Hacker News Reader

Comment by leorocky | Hacker News Reader

I wish people still wrote so eloquently in their everyday correspondence. It seems like the further you go back in time the more beautiful the language used to be. Some of the letters back and forth during the American Revolution were very nice, like between John and Abigail Adams. Going back further the letters between Erasmus and Thomas Moore were also very nicely written. Now it's all emoticons and lol.

View on HN

It's a tad harsh to hold up the letters of the famous and learned in comparison with today's average missive. There are plenty of eloquent letters still being written, just not by the average Joe or Juanita:

http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/02/i-dont-enjoy-this-war-o...

I'm happy to discover that Tolkien, unlike so many of his respected contemporaries, and despite having become famous for writing a trilogy that seems -- at minimum -- naively racist, seems in no way an anti-semite.

Although that letter is well written, I think the use of the phrases, "fuck it," and "a good wank," kind of make the parent post's point: our standard for acceptability and eloquence in language is decreasing.

The standard for acceptability and eloquence is decreasing, and the number of people writing goes up.

Coding seems to be the same way. You won't see many kids today figuring out carmack reverse, for exmaple.

This is largely because more people are reading and writing than ever have in history [1]. Especially in ways that are broadly visible. Just because you have no written record of the boorish speech of the past does not mean it didn't happen, it just means only the very most literate ever got anything published in the permanent record.

Personally, I think a reduction in average civility (especially when that civility was often masking incredibly horrifying ideas) is an entirely reasonable price to pay for the rise of universal literacy.

[1] http://nces.ed.gov/naal/lit_history.asp

Old school speech is also more boorish than you may think, between a combination of genteel ways of phrasing insults that everyone still knows what it means (see "diplo-speak" for a modern example), and phrasings whose connotations are now either lost, or certainly not viscerally understood.

I consider the fact that we still teach Shakespeare in high school to be proof positive that neither teacher nor student actually understand it... if the violence and sex jokes were understood in modern terms, schools would not teach it. (I'm not saying they would censor it per se, it might still be in the library, but it wouldn't be taught front & center.)

"making the beast with two backs" or whatever in the beginning of Othello just struck my mind, and nearly all of Titus Andronicus is beyond decent. There's also quite a bit of awful stuff in The Merchant of Venice

> I consider the fact that we still teach Shakespeare in high school to be proof positive that neither teacher nor student actually understand it... if the violence and sex jokes were understood in modern terms, schools would not teach it. (I'm not saying they would censor it per se, it might still be in the library, but it wouldn't be taught front & center.)

AFAICT, neither students nor teachers are generally particularly against having racy stuff in schools -- the people that are a vocal (though often small) group of parents and interested outsiders, and they tend to be selective in their objections in a way which reinforces the idea of "bad" = "new". I have no problem believing that students and teachers could understand Shakespeare quite well without the group that is usually the source of objections either (a) understanding it, or (b) finding that it fits the particular world-view they are trying to sell to object to it.

Well, there are definitely a bunch of things in Shakespeare plays that are subtle and contextual to the times enough that we've actually lost the sense of their vulgarity as well [1]. The common perception of Shakespeare as exclusively high-brow, when in reality it played to both an upper and lower class audience and that was probably a part of its appeal, does seem to be reinforced by the way it's taught in school.

[1] An example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Much_Ado_About_Nothing#Noting

I believe that's in the eye of the reader.

As time passes what was once considered a vulgar expression (e.g., "it's" instead of "it is") becomes standard, and what was once a common expression becomes less and less used, and later it's considered archaic, and associated with culture and sophistication (because only highly educated people would still remember and use such phrases).

The net result is that what was written in a common speech hundreds of years ago may now sound unbelievably sophisticated and downright poetic.

However, in several hundred years, I'm sure teachers of English will still be decrying the decline of the English language. "Do you know what they said back in the golden days of the internet? They said 'Fuck it.' Now look at it and admire the sheer effectiveness of the expression, economically conveyed in just two words. Cannot find such eloquence these days," they will lament.

Use of language that you personally don't happen to like doesn't make someone inarticulate. I don't happen to like the word "however" very much, but I understand it would be unreasonable to write somebody off for making judicious use of that word, because my personal predilections are just not that important in the grand scheme of things.

> I'm happy to discover that Tolkien, unlike so many of his respected contemporaries, and despite having become famous for writing a trilogy that seems -- at minimum -- naively racist, seems in no way an anti-semite.

Ha, I wasn't going to say it, but yeah.

I really like Tolkien's work. I also see some really conservative, reactionary, and yeah, 'naively racist' is a good term, themes in it. I see no contradiction there.

But yeah, it is really nice to see that despite some conservative themes, and despite the fact that many of his conservative contemporaries were anti-semites and/or racists, well, this letter.

Language was also less ambiguous because they didn't leave out important punctuation or relative pronouns. I expected Tolkien to be a on Hitler's side because I interpreted the title as "Tolkien Snubs a German Publisher, Asking for Proof of His “Aryan Descent", but the author means "Tolkien Snubs a German Publisher Who Asked for Proof of His “Aryan Descent". Writing ain't what it used to be, even if only the clergy and royalty could do it!

Yes, I also found the title to be ambiguous until I read the article.

It's a headline. Take a look at some newspaper headlines from 1938:

https://www.google.ca/search?q=1938+newspaper+headlines&espv...

Not really any different.

I have a clipping from a small regional daily newspaper from the 60s. The headline reads, "U.S., Canada Rear Warning Staveal Sites of Radtions" which sounds ominous indeed. It took me several tries to realize that someone most have dropped the line of type, breaking it, and reassembling it in the wrong order. It should have read, "U.S., Canada Reveal Sites of Radar Warning Stations"

When writing a letter, there had to be a decent effort at expressing ideas clearly. If you make a mistake, even for someone else living in your parish, you would have at best a turnaround of two days. If the receiver couldn't understand what you wanted, you've delayed any wanted action on their part by a substantial amount.

On top of that, most people wrote letters by hand before WWII (maybe not Tolkien, as a professor and author he had a typewriter at home, and I know that at least some of his correspondence was typed). Handwritten letters take a lot longer to compose than typing out an email. This is true even if you have a typewriter - making a typo is not fixed by hitting backspace a couple of times, you need to wind the paper forward, paint out the error, roll the paper back, and re-type.

Finally, it's not fair to hold the rest of us up to the standards of J.R.R. Tolkien, one of the most read authors in the English language! :)

It's also worth observing that people who actually take the time to write letters (or long form emails) today will tend to express themselves rather eloquently, whilst in times of yore people wishing to rapidly convey a simple message wrote telegrams that were usually decidedly lacking in erudition.

Here's one of the greatest and most read authors in the English language corresponding with his publisher in short form: http://robertocorrea.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/mark-twain/

And even "HOW TO WRITE TELEGRAMS PROPERLY" style guides encouraged the use of phrases like: Received your very fine letter and Telegram this morning so many things to be done morning after you left all we could do was pack and get taxi for train are leaving now. http://www.telegraph-office.com/pages/telegram.html

Crass, informal writing is not a modern invention. Graffiti was the twitter of yore. Behold the tweets of Ancient Rome: (NSFW language) http://www.pompeiana.org/Resources/Ancient/Graffiti%20from%2...

  VIII.2 (in the basilica); 1880: 
  The man I am having dinner with is a barbarian.

  Herculaneum (on the exterior wall of a house); 10619:
  Apollinaris, the doctor of the emperor Titus, defecated well here

#pompeii #swag

> I wish people still wrote so eloquently in their everyday correspondence.

To write in the manner you mentioned might give the impression you are a 'snob', which regrettably is why I often avoid doing so.

When someone hears of my education history it is often assumed I am familiar with Shakespeare. Currently the only (corrupted) line of the Bard that haunts me is:

> "Shuffle off this mortal coil, you cunt."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2534653/Royal-Marine...

Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte. -- Blaise Pascal

Reply on news.ycombinator.com