
Tom Wolfe’s reflections on language - shalmanese
http://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/tom-wolfes-reflections-language/
======
AndyMcConachie
Tom 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
Are 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
It'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.

------
ktRolster
The 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
Great 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.

------
joshuaheard
I 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
_I 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
I'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-
ch...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evidence-rebuts-chomsky-s-
theory-of-language-learning/)

~~~
ktRolster
If 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"_

------
JackFr
This guy is in desperate need of an editor. He may have a point, but that
review is virtually unreadable.

~~~
ktRolster
It was a good article. It covered a lot of ground, but worth it for those
willing to put in the effort.

~~~
JackFr
I 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
What 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
Compare:

"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.

~~~
dragonwriter
> "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

Which is, in fact, the thing deleted (that is, the former version expressly
emphasizes that the conclusion it offers is an opinion -- even as it clearly
expects the reader to recognize that it is a quite common one, and that the
author expects the reader to be likely to share it -- and the latter suggests
it is a simple statement of fact.)

> But worthwhile ideas remain so even when presented in simple declarative
> sentences.

Yes, but sometimes changing the sentence structure also -- as in the example
you present -- substantially alters the idea being presented.

~~~
JackFr
I don't imagine I'll convince you, but here goes.

Consider your response to me. If you had left it at "Which is the thing
deleted" your point would have been well and cleverly made. But you go on to
undermine it with a less clear parenthetical exposition of 50+ words (1
sentence!)

------
lintiness
i 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
There 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"

