Saturday, December 13, 2014


Why is it every time an expert is consulted about the rules of grammar or spelling, they almost always follow their explanations with a disclaimer along the lines of: “Language is constantly changing so it's perfectly all right to say whatever you like and spell any old way.” If this is an effort to save people embarrassment, it’s painfully misguided because it only fosters ignorance and confusion.

Yes, language is a living thing and does evolve as we can easily see in constantly changing swearing and slang, but everybody wants to communicate eloquently and effectively, whether we’re rappers, used car sellers, teachers, inspirational speakers or best-selling writers. And to do this we
not only need talent and inspiration but a solid knowledge of good grammar and, for writers and taggers, correct spelling. 

We know we’re all judged by how we speak and write, by our accents, our choice of words and the expressions we use. Bad grammar and spelling is dangerous, it can cause bosses not to hire us, potential friends to take us for illiterate ignoramuses
and grandmothers to be eaten. And often this judgment happens without our knowledge because it’s considered offensive to correct someone’s grammar. Frankly I’m offended if my grammar and spelling aren’t corrected.

Grammar and spelling are supposedly taught in schools but so many people are confused or ignorant of the rules by the time they need them in real life we wonder what the hell they do teach in schools. If grammar can be got consistently wrong it can be corrected and got consistently right. The same mistakes are so prevalent that it seems they are what are being taught in schools: 

If I HAD done it not If I WOULD HAVE done it.
I feel BAD not badly 
I LIE on the floor now not  I LAY on the floor now. 
ANY MORE is used only with a negative: I don't do that any more.
The difference between TAKE and BRING (Bring it to me then take it away.) 
WHO usually refers to people, THAT to things.

There are rules and we need to know them before we can flout them. So, grammaticists, grammaticians, grammarians, just give us the rules already so we can choose for ourselves when and how to deliberately misuse language for fun.


Sunday, November 2, 2014

Day of the Dead: MARCEL PROUST

Today being the DAY of the DEAD I’m going to celebrate Marcel Proust, who is dead, among other things. Off and on for a couple of years now I’ve been wading through his massive masterwork: A LA RECHERCHE DU TEMPS PERDU and I’m a third of the way through the ten volumes in French. Odd that there are only seven in English but I’m told there are supplemental DVD-like features at the end of this, like motivational carrots.

It takes a while to accommodate oneself to his detailed writing and, frankly, if my wi-fi hadn't been out,  thus disabling Kindle, I would probably never have got this far or sunk sufficiently into the book to be able to appreciate it.

It’s not because the book is so intellectually challenging that it’s hard to read. Rather, it’s the flowing style of interminable sentences with little punctuation and even fewer paragraphs that makes it difficult to follow. Every facet of an idea is explored which, while presenting marvels of observation and perception, slows the pace to something less than glacial.

Let’s be frank, some of the book is downright boring due to its appalling snobbery and astonishing solipsism. Marcel validates himself by telling us how wild members of the aristocracy are about him, how superior they are to the vulgar family servant Fran├žoise and how beautiful, graceful and elegant they are in their boxes at the opera, unlike the common members of the audience below. He describes corridors, courtyards and stairs being there to serve only him. He thinks the reason a young woman (?) has rebuffed his sexual advances is that she smells bad and doesn’t want him to know it (!)

There are also stultifying passages showing off his knowledge of painting and art, interminable pages about color. He mentions PINK a lot, especially in regard to young women who are all sorts of variations of “rose et or”. This is particularly stuffy because he has obviously not heard that a picture is worth a thousand words. Or maybe he's trying to prove that his words are as good as, or better than, a painting.

But the good stuff is stunningly beautiful, quite unique and surprisingly funny. Just when you're abandoning all hope of ever seeing the plot again, up pops a surprising connection to a character or event that we last saw so long ago we've forgotten it. Some of my favorite bits so far are, of course,  Odette’s seduction of Swann, Proust’s insights into the French psyche and an anthropomorphised hotel. A wall talks to him, a “solitary beauty of a courtyard” is held captive by high walls, a staircase holds out its steps to him, the soft carpet is there so he can walk about barefoot and the shutterless windows assure him they will not sleep all night so he can come and look out of them at any time without waking them. And this little pearl:

“And behind a drape I surprised a little alcove
which, stopped by a wall and unable to escape,
had hidden itself there and was
 looking at me with its oeil-de-boeuf
made blue by the moonlight.”

   Drawing above by David Levine 
UPDATE: Finally finished the book on April 15, 2015 and found a detailed chronology of events and list of characters and breakdown of the plot which would have helped during the reading. 

I'm glad I read the whole thing, it gave me great insight into the French psyche, it showed that it's not always a good idea to write about every little detail you've ever observed. But I think he wrote that way because he knew he was dying and wanted to have a record of everything he'd seen and heard and tasted and smelled in his short life. 
This book made me think of all the people who didn't have Proust's gifts and their unsung lives. Like these poor folks who's only record is the marks made on their cannister coffins.