I enjoyed Sam Harris’s musings on the future of the publishing industry. But I do wish contemporary authors sounding the death knell of the printed word would pay more homage to the fact that it was traditional publishing that propelled them to digital stardom. Traditional publishing’s death may be painful, but it will also be relatively slow (at least, in internet years).
[In the case of grammatical errors,] I was alerted to plagiarism by the sudden appearance, in a paper that is otherwise a morass of grammatical errors, of a series of flawless sentences with complicated structures. The correct use of a semicolon is a big red flag for me. As is the use—and often misuse—of specialized jargon or technical language that I’ve not discussed with them in class. Then I type those sentences into Google, and they all wind up being smoking-gun cases of plagiarism. My favorite case this semester was plagiarism within plagiarism. When I informed this student that I suspected her paper was plagiarized, she said to me, “I got my paper from one of the students who was in your class last semester. How was I to know that she had plagiarized?” Which indicated to me, along with a number of the other email responses I got from students, that many of them don’t even know what plagiarism is.
A good writer can wring insight out of a terrible situation. A great writer can do it with biting humor. Eric D. Snider is a great writer. His column summarizing the entire Moviefone/Cinematical disaster is an absolute must-read, even if you’re totally unfamiliar with the situation. It will educate you and make you laugh.
Film critic James Rocchi has written one of my favorite blog posts of the year:
We write because we have to; we write because we want to. It’s an act of insecurity, in its initial impulse – I matter! Hey! Over here! — but you have to discard that and know that what you’re saying is of interest not because it’s loud or frenetic or an expression of yourself but rather because it contains something ultimately worth saying, and something that would be worth saying even if someone other than you were saying it…Yes, there’s ego involved — suggesting you are without vanity is the most vain thing a person can say –and I think every day of at least 20 people in the field where I covet everything from individual clauses to entire reviews to positions and publishing outlets — but you have to, have to, put that aside and simply do the work when it is there to be done.
A fascinating piece on how sign language interpreters translate Lady Gaga and Bon Jovi into ASL:
Lady Gaga’s “Love Game” is metaphorical, but exactly how metaphorical is it? Is the tone coy? Callous? Flirty? Dirty? . . . She has asked her interpreter friends how they would handle what shall now be referred to as the Disco Stick Problem. “One suggested I do this,” Ison says – mimicking an aggressive hip thrust. But that solution seemed more vulgar than the playful lyrics implied. All of this would be easier if she knew more about her audience – how well they spoke American Sign Language, how well they spoke Gaga – but interpreters at performing arts gigs rarely know their audiences until they arrive at the show.
Over at Slate, Farhad Manjoo has written a screed against “two-spacers.” As a one-spacer, I’m inclined to agree with him:
“Who says two spaces is wrong?” they wanted to know. Typographers, that’s who. The people who study and design the typewritten word decided long ago that we should use one space, not two, between sentences. That convention was not arrived at casually. James Felici, author of the The Complete Manual of Typography, points out that the early history of type is one of inconsistent spacing. Hundreds of years ago some typesetters would end sentences with a double space, others would use a single space, and a few renegades would use three or four spaces. Inconsistency reigned in all facets of written communication; there were few conventions regarding spelling, punctuation, character design, and ways to add emphasis to type. But as typesetting became more widespread, its practitioners began to adopt best practices. Felici writes that typesetters in Europe began to settle on a single space around the early 20th century. America followed soon after.
Chinese mothers are not superior. It’s clear that the author Amy Chua has a new book out and linkbait headlines in the WSJ will help her sell them. I understand she uses the term “Chinese Mother” to represent a certain parenting style – one that I am very familiar with from personal experience…
As a responsibility to herself as a “superior Chinese mother”, I think Amy Chua should do a bit of research outside her comfort zone and help readers understand why Asian-American females have one of the highest rates of suicide in the U.S. — I bet many of you didn’t know that. I didn’t until after the fact. It’d make a good follow up book to this one she’s currently profiting from.
The other day, publishing house NewSouth announced that there would be a new version of Huck Finn which would excise all mentions of the terms “nigger” and “injun,” substituting less offensive words in their stead.
So why shouldn’t New South produce a slurless version of the book? Publishers abridge classic works to suit the reading and maturity levels of different audiences all the time. And if a youngster can thrill to the adventures of the boy Huck and runaway slave Jim without the upsetting presence of unrepeatable words, is that a bad thing?
…The unease that many contemporary readers feel when facing Twain’s characters is natural and appropriate. It’s certainly something to be keenly attuned to, especially when introducing the book to children. I have a tough time imagining my kids sharing the experience of reading the words “Jim had an uncommon level head, for a nigger” with their fellow students in school, let alone saying them out loud in their classrooms. I sure as hell wouldn’t envy the teacher whose job it was to steer the discussion afterward. And it’s not as if Twain’s original version is going away. New South is simply giving educators and other readers the option of enjoying Twain’s work without tripping over a derogatory term, especially one coming from its hero.
Meanwhile, Benedicte Page at the Guardian has written up a good overview of the response to the decision. Check out Sarah Churchwell’s reaction:
[T]he idea of changing the language in the novel in order to boost its popularity is still viewed with bafflement in many quarters. Dr Sarah Churchwell, senior lecturer in US literature and culture at the University of East Anglia, said the development made her “incandescent” with anger. “The fault lies with the teaching, not the book. You can’t say ‘I’ll change Dickens so it is compatible with my teaching method’. Twain’s books are not just literary documents but historical documents, and that word is totemic because it encodes all of the violence of slavery. The point of the book is that Huckleberry Finn starts out racist in a racist society, and stops being racist and leaves that society. These changes mean the book ceases to show the moral development of his character. They have no merit and are misleading to readers. The whole point of literature is to expose us to different ideas and different eras, and they won’t always be nice and benign. It’s dumbing down.”
Education and curriculum development are challenging and complex issues. That being said, if you’re going to teach one of the great works of literature, why not teach it in its unfettered form? And why not address the historical context of these racially loaded terms WHEN you’re teaching it? Why else do we have an educational system, if not to address issues that students will encounter in their lives and for the rest of their lives?
Williams herself acknowledges the transformative power that creative teachers can have on the minds of children, when she describes a classroom activity in which her daughter learned, first-hand, the division inflicted on regular citizens during the Jim Crow era.
The problem is that many teachers don’t have the wherewithal to address the issue with subtlety, illumination and/or grace. And many students may not have the desire or maturity to learn the history of words like “nigger” and interpret occurrences of the term in their proper context. Williams continues, eloquently:
It’s a tough task to invite readers to think. It’s far more difficult than handing someone a book, worry-free, and saying, enjoy yourself some Norton Juster! It requires exhausting amounts of work, deep wells of compassion, and an open acknowledgment that our acceptance of a work and its author’s intent will be considerably affected by our own race, religion, gender and sexual identity.
But just because it’s hard doesn’t mean we should accept censorship as a solution. Or that intellectual laziness should be catered to. The problem here lies not with the term’s appearance in the book, or even with NewSouth’s decision to “whitewash” it. It’s with a society that will accept laziness on the part of its Educators (with a capital “e”), whether they are teachers in schools or parents at home.
[UPDATE: Now The New York Times wants a turn:
We are horrified, and we think most readers, textual purists or not, will be horrified too. The trouble isn’t merely adulterating Twain’s text. It’s also adulterating social, economic and linguistic history. Substituting the word “slave” makes it sound as though all the offense lies in the “n-word” and has nothing to do with the institution of slavery. Worse, it suggests that understanding the truth of the past corrupts modern readers, when, in fact, this new edition is busy corrupting the past.
Strong words, and sharp wordplay. But maybe both are warranted.]