This is topic Prometheus Bound? Notes on the Anti-Humanism of the United States Congress in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
quote:Bind this crafty trickster fast in chains Of adamantine bonds that none can break; For he, thy choice flower stealing, the bright glory Of fire that all arts spring from, hath bestowed it On mortal men. And so for fault like this He now must pay the Gods due penalty, That he may learn to bear the sovereign rule Of Zeus, and cease from his philanthropy.
[...] —Ćschylus Prometheus Bound, trans. Edward Plumptre The site closely resembles what Berlin might have looked like in Nineteen Sixty-One, just as the wall that came to represent the iron curtain dividing Europe and, with Europe, much of humanity, was being built. Like the Berliners, the people on either side of the wall speak the same language and belong to the same nation, a nation divided by states, and, like the Berliners, one side is condemned to poverty under a system which offers little chance of self-improvement and no chance of assistance. Differences exist, certainly: the Berlin Wall, which started out as a barricade little sturdier than this one in Arizona, was built to prevent emigration, this wall is to prevent immigration, and the government of México is simply corrupt, not the terrifying authoritarian of ill-named German Democratic Republic. Such protestations, while accurate, can hardly be of any comfort to the residents of the border shanty towns for whom prosperity must seem to loom over the horizon each day, separated from them only by a seven foot fence and a heavily armed border guard. The barbed wire and submachine guns tell the story of a war, a war not between states, but between a state and individuals. The battles for survival along the border, with families being faced with paramilitaries and children behind barbed wire detention center walls, is echoed by a second war, the war of ideas, fought on the floors of Congress and on the streets of cities, in which free-trade must battle mercantilism, humanism face neo-conservatism and in which the fundamental aspects of humanity and the relations between individuals and the state must be addressed. (Appendix A)
Until 1875, when criminals and prostitutes were excluded, there were no qualifications for immigration, although the President had the right to deny immigration to residents of a power at war with the United States, indeed, there was not even an attempt to ascertain how many immigrated to the country in any given year until 1798, yet by 1882, all Chinese persons were banned from entry for no reason other than that there was a general feeling that there were too many of them, and, of course, that they provided compitetion. By 1921, there was a prescribed quota for how many immigrants were to be admitted from each country, one hundred for Greece and four-hundred for all the territories in sub-saharan Africa, a system which, with slight and meager reform, remained in place until 1965, when it was overturned by Hart-Celler Act, which was partially sponsored by Ted Kennedy. All current immigration laws are based off this act, which abolished country specific quotas but, in order to appease various factions in Congress, still significantly limits immigration. (USCIS)
National defense is often cited as necessitating a closely guarded border, generally by conservatives who wish to reconcile preëxisting views on immigration with Objectivist-influenced neo-liberalism. The U.S.-México border does not present the same security threat as the U.S.-Canada border, which is far closer to major cities and international air ports on both sides yet is largely unguarded. Of the nineteen hijackers responsible for the attacks of 11 September, 2001, thirteen are believed to have been U.S. nationals, the rest are of uncertain origin. None are believed to have crossed the U.S.-México border. (F.B.I.) Richard Reid, who attempted to explode a bomb in his shoe on an American Airlines flight was born and educated in Britain and is thought to have spent time in Egypt, France, Pakistan, Belgium, the Netherlands, Turkey, Israel and Afghanistan, but almost certainly never visited Latin América. (B.B.C.)
Racism is heavily prevalent among many anti-immigration organizations, with new anti-immigrant lobbied joined some older groups such as the Klu Klux Klan, which devotes much of its web site (www.kkk.bz) to arguing that people of non-northern European descent were never supposed to be allowed to immigrate and there is doubtless a great degree of truth in their belief that many of the signers of the Constitution agreed with their views; however, regardless of the personal views of any signatories, such a specification was never written into the Constitution and if it had been, would have been overturned some time ago, or else the country would have collapsed in the late nineteenth century. The National Vanguard, a neo-Nazi group, is more outspoken in their views even than the Klan, claiming that immigrants seek to create a new state called “Aztlan,” part of what they see as an attempt to suppress “White Heritage” (the Post Office is apparently a major player in this.) Most anti-immigrant lobbies would argue that these unabashedly racist, or, as they prefer, “racialist,” groups are not representative of their cause, and it is true that more mainstream groups have stressed that they are not opposed to legal residents. However, while the Minutemen, a prominent paramilitary group, tells prospective members, in a bizarrely worded second-person appeal, that they “are considering joining the MinutemanHQ not because of bias towards people from another country, but rather because you feel your government owes the citizens of the United States protection from people who wish to take advantage of a free society,” the organization cannot testify to rather or not it has any Hispanic members, which would seem to suggest that any potential Hispanic members have not reached the upper echelons of power. (Appendix B) Institutions like the minutemen often cite a simple and easy to understand reason necessitating a closed border or even the deportation of people without proper documentation: such people are “illegal” and their presence on U.S. soil is thus a violation of U.S. law. This assumption, so brutally portrayed by Hugo in the character of Javert, rests on the assumption, which has no validity or basis in any philosophy save perhaps Chinese Legalism, that the law is inherently virtuous and must be upheld. These sentiments, and unfortunate manifestation of humanities desire for order beyond all else, are far more alien to the United States than any human being could ever be. In the founding document of the country, which has been imitated innumerably often in almost every country, it is stated that, while
quote: Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
It is the essential thesis of democracy that laws have no virtue in themselves, and must be cast aside when they are shown to aversely affect the citizenry, or when any effects, however positive, are outweighed by the negative consequences suffered by any segment of the population. Democracy is not, and cannot be, a system in which the greatest good is done for the greatest number, such a system is inherently authoritarian, but rather must be a system were the idea of the greatest good for the greatest number is held as being admirable if and only if it does not infringe upon the basic rights of a human being. The first right of humanity, as established in 1789 by the National Assembly of the French Republic, is that “[man is] born and remain[s] free and equal in rights.” The philosophy of Locke, upon which the United States, like all other states which can legitimately claim to be democratic, is based, is a philosophy of Natural Law. Laws are not written by the state but exist as an essential part of humanity, and thus the rights granted, by birthright, to a citizen of one country should not, cannot, must not, be denied to another human being because of the misfortune of being born on the wrong side of a river. The actions of the United States government cannot be justified without a belief that those who were not born into the state of grace are not to be considered human beings but untermensch, bringing the country back to its Calvinist roots and demonstrating the degree of xenophobia present in many anti-immigration movements.
Inspired by the same xenophobia as all other anti-immigration arguments, but deserving special consideration is populist anti-liberalization rhetoric. On January 1, 1994, the United States entered into a free trade agreement with México and Canada, but the agreement was incomplete by design, as NAFTA’s supporters, in both parties, could not rally enough support for the agreement as it was, and were disinclined on various reasons to extend it. For this reason, it is currently easier to move objects, even businesses, around North América than people, in direct defiance of both the Socialist ideal of the international brotherhood of workers and the liberal belief in free-trade, which is held as an essential aspect of Smithean economics. (Buchanan and Young.) A report appearing in The Economist, a leading center-right international journal, in 2000, conceded that immigration had a slightly negative effect on individuals in high earning technology jobs and a more pronounced effect on unskilled laborers, but demonstrated the overall benefits to the U.S. economy, which, if properly managed, should benefit all residents of the country. The survey points out that, while dependents of immigrants are considered immigrants, adult children are not counted, meaning that their rôle in society is only noted as they receive benefits, not as the pay taxes, a systematic bias which leads to a severe underestimation of the economic benefits of immigration. (Economist) The most vocal critics of free and open borders have been labor unions, traditional bastions of Socialism now mercantilists, however even they have not been universal in their condemnation, the United Farm Workers of America, Cesar Chavez’s former union and the union most heavily influenced by immigration, is one of the more vocal voices for liberation, not least because of its high number of immigrant members. (UFW)
The state exists to serve both the individual and the collective good, and has no purpose when it neglects both the individual and the collective good, as is clearly the case in the instance of immigration when the good of the collective, that is the world economy, and the good of the individual, immigrants, is subjugated to the good of a minority group, regardless of how large this minority group is. There exists a common misconception that it is the duty of the state to protect its citizens, either collectively or as individuals. The population of any state is, at the time of this writing, a minority within the population of the world, and thus any actions taken to secure the position of the citizen of any stat above the citizens of other states are inherently antidemocratic. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that Mercantilism is an ineffectual economic system and that attempts to secure the economy of one state at the expense of the world economy are doomed to fail. When Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, he made it clear that the United States was to be a country where the rights of “all men” not the rights of the citizen, which are never mentioned in that document, were to be upheld. A leader who neglects the welfare of all men in favor of the supposed welfare of his voters must be either corrupt or foolish, and a state led by such leaders can only fail, turning perpetual inward and spiraling into oblivion and stagnation. In the context of The Bean Trees, Taylor’s actions are the actions of a patriot and a humanist, one who is not content to see the world run for the profit of the few at the expense not only of the many, but in the end, also of the few.
Such abstract thoughts are easier to comprehend when viewed in terms of individual human lives. It is easier to favor the deportation of undocumented workers than the deportation of Juan, who works at the raspado stand and gives a discount to longtime customers. But even immigrants who commit crimes on U.S. soil should not, cannot, be deported, firstly as many come from régimes with records of human rights abuses, thus making deportation a violation of U.S. and International Laws, but also because doing so denies the responsibility of the state for all those within its borders, regardless of their status. How could Taylor abandon her friends in the name of an abstract law enacted by a state which has done so little for her? Any Senator or Congressman who believes that she would displays a dangerous level of naďveté, if not stupidity. Taylor, like most human beings when faced with the same dilemma, has decided that an individual human being is more important than a legislation, which has no life. It is the decision made by Huck Finn when he says “all right, then, I’ll go to Hell” and a sentiment echoed throughout western literature, it is no less than the choice of Prometheus to defy the gods for the love of humanity. A Prometheus swells within the heart of every human, but he has not yet, with Herculean effort, been unbound. Each human must unbind his own Prometheus, as Taylor unbound hers. When the state neglects individuals, then more than ever it is the duty of the individual to protect other individuals, even when such actions require defiance of the government. Mahatma Ghandi preached a philosophy of Satyagraha, a philosophy of which transcends mere civil disobedience, in Ghandi jee’s own words to the people of Anand, “a satyagrahi's path is the path of love, not one of enmity. It should be the ambition of a satyagrahi to win over even the most hard-hearted of enemies through love.” The word Satyagraha contains implications of suffering, suffering in order to do what is right, and all must suffer this way or another when the government is unjust, hoping that through Satyagraha we may change the hearts of leaders and lead a nation to the waters of peace and tolerance. Doubtless Taylor’s Satyagraha would have been purer had she acted more openly, in the manner of Socrates’s defiance of the Athenian council, but should she have offered Estevan and Esperanza to this ideal? Satyagraha demands no such blood sacrifice. (Ghandian Institute.)
Appendix : Corespondence. To: minutemenHQ Subject: A Question Concerning your Organization Dear Sir or Madam, Are there currently and Hispanic members of your organization? Sincerly, ****
To **** Subject: Re: A Question Concerning Your Organization. ****, We do not ask that type of question of our volunteers. Works Cited Buchanan, James M. and Yong J. Yoon. “Globilization as Framed by the Two Logics of Trade.” The Independent Review. 6 (2003): 399 – 405. Klu Klux Klan. n.d. Klu Klux Klan. 7 May, 2006.<http://www.kkk.bz/index1.htm> MinutemenHQ. n.d. Minutemen Civil Defense Corps. 7 May, 2006. <http://www.minutemanhq.com/hq/> National Vanguard. 7 May, 2006. National Vanguard. 7 May, 2006. <http://www.nationalvanguard.org> United Farm Workers. 2006. United Farm Workers of America. 7 May, 2006. United States of America. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Immigration and Naturalization Legislation 1790 – 1996. Washington, D.C.: United States of America, 2003. United States of America. Federal Bureau of Investigations. Press Release: The FBI releases 19 photographs of individuals believed to be the hijackers of the four airliners that crashed on September 11, 01. Washington, D.C.: United States of America, 2001. Who Gains? Not Only the Immigrants, but America Too. The Economist. May 9, 2000. “Who is Richard Reid?” BBC News. 28 December, 2001. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1731568.stm>
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
You have a lot of grammar problems in how you link sentences together.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
What the bloody hell is this supposed to be?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I think it's a dream he had last night.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: I think it's a dream he had last night.
With references, no less.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
I am certainly glad to see how seriously this is being taken. Note, Estevan and Esperanza are charecters in a novel by Babbara Kingsolver, but could stand for any undocumented worker.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*gives Pel a wedgie*
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Were we supposed to take it seriously with that title?
Maybe, and this is just a suggestion, but maybe you should preface the title with some tags (i.e. **Seriously guys - Prometheus Bound? Notes on the Anti-Humanism of the United States Congress**Seriously...no joking).
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
The image of Prometheus is one of the most common in western culture, and Antihumanism is a common, albeit gravely mistaken in my view, philosophical school which seems to have become common in the U.S. Congress. Thus the title, combining an easily recognizable motif with a direct expression of content seems perfectly valid to me.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Thus the title, combining an easily recognizable motif with a direct expression of content seems perfectly valid to me.
And yet it doesn't seem to have resonated with your target audience the way you'd hoped it would. Why do you think that is?
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Pel, You just don't seem to get it.
Speaking/writing the way that you do doesn't convey a sense of intelligence and in many cases will mask what intelligence you do possess.
It's exposition with no purpose, and frankly, it's just unreadable.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Noemon, I can only assume that my view, which I still hold, as to the Anti-humanist influence in Congress is not universally shared, nor did I expect it to be. I did, however, expect this to spark an entirely different debate, i.e. one on the subject of Legalism vs. Humanism and their various rôles in shaping our society.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Do you actually pronounce "role" as though it had a circonflex over the "o?"
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
HumanTarget, I do not write to convey a sense of my own intelligence. I do, however, write knowing that there is a grand tradition of English prose writing and I strive, albeit feebly, to do justice to that grandeur. That is my only concern other than to convey information.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
twinky, yes to a degree, but I admit to being more careful about preserving diacritics in writing than in speech.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
Bull-honkery.
Here's how you "spark a debate" amongst adults, Pel:
"I've been thinking about the debate on illegal immigration and the building of a wall between the US and Mexico. The US Congress wants to do X, Y, and Z, but I agree/disagree based on B, C, and D. What I find particularly interesting is how closely this resembles ancient Greek mythology, in the sense that blah blah blah. What do you all think? Is this a matter of Legalism vs. Humanism, or something else entirely?"
Or something along those lines. I'm not sure what point it is you're trying to make, exactly, so you may need to change a few of the X's and D's around a little. Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Pel, was this written specifically for Hatrack?
--j_k
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: I did, however, expect this to spark an entirely different debate, i.e. one on the subject of Legalism vs. Humanism and their various rôles in shaping our society.
And yet it failed to do so. Why do you think that that is?
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
JK, no, it was not. The current form is one I turned in for credit to a Prof, but the ideas and much of the writing predates the assignment.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: twinky, yes to a degree, but I admit to being more careful about preserving diacritics in writing than in speech.
Pel, honey, nobody loves geeks more than I do. Really. Smart guys are hot. But even I am starting to want to give you a wedgie.
You have found what could be a comfy place here - a community where people will listen to your ideas with a degree of respect and understanding that you aren't going to find just anywhere. Most of the folks here are pretty smart.
Do you really want to wreck that? To annoy or insult people here to the point where we don't bother reading what you've written? Where even we don't listen to you?
Please think about it. I am on your side.
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
I'm not.
Pel was an insufferable bore and blow hard on Ornery and he has not changed.
msquared
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Pel-
I tried reading this, I really did. I feel bad about not finishing many of your posts in other threads. Golly though, you REALLY need to use some periods every now and then. I'm just a simple engineer and that many run-on sentences makes me winded. By the time I read some sentence that had what seemed like 17 different clauses in it, I gave up on this one too. There is something to be said for expressing ideas simply and straighforward.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: twinky, yes to a degree, but I admit to being more careful about preserving diacritics in writing than in speech.
You realize that the circumflex in that instance has no effect on the pronunciation, right? That it does nothing more than show that a letter has been elided?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Phanto: You have a lot of grammar problems in how you link sentences together.
I didn't even get far enough in to notice any grammar problems. The impenetrable blocks of text deterred me. Give me some paragraph breaks first, and then I might try to read it.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Jon Boy, it also shows that the letter is long, and there are seven paragraph breaks.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
Give Pel a break. I think he's trying hard to intellectualize a position that's hard to justify in the history of jurisprudence. I think he's saying that its OK to ignore certain laws (in this case immigration laws) if he thinks they are immoral and arbitrary. In other words, its better to let Pel or foreigners judge which laws they will obey and which they will ignore because that's the nice thing to do.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: I did, however, expect this to spark an entirely different debate, i.e. one on the subject of Legalism vs. Humanism and their various rôles in shaping our society.
And yet it failed to do so. Why do you think that that is?
I'll bet it's everybody else's fault.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: [twinky, yes to a degree, but I admit to being more careful about preserving diacritics in writing than in speech.
Okay. I was just wondering how you managed to pronounce the circonflex without pronouncing the French "r." I actually speak French without an English accent, and I'm not quite sure how I'd do it.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
quote:Originally posted by msquared: I'm not.
Pel was an insufferable bore and blow hard on Ornery and he has not changed.
Yeah, that's about how I feel, Mark - minus the part about not being on his side.
Pel, if you shape up you can do well here. If not, your glory will pass from here as it did at Ornery - likely in the same way.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Jon Boy, it also shows that the letter is long, and there are seven paragraph breaks.
Okay, so it looks like you might be right about the circumflexed o. However, it makes the vowel long, not the letter. I'd be interested to know if you also pronounce role with a uvular r and a non-velarized l. After all, why try to pronounce it like the French if you're only going to get it 1/3 right?
You put seven paragraph breaks in something that came out to three pages of text in single-spaced 10-point Arial with 1.5-inch margins. That's about two paragraph breaks a page, which does not make for readable type.
Also, you might be interested to know that you earned a Flesch Reading Ease score of 25.9 (100 being easiest to read). You might be able to bump this score up a bit if you didn't average 40.7 words per sentence.
Edit: Heh. Twinky beat me to that first part.
And another question: why the acute accent in America? You can't claim to be preserving a mark if it was never there to begin with.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
You know, Jon Boy, I never even realized that it's spelled "circumflex" in English -- I've never had to use it in English. I learned it with French and have only ever used it in that language, until now. Hence, "circonflex." I'll try to remember to use the English spelling when I'm writing in Enligsh. Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Twinky: For a long time I only knew the accents by their French names, because, as you said, no one ever talks about them in English, so it's not at all surprising that you wouldn't know, either. I think I learned them sometime in high school thanks to my compulsive reading of reference books.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
I usually use the Spanish América, to refer to all of América as opposed to the English America to refer to the U.S. As for your point about the supposed ability of algorithms to determine readability, I did not have any complaints about this paper from anyone who read it before it being posted on Hatrack. Make of that what you will.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I'm sorry. I just couldn't help it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Different venue. Like the way even amazing opera singers sound "off" when they sing pop music.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Perhaps, I was worried that the tone in my essay was actually a little too populist and not academic enough.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Edit: Grr, you beat me to it. I was going to say something like "Well, I think you dodged the bullet on that one Pelegius" but I wanted to be the first one laughing. Missed it anyway
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:I did not have any complaints about this paper from anyone who read it before it being posted on Hatrack. Make of that what you will.
Yeah, it's called 'writing for your audience'. I wouldn't worry about it, though. There's no audience for something like this.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Has your teacher returned the paper yet? (Not asking for the grade, just wondering.)
--j_k [who edited this]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Pelegius,
You essay is all over the map. In order to find a discernable thesis, I had to wade through paragraphs of your vamping.
Let's take this first paragraph:
quote: The site closely resembles what Berlin might have looked like in Nineteen Sixty-One, just as the wall that came to represent the iron curtain dividing Europe and, with Europe, much of humanity, was being built. Like the Berliners, the people on either side of the wall speak the same language and belong to the same nation, a nation divided by states, and, like the Berliners, one side is condemned to poverty under a system which offers little chance of self-improvement and no chance of assistance. Differences exist, certainly: the Berlin Wall, which started out as a barricade little sturdier than this one in Arizona, was built to prevent emigration, this wall is to prevent immigration, and the government of México is simply corrupt, not the terrifying authoritarian of ill-named German Democratic Republic. Such protestations, while accurate, can hardly be of any comfort to the residents of the border shanty towns for whom prosperity must seem to loom over the horizon each day, separated from them only by a seven foot fence and a heavily armed border guard. The barbed wire and submachine guns tell the story of a war, a war not between states, but between a state and individuals. The battles for survival along the border, with families being faced with paramilitaries and children behind barbed wire detention center walls, is echoed by a second war, the war of ideas, fought on the floors of Congress and on the streets of cities, in which free-trade must battle mercantilism, humanism face neo-conservatism and in which the fundamental aspects of humanity and the relations between individuals and the state must be addressed.
What's the subject of the paragraph? Is it this cite? Is it Berlin? Is it the Berliners? Is it the difference between us and the Berliners or the similarities?
And look at your second sentence. We don't have a real wall, so you are talking about a metaphorical wall, but you said, "Like the Berliners," so you are talking about people who were dealing with a real wall. But the referent to your "people" is ambiguous. Are you talking about hatrackers, USA citizens, and whoever you are talking about still has an ambiguous relationship with this wall, except we know it's a metaphorical wall?
A very clear writer once told me to have one subject per paragraph, two subjects if necessary. Try it out.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
The wall I was talking about, in Arizona, is real.
j_k, yeah, she has and she liked it very much.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Pelegius, you have inspired me to quote Chesterton, for which I thank you.
quote:It is a good exercise to try for once in a way to express any opinion one holds in words of one syllable. If you say "The social utility of the indeterminate sentence is recognized by all criminologists as a part of our sociological evolution towards a more humane and scientific view of punishment,"ť you can go on talking like that for hours with hardly a movement of the gray matter inside your skull. But if you begin "I wish Jones to go to gaol and Brown to say when Jones shall come out,"ť you will discover, with a thrill of horror, that you are obliged to think. The long words are not the hard words, it is the short words that are hard.
Posted by ssasse (Member # 9516) on :
I love you, kmboots.
And you as well, Jim-Me.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Pelegius - I'm a senior at a top-50 liberal arts college, majoring in economics and philosophy (with an emphasis on ethics). I also particpate in Ethics Bowl, which is basically debate in applied ethics. These experiences have given me a pretty good background to write and discuss issues such as immigration, which has political, economic, and ethical components.
The type of prose you exhibit here would be thrown out by every professor I've had a class with. Especially the philosophy professors. You have some good ideas floating around in your mind, I'm sure, but your writing needs a little work if you want to express those ideas effectively. First - get a copy of Strunk's Element of Style. Read it. Second - consider getting a copy of The Oxford Essential Guide to Critical Writing, or a simliar puplication. Read it. Third - read through the Economist's style guide (http://economist.com/research/StyleGuide/). The Economist has some of the best writing in the world, imho. It's witty, clear, and clean prose that develops and defines the issue, while often arguing for a particular stance. You'd do well to try to emulate it.
Academese, even for an academic, is not something you want to aspire to. If your teachers approve of your prose, then I can't think much of your teachers. And it's not going to cut it when you get to college.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Pel, I just want to say something.
I am a huge fan of dense, erudite prose and poesy. I used to own a James Joyce T-shirt. There are poets I admire that other people just don't get, because they either don't understand the references or just don't take away the sheer, untrammeled joy I feel from seeing the written word teased and tweaked and splashed across a page.
I have occasionally purchased novels whose plots were completely uninteresting to me just because the sentence structure was, in my opinion, complicated and delicious.
You have a hint of this in your writing; your point, as it should in these pieces, wanders around and randomly abuts certain semiotic touchstones, looking for things to stick to and transform into something greater. It's kind of like a cross between a single strand of spaghetti and a single fleck of saffron in that respect.
But this is not the way to communicate. When James Joyce wanted coffee, he did not say, "Valdez awakes, struggling with his donkey -- or was it burro -- through oily clouds and misty mountains of despair. The eagles! The eagles! With milk!"
If you're writing to entertain us, do like monteverdi does and grab your own little thread (or, better yet, a literary blog), so that those of us who find the act of reading entertaining can drop by when we want. But if you're writing to get a point across, and if you know what that point is and aren't just using your rambling writing style to explore a dozen memes on the way to an uncertain conclusion, try to invite discussion. The way to do this is through concise, clear, and open-ended speech; you can still be playful and witty, but it's not necessary (and is in fact counter-productive) to be heavy-handed.
People aren't going to drop by what you've written to admire it. Yet. They're going to drop by to participate, and so far the only hook you've given them is the opportunity to poke at you for being stiff.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: I did, however, expect this to spark an entirely different debate, i.e. one on the subject of Legalism vs. Humanism and their various rôles in shaping our society.
And yet it failed to do so. Why do you think that that is?
I'll bet it's everybody else's fault.
LOL
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
I just can't believe that a teacher told you this was good writing.. God you are going to get murdered in university...
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
I would be grateful if anyone could post specific suggestions. The only one I have heard is that the paragraphs are too long, which is debatable (there are certainly world-class writers, such as Sartre who would use much shorter ones, and others, equally well-respected, who would use much longer ones, Victor Hugo springing to mind.) I am seriously interested in serious suggestions, but less seriously interested in less serious suggestions.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
I did not comment on the length of your paragraphs. I commented on the varied subjects within your paragraphs.
Length would not be a problem if all of your sentences within a given paragraph were about the same thing.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
Pelegius, your last two posts are so readable, please keep using this style. It completely changes how I perceive your tone. In a good way! Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
My suggestion was serious. Try using as many one syllable words as possible. It's actually quite a challenge. In the simple sentences here, I'm averaging about half.
Edit to agree that your last few posts are much more readable.
[ July 13, 2006, 08:51 PM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Deadly serious:
quote:The image of Prometheus is one of the most common in western culture
You mean, like, about a quarter of the population knows what happened to him and why?
Pelegius. Prometheus is, first of all, although one of the more famous Greek Myth stories, not exactly a "common image" at all. A "common image" would be like the American Eagle something everyone can relate to.
It's okay to mention this kind of thing in your essays- occaisionally, if you think you have a good case- but you must give a short footnote or explanation of the story, even it's just a sentence. People are not going to get it, otherwise.
People are right about trouble in University. Essays must have clarity first, and you are anything but clear.
quote: The site closely resembles what Berlin might have looked like in Nineteen Sixty-One
What site? I can figure it out and I understand that you are trying to do, setting a scene by making an allusion, but you go on and on about Berlin and only far later make a loose reference to whatever Arizona fence you are talking about:
quote:than this one in Arizona
You can start obliquely like this, but sooner or later you do have to say what the heck you are talking about. Clarity.
quote:[quote] It is the essential thesis of democracy that laws have no virtue in themselves,
Here you make what is actually an opinion statement absolute: "the essential thesis of democracy", which IMO is a no-no. I have been squished by various professors and TAs for writing half as 'absolutely' as this.
quote:...has decided that an individual human being is more important than a legislation, which has no life.
The "which has no life" on the end of this statement is completely uncessary. It just makes the sentence that much longer and windier, which brings me to my next problem with your writing.
Sentence length. Vary it. All your sentences are the same length and all are far too long. Writing constantly in the same length sentences, especially if they are as long, windy (as in wiggly, not moving air) and flowery as yours, makes people's eyes glaze over. This is what people here have done and people here are much smarter than the average population.
It is as detrimental to write in long complicated sentences all the time as it is to write consistantly in short simple sentences.
quote:Such abstract thoughts are easier to comprehend when viewed in terms of individual human lives.
The fact that this is one of the shortest and easiest to read sentences in your whole essay is astonishing- and very, very bad. Sentences that are shorter can carry far much more punch and weight than the long, complicated sentences you love so much. They are also far easier to understand; no disassembly required.
If your sentences are all varied in length, your writing will be far more interesting and far easier on the eye of the reader. And your reader is important. Your reader is the entire point of the essay. You must communicate information not verbosity.
This goes for your paragraphs as well as your words. Variety is interesting, whether it is in your choice of words, your sentences or your paragraphs. Sure, you can have long sentences and long words and long paragraphs just not all the time. Gettit?
Clarity and Variety!
I have a friend who writes very good essays and consistantly gets As. (Mine are pretty good, but I wouldn't say they were exactly the model to follow.) I think I have a few of hers on my computer. If you would like to see an example of a decent (mine) or a very good (hers) essay, I would be happy to e-mail one to you (English-subject only for her). I sure she wouldn't mind.
We both attend the University of Toronto in Canada. I wouldn't say the standard is low there. Frankly, I can't imagine that this would be anything but a C or D there- if that- and it would depend what the aim of the paper was.
Pelegius, you may feel like we are consistantly dog-piling you about your writing but we are serious about the University problem. I doubt that you would do well at any University with writing like this. You are obviously very full of information, you just need to communicate it in an intelligent way, rather than like a mad and mumbly professor with overly-intellectual verbal diarrhea.
Posted by Amilia (Member # 8912) on :
Well, since you asked . . . here is how I would rewrite one of your paragraphs. I am basing this on the suggestions made it this thread. Original:
quote:The state exists to serve both the individual and the collective good, and has no purpose when it neglects both the individual and the collective good, as is clearly the case in the instance of immigration when the good of the collective, that is the world economy, and the good of the individual, immigrants, is subjugated to the good of a minority group, regardless of how large this minority group is. There exists a common misconception that it is the duty of the state to protect its citizens, either collectively or as individuals. The population of any state is, at the time of this writing, a minority within the population of the world, and thus any actions taken to secure the position of the citizen of any stat above the citizens of other states are inherently antidemocratic. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that Mercantilism is an ineffectual economic system and that attempts to secure the economy of one state at the expense of the world economy are doomed to fail. When Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, he made it clear that the United States was to be a country where the rights of “all men” not the rights of the citizen, which are never mentioned in that document, were to be upheld. A leader who neglects the welfare of all men in favor of the supposed welfare of his voters must be either corrupt or foolish, and a state led by such leaders can only fail, turning perpetual inward and spiraling into oblivion and stagnation. In the context of The Bean Trees, Taylor’s actions are the actions of a patriot and a humanist, one who is not content to see the world run for the profit of the few at the expense not only of the many, but in the end, also of the few.
Rewrite:
quote:The state exists to serve both the individual and the collective good; it has no purpose when it neglects either. Unfortunately, our current harsh immigration laws do just that. The good of the collective, the world economy, and the good of the individual, the immigrant, are subjugated to the good of a minority group, the citizens of the United States. The population of any state is a minority within the population of the world. Therefore, any action taken to secure the position of the citizens of any state over that of the citizens of any other state is counterproductive. When Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, he made it clear that the United States was to be a country where the rights of “all men” were to be upheld. The word "citizen" is never mentioned in the document. A leader who neglects the welfare of all men in favor of the immagined welfare of his voters must be either corrupt or foolish, and a state led by such leaders can only fail.
For the most part, I just chopped your sentences up into smaller peices and removed points that did not seem to relate to the subject of the paragraph.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Hey, Pel, good for you for asking for suggestions. I think you're pretty smart, and I think a lot of people will get a lot more out of your posts if you can put some of these suggestions to work.
I'm also glad the thread has moved toward helpfulness - I don't think any particular comment was too mean, but it was getting close to piling on. This is much better.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Pel, a reader shouldn't have to refer to an appendicies to understand what your first point is most of the time. I think that is the entire point of some of those earlier comments.
I often have to retype my papers to take out excessive wordage, so I know it isn't easy, but it does make the final paper a lot more readable. It also makes your points easier to comprehend, and debate.
Good luck.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I'll try to offer up some constructive criticism, via the Economist Style Guide.
quote:Metaphors
“A newly invented metaphor assists thought by evoking a visual image,” said Orwell, “while on the other hand a metaphor which is technically ‘dead’ (eg, iron resolution) has in effect reverted to being an ordinary word and can generally be used without loss of vividness. But in between these two classes there is a huge dump of worn-out metaphors which are merely used because they save people the trouble of inventing phrases for themselves.”
You do a good job of avoiding tired-out metaphors, but the use of some 'dead' metaphors could make your sentences more succinct and accessible to readers.
quote: Short words
Use them. They are often Anglo-Saxon rather than Latin in origin. They are easy to spell and easy to understand... “Short words are best and the old words when short are best of all.” (Winston Churchill)
On a quick scan of your essay, the words "necessitating" and "innumerably often" caught my eye as having much simpler substitutes. I have trouble with keeping my words short at times as well. And, of course, sometimes a long word packs more meaning or describes something perfectly. But an essay filled with them is tiring on the brain, and needlessly so, if you could use simple language.
quote: Unnecessary words
Some words add nothing but length to your prose. Use adjectives to make your meaning more precise and be cautious of those you find yourself using to make it more emphatic. The word "very" is a case in point. If it occurs in a sentence you have written, try leaving it out and see whether the meaning is changed. "The omens were good" may have more force than 'The omens were very good"...In general, be concise. Try to be economical in your account or argument (“The best way to be boring is to leave nothing out”—Voltaire). Similarly, try to be economical with words. “As a general rule, run your pen through every other word you have written; you have no idea what vigour it will give to your style.” (Sydney Smith) Raymond Mortimer put it even more crisply when commenting about Susan Sontag: “Her journalism, like a diamond, will sparkle more if it is cut.”
Please take this advice to heart. Many of your sentences have unneeded words and many of your paragraphs have useless sentences. For some people (both you and I) it's much easier to write a five-page paper over a two-page paper. This is because we blather.
quote: Active, not passive
Be direct. A hit B describes the event more concisely than B was hit by A.
Many of your sentences are passive. Sometimes that's good in academic writing - too much active can seem too... excited? emotional? Something like that. But, in general, you should aim for active sentences.
quote: Jargon
Avoid it. You may have to think harder if you are not to use jargon, but you can still be precise. Technical terms should be used in their proper context; do not use them out of it. In many instances simple words can do the job of exponential (try fast), interface (frontier or border) and so on. If you find yourself tempted to write about affirmative action or corporate governance, you will have to explain what it is; with luck, you will then not have to use the actual expression.
Avoid, above all, the kind of jargon that tries either to dignify nonsense with seriousness (The appointee...should have a proven track record of operating at a senior level within a multi-site international business, preferably within a service- or brand-oriented environment , declared an advertisement for a financial controller for The Economist Group) or to obscure the truth (We shall not launch the ground offensive until we have attrited the Republican Guard to the point when they no longer have an effective offensive capacity —the Pentagon's way of saying that the allies would not fight on the ground until they had killed so many Iraqis that the others would not attack). What was meant by the Israeli defence ministry when it issued the following press release remains unclear: The United States and Israel now possess the capability to conduct real-time simulations with man in the loop for full-scale theatre missile defence architectures for the Middle East .
Try not to use foreign words and phrases unless there is no English alternative, which is unusual (so a year or per year, not per annum; a person or per person, not per capita; beyond one's authority, not ultra vires; and so on).
I had to include the whole Economist briefing on this - it's just that good. You constantly use jargon - incorrectly at times, I might add - and it doesn't do much for your readers. Either they won't know what you're saying - in which case why try to communicate anything? - or they'll be irritated that you're trying (and failing) to use jargon to show off your knowledge. Anything can be explained simply, with basic vocab, if you try hard enough.
quote: Tone
The reader is primarily interested in what you have to say. By the way in which you say it you may encourage him either to read on or to stop reading. If you want him to read on:
Do not be stuffy. “To write a genuine, familiar or truly English style”, said Hazlitt, “is to write as anyone would speak in common conversation who had a thorough command or choice of words or who could discourse with ease, force and perspicuity setting aside all pedantic and oratorical flourishes.”
In “How to Be a Better Reporter”, Arthur Brisbane put it like this: “Avoid fancy writing. The most powerful words are the simplest. ‘To be or not to be, that is the question,’ ‘In the beginning was the word,’ ‘We are such stuff as dreams are made on, and our little life is rounded with a sleep,’ ‘Out, out, brief candle,’ ‘The rest is silence.’ Nothing fancy in those quotations. A natural style is the only style.”
Your tone is the number one thing that is irritating most of the readers who come into your threads.
quote:Syntax
Try not be sloppy in the construction of your sentences and paragraphs. Do not use a participle unless you make it clear what it applies to... To never split an infinitive is quite easy... Make sure that plural nouns have plural verbs... Use the subjunctive properly... Take care with the genitive... Respect the gerund... Do your best to be lucid (“I see but one rule: to be clear”, Stendhal). Simple sentences help. Keep complicated constructions and gimmicks to a minimum, if necessary by remembering the New Yorker's comment: “Backward ran sentences until reeled the mind.”... Mark Twain described how a good writer treats sentences: “At times he may indulge himself with a long one, but he will make sure there are no folds in it, no vaguenesses, no parenthetical interruptions of its view as a whole; when he has done with it, it won't be a sea-serpent with half of its arches under the water; it will be a torch-light procession.”
Long paragraphs, like long sentences, can confuse the reader. “The paragraph”, according to Fowler, “is essentially a unit of thought, not of length; it must be homogeneous in subject matter and sequential in treatment.” One-sentence paragraphs should be used only occasionally.
Clear thinking is the key to clear writing. “A scrupulous writer”, observed Orwell, “in every sentence that he writes will ask himself at least four questions, thus: What am I trying to say? What words will express it? What image or idiom will make it clearer? Is this image fresh enough to have an effect? And he will probably ask himself two more: Could I put it more shortly? Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly?”
If you don't recognize the parts of speech that the above quote is referring to, then you *may* be using it wrong. Complicated sentences aren't needed, most of the time - we aren't writing in German!
Finally, I'd say one of my biggest problems with your writing is that you're often simply *wrong* in your claims, particularly in philosophy & economics (my two areas of interest). The analogy between the Berlin Wall and whatever is going on in Arizona is incredibly stretched. The United States is not practicing mercantilism by keeping immigrants out (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism). While I haven't been following the immigration debate closely, I haven't seen anything in the mainstream media that I might call "Objectivist-influenced neo-liberalism." There is plenty of philosophy that suggests that there is something inherently good about The Law, even though there are bad laws. In fact, I'd say that that's the current mainstream view in philosophy of law, although that's not always been the case. Your essential thesis certainly isn't essential, and I doubt it's true. Greatest good for the greatest number isn't equivalent to authoritarian, and could be meshed with democracy. Locke believed in Natural Law, but he also stated that all of our natural rights came, ultimately, from God. Do you really want to go down that path in your humanist argument? And you've given no justification for why the set of (limited) rights given to U.S. citizens are equivalent to the set of natural rights given to all mankind. While the U.S. does have some Calvinist background, I would hardly call Calvinist doctrine our country's root. I don't think the simple fact that it's easier to move boxes than living people debases free-trade - free trade is a rather complicated issue, and borders must be opened slowly. The Economist is not a journal, but a weekly magazine. Again, you're using mercantilism in an incorrect manner. Finally, there are so many mistaken ideas - which you present as the simple truth - in the last two paragraphs that it's painful.
And I didn't even get into an analysis of the actual reasoning of your arguments.
Learning how to write well is difficult. I've been there. You've shown a remarkable willingness to take criticism, which I admire, and I hope you continue to listen to the advice of others and work at improving your writing style.
If you'd like to see a couple of college essays, I have three on hand that I've gotten A's on: one is on corruption in China (written for International Econ), another on a will formulation of divine command theory, and the last on the meaning of life as seen in The Stranger with various takes by other philosophers (both written for a philosophy class entitled "Godless Universe"). Just email me (in profile).
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
I have a very strong vocabulary; one that puts me in the upper tier. I do not, however, have a vocabulary that enables me to read very high level writing. The high level writing does NOT use complex vocabulary for capricious reasons. It does it because it expresses the ideas better, more efficently.
I could say: "The hane threatened an oitoishi, after a throw in, so white had to atari, escape, and let B connect."
That would be an acceptable use of jargon.
I can't think so easily of an acceptable use of complex wording combined with complex structure. This is simply because I don't think like that. I would have to read a high amount of it to think it.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
i liked the article and i think it was well done.
Posted by Kamisaki (Member # 6309) on :
Well, I actually did manage to plow through that whole jumbled morass of an opening post, and I don't really have anything more to say about it that others haven't said better. However, I do have to say that the writing tips offered by others in this thread have been excellent, especially Jhai's. Those quotes from the Economist are great, and seeing how I'm currently in a writing class for the first time in a couple years, I greatly appreciate them for my own sake. I would also greatly appreciate it if Pelegius applied those tips, for the sake of all Hatrackers.
Phanto, You're describing Street Fighter, right? Hadouken!!! Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: i liked the article and i think it was well done.
I rest my case.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
This one is an absolute GEM!!! One Sentence, mind you, and he covers racism, the kkk, the constitution framers and a good deal else with one mighty blow or hot air:
quote: Racism is heavily prevalent among many anti-immigration organizations, with new anti-immigrant lobbied joined some older groups such as the Klu Klux Klan, which devotes much of its web site (www.kkk.bz) to arguing that people of non-northern European descent were never supposed to be allowed to immigrate and there is doubtless a great degree of truth in their belief that many of the signers of the Constitution agreed with their views; however, regardless of the personal views of any signatories, such a specification was never written into the Constitution and if it had been, would have been overturned some time ago, or else the country would have collapsed in the late nineteenth century.
Many of the constitutional framers "agreed" with an organization that began a hundred years after the birth of the nation. Makes sense to me!
In defense of Peligius, I am inspired to paraphrase a recent favorite: Sir Philip Sidney
"The Poet claimeth nothing, and therefore never lieth."
:::On a more serious note::: Thank You Jhai for that engrossing post. I hadn't heard all of those quotes, and they are, every one of them, good to remember. Perhaps VERY good to remember. Perhaps not?
I jibe and crow alot out of turn, but I really do like that some of you go the distance in responses for Peligius. This is encouraging to me in a strange way, though I don't know why.
[ July 14, 2006, 05:31 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: i liked the article and i think it was well done.
I rest my case.
I now propose my theory (still in development), that Blayne and Pelegius are the same person. Think of them as Dr. Jeckle and Mr. Hyde, if you will. I don't mean to suppose that their seperate existances are some oh-so-subtle rouse on anyone's part, but merely that one must be the doppelganger for the other!
But which the madman and which the gentleman scientist? No-one knows!!!
Posted by Lissande (Member # 350) on :
If Victor Hugo is even on your radar of writers to emulate, I can see why there might be a certain amount of talking at cross purposes going on.
Hugo. Good stories, bad writing.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Great tips, Jhai.
Excellent quote, Jim-me.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
who what where now?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Blayne, the gist is to state a full thought in words of short length, like this.
(Edited because I missed one.)
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Teshi, off the top of my head I can think of several references to Prometheus in the cultural lexicon: Prometheus Bound by Ćschylus (perhaps slightly esoteric), Prometheus Unbound by Shelly, The Prometheus Statue at the Rockefeller Center, The Prometheus Mural at the New York Library and a line from the musical "Camelot." In adition the addictive Promethean is in common usage, making the Prometheus myth is not just a well-known myth, it is cornerstone of our culture. When the Rockefeller center was built, a quote from the same play I quoted was inscribed in large gold letters, no footnote, none needed.
One of my favorite quotes is from Les Misérables, when the revolutionary leader addresses the assembled students. It is one paragraph, a model of nobility and clarity.
quote: "Citizens, do you picture the future to yourselves? The streets of cities inundated with light, green branches on the thresholds, nations sisters, men just, old men blessing children, the past loving the present, thinkers entirely at liberty, believers on terms of full equality, for religion heaven, God the direct priest, human conscience become an altar, no more hatreds, the fraternity of the workshop and the school, for sole penalty and recompense fame, work for all, right for all, peace over all, no more bloodshed, no more wars, happy mothers! To conquer matter is the first step; to realize the ideal is the second. Reflect on what progress has already accomplished. Formerly, the first human races beheld with terror the hydra pass before their eyes, breathing on the waters, the dragon which vomited flame, the griffin who was the monster of the air, and who flew with the wings of an eagle and the talons of a tiger; fearful beasts which were above man. Man, nevertheless, spread his snares, consecrated by intelligence, and finally conquered these monsters. We have vanquished the hydra, and it is called the locomotive; we are on the point of vanquishing the griffin, we already grasp it, and it is called the balloon. On the day when this Promethean task shall be accomplished, and when man shall have definitely harnessed to his will the triple Chimaera of antiquity, the hydra, the dragon and the griffin, he will be the master of water, fire, and of air, and he will be for the rest of animated creation that which the ancient gods formerly were to him. Courage, and onward! Citizens, whither are we going? To science made government, to the force of things become the sole public force, to the natural law, having in itself its sanction and its penalty and promulgating itself by evidence, to a dawn of truth corresponding to a dawn of day. We are advancing to the union of peoples; we are advancing to the unity of man. No more fictions; no more parasites. The real governed by the true, that is the goal. Civilization will hold its assizes at the summit of Europe, and, later on, at the centre of continents, in a grand parliament of the intelligence. Something similar has already been seen. The amphictyons had two sittings a year, one at Delphos the seat of the gods, the other at Thermopylae, the place of heroes. Europe will have her amphictyons; the globe will have its amphictyons. France bears this sublime future in her breast. This is the gestation of the nineteenth century. That which Greece sketched out is worthy of being finished by France. Listen to me, you, Feuilly, valiant artisan, man of the people. I revere you. Yes, you clearly behold the future, yes, you are right. You had neither father nor mother, Feuilly; you adopted humanity for your mother and right for your father. You are about to die, that is to say to triumph, here. Citizens, whatever happens to-day, through our defeat as well as through our victory, it is a revolution that we are about to create. As conflagrations light up a whole city, so revolutions illuminate the whole human race. And what is the revolution that we shall cause? I have just told you, the Revolution of the True. From a political point of view, there is but a single principle; the sovereignty of man over himself. This sovereignty of myself over myself is called Liberty. Where two or three of these sovereignties are combined, the state begins. But in that association there is no abdication. Each sovereignty concedes a certain quantity of itself, for the purpose of forming the common right. This quantity is the same for all of us. This identity of concession which each makes to all, is called Equality. Common right is nothing else than the protection of all beaming on the right of each. This protection of all over each is called Fraternity. The point of intersection of all these assembled sovereignties is called society. This intersection being a junction, this point is a knot. Hence what is called the social bond. Some say social contract; which is the same thing, the word contract being etymologically formed with the idea of a bond. Let us come to an understanding about equality; for, if liberty is the summit, equality is the base. Equality, citizens, is not wholly a surface vegetation, a society of great blades of grass and tiny oaks; a proximity of jealousies which render each other null and void; legally speaking, it is all aptitudes possessed of the same opportunity; politically, it is all votes possessed of the same weight; religiously, it is all consciences possessed of the same right. Equality has an organ: gratuitous and obligatory instruction. The right to the alphabet, that is where the beginning must be made. The primary school imposed on all, the secondary school offered to all, that is the law. From an identical school, an identical society will spring. Yes, instruction! light! light! everything comes from light, and to it everything returns. Citizens, the nineteenth century is great, but the twentieth century will be happy. Then, there will be nothing more like the history of old, we shall no longer, as to-day, have to fear a conquest, an invasion, a usurpation, a rivalry of nations, arms in hand, an interruption of civilization depending on a marriage of kings, on a birth in hereditary tyrannies, a partition of peoples by a congress, a dismemberment because of the failure of a dynasty, a combat of two religions meeting face to face, like two bucks in the dark, on the bridge of the infinite; we shall no longer have to fear famine, farming out, prostitution arising from distress, misery from the failure of work and the scaffold and the sword, and battles and the ruffianism of chance in the forest of events. One might almost say: There will be no more events. We shall be happy. The human race will accomplish its law, as the terrestrial globe accomplishes its law; harmony will be re-established between the soul and the star; the soul will gravitate around the truth, as the planet around the light. Friends, the present hour in which I am addressing you, is a gloomy hour; but these are terrible purchases of the future. A revolution is a toll. Oh! the human race will be delivered, raised up, consoled! We affirm it on this barrier. Whence should proceed that cry of love, if not from the heights of sacrifice? Oh my brothers, this is the point of junction, of those who think and of those who suffer; this barricade is not made of paving-stones, nor of joists, nor of bits of iron; it is made of two heaps, a heap of ideas, and a heap of woes. Here misery meets the ideal. The day embraces the night, and says to it: `I am about to die, and thou shalt be born again with me.' From the embrace of all desolations faith leaps forth. Sufferings bring hither their agony and ideas their immortality. This agony and this immortality are about to join and constitute our death. Brothers, he who dies here dies in the radiance of the future, and we are entering a tomb all flooded with the dawn."
Les Misérables was written to communicate Hugo's ideals, which it did to an astonishing degree, and is today revered as one of the greatest of all novels, and yet, I have heard it said on internet fora that this paragraph is an example of truly bad writing. I might then ask who writes well, if Hugo wrote poorly.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Not only is it an example of poor writing, I would argue that Hugo wrote it as an example of poor writing. I think it's self-consciously parodic.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
It probably sounds nice and flowery as a speech, but I don't think it has much substance behind it - and that comes out when you sit down and look at the text. Simply using big words and talking about big ideas with grandiose imagery doesn't make a speech or written work good.
Think of the most famous *actual* speeches in history. MLK Jr's "I have a dream." The Gettysburg Address. Churchill's "Blood, Sweat, and Tears" JFK's inaugural address ("Ask not what your country...) Robert Kennedy's speech on the death of MLK Jr. FDR's declaration of war.
These are some of the most powerful speeches made in recent history. Why are they so moving? Why do they affect so many people?
Hint - it's not because they use big words or extended metaphors or try to discuss all of the "great ideas" in human history.
[ July 14, 2006, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: Jhai ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Pel, I love Hugo. If you will notice, though, he intersperses short sentences with his long ones.
"Revolution is a toll."
"This protection of all over each is called Fraternity."
"Citizens, do you picture the future to yourselves?"
"Courage, and onward!"
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Fire bad!
Posted by kwsni (Member # 1831) on :
Tree pretty?
Ni!
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Jhai, I would argue that all of those speeches, with the possible exception of MLK's, are largely empty. Lincoln and Churchill did far better on other occasions:
quote: But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, "This was their finest hour."
Churchill
quote: With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.
On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago, all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it--all sought to avert it. While the inaugeral [sic] address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war--seeking to dissole [sic] the Union, and divide effects, by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came.... ne eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war; while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war, the magnitude, or the duration, which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has his own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!" If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope--fervently do we pray--that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether"
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
*shakes head*
You're seeking advice about how to improve your prose, Pel. Those speechs are *some* of the best ever spoken - judged both by the reaction they got at the time and looking back through history. Communication is judged by how well those who hear it understand the message. The vast majority of people see the speeches I mentioned as very, very good at sending an important message.
Do you think everyone else is wrong about these speeches, or could you perhaps be missing something?
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
The speaches I cited by Churchill and Lilcoln are better becouse they have a degree of depth to them. I never much liked the Gettysburg Adress, it says to little. The greatest speech, albeit fictitious, is Marc Antony's Eulogy in the Shakespearean version of Julius Cćsar.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I must disagree with you about the Gettysburg Address.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
What does it actually say? It is essentially empty rhetoric commiserating a bloody battle. It was the perfect speech for the moment, and deserves to be remembered, but it is not one of the great works of modern philosophical communication. His Second Inaugural Address, on the other hand, is.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: The speaches I cited by Churchill and Lilcoln are better becouse they have a degree of depth to them. I never much liked the Gettysburg Adress, it says to little. The greatest speech, albeit fictitious, is Marc Antony's Eulogy in the Shakespearean version of Julius Cćsar.
The Gettysburg adress lasted what? all of 3 minutes? There is power in your choices about presentation as well. Please do us all a favor and read Aristotle's Poetics, or rhetoric, or prefereably both. I know. You're going say:
"Though I have lightly perused those anti-deluvian documents, mine own hubris doth forbid me to invest but the slightest turn of the clock to them...."
Gah.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Twenty minutes of content is better than three minutes without any. You may have noticed that the best films tend to be long, becouse the explore concepts in depth. The Best of Youth, one of the finest films I have ever seen, is six hours.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
In three minutes (less) Lincoln reminded us of what the country was about.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:What does it actually say? It is essentially empty rhetoric commiserating a bloody battle.
So you do realize that empty rhetoric is bad, then. Another piece to the puzzle falls into place.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Twenty minutes of content is better than three minutes without any. You may have noticed that the best films tend to be long, becouse the explore concepts in depth. The Best of Youth, one of the finest films I have ever seen, is six hours.
While many good films may be long, many long films are not necessarily good. Keep that in mind.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
kmboots, yes. It is a good speech for that purpose, but that is not a particularly ambitious purpose. A good speech can reiterate what a country is about, a great speech can redefine it.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Jon Boy, nor did I say otherwise.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Also, I believe you meant to say 'commemorate', not 'commiserate'.
/nitpick.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Yes, I did.
Posted by Amilia (Member # 8912) on :
quote: A good speech can reiterate what a country is about, a great speech can redefine it.
Which is exactly what the Gettysburg Address did. Before that, "all men are created equal" meant "all white men are created equal." Lincoln closed his address with:
quote:It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us. . .that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion. . . that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain. . . that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom.
By saying that those who fought for the Union were fighting to preserve a nation where all men were created equal, he redefined what the phrase meant. Because even though the war was ostensibly being fought to keep the nation together, everyone knew that slavery was one of the major things that was tearing it apart. And while it may have taken 100+ years to truly give our nation a "new birth of freedom," it was this speech that redefined the terms.
IMHO, of course.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:A good speech can reiterate what a country is about, a great speech can redefine it.
I would argue that this is exactly what the Gettysburg Address did. Consider what exactly Lincoln says our forefathers brought forth.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Brevity has its own power as well. Sure, it's nice to really delve into topics. But the human mind is frail, and something short and succient is more powerful, if only because we can remember it longer.
Also, there's simply an innate elegance in taking an idea, and expressing it masterfully in a few short lines. This is recognized in all fields, from poetry to mathematics. The most beautiful proofs have not a word or symbol that goes to waste, and neither do the best poems. Nor does the Gettysburg Address, and that's partly where it derives its beauty and power.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Twenty minutes of content is better than three minutes without any.
In many situations, three minutes of content is better than 20 minutes of content.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Twenty minutes of content is better than three minutes without any. You may have noticed that the best films tend to be long, becouse the explore concepts in depth. The Best of Youth, one of the finest films I have ever seen, is six hours.
Did it ever occur to you that because a film is going to be a long one, more time, energy, thought and feeling are invested in it by its creators? This may be because the length is a weakness, which must be handled very carefully. Again, read poetics if you'd like one good view of propriety in length.
Lincoln, on the other hand, was investing something different from time in the Gettysburg Adress. There is strength of a different kind in that.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Twenty minutes of content is better than three minutes without any.
In many situations, three minutes of content is better than 20 minutes of content.
For one thing, you can REMEMBER 3 minutes of content. Don't many school children memorize the GA? You can't memorize these other speaches easily, or call them to mind as freely. Memorability has kept this speach alive, fresh in our minds for 150 years. That's something.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:I can think of several references to Prometheus in the cultural lexicon: Prometheus Bound by Ćschylus (perhaps slightly esoteric), Prometheus Unbound by Shelly, The Prometheus Statue at the Rockefeller Center, The Prometheus Mural at the New York Library and a line from the musical "Camelot." In adition the addictive Promethean is in common usage, making the Prometheus myth is not just a well-known myth, it is cornerstone of our culture. When the Rockefeller center was built, a quote from the same play I quoted was inscribed in large gold letters, no footnote, none needed.
Pelegius! Listen. The fact that the story of Prometheus is mentioned or featured in a bunch of places or works does not make it a 'common' image. I'm sure the story of Prometheus is buried so deep in our society that if we looked we could find it everywhere. I'm not saying that your reference to Prometheus is bad or wrong I'm saying you have the wrong idea about what is ordinary- what is "common". By all means, feel free to use ancient/obscure images, stories, references here and there but when you do briefly remind us what the story is. What seems like second nature to you may not be to your neighbour. The cornerstone of their culture is not greek myth but, as I said before, the Eagle.
I cannot think of a story that I would reference in an essay without giving at least a little of the story, as it is related to the topic, somewhere in the writing. I might do it in fiction (a title without an explanation, or a quote at the beginning), but only in fiction and only with the absolute certainty that it was the right thing to do.
quote:modern philosophical communication
To me, that comment sums you up in a nutshell. To you, everything is grand designs and great, lengthy philosophical prose-poetry. It is the Titanic. It is the Nile and Mount Everest, the Pyramids at Giza and the Great Wall of China. Socrates and Shakespeare. Why? What for? Every time someone speaks, or you speak, it is not always fanfares and flowers and does not need to be. Sometimes, you can have an idea without it having to make a big deal about writing it giganticly. It can just be there in plain old common words.
Learn that the power of words does not lie only in its complexity (such as Hugo writes- although as someone pointed out he does vary his sentence length which you should do as a start)- but also in pure, blank, short, simple sentences.
(From 'Waiting for Godot')
quote:VLADIMIR: We can still part, if you think it would be better. ESTRAGON: It's not worthwhile now. Silence. VLADIMIR: No, it's not worthwhile now. Silence. ESTRAGON: Well, shall we go? VLADIMIR: Yes, let's go. They do not move.
(From- well- this one is a common image. )
quote:In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I might also note that, on this continent (and the British Isles), at least, philosophy is typically not conducted in that flowery poetry-prose style. Modern philosophy is becoming increasingly analytical. It's a move I, for one, applaud. If you want to continue to write "philosophy" in your manner, however, then you'd better brush up on your French. Or find a university with a strong continental approach, which is fairly rare.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi:
quote:I can think of several references to Prometheus in the cultural lexicon: Prometheus Bound by Ćschylus (perhaps slightly esoteric), Prometheus Unbound by Shelly, The Prometheus Statue at the Rockefeller Center, The Prometheus Mural at the New York Library and a line from the musical "Camelot." In adition the addictive Promethean is in common usage, making the Prometheus myth is not just a well-known myth, it is cornerstone of our culture. When the Rockefeller center was built, a quote from the same play I quoted was inscribed in large gold letters, no footnote, none needed.
Pelegius! Listen. The fact that the story of Prometheus is mentioned or featured in a bunch of places or works does not make it a 'common' image. I'm sure the story of Prometheus is buried so deep in our society that if we looked we could find it everywhere. I'm not saying that your reference to Prometheus is bad or wrong I'm saying you have the wrong idea about what is ordinary- what is "common". By all means, feel free to use ancient/obscure images, stories, references here and there but when you do briefly remind us what the story is. What seems like second nature to you may not be to your neighbour.
Actually I am convinced that Peligius knows damn well that mentioning Prometheus in the title is going to invite some scratched heads, and some suggestions to tone it down a notch.
Thus the argument ensues, and the manipulation is entirely successful, because he has been "pulled in" to an argument about how smart he is compared to everyone, and "why should I change it if it is so natural to me?"
I for one, didn't have a problem with Prometheus, but I would NEVER use it in a title unless the essay was HEAVILY influenced by the image. The essay that has Prometheus in the title offers itself as a source of a new definition, or a new "setting" of the myth if you will, with the author's own take on its significance. Because the image is 1. Esoteric and 2. Loaded, using it in an essay, (in the title no less!) is something not to be entered upon lightly. This feels like it was added on as a little flourish at the end, and that's annoying.
Consider this: You mention Prometheus and you have NO idea which part of the myth people are going to relate to. Are we going to imagine flying high in the sky? Falling? Breaking out of prison? Temprance? Bravery? Wisdom? What? Its just too much stuff to deal with, and the many images are unwealdy. You have to hone the topic, not introduce this whole world of ambiguity to it!
I mean, this is like starting a short essay with the title: "Iraq: Just like WWII"
Such a title would demand an IMMEDIATE "just kidding folks," or some other admission that the title is offered in jest, because no reasonable essay or even a fairly substantial book could cover a topic like that. The title, if you use it, should be a guiding line to your essay, not a kind of garnish you put on at the end to say "look what I can do."
Remember that in poetry composition workshops, the title of the poem is criticised just as much as any of the lines, and often more.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"You mention Prometheus and you have NO idea which part of the myth people are going to relate to. Are we going to imagine flying high in the sky? Falling? Breaking out of prison? Temprance? Bravery? Wisdom? What? Its just too much stuff to deal with, and the many images are unwealdy. You have to hone the topic, not introduce this whole world of ambiguity to it!" Every referance to the myth I have read focuses on the bringing of fire to man and the subsequent binding to a mountain.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Gah- I mixed up Icarus and prometheus then- same idea though, loaded myth.
edit: Which in a way totally proves what everybody else, and I are all saying. I saw Prometheus, thought of the Icarus myth, and still found a reason why the myth might be tied to the topic. Its such a broad thing, like Hamlet, or the Genesis story, you can use it for anything, so it becomes less effective in a way.
That and, it shows that not everybody is up on their greek mythology.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"The cornerstone of their culture is not greek myth but, as I said before, the Eagle." The Silver Eagle marched before countless conquering armies is a symbol of nationalism, one which, paradoxically, transcends national boundaries; Prometheus is a symbol of humanity and human greatness.
"It is the Titanic. It is the Nile and Mount Everest, the Pyramids at Giza and the Great Wall of China." C'est le monde, c'est humanité.
Orincoro, it is the very loaded nature of myths which make them so good for communicating. Looking at an Ancient Roman vase of Ćneas fleeing Troy, we are reminded not just of the Ćneid but also of Freud's observation that "Every man carries his Anchises on his shoulders."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Ach, I done wrong.
Levity, on the bones of a thousand ancestors, I plead levity.
Though, seriously, the meat of the essay is dense and overly prolix and just outright badly written.
I think the subject matter is neat, but the message doesn't transmit. It's saturated in dense and obscure philosophical gunk which is not well fit to the ideas they're supposed to relay.
[ July 15, 2006, 07:19 PM: Message edited by: Samprimary ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Orincoro, it is the very loaded nature of myths which make them so good for communicating. Looking at an Ancient Roman vase of Ćneas fleeing Troy, we are reminded not just of the Ćneid but also of Freud's observation that "Every man carries his Anchises on his shoulders."
We are? Now I know why a great sense of relief always floods over me whenever I see broken pottery.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:C'est le monde, c'est humanité.
C'est exactement ce que je dis!
Not everything you write is going to be groundbreaking, and you do not have to try to force it to be by trying to frame it in language, allusion and metaphor that is obscure, complicated and confusing.
A great idea is still going to be a great idea if you write in plain English and what everyone here is trying to tell you is that it is much better if it is in plain English, rather than gobbledegook because people are going to actually want to read it!
It's not the world and it's not humanity. It's just an essay and a confusing one at that.
Pelegius, we are trying to help you.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Looking at an Ancient Roman vase of Ćneas fleeing Troy, we are reminded not just of the Ćneid but also of Freud's observation that "Every man carries his Anchises on his shoulders."
I wonder for how many people this is true. Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
So...um...is Prometheus supposed to represent the desire to burn the wall down? I like burning things.
Or maybe it's the Prometheus on Stargate? You could just beam the wall out into space.
One of the things I've had to learn in communicating is that I am not a totally reliable model for understanding other people. Just because I know something doesn't mean that everyone else does. It's amazing what sorts of gaps other people have in their knowledge, and humbling what gaps are in mine. For example, I'm a bit ashamed to admit that before I visited England, Ireland, and Scotland this summer, I wasn't really aware that Ireland is a completely independent republic while Scotland is a part of Britain, along with England. Seems like I ought to have known. On the other hand, I made a comment to my friends just last week along the lines of, "But everyone knows that proteins are made of amino acids, right?" They disagreed, although they didn't exactly have a counterexample in mind. I think everyone should keep in mind when writing that we all have our own set of knowledge and we don't always know what part is going to overlap with our audience's set of knowledge.
(That was sort of a mathematical metaphor. But had I used mathematical terminology, not everyone would have understood it. You can use relatively obscure references as long as you explain it or state it in plain English so it's more accessible).
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Actually, one of the ways I make a living is taking things that are tough to understand for a lot of people and making them understandable.
Showing off ones knowledge can be fun, sometimes, but it doesn't really amount to much. There are always people who know more, especially about selected specialized topics. And there are always people worth communicating with who do not share the same background knowledge.
I imagine it's possible to impress a few people with a big vocabulary and some swagger, but by and large if people can't understand you, then they'll tend to tune you out more than they will take the time to figure you out.
Since one of the things I admire most in the really intelligent people I know is their ability to communicate concepts in a way that practically anyone can understand them, I tend to think that anyone who falls short of that level is missing something in their education, or their intellect. Basically, if someone has truly mastered a subject, I expect they should be able to communicate it clearly to someone else who hasn't yet attained that level of knowledge. Falling short of that, to me, means that they don't know the subject as well as they think they do.
Sometimes, I admit, I would be wrong -- there are hyper-geniuses out there who probably can't string two words together that would be comprehensible to the rest of humanity. But those are aves rares. Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Looking at an Ancient Roman vase of Ćneas fleeing Troy, we are reminded not just of the Ćneid but also of Freud's observation that "Every man carries his Anchises on his shoulders."
I wonder for how many people this is true.
I'll step up to the plate and say that it's not for me. I have no idea what vase he's talking about, I've never read Ćneid, and I've never heard that observation of Freud's. And in terms of the general populace, I'm fairly well educated. My education just hasn't included classics. If this means Pel thinks I'm barely above an ape in terms of intelligence, that's something I can live with.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I'll step up to the plate and say that it's not for me. I have no idea what vase he's talking about, I've never read Ćneid, and I've never heard that observation of Freud's. And in terms of the general populace, I'm fairly well educated.
Right there with you.
Even on a place like Hatrack, where the people are generally much better educated and knowledgable than in the general population, I am confident that it is true for only a miniscule fraction of the population.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
I'm going to go with the "I could beat the living tar out of you, nerd" tactic.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I have heard of that vase, and have read the Aeneid, and was also I psych major...
...and I still find Pel to be a blow hard filled with delusions of grandeur.
I am fairly smart, although no genius, but I find you threads to be pompous, ignorant, filled with poor grammar and sentence structure and thick with pseudo-intellectual garbage. You lack clarity and purpose, and I find this whole conversation stilted and boring.
If this is what you intended when you started this thread, Hugo has nothing on you.
If it isn't then perhaps you should listen to what the other people here are trying to say rather than showing off your vocabulary and ignorance at the same time.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I try to repress most everything I've learned about Freud - if I ever knew that quote, it's been lost to my unconscious.
Seriously - Freud had some interesting things to say, but, having read some of his work in the original (bonus points, right?), I don't think much of what he says passes the truth-o-meter. He's just wrong in an interesting way.
I know of the vase, but only in passing. And there are better stories, even better ancient stories, than the Aeneid. I'll survive not studying it indepth.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
He's only, what, 17, Kwea? Go a little easy on him - he's probably had teachers cooing over him since his formative years. If he attends a *good* university, the first year will be a splash of cold water in the face. If he survives that, he'll *probably* shape up into an okay guy.
*said from my lofty age of 21*
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Dunno, everyone told me college would be hard. Sure, it's been a bit tough, but freshman year wasn't much different from high school. Maybe it will be different for Pelagius, maybe it won't. Though I do agree that prose like that is likely to earn criticism from professors. They're generally more interested in good ideas than the way those ideas are stated. Obscuring substance with style = bad.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I think it depends where you go, and what you major in. I go to a small liberal arts college where a heavy emphasis is put on good prose in the majority of the departments -- you can only escape writing by being a math major, and even then you have to write good proofs.
I didn't have a problem with college, partly because my high school was fairly rigourous, partly because for my senior year almost all of my classes were actually college classes taken at the local (extremely good) C.C.
If one's skills are at the college-level or one's high school require high-level performance then the transition to college shouldn't be too difficult.
But if Pel's high school teachers are actually praising his writing style, then, should he attend a decent university or liberal arts college, he's in for a surprise. Especially as he's expressed an interest (I think) in the writing-intensive majors of history and classics.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Actually, if Pel is really lucky, he'll latch on to a good prof (maybe do work-study?) and find out Einstein was right about the relative contributions of perspiration and inspiration to genius.
Academic writing is also different from the kind of writing that's required in the rest of the world. I suspect Pel could emerge from an academic career still lacking the ability to write well in real-world contexts. Many people do.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
It depends on the field. In history or literature he probably could. If he wrote like that in economics he'd get smacked down. Same thing in philosophy.
Working for a prof. as an undergrad, at least at a research university, means that you're the slave labor for his grad student - who is also slave labor: http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=705 I know - it's what I'm happily doing this summer. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Jhai, that may be true, but it's also a much better education into how academia works than you could ever get by taking classes and passing tests.
Depends on the goals in life (and, of course, ones financial situation).
;-)
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Well, I'm getting paid nicely for my slave labor - thank god for the NSF - but I'd like to sleep sometime soon (final report and presentation on my research is due in on Monday).
I agree that there's no better way to learn exactly how academia works. Looking back, I think the really boring stuff - hunting down articles, reading millions of articles, doing math to make sure a theory works out, screwing around with data - has been the most informative. Some of the other interns just had one project - I've been working on six or seven at the same time.
At least this summer I didn't have to deal with microfilm.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Sounds wonderful! I miss my days as an undergraduate lab assistant.
I also worked for profs who either didn't have graduate students or, if they did, had so much going on that the undergrads got time with the real prof and not ONLY the graduate student.
But we had some VERY cool grad students too.
Posted by JenniK (Member # 3939) on :
I have been writing and giving public speeches for 19 years, and have also been a judge for doing both. Since it is a form of communication, similar to writing, I can only state that the most important part of which is COMMUNICATION!
When writing, as when speaking, it is most important to impart information to the audience. There have been many times when speakers have rambled on using big words and run-on sentences(whether to sound more important or more intelligent I can only guess), and while trying to get their message across, I have found my mind wandering to thoughts such as: "I wonder if I should have worn a sweater today?" instead of trying to make sense out of the chaos they are spewing. Conversely, I have listened to speeches that lasted only a few minutes, which conveyed all pertinent information, and at the same time, were entertaining. Those of us who prepare and present speeches refer to this as "short, sweet, and to the point".
When reading, I prefer to get right to the topic, get all the important details, and be spared having to re-read sentences to try to make sense of them. I managed to plod through the post, and since I have a very large vocabulary (in several languages), I managed to understand the meaning of the "big words", but there was no coherent thought to be found even upon re-reading it! A writing professor in college told me that the easiest way to write a good piece, even if it is only 1 paragraph in length, is to make it simple: 1.State the main thought/topic clearly. 2. State pertinent information about your topic. 3. State how/why you came to your conclusion. 4. Give a short summation. SHORT. SWEET. TO THE POINT.
What you need to do is decide whether you would rather have your writing be as witty and memorable as an assembly instruction manual, using the terminology of your phenomenal vocabulary, or have it be remembered because it was easy to read and to the point?
Once you have made that decision, put into use some of the tips that other Hatrackers have given you here. The gist of what I have read here is people giving you tips that they have learned from experience..... then your response (in the form of ignoring most, or all of the help they are trying to offer you) arguing why it is better that only those in academia are able to translate what you have written into coherent thoughts, since layman's terms are so far beneath you.
I don't like to be overly critical of anyone, but the feeling I got from your posts in this topic is that you are trying too hard to sound intelligent and intellectual, to make us all feel that we should all think highly of your writing and writing style. This only makes you seem pompous and verbose
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't have a problem with someone including a somewhat obscure Greek myth or somewhat obscure philosophy into their posts at Hatrack, but this isn't the way to do it.
You're supposed to be attempting to communicate with people. If you're trying to get an idea across, you need to explain why you feel your references advance your point and not just make a reference to them. That would be the case even if you were talking about things more in mainstream koine.
I don't know why you think these things are relevant. The most common usages of the Prometheus that I'm aware of are of a benefactor of mankind being imprisioned by because he went against the powerful, a paragon of physical and mental fitness, and references to the Prometheus/Epimetheus (forethough/afterthought) creation story. You obviously don't explicitly invoke any of these. But, I don't see you implictly linking to any of them either. I don't see where this reference serves your point.
Likewise, anti-humanism is a philosophical movement reacting against the humanist elevation of the individual and personal consciousness and volition in favor of more deterministic - most often, social structural - explanations and manipulations of behavior. I don't think that you establish at any point that this is either a valid description of congress's behavior or the motivation from which they are acting.
If I worked at it, I might be able to come up with ways these thing may fit what you wrote, but that's not my job. It's yours.
---
Incidentally, you sound like you really don't understand what Lincoln achieved with the Gettysburg Address. Even the opening "Four score and seven years ago" is a piece of rhetorical genius which in time settled the hotly debated question of the birthdate of our country.
At some point, I hope you learn that smart people who disagree with are often useful to listen to, rather than show how they are wrong. . . . . Oh, almost forgot *cyber-wedgies Pel*
[ July 16, 2006, 11:14 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Pel,
By about the 2nd sentence, my BS meter has pegged and I tune to a new station.
If people here are giving you advice, that's at least an indication that they are finding something of value to your utterances. Good on 'em.
I have taught at the college level. If I got writing like yours in a paper, I would try hard, once, to fathom whether you actually understood the subject matter. If I couldn't make a coherent thread pop out from among the pages of gobbledygook, I'd give you an "F" and offer you the chance to rewrite it.
Once.
My tolerance level for this kind of junky use of language is low. VERY low.
Since this is a web board and the goals are different, I'll just tend to switch to a different thread or post and see if maybe someone else has responded to you and that might give me a general idea of the points you covered.
Prety silly, though, if the way people figure out what you had to say is by reading other people's comments about it.
And so far, all I can find out about you is that people think you are intelligent but have adopted a writing style that is like vomiting from the deep end of the dictionary.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Incidentally, I don't often read your posts Pel, in part because of what Bob's saying. Way too much bs to wade through for the content.
Another large part of it is that, while you throw out a lot of "aren't I smart" allusions, I've rarely seen you make a good argument of your own on anything. Like above, I don't actually think your references generally connect with what you are talking about very well. I know nearly all of the stuff you talk about, and it's sort of like listening to someone consistently misuse big words.
---
Also, I'm a highly educated psychologist and I don't find Freud's comment on Anchises as much more than another example of him overextending so as to bring classical mythology into psychology. Freud was a genious, but he had some pretty strong hang-ups and he really would have benefitted from cross-cultural studies.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
and a good waxing now and again, if you take my meaning.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Another large part of it is that, while you throw out a lot of "aren't I smart" allusions, I've rarely seen you make a good argument of your own on anything.
I'd add to this that anytime someone does question you on something, you respond with something along the lines of, "Well, there's no way to ever know who's right and who's wrong, and we both have many famous dead foreigners who agree with us, so I call it a draw." I'm paraphrasing, of course, but the point is that this is a dead giveaway that you can't be bothered to support your own assertions. Most of which are asserting quite a bit.
And because I don't like to see anyone, no matter how belligerent, get dogpiled, I will agree with Icarus and say I've noticed some improvement in your writing in the past few days. Less obscure references, more two and three syllable words.
It's still chock full of logical fallacies, but you'll tighten that up with practice, I'm sure.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:Another large part of it is that, while you throw out a lot of "aren't I smart" allusions, I've rarely seen you make a good argument of your own on anything.
I'd add to this that anytime someone does question you on something, you respond with something along the lines of, "Well, there's no way to ever know who's right and who's wrong, and we both have many famous dead foreigners who agree with us, so I call it a draw." I'm paraphrasing, of course, but the point is that this is a dead giveaway that you can't be bothered to support your own assertions. Most of which are asserting quite a bit.
Not only that, but it also betrays a certain level of ignorance.
For instance, Pelegius, you made the claim that ideas are rooted in language and then said that we could argue about it endlessly and never reach a consensus. This says to me that you have only a passing familiarity with the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and no familiarity with any of its criticisms (which are many).
It's also an ineffective argument strategy. If x is true, but there's no way to prove it, then it has little relevance to a logical discussion.
(Edited for clarity.)
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Not only that, but it also betrays a certain level of ignorance.
For instance, Pelegius, you made the claim that ideas are rooted in language and then said that we could argue about it endlessly and never reach a consensus. This says to me that you have only a passing familiarity with the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis or any of its criticisms (which are many).
It's also an ineffective argument strategy. If x is true, but there's no way to prove it, then it has little relevance to a logical discussion.
Which is not to say that this is absolutely a problem. Having ideas that seem to you to be unprovable or being unfamiliar with the entirety of a subject is not really a problem, as long as you are willing to acknowledge these conditions and are open to more information.
It doesn't make for good arguing, but it does open up some avenues for learning and discussion, which is often much better.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: He's only, what, 17, Kwea? Go a little easy on him - he's probably had teachers cooing over him since his formative years. If he attends a *good* university, the first year will be a splash of cold water in the face. If he survives that, he'll *probably* shape up into an okay guy.
*said from my lofty age of 21*
I am not even saying he isn't already a good guy. I don't know him (although I think I know who he really is).
I just figured that if he had not noticed that most of Hatrack (my wife included at this point) has been trying to show him what was wrong with his writing. Since he accuses them of causing him to leave Hatrack, perhaps the "splash of cool water" is needed now.
Take a look at some of the posts others made to try and help him. It is not simple to take his original post and dissect it, but more than one person did just that. They didn't just say "Dude,you suck", or anything like that. The went, in some cases point by point, through his post and showed clearly and simply WHY his post wasn't good. Then they followed up with reasonable suggestions and comments.
All of that takes time and effort. People wanted to show him what they meant when they made snarky comments at first rather than just ignoring him.
His response? To start a whiny thread about how Hatrack is waning, all because of the tempest in a teapot that is Pel.
I am done at this point. If he can't figure it out by now I am not going to encourage him to keep acting melodramatic.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Sorry Kwea - I wasn't trying to imply that you didn't think Pel was a good guy. By "okay guy" I simply meant "good writer and worthwhile contributer to Hatrack discussions."
My shorthand takes a little time to get used to.
I think it's a little easier to ignore the advice of some random people on the internet than the freshman writing professor threatening to give you an F if you don't shape up. That's why I still have hope for the real world.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm not sure how honestly Pel is really looking for advice on how to be better recieved by Hatrackers. I seriously doubt his sincerity.
Here's the thing Pel: Either you don't understand Hatrack, or you don't understand average human beings in general. You're smart, ever heard the phrase "When in Rome, do as the Romans do?"
I read a lot of your posts to start, then stopped. I didn't stop because I don't like you, or because I don't think you have anything useful to contribute, but because there's a lot to read, between Hatrack and the news sites and fun sites I like to read, and your posts take up way too much of my brain's RAM. It's not just overly complicated, it's cumbersome, and worse, it isn't necessary at all.
Like others have said, you have to know your audience. Your grammatical mistakes don't really bother me, and though the spelling seems a bit grating at times, it doesn't really bother me either. What does bother me is when you type out paragraphs like you're trying to make everything sound like either a mock Jeffersonian paper that redefines something in a fundamental way, or like an infomercial for the Thesaurus.
Hey! I just remembered who you remind me of, Dawson from Dawson's Creek, or for that matter any of them. I've never seen a more ridiculous pack of dialogue that was less representative of the teenage population of the nation than that show. No one talks like that in real life, not ALL the time. I don't care if you percieve yourself as dumbing down your posts for the simple folk of Hatrack, just talk like a human and not an android, and you'll get much better responses, and far less attacks on your diction, syntax and grammar so often.
I don't think the volume of criticisms on you is necessary, but the sentiment behind it is certainly justifiable. Even I, someone who usually doesn't go after the posting style of a poster want to stab your posts with Ockham's Razor until they cry out for mercy. Or at the very least, cut them into more manageable pieces.
Just give us the Cliffs notes version from now on.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: It's also an ineffective argument strategy. If x is true, but there's no way to prove it, then it has little relevance to a logical discussion.
Interesting you should say that. Haven't I seen you on the "Well, but I have faith, so there" side of some religious discussions? I could be mistaken.
I'd apologise for the total derail, but since Pel seems to have decamped, I think the thread is about due for one.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Not everything is about logic, KoM. We all believe in a lot of things that are hard to prove, even if we don't like to admit it.
We can't hold a thought in our hands but we all have them.
Well, most of us do, anyway. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I'm not objecting to having faith - I mean, I do find it an objectionable habit, but that's not the point I'm making today. Rather, I'm pointing out that JB is being inconsistent - if he is. I could be confusing him with someone else. By his logic, it seems to me, it is impossible to argue in favour of any religion, yet I vaguely recall seeing him do so.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Orincoro, it is the very loaded nature of myths which make them so good for communicating. Looking at an Ancient Roman vase of Ćneas fleeing Troy, we are reminded not just of the Ćneid but also of Freud's observation that "Every man carries his Anchises on his shoulders."
A machine gun is an effective killing machine. But if you want to cut a hole in a peice of paper, I suggest that you not use one for that. A canon can kill a mosquito, yeah, but then you're responsible for where the cannon-ball goes.
You're using a Bushido blade when what you need is an exacto-knife. Think small. Real small!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: He's only, what, 17, Kwea? Go a little easy on him - he's probably had teachers cooing over him since his formative years. If he attends a *good* university, the first year will be a splash of cold water in the face. If he survives that, he'll *probably* shape up into an okay guy.
*said from my lofty age of 21*
I'm also 21.
You should look at Pel's profile and click over to his "wikipedia" profile. You think he postures here?
To quote the tag (and I apologize for calling you out Pel, but its a public profile, so you must expect someone will read it...)
"An historian by training, an Anglican by baptism, a liberal by nature and a Postmodernist by inclination."
I would say, on reflection, that he might be PERFECT for Oxford after all! For none of the reasons he thinks...
Actually he has become endeared to me, in a strange way, and I am starting to appreciate these threads. They get me thinking about how to explain some of these things in ways I would understand if I'd said the things Pelegius says.
Yes, he is going to get a HUGE ice-water dunking in his first semester, and I think he's going to have a blast when he figures things out. The potential is all there, he's enthusiastic, and no-one is taking THAT from him. Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Pel, I actually found this more readable than many of your posts. I had to make an effort to finish the essay, but I was able to get all the way through it.
I really liked the bit about Locke and Narural Law. As a Christian I see it more as God's Law, but in this case, it's the same thing. We should help people becuase it's right.
Plus, we sound rediculous accusing illegal immigrants of stealing education and emergency room services. When Chet was in the hospital last year, our bill was over $26,000. There's no way the taxes we've paid in the last six years pay for that, we certainly couldn't, and the hospital wrote it off.
Did Chet steal emergency room services? If so, would you rather he had bled to death? If not, why is it different when an American does it? Why should people be denied something we would give an American just becuase they were born somewhere else.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I did not expend the time and energy necessary to read the opening post. It seemed designed, in my opinion at least, to thwart the Average Reader. I don't think I'm the Average Reader-lengthy, highblown prose doesn't stop me from reading a great many things-and it still stopped me, and others both more knowledgeable and more experienced in rhetoric than I am.
That's something to consider.
A couple of specific points: Prometheus is by no means whatsoever a commonly recognized cultural figure throughout America, probably not even throughout the West. Unless I cherry-picked the people, I'd have to ask, oh, probably ten people before I got an answer if I asked the question, "Do you know who Prometheus is?" and that person would probably be in junior or senior high school, recently studying Greek mythology.
Your argument that Prometheus is a commonly known cultural figure are just flat out wrong.
You're also flat-out wrong about the impacts of the Gettysburg Address, especially when you say it "merely" reiterated the idea of what America was. I can only assume you're pretty ignorant of American Civil War history, because I believe anyone who was not would realize that in that time, opinions were so divisive and everyone was so angry, tired, cynical, and hopeless that any kind of 'reiteration' was in and of itself a reshaping.
It's like he built a solid, elegant home in a hurricane or an earthquake and you're listening to the speech and saying, "Eh. It's got four walls, a roof, and a door. It's OK."
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Prometheus is a symbol of humanity and human greatness.
I disagree. Promethius is a symbol of handouts and having things done for you... of magic over science, of possessing technology over understanding it.
Discuss.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Certainly there's evidence of that in the text. Consider "In one short word, then, learn the truth condensed: all arts of mortals from Prometheus spring."
But I think, more correctly, Prometheus is really a symbol of the fruits of hubris. In other words, all the accomplishments of man, in a Promethian worldview, are stolen from the gods and come despite them.
Prometheus is meant, in most such stories, not to represent a benignly powerful ally but rather a form of super-man himself, someone who sees so much potential in humanity that he refuses to be content with what the gods -- who, remember, represent all Nature in Greco-Roman myth -- have chosen to allot to them.
And he is punished, and he suffers, but it's clear that this is noble suffering. Our woes, the myth suggests, are our own doing and born of our pride and disobedience -- but we would not be who we are if had not reached above our station.
This particular meme is a common one, not least because it very closely echoes man's own constant struggles with ambition and the laws of nature.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:A canon can kill a mosquito...
Anyone else find this an especially delicious typo? I might start saying that on purpose!
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: It's also an ineffective argument strategy. If x is true, but there's no way to prove it, then it has little relevance to a logical discussion.
Interesting you should say that. Haven't I seen you on the "Well, but I have faith, so there" side of some religious discussions? I could be mistaken.
I'd apologise for the total derail, but since Pel seems to have decamped, I think the thread is about due for one.
religious discussions ≠ logical discussions
I also don't remember ever saying anything that boiled down to "I have faith, so there," so I'm really not sure what you're refering to. And even if I do make a faith-based comment or argument in a logical discussion, I don't try to pass it off as a logical argument.
In other words, I don't see any inconsistency between my criticism of Pelegius and my own alleged behavior.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
AvidReader: At least your taxes payed for some of it, then. The rest of it was payed for my your neighbors taxes, since they payed them even if they didn't use the hospital.
SOMEONE had to pay for those services somehow, even if you didn't. We don't have universal health care here in the USA. If we did, THEN it wouldn't be stealing.
(or so the argument goes, anyway.)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Pel:
Not sure if its good or bad that I read the subject of this thread and ascertained that it was another thread by you.
I was not suprised that the initial responses were directed at your writing style as I found your post to be very inaccessable.
I know that sometimes in order to express ones opinions with the utmost accuracy, certain words are employed for that purpose. (hey look I just did it with that sentence.) But I would suggest you exercise moderation in this regard and for that matter in ALL your writing.
I have been to a few forums where the communities intelectualism and patience would not accomidate the length of my posts.
I have found that hatrack has been the most interesting forum I have yet to spend any time in. In my opinion there are alot of reasonable posters and contributors. If they entire community is telling you to adjust your writing style then either one of two things are true
1: You would profit by heeding their advice and attempting to adjust your writings accordingly, assuming you care that people post in your threads in a productive manner at all. The fact you post here demonstrates at least a desire to discuss with others your ideas.
2: The community as a whole is unable to act as the intelectual foil that you need them to, and therefore you ought to find another forum that appreciates what you bring to the table more.
Ill be honest I think you will find there are plenty of interesting people here to talk to. They are not asking you to dumb down your speech. Merely to speak at a level that is conducent to effective communication.
You will note that nobody has said, "Your posts are annoying, just stop writing." They have merely asked for you to make some minor changes to your style, so that they might with reasonable effort give audience to your jottings, or to be more accurate your disquisitions.
Ill be honest I heard the word "Jottings" in my head while writing and I felt a need to use it in a sentence.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
BB, no, they have simply stated that they will not read them.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Some have, most haven't. The more you act the way you have been, the more will do so. If you want people to read your posts, behave like a mature adult engaged in intellectual conversation.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: BB, no, they have simply stated that they will not read them.
I very rarely say to people, "You are flat our wrong," but,
Pelegius, I think you are flat out wrong.
I just read through the entire thread and I honestly feel the overwhelming feeling is a request that you write within some very reasonable parameters.
If you make a concertive effort to do some of the things our fellow hatrackers have suggested, I will read your next post in its entirety regardless of length (and you have my word on that).
I have great respect for people who are humble enough to accept good intentioned criticism and quell their pride enough to profit from it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Plus, if we're refusing to read you, we're doing a markedly good job of using our psychic powers to discern what you have said and respond
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)