Log in

No account? Create an account
21 November 2005 @ 15:57
But who will review the reviewers? I will!  

And now, A Roguish Chrestomathy brings you a new feature: book review reviews. My hope is that these reviews will help you decide whether to take the time to read the reviews they review, or at least that they will give me an opportunity to make snarky remarks. In today's edition, we look at two reviews that appeared in the Books section of Saturday's Grope & Flail:

1. "What's your effin' point, eh?" by Gale Zoë Garnett
(review of Talk to the Hand: The Utter Bloody Rudeness of the World Today, or Six Good Reasons to Stay Home and Bolt the Door, by Lynne Truss)

Lynne Truss is, of course, famous for writing about punctuation in her previous bestseller, Eats, Shoots & Leaves. In Talk to the Hand she has purportedly turned her attention to manners, but the reader of Garnett's review may be forgiven for thinking that Truss is still talking primarily about language:

G.Z. Garnett

Truss and I share a loathing of the ubiquitous "No problem." (Did I ask if there was a problem? Was a problem ever mentioned?) Another shared aarrggh is given those who bring you a plate of requested food and say "there you go." (Where do I go? Just tell me, where do I go?)

Mercifully (for her), Truss seems to have been spared the person at the till who asks "Is that it?" — to which I always reply, "God. I hope not. Life is so rich with possibilities. I was hoping for more" — and the pet linguistic hate of Pierre Trudeau: "Enjoy!" "Why," he indignated, "are these people commanding me to 'enjoy'? Surely enjoyment is a personal choice, made voluntarily."

Garnett deserves full marks for her own linguistic liveliness: I heartily endorse her back-formation of a verb indignate from the adjective indignant, especially considering that the original verb indign doesn't quite work in this context. But I submit that Garnett's and Truss's and Trudeau's gripes really have nothing at all to do with rudeness; rather, these worthies are objecting to some of the relatively recent idioms that have entered the vocabulary of our politeness. They are complaining, and not always reasonably, about the forms of some of the linguistic expressions that have come to be used in polite contemporary colloquial English.

Pierre Trudeau

Let's start with PET's pet peeve. Trudeau, who certainly knew a thing or two about rudeness, seems to have mistaken a benediction for a command simply because it was expressed in the imperative mood. But "Enjoy!" cannot reasonably be interpreted as a command, because enjoyment is not something one can decide to do, but rather an involuntary mental state. The imperative is not generally compatible with such states, as illustrated in (1) and (2):

  1. *Suffer from clinical depression!
  2. *Desire a glass of beer!

The only rational interpretation of "Enjoy!" is something like "I hope that you will enjoy [the good or service I have just provided you with]." Surely the expression of such a wish cannot be rude, even if it is not welcome.

"Is that it?" and "There you go" do not mean very much in and of themselves; each of these expressions is composed of three highly polysemous and context-dependent words. The listener is therefore required to do a bit of work in figuring out what is meant by them (as distinct from what they mean). Fortunately, the work is not hard. "(T)here you go," which in this context could be replaced with the equivalent "(T)here you are," is an idiomatic phrase that is conventionally—and politely—used to proclaim the arrival of the anticipated food. Its meaning is non-compositional, and it is a statement of the obvious, but it is not rude. It is said because (in a not markedly formal situation) it would be rude to serve the food in silence. Saying something, even the obvious, helps to highlight the fact that there is a good reason for the server to commit what would otherwise be an intrusion into the diner's personal space.

Similarly, "Is that it?" is polite because it offers the customer an opportunity to make a request of the cashier without having to initiate the necessary line of conversation. The context in which the question is uttered should suffice to establish its scope; Garnett's metaphysical interpretation is wilfully absurd. (I'm not sure what Garnett would want the cashier to say instead; I might try "Would you like anything else?" but then she could come back with "Oh, I certainly hope so! I would hate to think that this lone purchase is the only thing in the world that could ever appeal to me!")

Finally, "No problem" is simply a casual way of saying "You're welcome." It is one of several polite formulas for responding to thanks by denying the value of the thing for which the thanks are given: "Oh, it was nothing. It was the least I could do." No, you did not ask whether there was a problem; I'm telling you there wasn't one to assure you that I performed this service for you willingly rather than grudgingly. But if you're going to be like that, perhaps I'll feel differently next time.

Etiquette is a tricky thing, and so is language. I think Truss and Garnett are confounding two dimensions of social language: the polite/rude dimension and the formal/casual one. Each of the expressions they object to as "rude" is in fact merely an informal way of being polite. If they want to object to what they feel is excessive informality, that is their prerogative, and the two dimensions are not wholly independent. (In formal situations, it is discourteous to express oneself too casually.) But I think their spleen would be more productively vented on examples of genuine rudeness, such as the loud public mobile phone conversations Garnett alludes to briefly in her review.

2. "Blow it up real good," by Mark Proudman
(review of A Most Damnable Invention: Dynamite, Nitrates, and the Making of the Modern World, by Stephen R. Brown)

Proudman is not especially interested in reviewing Brown's book. Proudman would rather tell you what he thinks of Harold Pinter and Kofi Annan. So he does:

Whether the bile of Harold Pinter displays any "idealistic tendency" is perhaps a matter of opinion. Many current critics seem to imagine that pessimism, at least about the West, is a prerequisite to artistic seriousness.


The name of Kofi Annan is a byword for unctuous incompetence [...].

How, you might ask, do Pinter and Annan (not to mention Rigoberta Menchu and Lester B. Pearson) enter into a discussion of the history of explosives? Simple: they're all recipients of prizes endowed by Alfred Nobel, who, of course, invented dynamite. But who wants to talk about boring old dynamite when we could be grousing about the supposed anti-occidental prejudices evident in modern drama? And what is the world coming to when "Austria, once more famous for its emperors — if not its corporals — now puts the likeness of [the pacifist Bertha] von Suttner on its two-Euro coins"?


In short, Proudman treats the review as a flimsy pretext for issuing right-wing mini-jeremiads on unrelated topics. I do not recommend this review to any reader who suffers from high blood pressure.

Proudman also earns himself an honorary membership in G.R.O.S.S. with one of the few sentences he devotes to the book itself:

Anyone who can remember being a boy figuring out the ratio of sulphur, saltpeter and charcoal needed to make a nice bang in the back alley will enjoy the book.

If, on the other hand, you made your own gunpowder as a girl, you're apparently not in the club. The members of Proudman's Junior Pyromaniacs' Society may be missing a few fingers, but by gum, they'd better all have penises.

Henrytahnan on 21. November, 2005 14:02 (UTC)
Garnett's review also contains a lovely example of Hartman's Law:
Truss's new book is not on grammar, as many had expected. Nor is it called, as urged by a colleague, Presses, Pants and Flies.

I wonder which colleague of that book urged that name on it? (Which is not mere pedantry; that's a truly terribly misplaced modifier, and I'm still not certain whether it was a colleague of Truss's who urged that name for her book, or another person's colleague who urged...someone else?)
Merle: lambdamerle_ on 21. November, 2005 19:16 (UTC)
Reviews of reviewers are very welcome. It is the sort of meta-meta-commentary that is incredibly useful.

It can take time to discover that, say, the local movie reviewer only likes romances, or that their ratings are the complete opposite of how you felt about movies. Independent reviews of reviewers... mmmaaaaahhhh (Homer thinking about bacon noise)

Agreed about "Enjoy!". It looks like a command-form, and acts like it, but it is an unlikely circumstance when someone might interpret it as a command. Much like "Live long and prosper!". Is it an onus someone is placing upon me, demanding that I extend my lifespan and use it fruitfully? Dubious.

I did quite love Eats, Shoots & Leaves, though.
Q. Pheevrq_pheevr on 22. November, 2005 09:06 (UTC)

Language Log does meta one better: Mark Liberman has posted a book review review review of my book review review.

Merle: lambdamerle_ on 24. November, 2005 10:52 (UTC)
Well, yes. Except that there's probably little need for book review review reviewers. I mean, book reviews are nice because there are a bloody lot of books out there. Book review reviews are nice because there are also a lot of book reviewers out there.

But how many book review reviewers are there to review? I can only think of one...
Q. Pheevrq_pheevr on 24. November, 2005 14:45 (UTC)

Well, one of the things you can learn from Mark's book review review review is that there are, in fact, more book review reviews out there (although I don't know how many of them have been reviewed):

Q's post is by no means the blogosphere's first book review review, nor even the first one to name itself as such. Beatrix at ArtsJournal.com is subtitled "A Book Review Review", and Portifex has a weekly "New York Times Book Review review" in his Daily Blague, and so on.

Merlemerle_ on 24. November, 2005 16:20 (UTC)
Sorry, I misspoke: I should have said "I have only read one". 'Tis true that he mentioned those, and I had forgotten that.

But book review reviewers are still quite rare. Even if there were fifty, it would not be all that difficult to scan an entry from each and determine which ones you like and do not like.

Not to belittle his effort, of course. If there is ever another book review review reviewer to come into the light, we'll all be in a race to become the first book review review review reviewer...
(Anonym) on 22. November, 2005 08:27 (UTC)
Bravo for calling Lynn Truss and her reviewer to task; they really should just chill.

But you said one very strange thing: "enjoyment is not something one can decide to do, but rather an involuntary mental state". It may feel that way to many people, but in fact many people choose to enjoy certain things, and you can train your mind to have this sort of control. Enjoyment is not inherently involuntary.

It's similar to falling on your butt. To a toddler, falling on your butt is involuntary, but to adults (i.e. people who are well-trained in balance and walking) falling on your butt is almost entirely a matter of choice. Sure, sometimes ice or slippery floors take the choice away form you, but most of the time you can decide whether or not you want to fall on your butt.

That doesn't invalidate the broader argument. There's still nothing wrong with saying "enjoy!" in the imperative -- it's just one way we express a wish for someone to enjoy their food. Why do Lynn Truss and her reviewer think language should make sense? Sheesh.
(Anonym) on 23. November, 2005 13:24 (UTC)
I am the author of the book A Most Damnable Invention which was so dishonourably "reviewed" in the Globe. Thank you so much for your comments on the absurdity of Proudman's diatribe passing as a book review.

Of course I sent a note to the books editor books@globeandmail.ca but the damage is done.

The Canadian Library cataloging information lists A Most Damnable Invention as Science - History, and Science - Moral and Ethical Aspects. My book is actually about two controversial scientists, Alfred Nobel and Fritz Haber, and a discussion of the ethics, morality and world-changing impact of their life's work - dynamite and synthetic nitrogen respectively.

There is actually very little for a "gun nut or pyrotechnic" to get excited about and it saddens me that my work will now be perceived in that way.

When I write book reviews for the Globe and other publications, I take great care to present a balanced and accurate reflection of the purpose and content of the book, keeping in mind its intended audience. I don't think a reviewer should pursue their own agenda, or use someone else's book as a launching platform to expound their own tangentially related opinions while selectively ignoring the point, theme, and content of the book they were meant to be reviewing.

So thanks, I'm glad that some people are perceptive enough to see through the smoke and mirrors of Proudman's "review."

Stephen Bown
Q. Pheevrq_pheevr on 23. November, 2005 15:54 (UTC)
Re: Stephen

Thanks for commenting. I think Proudman's review is so blatantly digressive that it's reasonable to hope that not too many readers will be misled by it, although it's a shame that they didn't get a more informative look at your book. I'd be interested to hear what sort of response you get from Martin Levin.

(Anonym) on 29. Marts, 2013 14:51 (UTC)
Test, just a test
Hello. And Bye.
(Anonym) on 30. Marts, 2013 15:34 (UTC)
Bid Multi Exit Gaming Adjunct Twine - PS-202605 online from MCM Electronics.
XcD qoGC h lgDB http://louishhvuittonbelts.webs.com/ CzTsf fiJs kiWs cbNk [url=http://louishhvuittonbelts.webs.com/]louisvuittonalma[/url] ViR iyXU k jaJQ http://louisjfvuittonglasses.webs.com/ Hb UxU OvB jtND [url=http://louisjfvuittonglasses.webs.com/]louisvuittonbelts[/url] JgO zgFL a pqMY http://louislivuittoncheap.webs.com/ AdTkg zzSs tqLg ddXh [url=http://louislivuittoncheap.webs.com/]louis vuitton online[/url] ZxM ftHV f tjNO http://louisdavuittonalma.webs.com/ Jg EwF EaF oxII [url=http://louisdavuittonalma.webs.com/]louis vuitton belts[/url] PjA mtZP r anGB http://cheapddlouisvuittonbags.webs.com/ XeJje kwXx omSn gbFw [url=http://cheapddlouisvuittonbags.webs.com/]louis vuitton watch[/url] OoM qzJT v pvAO http://louisfrvuittonneverfull.webs.com/ GkKtm jaAo fzNb azTs [url=http://louisfrvuittonneverfull.webs.com/]louis vuitton shop[/url] EyN inHD i sxQY http://louiswsvuittonshoponline.webs.com/ Co CpU RiE tmJR [url=http://louiswsvuittonshoponline.webs.com/]louis vuitton shop[/url] MyZ zbJC v odCM http://louishdvuittonprices.webs.com/ Tg BnM CpG fzBQ [url=http://louishdvuittonprices.webs.com/]louis vuitton shop[/url] LuL cqUW w yiNP http://louiskkvuittonwebsite.webs.com/ Os KlF TiW rmBU [url=http://louiskkvuittonwebsite.webs.com/]louis vuitton bag[/url] GfC dyAQ k onQI http://louisjhvuittonsunglasses.webs.com/ Jx HeU OpU faWL [url=http://louisjhvuittonsunglasses.webs.com/]louis vuitton online[/url]