…and this is a 
Roy Peter Clark wrote a book about language which was savaged viciously on Language Log — in other words, the poor guy was publicly ridiculed and his work rudely trashed. He couldn't possibly have learned anything from that, could he? He has a guest post now in which he describes his reaction.
In brief, the criticism, some of it harsh and uninformed, helped me straighten out some crooked thinking about language, a process that resulted in the recent publication by Little, Brown of my book "The Glamour of Grammar: A Guide to the Magic and Mystery of Practical English." On August 22, Ammon Shea gave the book high marks in the New York Times Book Review, calling it "very much a manual for the 21st century."
I write this on Language Log not to tell you that my success has proved some of your commentary off the mark. Quite the contrary, I have often said now to friends and colleagues that had I not been roughed up by the Language Loggers, I could not have developed the muscle tone to write the book.
Hmm. Who would have thought that maybe the response to criticism was dependent on the attitude of the recipient? Oh, gosh. Me.
Comments
Posted by: ophelia.benson
|
September 2, 2010 9:04 PM
Gee, so he hasn't run off and joined the Franciscans out of sheer spite? Fancy that.
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
September 2, 2010 9:06 PM
Rock. On! Kudos to Clark for being an honest grown-up about it, and raspberries to the tone trolls. As I've said before, it was my undergraduate advisor's red-pen criticisms in my early papers that beat (some of the) bad writing out of me, not her cooing affirmations.
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
September 2, 2010 9:07 PM
OMG. My comment gitz to snuggle up next to Ophelia Benson's. Lucky, lucky comment.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
September 2, 2010 9:12 PM
Clearly, Clark is unaware of how much the Language Loggers hurt the cause of his book.
Perhaps Nisbett or Mooney can communicate that to him.
Posted by: Ben Goren
|
September 2, 2010 9:16 PM
Back in the day, the best way to sharpen your wit was on alt.atheism. These days…well, never mind.
But some time ago, you could be certain that all your logical, factual, historical, and theoretical rough edges would get ripped to shreds, so to speak. Today, one sees much the same thing here on Pharyngula.
If you can hold your own against the worst that the combined might of the ’Net can throw at you, you just might have something going.
On the other hand, if all you can do is whine about how you’re being oppressed…well, chances are you weren’t very interesting to begin with.
Cheers,
b&
Posted by: jeffery.g.davis
|
September 2, 2010 9:16 PM
Dear god! It's almost like criticism sharpens the ideas of those who base their premises in logic and destroys those who base them in nonsense? But . . . Jesus didn't say this was how it would go down?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 2, 2010 9:28 PM
But . . . Jesus didn't say this was how it would go down?
indeed.
didn't he say something about "scribes and pharisees gettin' theirs" or somesuch?
Posted by: nonsensemachine
|
September 2, 2010 9:30 PM
So many people owe so much to you, PZ.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
September 2, 2010 9:35 PM
But think how much better Clark's book would have been if the folks at Language Log had been nice and accommodating to him.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 2, 2010 9:39 PM
...
just asked him, and Jesus said how much he hated those fuckers who criticized his teachings:
to which I said:
Snakes. It had to be snakes.
and SLJ, who was hangin nearby replied:
"I have had it with these motherfucking snakes in this motherfucking temple!"
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
September 2, 2010 9:46 PM
Quite the contrary, I have often said now to friends and colleagues that had I not been roughed up by the Language Loggers, I could not have developed the muscle tone to write the book.
Plainly, this book should not be given to those whose problems in self-expression include run-on sentences.
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
September 2, 2010 9:47 PM
I'm trying to find something to add to improve upon that, but I just can't.
Posted by: Ibis3, féministe avec un titre française de fantaisie
|
September 2, 2010 10:24 PM
#11 Explain to me how that's a run-on sentence.
Posted by: Frank b
|
September 2, 2010 10:32 PM
I have just been typing my grandfather's memoirs into Word, and he had a lot of run-on sentences and used semicolons a lot; apparently that was fashionable 100 years ago; I tried to clean it up a bit.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
September 2, 2010 10:35 PM
it's not a run-on sentence.
It's a comma splice.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
September 2, 2010 10:38 PM
ah. Same thing to some, according to 'kipedia:
Posted by: Ibis3, féministe avec un titre française de fantaisie
|
September 2, 2010 10:43 PM
How is it a comma splice? There's only one independent clause.
Posted by: Teshi
|
September 2, 2010 11:11 PM
I don't think there's a serious problem with that sentence. The first comma seems a little suspect at first glance and perhaps could be replaced with a semi-colon. But it's not abysmal grammar.
Is it worth me noting that what worked for Roy Peter Clark doesn't necessarily work for other people or will I get raspberried off?
(Clearly I think it's worth it.)
*flees ensuing raspberries*
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
September 2, 2010 11:55 PM
Sven DiMilo @ # 15: it's not a run-on sentence.
It's a comma splice.
It's a damn mess by any name.
"Quite the contrary", f'rexample, could stand by itself. The rest could use some shaving as well.
Even if brevity is to be forsaken, this rambles to no good point. His self-quote says it all - do you care how often he said it, when, or to whom?
Dull rambling = run-on sentence, regardless of Gramma or punqtuation.
Posted by: DLC
|
September 3, 2010 12:51 AM
Oh, and here I thought you meant that science develops in part by observation, hypothesis, experimentation and critique. Not sure that the study of language is really science, but the same idea holds true for most honest areas of study. You have to be able to respond to your critics, and sometimes that response must be"You're right ".
Posted by: Marella
|
September 3, 2010 3:59 AM
You see, when you're criticised you have the choice of flouncing out of the room complaining about how badly you've been treated, or looking at what your critic has said and seeing if he's right. Then if he is right, trying to figure out what you can do to improve things or if he isn't explaining to him why you think that. This is the difference between self absorbed egotists and grown-ups. Unfortunately some people just never grow up!
Posted by: csreid
|
September 3, 2010 6:55 AM
@Chanel handbags, #22:
Irene tells me to tell you that that's just great.
But I have to wonder... have you seen her lately, or are you mostly just hearing her these days? You know, the doctor is only trying to help you...
:D
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
September 3, 2010 7:02 AM
It's not a run-on sentence at all. The second half is dependent on the first half. Had I not (this), I could not have (that).
Posted by: jay.sweet
|
September 3, 2010 7:31 AM
But PZ, surely you must see that this doesn't apply to religious belief... I mean, presumably Clark had some legitimate ideas that just needed some refinement and straightening out.
In contrast, it's not like Pope Ratzinger has some "legitimate ideas" about Jesus that would be perfectly valid and useful if he just got a little feedback...
Posted by: InfraredEyes
|
September 3, 2010 8:37 AM
I trust the Language Loggers will do the decent thing, and rip his new book to shreds.
Posted by: Gaebolga
|
September 3, 2010 8:42 AM
At last, something in my area of professional expertise (English teacher here).
It's not a run-on sentence (in the sense of being grammatically incorrect; one could easily say it was overwritten, but that's a separate issue), nor is it a comma splice. It's a grammatically correct sentence.
The phrase "Quite the contrary" is an oppositive phrase which, having neither subject nor verb, cannot stand on its own and must be attached to a clause. Which it is.
The rest of the sentence breaks down as follows:
"I have often said now to friends and colleagues that had I not been roughed up by the Language Loggers, I could not have developed the muscle tone to write the book".
Formatting key:
● Subject and verb (with adverb filling!)
● Prepositional phrase
● Object (admittedly a long and complicated object, but still just an object)
Posted by: hyperdeath
|
September 3, 2010 8:51 AM
Clark clearly needs a lesson in framing.
Amending your beliefs in the face of justified criticism is the sort of naive, confrontational, counterproductive tactic that you'd expect from the likes of PZ Myers, Jerry Coyne or Ophelia Benson.
He should take the advice of savvy communicators, such as Chris Mooney, or Sheril Kirshenbaum. Then he'd realise that the correct approach is to whine incessantly at the rudeness of the criticism, while completely ignoring its substance (and basking in the admiration of John Kwok).
Posted by: te24hours
|
September 3, 2010 8:56 AM
Congratulations! You've found the exception that proves the rule.
Posted by: Gaebolga
|
September 3, 2010 8:58 AM
Is the Kwokster still around?
Is he still spouting Birther crap and cringing in fear of Obama's army of Peace Corps brownshirts?
Posted by: KG
|
September 3, 2010 9:09 AM
te24hours,
Do you have any evidence that it is an exception?
Posted by: hyperdeath
|
September 3, 2010 9:20 AM
He was banned from Pharyngula in March 2009.
He occasionally pops up on other parts of Science Blogs, usually to post self-absorbed, self-aggrandizing, self-pitying diatribes. (I realise that the second half of that sentence was redundant.)
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
September 3, 2010 9:27 AM
@28
Translation: SPECIAL PLEADING!
Posted by: Ibis3, féministe avec un titre française de fantaisie
|
September 3, 2010 9:59 AM
@ #19
So, just because you can't deal with sentences more complex than "See Spot run," you're going to spuriously label any that you encounter as run-ons? Okaay, that's a sophisticated approach.
As Gaebolga pointed out, there's absolutely nothing wrong with this sentence. It's pretty simple as sentences go; it's holding only one principal thought. It's not a mess. The only usage one might question is the use of both 'often' and 'now' to modify 'I have said', which, though idiomatic in speech, seems a bit odd in the context. However, that's just a matter of taste, not grammar.
Posted by: Ibis3, féministe avec un titre française de fantaisie
|
September 3, 2010 10:07 AM
Upon further reflection, I'm going to take back even that minor quibble. Remove either 'often' or 'now' and you change the meaning. Moreover, I don't see any way to rephrase it more efficiently to arrive at the same result. Roy Peter Clark: Not Guilty.
Posted by: Steven Dunlap
|
September 3, 2010 10:27 AM
This reminds me of the scene from Agora in which Rachel Weisz as Hypatia does an experiment. She makes a prediction, but the experiment proves her prediction wrong. She's so happy that she jumps up and down, claps her hands and giggles with glee. The failed prediction means she's on the path to learning something about how the world works - that makes her happy and excited.
It may be out on DVD for those who missed it in the theaters. Not historically accurate in all respects, but a nice pro-science movie.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmqD_mcUIrSfOTlK3iGVsnEDcZmI43srbI
|
September 3, 2010 10:33 AM
I just love how everyone fancies themselves a grammarian in a post about grammar.
Although everyone needs an editor, those of us who write for a living view this kind of peanut-gallery sniping as an occupational hazard.
True story: I had a boss who could be counted on to request exactly three drafts of a writing project. She would invariably savage the first draft and accept the third without comment. After I had glommed onto this foible, I often saved my first draft and resubmitted it as my third. It was always accepted - often with an admonition to make my first drafts like the third.
She's now a high-level executive at one of the top 10 PR companies in the US. I'm not.
Posted by: te24hours
|
September 3, 2010 10:57 AM
@32: ding! PZ commits the same fallacies he despises in others.
Posted by: te24hours
|
September 3, 2010 11:04 AM
Not to say that I don't. I just despise the internet tactic of pretending to debate by naming logical fallacies as if that's some dispute of your opponant's argument. It's not a means of debate, it's a means of ensuring there is no debate.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
September 3, 2010 11:06 AM
Or it can be a completely legitimate means of pointing out the weakness of someones argument.
Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death
|
September 3, 2010 11:13 AM
No. A run-on sentence has a specific definition. What you are referring to is an awkward construction. It is not grammatically incorrect (as has been explained nicely by others); it is just ugly (in your opinion).
You don't get to make up new definitions for established terms just because you think a sentence is too wordy or sounds bad.
Posted by: mswzebo
|
September 3, 2010 11:19 AM
re:
I don't see any way to rephrase it more efficiently to arrive at the same result. Roy Peter Clark: Not Guilty.
how about deleting the garbling phrase, 'I have often said now to friends and colleagues that', ...
'Quite the contrary, had I not been roughed up by the Language Loggers, I could not have developed the muscle tone to write the book."
The phrase might be grammatically correct but it is distracting because it is so unrelated to the point. Plus, don't you think 'garbleing phrase' should be in the next edition of the little red and yellow style book?
Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death
|
September 3, 2010 11:21 AM
googlemess @36
That is one of my least favorite qualities in a boss. I work as a copy editor, and I do my very best to not get into the must-find-something-wrong mode. I know others who bleed all over a page just for the hell of it. It's not constructive.
Posted by: mswzebo
|
September 3, 2010 11:21 AM
with at least one of those two spellings
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
September 3, 2010 11:27 AM
The fact that you cannot defend your position (and apparently spell) to your opponent does not mean they are stiffling debate anymore than a boxer getting a 1 hit KO in the first round means that the game was rigged.
Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies!
|
September 3, 2010 11:30 AM
To Ichthyic #10
Um...
Have you read what comes before that?
It's sort of an important lead up the Matthew 23:33.
Don't sink to the creationists' level by quote-mining.
Posted by: realinterrobang
|
September 3, 2010 11:42 AM
googlemess @36: Your comment actually made me say "Ow," out loud. I guess I've been pretty lucky, editor-wise, since the worst thing that ever happened to me editorially was having someone tell me that an entire huge section of my manuscript was "irrelevant," when subsequent developments in the field eventually demonstrated that particular section as one of the most relevant bits...
Have I mentioned lately that I feel about Matt Nisbet approximately how Orac feels about (creationist neurosurgeon) Michael Egnor? That's what Nisbet is -- the creationist neurosurgeon of communications. Give him half a chance and he'll mess with your head because he's deluded, and given the results of his particular delusions, you really have to wonder about the rest of his practice. (He has somehow managed to make "framing" a dirty word despite apparently not actually knowing what framing is, and I say this as someone who thought George Lakoff was the shit before most people knew who he was.) Grr.
Posted by: Gaebolga
|
September 3, 2010 11:51 AM
@ hyperdeath #31:
Well, that was a particularly fascinating (extended) read. Sounds like Johnny-boy went even further off the deep end.
I always did love his pompously empty threats and pathological name-dropping, though. It's good to be reminded that prats still walk the Earth.
Posted by: te24hours
|
September 3, 2010 12:07 PM
@39,
Yes, it can be. But in my experience it is far more often that I see statments like: "That's a strawman." with no follow up, simply used to dismiss the entire argument a person made. And frequently, an argument may technically fall into the category of a logical fallacy because of some small error in construction, when the attempted point is perfectly clear. Thus the respondant is able to avoid actually engaging by pointing out a technicality. In general (which does not mean always in this case, but can in a strictly logical argument.), I find that people who go around pointing out logical fallacies do so inaccurately a lot of the time, and cannot respond validly to well formed argument in anay case.
Posted by: te24hours
|
September 3, 2010 12:10 PM
@44: my position was that PZ was cherry picking to support his argument. You supported this statement by labeling it by its proper name, 'special pleading'. Since my position remains unassailed, I've no need to defend it.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
September 3, 2010 12:16 PM
Except you fail since I'm not PZ.
The exception that proves the rule, IS clear cut special pleading. And you insisted it instead of backing it up.
A) gives evidence
B) normally that would count but in this case it actually favors my view
=Special pleading.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
September 3, 2010 12:20 PM
Wait, no citing counter evidence is NOT special pleading...it's citing counter evidence. And you're complaining about people misunderstanding the fallacies?
Posted by: te24hours
|
September 3, 2010 12:20 PM
Yes, the 'exception that proves the rule' is special pleading we agree.
Posted by: te24hours
|
September 3, 2010 12:23 PM
You don't actually understand what 'the exception that proves the rule' means, do you? It is a legal term which means that: in order for there to be an exception, there must be an implicit rule in the first place.
In this case, PZ is stating that here is this exception: the person who changed his mind after receiving vicious rejoinders. To argue this, he is accepting the implicit rule that: most people will not do so.
Posted by: Dhorvath, OM
|
September 3, 2010 12:27 PM
I am ill equipped to judge grammar and find that unlikely to change. However, that doesn't really have any bearing on the admiration I have for this R.P. Clark. I can only hope to take critiscism that well.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
September 3, 2010 12:28 PM
No, I am not, and assholes who try to tell me what I'm thinking tend not to last long around here.
In no way did I say this was an exception -- I'm mocking the idea that this is unusual. So get stuffed.
Posted by: te24hours
|
September 3, 2010 12:30 PM
Then why did you title the post, "I thought this wasn't supposed to happen?"
It's not my fault if you suck at rhetoric.
Posted by: mmelliott01
|
September 3, 2010 12:30 PM
mswzebo: The phrase you want to delete is important to the author. The statement that he makes is not merely true; it is, in addition, so emotionally salient to him that he talks about it often.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
September 3, 2010 12:34 PM
and then
Maybe you suck at detecting sarcasm?
Posted by: te24hours
|
September 3, 2010 12:35 PM
Well that, R. BDC, is certainly true. I do suck at detecting sarcasm.
Posted by: SteveM
|
September 3, 2010 12:36 PM
re 53:
Not necessarily:
from A List of Fallacious Arguments:
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
September 3, 2010 12:37 PM
te24hours: you're demonstrating that you're an idiot. See previous sentence: "I'm mocking the idea that this is unusual."
I'm feeling cranky, and a little execution would feel good...and you'd be no loss at all. Tread lightly, moron.
Posted by: te24hours
|
September 3, 2010 12:41 PM
You are obviously feeling cranky. I've seen you suffer far worse insults than a faulty sarcasm detector in better humour.
Nevertheless, I never meant to put thoughts in your head, merely to interpret what you wrote. Apparantly I did so unsuccessfully. If you feel the need to ban me for that, by all means, this is your home.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
September 3, 2010 12:49 PM
I thought for 3 posts that you were mistaking ME for PZ and arguing with me instead of mistakenly thinking I agreed with you. I understood PZ fine. Who sucks at rhetoric?
Is this confusion just the exception that proves the rule?
Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies!
|
September 3, 2010 1:21 PM
Do you understand the concept of "sarcasm"?Posted by: mikerattlesnake
|
September 3, 2010 1:34 PM
te24hours, you are doing a grade A job of making yourself look like a fool over here. I'd suggest bowing out now.
Posted by: InfraredEyes
|
September 3, 2010 2:10 PM
No.
If the point is perfectly clear, then there will almost never be a true logical fallacy involved, either "technically" or otherwise. There may be the appearance of a logical fallacy because of unclear wording, but that is a different thing.
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
September 3, 2010 5:09 PM
I'm tempted to suggest te24hours be banned for being boring.
But if that was reason enough, I'd soon follow him.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
September 3, 2010 6:44 PM
Regarding Clark's sentence, I continue to maintain (dons Galileo hat) It still does not move (doffs Galileo hat, buries it).
Nonetheless, the general thrashing here has been edifying.
C'mon, guys, thump me some more - there's a lot further to go before I get a book's worth out of this.
Posted by: Marella
|
September 4, 2010 1:40 AM
It seems obvious to me that the exception proves the rule alright, it proves it wrong.
Posted by: Samantha Vimes
|
September 4, 2010 5:19 AM
te24hours, are you so new here you didn't know the context? I can't imagine anyone who's been reading for more than 2 weeks missing the sarcasm, as PZ has consistantly argued that a "strident", even "dickish" approach in criticizing people has results. You're really lucky people haven't gotten more dickish with you, as arguing once you've found out you were wrong, in the hopes of softening your failure, gets you nowhere around here.
In fact, this blog has really opened my eyes to the importance of being willing to find myself in the wrong, admit it, and move on: and with that, to see how acceptance of error is crucial to success in science, in critical thinking, or in making art. People who don't accept criticism never grow. And scientists who don't move with the evidence are the ones history points and laughs at.
The First Rule of Holes is a good one to remember, too, when you realize you've kicked up a fuss because you didn't understand the initial point. And if you're willing to know you were wrong, well, you probably would have caught your own sarcasm-detector fail before you annoyed people.
Posted by: Jeremy O'Wheel
|
September 4, 2010 5:42 PM
I'm pretty sure the moral of this story is that if we criticise PZ enough then he'll write us a book :D