The Underground Grammarian
On a lighter note. Somewhat lighter anyway. I’ve been reading Susan Haack’s wonderful new book Defending Science – Within Reason, which I strongly recommend you all read without delay. I was amused to find her twice (at least) quoting the Underground Grammarian – whom I also suggest you read without delay. This amused me partly because only a few days ago a reader emailed me with an apposite quotation from the dear Grammarian, and added that it was via B&W that he’d learned of that irascibly witty writer. That did make me feel useful.
Here’s a brief sample – although not as brief as usual, because there is no worry about copyright: the dear Grammarian gave blanket permission to use as much of his material as our little hearts desired, and the site continues that tradition.
The truth, at last, can be told. That Aristotle fellow was, in fact, not a literate man. He never developed positive feelings about barbarians. Indeed, the more he came to learn about them, the less he appreciated them. Franz Kafka wasn’t literate either, you know. Like so many other illiterate “writers”-who can count them?-he was never able to develop any positive feelings of self-worth and importance…But don’t worry about it. Our schools are doing everything they can to assure that we will be less and less troubled by such pseudo-literates. The true literates are in the sphere—or is it the arena?—of education. In that sphere, or field, it is almost impossible to find anyone who hasn’t developed impregnable feelings of self-worth and importance…The quality of their relationships with others is amazing; they never, never disagree or contend, and they always hail enthusiastically each other’s bold innovative thrusts and experiential programs of excellence. And what could be stronger testimony to their fulfillment of individual potential than the fact that they have somehow persuaded the rest of us to pay them for all the stuff they do?
And a bit farther down (this is volume 6 number 2, by the way):
Among the great successes of our schools is the fact that they have always been able to prevent serious and widespread outbreaks of hyperkinetic reading behavior syndrome. This is a remarkable feat, since most young children, even when they first come to school, already exhibit morbid curiosity behavior and persistent questioning behavior, dangerous precursors that must be replaced quickly with group interaction skills and self-awareness enhancement. (Children who are properly preoccupied with themselves and with some presumed distinctions between individual whims and collective whims hardly ever fall into hyperkinetic reading behavior syndrome.) Although a few intractable cases can still be found, we realistically expect, and before long, to eradicate this crippling disability and usher in the age of true literacy.
The Grammarian did not think much of US schools of education. He didn’t worry much about hurting those schools’ feelings, either. He was a lovely fella.
I’ve read some of the wit and wisdom of the Underground Grammarian, and have come to the conclusion that he doesn’t know much about grammar or language. He may be a ‘lovely fella’, but he’s not very literate. Sorry to be so rude and blunt, but only a very ignorant person would say things like ‘English doesn’t have much grammar’. And his meditations on the relationship between thought and language, and literacy and morality, are, frankly, embarrassing. Or perhaps I’m an elitist for saying this?
Well, GB, you know how fond I am of elitists, not to mention rudeness and bluntness. But I’m afraid I don’t agree with you about the Underground One. Perhaps we’ve read different bits of him.
Are you saying that if I read the ‘right’ bits, I would realise that the UG is actually an expert on grammar, evolutionary linguistics, psychology, the philosophy of language and all the other subjects he pontificates about?
Or are you saying that it doesn’t really matter that he talks bollocks, as long as he attacks the ‘right’ targets ( politically correct teachers, academics, etc.)?
Well, it matters to me. If I want a lecture on language or philosophy or critical thinking, I’ll turn to a real expert, not to a pseudo-literate like the UG.
No, I’m not saying either of those. I’m saying I haven’t read the bits where he talks bollocks or pontificates about subjects he knows nothing about.
Inspired by this discussion I spent Sunday watching a football game and reading some UG. Parallelization, I call it.
Although I grant he is intemperate in his remarks, I can’t say I’ve noticed the UG saying anything blatantly untrue. He did say a lot of things that I thought were true, and funny. Indeed, if it’s so obvious he’s full of it, it’d be nice to see an example.
Indeed, Grammar Bore hasn’t provided a single example in context, only blind assertions. Arguing from authority is wrong. Arguing from the authority of a handle is comical.
I have just made the acquaintance of the Undergound Grammarian, his writing that is, and find it requiring a bit more effort than I expected to need this morning, like I need to really sit down with those books or something–which I will do–but not illiterate-sounding, so far. Even if he did need to change his style to make it a bit easier to grasp [and I am not saying he did], that is not the same as sounding illiterate, or pseudo-literate–I’ve run into enough of those!
Ben,
So you THINK that Mr UG knows what he is talking about. And you also find him funny. Well, that clinches the argument. But do you actually know enough about language, etc. to spot a charlatan?
I could write a detailed critique of one of his articles, but surely you realise that I can’t do it here. N&C is not a discussion board; if I’ve understood correctly, this is a place for making rude 2-line comments.
KM,
Sorry to be so confusing. I didn’t use the term ‘pseudo-literate’ to refer to his style, but to the content of his writings.
I think of it as a form of Bad Writing: it’s technically and stylistically flawless, but lacking substance.
I’ll have to get back to you on the substance. I don’t think OB would’ve recommended him if he hadn’t had something worthwhile to say.
I notice no one has come up with an example either way. The heck with this; I’m going to hit the books…
Nonsense, I’ve come up with two examples. The ones I quoted from.
I really don’t know what GB has in mind – I mean it literally when I say we must have read different bits. The Grammarian I know teases and mocks nonsense from US education schools, which richly deserves all the mockery it gets. He doesn’t pontificate about any of the items GB mentions. But I haven’t read all of him, in fact I’ve only read one book, the one I happened upon in a used bookstore several years ago. The quotations in the Comment are from that book as well as the site. If that’s the sort of thing GB has in mind, then I flatly disagree; if not, then I simply don’t know.
Even to this point Grammar Bore won’t divulge what of UG he/she *has* read. Just that it’s objectionable.
I may or may not know enough about language to spot a charlatan. It probably depends on the charlatan. This is why I am interested in more detail on this case. I don’t claim that my passing impressions clinch any arguments – that’s why they’re presented as uninformed impressions, rather than statements of absolute truth, from authority.
What I *do* know is that it’s a little nonstandard to say ‘No sir, no, I don’t like it’ without even being able to muster even something of the level of ‘Chapter 2 of _Less than Words Can Say_ is horrid’. And that’s what’s funny.
Oops…(slaps hand on forehead)…forgot the examples OB put out for us…Thanks for tipping me off about U. G. [hastens to shore up towering must-read stack]
Ben (et al.),
My problem is that I’m spoiled for choice. But if you want an example of a particularly ‘horrid’ piece, take a look at ‘Why Good Grammar?’. (Go to the UG home page, and click ‘The Great Booklets and Other Essays’.)
It’s so bad that it’s (almost) funny, but it would take me several pages to explain why.