What's with the green text?
(p. 24) I could not feel. I was bright blank inside.
Madison astutely noted that the green M's resemble bats as well as the thread Zeke used to conceal the unopened envelope inside his grandfather's shirt. The seemingly random number of them used at a given time to seems to me to suggest a meaning as well. Andy had an idea about how this whole thing was part of the same 'thread', which I also think is interesting.
Which brings me back to my question: What is with the the green text?
Websleuth Andy did some searching and didn't find any solid discussion of this. Bookclub, you will be the first. Bottoms up!
Update: More green text discovered and added to the quote box (hat-tip: Speed-reader Andy). As I mentioned in the comments, there is a list on page 191. That says "Flag> TEXT FOUND IN DUST." It has lines with typed numbers on the side that so far correspond exactly to the page numbers of the green text quotes in the quote box, and all the lines are blank except for the top one: 24__________ ... where the first quote I COULD NOT FEEL. I WAS BRIGHT BLANK INSIDE. is written in pencil. The handwriting matches Eliza's; it is stamped by Z. Thomas. Recall, that Eliza is a good falsifier.
The last one, "(p. 207) Those who came before us are lost to us now." is preceded by "Zeke though of his grandfather. He wrote in the dirt at his feet. M " That seems consistent with these being messages found in the dust as the list says, but not all are consistent with that. The second one, "(p. 44) The truth of nothingness, that is despair." comes right after a description about how Zeke's grandfather's bookcase was well kept and dusted. So, I dunno.
Update 2: On p. 280, we have an extraordinary example of the green text. Why extraordinary you say? Because it occurs in the caption to The Drawings of Zaddock Thomas. That’s why. All others occurred in The City-State.
Also, it’s a sonnet.
Posted by Madison
I like any book that forces the reader to look at the form and function of a text, to analyze prose in a different way. I don’t know who remembers reading “The People of Paper” by Salvador Plascencia (early book club days), but Bats of the Republic reminds me a little of that because the pages must be tangible to really understand the book. As a librarian, I’m an advocate of literacy in ANY way: I always tell patrons that audiobooks and ebooks are not cheating! But there’s something magical about a hidden DO NOT OPEN letter halfway through the book that just can’t be achieved on audible.
Mark Z. Danielewski’s “House of Leaves” and “S: Ship of Theseus” by JJ Abrams and Doug Dorst are other examples of books like these. Also, here’s an article someone wrote with TEN books that “break the prose mold” (see Sacre Bleu by Christopher Moore on this list) if you're interested in reading more with this format.
Zeke is in line to be Khrysalis, demonstrative of chrysalis, meaning 1. a transitional state or 2. insect pupa, especially that of a butterfly or moth.
Zadock refers to his witchy aunt Anne reading his tea leaves, “She and all her Sisters share the oracular gifts of the Auspex, for better or worse it is hard to say” (p. 53). The word auspex means: omens derived from the observation of birds. She seems to have something similar to Bran Stark's raven eye. It’s also worth noting the mimicry of names between the family charts: Zadock Thomas vs Zeke Thomas, Elswyth vs Eliza, Bartholomew Buell vs Henry Bartle, Louisa vs Leeya.
On p. 59 McMarrow is reading a book during battle and a musket ball pierces right through the book, saving his life. Was this book "The Sisters Gray"? The one Henry Bartle checks out in his daughter's name to get her attention? Eliza writes "It has a hole in it" when writing her letter to Leeya (p. 75).
Books like these are works of art and every bit of the page seems important. I think the little green M M M ‘s on each page are representative of bats. They also mimic the green zigzag pattern on Zeke’s shirt where he sewed the envelope inside of a hidden pocket (p. 67). I’m not far enough along to make any good predictions but I’m loving the story so far! Happy reading!
(Posted by Evan)
This book was a little disorienting at first, as I was distracted by all the different media settings when browsing the book. Also, it starts with a family tree diagram and a map before starting a sub-novel called The City-State (CS) which only gets two pages in before it is interrupted by a news clipping (that is very irritatingly chopped in half from top-to-bottom, presenting only the top half, and also the third column cannot be read due to the crease between the pages of the actual book), a news clipping which in retrospect I realized is part of the Henry Bartle correspondence which is sort of a sub-novel of its own (HB). CS contains some cool illustrative interruptions in its own right, and lastly (well not lastly but three is enough for the moment), there are inserts of The Letters of Zadock Thomas (Letters).
The Historian Bartle (Eliza’s father) constructs the history of the Thomas bloodline, in part by Zadock’s letters. I’m no scholar. But I occasionally read history blogs (via realclearhistory mostly) and less often history books (sigh), and it is commonplace that letters of important people will be used as sources to reconstruct accounts of events or at least present their thinking on the important thing they did. No one writes letters anymore.
I’ve written a small number of letters in my life. They were are well received. I fear we may be losing more than we know in getting away from letter writing. I dare say the author agrees with me, if I sense a bit of frustration in the Bartle’s statement’s about Joseph Gray:
(p. 79) “I have cobbled together a brief biography from society publications. Business was his main sphere of influence, and through his ventures are well documented, little can be gleaned from numbers and ledgers. He kept no diary and wrote few letters.”
The dystopian future is very 1984 with overarching government control of everything, with a particular interest in controlling all information. The phonotubes and watchtower essentially act like telescreens. A difference is that Big Brother was in the business of distributing propaganda and then editing that propaganda to make history accurately reflect the present (propaganda); the Vault and the phonotubes are presented as factual recording and documentation of everything. I suppose we are pretty close to the latter - in the present and in reality - with our data collectors that we willing pay for and pump data into. Though I think it would be naïve to say that there isn’t some kind of falsification going on. I again turn to Bartle:
(p. 34) “I thought there were principles. Rules to govern which facts should endure and which should dissolve into dust. But now I see my criteria were arbitrary. I chose objects or moments, and they became real. I draw worlds from crumbling stacks of paper, and they are given meaning by my careful attention. The designs of the Historian become history’s lessons.”
There are some paragraphs of noticeably poetic prose that stand out to me. When I read them, I wonder if these few sentences were the beginning of the book. A moment of inspiration or two jotted down on paper, and the whole motivation for a book springing out of a desire to create a space where those words belong. Here are two examples -
HB (p. 35) “The past is like a tree in the darkest night, filled with black birds barely seen. Truths that flutter, escaping the edges of peripheral vision. First, they are birds lost against a dark sky, then they are simply leaves, blown about by an animating wind. The longer I looked, the more difficult it was to see.”
Letters (p. 53) “We are born and live the full thread the fates have trimmed for us and then we are gone, absorbed into the great darkened sky of the past and forgotten completely. Some men have legacies. Stars that remain bright. But how to become such a man?... I would be content to be even a small star in the vast and churning night, an asterisk in the history of man.
About the Author: The one in the back of the book is more fun. This is from zachdodson.com
Lots of pictures of all the cool stuff he does with the books there, including the one I inserted above.
Zach Dodson is a designer particularly interested in visual narrative. He has designed books for many independent presses, most notably featherproof books, which he founded in Chicago in 2005. Contact him about freelance book design projects by putting “@gmail.com” after his name.
Actual maps of Texas in 1843 according to DuckDuckGo.
A little bit more below the fold, but **SPOILER ALERT** if you haven't made it a little past p. 81.
(Posted by Evan)
The first thing that jumps out at me is the structure of this book. The prologue and the end of each chapter consist of… let’s see… flashback’s to Annie and Buster’s childhood? Or selected “scenes” from the Fang’s body of “art”. Performance art. To me, they seem like scenes in a movie or play, semi-self-contained works of art that are also part of a larger whole. What this whole is though, I have no idea. So, what to make of these …works?
Talk about blending work and reality. “It was a testament to their proficiency and talent as atists. They had affected themselves with the authenticity of the moment.” This is something beautiful. The successful proposal gets the plane celebrating as they start of their vacation. They generated a party mood for their flight in. This is too much power. But …it's nice. Then they shut it down on the way home. With the big N-O, the mood is destroyed. It was nice while it lasted kids, but it’s over. Time to go back to your life. That’s really sad. Again, too much power.
At this point I was thinking these are just scenes of ‘making a scene’, giving random people a story to tell that starts with “This crazy thing happened today…” But beginning in chapter 4, these scenes start to illuminate a little bit more about Annie and Buster than their roles as props in their parent’s play.
All of these scenes are attributed to Caleb and Camille Fang in the “plaque” that precedes them, along with title and year. These last two seem to be examples where Buster and Annie deserved credit for the creative concept of the work in addition to doing some good acting. For any artist, I imagine, there is a blurring of the line between work and life, art and reality. For the Fang’s, the line is blurred even more by the nature of their work, where reality itself is the medium. As a result, there are serious identity issues for Child A and Child B in the family Fang, in addition to artist credit disputes. Are the children just being used as props? Is their very sense of reality being distorted!? Why, yes. Yes, it is.
A second, similar structural element is the back and forth between Annie and Buster as they are introduced in the present tense of the story. Annie’s begins with her being asked to show her tits in a film even though it wasn’t in the script. What is striking about this hilarious scene is how everyone is trying to get her to do it – her agent Tommy, her parents, the director Freeman, her costar Ethan, the first assistant director – everyone except Buster who tells her to climb out the window and runaway. As the book alludes to, it is all about control. The character in the movie “wants to control the situation” by answering the door to her apartment to a stranger with her tits out. But Annie doesn’t want to do it and everyone is trying to pressure her into it, to control her. She ultimately does it, and she does it to show herself she can, that she can exert that kind of control over herself.
The control dynamic continues in the interview with Eric the reporter from Esquire at the arcade (the magazine’s idea). Annie’s publicist said they wouldn’t talk about the tits thing, Eric loses the bet that he needed to win to talk about it, and then she tells him anyway, telling herself she wants the chance to tell her side. Control. Then Eric wins the bet that he needed to win for her to talk about the lesbian relationship with a co-star, an occurrence that itself was pursued and framed in the media by said co-star Minda, and she complies and tells him about it, which is also against Annie’s publicists wishes. To wrap it all up she does the one thing that she was explicitly told not to do by her publicist and sleeps with Eric. Then, she almost ends up in a situation entirely in her ex-boyfriend Daniel’s control – in the middle of nowhere in Wyoming, publicized as back in a relationship with him, needing him to write her into scripts to save her acting career. She decides to escape only at the last second, at the airport. She ends up following Buster’s request for her to go back to Tennessee and live with her parents.
Everyone is always trying to control Annie, so much so that it is hard to tell if she is being controlled or possible making her own decisions.
Buster’s story seems to be all about disconnect, between expectations and experiences and between him and people. His work for the men’s magazine is described as a contrast of expectations. Driving dune buggies in the desert seems fun but the technical skill required to enjoy it makes him want to be home living with his parents reading books about people driving dune buggies in the desert. He corrects Kenny’s expectation that reporting on the world’s biggest gang-bang would be the best thing ever and convinces him it is actually the worst thing ever. His expectations of the potato gun demonstration make him want to stay in the hotel in the minibar. He’s also obviously a pretty lonely guy. He struggles to connect with the guys until they he is dressed in identical clothes and buying beer, and only for a moment before he is shot in the face and they avoid him for legal reasons.
The segmented structure of the book is also accentuated by the many examples of story within a story. There are allusions to the Annie’s movies and those she watches, to Buster’s novels and to others as well as the story Joseph tells Buster on the way to the hospital.
(Posted by Evan)
"Thank you so much for the blog. I shall lose no time in reading it" -Benjamin Disraeli
I think Bryson misunderstand's how things like "Get fucked" and "Go fuck yourself" are actually insults and not invitations for a pleasurable experience. In the first case, I'm pretty sure it's a contracted form of "Get fucked by somebody or something you don't want to get fucked by." It's also possible that its "Get into a situation that you would describe with 'I'm fucked.'" I agree with the general sentiment though. You have to admit that if someone says to you, "I will fuck you", it's pretty ambiguous about their feelings towards you and their specific intentions.
British cross-word puzzles are apparently beastly. Clues can be word games in themselves, anagrams, for example. Where you at Sean? Can you hang with the Brits?
Pallandrome - A word or sentence that is spelled the same backwards and forwards. "Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas." Bryson says it does not pass the plausibility test but I see no problem with that. Though to be fair, back in 1990, The Mars Volta hadn't been invented yet.
Anagram - Scramble the letters of words to make new words. "circumstantial evidence = can ruin a selected victim." That's pretty good.
Rebus - a riddle in which words are arranged that gives a clue to an intended meaning.
Holorime - Two statements that sound the same but use different words. As Bryson mentions, a really good way to do this is to listen to music and just go with your gut on what the lyrics are. I've done this a lot, but I can't remember any because now I just remember the real lyrics I guess. But Steph has one where she thought (still thinks) that a popular Shania Twain hit involves the lyrics:
Oh, oh, oh, really go wild-yeah, doin' it in style
Oh, oh, oh, get in the action-feel the attraction
Cum on my head-do what I dare
Oh, oh, oh, I wanna be free-yeah, to feel the way I feel
Clerihews - A limerick that starts with someone's name and summarizes their life in a few lines.
The part about William Spooner and Spoonerisms was pretty funny. Here's a list of some more. But it really reminded me of Yogi Berra. Yogi was a catcher for the New York Yankees and then later was a coach for the Yankees and Mets. But he's famous for saying things that don't make sense but are actually kind of brilliant if you think about them.
"When you come to the fork in the road, take it."
We'll finish off with the master - with Italian subtitles no less.
(Posted by Evan)
The main point in Chapter 9, Good English and Bad, is the lack of central authority for the English language, like the Académie Française for French.
Bryson says we have less verb inflections but use words in amore flexible way. I see this as kind of semantic as "used to drive", "will drive", "would drive" could be considered the verb inflections, just involving two words. He attributes most of the wackiness to imposing Latin grammar on a non-Latin language. So if we don't have an authority on our language why do we have to learn rules in school. Apparently, amateur grammarians were taken as authorities by some people and the rule propagates.
Queen Stefanya adds this little nugget:
Lastly, dictionaries do not save as authorities either, and some even take the descriptive view of explaining how things are used instead of the prescriptive view of explaining how it should be used. This all reminds me of what the guru N. N. Taleb calls "Teaching birds to fly." The idea being that people just do things, and then academic types (such as myself) figure out how they did it and explain it to them, usually without request.
This takes us nicely in to Chapter 10, Order out of Chaos, which is mainly devoted to dictionaries of English and how they came about. Bryson takes us through the difficult things to consider in making a dictionary by first considering the number of words. Could a dictionary ever be able to encapsulate them all? No. Even the more limited consideration of words in people's vocabulary is unclear. Estimates abound.
I think it is really something that our memories can work in this manner. Relying heavily on a small cluster of words and then be able to bring in more exotic terms that we may not have used in a long time. I've noticed in my writing that if I do that I have a tendency to want to use the same words again soon after.
Next, how do we define words? Can we capture every nuanced meaning for a word in a single dictionary? No. Lastly, by the time you are done you have to start over because language is always changing. Still, I have to admire people like Samuel Johnson, Noah Webster, and James Augustus Henry Murray for trying. I have a strong desire to be comprehensive, flawless and exhaustive in all subjects, even as I secretly concede that it's impossible to be any of the three usually. Strive for perfection, you'll fall short into something pretty damn good. On the other hand, you may end up like W. C. Minor who kept himself institutionalized all his life and also CUT OFF HIS OWN PENIS WITH A PEN KNIFE!!! Accept your flaws is a good mantra too.
To show you how thrilling this book is, here is basically The Mother Tongue version of the photo album of classic cars mentioned in Thomas Pynchon's Inherent Vice:
Speaking of which, I have a website now, so here's those classic cars. Hubba hubba!
Chapter 11, Old World, New World. The American English language takes it's root at a particular time in the transient development of English English. It borrows words from Dutch, Spanish, and French colonials as well as Native tribes. The latter in particular are often converted into more palatable spellings and pronunciations such as raugraoughchun into raccoon.
The origin of O.K. is unknown, huh? I had once heard that it meant "zero kills" and was coined during the Mexican-American War. However, the first print version in 1839 predates this. Still works for zero kills though. Also interesting is that certain Appalachian folks speak a similar version of English as Elizabethan England, and that Southern dialect words (consarn it) are closer to hoity-toity English. This reflects the role of social motility, with dialects being preserved in geographically isolated regions such as these, or in culturally isolated communities such as the Pennsylvania Dutch (who preserve their non-Dutch German language to some degree).
Shout out to The King's English (1931). It's a 'modern usage' book. I didn't get that from reading.
I meant this one of course. It's a quaint little book store. Not a great book store. But it's right along my bus route.
In Chapter 12, English as a Global Language, Bryson makes the case that English is a global language. He estimates that about a billion (American billion) people speak English as either a first or second language (back in 1990). The fact that they do this not because they think its the most awesomest language but because they know it is the most important testifies to me that English has become the official international language of the world. English words are incorporated into many languages including Serb-Croation. The Japanese do it the most, and the French, of course are the most resistant.
It may seem trivial but it is kind of important point to remember that first language - foreign, second language - English speakers prefer they're own language to English. The fact that they prefer to read and watch TV in their native language speaks to that, and seems obvious, although I wonder about music. American pop music is all the rage across the world, is it not? In any case, one lesson I learned from traveling in Europe is that although almost everyone there speaks English, they will find it rude if you assume they do. Learn how to politely ask "Excuse me, do you speak English?" in the native tongue and it will get you a long way.
Making up a language is ambitious, crazy... and ambitious. I wonder if the inventors of Volapük or Esperanto had any friends. I mean, speaking one of those languages is geekier than speaking Klingon or whatever Middle Earthers speak. At least those movies/shows/books were cool, so there's some excuse for geeking out. But a language out of the blue, for the sake of it? That's a little cultish.
(Posted By Evan)
Bryson discusses in Chapter 5 the rich vocabulary and extra shades of meaning in the English language, to the point of unnecessary synonyms (such as sternutation for sneezing) and redundancies (various different). On the other hand we seem to be missing terms for things we should have (like the positive of 'incorrigible') or pack multiple meanings into words (polysemous) such as fine (fine art, fine gold, a fine edge, feeling fine, fine hair, and a court fine").
He then lists six ways that words are formed.
1. BY ERROR.
He lists typographical errors, mistranslations and mishearings of words that stuck. This made me think of Rickyism’s for any Trailer Park Boys fans out there. (Language warning!)
I often use the word “lase” which I define as (v.) to emit laser light. This is an example of a ‘back-formation,’ discussed in the same section. A laser is (n.) a device that emits ‘laser light’. It’s actually an acronym for Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission Radiation. It’s a historical convert from the MASER (M is for microwave). The R is completely redundant because Stimulated Emission is always Radiation so it could have just been MASE and LASE. “Laser” sounds more like a noun though, huh?
Laser light is fundamentally different from natural light, as different as a liquid is from a solid. A laser is not a light (or lamp), it’s a source of ‘laser light’. But a laser will not emit ‘laser light’ unless it is properly aligned. I’ve been trying to revive an old laser lately, so my reports to my boss recently have included sentences like, “I spent some time trying to get the laser to lase but it’s still not lasing.”
2. BY ADOPTION.
Interesting ones in this section are how words may come through multiple paths and arrive at the same time to give us pairs like "catch and chase, cave and cage, amiable and amicable". Also the doublets that are of half native - half foreign such as eyes/ocular ".. mouth/oral, book/literary.." or of two different Latin adjective forms ("earthly and terrestrial, motherly and maternal, timely and temporal").
3. BY CREATION.
Hats off to Shakespeare. He created some 1700 words or more, over 10% of the words he used, he made up. Now that's a writer.
4. BY DOING NOTHING.
This one was weak because there mainly just changes in connotation, but this was good boner joking.
(p. 81) Sometimes the changing connotations of a word can give a new and startling sense to literary passages, as in The Mayor of Casterbridge, where Thomas Hardy has one of his characters gaze upon "the unattractive exterior of Frafrae's erection" or in Bleak House, where Dickens writes that "Sir Leicester leans back in his chair, and breathlessly ejaculates."
5. BY ADDING OR SUBTRACTING.
I liked Bryson's point about how we can run roughshod with prefixes and suffixes and still make it sound pretty like taking the root word of hen and making incomprehensibility out of in, -com-, -pre-, -s-, -ib-, -il-, -it-, and -y.
Pronunciation is hard. I think Chapter 6 and 7 are probably best read aloud, in order to appreciate the differences in pronunciations Bryson is highlighting here (such as the "ng" sound in bring versus sing or the "th" sound in mouth, mouth, thigh, and thy). I did not subject my fellow UTA bus riders to this experiment, however. In addition, to these more formal intricacies, we are subjected to slurs. By which I mean Bryson talks about tendencies to slur words. The Baltimoron-ese is the pinnacle! I knew we were the best at something!
I never really had the accent and lost any trace I may have had. But ask me to say 'Orioles' and you might catch a hint. But the video below does a great job because this guy learned to correct his accent so he can switch in and out of it. When he is in it, he sounds just like my Uncle. This brings me to uncontrollable tears of laughter, I hope it does the same for you. Enjoy!
Between a dialect, a pronunciation, a creole, a pidgin, and a language I am now lost. But at least got to learn about Gullah or Geechee.
This YouTube page called Wikitongues is cool. You can find an example of someone speaking just about any language there. Here is Gullah – it's subtle, so I recommend watching the whole thing.
Spelling is hard too. This was my favorite part from Ch. 8.
(p. 130) In The English Language[page 91], Robert Burchfield, called by William Safire the "world's most influential lexicographer," talks about grammatical prescriptivists who regard "innovation as dangerous or at any rate resistable." It should be resistible. ...And in The Treasure of Our Tongue, Lincoln Barnett laments the decline of spelling noting: "An English examination at New Jersey's Farleigh Dickinson University disclosed that less than one quarter of the freshmen class could spell professor correctly." I wonder, for my part, how many of them could spell freshman class.
A quiz then follows to see if we can determine which of a list of words are mispelled. I got about half of them right.
(p. 131) So was misspelled at the end of the preceeding paragraph. So was preceding just there. I'm sorry, I'll stop.
Anyway, what this blog post needs is another YouTube video. Happy Saturday!
(Posted by Evan)
Author Bio: (From Wikipedia) "William McGuire Bryson (born 8 December 1951) is an American-British author of books on travel, the English language, science, and other non-fiction topics…
Bryson was born [in 1951] in Des Moines, Iowa, the son of Agnes Mary (née McGuire) and sports journalist Bill Bryson Sr…. In 2006 Bryson published The Life and Times of the Thunderbolt Kid, a humorous account of his childhood years in Des Moines.
Bryson attended Drake University for two years before dropping out in 1972, deciding instead to backpack around Europe for four months. He returned to Europe the following year with a high-school friend, Matt Angerer (the pseudonymous Stephen Katz). Bryson wrote about some of his experiences from this trip in his book Neither Here nor There: Travels in Europe.
Bryson first visited Britain in 1973 during his tour of Europe and decided to stay after landing a job working in a psychiatric hospital—the now-defunct Holloway Sanatorium in Virginia Water, Surrey. He met a nurse there named Cynthia Billen, whom he married in 1975. They moved to Bryson's hometown of Des Moines, Iowa, in 1975 so that Bryson could complete his college degree at Drake University. In 1977 they settled in Britain… and now holds dual citizenship."
(From penguin books,)
"In a national poll, Notes from a Small Island was voted the book that best represents Britain. His acclaimed work of popular science, A Short History of Nearly Everything, won the Aventis Prize and the Descartes Prize, and was the biggest selling non-fiction book of its decade in the UK.
His new book The Body: A Guide for Occupants is an extraordinary exploration of the human body which will have you marvelling at the form you occupy. Bill Bryson was Chancellor of Durham University 2005–2011. He is an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Society. He lives in England."
(From Durham University)
"Bill Bryson was Durham University's 11th Chancellor, and formal head of the University, from April 2005 to 31st December 2011…
In 2004 he returned to Durham to receive an honorary Doctor of Civil Law. In 2006, Bill was awarded an honorary Order of the British Empire (OBE) and in 2009, was the first American to be made an honorary freeman of the City of Durham.
A high profile international figure, Bill is not only famous for his books; he is also actively involved in promoting cultural, environmental and scientific issues. In 2002, he travelled to Kenya with CARE International, an independent humanitarian organisation working to end world poverty through sustainable development programmes. In 2003, Bill was appointed as a Commissioner for English Heritage, and in 2005 he launched a call to improve the protection of Britain’s ancient trees and woods alongside The Woodland Trust and the Ancient Tree Forum."
I think Bill Bryson is funny. In researching his bio I came across this interview titled: Bill Bryson interview "I enjoy the preposterousness of life" So do I, Bill, so do I. This opening passage had me going pretty good.
(p.2) Consider this ... warning to motorists in Tokyo: "When a passenger of the foot heave in sight, tootle the horn. Trumpet at him melodiously at first, but if he still obstacles your passage, then tootle him with vigor."
In the interview, Bryson says he felt pressure to be comical in his early books and that mainly took the form making fun of people. I found these slurs (that's what they are) on the Irish pretty comical.
(p.9) An Irish buggy was a wheelbarrow. An Irish beauty was a woman with two black eyes. Irish confetti was bricks. An Irish promotion was a demotion.
In Chapter 2, Bryson tells us about the development of Neanderthal Man and Homo Sapiens. I didn’t know we were the only mammals that could choke on food. The implications for articulate speech go a long way to explaining my cats’ limited vocabularies.
We are provided with a two-sides theory of the development of language shown through the lens of childhood language development. a) the blank slate that learns what it experiences; b) an innate ability to learn language. Nature vs. Nurture (or vice versa rather, respectively). The evidence provided by Bryson seems to favor Nature, but doesn’t attempt to be decisive. He talks about how historically, different languages developed at the same time and how children all seem to learn language in the same way and on the same time scales. He points out what would be very strange coincidences between distant languages such as Sanskrit and English, hinting that some cognates may be universal originating from onomatopoeia. Personally, I am skeptical about the existence of a Proto-Indo-European mother tongue.
Oh and this sentence about Sanskrit on page 22, "That so much of it survived at all was in large part due to the efforts of priests who memorized its sacred hymns, the Vedas, and passed them on from one generation to the next for hundreds of years even though the words had no meaning for them." makes me think of Djinn in Salamander by Thomas Wharton, getting an ancient language tattooed on his body, the living scroll.
In a book that Andy recommended, Probably Approximately Correct by Leslie Valiant, a book about ‘machine learning’ mostly, he argues that evolutionary learning is not fundamentally different from conventional learning of a single organism through experience and offers this as an explanation as to why it is difficult to distinguish Nature from Nurture. Through evolution we have learned through our genes, our genetic memory, while through experience we have learned through normal memory. It’s a neat idea. Bryson points out many times that one distinct characteristic of English is it's flexibility. So maybe an evolutionary theory is appropriate.
This book was published in 1990. I wonder how much our knowledge of these things has changed since then.
Chapter 3 on the other hand shows us how different languages can be. “It appears there is no feature of grammar or syntax that is indispensable or universal.” (p.29) The way that culture and environment influence language is seen in the 50 words for snow of the Eskimos. As Bryson points out, languages change over time, they mix with other languages, and they die out. They can be generated through the development of pidgins and then creoles to full-fledged languages. I didn’t know that a creole was type of language. I always thought Creole was a language in Louisiana and some of the Caribbean nations. I had never heard of a pidgin.
But I thought Bryson could have done a better job of describing how these classes of languages are distinct. I just gather that a language is superior to a creole and a creole is superior to a pidgin.
Chapter 4 is the start of the real book, how the English language began. I found this chapter fascinating. I wasn’t aware that English was historically Germanic. I always thought of it as a mix of European languages, but rooted in Latin. This seems to be Bryson’s point about the rules of Latin being arbitrarily imposed upon English being one of its peculiarities.
Poor Celts. Sounds like they had a good thing going. Then those barbarian Anglo-Saxon-Frisian-Jutes invaded and ruined everything. But it’s interesting how the crass and uncultured English survived because it was so. Bryson points out how the Romans and Celts left little in the way of vocabulary beyond the names of places in the English Language. This is later made more explicit when he describes how the Anglo-Norman occupation provided a lot of terms related to government and high-class professional crafts, while English maintained authority over the language of love and dirt. One of my favorite parts of the book so far was the remaining 1% of modern English attributable to pre-Norman Anglo-Saxon English containing all the best words:
(p.57) ... man, wife, child, brother, sister, live, fight, love, drink, sleep, eat, house and so on.
Language is a major class signifier, and has major implications for politics, but it goes both ways. The Anglo-Normans were able to rule over the English with their imposition of government official language but the language dissolved because it was too haughty for the populace and still looked down upon by Parisians. I hear that the Parisians also mock the Quebecois, and yet the latter are still proud of their language and still call it French.
A similar dynamic occurs in professional communities. Jargon can be used to exclude lay people from knowing what a doctor, lawyer, or scientist are up to. But within the field, if you use a lot of jargon people will think you are an idiot.
You made it to the end. You deserve a treat.
I wanted to dust off my copy of The Complete Tales & Poems of Edgar Allan Poe this month and I thought it would be fun to publish some blogs about one of my favorite authors.
(Posted by Madison)
Florence treats Daniel Bascome as if she were a crazy ex-girlfriend and he just wants to be friends. He's like, bitch, leave, and she's like: "You will not deter me." He literally strangled her and she "sobbed with joy," (p. 117).
Florence's wavering between trance and not-trance, awake and dreaming, asleep and dreaming, somehow connect with the limbo of being alive and dead. Is there gray area? Is there a middle ground where you can exist between both realms? "She tried to wake herself, unable to endure this limbo of fragmentary awareness...She became more conscious of the battle to awaken. She had to separate herself before it was too late" (p. 133).
I just really like this quote by Florence: "I didn't fear Hollywood---or flee from it. There's nothing fearful about it. It's a location and an enterprise, nothing more. What those involved in it make of their lives is their own choice. The so-called 'corrupting' influences are no greater than similar influences that exist in any line of work. It isn't the business that matters, but the corruptibility of those who enter it" (p. 147).
When Florence is telling Fischer why she left Hollywood she mentions a prayer she said: "'One night, when I went to bed, I said the Lord's Prayer as I always do. Suddenly I realized that what I'd said was 'Our Father which art in heaven, Hollywood be thy name'" (p. 147). The word omitted in the prayer is "Hallowed," which I find interesting. I know from watching Hocus Pocus eight thousand times that witches (and maybe bad spirits and ghosts?) cannot set foot on hallowed ground or they will turn to stone. Hallowed: made holy, sanctified, or consecrated.