Jason Rosenhouse has gotten a lot of attention today with a link from DailyKos, and I think he deserves even more. He has a couple of cool posts up that are worth reading. The first is about how desperate the IDers are to claim any article that contains the word 'design' as an ID-inspired article. He effectively shred's Dembski's reference to one new one in particular. The second is about George Carlin's "I'm a Modern Man" routine, which is the one he performed on the Tonight Show the night he was on with Ann Coulter. It's a brilliant examination of marketing slogans and catchphrases, which at least one commenter totally missed the point of, calling it "mere wordplay". One of the hallmarks of Carlin's career is his examination of the way we use language not to communicate or illuminate, but to obscure, particularly in marketing. That routine is not mere wordplay, it's a powerful commentary on the use and misuse of language.
- Log in to post comments
I am the commenter who totally missed the point.
(I love these interlocking blogs.) I want to thank you for your analysis of "Modern Man". I'm not sure yet that I agree with you, but I will think about it some more. In either case, at this point, I don't see it as being on the level of his "14 (or some number) words you can't use on the radio".
The mis-use of words and the importance that the populace ascribe to words is one of my favorite hot-buttons. I get very agitated everytime I see someone write "f***ing", including these supposedly intelligent bloggers.
I express it as "words have magic powers". It's kind of the way orthodox jews will not write "GOD" (G*D). Because if they do, the world will end, or something. Same thing with "F**K". Everyone knows what the word is. It's okay to write "FU*K", or "F*CK", or etc. but if all four letters appear together, both the writer and the reader will be smitten from above, or their genitals will wither, or something.
So, I think that the words we use are significant, but I don't, yet, think that what Carlin said examined the important side of it.
But, as I said, I will think about it some more.
I enjoy your articles, keep writing.
Karl,
Of course you realize the irony of the fact that you just did a Carlin-esque riff on the f-word.
Hasn't Carlin done that bit on Leno before?
SharonB:
I don't know how to take that.
"Carlin-esque" Does that mean that I did good. I'm probably plagirizing from Carlin. I think that that is my point about him, He used to deal with issues that were more socially significant. Ed disagrees I guess. He thinks that the "Modern Man" routine has significance, is social commentary. I'm still thinking about it.
Would you explain to me what is ironic about it?
I've been a Carlin fan for years and I agree with Ed on this one. Carlin's been doing this type of routine for a while, and I like it for two reasons. One, he takes all these slogans and phrases that we're all familiar with and weaves them into a psuedo-narrative instead of just spouting off random phrases. Two, the social commentary is a result of the familiarity we all have with these catchphrases and marketing slogans and how embedded they have become in modern, ad-driven capitalism.
Reading Carlin's monologue, it struck me as clever but not all that noteworthy. The point as far as I can tell is that idioms are often inconsistent (particularly fad idioms) either because people haven't thought them through or else intend them to deceive. It's an important point for every critical thinker to have on hand, but not exactly groundbreaking, is it? Maybe Carlin's humor is actually too cerebral for me, because I think he's a good guy, but he doesn't make me laugh.
I also wonder if we really need another criticism of marketing. Take a pop song that's about 40 years old: Simon and Garfunkel, Big Bright Green Pleasure Machine. When I listen to it now, it sounds really dated, not (I think) because of references to "hippies" and slang from that era, and definitely not because it doesn't apply as well today as it did at the time. The reason is that today we largely accept that we're all being manipulated by the marketing profession and consider it part of normal life. So it's not a refreshing piece of irreverent criticism but old news. Maybe one could develop an original, insightful attack on the astonishing level of cynicism and apathy inherent in such a situation. The problem in that case is that your target would have to be your own audience rather than whatever forces are manipulating them. That would make a better jeremiad than a comedy routine.
Another thought, and I do not mean this in a snotty sense, but with complete sincerity. As I was reading Carlin's monologue, I imagined it being illustrated by the late Theodor "Dr. Seuss" Geisel. (This may be the effect of spending too much time reading to a toddler recently.) You could make some very funny pictures out of the contradictions. It's also not totally crazy in that young audiences would not be so jaded to think of it as old news as I suggested above.