Category Archives: English

UPDATE III: Botching English (‘Creative’ Is NOT A Noun)

Bill O’Reilly has a ludicrous segment on The Factor, where he pretends to introduce his listeners to English words that he supposedly uses.

Last week he introduced the word “chimera,” in which he pronounced the “ch” as you would in “chimp.”

Having actually used this lovely word before I was convinced that the “ch” was pronounced as a “k.” And so it is.

Oh, BO also habitually conjugates incorrectly, saying “laying around” instead of “lying around” in his “Talking Points.” A lot of American writers do that.

I recall that when he was on WND, in the early 2000s, O’Reilly would make this same conjugation error (it drives me to drink), and I’d drop him a polite note. He never replied, but he quickly fixed the mistake. (Myself, I thank my readers profusely when they save me from myself, as they often do, and request that they keep their eyes peeled for any future faux pas.)

Another common error, in enunciation, this time, is “macabre.” The Americanized dictionary support the locals’ hideous habit of saying “macabra.” Sorry. The “re” in “macabre” is silent.

Still on enunciation: “PundiNts.” Even Hillary Clinton inserts an “n” between the “i” and the “t” when pronouncing the word “pundit.” Why?

“Flaunting” laws instead of “flouting” them is especially infuriating. When a politician uses “flaunt” instead of “flout,” as Colin Powell once did, the ultimate penalty should be exerted.

Today (1/3/213) I ran for cover as Bob Costa, National Review’s youthful editor, spoke about a GOP revolt against House Speaker John Boehner. Costa said the following on the Kudlow Report:

“… if he lost 17 Republican votes that means he would have went to a second ballot.”

Costa should have been flogged for not saying, “He would have GONE.” (Although nobody would know why he was being flogged.)

Together, let’s conjugate the verb to “go,” Mr. Costa. “I am going. I will go. I went. I have previously gone. I had gone. I would have gone.”

My first language is Hebrew. However, I like to think that thanks to the drilling I was given, in Israel, by my old English teacher (a Yekke), I can conjugate my verbs.

When it comes to spelling, however, I am lost without Windows.

UPDATE I (Jan. 3): MERCER MISTAKES. One of my wonderful readers has already corrected my TV mistakes in the article, now on RT. He writes: “You had a typo.
Jon Hamm, not John Han. Also, ‘Mad Men’ is an AMC show, not HBO.”

UPDATE II (Jan. 6): RICHARD BURTON. The great Richard Burton, both chivalrous and brilliant, said: “I am as thrilled by the English language as I am by a lovely woman.”

UPDATE III (May 15): ANOTHER NO-NO. “Creative” is not a noun. Don’t call yourself a “creative.” You will stand out not for your creativity (a noun), but for your pretentiousness.

Tom Wolfe’s Big, Bad Book

America, Celebrity, English, Intelligence, Literature, Sex

Leave a reply

A careful guardian of the English language Tom Wolfe is not. The infelicities of style and substance in the novelist’s latest book are summed up by Stephen Abell, in the Times Literary Supplement’s November 9, 2012 issue. Abell’s verdict about the door-stopper, Back to Blood: “While it is big, it is not particularly clever”:

…as we struggle through his fourth blockbuster, Back to Blood, we begin to reflect that size, in literature as in life, is not everything. We can at least confidently point to some of the products of Wolfe’s recent cramming …

… [Wolfe] direct[‘s] much of our attention beneath the sheets. Not that sex in Back to Blood goes on merely in the bedroom. In one ill-conceived set-piece, Norman and Magdalena attend a regatta, which becomes a floating orgy with pornography being displayed on the giant sails of some of the boats (complete with rather startling “labia majorae three times as big as the entrance to the Miami Convention Center”).

Sex unquestionably brings out some of the flaws in Wolfe’s prose. For example, its effortfully mimetic approach, where the writing enacts the sounds it is describing. This is from a superfluous trip to the “Honey Pot” (an unimaginative strip club), where Wolfe wants to leave us in no doubt about the pole-straddling gyrations of the woman on stage: “BEAT thung CROTCH thung TAIL thung CRACK thung PERI thung NEUM thung”. Or its obsession with transcribing sounds to needless effect (which creates sentences that make it look as if the author has fallen asleep against his keyboard): “unhh, ahhh ahhh, ooom-muh, ennngh ohhhhunh”. There is crass imagery (“his big generative jockey was inside her pelvic saddle”) and glib alliteration (“lascivious looks of men lifting the lust in the loins”). And there is the relentlessly anatomical categorization: “pectoral glories”, “mons pubis”, “their montes veneris”.

…The corollary is, needless to say, a simplistic attitude towards men, and manliness. Men in Back to Blood are judged by the quality of “not being a pussy”, and by their muscularity (an area where Wolfe has an almost fetishistic eye): …

… The notion of an anatomical approach is also crucial to understanding Wolfe’s writing style more generally. He is a founding father of what might called “List lit”, in which constituent aspects of life are broken down into a catalogue of parts. So, for example, when a character sits before a desk, we are immediately presented “with its Art Deco kidney shape, its gallery, its sharkskin writing surface, the delicately tapered shin guards on its legs, its ivory dentils running about the entire rim, its vertical strings of ivory running through the macassar ebony”.

At the basic level of sentence structure, this often means that Wolfe’s descriptions (and the descriptions are unquestionably his; they do not vary with the characters on whose perceptions they are apparently based) are filled with minor variation, as if he wishes to create an effect of mass multiplication simply by using near-synonyms: “they looked prissy, dinky, finicky, fussy, and gussied up”; “he could insult people to their faces, humiliate them, break their spirits . . . make them cry, sob, blubber, boohoo”.

The result is a novel which is bright and busy, and full of information rather than imagination.

MORE.

The “Mañana” Mentality: US Immigration Policies & Prescriptions Select for Low Moral Character

English, IMMIGRATION, Morality, Republicans, States' Rights, The State

While demonstrating clearly why neoconservative columnist Charles Krauthammer is no great shakes at all, Mark Krikorian—who nevertheless insists CK is a rigorous and independent scribe—demolishes the neocon’s contention that “inside each Latin American immigrant there’s a Republican waiting to get out.”

Sixty-two percent of whites voted for Romney. Ninety percent of black voters and 71 percent of Hispanic voters broke for Obama.

Latinos do not “go Democratic” because of the plight of illegal immigrants under Republicans. The reason Mexican immigrant families seldom vote Republican is that, “Two-thirds of [these] families are in or near poverty and fully 57 percent use at least one welfare program.”

But there is more to the legal/illegal distinctions made by Krikorian and Krauthammer. “Please, Can My Sister Become An Illegal Immigrant?” (and many other columns) demonstrated how America’s immigration policies carefully weed out people of early American probity (to paraphrase Mary McGrory). Our immigration policies, in fact, select for low moral character by rewarding unacceptable risk-taking and law-breaking.

An example should clarify what I mean by “select for low moral character”: Most of our South-African friends, highly qualified, upstanding family men and women, have opted to go to Australia or the UK. Why? Well, legal immigrants to the U.S. don’t “wait their turn,” as the uninformed pointy-heads keep chanting. It is usually their qualifications that, indirectly, get them admitted into the country. The H-1B visa, for one, is a temporary work permit—and also a route to acquiring legal permanent resident status. However, if one loses the job with the sponsoring company, the visa holder must leave the U.S. within ten days. What responsible, caring, family man would subject his dependents to such insecurity and upheaval? As I say, most of the people we know would never contemplate breaking the law by remaining in the country illegally. And not because they’re dull or unimaginative (an “argument” I’ve heard made by Darwinian libertarians, who praise immigration scofflaws for their entrepreneurial risk-taking, no less). But because they have the wherewithal—intellectual and moral—to weigh opportunity costs and plan for the future, rather than say “mañana” to tomorrow and live for today. Unhip perhaps, but certainly the kind of people America could do with.

If Republican Carlos Gutierrez has his way, English will become just one among many official tongues babbled in the Tower of Babble that is the US. (So I guess there is no point fussing about the language in which America’s founding documents were written, and asking scribblers to quit “verbing” the amnesty noun. “Amnestying” is as awful as “verbing.”)

What I find particularity loathsome about the Republican turncoats is that they are blasting Romney for staking out a hardline on immigration, and other arguably state-rights issues, the legitimacy of FEMA, for example. (Incidentally, to call them Republican turncoats is a redundancy; a Republican is a turncoat by definition.)

Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that’s the right direction. And if you can go even further and send it back to the private sector, that’s even better … We cannot—we cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids. It is simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids.

For the above, Mitt Romney was bad-mouthed by eager-to-win Republican establishmentarians.

UPDATE II: Publishing Books In The Age Of The Internet, Pathological PC and Unprecedented laziness (Hire Your Own PR)

Education, English, General, Ilana Mercer, Internet, Journalism, Literature, Political Economy

The welcome news comes that Karen De Coster is publishing a book.

A mutual friend, author Rob Stove, has offered Karen some advice and posted it on her heavily trafficked Facebook Wall.

I counseled differently:

“As someone who has done every bit of heavy lifting for my last book—quite successfully, I might add—I have to disagree somewhat with Rob (who advises writing for prestigious publications on the topic, first).

The traditional, stuffy, staid publishing world is dying (yippee). I read the once-brave TLS. All new writers have to be (it would appear) people of color and/or those with no Y chromosome. The only writing worth reading vis-a-vis these new writers is the superb writing by the TLS’s increasingly PC reviewers (who try to be kind to the pig-ignorant, boring, PC writers they have to review).

In any case, you sell books from a platform. Mine was developed over almost 15 years as a weekly columnist.

Karen De Coster writes for a very large site, LRC, with a dedicated, niche readership. She manages social media with skill and has thousands of FB friends (whom she will have to instruct to “Like” her book and display it on their FB pages, if they want to keep her FB company. Here is my Facebook Friendship Policy).

That’s the future of publishing. Who cares if some pompous scribe in a dying publication (check its Alexa rank for stage of rigor) gives one a good review? Rob Stove—he edited The Cannibal; hire a good editor. We all need one—was mentioned by the New Yorker, and other prestigious publications. To this not all of us can aspire. However, were Rob to write a book about politics or culture, he would have to forget about future mention.

Back to my point: Karen can sell lots of books if she publishes the book herself (How much would you rather earn? 17%-50% royalties or 100%, all the more so when you, the writer, do all the work). She can go the CreateSpace route or with her own label. She then uses her platform on LRC to sell to an already interested audience. She also promotes her book on Facebook, via ads and by requiring all friends to “Like” and display book on their Fav. page. Even big names are publishing their own books (see David Frum’s new book. I followed it from CNN).

A small publisher does nothing for a writer except deplete him/her. There are a handful of large publishers worth considering for the TV PR they can generate. This writer (me) manages every aspect of the project—social media, fan page and website designs (I pay the attendant bills too, so…), Amazon page management, all writing, limited PR, etc. That’s the route to getting books read by the public in the age of the Internet (without which the true rebels would be destined for obscurity). Books published by smaller, if respectable, publishers are like the proverbial tree felled in a faraway wood. Almost no one reads them. (Check their profile on Amazon. You’ll see.)

For example, “The Arab Spring: The End of Postcolonialism” is written by a man with the “right” kind of name (non-English/non-Western): Hamid Dabashi. It was published on June 5, 2012 by Zed Books, a print that met the Times Literary Review’s standards.

It’s Amazon rank: #1,614,336 in Books. If you are new to book marketing, that’s abysmal.

(Btw, if you don’t market on Amazon, you’re retarded.)

On the bright side, by the number of reviews “The Arab Spring” got, we can tell that at least one person has read what Dabashi has to say. Conversely, and pessimistically, “0 of 1 people found the following review helpful.” In other words, so far, nobody gives a tinker’s toss what Dabashi’s single reviewer had to say about Dabashi’s latest work.

UPDATE I (10/30): Here’s another TLS “winner,” published (November 1, 2011) by Encounter (who refused the well-motivated proposal that became The Cannibal).

In Money In A Free Society, Tom Congdon touts every form of macroeconomic statism. His approving TLS reviewer mentions the “Austerians” (very bad) but says nothing about the Austrians.

Amazon ranks Money In A Free Society at #560,109 in Books. Zero reviews. Who pays these people?

UPDATE II (Nov. 3): HIRE YOUR OWN PR.

Unless you can get a book deal with one of the major big publishers (try), publish yourself. You’ll be smacking yourself if you don’t. To repeat: 15% royalties (standard industry fare) vs. 100%? Case closed. All the more so since small publishers do nothing for you. Unless your publisher is prepared to invest a few thousand for a few weeks of TV and media blitz. However, you could buy such PR yourself privately. Why hand over your money to a 2nd party to hire a 3rd? If you control the purse strings (as disposable income dictates), hire PR directly, to get on the main shows.

Want to have a frothy a day? Go with a small publisher. They suck. These are dominated by errant youth (or hippie elders who defer to such youth), who don’t have a work ethic or a brain cell to rub between them. No one has taught America’s young how to work professionally; how to conduct themselves with respect to author and contract and execute duties properly: If you want them done to standards, you’ll be inputting info and updating your Amazon page and other Internet displays of your product.

Individuals such as Karen are coming from an accounting career. They work alongside people who have serious degrees. The writing profession, on the other hand, is dominated by individuals who are repositories for postmodern education and values (even when they are libertarian). Don’t go there, unless it’s with a powerful, large publisher.