I was out of comission with a really sore throat (I woke up croaking) yesterday to hold forth on issues that were, well, being held forth on by others, elsewhere. In other words, the universe of discourse didn't suffer in any fashion due to my brief absence.

Joseph Epstien in yesterday's WSJ brings to attention of all the language grouches the work of The Vocabula Review. He writes this about VR:

"The Vocabula Review is run on the prescriptivist principle that there are correct and incorrect uses of words; the descriptivists hold that any language used by the majority is automatically acceptable English. "Whatever!" might be the descriptivists' motto; "Not in my house you don't" that of the prescriptivists.

The Vocabula Review, in fact, has two mottoes: "A society is generally as lax as its language" and "Well spoken is half sung." Mr. Fiske believes that honest language is elegant language. His online magazine is neither a forum for prescriptivism nor for his prejudices, but deals extensively with the endless oddities and richness of language.

Mr. Fiske's own characteristic tone is perhaps best caught in his Dimwit's Dictionary. In that 400-page work a vast body of words and phrases are shown up for the linguistic ciphers they are. He has established a number of categories for "Expressions That Dull Our Reason and Dim Our Insight." These included grammatical gimmicks, which are expressions (such as "whatever," "you had to be there") that are used by people who have lost their powers of description; ineffectual phrases ("the fact remains," "the thing about it is," "it is important to realize") used by people to delay coming to the point or for simple bewilderment; infantile phrases ("humongous," "gazillions," "everything's relative"), which show evidence of unformed reasoning; moribund metaphors ("window of opportunity") and insipid similes ("cool as a cucumber"); suspect superlatives ("an amazing person," "the best and the brightest"), which are just what the category suggests; torpid terms ("prioritize," "proactive," "significant other"), which are vapid and dreary; not to mention plebeian sentiments, overworked words, popular prescriptions, quack equations, and wretched redundancies."

I always knew that I inhabited some dark closet, and now thanks to Mr. Epstien, I can finally come out under the label for people with my tendencies: "prescriptivist". I went to the VR page in order to hobnob with other prescriptivists but sadly most VR content, other than a handful of sample articles, can only be accessed by subscribers.

Of the freebies, I liked the essay titled "DisenYOUGUYSing American English" best, mainly because I have been using some of the issues discussed in it to determine how I tip wait-staff. Those who serve with the refrain "you guys enjoy" to a company with an age spread of 25-75 years get points taken off, and those who transgress even farther in this fashion when serving a mixed company (men and women) get bumped further down the tipping scale. I am all for Whitman-ic brotherhood, and am as anti-subaltern as one can get but that "you guys enjoy" sends me into Ignatius J. Reilly-ish paroxysms on the contemporary world's lack of "theology and geometry".

On a related note, Ms. Square Peg in her blog post gives excellent (and hilarious) advice on how not to dress up one's online dating profile(s). So "pliss be minding your langbhage" for it still matters in some quarters.

I don't comment happenings on one critical space of pop culture, TV, because I don't own a TV set, and in all likelyhood will never own one. However, this James Poniewozik's essay on "Ugly Betty", the runaway sitcom hit on ABC, in this week's issue of the TIME magazine caught my attention for two reasons: 1) I remember seeing an episode of UB as I was cooling off after a run in hotel room few weeks ago, and 2) because the issues Mr. Poniewozik seeks to explain using UB's popularity, as well as his speculations behind UB becoming such a TV phenomenon.

Some of the issues he rises, and seeks to explain include "American" attitudes towards (and related political debates on) immigrants, the immigrant work ethic, and the effects of global cross-cultural currents (UB is based on a telenovela franchise) on American TV programming. While clearly UB would never have gotten a slot on prime-time in the lily-white era of "I Love Lucy"[1], I quibble with Mr. Poniewozik's essay when he makes it sound as if American TV is a welcome parlor on Ellis Island, and which any casual watcher will know, it patently is not. He writes:

"Reality TV may be so hospitable to immigrants because it's a fun house mirror of the immigrant experience. You leave your comfort zone and prove your worth with little more than gumption and (maybe) talent. Wherever you come from, you embrace a new, anything-goes culture that values chutzpah over tradition and propriety."

I beg to differ with this view; American Media (of which TV is a small part) is a conglomerate-owned and controlled business[2], and like any other business, it is driven by viewership (consumer) numbers and not by any fuzzy feelings towards foreigners. While a few of the minor threads in UB revolve around the immigrant experience (Betty's dad is an illegal immigrant from Mexico, and her older sister speaks English with a forced Spanish accent; Betty's accent is, unsuprisingly, all-American), I am sure that ABC would have killed this show without mercy had it not become a sleeper hit, immigrants or no.

How to then explain UB's popularity sans immigration fuzziness? My conjecture is that Betty - with her frizzy hair, Jaws-the-Moonraker-villan-like braces, un-twiggy body, and non-current dress style[3] - has managed to speak that part of the 10 million plus Americans that tune in every week, which is held by the very same media culture to be inadequate, to be imperfect, and to be, yes, very, very ugly because they don't confrom to what they see on their screens. Since Betty comes aross as heartwarming inspite of her many imperfections, I suppose, people watch her for the consolation that inspite of the media-mediated gaps they may see in themselves, they are fundamentally Betty-like good. I only hope ABC doesn't run ads for fashion, cosmetics and diet products before and after the Ugly Betty episodes[4].

[1] Even though Desi Arnaz was Cuban I think; how did the Anglo-Saxon purists allow Lucy get by with that?!