"In a democracy (‘rule by mob’), those who refuse to learn from history will be the majority and will dictate that everyone else suffer for their ignorance."
Ran across this from someone “edumacated” at a state university who was then in an admin position there for some time:
“It was predicted that we would see outbreaks of the diseases that we had nearly irradiated [sic] come back with a vengeance with all the illegals coming across our Southern boarder.! [sic]”
“Irradiated”?!?
Oh, and the cute lil period-exclamation point punctuation.
*gagamaggot*
(No links or names. I just can’t do that to this person. . . )
One of the worst failings of many contemporary performers attempting to sing classic songs (or really any songs at all, it seems at times) is that all too many can’t really hear music, let alone perform music. As Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau often said when asked about his facility singing both lieder and opera (thought by many to be vastly different musical genres), “Man muss sich anhören was die Musik sagt.” Those who can’t really hear what the music is saying turn in performances that are either bland and tasteless or inappropriate to the marriage of text and tune. IOW, MOST typical contemporary performing/recording “artists”–except when they “sing” pieces that match their musically-stunted tastes and abilities. But that’s pretty much OK with an audience that has even less ability to discern music.
Just another of the effects predicted by José Ortega y Gasset in The Revolt of the Masses (La rebelión de las masas).
Fischer-Dieskau: “One must listen to what the music says.”
Because my Wonder Woman is a pubschool librarian, she gets all kinds of catalogs from all over. One that hit the circular file pretty quickly was for products for sale to state and other public employees and organizations from the state correctional department. (By state law, only public employees and organizations can buy products made by state-owned slave labor.)
The catalog’s cover boldly states
“If Your [sic] Looking For Hot Deals. . . “
At all levels, local, state, national, our governments are in the very best of hands. . .
Some of this might be a bit repetitious, but since those who need to read these gripes just AREN’T PAYING ATTENTION*, here ya go:
I’d like to put “cross hair” in my crosshairs, along with “on to” misused in place of “onto,” and, conversely, any number of other misused adjectives and adverbs people use in place of the adjective-noun phrase they are misused in place of: “backseat” and “backyard” instead of “back seat” and “back yard,” and “anyone” and “anything” for “any one” and “any thing,” for but a few examples of misuses common to people whose verbal vocabulary has far outstripped their subliterate written vocabulary.
Thatisall. For now. . .
*Just like such people paid no attention in English classes, and just like their so-called English (or, more likely nowadays, “language arts” *gagamaggot*) teachers likely paid no attention in THEIR classes, from all indications.
And yes, I know the statement immediately above is completely unacceptable syntax in formal, or even business, writing. I DGARA. At least it contains no misused words, the subject of this gripe.
It’s always pretty easy to tell when an author (and his proofreader(s) and editor) has a weak vocabulary, usually based on a verbal vocabulary, often misheard and spoken by others who have weak vocabularies. Example? Sure, here’s one:
“Tag him?” I felt a laugh rising from within and I let it slip. “Is that a crude aphorism [sic] for sex?”
The word the subliterate author was groping for that his subliterate proofreader(s) and editor were just as ignorant of was “euphemism.”
I’m a relatively fast reader, whether of fiction or non-fiction. With fiction, I find that I generally skim ahead of where I’m scanning, since I usually see a page or so at a time while actually scanning line-by-line. *shrugs* It took me many years to realize I was doing it, but after the initial stumblings caused by becoming consciously aware of what I was doing, I eventually just fell back into doing it absent-mindedly again.
Stories really move along for me. . . except when the author throws a wrench in the works with some subliterate crap, completely stupid description, or idiotic idea that derails my suspension of disbelief. But that’s a “whole nother post” as it were. (Excuse my use of “nother” or don’t. I DGARA. No one’s paying me to write this, you know. *heh*)
With non-fiction, another mechanism slides into play. Along with the “skim ahead” mechanism, nearly 50 years ago I began integrating the “SQ3R” (Survey, Question, Read, Recite, Review) technique into my non-fiction reading, and the technique has become almost second nature by now. It fits really well with my skimming facility and enhances recollection and understanding.
Add to that the lil thingy that I really enjoy doing (very) amateur word-sleuthing and “etymologizing,” and just flat know a lot of words (too much time as a youth spent reading dictionaries for fun)and can figure out most that I do not know based on familiarity with a few–mostly Romance, though one classical and a couple others–languages and the context in which a word has been used, and reading even otherwise dull tomes is fun for me. . . if they’re written by someone who is literate.
Still, even with a decent reading speed and comprehension, so very, very many books are being added daily to the potential reading list of books already written, that some winnowing skills are essential for any active reader. Here’s a rough outline of how I approach purchasing another book.
Does the subject matter, whether fiction or non-fiction, interest me. This isn’t really all that limiting, since my range of interests is pretty wide, but it does cut off some areas. Social sciences are mostly voodoo, so unless a book has a really good “hook,” I’ll give it a pass. Fiction? Oh, so-called “romance” crap is, urm, not for me. Otherwise, any genre except so-called “literary” crap will do. (I actively abhor typical “literary” works that have been shat out since somewhere around the turn of the 20th Century. Yes, F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote crap. So did James Joyce. Pick any one of the other “lit-uh-rah-ree” writers of the 20th Century. Probably crap.)
So, does the subject matter interest me.
What are the first few pages like? How does page 50 read? If a book fails to come up to snuff in the first few pages, I’ll turn to page 50—just a page number I selected many years ago—and see if it’s any better. If not, buh-bye!
What are the reviews like? No, not how many raves or pans but what do the reviews actually say? If a book has many rave reviews but the reviews are hash written either by idiots who are “lit-rah-chure” snobs or illiterate boobs, I’m likely to give the book a pass. If the pans are written by either of those classes, I’m likely to give it a chance. Think about it.
Even given application that general, loose selection process, if I buy a book and try to read it but find myself unsold by anywhere from 25%-50% through, anymore I’ll just ashcan it. There’s not enough time to waste it on reading crap. Oh, if it’s BAD ENOUGH crap, I might finish it, but I’ll compile a list of the author’s sins along the way and might even post a scathing review of it, complete with mocking diatribe pointing out some of the author’s worst sins. So far, though, I have only written one review where I told the author to JUST STOP WRITING! In most reviews of badly-written books, I have stopped short of that and simply counseled those writers to enroll in remedial English courses immediately after beating any proofreaders or editors they had employed with a brickbat.
Really: I just don’t want to waste my time and energy on crappy books. I have too much else to do to pollute the 7-10 books a week I do finish with crap writing. (But when the train wreck’s horrific enough. . . heh)
But why does it always seem to stem from illiterates and liars?
Illiterates, for example, tear down useful words and phrases through simple ignorance and sometimes stupidity. An example from something I read recently will illustrate this point: “[I]t’s the exception that makes the rule.” This corruption was obviously drawn from the old adage, “The exception proves the rule,” which actually means, “The exception TESTS the rule.” The writer of “the exception. . . makes the rule” never bothered to learn what the original adage actually said and so his corruption makes at least some sort of (non)sense, based on his poor literacy.
Worse are those who wittingly corrupt words, terms and phrases to mean something opposite of their once common senses. Take for example a self-proclaimed “liberal democrat” whose words and deeds prove him to be a tyrannical statist bent on corrupting democracy.
That’s why I so often call out and condemn both illiterate and disingenuous abuse of English. “Rage, rage against the dying of the light,” as it were.
I see stupid people. I see stupid “edumacators” who avoid teaching grammar and stupid students who avoid learning English.
Example: “If [I, they, he, etc.] would have” is a construction that, I suppose, is intended to indicate a class of conditional that should be simply, “If I had.” I am *gagamaggot* sick of seeing the evidence of laziness and stupidity “If [I, they, he, etc.] would have” demonstrates. Now, both of y’all who might comment on this are excused, since I have no doubt such abuse of the English language is off the table for you, but for those folks who may read this and grunt, in their most articulate manner, “Huh?!?” I have only this: *arrgggghhh!*
And that is the kindest, gentlest, most generous response possible. In fact, it is far, far kinder, gentler and more generous than such folks deserve, but that’s just me: kind, gentle and generous to a fault. 😉
N.B. Execrable grammar, word misuse, impenetrable amphiboly, etc., are all completely, totally and absolutely inexcusable* in text written by someone who wants to be PAID for writing. It doesn’t matter what excuse some lame-brained writer, editor or critic (IMO, critics who are writers are few and far between, so I consider the class to be separate, for all “intensive porpoises” *heh*) excretes, such abuse of English is offensive to anyone who thinks these things through, ESPECIALLY when the abuser wants to be paid for the abuse.
*An exception that proves the rule: dialog in a piece of fiction intended to build a character that is an illiterate boob is the one place such things can be marginally legitimate. Anywhere else these abuses occur just demonstrate that the author is an illiterate boob.
I read too much and have done so for darned near all my life. That creates a few problems from time to time. For example, recently, my problem with reading books on history has been too many moments of getting into a book and either saying to myself (over and over), “Know that already,” or “Oh, you flippin’ idiot,” or “Liar!” *sigh* Every now and then, though, I do manage to run across a decent history (or related) book I’ve missed. For example, how I missed Thomas Babington Macaulay’s “Lays of Ancient Rome” for so many years, I’ll never know. Strange the lacunae one can find in one’s reading list. . .
Another problem is in reading fiction (well, and non-fiction for that matter). By now, I know all the plots. My reading/recognition/comprehension vocabulary is. . . probably excessive. Heck, I enjoy reading dictionaries and even puzzling out probable etymologies on my own before checking authorities, etc. I have read enough well-written text that, while I don’t always show it in my own casual writing here and elsewhere (for which I am NOT PAID), I’m familiar enough with good writing (grammar, word usage, etc.) that I’m offended by people who expect to be paid for writing crap.
And do NOT let me get started on contemporary “poetry”! Please! “Crap” is far, far too kind as a description of most of it.
It’s a burden. Be glad I bear it so you don’t have to if you don’t want to. *heh*
(Both of my regular readers here are literate enough to bear the burden as well, but can feel free to let me do so *cough* alone *cough* if they wish. ;-))
OTOH, one of the very real joys of reading a “lottamuch” is the discovery of those holes and gaps, lacks and losses in my education and. . . filling them.
I just read a comment by a fairly regularly published columnist who wrote “assume” when she meant “as soon”. That’s a pretty strong indicator of what any literate person would see as illiteracy: a verbal vocabulary that outstrips a written/read vocabulary to the point of a baffling lack of comprehension.
Assuming people are literate just because they have a large storehouse of words they can encode or decode (whether they comprehend those words’ meanings or not) is something I’d as soon see–No! a lot SOONER see–eliminated as allowed to continue. More and more often nowadays, it just ain’t necessarily so.
More here and here and here and here.
Literacy is more than just being able to decode/encode letters into words; it’s more than having a large vocabulary of–largely–misunderstood words; it’s more than simply being able to encode/decode words and know those words’ meanings. Literacy is being able to read and comprehend (genuinely) complex text and having read loads and tons and yards and yards of well-written text requiring both concrete and abstract thought comprehension. THAT’S what literate people do.
But more and more Americans think they are literate, because they have (lying) certification saying they are.