71–80 of 187 posts
A group of people just asked me what verisimilitude was, now I'm excited to come back and tell them about verisimilitudinously.
> verisimilitudinously I might say to them that verisimilitudinous is not the usual word (despite the OP). It's the more elegant verisimilar , and thus verisimilarly .
> I received an email from a colleague who wanted me to talk to the Dean that opened, “Is it time for us to have a chat with the dean? Are we remembering what was promised us, last spring, at lunch? Are we going to let history repeat itself?” I suffered pique at this and wrote back, “Are your emotions pure? Are your nerves adjustable? How do you stand in relation to the potato? Should it still be Constantinople?” Lor…
Should I read anything into this other than the response making fun of the tone of the original message?
This is amazing. I wonder, is one allowed to speak like this in the Bay Area, or would this mark you as a deplorable to the kind of people who erase racism by erasing race.
I understand why he chose to say it this way, and I'll probably be stealing "liberal racism" ( what a phrase: that's going in my pocketbook alongside "white guilt" and "racialise"), but this is the wrong way to say it to a Bay Area audience. You'd want to say something like "erasing representation to avoid confronting racism".
This is amazing. I wonder, is one allowed to speak like this in the Bay Area, or would this mark you as a deplorable to the kind of people who erase racism by erasing race.
Yes, you can speak like this. People are just going to think you're pretentious. This is the sort of language you use with specific audiences. The interviewer and the interviewee are simply using language for mutually exclusive audiences.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not really "Newspeak" at all; if anything, it's the opposite. Newspeak had limited vocabulary. The interviewer is using a bunch of ten-dollar words. Still, interesting interview! I might read some Padgett Powell at some point because of this.
The little info box about the interviewer at the end of the article tells you all you need to know.
Obtuse commentary is worthless for discussion.
> I received an email from a colleague who wanted me to talk to the Dean that opened, “Is it time for us to have a chat with the dean? Are we remembering what was promised us, last spring, at lunch? Are we going to let history repeat itself?” I suffered pique at this and wrote back, “Are your emotions pure? Are your nerves adjustable? How do you stand in relation to the potato? Should it still be Constantinople?” Lor…
Should I read anything into this other than the response making fun of the tone of the original message?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not? If we’re starting with this nautical analogy (unmoored), immediately flipping to a biological one is odd. I strongly suspect this was a transcription error and/or intentional pun - the two are pronounced identically.
It almost works, but "berthed" doesn't imply "created", since it means something more like "parked". So that doesn't read right with: "The destiny of all books is to become unmoored from the time which birthed them. - Ah-Sen" It could have used both maybe? "...and then berthed in the present"
A “berthed”-friendly interpretation would be “all books start off tied to a particular point in time, it is their destiny to become free of their temporal bounds, to drift through eternity”
It's bizarre to me that in certain circles some Colors are capitalized, while other colors are not.
> Donald Barthelme in particular praised you for writing about things readers had never heard before between Black and white characters. It's bizarre to me that in certain circles some Colors are capitalized, while other colors are not.
I encourage you to consider and understand the perspectives of those who do capitalize the word.
This serves as an introduction to some people's thinking:
https://www.cjr.org/analysis/capital-b-black-styleguide.php
Note, the standard practice to capitalize ethnic groups: For example jewish would be considered incorrect. There are those who consider Black to be an ethnic group, hence, capitalizing it encompasses a way to "describe the people, culture, art and communities" that make up the ethnic group. In which case, it's not a color, exactly, which I think is what you may be missing, when you consider why some capitalize the word.
Case in point: We already capitalize many other groups that are often associated with "color." Color, of course, being a construct we often see as "real," when in fact it is a cultural interpretation.
> After all, she pointed out, “We already capitalize Asian, Hispanic, African American and Native American.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He clearly made it up during the interview. I admit I spent more time right clicking -> 'search the web' for some of the words he used. Incredible vocabulary.. I have to use 'intellection' soon, I've needed to use a word like that before but couldn't find it.
well you could use understanding