Fine English, with top hat and tails
Dec. 31st, 2003 12:54 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ravencallscrowsColumnist Bruce Ramsey, from today's Seattle Times on formal English:
The "Lord of the Rings" movies have been praised for their plot, characters, theme, setting, music and special effects.
But say something also about their English.
Consider the scene in "The Two Towers," when Lord Aragorn finds Lady Eowyn, the story's Mulan, swooshing the air with a sword. He meets it with a clang of steel, and she parries him with a flip of the wrist.
"You have some skill with a blade," he says.
She replies with an answer to warm the heart of the National Rifle Association: "Women of this country learned long ago: Those without swords can still die upon them." She adds, "I fear neither death nor pain."
"What do you fear, my lady?"
"A cage. To stay behind bars until use and old age accept them, and all chance of valor has gone beyond use or desire."
Politics aside, that is voluptuous English — and much of it right out of the fantasy J.R.R. Tolkien wrote half a century ago.
Eowyn could have said, "I can't count on men like you to protect me, and I don't want to rot in some cell. I have to be ready to defend myself." But Eowyn and other high-status people in this story speak a dressy English. The hobbits are more colloquial, and the orcs — a subhuman race — speak among themselves like lowlife Americans: "Meat's back on the menu, boys!"
"Lord of the Rings" uses high English to separate Middle Earth from us — and it certainly does. But formal English used to be an important part of our public life, and remains so in most other English-speaking cultures.
University of California, Berkeley, linguist John McWhorter argues in his new book, "Doing Our Own Thing" (Gotham Books), that Americans once used formal English regularly, and used it in great proclamations not so long ago. In 1941, Franklin Roosevelt spoke of "a day which shall live in infamy." Even as recently as 1961, John Kennedy thought it was fitting to say, "Ask not what you can do for your country."
For the speech of today, page through "We Will Prevail" (Continuum), the recent collection of speeches of George W. Bush. A few bright lines jump out, such as "history's unmarked grave of discarded lies." But most of Bush's talks are as functional as cotton underwear. Bush would not say, "Ask not." He would say, "Don't ask." And it's not because he's a Republican. Read the speeches of Howard Dean. If still in doubt, read the speeches of retired Gen. Wesley Clark.
This is not about mangling impromptu lines. These are prepared speeches. If their rhetoric is flat, it is meant to be flat.
Today, even a presidential address to Congress comes clothed in a sweater and Dockers. McWhorter argues that this is more than a change in style. Americans, he says, are reverting to an oral culture in which standards are set by TV sitcoms, talk radio, rap music, e-mail and cell phones. We read less and talk more. To us, "the visceral, spontaneous and elementary" seem genuine and real. "Oratorical, poetic and compositional craft" seems false.
McWhorter argues that this shift in our English affects our song lyrics, our movie dialogue and the prose in Time magazine. All have become more informal, more like talk, with sentences shorter and words simpler. The use of formal English is a flag that says: This is to be taken seriously. To replace it with a kind of linguistic egalitarianism is a dumbing down. McWhorter says: "A society that cherishes the spoken over the written is one that marginalizes extended, reflective argument."
This is not an argument for duded-up writing, what Mark Twain called a "monkey with a parasol" style. Some writing needs to be presented in sweater and Dockers, and some in the buff. But sometimes it should dress up. Those who savor their English will find that some of the best writing wears a top hat and tails.
Viewing again the Rings movies, I thought: Why do I like these so much? The plot, the characters, the setting — yes, yes, yes. The imagery, the music, the special effects. All of that. But it was more. I like the way they talk. I like their English. It is clear, elegant, beautiful.
And in an imaginary world.
I'd be interested in hearing what you out there- especially the writers and avid readers think about this. I think there's a place and a time for colloquial, plain spoken English, but all too often people seem to eschew using the formal form, even when circumstances would seem to dictate. More and more, also, common usage seems to be modifying standard written English to the lower form of the language as well- if the people doing so are even aware of the difference. Personally, there are many ungrammatical constructs which have crept into standard usage which just grate upon my ear, and it's not completely uncommon that i'll rework a sentence, even when speaking, to clear up the syntax.
The "Lord of the Rings" movies have been praised for their plot, characters, theme, setting, music and special effects.
But say something also about their English.
Consider the scene in "The Two Towers," when Lord Aragorn finds Lady Eowyn, the story's Mulan, swooshing the air with a sword. He meets it with a clang of steel, and she parries him with a flip of the wrist.
"You have some skill with a blade," he says.
She replies with an answer to warm the heart of the National Rifle Association: "Women of this country learned long ago: Those without swords can still die upon them." She adds, "I fear neither death nor pain."
"What do you fear, my lady?"
"A cage. To stay behind bars until use and old age accept them, and all chance of valor has gone beyond use or desire."
Politics aside, that is voluptuous English — and much of it right out of the fantasy J.R.R. Tolkien wrote half a century ago.
Eowyn could have said, "I can't count on men like you to protect me, and I don't want to rot in some cell. I have to be ready to defend myself." But Eowyn and other high-status people in this story speak a dressy English. The hobbits are more colloquial, and the orcs — a subhuman race — speak among themselves like lowlife Americans: "Meat's back on the menu, boys!"
"Lord of the Rings" uses high English to separate Middle Earth from us — and it certainly does. But formal English used to be an important part of our public life, and remains so in most other English-speaking cultures.
University of California, Berkeley, linguist John McWhorter argues in his new book, "Doing Our Own Thing" (Gotham Books), that Americans once used formal English regularly, and used it in great proclamations not so long ago. In 1941, Franklin Roosevelt spoke of "a day which shall live in infamy." Even as recently as 1961, John Kennedy thought it was fitting to say, "Ask not what you can do for your country."
For the speech of today, page through "We Will Prevail" (Continuum), the recent collection of speeches of George W. Bush. A few bright lines jump out, such as "history's unmarked grave of discarded lies." But most of Bush's talks are as functional as cotton underwear. Bush would not say, "Ask not." He would say, "Don't ask." And it's not because he's a Republican. Read the speeches of Howard Dean. If still in doubt, read the speeches of retired Gen. Wesley Clark.
This is not about mangling impromptu lines. These are prepared speeches. If their rhetoric is flat, it is meant to be flat.
Today, even a presidential address to Congress comes clothed in a sweater and Dockers. McWhorter argues that this is more than a change in style. Americans, he says, are reverting to an oral culture in which standards are set by TV sitcoms, talk radio, rap music, e-mail and cell phones. We read less and talk more. To us, "the visceral, spontaneous and elementary" seem genuine and real. "Oratorical, poetic and compositional craft" seems false.
McWhorter argues that this shift in our English affects our song lyrics, our movie dialogue and the prose in Time magazine. All have become more informal, more like talk, with sentences shorter and words simpler. The use of formal English is a flag that says: This is to be taken seriously. To replace it with a kind of linguistic egalitarianism is a dumbing down. McWhorter says: "A society that cherishes the spoken over the written is one that marginalizes extended, reflective argument."
This is not an argument for duded-up writing, what Mark Twain called a "monkey with a parasol" style. Some writing needs to be presented in sweater and Dockers, and some in the buff. But sometimes it should dress up. Those who savor their English will find that some of the best writing wears a top hat and tails.
Viewing again the Rings movies, I thought: Why do I like these so much? The plot, the characters, the setting — yes, yes, yes. The imagery, the music, the special effects. All of that. But it was more. I like the way they talk. I like their English. It is clear, elegant, beautiful.
And in an imaginary world.
I'd be interested in hearing what you out there- especially the writers and avid readers think about this. I think there's a place and a time for colloquial, plain spoken English, but all too often people seem to eschew using the formal form, even when circumstances would seem to dictate. More and more, also, common usage seems to be modifying standard written English to the lower form of the language as well- if the people doing so are even aware of the difference. Personally, there are many ungrammatical constructs which have crept into standard usage which just grate upon my ear, and it's not completely uncommon that i'll rework a sentence, even when speaking, to clear up the syntax.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-12-31 01:24 pm (UTC)Yes. Most of the movies I own are "period" (not menstral you dipwad!) films.
It's such a treat to listen to them after hearing the stream of shit that pours out of people's mouths today. (But I have a special place in my heart for the sound of my grandmother's heckling "EH!" that makes cats and small children jump.)
I slip into my family's low-country dialect, and it's out of pure laziness. Ug. *kicks self*
You need an imaginary world, because I don't think you are going to get what you are looking for any time in the near future. Or, if Mr. Dickens pays me another visit, I'll tell him to wander up to your house and have a chat with you, although he likes to talk about heating and finances.
no subject
Date: 2003-12-31 04:25 pm (UTC)You mean like this one, where your second "which" ought to be "that?" ;)
Yes, me, too. Written and spoken English both suffer from this, and it's discomfiting. I spoke a more formal English as a child, and ground it down to the colloquial in an attempt to fit in. I have been fortunate to associate with adults who appreciate a well-turned phrase and do not quail at the usage of longer words, but I know we are a minority.
no subject
Date: 2003-12-31 05:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-12-31 05:39 pm (UTC)Many of those throwing fits argued that sloppy language led to sloppy thinking. I don't agree; I think carefully brewed rhetoric, whether deliberately sloppy or deliberately elegant, easily displaces thinking, and even that's not always a bad thing. "Of the people, by the people, for the people" was hardly an accurate summary of the issues in the Civil War, but it became a touchstone useful in a much broader way than a better analysis would have. It was a good sound bite.
Unfortunately our sound bites seem to be devolving from "Ask not what your country can do for you . . . ." to "Let's roll." Elections depend less on character and even less on issues, and more on flavor--in 2000 Bush's cultivated folksiness and backyard-bub-with-a-brewski tone trumped Gore's pedantic wonkiness; now the Democrats are choosing among half a dozen shades of backyard-bub, but with overtones of carefully-hidden braininess, military prowess, flaming liberalism, etc. It's a cinch, though, that Rev. Al's urban-African-American flavor will be no more than an exotic side dish.
no subject
Date: 2003-12-31 09:05 pm (UTC)It is as if nobody gives a damn anymore. Illiterate fucks.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-02 07:04 pm (UTC)