Consider the Lobster

This is my first time reading DFW, may he rest in peace. I have to say, I’m impressed. The essays in this collection are jaw-dropping. He has such a conversational, warm tone that’s difficult to pinpoint politically. The defining tension in the collection is between cynicism and authenticity. Because of that tension, the best essays in here are his reflections are 9/11, the long piece on the John McCain campaign, and the concluding review on Dostoevsky’s biography. The essay on tennis also fits this category, but to lesser extent.

I suppose the difficulty to pin him down is the point: he doesn’t want to be defined by such categories like political affiliation, school of thought, or anything to that effect. Instead, the main aim is to push through his cynical, jaded worldview and find something more profound.

Even so, there are a number of essays that defy this categorization. Both the essay on the politics of the English language and the titular “Consider the Lobster” are examples of this; the main point in these is to urge us to think more deeply about our own preconceptions, views, and philosophical foundations. I don’t know what exactly to make of the essay on pornography, but I couldn’t help laughing all the way through: it’s a case of insane gonzo journalism.

I’m definitely going to read more DFW after this. The threads he pulls resonate strongly with me (although my prose would probably lead me to flunk his classes), and there’s a sort of deep self-reflection and sincerity that I wish I could find more often.

I picked this up again for the essay on Authority and American Usage. The essays on Tracy Austen - why sports starts shouldn't write books and Consider the Lobster - why boiling lobsters might be bad were also good.

Authoriy was my focus. It's a 62 page essay with footnotes obstensibly about Brian Garner's book - Modern American Usage, but it's really about role of authority in our language. Should we follow basic usage rules or let everything go. Who knew dictionairs could be so fun?

When it comes to usage, English, grammar, etc. there exists two main schools - the prescriptivists (what proper English SHOULD BE) and descriptivists (what English IS). Both schools have members that take things to the extreme. The extreme prescriptive is the pedantic grammarian. The pedantic grammarian objects to sentences that end in prepositions and the like. The extreme descriptive is anything goes and would require volumes of dictionaries to capture the way everyone uses the language, even every sub-sub dialect would require reams of paper.

These two camps DFW points out are closer to religious or political zealots. Of prescriptives he writes: "We combine a missionary zeal and a near-neural faith in our beliefs’ importance with a curmudgeonly hell-in-a-handbasket despair at the way English is routinely defiled by supposedly literate adults. Plus a dash of the elitism of, say, Billy Zane in Titanic".

While sticking to the Prescriptivie camp DFW offers more of a middle ground:

"Grammar and usage conventions are, as it happens, a lot more like ethical principles than like scientific theories."

The most convincing argument DFW makes is that standard written English is one type of English. By acknowledging the validity and importance of other types of English, Ebonics for example, he seems more reasonable. It's the English of the publishing world. If you want to get published, SWE is the way. It's the type of English of the prescriptive. Other worlds have bastardized standard written English - the academic, business, and political, but again it's necessary to start with SWE in order to be accepted into those worlds.

I would make another argument for the prescriptivist. The reader's argument. I don't have the patience to piece together poor writing. Simple standard written English is the best reading. The New Yorker goes to far often and their self-conscious grammar gets in the way of the writing, so it is possible to over do it, however, learning the rules and mostly following them except where it would be distracting is best approach. This is the most considerate approach for the reader.

This was a fascinating essay it took me several days to read through it because DFW offers alot to digest.

I picked this up again for the essay on Authority and American Usage. The essays on Tracy Austen - why sports starts shouldn't write books and Consider the Lobster - why boiling lobsters might be bad were also good.

Authoriy was my focus. It's a 62 page essay with footnotes obstensibly about Brian Garner's book - Modern American Usage, but it's really about role of authority in our language. Should we follow basic usage rules or let everything go. Who knew dictionairs could be so fun?

When it comes to usage, English, grammar, etc. there exists two main schools - the prescriptivists (what proper English SHOULD BE) and descriptivists (what English IS). Both schools have members that take things to the extreme. The extreme prescriptive is the pedantic grammarian. The pedantic grammarian objects to sentences that end in prepositions and the like. The extreme descriptive is anything goes and would require volumes of dictionaries to capture the way everyone uses the language, even every sub-sub dialect would require reams of paper.

These two camps DFW points out are closer to religious or political zealots. Of prescriptives he writes: "We combine a missionary zeal and a near-neural faith in our beliefs’ importance with a curmudgeonly hell-in-a-handbasket despair at the way English is routinely defiled by supposedly literate adults. Plus a dash of the elitism of, say, Billy Zane in Titanic".

While sticking to the Prescriptivie camp DFW offers more of a middle ground:

"Grammar and usage conventions are, as it happens, a lot more like ethical principles than like scientific theories."

The most convincing argument DFW makes is that standard written English is one type of English. By acknowledging the validity and importance of other types of English, Ebonics for example, he seems more reasonable. It's the English of the publishing world. If you want to get published, SWE is the way. It's the type of English of the prescriptive. Other worlds have bastardized standard written English - the academic, business, and political, but again it's necessary to start with SWE in order to be accepted into those worlds.

I would make another argument for the prescriptivist. The reader's argument. I don't have the patience to piece together poor writing. Simple standard written English is the best reading. The New Yorker goes to far often and their self-conscious grammar gets in the way of the writing, so it is possible to over do it, however, learning the rules and mostly following them except where it would be distracting is best approach. This is the most considerate approach for the reader.

This was a fascinating essay it took me several days to read through it because DFW offers alot to digest.