Category: Literacy

Posted on

Make This New Year’s Resolution. New Worlds Await You.

I don’t care what your beliefs are (well, I do, but it’s not a necessary component of this comment), read The Bible this year. You will not find a better collection of great literature with more influence on the formation of Western Civilization. Even absent assent to its premise and assertions about the nature of the universe, mankind, and our reason for being, Santayana’s Axiom applies: reading it even as just an historical document is important. One cannot even grasp whence we came (and hence, where we are) without reading it, so if for no other reason, read it for that. (But wait! There’s more. . . 🙂 )

N.B. I use “reading” here to mean more than just “decode those funny lil squiggles into words.” Sadly, that is what many nowadays seem to view as the sum total of literacy. No, really reading something means to comprehend the meanings of the words, wrestle with them, engage in the Great Dialog with whomever wrote the text. This applies to reading anything, yes, even want ads. (Note also that I have borrowed “the Great Dialog” from Mortimer Adler’s introduction to “The Great Books of the Western World,” a collection that does not include The Bible only because, as he said, it was expected that everyone would have one of their own. The study guide–the “Syntopicon”–included with the set does)

Oh, and as a sidebar, and to actually aid in comprehension and the Great Dialog, when reading The Bible, I suggest using the King James Version precisely because of ots archaic language. It will make it more work (for some) to have to actually work through the archaic elements, and working at understanding is the first step to better reading comprehension of the text. Go ahead and give it a try. After a while, as actual accomplishment ensues, the work in and of itself will become enjoyable. Yes, it will take discipline and persistence, but practicing those virtues will also be rewarding.

Posted on

If You Enjoy Writing Scathing Reviews of Crap

Just look for “gimmes” from wannabe writers on Amazon.1

Yeh, I’m just a wee tad irked with the “self-pub” wannabe writers who

a. Don’t bother to learn English (though it’s their native tongue)
b. Think characterization is accomplished by listing all the name-brand products a character uses, and describing the character by just saying what dim-witted celebrity the character resembles
c. Doesn’t bother to read their own text, and so commits multiple errors of continuity at the speed of light
d. And then packs all this wonderfulness into 100 pages (or, sometimes even worse, 200) of a “novelette lite” and calls it a “novel.” *sigh* “Novelette Lite” even with padding the word count with useless crap like, “. . .in which case he would probably be stuck out here for the rest of his life, however brief a period that turned out to be.” No. DELE “a period.” Wasted electrons. (*sigh* Rather like this whole post, eh? *heh*)

Fortunately, I only actually read through about one of these a week, because I reject the absolute worst of them within the first page of text. The “survivors” often get eviscerated in reviews, though I only note ten or so (and when I’m feeling generous, sometimes fewer) of the worst examples of text that would gag a maggot.

Yes, it got worse in the book I picked to pick on here. Because of certain external factors (namely a recommendation from someone whose recommendations are often on target), I stuck it out with the book the above example came from–through even more garbage–until,

“. . .the slug had been fired from a large-caliber handgun, probably a .45. . . He knew that such projectiles traveled at a high velocity, faster than the speed of sound. . . ”

Urm, no. A good rule of thumb for speed of sound, at sea level, under ideal conditions, is ~1,125fps. Not even a .45ACP+P with a light bullet weight of only 185gr travels that fast (max out at ~1,000fps muzzle velocity), and given the circumstances in the scene, I _seriously_ doubt the writer was referring to (or is even aware of) the .45 Colt (often called “Long Colt”) cartridge or the firearms it is used in, and even then, if he were, he’d have to have been talking about a +P load.

Sorry. When a writer just keeps spreading The Stupid, the book should be relegated to the scrub pile.

1Do note that I keep on “buying” freebie Indie pub books because I have thereby found a few really excellent writers whose other work I end up buying and reading, and not just writers of fiction. I’ve not yet found any good poets that way, but hope springs eternal.

Posted on

Subliteracy: Mass-Man’s Pernicious Influence

Writers trying (and failing) to fake literacy and their tendency to misuse words they _think_ they know the meanings of simply manage to spread subliteracy. Today’s misused word (out of MANY by noon, despite the fact that I have not been on the Interwebs longer than 20 minutes today before now): utilize. No, it does not simply mean “use” in more (unnecessary) syllables. It either means a chemical process wherein the uptake of a nutrient is effected or to effectively use a thing for a purpose for which it was not originally intended (Thus “utilize” is often proper referring to redneck reengineering of common items for new, and often unique, applications. 🙂 ) At least, those were _once_ the very useful distinctions between “use” and “utilize,” but as subliterates spread their “mass-man” (TY, Ortega) influence to other subliterates, a once very useful word is becoming simply a pedestrian means of distinguishing between literates and subliterates.

Oh, and an annoyance to anyone who wants to genuinely master English.

Posted on

Nothing to See Here; Move Along

Just a passing shot. . .

Reading a bio of Lance Armstrong and ran across:

“. . .diagnosis of his symptoms, including coughing up blood and a swollen testicle.”

Coughing up a swollen testicle?!? THAT’S SERIOUS!

*heh*

OK, so Armstrong’s cancer was serious, but that lack of a comma was amusing.

Posted on

Had to *SMH* in Amazement

Saw a comment that was only moderately “gabberflastering” on a forum that shall go unnamed. Guy said he had to write in thew sharps and flats that were in the key sig to remind himself when he played through a piece.

Say what?!?

Whenever I taught music or directed volunteer music groups, I generally taught beginning music readers to use the “STARS” system or a variant that is even simpler, for those in volunteer choirs whose music reading chops were. . . only slowly emerging:

S – Sharps or flats in the key signature
T – Time signature and Tempo markings
A – Accidentals not found in the key signature
R – Rhythms ; silently count the more difficult notes and rests
S – Signs , including dynamics, articulations, repeats and endings

Every class session or rehearsal included using something likethe “STARS” system before reading every new piece. *shrugs* Regular exercise of “reading” through a new piece (or reviewing one not seen in a while) really aided in sight reading. Of course, “STARS” is just an extremely simplified version of score study any competent conductor does, but it seemed to be enough to alleviate the “write in the sharps/flats for reminder” issue. . . especially since each freakin’ line in a score begins with the key sig. . .

Posted on

Dewey Was a Great Man (No, Not That One. Not That One Either. *heh*)

The Dewey Decimal System is an extremely useful method of categorizing knowledge for cataloging a library, but it is also a very useful system to use when searching out and exploring a topic of knowledge. An understanding of its classifications can yield some few advantages over computer catalogs of libraries for card catalog users, too. And then, just browsing a section, grazing the pages of books from one end of a class to another, can sometimes yield great benefits.

I once spent time “living” any available spare moment in a large state university library as an undergrad (and it wasn’t even the school I was attending *heh*) making such discoveries–especially during one semester when I was taking a course so far off my majors that I had almost NO background, and none of the prerequisite courses (yeh, talked my way ito it because it seemed interesting) in the subject. Result: The professor found my “insights” refreshingly stimulating, much to the disgust of the other seven members of the class who were restricted by having all the prerequisite boundaries instilled in their thinking.

Ah, but of course all classifications of knowledge, especially those which–like the DDS–comprise relatively rigid, detailed classifications, have the basic flaw of placing artificial boundaries between fields of knowledge. But then, it seems to be a basic human trait to connect disparate elements into a whole, even when that “whole” is wholly artificial and even nonsensical. So, the DDS is, in my use at least, most like a box of building blocks divided into compartments by shape, color, size, etc. It can make it useful when searching for just that right building block.

Sometimes, though, one wants to just dump the box out and scramble up the pieces to see what serendipitous connections one might make. That’s the Internet.

Posted on

Déjà Vu All Over Again?

AFAIK, I’ve read everything David Weber has written, even the insane book where Dracula saves humanity from an alien invasion. A laugh riot, for sure, though I’m not sure Weber intended it as such. And for the past ten books or so, every time I pick one up, I ask myself “Why?” Whole swaths of dialog and descriptive narrative seem unnecessarily repetitive (and of much of the “banter” dialog, the less said the better. Actually, the less written and even less read the better).

And would SOMEONE please get through to Weber (or someone–anyone–with a red pencil that works at Baen and/or Tor) to correct his sadly illiterate misuse of “temporal” in his descriptions of civil (secular) officials and clergy gatherings as “lords secular and temporal”? All the phrase does is MISdescribe the group as “lords secular and secular.” #gagamaggot

temporal =
a : of or relating to time as opposed to eternity
b : of or relating to earthly life
c : lay or secular RATHER THAN clerical or sacred : civil lords temporal

Ah, but skipping over the unfortunate babblegab in Weber books does come as the price one pays for otherwise not badly told stories with moral/ethical questions dealt with in ways that are at least somewhat edifying in the end. Maybe that’s why, oh, once every 300-400 books read, I’ll pick up another one by him.

Posted on

Let the Passing Scene. . . Pass

The (social) democritization of publishing has resulted in some good things, while at the same time resulting in an ever lower lowest common denominator. For example, it’s kinda cute (where values of “cute” include “pathetic”) the way some 20-something subliterate wannabe writers try to emulate “adult” speech by using words of which they wot not the meanings. *heh* Cute but sad.

(Examples abound. Just check out a few “freebie” self-pubs on Amazon. 80% or more of them are written by “participation/attendance award subliterates” who really should not be self-pubbing. The other 15%-20% often come close to or surpass material published by trad-pub houses, which means that maybe a third of them are worth reading. *heh*)

Posted on

Addicted to Books

“Ah, but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp, Or what’s a [library] for?” (with semi-sincere apology to Robert browning)

I have been “buying” anywhere between seven and 30-something books a week for years (larger numbers once ebooks became necessary when I ran out of space no matter how diligently I purged my personal library). I only read about seven books a week (down from the 20-something I used to read when I was a lad), but I do find I discard more ebooks after partial reading than I have ever discarded hardcopy. Writing and editing standards have slipped terribly.

Still, having all my hardcopy classic collection backed up in multiple formats, media, and locations (and adding to it) is a Good Thing, IMO. Sadly, my non-fiction Kindle is out of storage space, now.

Posted on

Is Literacy Moribund in These [Dis]United States?

I see it all the time, but again today some “misunderedumacated” subliterate stuck on the lefthand side of the Dunning-Kruger Curve pontificated on a subject he was–of course–completely unqualified (because of his ignorance) to comment on, and while doing so misused “wreckless,” because (again, of course) he did not know the differences between “reckless” and “wreckless.” Such subliterate (or really, by any reasonable standard, illiterate) people almost always misuse all or some of the following words (and more, many, many more):

rein/reign
affect/effect
than/then
here/hear
buy/by
accept/except
weather/whether
there/their/they’re
to/too/two
you’re/your
bear/bare
one/won
brake/break
complement/compliment
aloud/allowed
lie/lay
it’s/its
capital/capitol
principle/principal
stationary/stationery
sight/site/cite
since/sense
our/hour
red/read
reed/read

. . . and many, many (MANY) more such. *sigh*

Now, someone might plead, “Oh, but that’s just a problem in vocabulary.” No. If someone does not know the meanings of the words they read or write, then they are really no better off than someone who cannot decode those funny lil squiggles to obtain the words they indicate. Worse off, in fact, because they may well erroneously think they are literate (because by the standards of “misunderedumacationism” they have been lied to, having been told they are–why! they have a piece or pieces of paper to prove it! #gagamaggot).

Fluency =/= literacy. A person may have a wide verbal vocabulary of words they understand and still be illiterate.

How to amend this? Reading a lot of well-written text authored by literate people can eradicate this sort of illiteracy. It’s either that or do what I did as a lad (along with reading a LOT of well-written text): read dictionaries–and not just one! And not just any dictionary, either. I have a shelf full of dictionaries, and I have found the ones published before the 1970s to be the more literate of the selections I have. *shrugs* Make of that what you will. Oh, and not just in English (for English readers, which I assume are the only readers of this blog). Having dictionaries on other language, including English-German, English-French, etc., can be useful in understanding WHY such homonyms as “reckless/wreckless” are very, very different words.

But still, reading well-written text from literate writers (while having a good dictionary by one’s side 😉 ) is the single best way to become literate, once one has mastered the relatively simple task of decoding those funny lil squiggles that stand in for phonemes in written text.

Sidebar: only peripherally related to literate vocabulary. Saw a website the other day by someone who cited their creds as “EDd”. Sorry, cupcake. If you have a doctorate in education, you ought to know that is denoted by EdD or Ed.D. But maybe the cred referred to is a doctorate in “[misunder]edumacationism.”

P.S. Yes, I am well aware that the dumbed down definition of “literacy” is well accepted. Of course it is. “Edumacationists” can’t defend their failure to promote real literacy, so the only definition such will accept is “can decode those funny lil squiggles, whether they can really understand the content or not.”

#gagamaggot