Here on the blog y’all get to see me writing with at least a measure of style. My editor and I have an understanding, and if I want to plot an "ain’t" or a "y’all" or a "YEE-HAW!" into a sentence, I can and he won’t "correct" me.
I occasionally cut loose with a full-blown fisk (though it requires me to have found a REALLY stupid story to use as a base for the fisk. If the story isn’t stupid enough, the fisk won’t be that funny.)
When I write for most publications, though, I have to write in a very SERIOUS manner.
That doesn’t stop me from appreciating those who write with a lot of style. I just don’t get a chance to put much stylish stuff in print, myself.
There are certain people who I’ve discovered on the Net who write in such an interesting manner that I’ll go out of my way to read their material, just to admire their creative use of language. Even if I don’t agree with what they’re saying, I still admire how they say it.
Peggy Noonan is one. Mickey Kaus is another. LILEKS HAD A REALLY GOOD ONE HERE.
And then there’s Mark Steyn. He’s always a treat in terms of how he uses words. For example, consider the following paragraph in which he describes listening to a National Public Radio story that talked about Muslim terrorists in Russia without identifying them–till the last word of the story–as Muslims:
When the NPR report started, I was driving on the vast open plains of I-91 in Vermont and reckoned, just to make things interesting, I’ll add another five miles to the speed for every minute that goes by without mentioning Islam. But I couldn’t get the needle to go above 130, and the vibrations caused the passenger-side wing-mirror to drop off. And then, right at the end, having conducted a perfect interview that managed to go into great depth about everything except who these guys were and what they were fighting over, the Russian academic dude had to go and spoil it all by saying somethin’ stupid like "republics which are mostly . . . Muslim." He mumbled the last word, but nevertheless the NPR gal leapt in to thank him and move smoothly on to some poll showing that the Dems are going to sweep the 2006 midterms because Bush has the worst numbers since numbers were invented.
Now see! That’s good writing! I’d love to do stuff like that, only people take you SO seriously when you’re an apologist and expect you to be SO prim and proper and "charitable" and literal all the time.
It’s enough to make you stamp your foot sometimes.
ANYWAY, READ THE REST OF STEYN’S PIECE TO SEE WHAT OTHER NIFTY WRITING TRICKS HE PULLS.
James Lileks is one of my favorite writers. His books “Interior Desecration” and “Gallery of Regrettable Foods” will make your sides hurt from laughing so hard.
Prim, proper and charitable? I don’t know Jimmy I think you did pretty well against that British religion writer recently. You have your moments — but I agree the Steyn piece was particularly good.
Every Mark Steyn column is such a treat.
I love writing that tugs me along with every sentence, every word. Writing with colorful style is a turn on for a reader, as long as “colorful style” is not a euphamism for “frickin’ goofy.”
Jimmy, your Catholic apologetics writing is excellent. No need to change what you’re doing, because you’re good at it and there is a “market” for scholarly, credible, readable defenses of the faith. But that doesn’t mean you can’t find a home for breezier and funnier (but still poignant) writing. Perhaps a column in “This Rock,” or a regular commentary for Catholic.com. Heck, you’ve already got http://www.jimmyakin.org. Have at it and enjoy!
Any ideas on the back burner for some fiction, Jimmy?
I know your busy.
if I want to plot an “ain’t” or a “y’all” or a “YEE-HAW!” into a sentence, I can and he won’t “correct” me.
Every other language has a word for “y’all,” and English should too. I think “y’all” should be the accepted term, and that terms like “y’uns”/”y’ins” and “youse guys” should be eliminated.
I’ve actually used the term “y’all” to explain to Protestants what Jesus meant when he said “He (the Holy Spirit) will guide you (y’all) into all truth”.
Some Protestants believe that if they try hard to study the Bible and pray, that the Holy Spirit will guide each of them, individually, into all truth. This leads to a huge number of differing, idiosyncratic scripture interpretations that each individual thinks of as divinely assured.
“Y’all” is a humorous way of explaining how the Holy Spirit guides his church (all of us together) into all truth, as opposed to a more individualistic view.
Does the original language of the text leave any room for this, or am I in error?
the word that really needs to be eliminated is ‘yourn’. In KY or IN someone will hand you a glass of lemonade and say “here, this is yourn” rendering the drink completely unpalatable.
Jimmy, how about a pseudonym?
the word that really needs to be eliminated is ‘yourn’. In KY or IN someone will hand you a glass of lemonade and say “here, this is yourn” rendering the drink completely unpalatable.
“Yourn” should be eliminated simply on the grounds that there’s already a possessive form. “This is yours.” 🙂
We have a word for it, too. It’s you.
What we need is to revive thou/thee/thy, which will let us make the necessary distinctions.