Friday Night Links

Friday Night Lights/P.J.'s Picks:

I swear to you I'm going to put up actual blog posts, but for now you'll have to suffer through another round of links. This week's theme is loosely based around architecture, as seems to be the case quite often around here. These links are slightly more focused in that they deal with architecture and urban design within the scope of environmentalism.

Detractors of environmentally friendly urban planning projects often say that all this environmentalism talk is all attempt to stop global warming which, in their minds, doesn't exist. That, and the government is regulating business and manufacturing in ways it has no right to do. The way I see it, environmentalism is not an ethos or way of life dependent upon a belief in global warming. To me, it's just about common sense. In essence, environmentalists want to keep the world as clean as possible. We have seen that dumping trash into the ocean is not a good idea. Toxins get spread through ocean tides and fish ingest mercury and we ingest the fish and then we ingest mercury. We've seen that if air pollution is not relegated to one place and that wind patterns can carry smog across countries and continents. Dirty one part of the world and, chances are, that dirt will spread elsewhere. What environmentalism tries to do is avoid the spills and messes of the world. It is trying to keep humanity from pissing in the well from which we drink. It's a simple concept and one that promotes a hearty sense of self-preservation. We want to keep the Earth as habitable for as long as possible. As kids, our parents always told us to clean our rooms, doesn't it makes sense that we also clean our planet?

In an effort to jump on this environmental bandwagon and increase long-term sustainability, the city of Los Angeles is embarking on a series of public transportation projects, many of which have been rumored and argued about for years. Plans include more light-rail train routes or extensions of pre-existing routes, trolley service in downtown, bike rentals, and the legendary subway to the sea. All these projects are in their planning stages and require lots of money from a city going broke. While these projects might not even get started into 2011 or 2012, at least there are city planners and leaders who are trying to do something about the traffic problems in L.A. The infrastructure definitely needs some work and I'm glad freeways are being pushed aside for more environmentally feasible options.

"The New York Times" has a two part article about what to do with the inflexible infrastructure of the suburbs and how some economically downtrodden communities are dealing with the closure of "big box" stories. There is also a look at sustainable design for the future including a new phase of pre-fab homes that are vaguely reminiscent of the Case Study Project.

Slightly related and a little more hip is the promotion of chalk and white board paint. What are these marvelous products you ask? Glad you did. They are wall paints that, once dried, double as either a chalk or white board surface. For once it's permissible and encouraged to write on the walls.

And just to keep my literary peeps happy, a link to a pretty comprehensive and fairly well-known site on literature that includes interviews and book reviews.

Lastly, an in-depth article about language and how, more than just a communication tool, it also dictates your perception of the world and overall cognitive processes.

"This Modern Thought Can Get the Best of You..."

As much as I love Modernism I must admit it has its share of radical supporters whose ideas don't always make a lot of sense (I'm looking at you, Robbe-Grillet). The goals of Modern literature, simplistically speaking, were to completely disregard the previous literary traditions and begin everything anew. The old modes of writing were considered insufficient in their ability to describe the new, highly fractured world view that came into prominence following World War I.

One major proponent of Modernist ideologies was author and critic (although he denounced the title) Alain Robbe-Grillet who, in 1963, published a compilation of essays about fiction writing titled, For A New Novel. In it Robbe-Grillet compares the literary traditions of yore to tree branches and that, "...the branch in question is actually dead of natural causes, by the simple action of time...and if all those who cling to it so desperately would glance up just once toward the top of the tree, they would discover that new, green, vigorous, hearty branches have grown out long since" ( p. 26).

He goes on later in the book to say that he is not proposing Modernism as the new, permanent style. It too will pass and something will take its place. Literature should always be alive and vital and change along with the needs of the writer. In Robbe-Grillet's mind, the writers of the period no longer needed many of the literary conventions such as linear narratives, omniscient narrators, and metaphor. And this is where I feel Robbe-Grillet went a little too far with his proposal. He confused popularity of convention with usefulness. Just because a mode of writing has fallen out of fashion it doesn't mean it's not useful.

Every writing technique is there to serve a purpose. Metaphor, for example, compares two objects in order to cast one of those objects in a new light. In Dave Eggers' short story, "On Wanting to Have Three Walls Up Before She Gets Home" he says, "...the air is gray and dense and the snow falls like ash." Eggers' description of snow forces the reader to question their preconceived notions about each object and how, according to his suggestion, they might actually be more similar than originally thought. Robbe-Grillet, on the other hand, wants to get rid of metaphor completely, arguing that its use devalues the intent of the initial word. In the case of Eggers' story, he is not allowing snow to be described as it is, but instead, relies on another image (ash) to get his point across. As I stated earlier, in creating a metaphor, the author forces the reader to reassess their notions of both objects and come to a conclusion about them. If anything, the comparison invites further thought on the meaning of each word and doesn't devalue them at all.

Along with metaphor, story structure, or at least linear story structure, was also brought into question during the reign of Modernsim. Linear story structure plots a straight line from one point in time to another. A story takes place at noon and ends at five in the afternoon. Non-linear storylines jump around in time and lack structure. The plot meanders wherever it may and lacks cohesion; the events of the story may seem unrelated and arbitrary. The point of this technique is to reflect the often random nature of life and the banality of human existence. While I don't have a problem with this form of writing, I think it's unwise to completely dismiss traditional story structure as archaic. Many of the best works of literature are well-plotted and completely dependant upon that plot to work.

Playwright, Theresa Rebeck, knows all to well how much structure has fallen out of favor with the literary community. In an L.A. Times interview she says,

Last year I attended a cocktail party for a theater that was doing one of my plays. The artistic director was making a little presentation, introducing me to his staff and his board, and he said -- in front of everybody -- "Theresa's plays are always really well-structured, but don't hold that against her."

The next day I wrote him an e-mail. "Hey, is it somehow considered uncool to structure a play these days?" I asked.

"Actually," he wrote back, "my literary department kind of does think that."

She defends the rotten branches of literature Robbe-Grillet was so eager to trim by saying, "Structure is not our enemy, it is the form that makes content possible; it is the meaning that holds the image and imbues it with specificity; specificity is not our enemy; intellect without heart is not more, it is less and in the theater sometimes less is just less. Contemporary playwrights don't need to toss away all that has come before us, nor could we if we even tried."

The last line of her quote echoes an oft-repeated line in Paul Thomas Anderson's movie Magnolia which says, "We may be through with the past, but the past is not through with us." Literature is not written in a vacuum. It is a product of a person's imagination, a person who, whether they like it or not, is influenced by the world around them. The changes Modernists so desperately wanted to make were in response to what had come before; the Victorian and Romantic Periods. In order for new branches to grow, there have to be roots somewhere. Nothing is created out of thin air. Structure, like metaphor, and omniscient narrators, may be part of an older tradition, but they are no less important than the new, Modernist tradition, incidentally, is pushing 100 years old. Looks like some one's outlived their usefulness ( I'm looking at you, Modernism).

Twitter Dee, Twitter Dumb

Twitter is the big, new Internet craze and everyone is jumping on board. Celebrities, especially, seem drawn to this new communication platform as are their fans. Shaq has a Twitter, Ashton Kutcher has a Twitter, Erykah Badu famously Twittered when she was in labor. News organizations such as the New York Times are also sending out updates via Tweets (message posts). It seems that there is no individual or organization that isn't somehow helped by using Twitter. Or at least that's the theory.

News shows across the country are trying to figure out why Twitter is so popular, whether it's useful in any way, and whether or not its popularity signals the end of civilized communication as we know it. All this hullabaloo started because of the restrictions Twitter puts on its Tweets, which limits each entry to 140 characters, including spaces. There have been debates both for and against the service, none of which really made any decisive points. Even Stephen Colbert, master interrogator, failed to come to a consensus after interviewing Twitter co-founder, Biz Stone. New York Times columnist, Maureen Dowd, went to interview the folks at Twitter and was convinced she would take them down a peg. Turns out, she thinks they're pretty cool.

I, personally, do not use Twitter. I might some day, but as of right now, I don't find it particularly advantageous to do so. I think it has some merits. Like all things, I think it depends on how it's used. As the old saying goes, each tool has its own purpose. What's is Twitter's purpose? What is the best use for it? Twitter is still relatively new and has yet to find its place among other communication services. It is certainly being used heavily, but whether those uses (such as NYT's news Tweets) are viable in the long term remains to be seen. Twitter might just be another fad waiting to die out. No one knows for sure.

Amongst all this confusion, however, is an in-depth analysis of Twitter provided by the good people at Pitchfork Media. Popularly known as the organization that rarely gives music albums scores higher than "6," Pitchfork Media, as the name implies, discusses and writes about things other than music, including Twitter. Their article closely looks at how the number of followers one has on Twitter affects the content of the Tweets as well as the responses from other Twitterers. They posit that the greater the number of followers, the more each post becomes a broadcast, rather than a personal communication. Conversely though, higher follower numbers also increases the likelihood of receiving responses to Tweets. This, in turn, creates a dialogue that might not have existed on a Twitter account with a low number of followers.

It's the first article I have read that doesn't focus on Twitter's 140 character post limit and how it's hastening our descent into complete linguistic anarachy. Reporters often point to instant messaging and texting as evidence of a society losing its command of written language. There are even online reference guides to help one make sense of all the abbreviations made in texts. Is Twitter exacerbating this linguistic snafu? Pitchfork doesn't care about that. What it does care about is the strengths and weaknesses of Twitter's ability to foster conversation beyond its 140 character limit. The article defends Twitter's function as a conversation starter and likens its Tweets to, ."..the grease on the discourse axle...By itself Twitter often works best as a dip into a mood pool, an ambient swash of thoughts on a given topic." The article made the important distinction of saying that Twitter performs best when used as a conversation starter rather than a substitute for conversation itself. Whether it actually gets used in that way remains another matter. At least now, though, there's a sign pointing in the right direction, 140 characters at a time.

Lexicography

Before I get into a whole spiel about lexicography, I'd like to promote the site that taught me about it; TED. TED is not a person, but an organization whose name is an acronym for Technology, Entertainment, and Design. "It was started in 1984 as a conference bringing together people from those three worlds. Since then its scope has become ever broader. The annual conference now brings together the world's most fascinating thinkers and doers, who are challenged to give the talk of their lives (in 18 minutes)."

The TED site currently hosts over 200 presentations given at their conferences with speakers including, Dave Eggers, Jane Goodall, Mike Rowe and John Hodgeman. All of the talks are available for free viewing and download, both as video and audio. As their motto states, the purpose of their organization is not to make money, but to continually support, "Ideas worth spreading."

The inspiration for this particular post comes from a talk give by Erin McKean at TED 2007. Her talk can be viewed here. I had no idea who she was before watching the video. As it turns out, Erin McKean is the editor in chief of the American Oxford Dictionary. What a bad ass.

The whole premise of her talk is that dictionaries in their current paper form are completely outmoded and limited in their ability to describe and define the English language. She stated that the dictionary's structure and content hasn't really changed since the reign of Queen Victoria. By content, I don't mean the words themselves haven't been updated, but the information given about them hasn't changed (i.e. pronunciation, etymology, classification). Paper dictionaries, because they are necessarily limited by their number of pages, are also limited in the number of words they have. This, of course, means words get left out. And because dictionaries are considered the ultimate source for "official words," if a word isn't in a dictionary, it is assumed it isn't a "real" word. Well, this just isn't true. It just means there isn't enough room for all the words.

McKean argues that lexicographers, or people who compile dictionaries, have been relegated to the role of traffic cop. They are the deciders of what goes in the dictionary and what stays out. The problems with that is that, "If you have artificial restraints, it leads to arbitrary distinctions and a skewed world view." A word being in a dictionary gives it the distinction of being more "real" or "official" than a word not in the dictionary.

The solution to all this is to get dictionaries of off paper and online. Her brainchild, which was not covered in her talk, is an online dictionary she created called Wordnik. It's still in beta stage, but the idea of the dictionary is to scan through all manner of written material like books, magazines, comics, blogs, etc. and find new words and enter them into Wordnik. The sentence the word was used in, as well as its definition and frequency of use is also included. Not only that, but there will be an audio clip that pronounces the word properly. Words can also be submitted and defined by the average person a la Wikipedia. It is slightly different in that before a new word gets posted, it has to go through review by the Wordnik people.

While a courageous project and one I giddily anticipate using, I still think it is flawed and I'm not sure there will ever be any solution to it. As stated before, dictionaries are looked at as authoritative texts that allow people to check a word's meaning and usage. While certainly not inclusive, it gives people a guide and shows them what is generally accepted in everyday speech. Language and speech is fluid and adaptive to the environment in which its used. One wouldn't go into a job interview and say, "Yo, how's it hangin', bro?" Generally, a person would say, "Hello, nice to meet you. How are you?" The normative, everyday speech in the second example is the type found in current paper dictionaries. If a word like "yo" were looked up in Wordnik, thirty different definitions and uses might be posted there. How would a person know in what context to use the word? Too many choices can lead to ambiguity and confusion. The great thing about paper dictionaries is that they limit the options and create a guide for standard speech. People know they are safe if they use a word found in Webster's. Can they have that same assurance with something like Wordnik where "slang" words are defined right next to "proper" ones.

The point of Wordnik is to respond to the immense fluidity of language. Word spelling, pronunciation, and definition change over time. Shakespeare is always the go-to guy for examples in the evolution of language. In the course of 400 years the English language has changed immensely. Pronouns like thee, thou, and thine are not in common use anymore, therefore, they are not in dictionaries. If old words are saved and kept in dictionaries, as is suggested in this Times article, are we embracing the fluidity of language or stagnating it? Here comes the tree analogy. Language can be thought of as a tree. The tree keeps growing and new branches and leaves sprout. Where do the old ones go? Many of them fall off or need to be cut down. Language changes and sometimes words disappear and sometimes for good reason. If we stop and keep every word alive, the many grammatical and syntactical systems now in place would become useless. It would be a kind of language anarchy, with no word or rule any more important than the other.

Located in the FAQ section of Wordnik is a question that asks,

"I looked up a word in Wordnik that I know isn't right, and you have tons of sentences for it. What gives?"

The answer:

Here at Wordnik, we show you what people actually do with language, not what we'd like them to do. We think it's important to show real information about every word—even the ones that aren't considered standard. However, just because a word is in Wordnik doesn't mean you have to use it!


The problem with the anything goes approach to defining words, as the answer readily agrees with, is that it does not conform to any standard. Without any standard, how will people know what to use? What if they use one of the more obscure definitions of a word? The person they are writing or speaking to will not understand what they are saying. There will be confusion.

I am always questioned by people about being such a stickler for grammar. My grammar is far from perfect; comma usage is the bane of my existence, but I am more particular than the average person. "Why?" people ask me. "What difference does it make if I end a sentence with a preposition or say who instead of whom?" Well, it does make a difference. Rules of language and grammar are created so that there is a standard form of communication everyone can understand. What if everyone followed their own set of traffic laws? Car accidents would be a lot more frequent. If everyone followed their own rules of grammar or defined words however they wanted, people would not understand each other. No one would agree on what a word means and it would probably fall out of use simply for being so confusing. Even though it's limiting, some set of standards for word definitions has to be created, otherwise people couldn't communicate. The shift in definition of a word for one person doesn't mean everyone else in the world is caught up and knows that new definition. Change takes time.

Putting definitions on the Internet may speed up a word's evolution, but that still means someone has to input and decide the definitions on the site. There is still a governing body, there are still lexicographers deciding what a word's primary definition and the primacy is based on usage. I don't think popularity necessarily equates correctness. Just because more people say "Who did you go with?" instead of "With whom did you go?" it doesn't make the first one correct. It just means more people use it. Will the rules for the objective case eventually change, rendering whom obsolete? Maybe. But currently we have a system in place that states in certain situations whom is the proper word. If Wordnik reports that "who" is the more common usage, is it going to ignore the grammatical rule that states whom should be used when it is the object of a preposition? Is it going to promote the popularly used choice over the standardized correct one?

It's a very tricky thing to decide how best to document a language because it cannot be easily contained or distilled. It is a constantly shifting entity that is open to and thrives on change. Many words in use today are the result of breaks with "standardized rules." People get lazy and combine two words or drop the syllables at the end of a long word, or a decree is made that says the sound of the vowels should change. Many times popular usage is the reason behind a change in definition. The vastness and mercurial nature of language makes it difficult to document and presents a unique set of challenges to whomever attempts such a task. My criticisms of Wordnik are not meant to discourage or rally against the idea, (I'm actually very excited about it) but to continue the discussion on words and language and definition, and figure out who to get along with each other when there are 200 words to say hello.

For more information on Erin McKean and other kick-ass word related websites, please explore the links below:

TED Profile
Erin McKean's Blog: The Dictionary Evangelist
Verbatim: The Language Quarterly Language and linguistics for the layperson since 1974
Wordnik: Erin McKean's online dictionary