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!
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Saturday, April 24, 2010
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.
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...
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...
Monday, April 19, 2010
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.
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.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)