Here’s some point/counterpoint on written style.
First, Toni Bentley’s review of Katha Pollit’s new memoir in the New York Times. Pollitt is an esteemed feminist intellectual, and her writing has been published in The Nation for decades. She is the sort of feminist who garners more respect than love, but that’s worth something. Why then did the Times ask former ballerina Toni Bentley to review her new memoir? Bentley earned fame in 2004 when she published Surrender, a treatise on the joys of anal sex for women, particularly how wonderful it is to submit unconditionally to men. Perhaps having Bentley review Pollit’s book was an attempt to jazz up the occasionally dry Book Review? Maybe, but here’s what the editors got for their efforts:
An enraged, educated woman (Vagina dentata intellectualis) with her arsenal of experience, observation, self-deprecation and indignation is a force to be reckoned with, a kind of intellectual Mike Tyson — though, apparently, she is still not as likely to be seduced into bed as the bombshell bimbo, one reason she’s so irate.
Yikes.As a counter point to Bentley, let’s take Christopher Hitchens, a man with whom I may disagree with politically, but whose writing style is usually beyond reproach. In “Run, Al, Run” in Slate, he’s writing about Al Gore, and Gore’s chance to win the Nobel Peace Prize and then perhaps run for the presidency.
Roll it round your tongue again: an Oscar, a best seller, and a Nobel Prize in the space of 12 months or so. Not bad. And meanwhile, the field of Democratic candidates looks—how shall one put it?—a trifle etiolated.
“Etiolated” it turns out, means “to become pale with disease or the absence of light.” Sure it’s a crazy 50-cent word, but it’s also the perfect word, well worth the click to find out what it meant.
September 25, 2007 - 1:11 pm at 1:11 pm
sorry maybe im slow but i don’t get the gravamen of this post. so the first book review is “bad” in terms of the writing and the second is “good”? is that the point?
September 25, 2007 - 4:13 pm at 4:13 pm
Cat Dirt: You need to take an English Class! I’ve never read someone who takes himself so seriously in print, albiet virtual, with such horrible grammar. It’s a miracle that you passed Jr. Highschool.
Here’s what (I think) you should have written: Sorry, maybe I’m slow, but I don’t get the gravamen of this post; the first book review is “bad,” in terms of the writing, and the second is “good?” Is that the point?
I just looked at CatDirtSez.Blogspot.org and you wrote this:
Analysis:
Live Nation can hide the ball if it want’s too, but we all now that is equvialent to admitting total, utter failure.
If it want’s too? We all now?
Not to mention how you combine alot into a compound word. It’s a lot (two words). Get it right.
Maybe it’s just an editing issue, but you may consider repeating the fourth grade before posting any more of your Neanderthalithic rants, especially if you are writing book reviews and such.
September 25, 2007 - 5:22 pm at 5:22 pm
No! Don’t go fixing all your grammatical flubs, Cat Dirt! If you do that, we might have to assign an ounce of credibility to your arrogant, know-it-all comments on this blog. Stay as you are, Kitty Litter: Confuse “then” with “than” and create all the complicated compound words you want. I like you—or rather, I like to dislike you—that way. A lot.
September 25, 2007 - 10:21 pm at 10:21 pm
I’m no referee, but I think the one-two punch inflicted by Ricardo and Aaryn resulted in a TKO—Tonight’s winner: CityBeat!