I woz/ waakin doun di road/ di adah day. . .
Well, it was actually the South Bank, near where the bus let us off, when I saw this collage of artists, that included my man LKJ. It seemed like Kismet, as far as the course was concerned.
Speaking of LKJ, has he come a tap natch poet?
the question about tap natch poet was supposed to be accompanied by this url: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wm1jkaVztqY
ReplyDeleteI'm unsure of how I feel about his use of nonstandard English. A lesson hammered into my head time and again in the course of my work with prose: there is never a good way to write an accent phonetically. It confuses readers with no offsetting contribution to the work--a cardinal sin in writing--and also sets off people who get sensitive about such things by implying that "alternative" uses of language are inferior or wrong (it has long been my opinion that this is, in fact, the case, but a positively distressing number of people seem to disagree). It may well be that these lessons simply do not apply across forms of writing, but I have come to associate the technique with a work being low-status and remedial, so my ability to enjoy him is significantly hindered.
DeleteInteresting. I'm certain that Linton Kwesi has touched many lives--given them a sense of value they may not otherwise have had. I wonder what impact he would have had if he had chosen to always abide by these rules you've been taught.
ReplyDeleteI love the notion of "positively distressing."
While I am a huge fan of proper English, I believe that the use of vernacular is not only effective but essential for conveying different aspects of the literature. LKJ's use of the vernacular identifies the speaker on multiple levels. The reader develops a more refined historical context that evaluates social issues such as language barriers that paralleled racial tensions. This stuck out to me in "Sonny's Lettah." I think it highlights the dichotomy between the minority and superior white class, evident in the police brutality.
ReplyDeleteMy previous exposure to the black vernacular revealed an interesting and effective technique. Push by Sapphire is told in the first person from the infamous character of Precious. The beginning is almost incomprehensible, yet the English develops alongside Precious's increased education. This allowed me to connect more with the character and have a heightened awareness of themes present throughout the novel. It's quite fascinated the effect a vernacular can have on the reader.
In addition to my agreement with what Andrew posted, I would like to add on that I believe there is a large group of people who do not feel like "standard" English is their language because it varies so differently from what they hear/speak. Thus, in many cases, to tell their stories with language that is not completely theirs is to effectively erase their voice from it and make it no longer theirs. For example, while reading The Lonely Londoners, much of the character would be lost if it were not written with the cues for his accent.
ReplyDeleteAs these texts are being read with the intention of exploring minds that our foreign to us, to lose character in this way is to lose a large portion of what we are searching for.
ReplyDeleteWonderfully put, Melissa.
DeleteI disagree entirely with the concept of "wrong English". Every language is alive and mutating, reflecting many cultural aspect of those that speak it. The evolution of a language accompanies historical and cultural changes, for example, the creole/Caribbean accent used by Sam Selvon and LKJ in their texts is a testament to their African heritage, with many African tribal dialects influencing the way their English is spoken.
ReplyDeleteIf you'll pardon me for saying so, that seems to reflect a thoroughgoing misunderstanding of what a language is. First, it must be a communication protocol, facilitating the transmission of information between speakers. To this end it is obviously optimal that the language have a standard form. English, as with all languages, can adapt to new experiences shared by new speakers by admitting new words for previously absent concepts, but altering old words whose concepts have not changed or, even worse, altering the underpinning rules of grammar, only contributes to the degeneration of the signal-to-noise ratio. Playing fast and loose with these rules is pointless at best, forcing the listener to stop and decipher a message that should have been clear, and damaging to the system at worst, as when bastardizations find widespread usage and a dialect develops. Problems of pronunciation can be forgiven as long as they are acknowledged and an effort made to purge them. But claiming them as a point of pride, or "taking ownership" of them? No. No excuses for consciously contributing to entropy. Chaos is enough of a problem without it being made into a rallying cry for some lost arm of the social justice movement.
DeleteThrough my experiences with other cultures and ways of speaking I have found that there is no such thing as standard. There is a dominating language but there are variations in the way that everyone speaks/writes. I find that there is much to be valued in texts written in vernacular or 'non standard' English. Although this is just an opinion, I believe all languages/dialects/vernaculars should be seen as a proper way of speaking. As I learned in a class I took last semester, these vernaculars are usually rule-governed and should certain aspects of grammar and follow a pattern which illustrates that they are being used properly and thus makes it a proper language. I have found there is no such thing as a wrong English or way of speaking; there are just different ways of speaking and I appreciate the value in these differences.
ReplyDeleteObviously dialects are rules-governed. The problem arises not from the fact that they are themselves chaotic, in which case they could not be spoken and therefore would be untransmissable, but rather that their rules differ from the dominant form, introducing disorder at the interfaces.
DeleteI'm perfectly willing to admit of practical difficulties in choosing between extant dialects which ought to be the standard form, but I would be horrified if you could actually put forward a theoretical argument in favor of promoting the creation of new dialects. It's disadvantageous, and legitimizing it sits poorly with me.
There will always be creation of new dialects that is part of the function of language--it must change and there is no way to keep that from happening. I disagree with your view that it's disadvantageous but to each their own.
DeletePaige: Was this with Lars Hinrich?
ReplyDeleteActually the class I took was with Dr. Henkel. I believe the title of the course was English Language and Its Social Context.
Deleteoh, and on the matter of creating new dialects--some of the best fiction does exactly that. Anthony Burgess's A Clockwork Orange, for instance. Or, in my favorite book of the last year, David Mitchell's Cloud Atlas--a dazzling work of genius that goes into a future where language has undergone alterations concurrent with an apocalyptic occurrence. It is to be a major film next fall, and man, is it a wondersome book.
ReplyDeleteIn the context of a creative endeavor, such as the linguistic component of the worldbuilding in A Clockwork Orange, I don't see a problem because the fantasy/reality distinction contains potential contaminants; I cannot recall evidence of Burgess' usage of "horrorshow" having been adopted into the actual language. It is my understanding that LKJ's usage is intended to be nonfictional and celebratory of a deviant form that actually exists.
DeleteOne thing I have come to really appreciate about the vernacular of THE LONELY LONDONERS is how much it forces strict adherence to character from its readers. As a white member of the upper middle class I will embarrassingly admit that I often forget about the race of characters and immediately presume that they are white. While I can intellectually reprimand myself of this mistake, I cannot erase it from my own subconscious interaction with the text.
ReplyDeleteI have wanted to respond to a few things said on this thread for about a day now, but could not exactly place my argument. I think I have found it:
This is fiction, and fiction is art.
I see the value in adhering to some form of "standard english", whatever that may be, when writing academically. Medical textbooks, for example, should certainly be easy to read. They should be clear and concise and in "proper" english. However, the intention of fiction is not always to be clear. Sometimes an author wants their reader to be completely lost and struggle through a bulky passage(Franzen), or extensively long footnotes (David Foster Wallace). As for the vernacular use, I think it's intention is for character development. When I read THE LONLEY LONDONERS, I never forget that Moses is from the Trinidad because of how the book is written. I cannot impose my own accent or presuppositions to his character, because the author doesn't give me that option. I see a lot of beauty in that.
To write fiction that is perfectly clear in precise, coherent english is to be Michelangelo. There is beauty there. But I have to admit that when I cried in the Rodin garden, it was a genuine response to a piece of art. Artists can chose to differ rules from their dominant form, and introduce disorder into interfaces because their job is to affect people. There is nothing wrong with either approach. We all have preferences as to which kind of books we love, and which we hate. We all of a particular cocktail of plot, and setting, and character, and prose that really knocks us out, and some we can't stomach at all. I'll take my cocktail fast and loose, because that is where rules broken and history is made.
I love that you wrote "this is fiction, and fiction is art" it's so true!
DeleteI would certainly agree with Kelsey (and others who have made similar points in support of the use of the vernacular).
ReplyDeleteThere is definitely an artistic purpose to the choice of dialect that puts the reader in a certain mindset when reading. In this case, I would agree that it definitely is intended to serve as a reminder of where these characters hail from, what their backgrounds really are, how they're interpreting the world, etc. Essentially I view it as an emphatic reminder of the lens through which the story is intended to be viewed.
An example that sticks out in my memory rather vividly would be The Sound and the Fury. The first chapter is told from the perspective of Benjy, a mentally disabled young man who cannot speak or understand language. Anyone who tries to read that first section feels severely uncomfortable, disoriented, confused, and possibly infuriated. Because honestly, all rules are abandoned. You can barely decipher what's happening. But that's exactly what Faulkner wanted the reader to experience. The way it's written is a constant reminder that you are viewing the world from the perspective of somebody who doesn't understand language, can't articular their thoughts in "proper English" or any English at all, really. One thing I found striking was the way that he tried to describe golf in the first paragraph of the novel. I wish I had it with me, but sadly I do not. And I can't find many great quotes online. He also tries to describe looking into a mirror, looking at fire, burning his hand, etc. But they're almost impossible to understand. And he certainly does not follow any kind of standard usage of the English language. And this is a creative choice.
I don't think that it would be terribly proper for the spelling of LKJ's words to become adopted as acceptable in everyday use. But LKJ is an artist, and he's attempting to communicate a viewpoint and to put you in a place of intense immersion into the language and communication of his culture. I think the poems would lose some of their power and their meaning if they were written in "old white guy" English. The power comes from the culture and the dialect that accompany the words.
And the same goes for The Lonely Londoners, for parts of Small Island, and many other works that are trying to put a cultural perspective on the work.
Just my two cents. Sorry for the somewhat jumbled, rambly nature.