
Smooth Talk - kawera
http://reallifemag.com/smooth-talk/
======
microcolonel
> _While writing is supposed to intimately represent who we are, this software
> highlights the perpetual inadequacy of translation, intervening with
> standardization as optimization_

I think Alex needs more than writing aid software. This sentence is overloaded
with million dollar phrasing.

So many sentences in this article are nearly meaningless, and impossible to
parse. The reason is that the author and his postmodernist/posthumanist idols
reject meaning itself, so when they attempt to produce advice on conveying
meaning, they instead produce nonsense.

Don't listen to Alex. "Late capitalism" and "patriarchy" are not to blame for
the advice Grammarly and Hemingway give. The drive to be understood is what
motivates tools like this. I have used the rules that Hemingway (the
application) enforces to improve my business communications, and they have
measurably reduced the need for retransmission or damage control related to
misunderstanding.

~~~
coldtea
> _So many sentences in this article are nearly meaningless, and impossible to
> parse. The reason is that the author and his idols reject meaning itself, so
> when they attempt to produce advice on conveying meaning, they instead
> produce nonsense._

The sentence you quote is, at worst, clumsy. There are few, or no, signs in
the post itself that the author rejects meaning or anything or the sort. He
might be a hardcore Derrida scholar for all I know (-- but that's hardly
apparent in the post and the point he tries to make are quite clear.

Here's a "translation":

"While writing is supposed to intimately represent who we are"

This needs to translation.

"this software highlights the perpetual inadequacy of translation"

...this software is an example of how when we translate something, we lose
some part of the meaning of the original.

"intervening with standardization as optimization"

...the software meddles with our writing process, presenting us with the most
standardized options (regarding word choice, standard rules for "better
writing" etc) as if they represent the optimal way to write something.

~~~
microcolonel
> _There are few, or no, signs in the post itself that the author rejects
> meaning or anything or the sort._

You're correct that the article itself doesn't spell it out clearly. My spidey
senses just started tingling when I was uncertain I had understood the
singular intended meaning of the sentences. I checked out the author bio and
it confirmed my inkling: that postmodernism and/or posthumanism has something
to do with why this article is such a pain to read.

I am a human, and all of the beings which read and understand English, as
intended, are humans. Posthumanism is an affront to the conveyance of meaning,
no matter how drab or lame you think your essay is after you run it through
Grammarly.

It is true that, given only the rules and conventions of a language, no
singular meaning can be read from an utterance. It is, thus, tempting to say
that no utterance has any singular meaning. I contend that the human condition
lends sufficient context to read a singular (or close enough) meaning from a
well-formed utterance.

~~~
coldtea
> _It is true that, given only the rules and conventions of a language, no
> singular meaning can be read from an utterance. It is, thus, tempting to say
> that no utterance has any singular meaning. I contend that the human
> condition lends sufficient context to read a singular (or close enough)
> meaning from a well-formed utterance._

That though is not all that post-modernism says, but rather a a reduced straw-
man version.

Even if they alluded (or openly) stated that, they did it for particular,
quite rational, reasons, with they explained with much more nuance and drew
rather rich conclusions from.

In the end, like with the dadaists/surrealists, people might have laughed at
them, but half of what we consume culturally today, from ads and graphic
design to mainstream tv and comics, owes them huge debts.

Speaking of the original post-modernists of course. Not that the American
academics that followed french post-modernism much understood this nuance.

------
metanoetic
The comments here prove, at least, that not everyone is cut out for dense or
complex reading ;)

------
unixhero
I totally enjoyed this article.

------
draw_down
The obsession with eliminating passive voice drives me nuts. It is absolutely
okay to use passive voice. Or maybe it would be better to say it _should_ be
okay to use passive voice.

~~~
mrob
For example, consider the famous opening sentence of Pride and Prejudice: "It
is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good
fortune must be in want of a wife."

The joke only works in passive voice. If you attribute it to a specific person
or group then it's no longer comical wishful thinking, it's just plain wrong.
Sometimes vagueness is beneficial.

~~~
1123581321
Close — it’s because this kind of wanting is a passive, chronic want that may
or may not be acted on with the right amount of forwardness, as the novel
demonstrates.

You could rewrite the sentence as “a single man...wants a wife” and talk about
exactly the same group (men with a fortune) so that’s not where the inaccuracy
lies.

