4 ms·

Do you really think, in the quote about canoeing, that "sport" would have said remotely the same thing as "diversion of field"? I completely agree with you that

Do you really think, in the quote about canoeing, that "sport" would have said remotely the same thing as "diversion of field"? I completely agree with you that writing should be as simple as it can (George Orwell's essay[1] on that is wonderful), but the feeling and depth different words evoke is the difference between technical writing and prose[2]. 1. https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm 2. This is not to disparage technical writing. It is a craft in itself, but it, intentionally, is not given life.

rquirk 12y ago
If I did not know what sport meant, and looked it up and saw "diversion of field", I'd still have no idea what it meant. I'd think maybe sport had something to do with electromagnetism.
- SoftwareMaven 12y ago
  But that's not the entire definition[1] nor the entire context. Taking any phrase out of context can be confusing. 1. "Diversion of the field, as fowling, hunting, fishing, racing, games, and the like, esp. when money is staked."
gjm11 12y ago
Actually, that very example struck me as an instance of style over substance. Football, cricket, baseball, sprinting, javelin throwing: these are all diversions of the field, for sure. But canoeing? Have both McPhee and Somers forgotten that canoeing is done in a canoe, and canoes don't work very well on grass? Yes, indeed, "a diversion of the field" sounds nice. The words have a pleasant ring to them. But they are, as it happens, completely inapplicable to canoeing. Perhaps McPhee or Somers or both would consider this mere pedantry, worthy only of technical writing. I dare to suggest that their heroes Webster and Johnson would disagree. I have to say that the paragraph about the canoeing strikes me as wrongheaded in another respect. "Simply a rite of oneness with certain terrain", writes McPhee. Wait, what? Simply? In what hierarchy of value or complexity or whatever it is that "simply" indicates a lack of does getting efficiently from A to B rank above a "rite of oneness" with the terrain in between? Furthermore, let's return to Webster's definition of "fustian", which he defines as "a kind of writing in which high-sounding words are used, above the dignity of the thoughts or subject". The subject, in this case, is the fact that people take canoeing trips for reasons other than efficient travel. Fair enough; worth pointing out, in its context; but it's a pretty good example of a subject that doesn't demand "high-sounding words". (I have to say that I'm not entirely convinced that what determines the appropriateness of high-sounding words is the dignity of the thoughts or subject. In -- for instance -- a religious ritual, a national celebration, or a musical performance, high-sounding words might be appropriate even for rather unexciting thoughts. Make it "the dignity of the thoughts, subject, and occasion" and I'd agree. So maybe there's something about McPhee's piece that makes elevated language appropriate even for its mundane topic. But I would prefer the elevation of the language not to compromise its meaning, which it has in this case.)
- SoftwareMaven 12y ago
  Field and Stream magazine doesn't have many footballs in it, yet the diversions it covers have a strong overlap with a diversion like canoeing. Obviously what one prefers when reading is a highly subjective thing, but I can't even fathom the problem you have with "simply a rite of oneness with certain terrain". Having spent a lot of time in wilderness, I can't think of many phrases that more appropriately describe the experience. It can be a near religious experience. shrug
  - gjm11 12y ago
    Field and Stream. Canoeing is a diversion, for sure, but not a diversion of the field. The problem I have with simply a rite of oneness with certain terrain" is precisely with the word "simply". What McPhee wrote suggests that a "rite of oneness with certain terrain" is somehow lesser, simpler, less rich, than getting efficiently from A to B. Whereas, in fact, it's quite the opposite. In other words: I'm agreeing with you that it can be a near religious experience, and I'm saying that for that very reason McPhee's description seems to me to be tone-deaf. "X has become simply Y", to me, suggests that X used to be something more interesting but has (so to speak) come down in the world.
    - SoftwareMaven 12y ago
      I think you are misreading the "simply" as "simple". Rather, the connotation is one of an experience distilled down to its essence, not interrupted or besmirched by other, unimportant vulgarities like "the need to get from point A to point B". In fact, I would go so far as to say you are reading it exactly opposite of its intended meaning and are arguing that it should say what it actually does say. On the Field and Stream, see my other comment nearby that has the full definition from the dictionary used. If you've ever seen Field and Stream magazine, you know the fields it talks about are not football fields, which is an incredibly narrow definition of the word 'field'.
      - gjm11 12y ago
        I never intended to suggest that "fields" or "field" has to refer to football fields (or to any sort of sports field) and I have no idea how what I wrote gave you the impression that I meant something so absurdly specific. But canoeing doesn't, and couldn't, take place on any sort of field, and that (rather than anything to do with football fields specifically) is why I think "diversion of the field" an excessively inexact way to describe it, nice though it sounds. Looking at the other comment you mention, I suppose perhaps you infer from Webster's inclusion of fishing as a "diversion of the field" that "of the field" for him means something very, very broad like "outdoors". I suppose it's possible that it does; but if so I can only say that whatever it may have meant for Webster, it certainly doesn't mean that for me, and I doubt it could mean it for any reader of McPhee who was actually paying attention to the meaning of his words rather than their sound. You may well be right about what McPhee is getting at with the word "simply". I don't find myself able to read it that way. Especially if I assume for the sake of argument that Somers's interpretation of what McPhee says about "sport" is right -- i.e., that McPhee wanted something that means more or less the same as "sport" but sounds better. For me, though perhaps not for everyone, sport goes in an entirely different category from quasi-religious experience-distilled-down-to-its-essence.

rquirk 12y ago

If I did not know what sport meant, and looked it up and saw "diversion of field", I'd still have no idea what it meant. I'd think maybe sport had something to do with electromagnetism.

SoftwareMaven 12y ago
But that's not the entire definition[1] nor the entire context. Taking any phrase out of context can be confusing. 1. "Diversion of the field, as fowling, hunting, fishing, racing, games, and the like, esp. when money is staked."

gjm11 12y ago

Actually, that very example struck me as an instance of style over substance. Football, cricket, baseball, sprinting, javelin throwing: these are all diversions of the field, for sure. But canoeing? Have both McPhee and Somers forgotten that canoeing is done in a canoe, and canoes don't work very well on grass? Yes, indeed, "a diversion of the field" sounds nice. The words have a pleasant ring to them. But they are, as it happens, completely inapplicable to canoeing. Perhaps McPhee or Somers or both would consider this mere pedantry, worthy only of technical writing. I dare to suggest that their heroes Webster and Johnson would disagree. I have to say that the paragraph about the canoeing strikes me as wrongheaded in another respect. "Simply a rite of oneness with certain terrain", writes McPhee. Wait, what? Simply? In what hierarchy of value or complexity or whatever it is that "simply" indicates a lack of does getting efficiently from A to B rank above a "rite of oneness" with the terrain in between? Furthermore, let's return to Webster's definition of "fustian", which he defines as "a kind of writing in which high-sounding words are used, above the dignity of the thoughts or subject". The subject, in this case, is the fact that people take canoeing trips for reasons other than efficient travel. Fair enough; worth pointing out, in its context; but it's a pretty good example of a subject that doesn't demand "high-sounding words". (I have to say that I'm not entirely convinced that what determines the appropriateness of high-sounding words is the dignity of the thoughts or subject. In -- for instance -- a religious ritual, a national celebration, or a musical performance, high-sounding words might be appropriate even for rather unexciting thoughts. Make it "the dignity of the thoughts, subject, and occasion" and I'd agree. So maybe there's something about McPhee's piece that makes elevated language appropriate even for its mundane topic. But I would prefer the elevation of the language not to compromise its meaning, which it has in this case.)

SoftwareMaven 12y ago
Field and Stream magazine doesn't have many footballs in it, yet the diversions it covers have a strong overlap with a diversion like canoeing. Obviously what one prefers when reading is a highly subjective thing, but I can't even fathom the problem you have with "simply a rite of oneness with certain terrain". Having spent a lot of time in wilderness, I can't think of many phrases that more appropriately describe the experience. It can be a near religious experience. shrug
- gjm11 12y ago
  Field and Stream. Canoeing is a diversion, for sure, but not a diversion of the field. The problem I have with simply a rite of oneness with certain terrain" is precisely with the word "simply". What McPhee wrote suggests that a "rite of oneness with certain terrain" is somehow lesser, simpler, less rich, than getting efficiently from A to B. Whereas, in fact, it's quite the opposite. In other words: I'm agreeing with you that it can be a near religious experience, and I'm saying that for that very reason McPhee's description seems to me to be tone-deaf. "X has become simply Y", to me, suggests that X used to be something more interesting but has (so to speak) come down in the world.
  - SoftwareMaven 12y ago
    I think you are misreading the "simply" as "simple". Rather, the connotation is one of an experience distilled down to its essence, not interrupted or besmirched by other, unimportant vulgarities like "the need to get from point A to point B". In fact, I would go so far as to say you are reading it exactly opposite of its intended meaning and are arguing that it should say what it actually does say. On the Field and Stream, see my other comment nearby that has the full definition from the dictionary used. If you've ever seen Field and Stream magazine, you know the fields it talks about are not football fields, which is an incredibly narrow definition of the word 'field'.
    - gjm11 12y ago
      I never intended to suggest that "fields" or "field" has to refer to football fields (or to any sort of sports field) and I have no idea how what I wrote gave you the impression that I meant something so absurdly specific. But canoeing doesn't, and couldn't, take place on any sort of field, and that (rather than anything to do with football fields specifically) is why I think "diversion of the field" an excessively inexact way to describe it, nice though it sounds. Looking at the other comment you mention, I suppose perhaps you infer from Webster's inclusion of fishing as a "diversion of the field" that "of the field" for him means something very, very broad like "outdoors". I suppose it's possible that it does; but if so I can only say that whatever it may have meant for Webster, it certainly doesn't mean that for me, and I doubt it could mean it for any reader of McPhee who was actually paying attention to the meaning of his words rather than their sound. You may well be right about what McPhee is getting at with the word "simply". I don't find myself able to read it that way. Especially if I assume for the sake of argument that Somers's interpretation of what McPhee says about "sport" is right -- i.e., that McPhee wanted something that means more or less the same as "sport" but sounds better. For me, though perhaps not for everyone, sport goes in an entirely different category from quasi-religious experience-distilled-down-to-its-essence.