Buy Used
£2.34
Used: Good | Details
Sold by Tree Savers
Condition: Used: Good
Comment: A used book that is in good, clean condition. Your item will be picked, packed and posted FREE to you within the UK by Amazon, also eligible for super saver delivery.
Have one to sell?
Flip to back Flip to front
Listen Playing... Paused   You're listening to a sample of the Audible audio edition.
Learn more
See this image

Unspeak Hardcover – 16 Feb 2006


See all 4 formats and editions Hide other formats and editions
Amazon Price New from Used from
Hardcover
"Please retry"
£13.99 £0.01
Available from these sellers.

Special Offers and Product Promotions

  • Watch the author talk about this book in Windows Media Player format: 56K | 300K




Product details

  • Hardcover: 288 pages
  • Publisher: Little, Brown (16 Feb 2006)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 0316731005
  • ISBN-13: 978-0316731003
  • Product Dimensions: 14 x 3.2 x 21.1 cm
  • Average Customer Review: 4.1 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (13 customer reviews)
  • Amazon Bestsellers Rank: 552,053 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Steven Poole is the author of Unspeak, Trigger Happy, and You Aren't What You Eat. He was born in London, and writes for various publications including the Guardian, the New Statesman, the Times Literary Supplement, and Edge. More information at http://stevenpoole.net

Product Description

Review

A study of [UNSPEAK] is not just ttimely and welcome but (you'll feel once you've read this book) urgent. ...we should all be grateful to Steven Poole for his public spiritedness in undertaking it. Will someone please give him a medal, or a government office, or a slot on the radio with daily updates? (Claire Harman, EVENING STANDARD)

Poole has a sharp eye for hidden meanings and sub-texts. His account of politician s' addiction to the word "community" is a tour de force. By emphasising that one should always "look to the language", and going about his task with such forensic brio, Po (Francis Wheen, THE LIBERAL)

Steven Poole is to rhetorial doublespeak what the small boy was to the naked emperor: a pin to prick the speech bubbles (SUNDAY HERALD)

Steven Poole is to rhetorical doublespeak what the small boy was to the naked emperor: a pin to prick the speech bubbles . . . UNSPEAK sets out the case against, and also offers forensic analysis of, some of the most notorious examples he has found... UNSP (SCOTSMAN)

Book Description

* The language of everyday deception stripped bare

Inside This Book (Learn More)
Browse and search another edition of this book.
Browse Sample Pages
Front Cover | Copyright | Table of Contents | Excerpt | Index | Back Cover
Search inside this book:

Customer Reviews

4.1 out of 5 stars
Share your thoughts with other customers

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

24 of 27 people found the following review helpful By A Customer on 28 Feb 2006
Format: Hardcover
When I started reading this book about politicians and their abuse of language, I was so taken by its author's elegant style and mordant, black humour that I didn't notice what a serious piece of work it is. In fact, as becomes increasingly obvious, this book is informed by a huge amount of research and by something close to moral fury. Poole shows that we should all wake up and attend to the words our leaders use in the media, that if we only do this we will see what strange and twisted "unspeak" those words are. If you've ever watched the Daily Show on TV, you will know the regular thing they do where they play a clip - of Cheney or Kerry or whoever - and it cuts back to Jon Stewart, who, just with a look, or a blink, or a raised eyebrow, can suddenly, somehow, make you realise what utter lies you have just been listening to. Its a dazzling technique, and I don't quite know how Stewart does it, but Poole does something very similar with his book, again and again and again. Strongly recommended, and if you like it, you should also read Jon Stewart's book "Democracy", which is also brilliant.
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
21 of 24 people found the following review helpful By A Customer on 21 Feb 2006
Format: Hardcover
Does it matter what politicians say? Does it matter how they say it? Yes and yes. Poole shows how politicians' language is thick with euphemism - but anybody could do that. What he does brilliantly is look closely at this "euphemism" to see what ideological baggage is being imported along with it, as well as what is not being said and how the alternative view is being unspoken. Politicians should fear this book and journalists should be required to read it.
The book is crisply written without unnecessary muddle, and is charged with relevant facts to support his arguments. After reading it, every time you hear about "ethnic cleansing" your blood will curdle, and every time you read about "abuse" instead of "torture" at Guantanamo Bay you will cringe. And people who complain that it is mostly about the politcal Right Wing are really missing the obvious: first, Poole's arguments are actually pretty balanced, and his arguments can be generalized easily ("Unspeak" itself knows no political categories); second, critiquing the language of the left-wing, in the English-speaking world and especially in the United States, is like stomping on the fingers of a man in a coma.
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
26 of 30 people found the following review helpful By Dr. P. J. A. Wicks VINE VOICE on 14 April 2006
Format: Hardcover
George Orwell underestimated the politicians of the 21st century. In 1984, the blunt tool of "doublethink" used simple opposites; the ministry for war was called "the ministry of love", for instance. But doublethink can easily be translated back into English, you just reverse it.

Unthink is more sophisticated, here the ministry of war is "the ministry of defence". Surely a body tasked with defence can never do anything bad or offensive, because defence is morally justifiable, right? The principle of unspeak is to persuade by stealth, to alter assumptions inherent in the definition of things. Who are you more afraid of: a "suspected terrorist" or a "terrorist suspect"? The former emphasises ambiguity, the suspicion that they might be a terrorist. The latter emphasises the terrorist as the definition with suspicion as an afterthought.

At an even higher level of sophistication though, an unspeaker can play language any way they want. So the proponents of "intelligent design" state that creationism is a theory, and as such has as much validity as evolution. However, in the case of creationism they are elevating it to the status of a theory. In fact, it is no such thing as it is not falsifiable, has no supporting evidence, and has no predictive value. But by defining it as a "theory" they are reflecting in the glow of scientific terminology. In their attacks on "neo-Darwinists", however, they say that evolution is "just" a theory, and here they use theory in the fluffy, not quite sure, kind of sense. It's a cunning trick.

If the examples above turned on any little lights in your head at all, you have to buy this book. Steven Poole has a rare and valuable talent in non-fiction; he writes sentences that makes you say "Yeah!
Read more ›
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
7 of 8 people found the following review helpful By M. McManus VINE VOICE on 5 May 2007
Format: Paperback Verified Purchase
This definitely one of the most interesting books I have read this year.

The book starts with some genuinely insightful and thought provoking analysis of political language. As the chapters progress, this is expanded upon with everything from "anti-social behaviour" to "ethnic cleansing" given a thorough analysis. I found the most interesting section was where he discussed how the military often use medical language (e.g. surgical strike) to describe their missions, and there were genuine moments in the book where you could find yourself saying "Never thought of that before!".

The first five chapters flow well, and whilst the author's political opinion is fairly clear by this stage, this doesn't matter to readers of any political persuasion, as he stays "on task" and keep the chapters focused on the book's title and purpose. Furthermore, these earlier chapters are characterised by an easy going, almost conversational style of writing that is easy to follow and digest.

However, there then follows three consecutive chapters that read more like a bitter rant than an analysis of political linguistic tricks, and this genuinely spoils the book, as the author veers both off course and off topic. There is nothing wrong with him holding his opinions, but this was not what the book was meant to be about. The writers tone also dramatically changes, at times bordering on sarcastic aggression and smugness. The final chapter does slightly rescue this as he returns to the topic, but only slightly.

In conclusion, the book presents some truly intriguing analysis of political language that is very useful to students of politics and social commentators. However, the "rant-a-thon" in the later part of the book takes him off course from the subject matter of the book, and this is what prevents me from giving it full marks.
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again

Most Recent Customer Reviews



Feedback