Tom Wolfe’s reflections on language | Hacker News Reader

Tom Wolfe’s reflections on language

3ammagazine.com

42 pointsshalmanese18 comments

Tom Wolfe's discussion of this book in a recent Harper's article convinced me this book will be terrible.

My general problem with Wolfe is his creation of fiction from historical events while referring to them as historical. If you've ever read The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test by Wolfe, the big argument between Kesey and Leary never actually happened. Wolfe just made it up and presented it as historical fact.

I expect this book to be more of the same. There's a line between artistic license and lying, and Wolfe has proven repeatedly he does not respect this line.

Are the article's quotes and comments about Wolfe's treatment of Darwin accurate?

I'm not a big Chomsky fan. On the other hand, using Everett as an attack on Chomsky doesn't work; Everett is a bit sketchy and one language does not provide a counter example.

But I admit I haven't studied Chomsky in detail. I do know a fair bit about Darwin, though, and if this is accurate, Wolfe's whole book can be discarded without fear of missing anything.

It's accurate. This book is being ripped apart by scholars across many different disciplines. It's a lovely piece of trash that makes Wolfe look as bad as this article suggests.

The article does a good job going over the Pirahã controversy. It also has this quote, which is a good Chomsky quote:

"There is some genetic factor that distinguishes humans from other animals, and [it] is language specific. The theory of that genetic component, whatever it turns out to be, is what is called Universal Grammar"

Great read, it's true that intellectualism seems to be getting a bad rep lately. There's an onslaught of misinformation and as a reader, it's becoming increasingly difficult to know what information you can trust or not.

I was hoping to read about the scientist who had reduced language to a simple mathematical formula. Instead, the article devolved into a heavy critique of Tom Wolfe. Bummer.

I was hoping to read about the scientist who had reduced language to a simple mathematical formula

This is a good place to start: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12626.On_Language

I've read professor Chomsky and know about his universal grammar theory. I don't remember there being any math involved. Is he the "scientist using math to explain language"? I'm even more disappointed now.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evidence-rebuts-ch...

If you want to understand it from a mathematical viewpoint, it's a lot of work, but this is the book I used to learn it: https://www.amazon.com//dp/0471137723

The article you linked to doesn't really get to the core of the Universal Grammar idea; as Chomsky describes it: "There is some genetic factor that distinguishes humans from other animals, and [it] is language specific. The theory of that genetic component, whatever it turns out to be, is what is called Universal Grammar"

This guy is in desperate need of an editor. He may have a point, but that review is virtually unreadable.

It was a good article. It covered a lot of ground, but worth it for those willing to put in the effort.

I disagree. He has a point about the book, but this review is simply not good writing. It's needlessly verbose, meandering and self-indulgent. It attempts to be snarky but is devoid of cleverness and wit. His point is simple -- Wolfe's knowledge of the subject matter is scant and shallow and thus he has written a crap book.

I don't necessarily disagree with that at all. However it could have been more effectively said with half as many words and fewer clever quips.

I am very willing to put in the effort, if I get any sense that the author has put in some as well. Don't blame readers for not wanting to slog through lazy writing.

What you call 'needlessly verbose, meandering' are actually fact-filled details. If you are not interested in the details of the language acquisition device, (or if you knew it all already), then I can see why you would be bored.

Compare:

"Perhaps you, like I, read The Voyage of the Beagle and found it to be a remarkable triumph of literature and naturalism and science and, dare I say it, the intellect."

with

"The Voyage of the Beagle was a triumph of literature, naturalism and intellect."

Not one fact deleted. There's no accounting for taste -- maybe you like crap writing. But worthwhile ideas remain so even when presented in simple declarative sentences.

> "Perhaps you, like I, read The Voyage of the Beagle and found it to be a remarkable triumph of literature and naturalism and science and, dare I say it, the intellect."

> with

> "The Voyage of the Beagle was a triumph of literature, naturalism and intellect."

> Not one fact deleted. There's no accounting for taste

Which is, in fact, the thing deleted (that is, the former version expressly emphasizes that the conclusion it offers is an opinion -- even as it clearly expects the reader to recognize that it is a quite common one, and that the author expects the reader to be likely to share it -- and the latter suggests it is a simple statement of fact.)

> But worthwhile ideas remain so even when presented in simple declarative sentences.

Yes, but sometimes changing the sentence structure also -- as in the example you present -- substantially alters the idea being presented.

I don't imagine I'll convince you, but here goes.

Consider your response to me. If you had left it at "Which is the thing deleted" your point would have been well and cleverly made. But you go on to undermine it with a less clear parenthetical exposition of 50+ words (1 sentence!)

i have no idea what i've just read. is this a book review, a scholarly article review, what?

about the only thing i have gathered from it is the author doesn't like wolfe's ideas very much.

There is a picture of the book at the top of the page. The first words of the first paragraph are "Tom Wolfe’s most recent book". The first words of the second paragraph are "Let’s start with the part of the book about Darwin"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com