Excuse Me, Is This 1984?

I signed up for a modern grammars class, hoping to maybe learn a little more about linguistic theory and maybe brush up on my grammar knowledge since I'm a writer and I need to know these thing. Before I started reading for this class I was slightly disturbed by the growing popularity of netlingo; however now that I'm reading essays by linguists and English teachers I am practically terrified for the English language. Not because the articles are panicked, but because they seem to find the changes in the English language to be natural and good and they don't want to stop the natural "evolution" of the English language. People, if we all start saying "lol" in face to face conversation it won't be long before we become H.G. Well's "Eloi" or the totally controlled society in George Orwell's 1984! Only it won't be "new speak" by chat room jargon that will kill the subtly and nuance of the English language and narrow our perceptions to nothing more than sitcom references and fart jokes.

The first linguist with whom I have a complaint would be Harvey A. Daniels. In his essay "Nine Ideas About Language," Daniels tries to say that those of us who are worried about the state of the English language in America are merely overreacting. He claims that the changes are slow and natural and that they aren't that drastic because, "we tend to forget that we can still read Shakespeare." Oh yes, now I am at ease, but wait, Daniels uses a quote from Shakespeare earlier. Daniels points out, "We may only be a generation of two from the day when we will again say, with Shakespeare, 'I will not budge for no man's pleasure.'" Oh, look, Shakespeare used a double negative, so we Americans don't have to be afraid of the sudden use of the grammatical mistake, because that was how Shakespeare spoke.

Has anyone studied Shakespeare? If you did then you would know that Shakespeare's plays are filled with all sorts of elaborate linguistic jokes and puns placed there purposefully to get a laugh from the audience. This line that Daniels quotes but doesn't cite happens to be from Act 3 of Romeo and Juliet. The line is said by Mercutio, who has already been established as a jokester at the beginning of the plays and whose jokes have had some homosexual overtones. Heck, even in the (and forgive me for bringing this up) recent film adaptation Romeo + Juliet, (yes the one with DiCaprio in it) the character of Mercutio is shown dressing up in drag as a joke while making these homosexual inferences. So, when he uses a double-negative such was, "not budge for no man's pleasure" couldn't Shakespeare be giving a small wink to the audience, as if to say, "So, he'll budge for a certain man's pleasure, huh?" It would seem that contrary to what Daniels says later, due to the slacking of certain grammatical rules not even Daniels can fully understand Shakespeare.

I am truly afraid that because academia has suddenly decided that all forms of English are good and proper and because the apparent devolution of our language is normal and natural that some day we'll find ourselves in a similar position many scholar's in China find themselves today. Because China has switched from traditional Chinese characters to simplified, there are many scholars in China who are afraid they are just a few generations away from being completely unable to read their own ancient texts. If we allow the rules of English grammar to slacken too much will we suddenly find ourselves completely unable to read the great literature of our past?

I was again disturbed while reading Dennis Baron's essay "Weather Report". This time it was not over what the author had to say about grammar, rather it was concerning an anecdote he shared about an experience he had in high school concerning grammar: "I dared to challenge a pronunciation by the severest of my teachers. The word in question was written gaol, the British spelling of our American jail. It is pronounced to rhyme with rail on both sides of the Atlantic." Apparently little teenage Baron corrected his teacher in front of the class, and her reaction was to make him march up from his desk to hers and look the word up in the dictionary and read it to the whole class. This, for any teenager, was punishment. He was proven correct, but still, to the day he grew up and wrote this essay, little Dennis Baron felt punished and humiliated. He says, "I was just a fool who corrected Mrs. N. on some amazingly trivial point."

Now tell me, is this how a teacher should have handled the situation? Especially when the student ended up being right! Does this mean that we teach children to sit quietly by while the teacher is teaching the class how to mispronounce a word? Granted, mispronunciation isn't the worse form of misinformation a teacher could be practicing, but I think that the concept is still the same. If a student sees a teacher make an error and corrects her shouldn't the child be congratulated? That teacher will probably never forget how to pronounce gaol, same with the students present. Grammar was corrected that day and in a manner that was unforgettable, so should the student really be punished? He wasn't talking back, he wasn't insulting the teacher, he was making an informed, educational point. No wonder no one likes grammar classes! Is this how we are to handle students? Even if the child was wrong, shouldn't the teacher have looked it up for the class, graciously, and then informed them of the proper way to pronounce that word? Even if little Dennis Baron was wrong the teacher could have used that interruption to TEACH something instead of to embarrass some teenage kid.

What I am saying is this, the academics of this country have to become more concerned with the slippage happening with our language. Instead of rolling over and excepting the "natural evolution" of our language, which is really becoming an oversimplification, they should stand firm and teach grammar and give everyone a chance to be able to read, understand, and appreciate Shakespeare. Also, instead of humiliating children who challenge grammar or who make grammatical mistakes, teachers should use those opportunities to show why grammar is so important or to teach the correct use of grammar. For crying out loud people, this is important! We have to become more concerned about this!

The Canadians Know More American History Than I Do!

So, who here has heard of the war of 1812? No, no, not when Napoleon invaded Russia, but the war that was going on in America at that time. Anyone? The second war of independence? Does this ring a bell with anyone? It was the time we invaded Canada.

Yes, the U.S. invaded Canada.

I had no clue. Serious, to all Canadians, I bet more than half of the American people have no clue that we ever invaded Canadian soil, ever. Seriously, when I heard "the war of 1812" I thought Napoleon. I had to find this information out from a documentary called "Who Killed Canada". It was mentioned as a matter of course, and here I had no clue.

Apparently my brother-in-law knew about it because he learned it in the State of Wisconsin class he had to take in high school. I didn't have to take a State of Illinois class! What IS this? What else haven't I been taught in school? War with Canada? And why do the Wisconsin people know and we here in Illinois are left in the dark when Chicago's own Fort Dearborn was attacked and burned to the ground in what is now known as the Fort Dearborn massacre? A massacre in Chicago's history and we don't hear about it or are told why it ever happened. Frankly, I am pissed that I have been allowed to go about my life totally ignorant of the history of my home state.

What else don't I know about American history?

Not All Poems Are Good, People.

So I'm feeling like a horrible student of literature. It's not that I don't enjoy literature, I do. Really, I love to read and I usually enjoy reading new books for class and discussing them. I don't feel like a horrible student because of the books I have to read this semester, I feel like a horrible student because of the poems I'm being forced to read.

I'm a creative writing student, and for some reason the university feels that for me to get a complete and well rounded education for creative writing I must be forced to take a years worth of poetry classes where they force me to write my own poetry. I am not a poet. I've never pretended I was poet. I don't write poetry, I write fiction. When I go for my MFA I have to choose either poetry or fiction and never shall the two meet. At least, not in one program. So, my learning how to write poetry has nothing to do with my future in an MFA program, it's just SIUC's form of torture before they allow me to graduate.

That being said, I do not like the poetry I am being forced to read and emulate in my class. It's not that I hate poetry as an art form, I happen to like several poets. Ogden Nash, Rumi , W.H. Auden, Edgar Allen Poe, John Donne, Lord Byron, Shakespeare, all sorts of poets. I like poetry; however, I do not like THIS poetry. If the capital letters don't stress this enough let me make it clear, I do not like this, what IS the present literary era? Post-postmodernism? Are we still in the postmodernism era? Anyway, I don't like this incredibly long and boring poetical crap that we are producing in the modern era.

I just had to read five "expanded object" poems by five different authors and frankly most, if not all, of them were long and boring. Let's face, maybe Frost was write about unrhymed poetry. (Frost, by the way, said that writing an unrhymed poem was like playing tennis without a net.) I don't know, there are several poets I like who don't rhyme, but they seem to show more talent than these poets.

Robert Pinsky's poem "Shirt" just seemed long and depressing. I could see the point he was trying to make about sweat shops, but then he goes beyond that and somehow we end up in Scotland and "Braveheart" talk and I just don't really see the connection. I know there are things called poetical "leaps" but this one leaped right past me and I believe it missed its mark.

Worse, however, was Eamon Grennan's "Cows". This was pretty much as thrilling as watching a bunch of cows chew their cud. No, sorry, not my idea of a great read.

Can any of these authors write a sestina? Do they have any poetical talent whatsoever, or can they just string words on a page? I'll admit, I CAN'T write a sestina, but then again I'm not pretending to be a poet. Shouldn't a poem take a little more talent than writing vague or overly descriptive sentences and arranging them in some artistic way? Shouldn't writing a poem be challenging? Right now it seems like any teenager with angst can write a poem. What IS poetry any more?

And for that matter, I really must ask one last time, what literary era are we? Have we even started one or are we still trying to copy the greats from postmodernism? Is that all we will ever do, copy? Where is the poetry for this age? Maybe we should, if we are going to mimic, mimic a later age. Maybe we should try to recapture the greatness of an era BEFORE modernism, instead of continually following in the footsteps of the postmodernists.

Anyway, that is my rant for today. Mostly because I was bitter for having to waste a part of my Saturday reading poems I would never have finished if I didn't have to.