It's Orwell, Baby, Orwell

[PatCarrington]

Perhaps this discussion illustrates the point. We are tangling our feet in the meanings of words like "evolution" and ending up in different places.

Without having given it a great deal of thought, I use "evolution" to mean an increase in the number of words in a language, or in the number of concepts described by those words. The appearance of new fields of study has undoubtedly given us entirely new lexicons: today there are thousands of physicists discussing the origin of the universe in terms of subatomic particles. A hundred years ago there were a handful. Cuisine carried across national borders leads to cookbooks in my Wisconsin kitchen using words like "satay," "roux," "feijoada" and "rummigrot."

If our concern is for the "dumbing down" of popular publications, hasn't there been a commensurate increase in the number of (or access to) esoteric ones? Can you imagine a publication a hundred years ago devoted solely to Hermetic Kabbalah, or a high protein diet, or the study of the languages of the Native People of California? I sincerely doubt that there is a shortage of esoterica in most people's reach.

The popularization of "teen-speak" or chat can't be regarded as a devolution unless it can be demonstrated that there is some finite capacity for language assimilation, and that learning these textual equivalents of gesticulation squeezes out other language. I now use "LOL" and "G2G" in informal, typewritten communication, and they represent additions to my language, not replacements.

Even within poetry; pick up a copy of Poet's Market and note the sheer number of publications, let alone the divergent styles. Places like "Exquisite Corpse" and "The Styles" are publishing poetry that bends grammatical and lexigraphic rules pretty darn close to the breaking point.

My point is that if we are using "devolution" to mean a reduction in the number of words in our language, or in the number of concepts we discuss with those words, I don't see it.

fly,

are you assuming quantity means quality?

how is (d)evolution measured? in volume?

i'm not at all sure whether or not i agree with the statement "devolution is taking place", but i don't see how your above post helps the argument against it.

 

[flyguy69]

fly,

are you assuming quantity means quality?

how is (d)evolution measured? in volume?

i'm not at all sure whether or not i agree with the statement "devolution is taking place", but i don't see how your above post helps the argument against it.

I suppose I am, and I'll admit it is a pale argument. But how, then, is the "quality" of a language measured?

I have assumed in my argument that more words on a topic equates to greater facility in discussion. It is an ugly assumption but I'm not ready to throw it out, yet.

 

[PatCarrington]

I suppose I am, and I'll admit it is a pale argument. But how, then, is the "quality" of a language measured?

I have assumed in my argument that more words on a topic equates to greater facility in discussion. It is an ugly assumption but I'm not ready to throw it out, yet.

i can think of many subjective ways to measure it, but not one objective way.

but it still bothers me that the reading level required to read The New York Times has shriveled so severely ( it bothers me even more that our bastion of journalism feeds us opinion as fact on page 1 instead of keeping it on the editorial page where it belongs, but that is off-topic ), and i feel like i NEED to know if it is an intentional decision, knowing the size of its audience would shrink were it to maintain the complexity level of its previous writing, or if the present-day writers simply cannot duplicate the quality of the past.

either case may be an argument for devolution, the former in the realization that the reading level of the masses is decreasing (even as more and more are literate, or at least partially so), and the latter in a more obvious way....they just can't write like they used to.

 

[flyguy69]

i can think of many subjective ways to measure it, but not one objective way.

but it still bothers me that the reading level required to read The New York Times has shriveled so severely ( it bothers me even more that our bastion of journalism feeds us opinion as fact on page 1 instead of keeping it on the editorial page where it belongs, but that is off-topic ), and i feel like i NEED to know if it is an intentional decision, knowing the size of its audience would shrink were it to maintain the complexity level of its previous writing, or if the present-day writers simply cannot duplicate the quality of the past.

either case may be an argument for devolution, the former in the realization that the reading level of the masses is decreasing (even as more and more are literate, or at least partially so), and the latter in a more obvious way....they just can't write like they used to.

Remember what a newspaper company's "product" is: an audience. It is not news. The major revenue stream for most newspapers is not subscription, it is the sale of advertising.

But what about the reading level bothers you? Do they deal inadequately with the news because they don't permit themselves words that more accurately cover events, or do you simply long for eloquence?

And where do you turn instead to meet these needs?

 

[PatCarrington]

Remember what a newspaper company's "product" is: an audience. It is not news. The major revenue stream for most newspapers is not subscription, it is the sale of advertising.

But what about the reading level bothers you? Do they deal inadequately with the news because they don't permit themselves words that more accurately cover events, or do you simply long for eloquence?

And where do you turn instead to meet these needs?

that's correct. if no one buys, there are no advertisers.....and there is no paper.

the drop in both the quality and the impartiality of the writing bothers me. (if you don't think the writing is less impressive now, it is because it has been a slow slide downhill.....go to a library and pull out a Times from before we were born....read the World War II coverage. not only is it interesting from a historical perspective, but you will see the difference in quality of language).

they still write well enough to give you the facts (if they want to), but there is no doubt the frontpage stories lack their former eloquence, nor that they are unbothered as bias creeps into news stories. if that bothered them, they would stop it.

there IS nowhere else to go that i know of. they are still the best, we are told. their best is just not good enough for me anymore.

 

[flyguy69]

....
their best is just not good enough for me anymore.

Perhaps they need a "Not for the thin-skinned" editorial thread!

G2G

 

[PatCarrington]

Perhaps they need a "Not for the thin-skinned" editorial thread!

G2G

they sure need something.

they wouldn't print the objections to make them look like a majority anyway, even if they were. and they make no bones about that.

newspapers have become political, even where it has no business. and they carry their flags with pride.

THAT is at the very least a devolution of conscience, if not some other kind as well.

 

[wildsweetone]

Do big words come with a built in bias?

 

[PatCarrington]

Do big words come with a built in bias?

i don't think any word comes with a built-in bias.

it's what you surround it with.

 

[wildsweetone]

So, a word surrounded by 8 year old readability words is going to have a very basic meaning. And that same word surrounded by 18 year old readability words is going to have far greater depth and meaning. Okay I can understand that much. (I am closer to the former readability level than the latter, but I carry a dictionary, so at least I'm trying to learn. )

Do newspapers have the space to allow for this fuller language creative writers crave?

Do newspaper readers have time in their day to allow a piece of writing on a current event to sink in and wallow around a while until every morsel is savoured, breathed and caressed?

World and national news on NZ television in the evenings goes for approximately an hour (take away a chunk for waffling, adverts, weather reports etc). It's interesting how an entire world of news can be crammed into that single hour. How much are we missing? We really are only being fed what the media bosses decide to let us eat anyway. And we are being fed it with a barrage of threadbare cliches that should have 'gone out with the Arc'.

Perhaps this is why there is a huge market out there for literary magazines, National Geographic and Discovery Channel documentaries.

As television is one of the main sources of current events in many countries, and 'most' people watch the news each day, is it any wonder that younger people are not bothered by the lack of depth?

I work with about 70 children each week and have discovered to my absolute horror that there are about 45-50% of these youngsters who do not have a bookshelf of books in their homes. If a love of reading and writing is not seen in the home then it is guaranteed some of those youngsters will never bother to visit a library or purchase a book for their own pleasure when they are adults.

With the advent of modern technology over the last say, 20 years, how often do we see people simply sitting with a book? The english language has become more vocal than read for the average person, archaic expression is not understandable by people who have only time to watch the news or read the local paper.

It's interesting to note that many creative writers end up working in jobs that are on the fringe of 'creative writing'... journalism, editing, publishing, libraries, teaching etc.

Perhaps is it worth scouring the internet or local big bookstores and discovering a 'news' channel that covers events in a more intelligent manner and then sharing that with everyone who crosses your path, for word of mouth is a powerful sale.

And better still, keep writing and striving for that perfection within writing that conveys exactly what we mean, never forgetting to share or publish so that others may learn language has a depth not often forseen in these modern times.

/waffle

 

[twelveoone]

no, i don't think so.

naturally, i try to use language, both technically and figuratively, as best i can. but in doing so, i do not aim to address any concerns i have about language in general. i just try to write well, as i understand it.

but i'm sure others would feel differently, and i can see why.

i take a personal approach, hoping it touches the universality of feeling and experience necessary to make writing good.

i usually try to write about old aprons, and swirled gravestones, and boots, and attractive eyes, not politics or injustice or the state of language and larger things. it is my opinion that concern with the larger things leads to preaching or judgement, or trying to save or alter the world, and have no place in good poetry. that are automatic weakeners, i think. nor does the state of the language have a place in one's writing, to me. not in mine, anyway.

poetry with those larger aims makes me cringe. i find most of it downright sophomoric.

no larger issues? everything done alters the world

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=274496

 

[twelveoone]

Lauren is always right. Just accept it. And anyone who thinks I'm being flip or sarcastic, doesn't know Lauren. lol.

also she promised to take care of me in my dotage when she rules the world

I hear the sound of marching feet
Duce! Duce! Duce!
here

 

[PatCarrington]

no larger issues? everything done alters the world

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=274496

good get, 1201.

i happen to feel strongly about that issue, but it is strictly a personal thing. i do not judge those who feel a different way, nor preach to them of their wrongs, nor even enter discussions about it at cocktail parties. i don't talk about it at all.

i just write.

 

[Angeline]

I hear the sound of marching feet
Duce! Duce! Duce!
here

not from my feet you don't. i've always marched to a different duce.