laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (01/23/84)
I have a new solution. Let's try this one on for size. Let us remove every, single, solitary feminine word in the English language, with the exception of "female" which will be useful when it is absolutely necessary to know the sex of the organism involved. (That way we won't get any more spayed tom cats, but that is for net.pets...). No more of this "he/she" nonsense -- drop "she" as an antiquidated form. Fine? Not fine? Why not? There is something vital/fantastic/different whatever about being a woman, perhaps? (Damned if I know what it is, actually. This is distinct from the wonderful things about being a *person* which I know about.) If you recognise the existence of this "something", then perhaps you can only appreciate "feminised" literature. On the other hand the original may have no relevance to you -- if that "something" is so important to you that you cannot appreciate the original then you may be more "female" than human. If that is the case, then you have my deepest sympathy. I hope that you can learn to work around this severe limitation, because there are a lot of wonderful people out there whom you will never be able to understand or appreciate, simply because they are not female. But, compassion be damned -- I WILL NOT HAVE YOU TWIST MY WORDS. I may actually get something published one day. I am still working at it. If I catch anybody "feminising" my words, I shall likely try to do as much violence to you as possible. It is too damn bad that I will end up eaten by the worms some day -- you will not get to putrify my words as well, since if anything is likely to survive me it will be them. I have come to the conclusion that very few people know what it is to write something. To be driven to write. They assume that the books that authors put out are for their amusement. No doubt the English departments which gleefully take a hatchet to works and play the game of Sigmund Freud are in part to blame, but they do not have the only blame. Perhaps it is that few people have ever tried to write. Or wanted to and found that they couldn't get it down on paper before the daemon had passed and the strength of what they were saying faded to mere false recollection. Or sat for an hour trying to remember *one* *perfect* *word*. Or shredded yesterday's brilliance, discovering today that it was mere sophistry. Or taped together the day before yesterday's brilliance, discovering that yesterday one had suffered from ennui... Did you think that books came polished like machine parts out of factories? That an author just had to work from 9-5 like other folks? Then you have never known one. Every word might as well be written in blood. I am a lousy writer -- yet I know this. One day I may finally get enough together to finally get something published. It is unlikely to be "Literature", but let us assume it is. Let us assume that somebody decides that they like one line so well that they should use it as an aphorism. This in itself is bad enough -- shall one line be used to describe a whole person -- but let us assume that it is a very significant and powerful line. AND YOU WOULD CHANGE WHOLE WORDS. For this, I might kill you. There are very few things that I could see myself killing for, and this is one of them. And if you still cannot see why, then you should not read books at all for you are in no condition to appreciate them. Laura Creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura
preece@uicsl.UUCP (01/26/84)
#R:utcsstat:-169000:uicsl:16400033:000:1484 uicsl!preece Jan 25 10:05:00 1984 Laura would do severe injury to those who would change the words she writes. I can sympathize with that. On the other hand, the particular examples given are not given in the spirit of "Wouldn't it be better if x had said it this way," but rather in the spirit of "If we change the famous saying y to z, how does the change effect the reader." This seems like a legitimate exercise. One would never say "Let's take all of x's work and replace half the masculine pronouns with feminine pronouns" (at least THIS one wouldn't, but I still think the Anglican prayerbook lost a lot when it was updated and that the RC should do communion in Latin). Nevertheless, I would never object to someone saying "Suppose x had said it this way." Almost every one of those quotes carried more impact in the new form, in part because the issues addressed were old and familiar in the original version, but newer and more controversial in the revised version. More directly to Laura: Humility about your writing is hopeless and misplaced. You cannot hide the fact that you address issues with more rationality and clarity than the vast majority of the people on the net and that you express your views more cogently as well. If you ever change jobs and lose access to the net, I'll contribute to a fund to support your own node. If there is one person on the net whose contributions I read more carefully and with more anticipation, that person is you. scott preece ihnp4!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece