Recent Readings

Here's a catch-up post of what I've been reading.

Not Just a Geek
Book review of Just a Geek by Wil Wheaton

When Wesley Crusher was Put on a Bus in The Next Generation, Wil Wheaton, the actor who portrayed him, mostly fell out of the public consciousness.  Wheaton struggles to regain a reputation in Hollywood, his new hobby-turned-second-career of writing, and coping with The Wesley part of his past.  We learn what it's like to be a struggling actor, child star, stepdad, blogger, and all around geek.  Highly recommended for geek-culture enthusiasts and Trekkies, especially anyone who resented Ensign Crusher.

Inspiring Boredom
Book review of Ennui to Go: The Art of Boredom

I've been browsing the bargain section of the bookstore lately. (Pro tip: bargain hardbacks are still typically more expensive than regular paperbacks.)  Ennui to Go is in vein with the onslaught of quote and fact books that have flooded the bargain section recently.  Most of the book is quotes describing the state of boredom.  Many of the quotes attempt to pin down the causes and relievers of boredom.  One chapter lists definitions of types of boredom terms.  Another chapter lists historical people associated with boredom.  If you're interested in psychology (or philosophy), this book has some interesting insights into lack-of-interest.

Book review of 11,002 Things to be Miserable About

Not quite the bargain section, this book came from the check-out line.  This is book is exactly what it sounds like.  Composed as a stream of consciousness list, part of the fun of the book is juxtaposition (the rest is the shock factor).  One fun game to play is to come up with compelling reasons why some items might make someone miserable.  The extremely disappointing thing is that the editors failed to catch several repeating items, some on facing pages of each other.  Also, this book is not recommended for children or those suffering depression.  Highly recommended for those with macabre humors.

Here are a few examples that particularly resonated with me (from throughout the book): spam, calculus, artificial grape flavoring, being awake at 4 am, nonrecyclables in the recycle bins, vending machines that steal your money, the macarena, militant vegetarians, actors, unexamined lives, American attention spans, evolutionary explanations of love, Shakespeare translated into modern English, manual labor, daytime tv, bureaucracy, divas, work on Sundays, middle school band concerts, bad movie adaptations of good books, freezing rain, trying to sleep on a train, prequels, construction, Antigone, unpaid internships, charging for checked baggage, facebook apps, blinking in photos, books you can't finish, broken flip-flops, LA traffic, infomercials.....

Holly-days

Hollywood likes to cash in on the holidays, like any other corporate monster.  However, frequently the movies bear only a passing resemblance to the celebrations during which they are set. Here are the holidays according to Hollywood:

Jan 1—Take two Tylenol and go back to bed.  Don't worry about making resolutions; just watch a few movies and be told what to think.

Feb 2—On this day we celebrate the mystery of the passage of time and of causality itself, although a small furry creature may be somehow involved.  We are reminded that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.  Resolution: be a better person.

Feb 14—Today we celebrate miscommunications and happy endings.  That guy that you think doesn't even know you exist? He totally loves you.  And you will die of old age in each other's arms. Resolution: read He's Just Not That Into You fall in love, be a better person.

March 17—This day is not largely celebrated in Hollywood since the only way in which it differs from any other day is in what color the beer is.  Resolution: find a better hangover cure.

March/April ?—Celebrates prejudice by restarting Mel Gibson's career and getting him back in the news so as to have the largest possible audience for his poor life choices.  Resolution: be a better person than Mel Gibson.

April 1—Today is the national holiday of the internet.  Rick Astley is the patron saint. Resolution: be less gullible watch more YouTube.

May 5—No one knows what this holiday is about, but it seems like a good time to be culturally aware.  And the best way is to watch Steve Martin.  Resolution: find The Three Amigos, buy a pinata.

July 4—This day celebrates victory over alien invasions, especially those covered up by the government and encourages us to demand full disclosure.  Or possibly celebrates fighting the nation we descended from. Yeah, that doesn't seem right.  Resolution: be more like Bill Pullman.

Oct 31—This day allows us to confront our fears of death thru watching supernatural beings gruesomely kill everyone. Not that far off from the real holiday, actually.  Resolution: survive till the sequel.  Alternative celebrations center around Tim Burton or Tim Curry.

Nov 5—This day centers on anarachy, revolt and explosions. (Wait, isn't this completely backward?) Also, a guy that vaguely looks like the phantom of the opera.  Resolution: research gun powder plot, be a better informed voter blow stuff up.

Nov 7—During the days leading up to this day, some people will be watching lots of documentaries.  The rest of us spend this time wishing Jack Bauer were on the ticket.  Resolution: vote for the guy who is willing to interrogate negotiate.

Nov ?—This holiday is entirely about football. Large amounts of food are cooked ahead of time so you can spend the entire day in front of the television.  Resolution: find a way for society to be even lazier and be thankful for it.

Dec 25—There is a lot of controversy around this holiday.  The mythos of talking animals, sentient ice beings, and anti-gravity has a cult following particularly strong among the vertically challenged.  The other tradition is based largely on two stories.  In one a man is woken up by four three ghosts, who show him what life will be like when he's dead.  The other... has fewer ghosts.  Resolution: give gifts to show what a good person you are, especially if you kept your resolutions.

Art vs. Craft vs. Crafts

"What is art?" is a question that every artist and critic seeks to answer.  Why are certain projects relegated to crafts, a category seemingly lower than art? 

art*—the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.


Art is concerned with aesthetics. Is it beautiful? Not all art is beautiful. Not all art is meant to be.  Does it elevate its subject? Does it draw out thought or emotion from the viewer? Art has a material value (how much it cost to make) but also intrinsic, religious, nationalistic, and psychological value.  The intrinsic value places a piece of art against the hierarchy of all other art and judges its art-ness.  By that scale, we may say that crafts have low intrinsic value, even if they possess other artistic values.


Visual arts (because music, etc. doesn't enter into a discussion of arts and crafts) have formal elements that define and regulate style which is how intrinsic value is largely judged.  The elements are composition, plane, balance, line, depth, perspective, space, shape, light, color, texture, and content. All arts and crafts will employ all of these to varying degrees.  Execution of these elements constitutes technique.  For our purposes, visual arts refers to 2D, 3D, graphic/digital art, and architecture.


craft*—an art, trade, or occupation requiring special skill, esp.manual skill.


By defining where crafts fall, we are  also defining a specific aspect of art: Technique vs. Creation.  Art is linked to creation/creativity, an emotional and intellectual process.  Rules of technique are bent and changed to accommodate "the artistic process."  Crafts, on the other hand, remain static once their technique has been developed (barring new technology, but that rarely changes the final look of the product).  The layout of Hobby Lobby may help discern this distinction.  The store is divided into 2 (for our purposes) major sections.  The art supplies tend to be more expensive and less likely to come with step by step instructions, except for a few books that can be purchased separately. Crafts supplies tend to come in kits or with some pieces ready made.  


A word about crafts: Many crafts, like scrapbooking, are more likely to be considered hobbies than a calling.  Groups have knitting parties or swap meets.  But we should recognize that crafts historically have more of a function than art does (architecture is the notable exception).  Many hobbies of today were the livelihoods of craftsmen in the last century even.  With the rise of the homesteading movement and the local movement (from which we get the term 'locavore'), we are seeing a recovery of craft and craftsmanship that had all but disappeared in recent decades.  And I am for this. Far from being simply kitschy, crafts teach self-reliance in an industrialized world.


*FDD: 
art, n. This word has no definition. 
craft, n. A fool's substitute for brains.

Themes of R&J as depicted in Discworld

I recently read Terry Pratchett's Unseen Academicals.  One of the most striking things about the book was Pratchett's retelling of various scenes from Romeo and Juliet.  And I'm not talking the balcony scene.  The most moving of the scenes was his retelling of Mercutio's death— complete with thugs, wizards,  a werewolf, and an orc. What struck me most was that by pulling out the plot and basic structure while disguising the overly familiar characters you can see the themes and tensions of the play more clearly.  I should note, this seems to work better for literature, rather than performance, where if you get to far from the original you usually impose your own themes on what is there, rather than shed light on the issues at play.  Some of the themes that came thru in Unseen Academicals' treatment of the story (which are certainly present in the original, but frequently take a back seat) are: the power of labels, the senselessness of violence/revenge, the impressionableness of children and the need for parents to set a good example (aka 'bad parenting'), and the dangers of mob rule.  Honor, familial and personal, gets a special focus, because instead of families at war, Pratchett depicts sports teams supporters.

Here's where I put specific illustrations, but I gave the book back to my dad already. So, you'll have to read it for yourself.  And, if you're a stickler for reading books in order, you'll have to read the other 30ish Discworld books that precede it.

Write It Right: The Celebrated Cynic's Language Peeves Deciphered, Appraised, and Annotated for 21st-Century Readers

Language is both a natural phenomenon and a science.  It evolves from earlier forms, and it's rules are descriptive rather than proscriptive, like physics.  But unlike physics, the rules change. More like biology, then, especially ostriches and bats.  The point is language rules never apply 100% of the time.  And there may be a time when a rule ceases to exist altogether.  Will/shall usage used to be a big deal grammatically, but when was the last time you used shall except for a conscious effect?

Ambrose Bierce, of The Devil's Dictionary fame, was a usage critic on top of being a journalist and satirist.  In his 'blacklist', Write It Right, he lists his grammatical pet peeves.  Last year, Jan Freeman, a modern usage critic, "appraised and annotated" Bierce's famous list.  I stumbled on this book in Barnes and Noble and jumped for joy that my favorite cynic had another volume to add to my library that I hadn't previously heard of.  I didn't expect my entire view of how language evolves to be shaped by this book, but I am now an aspiring usage maven.

Most of Bierce's entries are, for various reasons, now obsolete. Bierce resists slang, particularly anything commercial (paying your dues) or American, which was seen as less refined than British English by American scholars of his day.  And many of his peeves appear to be unique to him and have no basis in traditional grammar rules.  Bierce spends most of his time trying to pin a single exact meaning for each term and to expurgate all other meanings under the banner of clarity. (See first example.)  Each entry lists the word Bierce is banning, usually as a substitute for another word—wet for wetted (Bierce believes in regular past tense forms ending in -ed.) Next he provides an example in quotes (which sometimes illustrates something entirely different).  And if he felt it necessary, a diatribe on what is wrong with the example.  I have listed Bierce's entry in bold following the style of the book.  Following each entry, Freeman describes the history of the usage Bierce condemns—what etymological dictionaries say, usage by creditable authors, and how the argument stands today. Frequently she analyzes Bierce's reasoning and makes fun of him. A very few entries—Authoress and Former—get wholesale agreement from Freeman. Here are my favorite examples, illustrating Bierce's whim and Freeman's wit and wisdom:

Space for Period. "A long space of time." Space is so different a thing from time that the two do not go well together.
If Bierce had been reading physics, instead of news of the war in Mexico, he might have heard of "the space-time manifold of relativity" before he disappeared around the end of 1913. If he had lived another few years, the OED would have published the S volume, showing that space had meant "duration, period" even before it meant "extent, area," and that both senses were current in the 14th century. Bierce being Bierce, he would probably have concluded that the 14th century needed a good editor; but "space of time" is so natural that even Bierce, not surprisingly, used expressions like "a moment's space" in his published work.

Over for About, In, or Concerning. "Don't cry over spilt milk." "He rejoiced over his acquittal."
Over had been used in this way since Old English, but what was good enough for King Alfred, William Caxton, Shakespeare, and Hardy was apparently too imprecise for Ambrose G. Bierce.

Finally, some vocab you'll run across in this book that made this non-maven's head spin:

solecism— a nonstandard or ungrammatical usage
neologism— a new word, meaning, usage or phrase
maven— a person who has special knowledge or experience, an expert
pleonasm— the use of more words than are necessary to express an idea; redundancy
shibboleth— a common saying or belief with little current meaning or truth
lexicography— the writing, editing, or compiling of dictionaries
etymon— an earlier form of a word in the same language or an ancestor language

Old government, Young Country

Every now and then I am surprised by remembering that the French Revolution occurred after (and in response to) the American one.  Which led me to my recent realization: America is a young nation with an old government.  Most, if not all, European countries trace their ethnic roots to before the Roman Empire. But few of the nations' current governments were formed prior to the 19th century.  1991 was a good year for nation forming, after the fall of the USSR.  1945, ditto after the end of WWII.  Even the UK didn't become "united" until 1800, then lost part of Ireland in 1922.  Actually, only very small, out-of-the-way countries have managed to keep a single government thru the upheaval of the 20th century. Without further ado, countries whose most recent change in governance is still older than the USA:

Andorra- 1278 (modernized 1993, whatever that means)
San Marino- 1600 (World's oldest constitution still in effect)

Yeah, really just one country.  Several come close, but treaties and occupations are sticky business and Wikipedia isn't all that clear in the side bar lists.

Despite the fact that we lack a unifying ethnic culture (or perhaps because) our country has managed to survive from inception under a single government.  And if you believe that its just our size that has kept us from the invasions that have afflicted Europe, look at Imperial Russia (or China).  In a time when patriotism is partisan, this is something all Americans can be proud of.

Summer Classics- Complete Short Stories of Mark Twain

Mark Twain needs no introduction.  And fair warning, The Complete Short Stories took me a year to read, not a summer.  On the plus side, this collection took "complete" to heart.  Even stories that appear in longer books, but can be read stand-alone, are included.

The stories range from rambling, plotless tales to morality stories usually about the the perils of assumptions and misplaced faith.  Frequently, the story you start reading seems abandoned and you end in a completely different story altogether.  Almost all of the stories are told first person, ala the oral tradition Twain's prose mimics.  He also regularly interrupts the narrator as the author, giving his work an audited feel.

There are a few stories worth specific note.  Everyone familiar with Twain will know "The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County."  His first short story, it is classic Twain, but a poor representation of the breadth of Twain's style.  There are shockingly few stories that have the same countrified narration.  Twain satirizes every walk of life in America and Europe across history, and, although he brings a distinct Americanism to his writing, he comes off more cosmopolitan than you would expect.

"A Double Barreled Detective Story" is unusual because Twain interrupts to explain a joke, an interruption that lasts for several pages.  The reader is unsure if Twain's stated reasons are true (he says people wrote him about the paragraph, but there is no way to tell real author's notes from contrived ones) and why the story even needed the joke to begin with because the style shift is very dramatic for a single unconnected paragraph.  Here is the offending (yet brilliant) paragraph for your perusal (the less obvious contradiction is in bold).

"It was a crisp and spicy morning in early October. The lilacs and laburnums, lit with the glory-fires of autumn, hung burning and flashing in the upper air, a fairy bridge provided by kind Nature for the wingless wild things that have their homes in the tree-tops and would visit together; the larch and the pomegranate flung their purple and yellow flames in brilliant broad splashes along the slanting sweep of the woodland; the sensuous fragrance of innumerable deciduous flowers rose upon the swooning atmosphere; far in the empty sky a solitary esophagus slept on motionless wing; everywhere brooded stillness, serenity, and the peace of God."

Taken as a whole, Twain's short stories read like Aesop's fables, Grimm's fairy tales, and PG Wodehouse thrown in a blender, although even that doesn't hint at all the genres he spoofs.  While no single story compares to the finesse of plot and character found in his classic novels, there may not be a better Twain primer in existence.

Acronyms, abbrevs, and redundancy

In our fast paced society, we can't be bothered to spell it all out—literally.  We have invented a new shorthand with txt-ing and abbrevs (thank you SoCal) and acronyms. And we usually know what is meant. Mostly. Well, you may not know what RSVP stands for, but you understand the concept. And eventually, as in the case of RSVP, you see the letters as the concept, which introduces a few interesting problems.

RAS syndrome is the redundant use of one or more words that make up an acronym. For example, the syndrome literally reads Redundant Acronym Syndrome syndrome. Other examples include PIN number (personal identification number number) and ATM machine (automatic teller machine machine).  In the case of PIN, i can understand needing to add a clarifying word to the acronym to separate it from a pin or pen.  For other reasons behind this phenomenon check out the Wikipedia page.

The other problem as I see it has less to do with stylistic blunders and more with being bamboozled as consumers.  Everyone should be aware that msn is an acronym for Microsoft Network. But using their acronym seems to me to soften the impact of their expansion into other media (if you are the sort of person who dislikes big corporations).  And this isn't me pointing a finger at Microsoft, because most people know that one; many companies do this.  When SBC (now merged with AT&T) took over various smaller companies they changed their name to its acronym and then claimed it wasn't an acronym of Southwestern Bell Company and in fact didn't stand for anything.  The break-up and re-merging of the Bell companies is rather interesting but a bit off-topic for this post.

I don't really want to spend more time discussing name changes, mergers, and monopolies, although in an American acronym discussion these topics are frequent and extend back for decades.  Instead, here are several common acronyms I've collected and their meanings.  I'll leave you to spot the irony and age of  some of them.

AAA/ Triple-A— American Automobile Association
ABC— American Broadcasting Company
AT&T—American Telephone and Telegraph
BMW— Bavarian Motor Works
CBS—Columbia Broadcasting System
CNN—Cable News Network
DVD—digital video disc (some of these I hope are familiar) OR digital versatile disc
DVR— digital video recorder
FDA— Food and Drug Administration
LASER (yes, laser)— light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation
LP—long-playing [record album]
M&M's—NOT AN ACROMYN, the letters do stand for founders Mars and Murrie
MGM— Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc.
NBC—National Broadcasting Company
NRA— National Rifle Association
PRC— People's Republic of China (you might find this on a clothes tag)
RADAR—radio detection and ranging
RSVP—Respondez sil vous plait (please reply, making 'please rsvp' redundant)
SONAR— sound navigation and ranging
SMS—short message service (aka texting and other stuff sent to your phone)
TBS— Turner Broadcasting System
TLC— The Learning Chanel or tender loving care
TNT— Turner Network Television
USDA— United States Department of Agriculture
VCR—videocassette recorder
VH1— Video Hits One
VHS— video home system

PS- most of the above are actually initialism. Turns out there are terms for different types of acronyms. Search acronym on Wikipedia for more on the differences.

Please Explicate Your Semantics.

The fourth definition of interpret is "to perform or render (a song, role in a play, etc) according to one's own understanding or sensitivity."  First, any performer would argue that good interpretation takes the audience's understanding into account as well.  Secondly, this is true of all interpretation in the practical, human sense.  It is not possible to interpret outside of your own understanding.  Which, despite attempts at total objectivity, makes 'meaning' very personal and nuanced.  And yes, I am talking about language.  Internet comments (along with much of the rest of our lives) could do with a quick discourse on how to make yourself understood in a way that fosters intelligent conversation and debate. So, a few nouns and verbs to kick us off:

semantics— the study of meaning and changes in meaning and form, the interpretation of a meaning of a word

hermeneutics— the science/theory/methodology of interpretation, esp. scripture

exegesis— critical explanation or interpretation of a text, esp the Bible

explicate— to make clear the meaning of, explain, interpret

translate— to explain in terms more easily understood, interpret

elucidate—to make lucid or clear, explain, clarify

clarify— to make clear or intelligible, free from ambiguity

Clear, transparent, lucid.  The light of meaning.  There are entire fields of study surrounding meaning.  Arguing semantics is the basest form of the study of semantics.  It is the catch-all for not wanting to listen to your opponent's arguments.  Meaning is, quite obviously, very near and dear to me. I believe if we all carried around dictionaries (We do! They're called iPhones.) then we could avoid at least half of the silly arguments that cluster around the free exchange and debate of ideas.  The first step to successful communication is to know what it is you are saying.  The second is to know that the other person does too. We filter and interpret and tailor our dialogue depending on the setting.  You use different vocabulary when talking to a six year old versus a sixty year old. What generally lacks though is a level of conscientiousness that not only communicates ideas but digests outside ideas.  We listen.  Not just to what is said, but to what is meant.  I can feel better about myself by correcting my friend's grammar, or I can strengthen our friendship by endeavoring to let them know I understand what they are saying.  Always remember, they are filtering what they say through their own interpretation of language and experience AND SO ARE YOU.

Don't worry, this is as preachy as I am likely to get.  Also, note that semantics has devolved to mean only one aspect of its original meaning, much like 'cynic'.  To sum up: attend to your structure and to anything put forth for critique, and beyond that try to cross the barriers of semantics and take heed of underlying meaning!

Summer Classics- P.G. Wodehouse

I know. Wodehouse is an author, not a book.  But the genius of Wodehouse is best seen in his body of work, not in any individual book or story.

Most literate people have heard his name, even more are familiar with his most famous character, even if they are unaware of the connection.  Jeeves is one of the world's most celebrated butlers (even though he is a valet).  He even has a search engine named after him.

In the Jeeves cannon, Jeeves is employed by Bertie Wooster, a gentleman bachelor with more good humor than intelligence.  He refers his every crisis and those of his friends to Jeeves.

I was first introduced to Wodehouse (and Jeeves and Wooster) several months ago, when I moved into an apartment that until recently had been guest housing for the theatre I used to work at.  Among a few coffee table books about the geographical area was a copy of Jeeves in the Morning (which I absconded with, with a few others).  After I finished it, I went around the corner to a used bookstore and bought out their collection of Wodehouse.  A few days ago I repeated the exercise.

These novels and short stories are so accessible that the less pretentious reader may be shocked to discover its 'classic' status.  Even (or especially) fairly young readers can enjoy these books.  For the discerning adult, they are a romp into the Britain of early last century, which to my mind is escapism at its finest.

But to fully appreciate the literary merit of Wodehouse, you have to sample several of his books.  It was about the fifth book in, for me, when it hit me— Wodehouse is brilliant.  At first, the stories come across formulaic and simplistic.  But the further you read, the more you notice and appreciate his subtle humor.  However, the shock for me was the consistency.  Few novelists can manage over a dozen novels and many dozen short stories, written largely unchronologically, to have no apparent discrepancies. Furthermore, the deeper you get, the more layered the characters become.  Wodehouse spends very little time repeating himself, preferring to recommend the reader to the book containing the necessary back story.

If you're looking to expand your repertoire but are afraid of names like Steinbeck or Dickens, or if you're just looking for a good bedside reader (I speak from experience), then Wodehouse is a must read.  But if your used bookstore is out, I may have beaten you to them.

I want to be an American idiom

If there is a body of work that at first glance appears to be an entirely unnecessary edition to the library of a well-informed person, then it would be The Dictionary of Cliches.  The fact this book has had at least ten printings is rather ironic (no, really, check my post on irony).  The nature of the cliche is such that anyone fluent in the language already knows its meaning, making a dictionary redundant.  But before looking at the usefulness of this volume, here's a few definitions for clarity (with important differences italicized):

idiom— an expression that cannot be understood from the individual meanings of its elements and is peculiar  to a people or place

cliche— a trite stereotyped expression that has lost originality and impact thru overuse

proverb— a short popular saying usually of unknown ancient origin expressing a commonplace truth or useful thought

adage— a traditional saying expressing a common experience or observation, a proverb

saw— a sententious saying, maxim, proverb

maxim— an expression of a general truth or principle, particularly an aphoristic or sententious one

aphorism— a terse saying embodying a general truth or astute observation

slang— very informal usage in vocabulary and idiom that is characteristically more metaphorical, playful, elliptical, and ephemeral than ordinary language

A cliche can be an idiom, proverb, or adage as long as it is in common (over)use.  Time also appears to be a factor.  So much slang is so ephemeral that while it may be temporarily overused it also quickly falls out of common usage and becomes culturally antique.

But why a dictionary?  First off, to put collected knowledge into one place.  Students, teachers, writers, and English learners have easy access to the ideas and expressions prominent in our culture.  Expressions only vaguely understood are concretely defined.

More usefully, the origins/history and earliest usage of each cliche is included.  That's one advantage this dictionary has over Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable, a much more extensive volume of English idiom and allusion.  Many of the Brewer's entries list only definition (likely because an origin and history cannot be found or concisely stated). The following are few exerts from The Dictionary of Cliches.

More or Less— To a greater or lesser extent; maybe yes and maybe no; it's ambiguous.  How often one hears this formula for inexactitude and how old it is! It goes back to around 1225 in the Ancren Riwle, where it appears as "more oder lesse."

Now or Never— Here is one's last, or only, chance to do something.  The phrase dates at least from Chaucer's time (the 14th century), since he used it in Troilus and Criseyde (1380). The modern sense is clearer in John Daus's translation of Sleidanes Commentaries (1560): "Therefore thought they now, or els never, yt [that] God was on theyr side."

Proof of the Pudding is in the Eating— The way to test whether something came out as it was intended is to try it.  The pudding may look good on the table, but the only way to know for certain is to taste it. As you might expect, it is an old proverb.  One version of it dates to the 14th century.  A translation in 1682 of Boileau's Le Lutrin offered this: "The proof of th' pudding's seen i' th' eating."

Note the playful style and careful dating of each entry. Any saying older that last century is dated by usage in literature.  And most of the entries are old.  English idiom far predates modern spelling (In a some borrowed cases it predates English!).  I feel obligated to point out that the "proof" is NOT "in the pudding".

Knowing the origins of the phrases we use is important for any profession involving writing, creative or journalistic.  Or public (or publicized) speaking. Madelaine Murray O'Hare infamously used the phrase "the writing is on the wall." Had she realized its biblical origin, she probably would have refrained.

With the advent of instant information via the internet, there may be little demand for any sort of reference book, despite the credibility of information being substantially higher.  But my advice is to not judge this book by its cover. That's so cliche...

Food Rules!

Review of Michael Pollan's Food Rules: An Eater's Manual

If diets and proper nutrition confuse you, if you want to 'eat right' but don't know exactly what that means, then rest assured the answer has been found and it is as simple as it is effective.

Michael Pollan went in search of the secret to healthy eating and has written several books, including The Omnivore's Dilemma and In Defense of Food.  In Food Rules, he lays out a simple guide for eating food. Food, as defined by Pollan should be perishable, pronounceable, and as unprocessed as possible.  Everything else is "edible foodlike substances."  The sixty-four rules found in the book can be boiled down to seven words— "Eat food. Mostly plants.  Not too much."

Most of the rules in this book require not just a change in habits ("Shop the peripheries of the supermarket and stay out of the middle.") but a change in our entire way of thinking about not only what we eat but how, why, and with whom.  Thus healthy, conscientious eating involves searching out the right ingredients or growing them, cooking, eating meals— especially with other people and at tables, and simply taking time to appreciate the flavor and effort involved in your food.  The fallout for following these rules extends far beyond loosing weight and living longer.  By reclaiming thoughtful preparation and communal time during meals we can strengthen relationships and nourish spirits as well as bodies.

Food Rules may not be the next panacea, but as far as a prescription for healthy living, you couldn't do better than to read this book.

That's Ironic, or maybe not...

As demonstrated in my post "Smart Insults", many English speakers use words interchangeably without knowing their exact meaning.  Below are more that commonly trip up the masses.


Irony— the use of words to convey meaning opposite of what is said, an outcome contrary to expectations, incongruity, objectively sardonic style

Sardonic— bitter or scornfully derisive, mocking, cynical, sneering

Satire— the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule in exposing, denouncing, deriding vice, folly

Sarcasm— harsh or bitter derision or irony, sharply ironical taunt, sneering or cutting remark

All are indicative of mockery. Irony is more indirect, subtler, wittier.  Sarcasm is used to show contempt or be destructive, either indirectly or directly.  Sarcasm is distinguishable by vocal inflection used.  Satire and irony rely on the organization or structure of language or literature. Satire makes use of irony and sarcasm to critique public figures, politics, governments, etc.

The most typical problem people run into, however, is the difference between irony and coincidence.

Dramatic irony— irony inherent in speeches or situations of a drama understood by the audience but not grasped by the characters; dramatic effect achieved by leading an audience to understand an incongruity between speeches and situation while characters remain unaware.

Literary irony works much the same way.  As 'all the world's a stage', it is unsurprising that irony of situation came to exist alongside irony in speech. But it poses a dilemma.  Far down the list of definitions of irony is: an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.   Which sounds like it could be a coincidence.

Coincidence— a striking occurrence of two or more events at one time apparently by chance.

So, if two things coincide unexpectedly it is a coincidence.  If their coinciding goes against expectations, it is both irony and coincidence. If chance is ruled out as being a factor, it is simply ironic.

*FDD: Satire, n. An obsolete kind of literary composition in which the vices and follies of the author's enemies were expounded with imperfect tenderness. In this country satire never had more than a sickly and uncertain existence, for the soul of it is wit, wherein w are dolefully deficient, the humor that we mistake for it, like all humor, being tolerant and sympathetic. Moreover, although Americans are "endowed by their Creator" with abundant vice and folly, it is not generally known that these are reprehensible qualities, wherefore the satirist is popularly regarded as a sour-spirited knave, and his every victim's outcry for codefendants evokes a national assent.

Cast Changes: Out with the old, in with more of the same.

Cast changes are inevitable in any long running television series. Usually they are met with trepidation bordering on dismay by fans.  Adding new characters allows new dynamics to be explored, new subplots, plus rehashing everything you've done before in the hopes no one notices.  Don't believe me? Watch House. (If you speak English, have internet access, and have never seen House, allow me to express my shock.) Cameron's HIV scare is recycled with a different ending in Thirteen's illness subplot.  Or Cameron and Chase's relationship echoed in Thirteen and Foreman's. Same themes and tensions, recycled and rethought.  Sometimes a cast change isn't required. Look at how many times Foreman has actually been in charge on the series (hint: more than twice).

More interestingly, NCIS has taken advantage of a cast change to recycle not just plots and themes but dialogue.  Scenes with Tony and Kate are repeated with Tony and Ziva.  The reactions change, sometimes the characters swap positions on subjects, but the conversations can be nearly identical.

Don't get me wrong.  Judiciously, recycling can be used to show character development.  Repeating scenes with different endings can show growth (or regression).  And I am not inclined to think it is at all unintentional.  Consistency is very important when consumers can buy an entire series and watch in back to back, so I doubt anyone forgot they had done this before.  I do think they expect most audiences to not notice.  But with IMDB and lists of mistakes available on the internet, I expect to see a rise in carefully constructed series that can stand up to viewing as a complete entity, not as individual episodes.  Which is only more fun for me, as television creates more credible literature.

Smart Definitions

Americans have a good vocabulary for the people they perceive as smarter or more studious than themselves.  Most of the terms have been used as slurs, many have also been embraced by the studious set. Here is a look at the origins and definitions of those terms.

Nerd— origin 1960-65, means either a stupid, irritating, ineffectual, unattractive person or a single-minded, nonsocial intelligent person, [either having more or] lacking the social grace of a geek

Geek— origin 1915-20 derived from geck —fool, means any smart person with an obsessive interest, odd person, computer expert, a peculiar or dislikable person perceived to be overly intellectual

Dweeb—origin 1980-85, means mega-nerd, nerd, wimp

Dork— origin 1960-65, means a stupid or ridiculous person, jerk, nerd

Clearly, smart and stupid are equal and interchangeable offenses. Wisdom without grace is little better than folly.  And, as always, anything not understood is considered inferior.

I have always felt nerd lacked the punch behind geek, but the internet does not currently agree with my view.

Summer Classics- The Phantom of the Opera

Every American who has ever been enrolled in grade school (at least in recent decades) will remember summer reading.  I doubt it is unique to America either.  After twelve years of associating warm weather and vacation with classic literature, I find myself yearning for books written in old-fashioned language by dead authors (more than the usual) as the weather warms up.  This year I'm starting early.

Gaston Leroux is known for only one work, and even then most people won't recognize his name.  The Phantom of the Opera is better known for the plays, movies, and other adaptations than as a gripping novel of mystery and suspense.  Which it is, or would be if everyone didn't already know the ending.  Like any famous story ( The Mousetrap excepted), there is less suspense as the reader anticipates each scene before it happens.  Fortunately, enough plot is unique to the novel, that even knowing the end, the reader gets lost in the labyrinth of the Opera house.  And the stellar imagery makes this a thrilling read if you are alone in a large house at night.....

It should be noted that the spirit of the book is excellently captured in Andrew Lloyd Weber's popular musical, no matter what anyone may say to the contrary.

A little over 200 pages, there is little unnecessary description that most modern readers would balk at.  A nod to The Hunchback of Notre Dame combined with a detective novel and ghost story, Phantom is none of the above.  It is a thriller, and it does.

Appropriate for most ages, although I do not recommend it as a bedtime story.  This book is extremely accessible and everyone should read it.

Miscellany

Along with etymology (see post "Definitions"), I love miscellany.  Random facts. Its the same thing, really.  Small bundles of truth that reveal or explain an aspect of the world around us.

Miscellany— a miscellaneous [shock] collection or group of various or somewhat unrelated items. Sym- anthology.

Wikipedia is being unhelpful and redirecting to "Anthology".  Early miscellanies, like Tottel's Miscellany (published under the title Songes and Sonettes), would be called anthologies or collections today.

Schott's Original Miscellany is an example of miscellanies found in bookstores today.  There is no table of contents, only a lengthy index, and no organization to the information presented.  So, nouns of assemblage are found directly beneath a list of cricket dismissals.  Collections can also be themed like Schott's Food & Drink Miscellany, Schott's Sporting, Gaming, & Idling Miscellany, or Little known Facts about Well Known Places: Italy. 

Sometimes, however, the most interesting facts come from more unusual places.  Satiric novels, particularly in the sci-fi/fantasy genre tend to be founts of obscure knowledge.  Bellwether by Connie Willis begins each chapter with a brief history of some cultural trend.  Douglas Adams, in an article in The Salmon of Doubt, relates his favorite fact: young sloths are so inept they often mistake their own limbs for branches and fall out of trees.

Terry Pratchett has coined the term 'white knowledge' "to describe stuff that you know, and can't remember a time when you didn't know, but were never formally taught." Facts filtered in like white noise.  But some facts need to be sought out.  Here are a few of my personal favorites.

Lying can produce histamine to cause your nose to itch.

Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead wrote a mathematical volume that contains a 362 page proof that one plus one equals two.

The Anglo-Zanzibar War of August 27, 1896 was 38 minutes long, the shortest war in history.

The family that first cultivated broccoli also financed the James Bond films.

19 roads led to ancient Rome.

Charles Dickens invented the word 'boredom' in Bleak House.

A Written Cornucopia

Review of Secret Ingredients

As a rule, I find anthologies to be hit or miss.  Short story collections can be hard to “get into” and once I lose momentum, very hard to finish.  Secret Ingredients: The New Yorker Book of Food and Drink is a winning recipe among anthologies.  Upon reading a review for this book in the Memphis Flyer, I knew I had to buy it.  Recent convert to cooking, I have long enjoyed Food Network programming.  I am also a fan of collections, liking their power to preserve knowledge in an easily referenced way, even if I have a history of losing interest halfway through.   And The New Yorker articles promised a good read. I wasn’t disappointed. 

The book is divided into 8 sections: dining out—food made by chefs, eating in— home cooking, fishing and foraging— food gathered from nature, local delicacies, the pour— wine and ketchup, tastes funny— humor, small plates— short articles, and fiction.

The way a culture prepares and eats their food speaks to their climate, terrain, traditions, history, economy, and technology.  Many of these articles, presented in chronological order within each section, draw a picture of the cultural history of the United States, France, and to a lesser extent Russia, China, Mexico, Cuba,  and Japan.  The reader experiences the change in journalistic style, food trends, advances in technology, and cultural responses to historical events like the Great Depression, all within a span of less than a hundred pages and then starts over with each section presenting different figures to tell the stories of the cooks and eaters of the past century whose influences echo into the present even when most of their names are unknown to the majority.  Secret Ingredients is a starting place for discovering classic cookbooks and movements in the world of cuisine.  Culinary celebrities like Julia Child, Escoffier, Waverly Root, Careme, and M. F. K. Fisher all appear briefly, enticing the reader to more in depth research into a field all participate in but few study.  Not to mention the great journalists, like A.J. Liebling, who introduce themselves through their work.  There is also a lot of practical advice in this anthology: which days restaurants get their food fresh, recipes for tripe, why rarer types of fruit may taste better than mega-mart standbys. 

A few of the highlights:

"The Reporter's Kitchen" by Jane Kramer illustrates how certain smells and flavors can evoke memory and even inspire a writer.  "A Forager" by John McPhee is a travelogue of a trip taken through the Appalacians woven with the personal history of his guide Euell Gibbons, a self-made naturalist via his passion for gathering wild food and a subsequent author.  "A Rat in My Soup" by Peter Hessler introduces the village of Luogang, China and its unusual restaurant specialty.

Throughout, there are numerous attempts at defining what it is that makes up good cooking.  Cooking is compared to Dada art, analyzed geographically and historically, and sexualized.  Fernand Point in Joseph Wechsberg's article states, "[T]he finest butter...that's the secret of good cooking. And time, lots of time." Time, at least, seems also to be a winning ingredient in this collection of some of the best writing about food in the last century.

H2G2-6 (of 3) Review

In an extraordinary turn of events, The Hitchhiker's trilogy has added a sixth book to its ranks. ...And Another Thing takes its title from a quote in the fourth book of the trilogy (all the original titles are taken from the first).  Eoin Colfer, author of the Artemis Fowl series takes on the dangerous task of writing a post-mortem addendum to a beloved series.  Hailed as a stellar success and declaimed as falling completely flat.... Does this children's author bite off more than he can chew. Answer: Yes, but the world needed another Hitchhiker book and he was willing to step up to the plate with semi-decent results.

SPOILER WARNING!!!!!

If you haven't read the first five books but plan to one day, skip the next paragraph.

There aren't many salient plot points, which enables me to be brief.  The earth is blown up by Vogons (ugly bureaucrats), but not before two Earthlings and two aliens escape (not all together, they meet up just before 2 of them nearly die again).  Ford and Zaphod (Galactic President) are from Betelgeuse, Arthur and Tricia McMillian (Trillian) from England.  They find a replica earth, go back (and forward) in time, talk to a very smart computer, and find the answer to life, the universe, and everything.  In book 4, Arthur falls in love with Fenchurch, and Marvin the android dies.  By the end of Mostly Harmless (book 5): Arthur discovers he has a daughter by Trillian, named Random, and everyone is drawn back to earth just before it is destroyed on all planes of existence, this time by Grebulons (hired by Vogons).

YOU MAY RESUME.

Which I always thought was a very definite ending.  I knew Adams had thought of doing another one, but he never got around to it before he died.  And even he would have had to reach pretty far to save his characters from obliteration.  So, you can't blame Colfer if it takes him a bit to long to get the ball rolling.

...And Another Thing starts with a three page recap of the past five books.  The new story is presented as a guide entry.  We are dropped immediately into a where-are-they-now? scenario, which turns out to be a holographic dream, where each of the main characters believes he/she has lived a long, happy life.  Arthur has been sitting alone on a beach, Ford lounging at a spa, Trillian reporting throughout the universe, and Random became President of the Galaxy.  One by one they come out of the dream. Unfortunately, the reader gets the joke the first time, but is stuck reading each false scenario (a total of 16 pages), knowing it won't impact the rest of the story.

When we finally catch up to our old friends in real time, the Grebulons are bearing down on earth, warming up the death rays.  Not only has no time passed, but we have jumped back a good five minutes before the end of the world.  And given Zaphod enough time to show up to the rescue in the Heart of Gold.

The rest of the story moves forward in a fairly predictable(!) manner. The characters say they will do something and they do it, in a straightforward way.  There are only three main terrestrial locations and three space craft.  There are only two new major characters.  And the old ones don't always have much to add to the story. They are over-familiar with the territory; planetary destruction not the shock it once was. So, Colfer grants them some maturity.  Um. Yeah. Arthur becomes paternal and a bit adventurous toward the end. Trillian makes a commitment to her family. Zaphod acts responsibly.  Ford, thank goodness, drinks and spends fortunes with his limitless credit account.  Some other acquaintances that show up in an attempt to liven things up are Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz, Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged, and Thor.  Thor gets a major role, along with appearances of other Norse deities, which Douglas Adams had tried in The Long Dark Tea Time of the Soul, and I didn't feel it worked there or here.  There is no android at all (sigh). Despite references to every creature ever mentioned in the previous books, the story feels a mite understaffed.

Before I move on from characters, a word about Zaphod.  He is the most ill-treated character in the book.  Part of me cheers his hidden talent as a modest, almost noble hero who only plays the part of an ego-maniacal celebrity with the memory of a goldfish. But he's not Zaphod.  When given a task that takes him to Asgard, he goes straight there.  No side trips or dawdling.  He even admits at the end of the book to being at the ready to save his cousin and friends whenever the next catastrophe occurs.  I don't mind wishing these traits on Zaphod, but him admitting it destroys his un-credibility.

Which brings me to my composition points.  Colfer is spot on with his style mimicking the rest of the Guide, but his content lacks the subtlety and complexion.  Its too coherent.  So, style good, content... passable.  Structure. Oh dear.  It looks like the Guide, but it reads like a young adult novel.  I've already touched on the simplified plot and positive character growth.  The first half of the book spends far too much time throwing in references to the original Guide.  Colfer seems to be trying to impress us with his knowledge of Guide lore, and it comes across forced.  Not to forget the pop culture references.  Yes, Douglas Adams loved a sly reference, but Colfer's timing is not what it should be.  Taking a joke about modern western civilization that is more or less stolen out of Adams's annals, Colfer comes across as insulting rather than presenting humorous social commentary.  He does this more than once.  A lot of the Guide notes are elaborations of previous Guide notes. Or are direct comments on the plot, since the story is set up as a Guide entry (Adams did a lot more indirect).  And while none of the Guide notes compare to the brilliance of the towel entry, few are really all that funny.  One Guide note is the plot summary of the Matrix.  And the characters seem to have kept up with the times.  Cell phones, uBid, streaming video, etc.  The obvious time elapse echoes through the book.  Sadly, some things never seem to come comfortably to Colfer, like the  galactic slang, or the need to threaten his characters lives more than twice.  He is at his best when danger is eminent and things are forced to move quickly.

In the end, the Earth stays destroyed, Trillian falls in love, Random gets into politics, Zaphod runs for reelection, Ford sits on a beach researching the new Earth colony, Wowbagger becomes finitely prolonged, and Arthur sets up a potential sequel (but let's hope any sequels show improvement from this volume). Up until the last few pages, this book was in danger of a truly happy ending for everyone concerned.  Interestingly, the final ironic twist on the last page is the most Adams-y thing in the book.  Why couldn't there be more of those twists?

Overall, I like to view every book from Life, the Universe, and Everything (book 3) on as alternate endings: you stop whenever you feel like that is how you want to remember the characters' stories as having ended.  I like So Long, and Thanks for All  the Fish (book 4) as an ending.  But if you slog through Mostly Harmless (the most depressing book Adams ever wrote), you may need this pick-me-up.  So, it's not Adams, but the characters finally got a little more life as unexploded beings.  And that makes it all worth it.

Arthur sums it up best: "It was nice to see everybody, but why does there always have to be genocide?"  And wait till you see what Zaphod did to his head.

Definitions

I feel a little bad about my previous sentiment on LitCrit.  There is one notable aspect that I actually love: the origins of the stories we tell.  Folklore, fairy tales, fables (and to a lesser extent myth) fascinate me in that we still use these same stories in our bestsellers and blockbusters.  I love finding out how old our 'modren' concepts really are.  Similarly, I took a year of college Latin primarily because of my love for etymology.  I gave my mother a bit of a shock when an Amazon order of mine was delivered to my parents house rather than my school address.  She called me concerned, "Did you intend to order a dictionary?"  Yes, I had, Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable  to be exact.  As Terry Pratchett puts it in the intro,"Brewer's is ostensibly a reference book, and an indispensible one. But it is also an idiosyncratic adventure, pulling you in and saying: 'This is, in fact, not what you're looking for; but it's much more interesting.' And, of course it usually is."  This book and others like it are resources for common English idiom and popular and literary allusion.  I keep a list in the back of phrases I try to look up but aren't included... yet.  I own the 17th edition, but the 18th has already been published.

I have a few standard dictionaries (Webster, Spanish to English, Latin), but the internet is rapidly making them obsolete.  Dictionary.com is my friend when I write, particularly its thesaurus.  Also in my collection is Ambrose Bierce's The Devil's Dictionary, which I picked up for a dollar somewhere or other.  It is notably the only dictionary I read for pleasure, although I'm only to "I".  Definitions on this blog will be regularly supplemented with entries from The Devil's Dictionary.  I also have a passion for books of miscellany, but will relegate these to another post.

 The root of dictionary is diction— style of speaking or writing as dependent on choice of words and -ary a suffix denoting objects, esp. receptacles or places.  Therefore, a dictionary is a word receptacle.*

Literature has roots in the latin 'literatus'— learned, scholarly, which comes from 'lettre'— alphabetic character. 'Litterature' means grammar.  So, only written, grammatical, scholarly works count as literature. Sorry, internet.

And for the record: criticism— the act of passing judgment as to the merits of anything. Critic comes from a Greek word meaning "skilled in judging".*  I rest my case.


* From The Devil's Dictionary (henceforth FDD):
dictionary- a malevolent literary device for cramping the growth of a language and making it hard and inelastic.
critic- a person who boasts himself hard to please because nobody tries to please him.