George Meanwell
Friday, April 17, 2009
When Gods Verb
From Stephanie Zacharek's review of " "Slang: The People's Poetry" by Michael Adams in Salon
(http://www.salon.com/books/review/2009/04/16/slang/)
(http://www.salon.com/books/review/2009/04/16/slang/)
In the final chapter, Adams digs into the role slang plays in the way our brains process information. He cites, for example, an academic study in which the subjects' brain activity was measured while they read Shakespeare's "Coriolanus": It would jump whenever they encountered one of the Bard's trickier and more playful uses of the language -- for instance, when he'd recruit a word typically used as a noun for use as a verb, as in "He godded me." Adams writes, "It wasn't as if the brains were confused, exactly, but rather as if they had been awakened from linguistic boredom."¶ 9:42 AM 0 Comments
Monday, April 13, 2009
Eric Siblin - The Cello Suites (Anansi)
Dear Eric Siblin
Please ignore the Queenan.
First of all, he's a world famous idiot (or "twerp", in Richler's usage). He gets paid to mercilessly rip to shreds what he obviously doesn't get. (What the New Yorker said about Tom Wolfe's "The Painted Word" - "He makes people feel superior to things they don't understand".)
Second of all, yours is a really good book, interesting for all three story lines, and an absorbing read. Obviously a Bach scholar would find less in it that was new to him than a civilian, but that doesn't mean it's not a fascinating response to the Suites, and and a perceptive answer to the question: "What do they mean now?" - which said idiot completely avoids. Queenan also ignores the fact that a wide range of people have responded to so-called "classical music" in widely divergent contexts over the years - his own preference for enjoying it in a museum says more of his need for reassuring context than anything else.
Also, there is nothing more mean-spirited than denigrating someone's honest and astonished initial response to the Suites (or to anything). It comes down to some kind of dopey "I'm the king of the cultural castle, 'cause I got here first". He doesn't argue for another approach to the Suites, and he just comes off as exactly the kind of sour sneering snob (sorry) that classical music is famous for - people for whom status matters, but what's going on with the music, not so much.
And Bach writes a very fast barrage in the Gigue of the Third Suite, and finishes it with extremely powerful and chromatically crunchy double stops - I think the Led Zeppelin analogy is right on - he was doing what he could with the resources he had to make as big a statement as possible.
Basically, if I had to choose, I'd go with what Simon Winchester (you know, the well-known writer) said ("This is one of the most extraordinary, clever, beautiful, and impeccably researched books I have read in years") and ignore said idiot, about whom nothing like that will ever be written.
All best ¶ 7:38 AM 0 Comments
Please ignore the Queenan.
First of all, he's a world famous idiot (or "twerp", in Richler's usage). He gets paid to mercilessly rip to shreds what he obviously doesn't get. (What the New Yorker said about Tom Wolfe's "The Painted Word" - "He makes people feel superior to things they don't understand".)
Second of all, yours is a really good book, interesting for all three story lines, and an absorbing read. Obviously a Bach scholar would find less in it that was new to him than a civilian, but that doesn't mean it's not a fascinating response to the Suites, and and a perceptive answer to the question: "What do they mean now?" - which said idiot completely avoids. Queenan also ignores the fact that a wide range of people have responded to so-called "classical music" in widely divergent contexts over the years - his own preference for enjoying it in a museum says more of his need for reassuring context than anything else.
Also, there is nothing more mean-spirited than denigrating someone's honest and astonished initial response to the Suites (or to anything). It comes down to some kind of dopey "I'm the king of the cultural castle, 'cause I got here first". He doesn't argue for another approach to the Suites, and he just comes off as exactly the kind of sour sneering snob (sorry) that classical music is famous for - people for whom status matters, but what's going on with the music, not so much.
And Bach writes a very fast barrage in the Gigue of the Third Suite, and finishes it with extremely powerful and chromatically crunchy double stops - I think the Led Zeppelin analogy is right on - he was doing what he could with the resources he had to make as big a statement as possible.
Basically, if I had to choose, I'd go with what Simon Winchester (you know, the well-known writer) said ("This is one of the most extraordinary, clever, beautiful, and impeccably researched books I have read in years") and ignore said idiot, about whom nothing like that will ever be written.
All best ¶ 7:38 AM 0 Comments