Poor Jim! He caught the brunt of my ire yesterday… that I had to edit my article yet again. In part, my temper tantrum stemmed from my own arrogance. I am accustomed to literary criticism and philosophical treatises. But knowing I would be forced to adjust considerably to a journalistic style did little to alleviate my annoyance. And yet, as an educator who is merely playing at being a journalist, I cannot but feel that something is lost in the translation.
Certainly, begrudgingly, I’ve had to admit to instances in my article of the insertion of my own opinion, either through inadvertent word choice or overt statement. Yet some of the ‘corrections’ I’ve had to make have, to my mind, actually decreased the accuracy of my writing.
I recall a stand-up comedian (whose name I do not recall) who joked about the difference between the letter of a Civil War soldier (‘My dearest, darling Martha, I am resolved to stand ever firm against the cruel forces of tyranny and oppression; yet as I gaze across the carnage and horror of the war-strewn battlefield, beloved wife…’) and that of a Gulf War soldier (‘Adrianne, it is hot as hell here in the dessert. Say yo to the gang. Don’t f*** anyone whiles I’m gone…’). Of course, this is an comedic exaggeration and we can all immediately point to a variety of socio-economic factors which would argue that this is not truly a genuine comparison.
And yet.
We talked earlier in this session about technology and the natural evolution of language. I embrace this idea and find the living nature of language one of the more delightful aspects of linguistics, but I have to wonder if we can exactly call our current language developments an ‘evolution’. To consider it such would be to imply a greater capacity for communication, to my mind. I’m not sure that is what I’m seeing.
Or am I merely clinging obstinately to an adolescent fantasy in which I am living in a Henry James novel?
Sigh.