Michael Leddy pokes holes in Geoffrey Pullum’s critique of Strunk and White, particularly Pullum’s characterization of S/W’s guidance as free-floating, contentless maxims:

Pullum says that “many” of Strunk and White’s recommendations are “useless,” citing “Omit needless words” as an example. On its own, this advice is no more helpful than telling a musician to avoid playing wrong notes. But “Omit needless words” doesn’t appear on its own; it’s accompanied by sixteen examples of how to improve cumbersome phrasing (e.g., “the fact that”) and a demonstration of how six choppy sentences can be revised into one…

Pullum’s summing up

From Polis Is This, a documentary about the great poet, critic, and Black Mountain college rector Charles Olson:

…

I’ve said before and I will say again, I feel a spontaneous affinity for Olson like for no other American historical figure I’ve ever seen, heard, met, or read about.

Image via Wikipedia

Elaine Showalter just doesn’t know what she’s talking about:

Q. You say a literary history has to make judgments. Give us an example of whom you see as overrated, whom underrated?

Overrated: Gertrude Stein. She played an important role in the development of modernism, but she played it for men. And she is just not readable. She became viewed as a “sister”: That doesn’t sanctify her work. We can criticize it.

I look with a critical eye at contemporary poetry, too. There are a great many talented woman poets today, but I don’t think any of them measure up to a Sylvia Plath or Adrienne Rich. I don’t feel any male poets do either.

You know, if you’re willing to write off contemporary poetry by women, then yes, it’s a lot easier to say that Stein’s development of modernist literature was only for men. And I think it’s ridiculous for a professional literary critic, even an old, cantankerous one, to write off a major writer for not being “readable” and dismiss serious scholarship about her writing as motivated by “sisterhood.” Because what it does it allows you to take Stein down a peg without having to similarly discount Joyce, Beckett, Faulkner, Celan, or any of the “unreadable” men who took on the writing of language as powerfully as she did.

Gertrude Stein stands at the front of every major American literary movement of the 20th century (and plenty of the European ones too). And it’s not just the crazy experimental ones — the minimalist-realist school of Hemingway and Carver, the creative-critical modes of a lot of our best thinkers. If you want to be a serious reader of literature, you have got to grapple with Stein — at the very least with Tender Buttons and The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas, which is as good and as readable a novel about literature as you’re ever going to find.

Matt Richtel whines:

Technology is rendering obsolete some classic narrative plot devices: missed connections, miscommunications, the inability to reach someone. Such gimmicks don

Ouch:

Several generations of college students learned their grammar from the uninformed bossiness of Strunk and White, and the result is a nation of educated people who know they feel vaguely anxious and insecure whenever they write “however” or “than me” or “was” or “which,” but can’t tell you why. The land of the free in the grip of The Elements of Style.

So I won’t be spending the month of April toasting 50 years of the overopinionated and underinformed little book that put so many people in this unhappy state of grammatical angst. I’ve spent too much of my scholarly life studying English grammar in a serious way. English syntax is a deep and interesting subject. It is much too important to be reduced to a bunch of trivial don’t-do-this prescriptions by a pair of idiosyncratic bumblers who can’t even tell when they’ve broken their own misbegotten rules.

That sounds like standard-issue Chronicle of Higher Ed blunderbussery, but the author, Geoffrey K. Pullum, knows what he’s talking about — he’s a linguist, and co-wrote The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language — and the bulk of the essay is a startlingly comprehensive, point-by-point, and erudite take-down of Strunk and White.

Read more…

I had a dream a few nights ago where I was defending my dissertation. Actually, it wasn’t clear if it was my dissertation defense or another job interview. Anyways, this is what I said. (Replace the word “Rehabilitated” with “Educated.”)

That night, I slept peacefully, content to finally have revealed the truth.

Teletwitter (or “Twittergraph”): A multiplatform twitter client that pounds out received tweets like an oldtimey telegraph/teletype machine. Morse code optional. Also sheds punctuation formats in telegram style & replaces period with STOP

Good-looking people enjoy what economists/sociologists call a “beauty premium.” They get paid more and are seen as better at their jobs than people of average attractiveness. It works for men and for women. Men, for example, get a premium for being taller, in shape, handsome, and with a nice head of hair.

Now here’s where it gets interesting. A new Israeli study suggests that male professors get a beauty bump, but female professors don’t. The researchers guess that this is rooted in a “contradiction between… role images and gender images”: somehow, female attractiveness is seen as incongruous with the paternal, traditional scholar/educator role of the professor, where male attractiveness isn’t — particularly, it seems, for female students. That’s the idea, anyways.

I don’t endorse this conclusion, but there’s definitely something going on here. A couple of things that came to my mind on reading this:

Read more…

Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings is so perceptive, it transcends any artifact of professional training and reveals a purity of attention to and sympathy with the human universe. Consider her long post on abusive relationships:

So imagine yourself, in love with someone, on your honeymoon or pregnant, when suddenly this guy just goes ballistic, often for very little reason, and hits you. For a lot of women, this is profoundly shocking and disorienting. There are things that are comprehensible parts of the world, even if they’re rare, like having your car stolen; and then there are things that are unexpected in a completely different sense, like having your car turn into an elephant before your eyes: things that make you wonder whether you’re completely

Bob Dylan on what intrigues him about Barack Obama:

He’s got an interesting background. He’s like a fictional character, but he’s real. First off, his mother was a Kansas girl. Never lived in Kansas though, but with deep roots. You know, like Kansas bloody Kansas. John Brown the insurrectionist. Jesse James and Quantrill. Bushwhackers, Guerillas. Wizard of Oz Kansas. I think Barack has Jefferson Davis back there in his ancestry someplace. And then his father. An African intellectual. Bantu, Masai, Griot type heritage — cattle raiders, lion killers. I mean it’s just so incongruous that these two people would meet and fall in love. You kind of get past that though. And then you’re into his story. Like an odyssey except in reverse.

Dylan obviously knows a thing or two about 1) being a fictional character and 2) being on an odyssey. He was drawn to Obama early after reading his memoir, Dreams From My Father. “His writing style hits you on more than one level. It makes you feel and think at the same time and that is hard to do. He says profoundly outrageous things. He’s looking at a shrunken head inside of a glass case in some museum with a bunch of other people and he’s wondering if any of these people realize that they could be looking at one of their ancestors.” This also sounds like Dylan to me.

(PS: Link to the Times of London interview fixed.)