Monsieur Who?

I am not easily irked (*gales of hilarious laughter from friends and family*), but my gizzard’s a bit chapped by all the self-appointed pundits who’ve recently discovered Alexis (Charles-Henri Clérel) de Toqueville’s “Democracy in America” and cite quotations from it attributing them merely to “Toqueville”.

*sigh*

My French profs would be peeved. M. de Toqueville, were he alive today, might also be a bit put out. (Note the proper form above. *heh*) Oh, well. The talking heads and self-appointed pundits may well have the right of it in these days of seriously degraded language. . . I’m sure their usage is Just Fine with all the folks who just DGARA about such things (meaning, of course, the entire Mass MEdia Podpeople Hivemind, their remoras in the Academia Nut Fruitcake Bakeries and the rest of the promoters of the lowest common denominator).

On Being Literate

“Literate” has two distinct, though related meanings–with a commonly-accepted extension of the second–although one of those common meanings has been pejorated to the level of virtual meaninglessness in recent decades.

lit·er·ate
adj.
1.
a. Able to read and write.
b. Knowledgeable or educated in a particular field or fields.
2. Familiar with literature; literary.
3. Well-written; polished: a literate essay.
n.
1. One who can read and write.
2. A well-informed, educated person.

Anymore, “Able to read and write” and “One who can read and write” has become a useless definition of “literate” as the term has been made almost meaningless by “edumacationists” who use the term to apply to those they have mis-trained to be barely able to puzzle out words from those strange hieroglyphs on a printed page. *sigh* “Reading” that does not result in comprehension isn’t literacy at all, although it’s usually counted as so in “edumacationist” circles1.

And then there’s the problem of people who can read–either the laborious assignation of sounds to strange squiggles on a page or even real reading–but do not. Sadly, given both the content of much that is being written nowadays and the technical incompetence of many published writers (and their proofreaders and editors), those who choose to not read may often simply be avoiding brain damage. *sigh* Oh, come on! You’ve read, or tried to read, books that are so badly written that even brief exposure felt like a fork poking and stirring your prefrontal lobe! Writers who are so execrably bad at the craft, and who nevertheless are published–by traditional publishing houses, no less (Dan Brown: looking at you), whose editors and proofreaders are apparently not even decent ESL students (“*uh* Language is my second language. *uh*”)–abound. *gagamaggot*

But still, good writing with worthwhile content abounds, too. Too bad that both reading skills2 and exposure to well written works are avoided by the “edumacationist” establishment.

. . .Oh, well. Flying in the face of “edumacationists,” a few colleges are at least attempting to encourage literacy–both the ability to read and comprehend text and a genuine education, as opposed to simply behavior training and brainwashing students, as is more and more common in primary, secondary and so-called “higher” levels of “edumacationist” prisons for minds. Two such colleges are New Saint Andrews College, which takes an unabashedly Reformed approach to the liberal arts and St. John’s College, which takes a clean Western Civ approach to the liberal arts. Much of the core curriculum is similar in both institutions, although New Saint Andrews seems a bit more rigorous in some ways, requiring reading of the classical Greek and Latin texts in *gasp* . . .Greek and Latin. Nevertheless, many of the readings in the core curricula of the two schools are similar. The link below is to the core readings list for St. John’s. A good list. Not comprehensive, of course (and lacking some of the excellent and influential Reformed texts required at New Saint Andrews), but certainly a list where any literate person would find many old friends.

The Reading List

BTW, the core “reading list” above, as well as the core curriculum at New Saint Andrews, includes musical selections as well as graphic art selections for study and discussion. A Good Thing, IMO.

Of course, such lists are NOT a definition of a literate person but represent only a good starting point for anyone who is literate in Western culture. E.D. HIrsch, Jr.’s Core Knowledge Foundation and The Great Books of the Western World offer other approaches to literacy that are equally valid, IMO. (My own set of GBWW, purchased when I was 15, is a bit worn and is now backed up by a set picked up at a book sale, and we still have the “What every X-grader should know” books in the E.D. Hirsch, Jr. series we purchased for our kids’ elementary school years to back up our sets–yes, plural: one “collectible” set, one everyday set–of Junior Classics.)

One of the foundational causes of many of the woes we face in society today stem, I think, from the simple and profound fact that the ratio of literate (no, really literate) folks to illiterate (or perhaps simply “subliterate”) folks in our society has slipped so far, so fast. A simple example: around 50 years ago, when I was still a high school lad, my paternal grandfather gave me a collection of little books that was centered around 19th Century British poets. As I opened “Lady of the Lake,” he began to expressively “read” it back to me. . . from memory.

He was, at various times in his life, a farmer/rancher, a carpenter and a postal worker. In those days, I did not find his depth and breadth of literacy unusual, but perhaps I just lived in a clan of folks who were a bit more literate than others. Perhaps. The folks my parents and grandparents associated with, such as uncles who were ranchers, oil field roustabouts, route salesmen, country preachers, etc., as well as their extended friendships and acquaintances were, in retrospect, also pretty well read with wide ranges of experience and knowledge adding perspective to their understanding. (Edit: of course, family and acquaintances also included grad professors in–even today–esoteric intellectual subjects, a president of an institution of higher ed, some college deans, and others who were genuinely accomplished in intellectual and artistic pursuits, but that’s just it: folks in ALL walks of life had common LITERATE grounds to relate to each other. I recall an uncle drifting off from the TV football crowd during one family Thanksgiving gathering to come over and discuss the book I was reading. It turned out that Summa Theologica was a fav of his. . . *heh* And after the football game was over, we all gathered around the piano for singalong–in impromptu 4-part harmony–for better than an hour. Just a typical gathering at Me-Ma and Dad-Dad’s: politics, sports, theology, music, philosophy. Just the way things were.)

What changed (if anything)?

One of the theses found in Jose Ortega y Gasset’s “The Revolt of the Masses” gives a clue in his delineation of “mass man.”

“The mass man lives without any discipline, and—as Ortega remembers from Goethe—’to live as one pleases is plebian.’ The mass man ‘possesses no quality of excellence.’ He demands more and more, as if it were his natural right, without realizing that what he wants was the privilege of a tiny group only a century ago. He does not understand that technological wonders are the product of an intricate cultural process for which he should be grateful. ‘What before would have been considered one of fortune’s gifts, inspiring humble gratitude toward destiny, was converted into a right, not to be grateful for, but to be insisted on. . . ‘”

*sigh* The elevation of “mass man” to be the determinant of culture means, therefore, the debasing of society to not only the lowest common denominator–which can and is pretty darned low, indeed! Rap “music” as a sample–but to a lowest common denominator defined by a “gimme-gimme” attitude that views the fulfillment of the basest desires as a “right.”

Add to that the dumbing down and brainwashing of society via “misedumacationists,” the Mass MEdia Podpeople Hivemind and the whole massive propaganda machine that debased contemporary culture depends on, and it seems inevitable that, absent a large leavening of literate folk, our society will slide into a new Dark Age.

But imagine what could be if even such small things as Volumes 4 (Heroes and Heroines of Chivalry) and 7 (Stories of Courage and Heroism) of the Junior Classics were reintroduced to large numbers of children in grade school! Models–real and fictional–of folks who courageously performed their duty, and more, instead of poorly (or even well-) written empty pablum or toxic waste served up for reading could have a positive effect, and might even serve as a small antidote or immunization against the toxic waste of Hivemind culture. (I’d suggest more than a small bit of Bible reading, too, but Prisons for Kids “edumacationsts'” heads would explode. On second thought, that may not be a bad idea. . . )

Too tired to tie this up with a bow right now. Maybe later I’ll revisit this post and finish this out. Lots of loose threads.


1 [insert stuff here later]
2 [insert stuff here later, too]

*heh*

It Wouldn’t Be So Bad, Except. . .

This came from the “pen” of a best-selling author, in a book from a traditional publishing house, with proofreaders and editors and other subliterates (Oh! My!) on staff:

. . .she glanced at one of the only two. . .

Oh!*gagamaggot*! I could live with “one of only two” because that makes sense, but “one of THE only two” is just stupid!

If it were only this example, well, I could understand a slip-up or two, but no! It’s at least one such example of stupid expression, wrong word, malapropism or simply mind-bogglingly weird example of contemporary subliteracy–as dictated by popular “culture”–per every five to ten pages. It’s as though the author were so immersed in the Mass MEdia Podpeople Hivemind’s subliterate expression of popular verbal “literacy” that such things have over-ridden (no, I do NOT mean “over-written” although that may also apply. . . )any reading of genuinely literate works he may have once consumed.

And so, subliterate destruction of written English gains ground, as more and more people see such things in popular, widely-distributed, widely-read works.

*sigh* Is it too soon to see this, when combined with the hard work being done in pubschools and “higher” ed to dumb down literacy, as the result of a conspiracy. . . of dunces?

Sometimes I Wish Tech Writers Spoke English

The impetus for this thought resurfacing today? A “white paper” titled,

“77 Features For Windows® 7 That Every IT Professional Should Know About”

“For”? I checked the paper out, and after reading the first section confirmed what I knew: the writer doesn’t know what “for” means. . . or “of” for that matter. Those are two words it’s a bit hard for English speakers to bobble as badly as this writer did.

Well, the writer was probably just a graduate of an American college sometime in the last decade or so.

No, “Illiterate” Is NOT Too Strong a Term to Use

If one were to use “illiterate” to mean anyone who is not literate, then the morons I keep reading in print–morons who get paid for what they write!–are illiterate. “Literate” really should be reserved for folks who are well-read, and anyone who writes, “tye dyed” (or “tiedied” or “tie died”–all abortions I’ve seen in print) for “tie dyed” is illiterate. Anyone who writes “there’s” when the subject is plural is an illiterate. If someone says such a thing, then they’re at the very least innumerate. Such stupidities as “backyard” for “back yard” (or the equally stupid “backseat” for “back seat”) are gaining acceptance simply because so very many people have no clue about the useful distinctions between an adjective-noun combination and an adverb, or just DGARA, and a deluge of misuses finally swamps good usage.

In a reasonable society, complete, total and absolute morons who misuse “decimate” to mean “annihilate” or “extirpate” would be given 5,000 lashes with a dangling participle and then be staked out on a split infinitive somewhere in Death Valley. Let them be joined by empty-headed vegetables who’ve somehow been able to pay illiterate, lobotomized monkeys to type “it’s” for “its” and perhaps society would have a chance for survival. . .

BTW, I’m not averse to useful changes in usage, but misuse that destroys useful distinctions is utterly abhorrent to me.

There must be a circle of hell reserved for illiterate “editors” who hire even more illiterate “proofreaders” and who then foist such garbage off on a paying public. One can only hope that they all find their way to their ultimate destination soon.

Ya Just Can’t Make This Shiite Up

“Journalism”–offering employment opportunities to the subliterate.

In addition to the obvious reason, this Foxnews article chaps my buns because the author (and editor?) got paid for spouting this kind of gibberish:

“A Staples spokesperson confirmed to Fox News that they do not allow businesses that deal in firearms from entering the contest.”

Will someone please buy a copy of “English for Dummies” for the author of that monstrosity? (In case the site changes it w/o a transparent acknowledgement of the error(s), I’ll just post a screencap, hmm? CLICK to embiggen)

illiterate-journalist-03

Would someone like to diagram that sentence for me?

Well, I Had Been Enjoying the Book

Not sayin’ the title, but really?

. . . there’s enough (plural noun)s on the. . .

Linguistically innumerate. *gagamaggot* And,

“Ah.” He smiled, and even drunk as he was it was the kind of knowing, sarcastic smile that set my teeth on edge. “Jealousy.”

OK, I’ve not necessarily given enough context for the second, but people who use “jealousy” when they mean “envy” really set my teeth on edge. There’s a clear and useful distinction between the two that poorly-read folks seem all to have missed, and now subliterates are forcing their destruction of a useful distinction out of English. I just hate that.

So, as much as I’ve enjoyed the rest of the book to this point, if this sort of thing continues, I may end up putting this one down just because of the annoyance factor.

Now, see, if he could count on a literate audience. . .

. . .the author of this awkward line,

“. . .the lovely scars he had from the one leg being severely fractured to the point of bone poking through the skin after. . .”

. . .could have saved a whole lotta words with “compound fracture“. But because he can no longer count on his readership being much more literate than the typical eighth-grader nowadays, he had to go all around the barn to use something like ten words (no, I’ve not actually counted) to say what a literate* person could vividly grasp in two.


No, I am not using “literate” in its least form here. I use it in the sense of,

“1 a : educated, cultured. . . 2 a : versed in literature. . . 2c : having knowledge or competence. . . “

And NONE of those apply to someone who cannot read “compound fracture” and either understand the term at once OR have both the intellectual curiosity and competence to either winkle the meaning on their own from context (not necessarily easy to do in this case) or LOOK IT UP! (N.B. When I was a kid, we had a monstrously huge two-volume dictionary–which I still have–that spent most of its time near or under the head of my bed, because I not only looked up EVERY word or term I did not immediately understand from context or simply learned new words and terms from reading the thing for pleasure. And I still do not consider myself as literate as either of my grandfathers were.)

More and more folks today have vocabularies limited by what they HEAR via the Hivemind, and more and more folks today do not even understand the words they hear from that propaganda machine. And so otherwise moderately literate authors HAVE to dumb down their text. (The one who cobbled up the abortion I cited above does still have ALL his characters use “there’s” with plural objects. *sigh* It’s. . . “interesting”–in a gagamaggot kind of way–to hear characters with multiple doctorates in the sciences who are linguistically innumerate. *profound sigh*)

I Blame the Hivemind

For at least a couple of decades now, anyone who has watched the Mass MEdia Podpeople Hivemind so-called “news” shows has been programmed to eliminate the ability to discern clear distinctions as to many things, but the most egregious–and most consistent–destruction of reason has been the twisting of time. How many times have you heard *cough* “news” *cough* readers refer to events that occurred some time in the past as happening contemporaneously with the reader’s babbling?

Past tense for past events, idiots. But no, in *cough* “news” *cough* readerland present tense is fairly consistently used to refer to past events. And so an essential anchor of reason is eroded daily and common folk attempting to be writers begin to write such drivel as,

The sun rose rose over San Antonia [sic] de Bexar as a Blood [sic] red omen of what the day will [sic] bring to the men of the Alamo.

Good Sharkey, Colonel god! Past tense, properly used, mixed with future tense speaking of a (long) past event! Oh, why not. *sigh* If the past is present, then surely the past is future as well. Time means nothing.

OTOH, any literate person who’s not been lobotomized by watching *cough* “news” *cough* shows would have written,

“The sun rose rose over San Antonio de Bexar as a blood red omen of what the day would bring to the men of the Alamo.”

It’s still a bit overwrought for me, but at least the conditional is dealt with properly. It’s not just aspiring web “journalists” committing such gagamaggot faux pas with English, no. Such superbly dumbass writing abounds in traditionally published works, from newspapers to books from traditional publishing houses (which at one time employed literate proof readers and editors) and in the speech of *cough* “news” *cough* readers inhabiting the Hivemind, the political and entertainment classes and even Academia Nut Fruitcake Bakeries.

Is it any wonder these dumbasses who consider themselves an elite that’s fit to rule the hoi polloi are making a mess of everything they touch? They cannot consistently deal with speaking clearly and rationally on simple subjects.

And the sheeple eat it all up with a spork (because they cannot be trusted with a real fork).

Easy One

Not even going to hint at this book’s title. From the first paragraph of the prologue:

“. . .light of the two moons surrounding the planet. . .”

WTFugeddaboutreadingit?!? Trying to imagine how someone could even THINK of “two moons surrounding [a] planet” is not something I want to deal with any more than I want to deal with a book written by someone who could even possibly imagine such a turn of phrase, let alone actually use it in a novel.

Book has a “four star” rating out of five on Amazon, which tells me that there are a LOT of stupid people reading and rating books on Amazon. Or else all the raters are the author’s mother under different screen names.