubt those who wish to
improve their writing could learn from the sections on composing and
revising, effective sentences, wordy sentences, appropriate language,
and exact language; certainly perusing them would be better than reading
nothing at all on these topics. But because Hacker never directs her
target audience to read the relevant sections thoroughly, many users may
never bother. I would add a bibliography to each section.

Even the strong sections occasionally prove deficient. For example,
Hacker covers only one appropriate use of passive voice, and the usage
glossary misses the important, and often flouted, “comprise/compose”
distinction. Professional editors and writers might well take issue with
the comment that deems Gage Canadian a “good desk dictionary”; many
consider it inadequate beyond the high-school level.

This book claims to be “adapted” from Hacker’s A Writer’s
Reference, a U.S. effort. Yet it’s hard to see what’s so
“Canadian” about it. True, many of the real-life examples are drawn
from Canadian sources, and the made-up examples use Canadian details.
And references crop up here and there to “North American English”
and “North American conventions.” But a number of issues germane to
Canadian style and usage are never addressed: there are no mentions, for
example, of our spelling dilemmas (e.g., -our vs. -or) or special usage
problems (e.g., Québécois/Quebecker; SI/Metric). At the very least,
the book might refer readers to sources that deal with these issues in
detail (e.g., The Canadian Style, Editing Canadian English, or The Globe
& Mail Style Book).

The cover and tabs, while a terrific feature, alas proved flimsy. They
need reinforcement if they are to stand up to frequent use.

This book would be most helpful to students and businesspeople who must
write but are occasionally unsure about grammar or format. It could work
as a text, but only with plenty of supporting material or as an adjunct
to a more comprehensive volume. Anyone wishing to learn in any depth
about any of these subjects will not be well served. Professional
writers and editors will likely find it useful only as a quick
reference; its coverage is inadequate for those who make a living
negotiating the Canadian language maze.

The book does meets its stated goals—it just doesn’t meet its
implied goals. As long as users recognize its limitations, it would make
a fine addition to most academic/business desktops.