The OFFICIAL Unofficial Achewood Message Board
Achewood => Achewood => Topic started by: Cioran on February 24, 2009, 03:09:01 am
-
Minstrelsy is the word that most closely describes the element of the strip that I'd like to draw attention to here, though rest assured that I mean no disrespect to Onstad or to anyone else by it.
A lot of the funny of the strip derives not just from the fact that some of the characters speak in ways that draw heavily from black American dialect, ebonics if you will, but that this black speech is being written by a white man. In my view this is not cheap racial humor but part and parcel of Onstad's investigation of modern manhood. In the United States black and white men construct their identities in part by referencing the "opposite race", as Chuck D once put it, sometimes through imitation and sometimes by rejection.
Eldridge Cleaver's Soul On Ice is a good book to check out on the subject.
-
no thanks, i gave at the office
-
Seriously -- are you (or did you) write a research paper that you are oh so graciously enlightening us with? Because it's hell of tedious.
This is not an academic journal. It's an internet message board about cartoon cats and the folks who love them. For five years or so we've managed to get by without sucking the joy and humor out of the best comic going. Please help us keep our streak alive!
-
You just made me take away one of your tiny cans of Dr Pepper.
-
Heh.
-
Frank. I was thinking Tha Sugah Rain too. However, I would have thought that a group of literary types like we are here would enjoy deconstructing our favorite cartoon.
-
I am speaking only for myself.
It's a free country. Pontificate away. I'll just sit here and snipe.
-
I'm looking to you to lead the way. I'd just be typing gibberish.
-
I'm enjoying this guy's deal and vaguely agree with some of his statements. What else is there to talk about? I'd also like a Molly mega-thread where Molly haters and lovers sort through their differences, but I'm too busy/lazy to to start it.
-
ebonics if you will,
Ladies and Gentlemen, this phrase is so chock-full of condescending pretense that I am forced to present you with...
The next Andy Kaufman.
TROLLCAN'D.
-
Frank. I was thinking Tha Sugah Rain too. However, I would have thought that a group of literary types like we are here would enjoy deconstructing our favorite cartoon.
Our cynicism and bitterness outweighs our intellectual instincts.
We're more derision then Derrida all up in this bitch
-
I'm with Jayelle--this board has been too quiet lately. If someone wants to come in and start some moderately thoughtful topics, so be it.
Not that I have much to say about the topic.
-
I'm with Jayelle--this board has been too quiet lately. If someone wants to come in and start some moderately thoughtful topics, so be it.
Not that I have much to say about the topic.
What's wrong with quiet? It means we are all off doing other, more productive or fruitful things. That's good, right?
-
It means we are all off doing other, more productive or fruitful things.
Eh, speak for yourself.
Personally, I work at home. I have no one to chat with at the next desk or down the hall or at lunch. Or at the water cooler, do offices still have water coolers? If you guys aren't here, I end up talking to the dogs more than is strictly mentally healthy.
-
Eh, speak for yourself.
Personally, I work at home. I have no one to chat with at the next desk or down the hall or at lunch. Or at the water cooler, do offices still have water coolers? If you guys aren't here, I end up talking to the dogs more than is strictly mentally healthy.
I thought you worked in a zoo ...?
-
What's wrong with quiet? It means we are all off doing other, more productive or fruitful things. That's good, right?
FUCK productive. I'm goofin' off.
-
I thought you worked in a zoo ...?
Not anymore. Except once a week for free to remind myself it would probably be better not to work there anymore.
-
If it's a choice between quiet and pretentious douche, I'll take quiet.
-
If it's a choice between quiet and pretentious douche, I'll take quiet.
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
-
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
Takes one to know one!
*swish*
-
Takes one to know one!
*swish*
Can'd
-
I welcome my fellow pretentious douches.
-
I, for one, welcome our pretentious douche overlords.
Or maybe I just miss Jough.
-
Yeah I'm pretty much ok with pretentious douchery, some of my best friends are pretentious douches.
There was something vaguely odd about this one though, I generally like in depth analytical conversations to contain enough irony or alcohol that everyone understands the next sentence may be a segue into the merits of eating pudding with fingers if no spoon is available. As soon as everyone starts looking serious I worry a little.
-
I'm told you tend to perceive flavour better when eating with your fingers. I don't know if it's true but it's a good excuse.
-
I enjoy examining the Achewood universe. Might find out more about it.
I disagree with the idea presented in this thread, however. I believe much of what Cioran thinks is black slang is actually just archaic and folksy language. Ray may throw some black slang around, but he's a record producer. That's "how they roll". (A phrase that has never been used in Achewood.)
...some of my best friends are pretentious douches.
Are you just saying that so you can start making jokes about Pretentious Douche-Americans? Not cool, man.
-
Are you just saying that so you can start making jokes about Pretentious Douche-Americans? Not cool, man.
I think Doc is probably looking to make jokes about Pretentious Douche-Australians.
Just a guess.
-
I'd say there is some middle ground between Cali-based-slang and blackface. And anyway, dudes is cats, they ain't got no race, b.
-
Ray's granddad was a blues musician.
Ray is probably black.
-
I believe much of what Cioran thinks is black slang is actually just archaic and folksy language.
Yep. A couple years ago I picked up Huckleberry Finn for the first time since childhood, and was kind of floored by how much the narrative reads like Ray talking.
For instance: "That is just the way with some people. They get down on a thing when they don't know nothing about it."
Ray or Huck? Yeah, now you're thinkin'.
-
Are you just saying that so you can start making jokes about Pretentious Douche-Americans? Not cool, man.
More in the hopes that someone would make that joke, which is even better.
I think Doc is probably looking to make jokes about Pretentious Douche-Australians.
Actually I think that would be inappropriate. Their people have led hard lives and time has to pass before it would be right to make light of such things. Thanks for you typical American cultural insensitivity though.
-
Actually I think that would be inappropriate. Their people have led hard lives and time has to pass before it would be right to make light of such things.
Hey now. The time has come to say fair's fair.
-
Hey now. The time has come to say fair's fair.
A fact's a fact.
-
You take the good, you take the bad, you take them both and there you have...
The facts of life.
-
Hey now. The time has come to say fair's fair.
A fact's a fact.
I'll pay a can, I'll pay my share.
-
I disagree with the idea presented in this thread, however. I believe much of what Cioran thinks is black slang is actually just archaic and folksy language. Ray may throw some black slang around, but he's a record producer. That's "how they roll". (A phrase that has never been used in Achewood.)
I beg to differ. Ramses says "yo mama" in http://achewood.com/index.php?date=03022009 - this is not a Huck Finn phrase. And just try and tell me Beef's stomach is not black.
-
Ray is probably black.
And French: panel 6 here: http://achewood.com/index.php?date=09072005
-
And French: panel 6 here: http://achewood.com/index.php?date=09072005
Man, that was a golden age. Cartilage Head followed by Jaime the Science Friend.
-
Achewood is one long golden age.
-
Achewood is one long golden age.
Or one long golden shower, depending where you sit.
-
Why are we arguing over Ray's race? We already know what it is - American (http://achewood.com/index.php?date=02212003) Curl (http://achewood.com/index.php?date=09302003).
-
Or one long golden shower, depending where you sit.
A golden shower of hits. That means this forum is the circle jerks.
Why are we arguing over Ray's race? We already know what it is - American (http://achewood.com/index.php?date=02212003) Curl (http://achewood.com/index.php?date=09302003).
That's his breed, not his race.
-
That's his breed, not his race.
Well, since race is a cultural construct I think it's safe to say that he is a cartoon cat. He is also a breast man.
-
Speaking of Which:
When did it become OK to say "Person of Color?" What? Especially "Woman of Color." This just sounds really weird to me.
-
"Person of Gender"
"Person of Gender of Color"
-
When did it become not ok to say negro? I got in trouble for saying that in an email a couple of years ago. I had no idea. The email went to several black people and everyone of them emailed me back to say that I shouldn't use that term. What? Why?
-
Honestly, I think it's just that it is too close in sound to THE N-word for people these days.
No more, no less. People don't even wanna get in the same ballpark as that word, even inadvertently.
-
I always adssumed that it's a way to say "people who aren't white" without having to explicitly define those people by their non-whiteness.
It's flawed in all sorts of ways but I can see why it comes in useful.
-
I promise you this, TOUAMB, I will always say "Black".
-
Always?
That might confuse people.
-
Always!
-
You didn't say it!
You didn't say it right then!
You're a fraud!
-
(http://23.media.tumblr.com/pIlNOXt3zlrl41frQq5tWGCTo1_250.jpg)
----------------------
From now on I'll be watching you closely, Bagas. Very closely.
-
Speaking of Which:
When did it become OK to say "Person of Color?" What? Especially "Woman of Color." This just sounds really weird to me.
I usually here it in a personnel sense. You need to hire more people who aren't white but aren't picky about whether they're black, latino, samoan, &c. And if they're also female then that's a two-fer.
-
(http://23.media.tumblr.com/pIlNOXt3zlrl41frQq5tWGCTo1_250.jpg)
----------------------
From now on I'll be watching you closely, Bagas. Very closely.
I'd be afraid, but you've already amply demonstrated that you don't follow through on these promises.
-
Where do you live, if you don't mind my asking? The majority of people I've told this story to claim that the reason I didn't know "negro" had become an unacceptable word is because I live in Florida. I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean, really, but maybe it's true?
I live in Texas FWIW. I used negro because, well I thought it was funny, I was talking about how I had been in Utah for two weeks and I had just seen my first negro, but also I had just seen a show about Martin Luther King and that's the language he used.
Those people that told you you didn't know because you live in Florida are elitist pricks, fuck 'em.
-
Speaking of Which:
When did it become OK to say "Person of Color?" What? Especially "Woman of Color." This just sounds really weird to me.
What's always bothered me about "Person of Color" is that it's just a longer way to say "colored person," and I'm pretty sure that's offensive, whether or not the NAACP ever changes their name. Why did just turning it around make it a harmless but annoying euphemism?
-
I think the NAACP should change their name to become more inclusive. Something like, National Association of Minority, Black, and Latino Advancement.
Or, NAMBLA.
-
That might cause some confusion.
-
This thread is all about linguistic plans that might cause some confusion.
I, for one, am going to start calling socks "hats", hats "shirts", shirts "trousers", trousers "mittens", mittens "red lingerie", red lingerie "rampaging hippopotamuses" and rampaging hippopotamuses "socks".
-
I am also going to stop marking the use/mention distinction. Doing so made the above post far too clear.
-
There are not cans enough in this world, Ruta Bagas...
-
Bagas, Bagas, Bagas...
-
I feel for those who are confused, but after several hundred years of colonialism, slavery, resource theft, racism, etc. how about you just call the people who are suffering from being dicked over for generations what they want to be called and don't question it?
That too much to ask?
-
I feel for those who are confused, but after several hundred years of colonialism, slavery, resource theft, racism, etc. how about you just call the people who are suffering from being dicked over for generations what they want to be called and don't question it?
That too much to ask?
The issue, at least for me, is that I've only heard white people use the term "woman/person of color." And almost always in a staffing situation. "We should try to fill that vacancy with a person of color" or "it looks bad that not many people of color work here."
So I'm not clear that there are people who do want to be called that.
-
how about you just call the people who are suffering from being dicked over for generations what they want to be called and don't question it?
That too much to ask?
Them you-know-whats are just too plain lazy to prepare and send off a memo, that's the rub.
-
I feel for those who are confused, but after several hundred years of colonialism, slavery, resource theft, racism, etc. how about you just call the people who are suffering from being dicked over for generations what they want to be called and don't question it?
That too much to ask?
Let us know when they reach a consensus.
Of course, if I find their actions asinine, I reserve the right to make fun of them. Because I'd be treating them differently if I didn't. And it's wrong to treat people differently based upon skin color, isn't it?
-
I don't care what people want to be called, I think 'colored people' sounds poetic and there should be a movement to revive it. Although I'm willing to be persuaded to use 'rampaging hippopotamuses' instead.
-
...that luscious negress... Oh, sorry, daydreaming here, go on...
-
The issue, at least for me, is that I've only heard white people use the term "woman/person of color." And almost always in a staffing situation. "We should try to fill that vacancy with a person of color" or "it looks bad that not many people of color work here."
So I'm not clear that there are people who do want to be called that.
Don't get me wrong; I almost always say "black" if I'm describing someone who's black. But if someone wanted me to "African-American" in their presence, I'd happily oblige and not give it another thought.
-
Wait a minute, this 'dicked over for generations' thing...is there anything in it for me?
I'm not sure how marginalized the BPoE have been throughout recent history.
-
The issue, at least for me, is that I've only heard white people use the term "woman/person of color." And almost always in a staffing situation. "We should try to fill that vacancy with a person of color" or "it looks bad that not many people of color work here."
So I'm not clear that there are people who do want to be called that.
Ditto. In my case I have heard it in anthropology classes where it was used, as far as I can tell, to mean "the people white people dick over."
-
Don't get me wrong; I almost always say "black" if I'm describing someone who's black. But if someone wanted me to "African-American" in their presence, I'd happily oblige and not give it another thought.
See, I most likely wouldn't, because it's against my policy to oblige dunderheads.
-
I think if we tried a little harder we could turn this thread into a flame war about racism.
-
whatever, texas
-
Save your bait buddy, I ain't biting.
-
I think if we tried a little harder we could turn this thread into a flame war about racism.
I'm tryin' as hard as I can, Captain!
But the engines, they canna take the strrrrain.
-
What about descriptive words for people that aren't race-based? Pedro and I have been having this discussion because he doesn't get why the word "hermaphrodite" has been replaced by "intersexed."
I tried to explain that it's like the difference between "midget" and "dwarf," but he didn't get that, either.
There are lots of these, though -- homosexual vs. gay, retarded vs. mentally challenged, fascist vs. Republican*...the words we use change over time because our attitudes towards people who are different also change.
Back when people with Down syndrome were taken away from their parents and institutionalized for life, we called them retards. When we started realizing that what they need is extra help and accommodation, we changed BOTH the way we treat them AND the words we use to describe them.
The same is true for people with autism. Kids with autism used to be labeled "retarded" and locked up too. When autism became an official diagnosis in 1980, we started treating autistic kids differently because we started viewing them as a separate and unique category. There is still debate among parents of autistic children about phraseology -- I've heard the following permutations used with utmost seriousness:
My son has autism.
My son is autistic.
My son is an autistic.
My son is an autist.
My son has special needs.
Yes, that's right -- some parents refuse to use the word "autistic" in front of their autistic kids. Like it's a dark secret. My brother and his wife are in this camp, and they're now struggling with deciding when to tell my nephew -- he's eight -- about his diagnosis.
We're of the "tell 'em early, tell em' often" school of thought. Reminds me of what Cort has said before when asked when his parents told him he was adopted: "When did yours tell you you weren't?" Putting it off attaches a stigma to the word that is impossible to mitigate. If there weren't something wrong with being that way, why wouldn't you want him to know about it? [/autism denial rant]
Anyway, the point here is, I think changes in language reflect changes in attitude, and I think the debate is less about what the groups being described want to be called (we could, after all, just ask the individuals we associate with which they prefer) and more about "outsiders" being unsure how to relate to groups of which they are not members.
Personally, I go with "black" because "African-American" isn't correct in many cases. Colin Powell and my black sister-in-law are both Jamaican-American. (Technically, my SIL is part African-American and part Afro-Jamaican, and her kids will be Afro-Jamaican-Euro-Hispanic.) So unless I know someone's actual heritage, I tend to go with the word that describes their outstanding physical characteristics (whether that's dark skin or red hair) than to make assumptions about when her family arrived and from where.
*just joking, guys.
-
My son is an autist.
Does he play the Aut?
I don't have much need to worry about the black thing because there just aren't that many black people around here and the ones that are around aren't coming from the same slave-based history anyway. I might use black as a physical descriptor and I'm certainl I've used it when referring to 'black culture' in america but not often enough for me to get particularly hung up on it.
What I did get hung up on for ages was using asian as a general term, it just seemed disrespectful because although there are tonnes of asians where I live they come from a bunch of different countries so it didn't seem right being generic. In the end though I got over it when I realised the asian people I knew tended to self identify as being part of that larger group. Tune in next time for TALES OF BEING PARANOID ABOUT NOTHING.
-
The more I think about it:
I think the difference is one of who is using it.
When Halle Berry talks about "women of color" in her Oscar acceptance speech, she's showing solidarity with people she thinks have a lot going against them in life.
When this prissy white girl in my anthro class uses it, she's trying to show her enlightened racial attitude, but actually what she's saying is "there are two groups of people: one is us whities and the other is everyone else."
This makes me OK with it.
we also have problems in this class with people saying "African-American" when they really mean... African.
Also, what is the joke from some show where they had the joke about the Blackula-Hunter?
"Oh, you mean you hunt african-american vampires?"
"What? no, they're mostly british... I don't know, I just call them Blackulas."
"[cringes]"
In re: doc's initial comment:
Yes, I imagine people with not-R-saying (non-rhotic) accents talking about how Autistic their children are, what with the painting and cello.
-
Back when people with Down syndrome were taken away from their parents and institutionalized for life, we called them retards. When we started realizing that what they need is extra help and accommodation, we changed BOTH the way we treat them AND the words we use to describe them.
I'm not sure you've got your history right there. All of those words that we use as insults - moron, idiot, retarded - were originally technical terms. Each started to be used as insults over time, which meant people had to choose new words to use as the polite description. I don't know that these changes necessarily reflect an improvement in attitude - it's just that we'll always need a polite technical term, so when the old term becomes too stigmatized, a new one comes into use.
All of those words eventually become insults because - although we are somewhat more enlightened nowadays- basically people have a bad attitude toward the conditions the word describes. The word will always eventually take on an insulting connotation because of that attitude. Words don't control how people think, they reflect it.
Also, I thought 'midget' and 'dwarf' were two different things, but apparently now we can't use them for the two actually different things that they used to describe because 'midget' has been deemed insulting. I find this annoying.
-
We also have more precise diagnoses now, which is another reason those terms aren't used. We know that although both people with autism and down syndrome have learning difficulties they manifest in different ways and require different management, so although they might both be 'mentally retarded' in the classic sense it is more useful to be specific.
-
Words don't control how people think, they reflect it.
YES!
Oh man, talk about arguments that got really heated around the dinner table a few weeks ago.
-
Words don't control how people think, they reflect it.
YES!
Oh man, talk about arguments that got really heated around the dinner table a few weeks ago.
Exactly. It's that damn Statler-Waldorf hypothesis, giving people ideas.
-
Part of me is kicking myself for having this debate with someone so much wiser and linguistically educated than I. But that part is not nearly strong enough to stop me., so...here goes.
I'm not sure you've got your history right there. All of those words that we use as insults - moron, idiot, retarded - were originally technical terms.
Well, yes -- that's exactly the point I was making. Once upon a time, "idiot" was a perfectly reasonable thing to call someone, provided they'd scored sufficiently low on a standardized intelligence test. Once the term became a slur, however, we had to come up with some other way to say that someone had less-than-average mental capacity.
I would argue that these older terms are more offensive than the newer ones because of the way society responded to the people we now call "mentally challenged" back when they were known as retarded.
Connotation is important. Think of it this way: if you're crippled, you can't do the things a "normal" person can do. If you're disabled, you get specialty parking and legal protection. Crippled makes me think of Tiny Tim. Disabled makes me think of FDR.
Furthermore, what about words that refer to disabilities that haven't changed? "Blind" and "deaf" are still with us, because we haven't significantly changed how we think about blind and deaf people since those words came into common use.
I do agree that language reflects thought. But it follows that changes in language must also reflect changes in thought; otherwise, the "old" words for conditions and races wouldn't become offensive over time.
-
JL, I think you are too good hearted and believe too much in progress to see the forest for the trees here.
The terms didn't change because we have a better attitude towards the disabled. They changed exactly because we have a bad attitude. The words take on a bad connotation eventually because we think these are bad ways to be. Language in this case hasn't changed because thought has changed; it's changed because some thoughts never change, like that mental disability has a stigma, and we can't keep these words from taking on that stigma. I've already heard people using 'special needs' in joking ways that indicate that it's probably going to undergo exactly the same process and have to be replaced by a new term.
I would also totally disagree that attitudes toward the blind and deaf haven't changed. People didn't even used to think sign language was a language; now the deaf are recognized as having a fully independent language and even a separate culture to some extent. Vocabulary has changed, too - like 'hearing impaired' is a recent term, and no one uses 'dumb' for those who sign instead of speak anymore. I suspect that the same is less true for blindness because it doesn't have the same stigma - no one ever thought blind people were stupid.
-
Huh, this one really deserves a Supermegawandering Thread Award, doesn't it.
-
JL, I think you are too good hearted and believe too much in progress to see the forest for the trees here.
I'll take that as a compliment and leave the argument here. I may pick it up again tomorrow, but at the moment, I have a headache and work to do, and also I think I've probably already lost.
-
I've already heard people using 'special needs' in joking ways that indicate that it's probably going to undergo exactly the same process and have to be replaced by a new term.
I've heard this too. In high school I also remember people calling things "homosexual" since "gay" was overused. Of course I've also heard "Texan" as a catch-all pejorative.
-
Isn't intent the real determiner? We can all imagine examples of someone using the "wrong" term out of ignorance. Likewise we can come up with situations where someone uses the "right" words to express a truly offensive or hateful idea.
Certainly it is respectful to call someone what they wish to be called -- we should all try to do it. But I have little patience for someone who is so concerned about words that they cannot focus on ideas.
That we which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, no?
-
Problem with intent is that... people can lie about their intent.
And then all you can say is "nuh-uh!" and be responded to in a "yuh-huh!" type manner and so forth.
Not to say that there isn't a certain validity to intent, conceptually, but it's so easy taken up as a cloak by jerks that it's almost worthless in function.
-
On the other hand someone getting called racist because they used the term 'coloured' when they thought it was the least offensive option available leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Telling someone about how they are a terrible person regardless of intent is the kind of thing that fosters bad feeling and causes division between social groups.
-
Exactly. It's that damn Statler-Waldorf hypothesis, giving people ideas.
Classic.
For what it's worth, I have heard Downs presented in a negative way multiple times.
-
Problem with intent is that... people can lie about their intent.
And then all you can say is "nuh-uh!" and be responded to in a "yuh-huh!" type manner and so forth.
Not to say that there isn't a certain validity to intent, conceptually, but it's so easy taken up as a cloak by jerks that it's almost worthless in function.
I think you can generally infer intent from the rest of the content.
It's buzzword gotcha that is objectionable.
-
post-punk-abilly.
with horns.
-
techno-funk rumbas.
-
Straight up 80s synth-pop. Totally sincere because for them, it never got old.
-
What kind of music would the Buzzword Gotchas! put out?
Picture Tears For Fears with a marching snare drum ensemble.
-
Classic.
For what it's worth, I have heard Downs presented in a negative way multiple times.
Hey, there's no way you can present Hugh Downs in a negative light.
That's ... that's so ridiculous, it's not even funny, man.
-
I heard Sandra Cisneros refer to herself as a person of color this morning.
-
Her house is purple, right?
-
so, I am coming really close to using "Man, this Jeff Beck album really cooks!" as an example of "hyper-white English" in this paper I am writing.
also I have a paragraph where I describe looking at a "Guide to English Grammar" sitting on my desk next to "Introduction to Government and Binding Theory" and thinking about how prescriptivist rules are based on major over-simplifications of how language works.
Also this book I am writing it on explained pretty well what the deal is with why "African-American" is preferred to "Black."
-
prescriptivist rules are based on major over-simplifications of how language works.
All rules and explanations are simplifications. Nobody can honestly say how language, or anything else, really works.
Simplifications are created to perform functions. The criterion for accepting or rejecting a simplification is: does it deliver the goods?
In the case of prescriptivist rules of grammar, the "goods" are precision and comprehensibility in thought and communication. They should function like a car manual does for a driver. If the rules are too vague or general or outdated, they should and will be discarded. But to reject prescriptivist grammar because it is a simplification is like throwing away a bowl of chicken soup because it is not a cauldron of bouillabaisse. Purpose and function must be taken into account.
One of the great pleasures of reading Achewood is drinking in with the mind sentences that are not only grammatically rich and well-constructed but which stretch the language, make it bounce around and party a little.
Let's face it: decades of ignoring grammar instruction in American public schools has made good writing increasingly rare. Have you read Time magazine lately? It's crap. And how often do you hear someone struggle to express him or herself, and, failing to find the right words, fall back on tired cliches and stale media phrases to express his or her thought? We turn to an obscurish webcomic for prose that is rich and displays a love of language hard to find in the dry forest of American media.
Americans aren't stupid, they just lack the right tools. Who will provide them?
Ezra Pound:
The individual cannot think and communicate his thought, the governor and legislator cannot act effectively or frame his laws without words, and the solidity and validity of these words is in the care of the damned and despised litterati …when their very medium, the very essence of their work, the application of word to thing goes rotten, i.e. becomes slushy and inexact, or excessive or bloated, the whole machinery of social and of individual thought and order goes to pot.
This quote is from a review of a newish American novel, a review that is worth reading if you care about language.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/vietnam
-
Up is down, black is white, I'm giving Cioran cans. wtf?
-
All rules and explanations are simplifications. Nobody can honestly say how language, or anything else, really works.
Simplifications are created to perform functions. The criterion for accepting or rejecting a simplification is: does it deliver the goods?
In the case of prescriptivist rules of grammar, the "goods" are precision and comprehensibility in thought and communication. They should function like a car manual does for a driver. If the rules are too vague or general or outdated, they should and will be discarded. But to reject prescriptivist grammar because it is a simplification is like throwing away a bowl of chicken soup because it is not a cauldron of bouillabaisse. Purpose and function must be taken into account.
A prescriptive grammar is at best a snapshot of a language at any given point in time. Which is not to diminish the usefulness of a prescriptive view of language. Precision and efficiency are highly useful in a language and prescriptive rules are necessary for both.
On the other hand, language is like Heraclitus's river. As a communal human construction it grows and changes as our society does. It's only appropriate for language to be responsive.
I'm with you Cioran. I'm glad that there are writers like Onstad influencing the growth and flux of our language.
-
I probably posted this already, but I don't care and I will continue to do so whilst this machine is to me.
Stephen Fry's podcast on language (http://www.stephenfry.com/media/audio/109/series-2-episode-3--language/).
-
This is all very well, but a large proportion 'rules' are just bollocks and won't improve style a jot (see split infinitives, ending sentences with prepositions, Strunk & White).
Even when they're not, though, I suspect the real advantage of rules of this sort is that they're easy to teach - it's much harder to teach someone the kind of subtle appreciation of style that will produce writing that's actually good, rather than merely inoffensive. For plenty of people, of course, inoffensive is a step up and will do just fine, so an nice list of rules is useful for the occasions that they do need to write something substantial. But some people will recommend books like Strunk & White to undergraduate English students, and I can't see that being anything but harmful.
-
Have you read Strunk and White? It's primarily about style rather than grammar rules.
S & W has served me well for 25 years.
-
Doesn't it mainly say make your writing as condensed as possible, or was that my other freshman comp book?
-
Doesn't it mainly say make your writing as condensed as possible, or was that my other freshman comp book?
It says that there are two types of people: those that feel the need to say what is implied.
-
Doesn't it mainly say make your writing as condensed as possible, or was that my other freshman comp book?
I'd say it says to make every word count. To have a reason for every word you use.
That's not the same as condensing for condensing sake.
-
It says that there are two types of people: those that feel the need to say what is implied.
What's the other kind Bobby?
-
Are lawyers paid by the word, AW?
-
Are lawyers paid by the word, AW?
No. They are generally paid by their clients.
-
Well, of course. But I seem to recall they do attempt some grammar rules and they don't do it very well. That said, for a writer, is there any practical difference between a rule that says "Don't do this, it's bad style" and "don't do this, it's bad grammar"? "Use the active voice" is as silly a style rule as "Don't split infinitives" is a grammatical rule.
I don't want to be too down on The Elements of Style because when it expands it usually hedges its rules enough that they're reasonable (even if they couldn't identify the passive voice if they were hit over the head by it), but if you have to hedge a rule to that degree it's not really a rule, and putting it under a header that suggests it is is a very silly thing to do.
-
"Use the active voice" is as silly a style rule.
Why is it a silly style rule?
-
Well, of course. But I seem to recall they do attempt some grammar rules and they don't do it very well. That said, for a writer, is there any practical difference between a rule that says "Don't do this, it's bad style" and "don't do this, it's bad grammar"?
Well, bad style would be ugly, while bad grammar would be wrong. The two are often the same, but not always...
-
Practically, though, as long as you understand what's being said, there's not a lot to choose between "ugly" and "wrong", given that both are really just offenses against your sensibilities.
"Use the active voice" is a silly style rule because sometimes the passive voice is better, and sometimes there's nothing to choose between them. Which is essentially to say that it's silly because it's a rule: advising someone to be aware of the difference and that the passive is often overused is good style advice.
EDIT: I wonder if anyone has any examples they'd consider "wrong" but not "ugly"? It seems to me that the response to seeing something that's "wrong" is essentially just a feeling that it's particularly ugly.
-
Whitney knew who that tony kicked.
who did jackie think when julie hugged?
if we have to have rules for language, I prefer rules like "C is a BC for B if and only if C is not L-marked and C dominates B."
What did the dog in the chew the bone?
To whom don't you know what book john gave?
-
Ruta, I think what you're arguing against is the idea that any style guide should ever exist at all.
-
EDIT: I wonder if anyone has any examples they'd consider "wrong" but not "ugly"? It seems to me that the response to seeing something that's "wrong" is essentially just a feeling that it's particularly ugly.
Who/Whom, but that is probably not what you are talking about. Also, pretty sure that whom has been done away with to some degree? At least in the U.S.
Also, America/US (A). America is two fuck*ng continents. Though it is kind of hard to avoid Americans, I can do it in essays but not when actual speaking most of the time. I mean, the only other thing I can think of is a variation of citizens of the United States.
-
I'm not arguing against any style guide existing, just any style rule. There's a very important difference. And I don't think they're worthless, I just think they're of limited use. They're a bit like Dolmio - you can eat much better if you cook something fresh yourself, but if you don't have the time or inclination to learn to cook (or you just can't get the hang of it) then you're better off using ready-made sauce than cooking yourself something awful.
-
Everything is of limited use.
Rules cited by opponents of proper grammar instruction as ridiculous are "don't split an infinitive" and "don't end a sentence with a preposition". But these rules have not been taught for thirty or forty years. The average American high school graduate these days doesn't even know what infinitives or prepositions are, or even to what branch of knowledge they belong. That is the kind of grammar instruction I am in favor of.
As for style rules, I agree that there are few that are universally applicable. But when the writer knows his purpose and function, style guidelines can help him deliver his message with more power. Prime sources for such rules are the Economist style guide, Orwell's "Politics and the English Language", and Gowers's immortal Plain Words.
http://www.economist.com/research/styleguide/
http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html
(Here's a 2009 rebuttal of Orwell. Note the vicious, mean tone of his detractor. A chihuahua nipping at a lion's heels. http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=992 )
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/gowerse/complete/index.htm
But of course the best way for the ungifted to learn good English style is the same as it is in any art: the imitation of masters. (E.g. "Describe a tree in the style of Coleridge.") This of course is desperately unfashionable. Man.
-
The average American high school graduate these days doesn't even know what infinitives or prepositions are, or even to what branch of knowledge they belong. That is the kind of grammar instruction I am in favor of.
Well put. Can we leave it at that? I love you guys, I love a messageboard where people appreciate the fine use of language, but these regularly recurring grammar threads give me horrible flashbacks.
-
The average American high school graduate these days doesn't even know what infinitives or prepositions are, or even to what branch of knowledge they belong. That is the kind of grammar instruction I am in favor of.
Well yeah, the average American high school graduate speaks Spanish, so you would have to ask that question in Spanish. Do you know what a 不定式 is? How about an irrigatie zak?
infinitive, douchebag
-
Rules cited by opponents of proper grammar instruction as ridiculous are "don't split an infinitive" and "don't end a sentence with a preposition". But these rules have not been taught for thirty or forty years. The average American high school graduate these days doesn't even know what infinitives or prepositions are, or even to what branch of knowledge they belong. That is the kind of grammar instruction I am in favor of.
I was taught both of those rules. I also have people correct me on "breaking" these rules constantly.
Also, I get into arguments REGULARLY about saying "Bigger than me" instead of "bigger than I."
People get all mad when I say "actually, the preposition "than" can take either a predicate nominative or an accusative of comparison." One time I also offered to get out my latin grammar, in case they wanted to argue about any other pointless rules.
-
Everything is of limited use.
Well, obviously. The implication was 'of sufficiently limited use to be notable', or 'of relatively limited use'.
Rules cited by opponents of proper grammar instruction as ridiculous are "don't split an infinitive" and "don't end a sentence with a preposition".
No, these are rules cited as ridiculous by opponents of bullshit grammar instruction. Proper grammar instruction - of the kind you advocate below - wouldn't teach them.
But these rules have not been taught for thirty or forty years.
This simply isn't true. I've been taught them for years, and I'm still being taught them now by multiple members of my English faculty. They're so thoroughly still being taught that I sometimes even follow them because I know the supervisor I'm writing for prefers it ugly but 'right'.
The average American high school graduate these days doesn't even know what infinitives or prepositions are, or even to what branch of knowledge they belong. That is the kind of grammar instruction I am in favor of.
Me too! One of its many advantages is that technical knowledge allows you to think more concretely about the many alternatives open to you and judge which is the best. This is roughly equivalent to thinking 'should I apply that rule about the passive voice that I know isn't really a rule in this case?' only with a layer of silliness stripped out and a greater likelihood that you actually know what the passive voice is.
As for style rules, I agree that there are few that are universally applicable. But when the writer knows his purpose and function, style guidelines can help him deliver his message with more power. Prime sources for such rules are the Economist style guide, Orwell's "Politics and the English Language", and Gowers's immortal Plain Words.
Well, yes, when a writer already knows what they're doing any number of things can help them deliver their message with more power. They won't improve by following a style guide, they'll improve by reading it critically. Beaver's criticisms of Orwell are for the most part perfectly valid: if I take the first five rules of 'Politics and the English Language' at face value they will ruin my writing. That is the way it presents itself, and that is the way rules like these are almost always presented. This is exactly what his sixth rule is about: making it clear that the rest aren't rules at all.
But of course the best way for the ungifted to learn good English style is the same as it is in any art: the imitation of masters. (E.g. "Describe a tree in the style of Coleridge.") This of course is desperately unfashionable. Man.
I think that 'of course' is a bit presumptuous without any evidence, but that aside it's worth pointing out that a great many style guides (not all, by a long stretch) are roughly the equivalent of advising 'write like Coleridge, always.'
-
Ooh, that looks a bit confrontational, doesn't it, with its length and its interleaved quotes? Sorry. Procrastinating.
-
oh look what the tl;dr fairy has brought me on this fine spring day
i will say one of the interesting things about the english language is that infinitives and gerunds have taken the function of the aorist in english and this pleases me
-
I was taught both of those rules. I also have people correct me on "breaking" these rules constantly.
Also, I get into arguments REGULARLY about saying "Bigger than me" instead of "bigger than I."
People get all mad when I say "actually, the preposition "than" can take either a predicate nominative or an accusative of comparison." One time I also offered to get out my latin grammar, in case they wanted to argue about any other pointless rules.
I would submit that you are an above average American high school graduate.
-
I would submit that you are an above average American high school graduate.
I can't think of a way to say "yes" to this that isn't horrible.
But the reason I was taught those rules is that I went to a snobby private school.
And not all of the friends who correct me on those rules are from snobby private schools.
...they all go to one for college, though. oh well.
-
the reason they are called style guides and not style rulebooks is that you are free to veer from their recommendation as you please so long as you are aware you are doing so
now kindly remove your panties from your asscracks
-
the reason they are called style guides and not style rulebooks is that you are free to veer from their recommendation as you please so long as you are aware you are doing so
now kindly remove your panties from your asscracks
quoted for some truth, kate turabian-style
-
Picasso once said this:
"There is no abstract art. You must always start with something. Afterward you can remove all traces of reality."
While I don't use a style guide nor have I consulted one since completing my English requirements for college, I'm glad I learned from one, because now I'm aware of when I am breaking convention and get to decide for myself whether it's justified or not.
I guess what I'm saying here is that it's better to break the rules than to be ignorant of them. You may say the same thing, but at least one implies consideration.
-
also:
horrible memories of grammar lessons in said snobby private school, where the teacher admitted that she hated and did not understand grammar, and could not answer our questions very well.
-
This simply isn't true. I've been taught them for years, and I'm still being taught them now by multiple members of my English faculty. They're so thoroughly still being taught that I sometimes even follow them because I know the supervisor I'm writing for prefers it ugly but 'right'.
I admit my experience of the educational system is not wide. It seems my opinion is wrong. Would you mind giving the name of the school, or the textbooks?
You rightly point out that it is not the style rules that are wrong, rather it is the mental habit of taking rules for absolutes that causes the difficulty. I submit that the solution to this problem lies outside the purview of style guides, grammar instruction, or traditional education of any sort.