Stick to baseball, 8/17/19.

I was on vacation with my girlfriend last weekend, taking a few days to go offline while at a resort in Jamaica (my first trip there, so $countries_visited++;), and while I did go see a game right after I got back, I haven’t written this week. My parents also came to visit for a few days, so I had to skip the chat this week. I’ll do one either Tuesday or Wednesday of this upcoming week instead.

I did an interview a few weeks back with a site called the Good Men Project which ran while I was away. I don’t think that makes me a Good Man but I can hope.

Thank you to everyone who has signed up for my free email newsletter and sent kind, thoughtful replies to my last few editions. I’ll send another one later this week after I’ve written some more content around the interwebs.

And now, the links…

Babel-17.

My second first-round projection (“mock”) for this year’s draft is up for Insiders.

Samuel Delany wrote his short novel Babel-17, a smart, profound philosophical work, when he was just 23 years old, an astounding achievement for a work that would be impressive for an author of any age. The prose is a bit abstruse and the story a little meandering, but this is a novel of ideas, or rather one very big idea, that the language we speak can ultimately shape the way we think, a concept known as the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. (If any of this sounds familiar, it’s also the core idea behind the 2016 movie Arrival.)

According to The Linguist List, the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis states that “an individual’s thoughts and actions are determined by the language or languages that individual speaks.” The words and concepts of a language thus define not just what you say, but what you think and do. That simple version of the hypothesis, also called “linguistic relativism,” is generally accepted to be true, although there’s naturally disagreement on its extent, and there are stronger variations of the theorem (found in that link above) that are more controversial.

Delany builds an entire story around Sapir-Whorf, using an alien language called Babel-17 that humans and their allies have tried for years but failed to fully decipher, but that the other side in an ongoing, intergalactic war have weaponized to create turncoats within the allies’ forces. The protagonist, the poet and starship captain Rydra Wong, finds herself recruited by the Allies to crack what they suspect to be a code, only for her to discover that it’s an actual language that can re-program someone’s brain. This leads her on a series of missions into the war zone while coping with the likelihood that one of her own crew members is trying to sabotage the ship and potentially kill her.

For a novel that’s ostensibly set in a war, there’s very little fighting in Babel-17, which spends more time describing the consequences of war (like mass starvation) than the details of battle. Delany was enamored with his ideas about language, and managed to combine those with a compelling, three-dimensional protagonist – perhaps a too perfect one, as Rydra is brilliant, empathetic, and apparently beautiful, although the last point is only mentioned but never a factor in the story. The plot itself is a little muddled, and Delany’s prose struck me as Joyceian in spots, so for a book of under 200 pages it took me more time than I’d expect to get through it … which isn’t a criticism per se, more an observation given how quickly I read in general, and a reflection of how philosophical this novel is.

Delany does struggle to get the story to a reasonable, fulfilling conclusion, but I think that’s more feature than bug because the open question of the book, can language determine who we are and how we act, is not conducive to a plot deep enough for a novel. (Arrival got away with it, I think, because it was based on a short story, and a movie can work with a much shorter or thinner plot than a full-length novel can.) I never found myself wrapped up in the war plot. Delany gets more mileage out of the saboteur thread, although that conclusion wasn’t terribly satisfying on its own, only in the context of the broader question about language and thought. While I imagine linguists might object to his metaphor here, using Babel-17 as a brainwashing tool (and thus weaponizing Sapir-Whord), it takes a difficult and I think controversial topic in linguistics and puts it into a story in a way that an adept reader would understand the hypothesis and be left with plenty to chew on after finishing. That’s the great achievement of this book.

Jo Walton, whose book Among Others is one of my favorite novels of any genre, also weighed in on the wonders of Babel-17.

Next up: Richard Russo’s Everybody’s Fool. It’s good to see Sully again.

Arrival.

Denis Villeneuve’s Arrival, another nominee for the Academy Award for Best Picture, is something of a rarity in movies these days: a major-studio film with a thoughtful, intelligent script that challenges the viewer with big philosophical questions while also satisfying everyone’s desire for a compelling plot. Based on a Nebula Award-winning short story by Ted Chiang called “Story of Your Life,” Arrival looks like a story about humanity’s first contact with an alien race, but in the end it’s truly about human happiness and how knowing the future might change your choices in the present. (It’s now available to rent/buy via amazon and iTunes.)

Amy Adams plays Louise Banks, a polyglot and linguistics professor who is summoned by the US Army when twelve alien spacecraft land around the globe, including in one remote spot in Montana where most of the movie takes place. Before that, we see a brief overview of Louise’s story outside of the alien visit, where she’s married, has a baby, but loses the child to a rare disease in adolescence. At the landing site, she meets physicist Ian Donnelly (Jeremy Renner) and Colonel Weber (Forrest Whitaker, using a bizarre accent), and begins the process of trying to communicate with the aliens, dubbed “heptapods” because they have seven legs. They write in a pictograph-like script of circular images that deliver entire sentences in one symbol because the heptapods perceive time in a different way than humans do, and the center of the film revolves around the effort to establish for the two species to interact.

It’s an incredibly academic story at its heart; I joked on Twitter that this was the best film ever made about the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which is also the core subject of a book by Samuel Delany, Babel-17, currently sitting on my to-read shelf. Villeneuve and screenwriter Eric Heisserer could have skipped over a lot of the details, but instead treated the topic seriously, consulting linguists, developing a consistent writing system for the heptapods, and spending a fair portion of the script on showing us Louise’s efforts. The script treats the viewers like intelligent adults, and that was probably my favorite aspect of the film.

Great science fiction stories should just be great stories, period, in different settings. Once the science part of the science fiction takes over too much (like Red Mars, the most egregious example of this I’ve ever read), the whole endeavor suffers. Arrival manages to strike a perfect balance between its two halves – there’s enough of the science-y stuff to satisfy genre fans, but this remains a fundamentally strong story about people. This is a story about Louise, and about how we choose to live our lives, including whether we’d do something different if we perceived time the way the heptapods do. In that sense, it’s smart, emotional, and very thought-provoking; I saw this movie three days ago and am still turning the ending over and over in my mind.

I’m floored that Amy Adams didn’t get an Oscar nomination for her performance here; I’d probably have given her a nod over Ruth Negga from Loving, but I haven’t seen three of the other nominees yet. (As great as Meryl Streep always is, I also wonder if she’s just an automatic nominee at this point in her career.) Renner doesn’t have a ton to do here, although I think he also infuses humanity into what could have been a stereotypical “brilliant but aloof scientist” role. Whitaker’s weird accent, best described as “drunk Bostonian,” was a terrible idea poorly executed, and his character is the most one-dimensional of all, serving as the “we’re running out of time!” guy in most of his scenes. It’s not quite a solo record from Adams, but it’s pretty close, enough that the film sinks or swims with her performance, and I think she nailed every aspect of it. (I was also mildly amused by their attempts to make her look a little frumpy, especially when she’s at the university. Needless to say, it didn’t take.)

I’m dancing around the film’s twist, although rather than one big reveal moment, Arrival gives it to you gradually to pick up over the course of the story. I thought it worked on two levels – as a surprise revelation, but also as a way to change the entire meaning of the film. Without that, the film is smart; with it, it’s clever. The story really stuck with me in a way that other great movies of 2016, including Moonlight, didn’t. Between that and Adams’ performance, I can at least see how it ended up with a Best Picture nomination, although I would put it behind at least three other films that also received nods in that category, as well as at least two films that didn’t get nominations.

In the Land of Invented Languages.

Arika Okrent explores the strange history of artificial languages – Esperanto, Klingon, and other doomed projects to create a “universal” or other constructed language for people to ignore – in her lively 2014 book In the Land of Invented Languages: Adventures in Linguistic Creativity, Madness, and Genius, taking a surprisingly neutral view of the topic that dances around one very obvious truth: These people are weirdos. Some are just eccentric, while others are batshit insane, but the one thing they all have in common is the delusion that any of this is a good idea.

That makes the subject even more interesting, and Okrent, a trained linguist who happens to be the niece of Nine Innings author and original rotisserie league player Dan Okrent, surveys the field by examining the stories of five of the most significant “conlangs” in history: the Philosophical Language of John Wilkins, Esperanto, Loglan (and its offshoot Lojban), Blissymbols, and Klingon. No one here comes off particularly well, although Esperanto creator L.L. Zamenhof doesn’t fare that poorly. Loglan ended up the subject of a lawsuit over who “owned” the language, while the inventor of Blissymbols exhibited symptoms of bipolar disorder, and the folks who learn Klingon … well, that’s its own kind of insanity, given that the language’s designer deliberately made it difficult to learn and pronounce.

One of the most interesting aspects of Okrent’s book is how it sheds light on the evolution of natural languages and why “intelligent design” makes no more sense in linguistics than it does in evolution. Multiple efforts to craft artificial languages have failed for consistent reasons: Either the creator tries so hard to make the language cover everything that it becomes unusable, or the creator fights the natural process of change that accompanies any language when even a small community begins to use it. (Esperanto, the closest thing the conlang world has to a success story, has seen evolutionary changes in the language over its century-plus of existence, such as the decline in use of the -n to mark a noun in the accusative case.) There’s a third obstacle, in my opinion, which is that almost every conlang seems to fall in love with accent marks, such as the are-you-shitting-me P@x’áãokxáã language … which is only an extreme case, as conlangers abuse the umlaut more than bad metal bands, and the orthographical nightmares are compounded by overuse of q, x, and z, often adjacent to each other.

Okrent’s own hypothesis on why artificial languages fail seems to consider the inextricable link between language and culture, something she explores in a few chapters that discuss the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, leading into the section on “Loglan,” a logical language that James Cooke Brown (inventor of the boardgame Careers) created to test that hypothesis in a laboratory setting … but that was or turned into a massive ego project for him, spurring a lengthy battle between him and the small number of people who bothered to learn this thing, causing the latter group to split off and create the language Lojban. If this sounds like a couple of kids fighting over corners of the same sandbox, you have the right idea. But in Okrent’s view, the fascination these strange little subcultures hold doesn’t supersede the fundamental problems that any fake language will have taking hold – the lack of any cultural connection or foundation to tie people to the language and the language to their everyday lives and needs. The work involved doesn’t help either, especially since many of these languages forsake accessibility for “completeness,” but we have seen natural languages take hold in non-native places for cultural or business reasons. We don’t need an artificial universal language because we have English, which has supplanted French (the previous “universal” language) in international business and diplomacy and has been spread globally by the United States’ entertainment industry.

Okrent has many interesting tangents in the book beyond the chapters on crazy Charles Bliss (who sued the school for disabled children that adopted his language of symbols, extorting $160,000 from them to make him go away) or the social outcasts who attend Klingon language conferences. She gives the most concise explanation I’ve ever seen for why irregular grammatical forms persist in modern languages (it’s another evolutionary explanation), describes another failed Sapir-Whorf experiment built around a feminist conlang called Láadan (again with the accent marks), and discusses how the Lord of the Rings trilogy came out of J.R.R. Tolkien’s own language-invention efforts, one that involved building not just a single language but a whole taxonomy of them that led to the elves of Middle Earth. Tolkien, at least, comes off better than most of the nuts who populate the book, idealists, dreamers, egotists, and just plain old oddballs who ignore the history of well over 500 attempts to build an artificial language that people will actually use with a grand total of zero true success stories in the list. Speaking as someone who’s found lots of ways to waste his own time on frivolous pursuits, the invention or study of a fake language strikes me as even more wasteful and frivolous than most.

Next up: Steven Millhauser’s Martin Dressler: The Tale of an American Dreamer, winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction in 1997.

Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue.

John McWhorter’s Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue: The Untold Story of English (I linked to the hardcover edition because it’s actually cheaper than the paperback at the moment) bounces back and forth between wonky linguistics stuff and more plebeian arguments about how we use the English language today. I found the former stuff interesting but a little puzzling because McWhorter is arguing against a conventional wisdom that seems to ignore the facts (a familiar story), but that conventional wisdom was completely new to me, and I thought McWhorter didn’t give quite enough background in the current thinking in the History of English field to set the stage for his epic takedowns. The latter half was far more accessible even to someone who doesn’t share an interest in languages or linguistics, and a little more relevant to the current state of English.

McWhorter’s more academic arguments take aim at the intransigence (in his view) of History of English scholars who refuse to see what he considers obvious influences on the language by the Celts and, oddly enough, the Vikings, that explain our unusually simple grammar. English is part of the Indo-European language group, in the Germanic family, but unlike its Germanic siblings or most of its cousins within Indo-European, it has retained very little of the grammar of its proto-language ancestors. English doesn’t decline its nouns (as Slavic languages do) or its articles (as German does), and our verb conjugations are incredibly simple – we add an -s in the third person singular, and that’s pretty much it, with just a few irregular verbs. Why has English grammar become so much simpler than the grammars of its close relatives? According to McWhorter, the History of English groupthink has it that these changes happened spontaneously, without outside influences, but he feels that that’s nonsense because of the obvious similarities between English and Celtic. The language that became English came to the British Isles with the invaders who subjugated the Celts, and McWhorter attests that the Celts, rather than finding their language wiped out by the invasion, gradually melded their language with the proto-English spoken by the invaders, leaving vestiges like what the author calls “meaningless do” (our use of “do” with present participles, as in, “Do you like baseball, Adam?”). The Vikings, meanwhile, left their imprint largely in the simplification of our grammar, ignoring grammatical elements that their language lacked and “battering” English to lead it to drop verb and noun endings that most other modern languages have retained for centuries. If you’re wondering why we find Russian so hard to learn, or why English doesn’t have gender or noun cases or tables upon tables of verb endings, McWhorter lays out a compelling explanation.

The more accessible portion of the book comes in McWhorter’s discussions of what it means for a language like English to have a simpler grammar, and whether there is ever such a thing as “proper” grammar as long as meaning isn’t sacrificed. He turns his guns on linguistic anthropologists who’ve argued that language and grammar reflect thought, such as certain Native American tribes whose grammars lacked the future tense or specific numbering systems. But where I took issue with McWhorter’s views was in his criticism of what we might call the Lynne Truss school of grammar – the idea that language, written or especially oral, that does not hew tightly to the strict rules of English grammar, is inferior to “proper” English. He points out how supposed errors like ending sentences in prepositions actually date back centuries in common usage

There is, of course, a self-serving aspect to proper grammar – signalling. It’s difficult to gauge someone’s educational background without seeing a resume, and difficult to gauge someone’ s intelligence without extensive conversation (if it’s even possible then), so we send out and read signals that become proxies for things like intelligence, education, or even old-fashioned notions like “good breeding.” Attire is one. Accent may be another. Grammar is a third. When you meet someone who speaks proper English, you will likely notice, even subconsciously, whereas someone who can’t match verb and subject – even though the meaning of “he don’t got” is perfectly clear – will drop a notch or two in your estimation, whether you know it or not. Good grammarians, recognizing this, may seek to protect their turf by defending grammar as necessary to the survival of the language. McWhorter says, with some merit, that this is absurd: As long as meaning is clear, grammar isn’t that critical, and besides, all languages evolve over time, both in grammar and in vocabulary, so what is considered bad grammar today could easily become accepted usage in a few decades.

But beyond that, there’s value in having a standard grammar and insisting on some level that people hew to it, for simple reasons of comprehension. A universal set of rules for a language allows us to communicate effectively through written and oral means because we use grammar to fill in the missing context in sentences that are either complex or that leave out details provided in early sentences or paragraphs. In Italian and Spanish, the speaker/writer can omit the subject pronoun because the ending on the verb makes it clear who the subject is. Make the grammatical error and you lose clarity, so the reader has to go back to figure out who’s verbing, or the listener has to either accept his confusion or stop the speaker to ask for clarification.

I have also generally found text with bad grammar cacophonous, making it both slower and less pleasant to read than “proper” text. A misplaced modifier usually means I have to re-read a sentence, and an incorrect word choice – say, “flaunting” the rules rather than “flouting” them – is sort of like hearing a glass shatter in the background as I’m trying to read. We become accustomed to seeing or hearing the language operating within the rules of its grammar, and when someone flouts them (sorry), it affects our ability to understand or to move smoothly through the spoken or written text.

Our Magnificant Bastard Tongue does lapse occasionally into linguistics jargon, and I could see the Celtic/English chapter being dull to anyone not interested in languages, but McWhorter tries to keep it light with some humor and a healthy dose of snark directed at linguists who (in his view) refuse to see the obvious signs of connections between English and Celtic and English and the Vikings’ language.

Back before the dish existed – B.D.? – I reviewed McWhorter’s The Power of Babel, a more general-interest book on the history of human languages.

I’m all screwed up in terms of what I’m reviewing next, but I am almost halfway through reading Salman Rushdie’s Midnight’s Children.