June 7th, 2010 / 9:08 pm
Craft Notes
Blake Butler
Craft Notes
David Foster Wallace on genteelisms
Tags: david foster wallace, genteelisms
-
Archives
- January 2023
- February 2022
- September 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- August 2017
- July 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
-
Meta
“this is the downside to starting to pay attention.”
superfreak
<3
“this is the downside to starting to pay attention.”
superfreak
<3
i wish this guy taught grammar back in high school. i would have paid attention.
i wish this guy taught grammar back in high school. i would have paid attention.
Wait, but isn’t the root of posterior “post” (later or after)? Prior isn’t actually incorrect or even that annoying. . . . it sounds like legalese maybe . . . Maybe he’s thinking “behind”. . . . the more I think about this, the less I understand. What exactly is the downside of paying attention? Having to parse? When are we not parsing?
Wait, but isn’t the root of posterior “post” (later or after)? Prior isn’t actually incorrect or even that annoying. . . . it sounds like legalese maybe . . . Maybe he’s thinking “behind”. . . . the more I think about this, the less I understand. What exactly is the downside of paying attention? Having to parse? When are we not parsing?
DFW commenting on the negatives of using to many words? Mr. Squishy much?
to = too
DFW commenting on the negatives of using to many words? Mr. Squishy much?
to = too
I learned in a college grammar course that you can write whatever you want, as long as you’re willing, on being challenged, to diagram your sentence. I shed fluff like genteelisms as fast as I could because it complicates these chalkboard showdowns with faceless grammatical adversaries.
I learned in a college grammar course that you can write whatever you want, as long as you’re willing, on being challenged, to diagram your sentence. I shed fluff like genteelisms as fast as I could because it complicates these chalkboard showdowns with faceless grammatical adversaries.
That minute and a half was one of those beautiful contradictions between the message and the medium that would make even Whitman bow.
That minute and a half was one of those beautiful contradictions between the message and the medium that would make even Whitman bow.
I think you don’t get to have this opinion and use ‘parse’ twice in a minute.
I think you don’t get to have this opinion and use ‘parse’ twice in a minute.
I think he’s confusing the spatial and temporal senses of the roots. The postero- and antero- (e.g. posterior and anterior) roots can mean either before/after or behind/in front of, which means that the meanings all get kind of goofy: spatially antero- indicates “in the front” (as in medical terminology), but temporally postero- indicates “next, later, after.” So if he’s doinking the spatial meaning for the temporal, posterior = “behind” in time, i.e. in the posterior (the butt) of the timeline. . . which would make it seem like posterior to = prior to.
And I’m not sure what he has against ‘prior.’ (Though, what the heck is wrong with ‘parse,’ Jhon? He was using the word accurately.) In general, though, this is part of what makes me kind of leery of DFW’s grammarianism: more often than not it’s a weird mix of complex grammatical understand and arbitrary maxims he probably picked up from his mom. Hard to know what you’ve got.
I think he’s confusing the spatial and temporal senses of the roots. The postero- and antero- (e.g. posterior and anterior) roots can mean either before/after or behind/in front of, which means that the meanings all get kind of goofy: spatially antero- indicates “in the front” (as in medical terminology), but temporally postero- indicates “next, later, after.” So if he’s doinking the spatial meaning for the temporal, posterior = “behind” in time, i.e. in the posterior (the butt) of the timeline. . . which would make it seem like posterior to = prior to.
And I’m not sure what he has against ‘prior.’ (Though, what the heck is wrong with ‘parse,’ Jhon? He was using the word accurately.) In general, though, this is part of what makes me kind of leery of DFW’s grammarianism: more often than not it’s a weird mix of complex grammatical understand and arbitrary maxims he probably picked up from his mom. Hard to know what you’ve got.
understanding*
understanding*
haha, classic dfw frustration at the anti-functionality of the world. i’m pretty sure i’m a huge offender for genteelisms. prior to can be another way to say before if you’ve just said before. the english language is full of non-necessary dub words like that. so it can be to forestall (or should i have written ‘stop’?) repetition. and, in relation to the last bracketed aside, genteelisms can also be a way to communicate a sense of specificity or can be a means to achieve a formal tone. ‘prior to my arrival’ is more likely to appear as a complete phrase, just as ‘before i got here’ is likely to appear as a complete phrase. ‘before my arrival’ is fine, naturally, but it weighs more heavily to the tone of the latter than the former, precisely by foresaking the excess (or the sense of care, precision) that’s inside the genteelism. perversely, genteelisms carry a sense of precision *via* their excess precisely because what they are conveying is not an economy of meaning but the *message* of precision. the question of whether they are being precise or not is often (though not always) explicitly opened by being addressed in that way.
haha, classic dfw frustration at the anti-functionality of the world. i’m pretty sure i’m a huge offender for genteelisms. prior to can be another way to say before if you’ve just said before. the english language is full of non-necessary dub words like that. so it can be to forestall (or should i have written ‘stop’?) repetition. and, in relation to the last bracketed aside, genteelisms can also be a way to communicate a sense of specificity or can be a means to achieve a formal tone. ‘prior to my arrival’ is more likely to appear as a complete phrase, just as ‘before i got here’ is likely to appear as a complete phrase. ‘before my arrival’ is fine, naturally, but it weighs more heavily to the tone of the latter than the former, precisely by foresaking the excess (or the sense of care, precision) that’s inside the genteelism. perversely, genteelisms carry a sense of precision *via* their excess precisely because what they are conveying is not an economy of meaning but the *message* of precision. the question of whether they are being precise or not is often (though not always) explicitly opened by being addressed in that way.
call me dumb, but “genteelism” seems like a ‘genteelism’ to me.
/ i just had a tautologasm.
“this is the downside to starting to pay attention.”
superfreak
<3
i wish this guy taught grammar back in high school. i would have paid attention.
Wait, but isn’t the root of posterior “post” (later or after)? Prior isn’t actually incorrect or even that annoying. . . . it sounds like legalese maybe . . . Maybe he’s thinking “behind”. . . . the more I think about this, the less I understand. What exactly is the downside of paying attention? Having to parse? When are we not parsing?
DFW commenting on the negatives of using to many words? Mr. Squishy much?
to = too
I learned in a college grammar course that you can write whatever you want, as long as you’re willing, on being challenged, to diagram your sentence. I shed fluff like genteelisms as fast as I could because it complicates these chalkboard showdowns with faceless grammatical adversaries.
Giving a shit about an additional word taking up your valuable fucking time and then killing yourself is the tautologasm d-lux. Good point re: Whitman. Parse sucks…
Giving a shit about an additional word taking up your valuable fucking time and then killing yourself is the tautologasm d-lux. Good point re: Whitman. Parse sucks…
That minute and a half was one of those beautiful contradictions between the message and the medium that would make even Whitman bow.
I think you don’t get to have this opinion and use ‘parse’ twice in a minute.
I think he’s confusing the spatial and temporal senses of the roots. The postero- and antero- (e.g. posterior and anterior) roots can mean either before/after or behind/in front of, which means that the meanings all get kind of goofy: spatially antero- indicates “in the front” (as in medical terminology), but temporally postero- indicates “next, later, after.” So if he’s doinking the spatial meaning for the temporal, posterior = “behind” in time, i.e. in the posterior (the butt) of the timeline. . . which would make it seem like posterior to = prior to.
And I’m not sure what he has against ‘prior.’ (Though, what the heck is wrong with ‘parse,’ Jhon? He was using the word accurately.) In general, though, this is part of what makes me kind of leery of DFW’s grammarianism: more often than not it’s a weird mix of complex grammatical understand and arbitrary maxims he probably picked up from his mom. Hard to know what you’ve got.
understanding*
Huh, first time I’ve seen DFW in motion. He was slightly effeminate. Interesting.
I quite like the word “parse”, to be honest. As he was using it, I think, it was slightly unnecessary, but it can act as a more elegant and specific way of saying what it says, relative to whatever the alternatives might be. “Understanding”, for example, isn’t quite the same thing. My pre- to very early teens were largely passed in establishing my dark past in programming, however, so I may be biased here.
Huh, first time I’ve seen DFW in motion. He was slightly effeminate. Interesting.
I quite like the word “parse”, to be honest. As he was using it, I think, it was slightly unnecessary, but it can act as a more elegant and specific way of saying what it says, relative to whatever the alternatives might be. “Understanding”, for example, isn’t quite the same thing. My pre- to very early teens were largely passed in establishing my dark past in programming, however, so I may be biased here.
haha, classic dfw frustration at the anti-functionality of the world. i’m pretty sure i’m a huge offender for genteelisms. prior to can be another way to say before if you’ve just said before. the english language is full of non-necessary dub words like that. so it can be to forestall (or should i have written ‘stop’?) repetition. and, in relation to the last bracketed aside, genteelisms can also be a way to communicate a sense of specificity or can be a means to achieve a formal tone. ‘prior to my arrival’ is more likely to appear as a complete phrase, just as ‘before i got here’ is likely to appear as a complete phrase. ‘before my arrival’ is fine, naturally, but it weighs more heavily to the tone of the latter than the former, precisely by foresaking the excess (or the sense of care, precision) that’s inside the genteelism. perversely, genteelisms carry a sense of precision *via* their excess precisely because what they are conveying is not an economy of meaning but the *message* of precision. the question of whether they are being precise or not is often (though not always) explicitly opened by being addressed in that way.
But, you know, I probably wouldn’t drop it in casual conversation. Or in most other types of conversation. It’s a nice word, but it is one whose use really needs to be justified. If it doesn’t appear to be justified, I think, it can actually sound slightly antagonistic.
But, you know, I probably wouldn’t drop it in casual conversation. Or in most other types of conversation. It’s a nice word, but it is one whose use really needs to be justified. If it doesn’t appear to be justified, I think, it can actually sound slightly antagonistic.
and yeah, so many grammatical errors here, but I’m in a hurry, movin’ on —>
and yeah, so many grammatical errors here, but I’m in a hurry, movin’ on —>
Giving a shit about an additional word taking up your valuable fucking time and then killing yourself is the tautologasm d-lux. Good point re: Whitman. Parse sucks…
Huh, first time I’ve seen DFW in motion. He was slightly effeminate. Interesting.
I quite like the word “parse”, to be honest. As he was using it, I think, it was slightly unnecessary, but it can act as a more elegant and specific way of saying what it says, relative to whatever the alternatives might be. “Understanding”, for example, isn’t quite the same thing. My pre- to very early teens were largely passed in establishing my dark past in programming, however, so I may be biased here.
But, you know, I probably wouldn’t drop it in casual conversation. Or in most other types of conversation. It’s a nice word, but it is one whose use really needs to be justified. If it doesn’t appear to be justified, I think, it can actually sound slightly antagonistic.
and yeah, so many grammatical errors here, but I’m in a hurry, movin’ on —>
dfw isn’t dead he’s andy divine.
dfw isn’t dead he’s andy divine.
“My pre- to very early teens were largely passed in establishing my dark past in programming, however, so I may be biased here.”
Hey, me too! From like 10-13, major programming nerd. Doesn’t it make for a nice transition? Sometimes, when I’m revising a poem, I feel like I’m working it over and over until it will compile w/o a compiler error. . . .
“My pre- to very early teens were largely passed in establishing my dark past in programming, however, so I may be biased here.”
Hey, me too! From like 10-13, major programming nerd. Doesn’t it make for a nice transition? Sometimes, when I’m revising a poem, I feel like I’m working it over and over until it will compile w/o a compiler error. . . .
p.s. good luck with the jobhunt!
p.s. good luck with the jobhunt!
I recently used “prior to” in a complicated phrase where I thought it was clearer than “before”: “But prior to the setting up of that labor system….”
I recently used “prior to” in a complicated phrase where I thought it was clearer than “before”: “But prior to the setting up of that labor system….”
i agree (concur)
i agree (concur)
Uh, “But before that labor system was set up…”
Uh, “But before that labor system was set up…”
“You become an agent for goodness and light rather than the evil all around.”
Jesus.
Often when reading DFW I’m like “alright already, I get it, get to the point, (you’re wasting my time)” etc etc but then I always give him the benefit of the doubt, willingly, happily, and am almost never disappointed that I held on and my time has not been wasted. So this quote from him seems weird to me.
I like “prior to” and “subject to” and “subsequent to” and “seems to me to be” and being “overly charitable” and fun with words and tautologisms and spiralings and repeats and genteelisms and “working it over and over until it will compile” and on and on and on and complicated phrases.
“You become an agent for goodness and light rather than the evil all around.”
Jesus.
Often when reading DFW I’m like “alright already, I get it, get to the point, (you’re wasting my time)” etc etc but then I always give him the benefit of the doubt, willingly, happily, and am almost never disappointed that I held on and my time has not been wasted. So this quote from him seems weird to me.
I like “prior to” and “subject to” and “subsequent to” and “seems to me to be” and being “overly charitable” and fun with words and tautologisms and spiralings and repeats and genteelisms and “working it over and over until it will compile” and on and on and on and complicated phrases.
Hello, he was being funny?
In general I’m confused by all this DFW-hate on this message board. I mean, yeeeahhhh, he’s being a little picky about “prior to,” but his broad point is still a good one, yeah? Concision is something to strive for, almost always.
Hello, he was being funny?
In general I’m confused by all this DFW-hate on this message board. I mean, yeeeahhhh, he’s being a little picky about “prior to,” but his broad point is still a good one, yeah? Concision is something to strive for, almost always.
Hello, DFW is way more picky than funny, imho, here in this clip at least, although I can see a glimmer of humor, and it seems a little dark. (a dark glimmer?) And that’s OK, I like dark humor. I in no way want my comment above to imply DFW-hate because my feelings about him and his work are quite the contrary.
And DFW is the ultimate marriage-of-opposites of concision and lengthiness, if you know what I mean, which makes reading him pretty fascinating, to me.
Hello, DFW is way more picky than funny, imho, here in this clip at least, although I can see a glimmer of humor, and it seems a little dark. (a dark glimmer?) And that’s OK, I like dark humor. I in no way want my comment above to imply DFW-hate because my feelings about him and his work are quite the contrary.
And DFW is the ultimate marriage-of-opposites of concision and lengthiness, if you know what I mean, which makes reading him pretty fascinating, to me.
He sounds pretty annoying saying “parse” like that.
He sounds pretty annoying saying “parse” like that.
Judging by how he’s seemed/behaved in other vids, I think he was probably pretty uncomfortable w/ this set-up. Probably did it as a favor for Garner, but DFW doesn’t exactly seem like the type to enjoy dispensing grammar advice in tiny one-minute soundclips. I mean, even in longer interviews he would try to decline to answer certain questions because he felt like there wasn’t enough time to hash it all out.
Judging by how he’s seemed/behaved in other vids, I think he was probably pretty uncomfortable w/ this set-up. Probably did it as a favor for Garner, but DFW doesn’t exactly seem like the type to enjoy dispensing grammar advice in tiny one-minute soundclips. I mean, even in longer interviews he would try to decline to answer certain questions because he felt like there wasn’t enough time to hash it all out.
And I really think DFW was a pretty concise writer. For me concision isn’t exclusive to long, winding sentences, or tons of long digressions, or whatever. There was a beautiful compression of meaning to (almost) everything he wrote.
And I really think DFW was a pretty concise writer. For me concision isn’t exclusive to long, winding sentences, or tons of long digressions, or whatever. There was a beautiful compression of meaning to (almost) everything he wrote.
DFW-hate? I think this board probably has an unusually high number of DFW fans. If you want hate, google and see what the various linguist/descriptivist bloggers think of the dude. . . .
DFW-hate? I think this board probably has an unusually high number of DFW fans. If you want hate, google and see what the various linguist/descriptivist bloggers think of the dude. . . .
Yeah, and I also think that one can be “an agent of goodness and light” without picky grammatical concision, and that, conversely, a concise and correct presentation can come from an agent of “the evil all around”.
Yeah, and I also think that one can be “an agent of goodness and light” without picky grammatical concision, and that, conversely, a concise and correct presentation can come from an agent of “the evil all around”.
How is being concise ever evil?
How is being concise ever evil?
I’m not saying that being concise is evil. I’m saying that an agent of “the evil all around” can also be concise in their writing. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
I’m not saying that being concise is evil. I’m saying that an agent of “the evil all around” can also be concise in their writing. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
dfw isn’t dead he’s andy divine.
“My pre- to very early teens were largely passed in establishing my dark past in programming, however, so I may be biased here.”
Hey, me too! From like 10-13, major programming nerd. Doesn’t it make for a nice transition? Sometimes, when I’m revising a poem, I feel like I’m working it over and over until it will compile w/o a compiler error. . . .
p.s. good luck with the jobhunt!
huh? i think you guys are missing something big here.
what matters most is NOT if he is right or wrong about fucking grammar.
what i found important was here was a display of an earnest dude. he was a serious mind.
what he’s saying about parsing is an allusion to awareness–the greater awareness of a thing, the greater mental processes needed, the greater wear on the mind.
it is taxing on a big brain. he is pissed the world is not bowing to his mind because something as small as “prior to” is nerve racking to him.
knowing he committed suicide makes the video better, i think.
just enjoy the dude.
huh? i think you guys are missing something big here.
what matters most is NOT if he is right or wrong about fucking grammar.
what i found important was here was a display of an earnest dude. he was a serious mind.
what he’s saying about parsing is an allusion to awareness–the greater awareness of a thing, the greater mental processes needed, the greater wear on the mind.
it is taxing on a big brain. he is pissed the world is not bowing to his mind because something as small as “prior to” is nerve racking to him.
knowing he committed suicide makes the video better, i think.
just enjoy the dude.
DFW knew and understood more about grammar than every commenter here combined. Show a little respect you fucking twats.
DFW knew and understood more about grammar than every commenter here combined. Show a little respect you fucking twats.
wonder where he came down on direct address.
wonder where he came down on direct address.
I recently used “prior to” in a complicated phrase where I thought it was clearer than “before”: “But prior to the setting up of that labor system….”
i agree (concur)
Uh, “But before that labor system was set up…”
“You become an agent for goodness and light rather than the evil all around.”
Jesus.
Often when reading DFW I’m like “alright already, I get it, get to the point, (you’re wasting my time)” etc etc but then I always give him the benefit of the doubt, willingly, happily, and am almost never disappointed that I held on and my time has not been wasted. So this quote from him seems weird to me.
I like “prior to” and “subject to” and “subsequent to” and “seems to me to be” and being “overly charitable” and fun with words and tautologisms and spiralings and repeats and genteelisms and “working it over and over until it will compile” and on and on and on and complicated phrases.
Hello, he was being funny?
In general I’m confused by all this DFW-hate on this message board. I mean, yeeeahhhh, he’s being a little picky about “prior to,” but his broad point is still a good one, yeah? Concision is something to strive for, almost always.
Hello, DFW is way more picky than funny, imho, here in this clip at least, although I can see a glimmer of humor, and it seems a little dark. (a dark glimmer?) And that’s OK, I like dark humor. I in no way want my comment above to imply DFW-hate because my feelings about him and his work are quite the contrary.
And DFW is the ultimate marriage-of-opposites of concision and lengthiness, if you know what I mean, which makes reading him pretty fascinating, to me.
He sounds pretty annoying saying “parse” like that.
Judging by how he’s seemed/behaved in other vids, I think he was probably pretty uncomfortable w/ this set-up. Probably did it as a favor for Garner, but DFW doesn’t exactly seem like the type to enjoy dispensing grammar advice in tiny one-minute soundclips. I mean, even in longer interviews he would try to decline to answer certain questions because he felt like there wasn’t enough time to hash it all out.
And I really think DFW was a pretty concise writer. For me concision isn’t exclusive to long, winding sentences, or tons of long digressions, or whatever. There was a beautiful compression of meaning to (almost) everything he wrote.
DFW-hate? I think this board probably has an unusually high number of DFW fans. If you want hate, google and see what the various linguist/descriptivist bloggers think of the dude. . . .
Dreezer, Can’t you see how that changes the emphasis?
Dreezer, Can’t you see how that changes the emphasis?
Yeah, and I also think that one can be “an agent of goodness and light” without picky grammatical concision, and that, conversely, a concise and correct presentation can come from an agent of “the evil all around”.
How is being concise ever evil?
He was for it.
He was for it.
I’m not saying that being concise is evil. I’m saying that an agent of “the evil all around” can also be concise in their writing. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
huh? i think you guys are missing something big here.
what matters most is NOT if he is right or wrong about fucking grammar.
what i found important was here was a display of an earnest dude. he was a serious mind.
what he’s saying about parsing is an allusion to awareness–the greater awareness of a thing, the greater mental processes needed, the greater wear on the mind.
it is taxing on a big brain. he is pissed the world is not bowing to his mind because something as small as “prior to” is nerve racking to him.
knowing he committed suicide makes the video better, i think.
just enjoy the dude.
DFW knew and understood more about grammar than every commenter here combined. Show a little respect you fucking twats.
wonder where he came down on direct address.
One can respect a man and still quibble with perceptible flaws (is Einstein less great because of his philandering?), and much of DFW’s grammar-prescriptive proclivities stem less from a linguistic understanding and more from his background in philosophical logic (I would wager money that he’d read Robert Lowth) and his mother’s hyperbolic reaction to certain solecisms.
I’d say demi-puppet said it best in an earlier comment, but I would like to add this quote by linguist Mark Liberman criticizing DFW’s prescriptive tendencies:
“[usage fanatics’] outpourings are never based on scholarly investigation and analysis, even if they have some scholarly credentials in other aspects of their intellectual life. The reason is simple: scholarship subordinates the self, at least temporarily, to an investigation of external fact, while the [usage fanatic] posture immediately asserts the primacy of the self’s linguistic judgments. [Usage fanatics] routinely invoke both the authority of tradition and the dictates of logic, but these are ex post facto rhetorical justifications, not the conclusions of a dispassionate analysis.”
Prior to seeing this video, I was subject to the opinion that utilizing genteelisms was less a function of “correctness” and more a marker of register. Posterior to seeing this video, I still feel this way.
With regards to his observations about awareness and being aware of a dysfunctional world, I’d say it has little to do with difficulty in parsing discourse.
One can respect a man and still quibble with perceptible flaws (is Einstein less great because of his philandering?), and much of DFW’s grammar-prescriptive proclivities stem less from a linguistic understanding and more from his background in philosophical logic (I would wager money that he’d read Robert Lowth) and his mother’s hyperbolic reaction to certain solecisms.
I’d say demi-puppet said it best in an earlier comment, but I would like to add this quote by linguist Mark Liberman criticizing DFW’s prescriptive tendencies:
“[usage fanatics’] outpourings are never based on scholarly investigation and analysis, even if they have some scholarly credentials in other aspects of their intellectual life. The reason is simple: scholarship subordinates the self, at least temporarily, to an investigation of external fact, while the [usage fanatic] posture immediately asserts the primacy of the self’s linguistic judgments. [Usage fanatics] routinely invoke both the authority of tradition and the dictates of logic, but these are ex post facto rhetorical justifications, not the conclusions of a dispassionate analysis.”
Prior to seeing this video, I was subject to the opinion that utilizing genteelisms was less a function of “correctness” and more a marker of register. Posterior to seeing this video, I still feel this way.
With regards to his observations about awareness and being aware of a dysfunctional world, I’d say it has little to do with difficulty in parsing discourse.
Dreezer, Can’t you see how that changes the emphasis?
And he could definitely school your ass. Plus your Einstein analogy makes no sense. What does Albert dipping his wick into countless college students have to do with his knowledge of physics? Some of you need to listen more and spout less.
And he could definitely school your ass. Plus your Einstein analogy makes no sense. What does Albert dipping his wick into countless college students have to do with his knowledge of physics? Some of you need to listen more and spout less.
i’d seen this video more than a year ago. my first thought was: wow what a stickler (plus shades of someone else’s earlier comment about this video being a near infinitely ridiculous contradiction of medium/message). my second thought: he’s one of those guys with a bitter sense of humor.
@Ben “And he could definitely school your ass. … Some of you need to listen more and spout less.” i like how your comment there forms a neat little contradiction sandwich.
He was for it.
“What does Albert dipping his wick into countless college students have to do with his knowledge of physics?”
That was precisely my point: what does DFW being a prescriptive grammarian have to with his being an exceptionally talented writer? As I said, one can respect a man and still quibble with certain flaws.
“And he could definitely school your ass.”
Yeah, except that he’s dead? And can’t?
It’s as though you’re responding ever so personally to any minor criticisms somebody might conceivably and validly have about the man. I didn’t show up and start calling people “twats,” demanding respect while simultaneously doling disrespect, I simply endeavored to point out that your original “DFW knew and understood more about grammar than every commenter here combined” statement was possibly false. Just because he appears to have had a penchant for Fowler and Strunk & White doesn’t make him an authority on usage, and just because he’s dead doesn’t make him the prophet Muhammad.
“What does Albert dipping his wick into countless college students have to do with his knowledge of physics?”
That was precisely my point: what does DFW being a prescriptive grammarian have to with his being an exceptionally talented writer? As I said, one can respect a man and still quibble with certain flaws.
“And he could definitely school your ass.”
Yeah, except that he’s dead? And can’t?
It’s as though you’re responding ever so personally to any minor criticisms somebody might conceivably and validly have about the man. I didn’t show up and start calling people “twats,” demanding respect while simultaneously doling disrespect, I simply endeavored to point out that your original “DFW knew and understood more about grammar than every commenter here combined” statement was possibly false. Just because he appears to have had a penchant for Fowler and Strunk & White doesn’t make him an authority on usage, and just because he’s dead doesn’t make him the prophet Muhammad.
re “school your ass”
This sort of statement is exactly where most prescriptive grammarians go wrong. Grammar becomes about browbeating others and showing off your mental penis-size, rather than helping others to communicate clearly and elegantly.
re “school your ass”
This sort of statement is exactly where most prescriptive grammarians go wrong. Grammar becomes about browbeating others and showing off your mental penis-size, rather than helping others to communicate clearly and elegantly.
One can respect a man and still quibble with perceptible flaws (is Einstein less great because of his philandering?), and much of DFW’s grammar-prescriptive proclivities stem less from a linguistic understanding and more from his background in philosophical logic (I would wager money that he’d read Robert Lowth) and his mother’s hyperbolic reaction to certain solecisms.
I’d say demi-puppet said it best in an earlier comment, but I would like to add this quote by linguist Mark Liberman criticizing DFW’s prescriptive tendencies:
“[usage fanatics’] outpourings are never based on scholarly investigation and analysis, even if they have some scholarly credentials in other aspects of their intellectual life. The reason is simple: scholarship subordinates the self, at least temporarily, to an investigation of external fact, while the [usage fanatic] posture immediately asserts the primacy of the self’s linguistic judgments. [Usage fanatics] routinely invoke both the authority of tradition and the dictates of logic, but these are ex post facto rhetorical justifications, not the conclusions of a dispassionate analysis.”
Prior to seeing this video, I was subject to the opinion that utilizing genteelisms was less a function of “correctness” and more a marker of register. Posterior to seeing this video, I still feel this way.
With regards to his observations about awareness and being aware of a dysfunctional world, I’d say it has little to do with difficulty in parsing discourse.
And he could definitely school your ass. Plus your Einstein analogy makes no sense. What does Albert dipping his wick into countless college students have to do with his knowledge of physics? Some of you need to listen more and spout less.
“What does Albert dipping his wick into countless college students have to do with his knowledge of physics?”
That was precisely my point: what does DFW being a prescriptive grammarian have to with his being an exceptionally talented writer? As I said, one can respect a man and still quibble with certain flaws.
“And he could definitely school your ass.”
Yeah, except that he’s dead? And can’t?
It’s as though you’re responding ever so personally to any minor criticisms somebody might conceivably and validly have about the man. I didn’t show up and start calling people “twats,” demanding respect while simultaneously doling disrespect, I simply endeavored to point out that your original “DFW knew and understood more about grammar than every commenter here combined” statement was possibly false. Just because he appears to have had a penchant for Fowler and Strunk & White doesn’t make him an authority on usage, and just because he’s dead doesn’t make him the prophet Muhammad.
re “school your ass”
This sort of statement is exactly where most prescriptive grammarians go wrong. Grammar becomes about browbeating others and showing off your mental penis-size, rather than helping others to communicate clearly and elegantly.
DFW could be a bit on the anal-explosive side; I’m with him re: “prior to” vs “before” and “individual” vs “person” (and “vehicle” vs “car”, by extension… it’s all cop talk, isn’t it?) but not because three syllables take a millisecond longer to digest than two; that’s a wee-bit silly. If you don’t have an extra millisecond to spare, you shouldn’t be reading for pleasure (and I write that sentence deliberately avoiding the “if one doesn’t, one shouldn’t” register, which would have felt stilted). Language is a fluid, Grammar is a knife.
Also agree with the psychological aspects of Über Grammarianism: DFW had the sanctimony gene often found in Crusaders. Great writer and Extreme Human.
DFW could be a bit on the anal-explosive side; I’m with him re: “prior to” vs “before” and “individual” vs “person” (and “vehicle” vs “car”, by extension… it’s all cop talk, isn’t it?) but not because three syllables take a millisecond longer to digest than two; that’s a wee-bit silly. If you don’t have an extra millisecond to spare, you shouldn’t be reading for pleasure (and I write that sentence deliberately avoiding the “if one doesn’t, one shouldn’t” register, which would have felt stilted). Language is a fluid, Grammar is a knife.
Also agree with the psychological aspects of Über Grammarianism: DFW had the sanctimony gene often found in Crusaders. Great writer and Extreme Human.
DFW could be a bit on the anal-explosive side; I’m with him re: “prior to” vs “before” and “individual” vs “person” (and “vehicle” vs “car”, by extension… it’s all cop talk, isn’t it?) but not because three syllables take a millisecond longer to digest than two; that’s a wee-bit silly. If you don’t have an extra millisecond to spare, you shouldn’t be reading for pleasure (and I write that sentence deliberately avoiding the “if one doesn’t, one shouldn’t” register, which would have felt stilted). Language is a fluid, Grammar is a knife.
Also agree with the psychological aspects of Über Grammarianism: DFW had the sanctimony gene often found in Crusaders. Great writer and Extreme Human.
Ben,
You sound like an annoying little fanboy. Shut your twat.
All the best,
Stephen
Ben,
You sound like an annoying little fanboy. Shut your twat.
All the best,
Stephen
Ben,
You sound like an annoying little fanboy. Shut your twat.
All the best,
Stephen
Even if his justification for not using genteelisms is incorrect, I still find the times I use them are when I want to sound intelligent and not when I’m actually being intelligent (i.e., I use them to make the writing/talking sound smarter to the reader/listener, instead of writing/saying something that’s actually intelligent. See: Academic English.) If that makes any sense.
Even if his justification for not using genteelisms is incorrect, I still find the times I use them are when I want to sound intelligent and not when I’m actually being intelligent (i.e., I use them to make the writing/talking sound smarter to the reader/listener, instead of writing/saying something that’s actually intelligent. See: Academic English.) If that makes any sense.
Even if his justification for not using genteelisms is incorrect, I still find the times I use them are when I want to sound intelligent and not when I’m actually being intelligent (i.e., I use them to make the writing/talking sound smarter to the reader/listener, instead of writing/saying something that’s actually intelligent. See: Academic English.) If that makes any sense.