!
I also mis-spelt "claimed" in the fireman story. I might yet use a spell checker.
posted by Steve @ Friday, August 11, 2006
Friday, August 11, 2006
I also mis-spelt "claimed" in the fireman story. I might yet use a spell checker.
saddam hussein sentenced to death... fijian coup... arnie's nazi film... halloween hijinks... indy 300... kazakh currency... mr t talk show... bindi irwin's future... unholy penguin army... kim jong il 'misunderstood'... nu-kew-ler threats...
Previous Posts
- D'OH!
- Jew Station
- Get Well Soon
- Injustice
- The World Today 2
- The World Today
- Beauty
- What A Waster
- Celebrity Skin 3
- Hey Andy!
10 Comments:
I've decided to make a laboured, and probably...at a later date, after further consideration, one which I will reconsider...point.
The point is this. I think finding substantive worth in the written word comes not from spelling accuracy or grammatical correctness, but from its style, power, ambitiousness, enthusiasm, strength and artistic merit. Especially its artistic merit. I enjoy abandoning conventional writing standards for the sake of writing something the way I want it to sound. The way I want people to hear it. This is a purposeful act of unorthodoxy.
I would go so far as saying as this point has a bearing on our modern age. Although there is virtue in knowing how to spell correctly and form a sentence properly, once you do, why not take the liberty of defining new ways of relating to others through writing? Whether the conservative ‘style and form’ Nazi’s (I’m looking in my brothers direction here… Granted he marks first and second year philosophy essays 23 hours a day, and the fact that undergrads aren’t allowed to have opinions of their own, means that marking on grammar and spelling may be important) like it or not, a change is coming. Language and linguistics is being re-evaluated to suit a new generation of uber-computer literate children. Integrating linguistic complexities, abbreviations, new words, new phrases; this will happen.
I’m sure somebody smart, somewhere once said something like ‘Master a thing, then add your own flair to it – this is art’. Break convention. Embrace your spelling mistakes, and claim they are a reflection of your artistic merit.
While I agree with the sentiment, such a justification could then be used to credit anything sub-standard as artistic (see A Clockwork Orange). If you're working within an accepted form (like I am) then you need to observe the rules. If you choose to break the rules, make sure it's a statement worth making. AND make sure people understand that you're breaking the rules.
If one were to critique the grammar of this blog, they would find it sorely lacking, because I have made a concious choice to write in the style of the Australian vernacular. This is a style which lends itself to satire and is very conversational. However, I strive to spell correctly because I believe it's important and because LSB would hit me with a stick.
Don't let sloppiness become the rule. That is all.
For all those 'Artists' out there please remember that writing is primarily a form of communication, that is, the expression of an idea. As a reader, I am sick of wading through self indulgent drivel (Art) in order to get to the authors point. Just say what needs to be said and let everybody get on with their lives. I think the real art is expressing an idea as accurately and efficiently as possible.
Sorry Andy I'm not a borg (Sorry to disappoint, I know how much you would love to meet one "So, what does an emotionless cyborg like you get up to when their not assimilating alien races and planning total planetary domination?") but I am more than happy to qualify my comments for you.
I’ve become very disillusioned (well, more so than I was) with the media and writers in general of late. As a rule, I tend to steer clear of the media because of the blatant bias that occurs in all of its many forms. However, as of late I have undertaken new activities that have forced me read the newspaper and watch the news more than I usually would.
I believe it is the media's responsibility to present the public with the information that will have an impact on the readers/watchers/listeners (When I say impact I mean a tangible and measurable impact, not that fruity emotional crap). I do not believe that the media should be a form of entertainment or art, they apparently feel differently.
For example, the Sydney Morning Herald is running a story today about Megan Gale and her recent trip back to Australia, the headline reads "It's a big deal when Gale blows in" ... Gale... blows... that’s freakin' genius, I'll bet they stayed up all night thinking of that. This is not comedy, its not art, it’s CRAP and it’s a waste of my time. Some 'Journalist' is probably patting themselves on the back for that little, for want of a better word, joke, thinking how much everyone will enjoy their clever little pun. Just give me the news, spare me the art.
Enough about journalism, on a recent trip to the university library in an effort to find out how to perform coordinate transformations (don’t ask), I realised just how arrogant and aloof textbook writers can be. After, looking through the many books that the university has that specifically dealt with the subject in question, I was still no closer to understanding what the hell was going on than when walked in. Not because of a lack of information on the subject, but due to the form the information took.
The authors had decided to write the books in such a way as to only make sense to a person who already knew what was going on. The author obviously using the most complex language possible to make themselves feel superior and patting themselves on the back for the intricate sentence structure and use of words that cannot be found in any dictionary. I'm not talking about reference books, these were (allegedly) instructional textbooks used to teach students.
After an hour of this I decided to search the web to find the answer. In a matter of minutes I had all the information I needed, presented on a single page, written in language that could be understood by anyone. There seems to be this stigma that surrounds writing and information in general, at the university level, where a person has to be part of an elite little club in order to learn. Spare me the art, just give me the fucking info.
As an addendum, I'd just like to say that I don't really have a problem with writers taking artistic liberties in their work. All Im asking is that they restrict themselves to a medium that supports such acts of 'unorthodoxy', such as fiction, and consider the wants and needs of the reader before their own.
Interesting. Well qualified point. I dont disagree on any partiuclar point. Sensasionalist journaism gives me the shirts (INTENDED SPELLING MISTAKE!) too, and I just dont watch it, but...Im not sure that...topic is anywhere near the galaxy that my comment was supposed to be written in. Not that thats a problem, I just dont have the time or inclination to express my disalusionment with forms of media, hollywood, and how the ignorance of individuals who just cyphon the extraordinary magnitude of pertruding filth that filters forth from our televisions, and printed media.
I like Poetry. I like art. I like free expression. I like hearing someones voice, through their writing. There is a place and medium for this, which does not include reporting the news. But in its place, its magic. And thats it.
Having said that, my arts degree is only in Ancient history and philosophy, so what would I know?
nb: should read after printed media "...adds to the breakdown and future degredation of society".
UNINTENTIONAL SPELLING MISTAKE. Looks like its not communications degree for me.
If you two wnat to fight it out, thats fine. But when you start atacking ME as well... I do what I do because I enjoy it and I'm good at it. As for your question "my arts degree is only in Ancient history and philosophy, so what would I know?" I think you'll find the answer, in relation to media, is three fifths of f**k all. If I want to know about the Persians or Grecian navel-gazing I'll come to you, but when it comes to a knowledge of the accepted forms of media within a real-world environment, removed from some opinion based on nothing but opinion but based rather on things like reality, the way it works, and theory of how humans actually communicate with each other I'll keep my own counsel. If this is to become some sort of argument revolving around semiotics, lets do it, otherwise, just accept that correct spelling enables a more accurate transmission of a message throught the printed medium. Being that said transmission is what is desired, I don't want spelling mistakes to filter or distort the message.
muddfx & mcluhan: 1-0
Ok. MAYBE I went of on a bit of a tangent, so here it is in one hundred words or less
Art is fine. Expressing yourself, also fine. But when a person finds themselves in a position where readers rely on their writing, whether it be for a current affairs or educational purposes, their writing should not reflect the way they 'want people to hear it'. Writing in such mediums should reflect the facts, and only the facts, any ‘artistic merit’ is unnecessary and in my opinion unwelcome. Writing in such a way that expresses ideas as the writer wishes them to be perceived might sound good, but people actually have to choose to read it in the first place.
Gosh, Andy and Matty sure have their knickers in a knot. I could begin with the many spelling mistakes, and correct them all, but I think I'll just point out that Andy, after your intentional spelling mistake (across three words) you made three further spelling mistakes, and TEN grammatical errors. And that's just one post.
Fortunately, my baby isn't in my lap, so any mistakes I make here are entirely my own, but hopefully I'll catch them when I re-read this before posting it.
Beginning at the top of this argument and working my way down...
No one writes the way they talk. Not professionally, anyway. It is too hard to follow. It annoys your reader. Just read transcripts from Lateline or something and you'll see what I mean. "A purposeful act of unorthodoxy," eh? What is that supposed to mean? Orthodox, as I'm sure you know, means 'correct teaching'. Why would you be purposefully wrong? That's just silly.
"Language and linguistics is being re-evaluated to suit a new generation of uber-computer literate children." Are they? Kids may be able to get away with texting 26y4u on thier mobiles, but try doing that in your HSC English paper. It won't get you far. And exactly what does computer literacy have to do with being able to write clearly? Additionally, while people are making new words all the time, or finding new meanings for old ones ('sick' springs to mind), most "new" words don't stick. They never make it into the OED because they are not relevant to enough people.
Accidental spelling mistakes do not have artistic merit. And Steve's was an accident. Get over it.
I can't wait to hear your response.
Next...
"I think the real art is expressing an idea as accurately and efficiently as possible." Don't tell Tolstoy that.
And...
"Steve -- your a conformist AND a hollywood whore. Who would have thought" Stated with absolutely no backup whatsoever. Or ability to use grammar. No justification of this point - oh, wait, it must be art, not journalism.
Then... "baltant bias". Once again, no illustration to this point. Do you mean how the ABC is government owned, but hates the Liberal party? Do you mean FOX? Do you mean Fairfax being fairer than News Ltd? Or are you just biased against the media. Everyone has bias. It's called paradigm. You are natually cautious of things which occur outside of your paradigm and are consequently more likely to dismiss them out of hand.
"I believe it is the media's responsibility to present the public with the information that will have an impact on the readers/watchers/listeners" Who measures the impact? You? As everyone knows, a hit-and-run in Newcastle is worth 700 killed in a train crash in India, in impact terms. Particularly if it was your nextdoor neighbour. The media isn't there to provide people with 'what the public is interested in'. That is entertainment. They should be covering stories that are 'in the public interest'. You may not care about the trouble in the Middle East, but you need to know about it, if you are to be able to come up with an informed position about it. That is why news is important.
" Eg the SMH is running a story today about Megan Gale and her recent trip back to Australia, the headline reads "It's a big deal when Gale blows in" ... that’s freakin' genius, I'll bet they stayed up all night thinking of that. This is not comedy, its not art, it’s CRAP and it’s a waste of my time."
Oh yeah? How wold you know what the story was about (and whether you wanted to waste your time reading it) if it didn't have a headline that encapsulated the story in a few words??? That is not crap, it's a highly developed skill.
"Some 'Journalist' is probably patting themselves on the back for that little, for want of a better word, joke, thinking how much everyone will enjoy their clever little pun."
Some sub-editor actually. That is their job. And yes, sometimes it involves puns - a lot of the time actually, but at least this shows they know how to use language to their advantage. Not only can the cover a story in 5 words, they can include a joke. Chris Rock can't do that. Or Tom Lehrer (not to be confued with Jim Lehrer, of Newshour with fame). You think about how many headlines there are in a newspaper. Not only do the subbies have to come up with the headlines, they also have to lay out all the pages in their section, and do it in a couple of hours. Stop complaining. I'd like to see you do it.
And now the textbook whinge...
"The authors had decided to write the books in such a way as to only make sense to a person who already knew what was going on."
Are you in first year? No? Then you should know what is going on. Pay more attention in your tutorials.
"The author obviously using the most complex language possible to make themselves feel superior and patting themselves on the back for the intricate sentence structure and use of words that cannot be found in any dictionary."
If you insist on using the Collins School Dictionary, what do you expect?
But seriously, this is called academic writing. It is used by and for academics. If you are discussing complex issues and concepts, you need to use language appropriate to that situation. If I am giving a treatise on... say... geometry, I can't say "blah blah blah technical term complex explanation get out you pointy-spinny-roundy-cirle-drawing-thingo and complex problem blah blah blah". Now, you all know I meant 'compass' and I'm sure you can see that compass would have been the word for it. Why object to people using the language of their area of study for describing that area of study? Huh? Layamns terms are for people who are just that. Laymen. You, Matty, are not a layman, you are an academic, studying at a university, using academic tools. It's not primary school. Learn the language.
"I don't really have a problem with writers taking artistic liberties in their work... [i just want them to] consider the wants and needs of the reader before their own."
Yeah? Wait until your exams when you spare your lecturer too much heartache by not using any technical terms he/she is unlikely to understand, and instead use laymans terms. It's like using pictures of trees and flowers instead of letters when you are doing algebra. It's just silly, and shows a lack of understanding.
Covered the spelling debacle at the top, I'm with Steve and McLuhan on this one (now there's a first), and onto Matty's final point:
"when a person finds themselves in a position where readers rely on their writing, whether it be for a current affairs or educational purposes, their writing should not reflect the way they 'want people to hear it'."
To a point, I agree with the media bit. Certainly stories should be presented with balance, fact-checking and clarity. That is what makes them news, and not opinion. However, the way people want people to hear their work changes depending on the people. Consider, an Israeli, an Arab and an Australian walk into a bar and discuss the stories they have just filed to their netwoks on the same incident in Lebanon. Are you telling me they will ALL have presented ALL the facts in EXACTLY the same way? No, of course not. And that is what the media does. It filters things to appeal to their audiences. That's why the worlds hasn't made any progess - if we wre all nice to each other all the time their wouldn't be any war, and news stations would shut down, because good news is no news. Or something like that.
And educators? What they write is essentially their opinion, so they are entitled to write it however they choose. What they then need is a good editor (gasp! Another one of those well-trained book-learned media types) to help them make sense of it all. However I would say that if the end user of the book is supposed to be able to use x big words, and use them in context, then their textbooks should be chock full of said big words, in context, and with a glossary in the back. Like I said: it's not primary school, it's uni. If you don't do do it for yourself there is no one who's going to do it for you.
Post a Comment
<< Home