Information and reviews of books by Tim Albert

Plain Words for Nurses, Alison Turnbull; Quite literally: problem words and how to use them, Wynford Hicks; Eats, shoots and leaves: the zero tolerance approach to punctuation, Lynne Truss; On writing: a memoir of the craft, Stephen King; Scientific writing: easy when you know how, J Peat, E Elliott, L Baur, V Keena; Ethical issues in biomedical publication, edited by Anne Hudson Jones and Faith McLellan; The Oxford guide to writing and speaking by John Seely; E-mail essentials: how to make the most of e-communication by Matt Haig; The Guardian Corrections and Clarifications by Ian Mayes; Wired words: language is the new identity by Steve Morris; From pitch to publication by Carole Blake; David Pencheon looks at Fowler's revised 3rd edition and the New Oxford dictionary of English; Get ahead, Mind Map your way to success, by Vanda North with Tony Buzan; Righting English that's gone Dutch, by Joy Burrough-Boenisch; How we write: writing as creative design, by Mike Sharples; The Times Guide to English Style and Usage, compiled by Tim Austin; The elements of style (4th ed), by Strunk & White.

** OK for those with a special interest

*** A pleasant addition to a book collection

**** Well worth a visit

***** A must

Back to top

Back to top

Back to top

Back to top

Back to top

Back to top

Back to top

Back to top

Book reviews

The longer reviews on these pages are of new (or newly discovered) books that have a bearing on effective writing. Along with the general reading lists, we hope that they will allow those who read these pages, and particularly those who have been on our courses, to continue to develop their writing skills.

Unless otherwise stated, these reviews are by Tim Albert.

Plain English for nurses
Plain Words for Nurses: Writing and Communicating Effectively, Alison Turnbull, London: The Foundation of Nursing Studies, 2001.

First I should declare an interest: this book beat one of mine into second place at the 2002 Medical Journalists Association awards.

I can see why: Turnbull has done an excellent job in explaining the principles of plain English and putting them into a nursing context.

She has plenty of useful advice, gathered in a succession of chapters with challenging titles such as 'Shorten your sentences'. 'Be active' and 'Say it only once'. At the start of each is a full page cartoon to drive the message home.

There are plenty of good lists and good examples. There are also some good jokes (such as the one about the patient who was told the medicine was 'for her ear' so she started to pour it in!).

I do have a problem with this book, however, and it is a problem I have with the plain English movement as a whole. I can not argue with their precepts - short words, short sentences, active voice, etc - but look in any journal and any NHS document and you will find that these principles are constantly ignored.

That's not because people don't know how to write simply, but because the cultures no longer value simple prose. Unless we start to change the culture, teaching people to write simply will only store up heartache and conflict, as their crisp writing get turned back into rubbish. It doesn't really solve the problem.

Verdict: useful book for nurses who want to know how to write simply**

Wynford Hicks, well known as a trainer in journalistic circles, has added this book to his previous volumes on grammar and style. Its purpose, as he states in the introduction, is to 'provide practical advice' on difficult words, though he adds prudently that 'nobody can claim to have written the last word on them'.

He has about 250 pages of words, arranged alphabetically from a/an (using the latter before words like hotel and horrendous 'now seems affected') to yo-yo (not the unhyphenated yo yo).

In between he deals with homonyms, homophones - and horrible sets of three (bogey, bogie, bogy and loath, loathe, loth). He pulls no punches, with entries on nigger and niggardly (no relation, though someone was once fired for using it) and political correctness ('be careful').

Many of the entries are familiar to those who read such guides, with adv. But I found plenty of learning points: have a principal as a pal and you won't confuse him/her with a principle. Cannon are found in forts; canons in cathedrals. And it was the Mary Celeste, not Marie.

Hicks pays special attention to problem medical words and singles out Neville Goodman, author of Medical writing: a prescription for clarity for his help with words such as acute, remission and resuscitation.

I would have liked a little more explanation in places. Why ae in leukaemia but not medieval? Why is the plural of appendix now -es not -ices. I would also have liked an entry on the word pedantic, if only for reassurance that we aren't being overly so.

But all in all this is a good book to dip into, and an even better one for putting by your desk. I still find it hard to define the difference between that and which, but was reassured that I share this problem with the Queen (and her speechwriters).

Verdict: Very useful companion to all those who take writing seriously.****

Writing a book on punctuation is in itself a pretty remarkable thing. It gets quite exceptional when it sits at the top of the best seller list for several weeks - and then goes on to win a Book of the Year award.

So this book is a publishing phenomenon. What made it so successful? And (more important for these pages) will it help people to write more effectively?

It is certainly well written, wide ranging and full of interesting nuggets of information. There is passion. And there are some great examples (many contributed by 'the public') of the damage wrought by poor punctuation: 'Hot Dogs - a Meal in It's Self', 'Xma's trees', 'Dicks In Tray' and (seen on a birthday card) 'Your 21 Today'. (Interestingly, the grammar check only singled out one of these as incorrect.)

Truss makes a sound case for observing the rules. 'Huge doctrinal differences hang on the placing of a comma', she writes, and cites a number of examples, such as 'Comfort ye, my people' and 'Comfort ye my people'.

All this goes a long way to explaining her success: the book is fun as well as funny, and has many examples of miscommunication (such as the unfortunate who put up the sign: 'No dogs please'. But does it help those who know they don't understand punctuation, and want to do so?

I suspect not. One of my friends, a mild to moderate pedant, wrote that he now felt completely confused. There are plenty of rules (eight on the apostrophe alone) and it's going to be difficult to remember them all.

But it does create awareness.

That can be a two-edged sword: shortly after I had read the book I attended a smart dinner party, and effortlessly spotted two errors in the menu alone. Truss may have given me 'permission to love punctuation', but those sitting with me were clearly unimpressed.

Verdict: A fun book for those who like this sort of thing. Those who want to improve their punctuation should aim at a more basic text. ***

I am not a fan of the horror stories of Stephen King (Carrie, The Shining, et al), but two respected colleagues recommended this book on the same day, so I felt duty bound to try it.

They were right: it is a delightful book - a memoir with instructions, or instructions with memoir, depending on how you look at it. King starts with how he came to write, moves on to some basic principles of writing, and ends up describing how he started writing again after a horrendous traffic accident which nearly cost him his life.

He is gloriously upbeat about this strange activity: 'Writing is magic, as much as the water of life as any other creative art. The water is free. So drink. Drink and be filled up', he concludes.

He has taken the trouble to write a short book ('because most books about writing are filled with bullshit', he says). But there is plenty of sensible advice, such as: 'The adverb is not your friend'; 'The paragraph, not the sentence, is the basic unit of writing'; and: 'One of the really bad things you can do to your writing is to dress up the vocabulary, looking for long words because you're maybe a little bit ashamed of your short ones. This is like dressing up a household pet in evening clothes'.

Unlike many who write on writing, he is keen on the actual process. He talks about ruminating, when to include - and exclude - your nearest and dearest, where to put the desk - and the need for routine. 'Don't wait for the muse'.

Is it relevant to those whose writing mainly consists of reports and scientific papers? King writes about creative writing, that voyage of discovery in which you start off with a good situation and see where it goes. Science writing, on the other hand, should know where it is going to end, and therefore needs to be well mapped out in advance. That one difference apart, King's book should be an inspiration.

Verdict: an exhilarating look at the craft of writing. *****

It is dangerous to review a book on a subject on which you have also written, particularly if you are nowhere referenced. They may not know of your work, or they may not approve of it. In either case, they will almost certainly ignore some of your pet subjects, and any criticism on your part will end up looking like sour grapes.

So I am pleased to say that there is plenty of useful advice in the book, and much of it follows my own enthusiasms. For instance, the authors stress the importance of good time management, of writing for the editor, and of departmental policy statements on authorship.

There is also plenty of useful information, such as the chart on different scientific methods, and a detailed checklist for assessing statistical contributions. The authors bring together much of the 'journalological' research on peer review.

But there are some important omissions, in particular the failure to come up with a realistic view of what scientific papers are really about. They write: 'a well written paper is one that is easy to read, tells an interesting story, has the information under the correct headings, and is visually appealing.' Not only is this immeasurable, but it doesn't get to grips with the fact that most published papers are nothing like that anyway.

This leaves some important gaps, such as the need to formulate a clear message before writing (and not start with the abstract, as they suggest), the curious structure of papers (based on a narrative of four key sentences), and the stark reality that marketing skills are much more important than critical appraisal and English grammar.

'The message is encouraging', says the blurb. Sadly, I think most new writers will find these 290 densely packed pages anything but.

Verdict: experienced writers will doubtless find tips and useful information. Those new to writing may find it inhibits rather than encourages. **

The wide range of contributors to this book give clear, and sometimes alarming accounts, of all kinds of transgressions. Those in power claim authorship when they have no right to do so. Authors steal other people's work or making up their own. Reviewers delaying the work of the opposition. Pharmaceutical companies put pressure on scientists to make changes to put their product in a more favourable light.

These are not ethical issues in the sense that they call for complex debate on the rights and wrongs. The wrongs, in these cases, are clear, and the main issue is: how come people have got away with it for so long?

As ever, the issues are complex. There are huge pressures to publish - and huge rewards for those who do. Much of the funding now comes from those with a commercial interest. Few countries have sensible regulations and few institutions have publishing policies. With some honourable exceptions (see on this site elsewhere) there are few training courses for editors.

At the root of all this is an institution which has, as Frank Davidoff points out in his perceptive contribution, grown up through patronage, not trade. As several contributors to this excellent book point out, self regulation by those in power does not always work - and policies and training are only effective if those providing them are clearly abiding by the same set of rules.

There is much work to be done. The electronic publishing revolution has given us the impetus for all kinds of changes. But whatever its effect, there is one key group - journal editors, especially the latest generation - who can make a difference by introducing sensible, fair and open policies. As a first task, all new editors should read this book.

Verdict: a comprehensive and challenging account of the abuses in medical publishing, and how editors can start to make a difference.*****

Seely divides his material into four sections. In the first 10 chapters he gives sensible advice on different types of communication, from business letters to essays, and from presentations to meeting the media.

The second section - Getting the message across - considers key variables, such as audience, subject, time and place, and purpose. I particularly liked his examples, taken from commercial telephone conversations, which show how language can be used in the pursuit of power. (For instance, the commonly used phrase: 'Which company are you from?' is excellent for putting individual complainers in their place right from the start!)

Section three covers the basics of the English language: grammar, vocabulary, spelling, punctuation and speech. Seely is a pragmatist who is familiar with the current battleground: 'English is not static but dynamic; its vocabulary and grammar continue to develop and change, as they have done for centuries. People who are innately conservative feel threatened by changes in "their own" language'.

Nevertheless, he realises that some rules are needed and the 25 pages on grammar summarise the basic concepts. (Have I at last finally cracked the difference between 'that' and 'which'?)

The fourth section deals with the often neglected topic of the writing process. It ends with chapters on layout and electronic technology.

My main reservations are with the publishers. I would have liked to have seen a note explaining where Seely is coming from - linguistics, business, journalism, local government, advertising, teaching? I would also have liked to have seen a clear exposition of who the target audience is intended to be. But these are minor matters. The book is well laid out (as it should be), with introduction summaries at the start of each chapter, and summaries at the end. Seely used plenty of cross references so that, for example, when talking about presenting a CV he refers readers to chapters on layout and using the technology. He also includes some exercises that manage to be both fun and instructive.

Verdict: a useful and reassuring book***

Nowadays we can hold conversations without speaking, or send messages to dozens of people - and get near-instantaneous replies.

Unfortunately, there seem to be few rules on how we should conduct ourselves in this new world, which is why a book like this is so useful.

Outsiders who find it hard just to get to grips with the new jargon will be able to distinguish their spam from their cookies, and their LDAP from an URL. The more advanced will find useful and comprehensive advice on how to market their services, contribute to discussion lists and publish electronic newsletters.

Those who are somewhere in between will find plenty of tips on how to get on line, on how to send and receive messages, and - perhaps the most crucial - on how to handle the ever-increasing tide of messages that will inevitably push their way onto the computer.

There is a sound chapter on writing for this new medium, which I am delighted to say reiterates the advice given elsewhere on this website, (and taught on our courses).

Use plenty of BLUF (bottom line up front). Avoid technobabble. Prefer the simple and familiar. Avoid the formal (it tends to appear pompous and outdated). And keep everything as short as is reasonable: 'Unlike printed text, people don't put an e-mail down half-way through reading it and then return to finish it off later. With e-mail, you only have one short chance to make an impression'.

Haig also warns against getting carried away by the fun of it all: 'Great care needs to be taken to make the intended meaning of your message as explicit as possible, Sarcasm, irony, innuendo and other subtle linguistic nuances can have disastrous consequences when used in e-mails, and should therefore be avoided unless you are entirely sure the recipient is on the same wavelength.'

Verdict: anyone who is less than 100% confident about e-mail should find this book helpful and reassuring. ***

No doubt more will follow, because as the editor of the Guardian writes in the foreword of this excellent little book, producing newspapers is an imperfect business: ' It would be difficult to devise a process more inclined to throw up errors than the production of a newspaper.' To help deal with this he appointed Ian Mayes as reader's editor, and this book is the result of that initiative.

The first 40 or so pages are taken up with some of the corrections published over the past few years: 'In "A (very) occasional series on praise of the sub-editors craft" … we repeated a seven-line section practically word for word. We did not notice but you did'. And: 'The building illustrating Simon Hoggart's diary …was not Cheltenham Town Hall, as the caption suggested it might be. It was Boots the Chemist'.

These reflect, as Mayes admits, the laughter rather than the tears, so after the appetisers, the meat. The second part of the book contains a selection of his Saturday columns, which discuss a range of generally serious issues relating to the production of a modern newspaper. Should they crop photographs, use four letter words, sign the editorials or use information that can't be attributed?

Others columns describe how newspapers work. Take the letters page, for instance - where some 300 submissions a day are whittled down to about 14. 'They like letters that are: topical; combative; well informed; well argued; well written; witty; concise; that recount personal experience that is genuinely relevant to the subject under debate'.

Mayes also discusses what he calls the most frequently received letters, those complaining about the use (or abuse) of the English language. Many old faithfuls occur: the confusion between 'mitigate' and 'militate', using 'data' as a single noun (he considers it well established), bored 'of' and not 'with'. But as a contrast to the relentless monotone of the compulsive pedant, he revels in his life in 'the land where the homophone roams'. This gives us 'wide birth', 'rolling gate', 'fowling community' and: 'In a report about efforts to save a pub from closure we said there were 'rumours it would be raised to the ground'.

Verdict: Principled, elegant, informative and funny. Good remedial reading for those who believe the press can do no right. *****

It is written by Steve Morris, senior partner at an agency that 'delivers corporate identity through language', and who (says the blurb) invented the idea that 'words exist not for message but to create a sense of reality and belonging, and therefore relationship'.

Morris clearly feels that the new electronic media has liberated writing from its Victorian and Edwardian shackles. The balance of power has shifted from those sending out information towards those receiving it. Those writing for the web, therefore, need to engage - to hold conversations and not just issue instructions or information. Language must be 'sticky' - have the ability to attract, and retain, those who can literally switch off.

Everything he advocates seems sensible enough. We have yielded too much to designers, and thus have come to undervalue words. Raising standards should be done by example, not by issuing restrictive documents on style. And we need to abandon the stuffiness of business writing: 'you have to take some risks, have fun, raise a titter, surprise your listener/reader, and add a dash of wit for good measure - wit in the old sense of brains, as well as the more modern one of humour'.

The book is full of references to web sites he admires (and those he does not), and he ends with a section of examples of the new language he espouses. There are several checklists, but these exhort rather than instruct; for instance: 'use words sparingly and well' and 'strive for a less practical style'.

I found the book in the business section of an airport bookshop, and it's clearly a 'why not' rather than a 'how to' book, aimed not at those who have to write the copy but at those who set the corporate tone. But accepting the need to change is an essential prerequisite for change.

Verdict: a stimulating book for those who are interested in the implication of new technology on language and communication. ***

I now have a new piece of advice: if you are really interested in getting a book published, buy this book and read all 376 pages. By the end you should have a clear idea of what you need to do, and what will happen to you and to your book. If you are still keen, then you could be one of those who will benefit from Carole Blake's stated intention to turn creative writers into professional authors.

Ms Blake is a longstanding agent, and is able to drop stories about her authors into most of the chapters. She covers three main areas: before the book is sold, from contract to publication, and from publication and beyond.

She seems to answer all the common questions, such as how to find an agent, how to send in the material, whether contracts are negotiable (yes) and whether you should ever pay to be published (no). She gives an insider's account of all kinds of activities, from auctions for manuscripts to the actual selection process.

Although the book is directed towards fiction, much of her wisdom applies to all kinds of writing: 'Ego is a necessary evil in the writing business. But it's a wise author who knows how to control its effects'. And: 'Don't let constructive criticism slip through your fingers just because you're unhappy that the editor hasn't fallen in love with your manuscript'.

But still don't count on getting published. As Ms Blake reminds us, the standard figure for acceptance of unsolicited manuscripts is one in 200. She thinks that is optimistic.

Verdict: essential preliminary reading for anyone who wants to publish a book. ****

The Fowler's is the latest edition of an acknowledged authority that goes back to 1926. Like all good reference books it does its job clearly and confidently. It's also honest where there is genuine uncertainty or disagreement. If you ever confuse your 'disinterested' with your 'uninterested' or your 'effect' with your 'affect', here is the text to help you be both more confident and consistent.

If you like browsing Strunk and White's The Elements of Style or Bill Bryson's Troublesome Words, you will find this volume addictive. Burchfield has a more reserved sense of humour than Bryson; this is the preamble to Burchfield's explanation of the use of principal and principle: 'Confusion of the two betrays inadequate instruction at an early age'.

Other examples of how well Burchfield builds on Fowler's earlier works include his comparisons of preventive and preventative, vaccinate and inoculate, and tubercular and tuberculous, and when to use which or that when preceding restricting or non-restricting clauses.

The New Oxford Dictionary of English is a superb one-volume text. Not only is it one of the biggest single-volume dictionaries, but it also has some good features such as 12,000 encyclopaedic entries (which are genuinely useful), and a clear set of usage rules next to words that are commonly misused and confused. Consulting ethics (which I always consult to test how a dictionary compares it with morals), I find that not only does it define the word, but it also describes in some detail the three predominant schools of ethics in Western philosophy.

The dictionary goes one better than many specialist dictionaries, giving excellent summaries of, for instance, Lorenz curves and Gini co-efficients (used in the study of health equity). How many other general dictionaries would tell you not only that Nystatin is a drug to treat fungal infections, but also that its name derives from New York State University, where it was developed?

Verdict: As individual books, they are very good - as a pair they are unbeatable.
Individually: ****
Together: *****

David Pencheon is a consultant in public health medicine and assistant director of R & D for the NHS Executive (Eastern Region).

Until recently the book I recommended for those who wished to find out more about the technique was the BBC Book Use your head. But I found it heavy going.

The Buzan Centre has now reprinted this much and more accessible, book, first published in 1991. It is written by Vanda North with Tony Buzan (the originator of mind maps)

Not surprisingly it covers the ground well, from a brief description of how the brain works to the principles of constructing a mind map that will ‘use your whole brain skills’. I particularly liked a proposed two-week programme ‘From here to mind-mapping’, which had writing a shopping list as the task for day two, and ended with

The ideas have been around for nearly 30 years now, and the approach, once so original and refreshing, can now seem to be trying a little too much. And it is really distracting to wonder whether the ‘forword’ on page 1 and ‘explantation’ on page 18 are some clever device, or simply good old fashioned typographical errors.

Yet forget the style; it is the substance that counts. Buzan’s concepts provide the basis for a useful technique, and this book will be of use to those who want to know more about it.

Verdict: A useful book for those who want to learn more about the technique of mind mapping. **

These people will find this book a great comfort. It has been compiled with gentle wit by an experienced English-language editor now resident in the Netherlands, and it identifies a number of areas where the similarities between the two languages can tempt the unwary into a kind of hybrid language which I have called Denglish and she calls Dunglish. This is a written English 'that contains interference from Dutch language and culture'. It brings confusion caused by word order, abbreviations, punctuation, layout and 'false friends' - words that look the same but aren't.

The Dutch 'agenda' is used instead of the English 'diary', 'map' instead of 'folder', and 'idem' instead of 'ditto'. The Dutch convention of lumping words together leads to words like 'desktoppublishing' that would be unacceptable in English. The conventions of sub-paragraphing look bitty to the English eye, and the much derided 'greengrocer's apostrophe (as in potato's or tomato's) would be correct in Dutch grammar.

The hard p and k is interchangeable with the soft b and g, giving us such delights as 'flag jackets' and 'crap apples'. The Dutch phrase 'in case of' is often the equivalent of 'if', which explains the ubiquitous sign in Dutch hotels: 'Do not use lift in case of fire'.

I have two slight reservations. The punning headlines seem a little overdone, and may actually cause more confusion. The section on Dutch qualifications is a good idea, but I still don't understand them and would have liked to have seen some kind of table on them.

That said, there is plenty of fascinating detail, which will delight those who like such things. The book also serves as a salutary reminder that Dutch and English are similar but different. I have already made a mental note that, when I am in the Netherlands, I should remember that words such as 'taxi's' or 'succes' or 'mayonaise' are good Dutch, not bad English.

Verdict: This book has limited appeal, but Dutch writers and editors who really want to get involved in the minutiae of writing in English will find it both interesting and useful. **

It is written by Mike Sharples, professor of education technology at the University of Birmingham and a former member of the collaborative writers' research group at the University of Sussex. His central thesis is that writing is a constant succession of engagement and reflection, a process of creative design. He has collected a wide range of material, from writers, critics, sociologists and psychologists.

The book is particularly strong when it looks at the various stages of the writing process, and the author has many useful, evidence-based insights.

• The technology used (pen, computer, tape recorder) seems to have no impact on the subsequent quality of a piece of writing.
• The more time you spend on writing the better the writing is likely to be.
• Better writers spend more time on revising their writing - and they do it in a deeper way.
• Writers tend to make more spelling mistakes at the ends of sentences.
• No time of day seems more productive than any other for writers.

Sharples quotes some of the different classifications, including Spender's division of writers into Beethovians (who write to think) and Mozartians (who think first and write later).

At the end of the book he has some encouraging thoughts about the potential of human beings to write in teams. Though the kind of co-operation he describes does sound extremely positive, I suspect it will work less well in the highly stratified - and highly politicised - teams of medical writers.

Verdict: A well-crafted and informative book. Of particular value to those who have to help others to write - or want to have their assumptions about writing challenged. ****

The fourth edition, with a foreword by White's stepson Roger Angell, has been 'modestly updated, with word processors and air conditioners making their first appearance...and with a light redistribution of genders'.

Strunk's four chapters give 22 principles from: 'Form the possessive singular of nouns by adding 's', to 'Place the emphatic words of a sentence at the end'.

White's Approach to Style adds another 21 points, such as:

• write with nouns and verbs,
• avoid fancy words,
• do not inject opinion, and
• prefer the standard to the offbeat.

This edition includes a useful glossary of technical words, such as case, clause and compound sentence.

Verdict: If you haven't already bought this book, buy the new edition now. If you have the old edition, it is probably looking threadbare, so treat yourself to another. *****

It will provide typographical trainspotters (one word, no hyphen) with hours of absorbing detail. For the less obsessive, there is useful advice, from a list of clichés to the commonsensical statement that data can be singular 'through common usage' and a reminder that 'to beg the question' means asking one, not raising one. On the vexed questions of initial capitals, it advocates the sensible style of Professor of Histopathology and the University of Epping, and thereafter professor and university.

Spelling a name correctly is a basic courtesy, and the stuff of which The Times is rightly proud. The guide lists many of the difficult ones, and also provides a guide on who is being written about:  (not Damian) Hirst, Jonathan Porritt (not Sir Jonathan because he chooses not to use his baronetcy), Catherine Zeta-Jones, but Julian Lloyd Webber (though his brother Andrew's peerage, for some reason not explained, has turned him into the hyphenated Lord Lloyd-Webber).

In some cases it would have been good to have been told why the decisions were made. How, for instance, can we reconcile 'letterbox' (one word) with 'letter bomb' (two) or 'straightforward' with 'straight faced', and 'strait-laced' with 'straitjacket'.

Some decisions, it must be said, seem to have the whiff of snobbery about them. How else can you explain the injunction that only civil servants above the rank of deputy secretary take an initial capital, or that the editor of The Times merits an initial capital, but not any of his staff.

Like all style books, of course, this reflects fashion and power as much as any set of rational rules. Interestingly, the entry on whether we serve in or on a boat or ship or submarine takes up more space than the entry on sexism. And both are dwarfed by the entries on Rupert Murdoch and his family.

Verdict: an interesting read for those who care about hyphens and protocol. Most writers would be recommended to stick to the more general guides, such as Fowler's. **

20.02.04

Back to main booklist

About our Courses | Short Words | About Us | Browse Booklists | Ask Questions | Gripes and Groans