4 ms·
Tom Wolfe’s reflections on language
- lintiness 10y agoi have no idea what i've just read. is this a book review, a scholarly article review, what? about the only thing i have gathered from it is the author doesn't like wolfe's ideas very much.
- ppod 10y agoThere is a picture of the book at the top of the page. The first words of the first paragraph are "Tom Wolfe’s most recent book". The first words of the second paragraph are "Let’s start with the part of the book about Darwin"
- AndyMcConachie 10y agoTom Wolfe's discussion of this book in a recent Harper's article convinced me this book will be terrible. My general problem with Wolfe is his creation of fiction from historical events while referring to them as historical. If you've ever read The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test by Wolfe, the big argument between Kesey and Leary never actually happened. Wolfe just made it up and presented it as historical fact. I expect this book to be more of the same. There's a line between artistic license and lying, and Wolfe has proven repeatedly he does not respect this line.
- mcguire 10y agoAre the article's quotes and comments about Wolfe's treatment of Darwin accurate? I'm not a big Chomsky fan. On the other hand, using Everett as an attack on Chomsky doesn't work; Everett is a bit sketchy and one language does not provide a counter example. But I admit I haven't studied Chomsky in detail. I do know a fair bit about Darwin, though, and if this is accurate, Wolfe's whole book can be discarded without fear of missing anything.
- jnevill 10y agoIt's accurate. This book is being ripped apart by scholars across many different disciplines. It's a lovely piece of trash that makes Wolfe look as bad as this article suggests.
- JackFr 10y agoThis guy is in desperate need of an editor. He may have a point, but that review is virtually unreadable.
- ktRolster 10y agoIt was a good article. It covered a lot of ground, but worth it for those willing to put in the effort.
- JackFr 10y agoI disagree. He has a point about the book, but this review is simply not good writing. It's needlessly verbose, meandering and self-indulgent. It attempts to be snarky but is devoid of cleverness and wit. His point is simple -- Wolfe's knowledge of the subject matter is scant and shallow and thus he has written a crap book. I don't necessarily disagree with that at all. However it could have been more effectively said with half as many words and fewer clever quips. I am very willing to put in the effort, if I get any sense that the author has put in some as well. Don't blame readers for not wanting to slog through lazy writing.
- ktRolster 10y agoWhat you call 'needlessly verbose, meandering' are actually fact-filled details. If you are not interested in the details of the language acquisition device, (or if you knew it all already), then I can see why you would be bored.
- JackFr 10y agoCompare: "Perhaps you, like I, read The Voyage of the Beagle and found it to be a remarkable triumph of literature and naturalism and science and, dare I say it, the intellect." with "The Voyage of the Beagle was a triumph of literature, naturalism and intellect." Not one fact deleted. There's no accounting for taste -- maybe you like crap writing. But worthwhile ideas remain so even when presented in simple declarative sentences.
- joshuaheard 10y agoI was hoping to read about the scientist who had reduced language to a simple mathematical formula. Instead, the article devolved into a heavy critique of Tom Wolfe. Bummer.
- ktRolster 10y agoI was hoping to read about the scientist who had reduced language to a simple mathematical formula This is a good place to start: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12626.On_Language https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12626.On_Language
- joshuaheard 10y agoI've read professor Chomsky and know about his universal grammar theory. I don't remember there being any math involved. Is he the "scientist using math to explain language"? I'm even more disappointed now. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evidence-rebuts-chomsky-s-theory-of-language-learning/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evidence-rebuts-ch...
- ktRolster 10y agoIf you want to understand it from a mathematical viewpoint, it's a lot of work, but this is the book I used to learn it: https://www.amazon.com//dp/0471137723 https://www.amazon.com//dp/0471137723 The article you linked to doesn't really get to the core of the Universal Grammar idea; as Chomsky describes it: "There is some genetic factor that distinguishes humans from other animals, and [it] is language specific. The theory of that genetic component, whatever it turns out to be, is what is called Universal Grammar"
- ktRolster 10y agoThe article does a good job going over the Pirahã controversy. It also has this quote, which is a good Chomsky quote: "There is some genetic factor that distinguishes humans from other animals, and [it] is language specific. The theory of that genetic component, whatever it turns out to be, is what is called Universal Grammar"
- didibus 10y agoGreat read, it's true that intellectualism seems to be getting a bad rep lately. There's an onslaught of misinformation and as a reader, it's becoming increasingly difficult to know what information you can trust or not.