The careful writer is an endangered species.
The evidence is all about us: at America’s best newspapers the economic bottom line now trumps journalistic values; bloggers pollute the Internet with unedited, stream-of-consciousness musings; e-mailers and text messengers practice a staccato disregard for spelling, grammar, and punctuation.
No one is immune.
Minneapolis Star Tribune, Oct.19
Kersten rebuked
In her Oct. 15 broadside against bans on sports teams with Indian names, Katherine Kersten manages to both violate principles of sound argument and indirectly denigrate the deceased. As a columnist, she has every right to savage policies with which she disagrees. But in her typical ad hominid style of argument, Kersten gratuitously attacks a nationally respected young sociologist who is only tangentially connected to the story. She does so by mocking the titles of his books and articles, scholarly works that have nothing to do with her topic at hand.
We are all responsible for the consequences of our actions, even unintended ones. It was thus a supreme act of cosmic justice that her column appeared on the same day that the Star Tribune had a front-page obituary of Vernon Bellecourt, the man who initiated the nationwide campaign against Indian mascots.
Given her rigid mindset, she could probably never get her head around the idea that a Christian God had struck her such an ironic blow. OK, perhaps it was Karma? I look forward to a future Kersten column in which she laments the invasion of both South Asians immigrants and their alien religions of Hinduism and Buddhism.
MONTE BUTE, WOODBURY
At 7:30 a.m. on the day that my “Kersten rebuked” letter appeared, I received an e-mail from my university provost: “ad hominid?” Once the visceral flush of shame had passed, I rushed to check the editorial page. Sure enough, I had committed a malapropism.
Given the universal impulse to save face, I first gave thought to claiming intentionality–of course, Kersten’s simple-minded arguments really are ad hominid! Upon further reflection, I decided to be forthright. I contacted the Star Tribune editor so that he might as least correct the on-line version. I also asked why he had not caught and corrected my gaffe with “ad hominem.”
Actually, Monte, I did stop at it and was in the process of changing it when I thought, wait. Monte’s a smart guy. Maybe he knows something I don’t. So I did a quick search and found a couple of dozen uses of it. In hindsight, I should have checked further. But it’s one of those things: If it’s a writer I know and trust, I’m inclined to believe him, even if he’s using a term I’m not personally familiar with. I may not know every word that exists, but I sure as hell don’t know every word that DOESN’T exist.
Alas, you gave me more credit than I was due. Nevertheless, the error was mine, and mine alone. Given the probability that few read the letter, and even fewer recognized my mistake, why don’t I just let this embarrassing lapse lie? Even a parish priest needs confession. As a teacher, I profess that self-editing is the key to writing well. I counsel students that every composition, even an e-mail, deserves careful proofreading and at least a couple of drafts. I must fess up: I was in too much of a rush.
And particularly when using newly-minted prophylactics–spelling and grammar checkers, for instance–realize that these tools are neither infallible, nor do they absolve us of editorial culpability. A highlighted suggestion should not provoke an automatic click on the “change” box. Regrettably, I did not practice what I preach; when prompted, I mindlessly changed a word that I had originally spelled right. Too late, I learned that my computer’s abridged dictionary did not contain that word–and an absent word is a spell checker’s misspelled word.
How can we save this endangered species of careful writers? For my part, I will henceforth distribute this scarlet letter on the first day of every class. Perhaps then, this faux pas will be an edifying moment not just for me but for my students as well. Author, heal thyself.
Comments 9
Daniel — May 24, 2008
I must confess I noticed the "ad hominid" right away (what can I say? I'm an anthropologist), and I also immediately assumed that perhaps you were making a clever play on words. Again, that's the anthropologist in me -- Kersten may not be a hominem, but she is definitely a hominid (or something like that).
Big Blue Monkey — May 24, 2008
I hear you, Monte. My own personal writing failure is to type ahead of my brain, and leave out small, connecting words that nevertheless hugely important.
Like the word, "not". Imagine what can happen to your point if you leave out a word of such Modifiying Importance. And no spellcheck or grammar check in the world is going to catch it.
That said, any time you can accidently call Kersten a caveperson, I'm all for it. Next time, go for "in her ad austropithecus attack..."
Cox — May 24, 2008
Monte,
Like you, Big BM is a fine writer. Having received E-mail from Big that is missing crucial words, I am able to speak to the panic such mistakes can cause.
That said, I hope you reconsider sharing your literary error with students. The Monte Fear is part of the experience. I say that with great respect. When I hesitate to take creative risks in my business writing, I fall back on your advice to always write literature. I can't name one lesson learned from the writing instructors who did nothing but praise my turns of phrases.
By the by, Big Blue Monkey writes a popular sports blog. It oozes intellectuality. Sometimes it is filthy but always it is well-written.
amy — May 28, 2008
The first issue of Contexts very nearly published with a title on a figure that read "Homocide rates..." I hear there was a debate among the graduate students about whether to call this mistake to my attention. I think they've since learned that it was indeed a stop-the-presses type of error.
Bob — May 29, 2008
How can you even read Kersten? Yet another example of the Minneapolis paper devolving into "fishwrap".
julia — May 31, 2008
Monty
I haven't been here in a long time, so imagine my delight when I found an ad hominid (grin) attack on Kersten. Why ever would you find something wrong with her very open mind?
:), I thought it was a made up word by a very smart man, and translated it to mean something not-so-nice (archaic)
Did you read my TCDP article prompted by Kersten professional "investigation"?
*deep sigh-- we give her credibility when she gets so much emotion from us! I don't even know her and she makes me so angry-- I should ignore her like I do O'Reilly et al.
Mary Van Briesen — August 11, 2008
I noticed the “ad hominid” as well, but I thought it was a great joke. I would also agree with a previous poster - don't share this with your class. It's good for the students to fear you! You were my favorite teacher and I have learned so much in your classes. A big part of that was because I knew I couldn't F-around. We rise to the expectations given us.
Stephen — August 12, 2008
I long for pabulum like a 'deer pants for the water brook'. I found your cautionary tale refreshing in deed. I needed this reminder to slow down and be careful. ‘Hurry hurry bust trousers’ is how Liberians summarize the need to not rush. Although Kersten’s rebuke needed one more written draft, I’m glad your article didn’t leave you with the kind of draft the Liberians speak of.
Recent Links Tagged With "malapropism" - JabberTags — October 5, 2008
[...] public links >> malapropism A Roadie for the Rock Star Saved by tommoz on Sun 05-10-2008 A Writer’s Cautionary Tale Saved by fjcdbatista on Sat 04-10-2008 Chuck is stuck Saved by PS2queen on Thu 02-10-2008 [...]