There Just Desserts (sic)

Watching the local news this evening reenforced the idea in me that, while spell checker is generally a good thing that helps those of us whose spelling is less than stellar, we must be ever vigilant to use the Correct word whenever possible.  No reliance on spell checker is ever going to save us from embarrassment, if we don't make a conscious effort in this department.  

The classic examples here are homophones like there, their, and they're.  Here and hear.   Etc.  Words like dessert and desert, though not alike in sound, are spelled similarly.  Effect and affect are often mistaken for each other.

Tonight's offending entry (entree?) involved a sport story about a young high school girl who was talented in track and field events.  At one point in the story, there was a graphic which listed some of the events in which she and some of her teammates excelled.  Among the events listed was something called "Discuss."   As in, "How far can you throw the 'discuss.'"  Close but no cigar.  

Now I'm not immune to making such mistakes.  I may have maid (sic) similar mistakes in this very posting (not counting the title, which was on purpose).  But my point is that we should think twice about abandoning the trusty old dictionary.  Webster and those who put together the Oxford English Dictionary and others in the field worked hard at codifying the language.  It would be a shame if, because of laziness or ignorance, we were to unravel their work.  Sometimes in the course of looking up a word, even one we know (or think we know), we can find meanings, word origins, and other information which might be more interesting and useful than we might be able to imagine.  It might even help us to remember the word, and its incorrect alternatives, for future reference.  And for those interested in sports, it might help us to find a better way to "discuss" the "discus."

You Had It Right the First Time

As I was looking through The Weather Channel website in a section dealing with tropical activity in the Atlantic basin, I came across the following typo regarding an area of low pressure near the Cape Verde Islands:  (italics mine)

"Environmental conditions in this area support the possibility for slow devilment over the next few days could slowly develop over the next few days, as it heads west northwest."

Engdahl's Anti-American Bias

(The following is a comment made in agreement with a recent blog entry in "The Sycamore Review."  It was made in response to the recent selection of French author JMG Le Clezio, an author largely unknown in the US, to receive this year's Nobel Prize in Literature, at the expense of several worthy American authors.  While I do not begrudge M. Le Clezio his win, not having had the opportunity to judge his work for myself, I am more disturbed by comments insulting to the US literary community made by the Nobel permanent secretary, Horace Engdahl.  Among other things, Engdahl, prior to the award announcement, declared that, "the US is too isolated, too insular.  They don't translate enough and don't really participate in the big dialogue of literature...That ignorance is restraining."

  

Upon hearing of the news of Le Clezio's win many Americans expressed their disappointment in the selection.  After all, it's been 15 years since the United States has won the award, when it was awarded to Toni Morrison.  Since then, many have been waiting to hear that Philip Roth, Joyce Carol Oates, or any number of possible American authors have been given the award.  But every October, our hopes are dashed by a committee that seems intent on ignoring American talent.  This is especially disturbing to us when we hear the permanent secretary go on to say that "you can't get away from the fact that Europe still is the center of the literary world...not the United States."  This and other statements made seem to confirm what we Americans have long suspected, an anti-American bias.

  

What became even more disturbing for me was to stumble upon European attitudes of resentment against the US, based not just on justifiable political and economic considerations, but on what they perceive as American literary arrogance.  (I must note here that not all the European attitudes I encountered were negative.  Indeed, some were supportive.)  But those negative attitudes attempted to attribute an anti-French position to the American literary community, which I think is neither fair nor accurate.  Further, they unfairly condemn Americans as focusing only on ourselves, as if we are unwilling to even consider the rest of the world as worthy of attention.  The only somewhat valid point that I think is made is that American  publishers tend to focus in a very narrow way on American authors that sell.  But to blame the American literary community for this is like blaming the victim for the crime.  American publishing is run ultimately by business concerns, not literary ones.

  

I also doubt that that aspect of the claim is accurate anyway.  The complaint the Europeans may have is that European authors are under-represented by American publishers.  This is probably true.  But in the post 9/11 era, the focus of a good deal of publishing has been shifted to the Middle East.  American bookshelves are filled with novels, memoirs, etc. by Middle Eastern authors, some immigrants, and by authors of Middle Eastern descent.  Despite tensions between East and West, these works have helped to bridge the gap in some small way, to which the Nobel committee seems completely oblivious.  Those Europeans making these charges come off a bit like a small child tugging at the skirt of its mother while she is a little busy doing something else.  But this child holds the reigns of the Nobel Prize, which despite recent events still means quite a bit.

  

Forgive me. If I seem bitter, it's because I am. 

 

What follows is the response expressing agreement with a blog I stumbled upon last night.  I think the preamble may actually be longer than the actual amble.)

I was surprised by my own resentments toward the statements of Engdahl and others who, first characterized Americans as being too ignorant and insular, and then suggested that our reactions to Le Clezio's win were specifically anti-French.  I have always counted on the Nobel literature selection to help me expand my knowledge of world authors;  V. S. Naipaul, J.M. Coetzee, and Orhan Pamuk, come immediately to mind, among others.  I expect that, once some of his books come back into print in the US (that was probably the only fair criticism that was made), I will at least attempt to add Le Clezio to that list.  (To whatever extent I may have had a slight anti-French reaction, it was most likely a flashback to my aborted attempt to slog through Gao Xingjian's "Soul Mountain." 

The charges of an anti-French sentiment, were, for me at least, offensive because it systematically lumps any American who might have had an objection to the choice into the same wicked cauldron of right wing American-chauvinism which brought us those detestable "freedom fries" and which pretended to reject John Kerry on the basis of him "looking too French."

One blog entry I read (which I didn't bother to record), on the point of American ignorance and insularity, expressed disappointment and something close to shock that Americans didn't know who Le Clezio was, despite the fact that no less a commercial media enterprise as "Time" magazine reviewed his first novel.  But considering that this review was written and published in 1964, can it really be that shocking that it escaped our collective attention?  I'm not clear on the chronology of the selection versus the odious statement, but I can't help thinking that it was a deliberate attempt to deflect criticism from the choice.  How can we on the one hand argue that we are not ignorant and insular, while on the other argue that it was a bad selection based on the fact that nobody here (except for those who collect old issues of "Time")  had ever heard of him.  They can argue his importance to the literary world by simply insulting us and presenting a Euro-chauvinism that is equally offensive to the American chauvinism that exist here in certain quarters; and not having access to the material in question, we have no defense.  (As I said, the one fair criticism made was that American publishing tends to leave big holes)

But the criticisms made can work both ways.  If we are angered by the selection of Le Clezio, it can in part be attributed to the lack of access.  If Engdahl and others cannot see the importance of so many American writers, they cannot use lack of access as an excuse. One criticism made dealt with American's focus on things American, and on American pop culture references.  I have always been of the belief that the universal can be viewed in the specific.  (The archetype of a mother can be filtered through an allusion to Florence Henderson.)  Authors from around the globe are often revered for giving us a glimpse into that which is universal within their culture.  Orhan Pamuk's "Snow," for instance is a uniquely Turkish novel, but certainly transcends the particular.  I reject the notion that no American writer could be found to whom that claim could be made.

There have been feeble attempts to smooth ruffled feathers.  It's been pointed out that Le Clezio is "nomadic" and lives much of the time in New Mexico.  So what?  My beef is not with Le Clezio.  I do intend to give him the benefit of the doubt.  But I am quite upset with Engdahl's statement's, which can only be seen as (uh, what is the literary term?)  Snotty.  It does also seem quite unprofessional to announce in advance that the committee has rendered the US to be the literary equivalent of Susan Lucci.  (Oh, God, not another one of those detestable American pop references.  Junot Diaz, be on alert!)

 

      

 

A Brief and Helpful Note

About the current financial crisis.

The financial and government communities are comprised of people who have spent the last several years urinating into the community swimming pool and now have gall to be surprised that their eyes are burning.  

I hope you found that helpful.

Dialogue With My Superego

(The following was written shortly after returning from the bookstore, where I purchased a "For Dummies" computer book. Struggling with the decision over whether I should spend twenty-five dollars to buy a book that, although potentially useful, was not a planned expense, I engaged in a series of mental gymnastics and gnashing of teeth that one might have thought might only be reserved for the decision over whether or not to buy a house, or maybe a small island. This was written to my friend Dan Vaughn in an email, as he was privy to much of my anguished debate over the subject.)

"Daddy, Daddy, can I buy this $25 book?"

"$25? Now come on, Son. Tell me the truth. Are you going to feed it?"

"Yes, Daddy. Every day!"

"Are you going to take care of it?"

"Oh, YES Daddy. Of course I'm going to take care of it. I'm gonna treat it REAL good!"

(Skeptically) "Mmmhmmmm. You remember the LAST time you bought a $25 book, don't you, Son?"

"Uh,....yeah....?"

"Do you? It seems to ME that you didn't take care of it, and your Mother and I had to read it FOR you."

"Uh....well...?"

"You didn't feed it. You didn't change it's water dish. It pooped all over the house. I ended up having to clean up after it all the time. Your sister nearly slipped and broke her neck."

"Well...."

"That poor $25 book had to fend for itself. You let it get bone skinny. It was having to hunt for rats in the back yard just to stay alive. And it nearly died of dehydration."

(Barely Audible) "Uh...."

"You remember that cereal with the clown on the box that you wanted to have? You swore up and down to me that you would eat it all. I TOLD you that you weren't going to eat cereal with marshmallows in it, because YOU told me before that you didn't like cereal with marshmallows in it."

"But what does that have to do with...?"

(Stern look and finger wagging) "Don't talk back to me, Son."

"Yes, sir."

"Didn't I tell you that the only reason you wanted to buy the cereal with the clown on the box was for the little toy clownmobile prize inside the box."

"Uh...."

"And didn't I tell you that you were never going to FINISH that box of cereal."

"I ate SOME of it."

"You ate ONE damn bowl. Just enough to give the APPEARANCE that you were going to eat it. We had to throw that box of cereal away!"

(Sniffles) "That was thirty-five years ago."

"There are people in China who would have given their right arm for that box of cereal. And it just goes out the window."

"You threw the garbage out the window?"

"Don't get smart with me, Boy."

"Hey, I'm not a boy. I'm a man."

"You sure don't ACT like a man."

"I'm in my FORTIES!"

"Maturity does not necessarily come with age."

"Well, you got that one right. But, nevertheless, I'm a grown man in my forties, and I don't have to listen to you if you're giving me bad advice."

"Bad advice? Now listen to me young man."

"No wait a minute. YOU listen! You're not even my Father. My Father is a good, decent man who would do anything for his Son, if he thought it would help him improve his life."

"Well..."

"My Father would trust my judgment, right or wrong, especially if I could honestly tell him that what I was about to do I believed to be the right thing."

"Well, okay..."

"He would probably even BUY this book FOR me, if I honestly told him that I thought I could benefit from it."

"I imagine...."

"So, YOU are not my Father. You are just some negative voice in my head that serves no function...."

"I wouldn't say NO function..."

"You're just snippets of ancient conversations that are fading, half-remembered memories, recorded on the magnetic tape of a childish brain."

"Hey, that's not bad."

"Really? You think?"

"Make sure you write it down."

"Yeah, okay...(writes, then resumes) You're a nay-sayer. You serve no function."

"Hold on. I'm not always a nay-sayer. And you are mistaken if you think I serve NO function."

"Well...."

"If you can HONESTLY tell me that this book can be useful...?"

"Well, yes. There are no guarantees in life, but, yes, I think so. This is a subject that I need to learn about. It could be useful to me, possibly even profitable down the road."

"And you're going to feed it and give it water?"

"...yes? Okay, are we speaking metaphorically, now?"

"If you want. And you will clean up after it?"

"Okay, you are REALLY starting to get on my nerves."

"Hey, it YOUR metaphor. Are you going to clean up after it?"

"....Yes, I'm going to clean up after it."

"And you're not just getting it for the prize inside?"

"There is no prize. And even if there were, I'm a man in my forties; I think I can make that decision on my own."

(Thinks about it) "Fair enough. Okay, you decide."

"Really?"

"Yeah, really. You don't need my permission."

"You know. I guess you're right. I DON'T. (Deep sigh. Examines book. Weighs pros and cons.) I think I'm going to get it."

"Fair enough."

"You know, YOU could buy it for me."

"Like you said. I'm not your Father. But nice try."

"Well, you know. I couldn't resist. I'm going to go pay for this now."

"Good luck. See you again, later."

"Yeah, I guess so. Take care."

"I always do."

(I leave to go pay for the book. Superego walks up to the counter and orders a Venti Mocha Frappacino with Whipped Cream and a Key Lime Cheesecake and sits down to eat. Id walks up to Superego's table and sits down.)

Id

Damn boy. You eat all that and you never gain weight. I grab some strange girl's ass, and all Hell breaks loose.

Superego

Hey, Id. So how's it going?

Id

Not too bad. I just ran into Ed as he was on his way to the cash register. We were looking at some sixteen year old girls and having impure thoughts. But then he turned away and practically ran for the check out counter. What's up with him?

Superego

He's LEARRRRRNING. (Smiles to himself and takes another bite of the Key Lime Cheesecake.)

Curtain

Welcome to Edland

Living in Edland can be a daunting experience.  Having little of consequence to say and yet wanting so very much to say it can be troubling at best.  Actually, in making such a self-deprecating statement, I run the risk of having too many people agreeing with my self-assessment, when in fact I don't actually hold that opinion of myself.  If I truly had nothing to say, would I be here?  (Long pause)  Don't answer that.  

People who advise on such matters often say that for a blog to be successful, it ought to have a purpose. There ought to be a specific focus.  Is this a literary blog?  A political blog?  A forum for stories or poems?  A place to post reviews?  The answer of course is yes.  The uniting idea therefore reverts to the personality.  I become the "unifying" principle.  (I've always wanted to be a unifying principle.)  The "idea" behind the blog is me.  So, Welcome to EdLand.

Now having said all this, I am sincerely hoping that vanity and self-absorption do not take over, translating into a series of diary entries about the minutia of my day to day life.  And I'd like to think that if they do, I will be able to tie that minutia into some greater idea, (e.g. I picked up my prescriptions today; the cost of healthcare is sky high.)  I'd like to think that I'd do so more artfully than my example suggests, but you get the idea.  

So what can you expect Dear Reader from a visit to EdLand?  First of all, for now, I am not listing this site as an adult site, in which you'd have to click on a link to prove you are over eighteen.  (With such a vigilant "keeper of the gate" to such websites, how is it even possible that minors are able to wander onto porn sites?)    I'm not quite sure what constitutes an adult site or why I would want to list myself as such.  I am not planning to post naked pictures of myself (to the relief of us all) or of anybody else (awwwww!)  I also feel that, to list myself as such, all but invites any discourse (social intercourse?) to deteriorate into wild-eyed free for alls of randy descriptions of body parts and their functions.  And I just won't have that!  (Unless they are really sexy.)

Why do I all of a sudden feel like Sam the Eagle from "The Muppets?"

What I do want for the site is a place to post the things I have to say and perhaps get a little feedback.  I hope to work on answers to life's burning questions.  Is there such a thing as "human nature," and, if so, what does it consist of?  How will the rise of globalization affect the future of this country?  Is Fergie really "Fergalicious?"  (The answer is YES!  Especially in that truncated girl scout uniform!)  

So again, Welcome to EdLand.  Get comfortable.  Relax.  Take your shoes off.  (Cough.  Cough.)  Put your shoes back on.  And thanks for tuning in.

--The management