Substance vs Structure

 

Juxtaposition of the Day

(Non Sequitur)

(Existential Comics - Click here for full episode)

First thing you'll note is that, while Non Sequitur is talking about grammar, Existential Comics is talking about logic,which seem like two different things but are allied in this: In both cases, they value structure over substance.

The rules of logic have the benefit of being consistent and sensible, while grammar attempts to codify what is, no offense, a mongrel language.

But, however arbitrary grammatical rules are, they provide people who can't process actual content with a chance to weigh in.

Much of the time they are talking nonsense and, as often cited here, don't realize they're putting themselves above Jane Austen et. al. as writers, based on their superior adherence to made-up rules.

By happenstance, here, within the past 24 hours, is a good example of ignoring substance in favor of getting a case of the moral-superiority vapors, which occurred when Sen. John Kennedy (R-La) gave Facebook Emperor Mark Zuckenberg a bodacious dressing down:

Actually, Swahili was an excellent choice, first of all, because he was speaking of Americans, very few of whom speak that language, and he'd have gotten pilloried for any choice of languages, unless he'd fallen back on the classic reference and said the user agreement was "Greek to me."

Which would have spoiled the down-home fury of his most excellent rant.

And tying what he did say into Wiley's cartoon, Swahili is an excellent choice because, while it does generally work through Bantu grammatical rules, it has been greatly influenced by other cultures and has occasional amusing oddities, my favorite of which is this: Singular words (often) begin with "kip" while, to form a plural, you change to "vip."

Because the colonial language was English in so many African nations, a traffic island became a "kiplefti" in Swahili, (bearing in mind that they drive on the other side of the road than Americans). Then the plural is "viplefti" which fits the structural rule but loses the original connection to the English road signs.

And when I went to check the spelling of "kiplefti," I stumbled across this confirmation of my bias, which is not "confirmation bias," but which term leads us to Existential Comics.

While I have long held that Grammar Nazis are people who couldn't write their names in the dirt with a stick and cannot comprehend Elizabeth Bennett's ambivalence about Mr. Darcy, I am only recently awakening to the odd lack of emotional literacy among rightwing knuckleheads who repeatedly cite logical rules instead of analyzing the content of arguments.

The comic, which I hope you have clicked upon and read all of, does an excellent job of ridiculing those who put logical structure over common sense, but I wonder if the social media phenomenon is perhaps linked to the emotionally disconnected world of Aspies who find the on-line world more structurally hospitable than real life, where you have to be able to process facial expressions and vocal tone.

Which is to say, they come across as trolls but perhaps are simply playing the cards they've been dealt, it being genuinely sad that both they and the Grammar Nazis seem convinced that the way to find out why a bird sings is to trap, kill and dissect it.

 

Meanwhile, at the compassionate end of the scale: I haven't run a grammar check on the first part of Kevin Necessary's long-form portrait of a family impacted by immigration policy, nor analyzed it for logical consistency, but I have read it and found it compelling and valuable. 

I'd suggest you do the same, and then bookmark the page so you can pick up Parts Two and Three. 

Kudos to him, and his collaborator, Breanna Molloy, and especially to Cincinnati's WCPO for recognizing that a good cartoon can be the right vehicle for an important story.

An excellent example of honoring substance over structure, though the structure also seems quite sound.

 

My own compassion is not boundless

Biggest laugh of the day was at Lola.

I tried; I really did try to get into "Game of Thrones," but it just didn't ring the bell, which I suppose isn't a huge surprise, given that I couldn't get into LOTR, neither books nor movies.

I liked the first Star Wars movie, was okay as it morphed into toy commercials, and only bailed when the remakes came out. I also enjoy swashbucklers, even when they have 17th century people in 20th century haircuts. And I thought the Eurotrash version of the Borgias great fun, even though it was ridiculous from start to finish.

Though perhaps that's the key, because what I liked most about "Spartacus: Blood and Sand" was that you couldn't help but think the actors knew how silly it all was, particularly since they had to keep saying "By Jupiter's cock!' in moments of stress.

I didn't notice anyone winking at the camera in Game of Thrones, and maybe it's just me, but I think they take this shit seriously, and that's a fatal flaw in my book, by Jupiter's cock!

 

Speaking of things I don't take seriously enough

As often said here, awards matter because (A) people with money and jobs to hand out seem to think awards are important, and, (B) however self-confident you are, it is nice to have someone hand you a chunk of Lucite that says your work does not suck.

And within the National Cartoonists Society, the award shows the approbation of your contemporaries, so it does matter, personally if not on a cosmic level.

Here are the folks vying in the categories most often covered here, and this is the full listing, all awards to be announced at the national convention May 26th in Philadelphia.

Newspaper Panels

Loose Parts - Dave Blazek

Bliss - Harry Bliss

Off the Mark - Mark Parisi

Newspaper Strips

Pajama Diaries - Terri Libenson

Mother Goose & Grimm - Mike Peters

Lio - Mark Tatulli

Editorial Cartoons

Clay Bennett

Mike Peters

Michael Ramirez

 

Here singeth all

 

Comments

[Denny Lien]

The link you give for the Reuben Awards slate isn't working for me -- I get an "error establishing database connection" page.

(If it matters, I'm using Firefox on a Windows 7 desktop.)

[Mike Peterson]

It's been spotty -- I couldn't get there early this morning, assumed they'd fixed it when I tried later. Cavna also has it all here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/comic-riffs/wp/2018/04/10/here-are-this-years-national-cartoonists-society-divisional-nominees/

[Paul Berge]

"Grammar" being a borrowing from the French and "Nazi" being a borrowing from the Germans, should we call them Getwinness ungebígendlíckers, or is that the sort of niggling puffery up with which none shall put?

[Kip W]

Ramirez: Yeah, letting people stay who've been here for years, since early childhood, sure is an invite for more people to have been here for years, since early childhood. That is certainly

logical

.

For some reason, my ears were really burning today. Oh, and there's Mr. Partch on Line 2.

Paul Berge: +1

[Kip W]

Heh. I was thinking the -ul- tag meant underline. I mean, I meant to do that.

[Sean Martin]

Well, didnt make the ballot again this year.

And yeah, sometimes it really is just being told your work doesnt suck.

[Craig L Wittler]

Doesn't either Ramirez get nominated every year to make sure there's ONE conservative up for the award, no matter how crappy their collective work is?

[phred]

"17th century people in 20th century haircuts"

Not to mention 20th century teeth.

[Mark Jackson]

The Ramirez absurdity actually echoes (anticipated?) a White House talking point. In response to an NPR but-DACA-doesn't-apply-to-recent-arrivals question the other day a spokesthing claimed that it was "disingenuous" to suggest "there is no link" between DACA and immigration, since the immigrant smugglers "tell people" DACA means you can get citizenship quickly if you get into the US.

I see at least "straw man" and "slippery slope" here.

[Brent]

There's a lot to be said for structure with both logic and grammar, though. I recall reading an article about a US school that was at the bottom of its state and decided to go back to teaching the basics of grammar (as opposed to a free expression approach to language), because they discovered that a large percentage of their students couldn't put together anything beyond a simple sentence. This got them up into the top of their state in a few years. Which doesn't surprise me... I learned early on in elementary school that if you know the answer but can't express it clearly and logically, you lose marks. And if you don't know the answer, but can express things clearly and logically, you can BS and get marks. The rules may be arbitrary, but that doesn't make them not important... not just grammar, but the whole picture, semantics and pragmatics, too. It's all a structure set up so that ideas from one person can be easily understood by another.

And, personally, I wouldn't have used "common sense" there. More often than not, when a person appeals to common sense now it's because they have no other leg to stand on. Not grammar, not logic, not even evidence. They're trying to bypass your brain and go straight to your gut so you'll repost their bile and spread the hate.

I also wouldn't put it just to rightwing knuckheads to abuse grammar and logic to attack... there's plenty of those attacks going both ways.