Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Toni Morrison's Rejection Letters

lareviewofbooks.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–79 of 79 posts

Re: Toni Morrison's Rejection Letters

#71

Post by moate »

bombcar wrote: post #9
Out_of_Characte wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but to suggest that people read her just because they’re required to is absurd Its not, source: the OP Your comment made me realise how much I hated being required to read X because of all the exact reasons you mentioned above. Just because what I've read didn't win a nobel prize doesn't mean I cant find it subjectively better.

From what I can determine, the books that kids are forced to read in high school are the books that their elders really loved; and often were not forced to read in high school. Most every book I was forced to read I still hate enough that I'll never bother rereading it. I'm sure they're all great; they also weren't for me, not at that time. Which is why the absolute last thing I'd ever do is assign anyone to read any…

Good thing you’re not an English teacher then.

A thing to consider about the goal of education: when done correctly, they’re not trying to make you love every you read (I will never appreciate reading Shakespeare) but ideally are just trying to expose you to a wide range of things to help you find what you might love.

I would have never read “The Things They Carried” independent of school but “How to tell a true war story” is one of the most important chapters of any book I’ve ever read in my life.

Re: Toni Morrison's Rejection Letters

#72

Post by emseetech »

greenie_beans wrote: post #62
ByQuyzzy wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every school library in the US has 120 copies of this book. I'm just wondering how many non-school / library buyers there were. If her success is government-mandated, it can easily be discounted.

ah here we go, you don't like it because it's a culture war thing

Yeah getting statue avi vibes from them.

Re: Toni Morrison's Rejection Letters

#74

Post by doodaddy »

bombcar wrote: post #9
Out_of_Characte wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but to suggest that people read her just because they’re required to is absurd Its not, source: the OP Your comment made me realise how much I hated being required to read X because of all the exact reasons you mentioned above. Just because what I've read didn't win a nobel prize doesn't mean I cant find it subjectively better.

From what I can determine, the books that kids are forced to read in high school are the books that their elders really loved; and often were not forced to read in high school. Most every book I was forced to read I still hate enough that I'll never bother rereading it. I'm sure they're all great; they also weren't for me, not at that time. Which is why the absolute last thing I'd ever do is assign anyone to read any…

I’m in the same camp as another replier in that I’ve come to like - even adore - much of what I hated because it was required reading. If you feel like you’ve changed since high school then I encourage you to consider rereading some of what you hated because it just might take a new meaning for you.

On a broader point, it’s a shame there is such much focus on subjects like literature and history for children and young adults. As I get older I realize that it takes one’s own life experience in order to connect with these subjects. History without your own lived experience is just words on a page.

Re: Toni Morrison's Rejection Letters

#75

Post by hyperthesis »

soneca wrote: post #64
hyperthesis wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The quote is introduced with "but", and the first part is the other way around ("...distance instead of dramatizing...").

There is a second “instead of” in the last part of the sentence that gives the proper context, in my reading

The two instances of "instead of" have opposing senses. The grammar can't be interpreted without the semantics. Anyway, it seems other people find this OK, which is interesting to me.

Below is the context in TFA, and the quote's form with show/tell placeholders:

  she informed one writer that their “story is certainly worth telling,” but they
  "[tell] instead of [show], [show] instead of [tell]."
I can read the second part as a directive (I'd use a semi-colon instead of a comma to show this myself). I bet the original letter's connection (instead of "but they" in TFA) supports this.

It feeds into my nascent theory that grammar is not necessary for everyday human communication, and its function is ornamental, like patterns on clothing, signifying social position. (Of course, it is useful in precise technical exposition and argument; though there's still greater precision in numerical quantification and first order logic.)

Grammar is the greatest joy in life, don't you find?

Re: Toni Morrison's Rejection Letters

#76

Post by hyperthesis »

hyperthesis wrote: post #50
LeonB wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I see how you’re interpreting the sentence. Imagine instead the word “and” in place of the comma before “developing”. The letter writers wants the author to be “dramatising (their events) AND developing scenes in which the reader…”

Thanks, I think you're right. It seems weird to have a parallel structure where the roles are swapped - but Toni Morrison would know better than me! Maybe it works better in the original context. To see the context, I think I'd have to visit the "Random House archives at Columbia University’s Rare Book & Manuscript Library", though they do have a website: https://library.columbia.edu/libraries/rbml.html

Parentheses give a sensible parse for me (or nested further):

  describe people and events from a distance instead of (dramatizing them, developing scenes in which the reader discovers what kind of people they are) instead of being told.

Re: Toni Morrison's Rejection Letters

#77

Post by soneca »

hyperthesis wrote: post #75
soneca wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a second “instead of” in the last part of the sentence that gives the proper context, in my reading

The two instances of "instead of" have opposing senses. The grammar can't be interpreted without the semantics. Anyway, it seems other people find this OK, which is interesting to me. Below is the context in TFA, and the quote's form with show/tell placeholders: she informed one writer that their “story is certainly worth telling,” but they "[tell] instead of [show], [show] instead of [tell]." I can read the second p…

I don’t know English grammar, but I don’t think inverting the position of the show/tell would be against Brazilian Portuguese grammar.

I think a grammar is certainly necessary for everyday communication though. Not the academically decided normative grammar for a whole language. But every verbal communication follows grammatical rules, most of the time different from the written grammar and normative grammar, but rather a grammar agreed among the people that form a group that speaks that local grammar.

Re: Toni Morrison's Rejection Letters

#78

Post by hyperthesis »

soneca wrote: post #77
hyperthesis wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The two instances of "instead of" have opposing senses. The grammar can't be interpreted without the semantics. Anyway, it seems other people find this OK, which is interesting to me. Below is the context in TFA, and the quote's form with show/tell placeholders: she informed one writer that their “story is certainly worth telling,” but they "[tell] instead of [show], [show] instead of [tell]." I can read the second p…

I don’t know English grammar, but I don’t think inverting the position of the show/tell would be against Brazilian Portuguese grammar. I think a grammar is certainly necessary for everyday communication though. Not the academically decided normative grammar for a whole language. But every verbal communication follows grammatical rules, most of the time different from the written grammar and normative grammar, but rat…

My grammatical issue is not the swapping itself, but the introduction of "but they" (indicating a problem with what the author has done) being applied to the swapping. That makes sense for the first part, tell not show, but not for the second part, show not tell (which is what the author should do).

Is grammar necessary? The original "lingua franca", an English pidgin, was a trade language around the Mediterranean, therefore economically very advantageous, yet has minimal grammar.

People can communicate with gestures.

One does need a way to qualify some specific part, e.g. if we negate something, what exactly are we negating? Maybe I have too restricted a definition of "grammar", but I think of the Chomsky Hierarchy, which are all sequential, i.e., with order dependence. I think the target of negation can be indicated without position, e.g. so "not tree" and "tree not" are not a sequential grammar (a commutative grammar?) Negation of a part could also be denoted with inflection, or gestures.

One could argue all this is a kind of grammar; but it's so far from what we normally call grammar that I think it's overstretching the concept.

Re: Toni Morrison's Rejection Letters

#79

Post by hyperthesis »

hyperthesis wrote: post #34

> show don’t tell [...] she informed one writer that their “story is certainly worth telling,” but they “describe people and events from a distance instead of dramatizing them, developing scenes in which the reader discovers what kind of people they are instead of being told.” The second part of the quote (from "developing...") seems to be saying tell don't show. Is the quote mangled or I am misparsing?

Maybe I'm unneccesarily inferring parentheses from the quotation marks, like:

  but they (tell don't show, show don't tell).
It reads differently without them.
Post reply on HN