The Atlantic - Latest Comments in On grammar

Re: On grammar

dragnet — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 16:35:06 -0000

i don't even know why you listen to these clowns, TNC. ignore the grammar police---you've given them too much oxygen already.

Re: On grammar

Ta-Nehisi Coates — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 16:08:24 -0000

Thanks guys. Locking now. I honestly didn't expect this many comments. I don't have an answer.

Re: On grammar

Sybil — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 16:02:18 -0000

1. Blogs are more like a conversation than a formal essay. Just like texting and email do not use the same rules of spelling and syntax as a formal letter, blogs that use a conversational style may not always have perfect copy. That is what makes this format engaging, fresh, informal and genuine.

2. People who nitpick about grammar may be missing out on the thought provoking ideas exchanged in this blog. Focus on what is important: read, think, discuss, even argue about the ideas, not the commas. Please! There are important issues at hand. (Perhaps the grammar critics are just jealous that they don't have much in the way of IDEAS to write about and thus never were offered an Atlantic blog?? just a thought.)

3. That being said, perhaps an occasional string about writing mechanics would be informative--but don't let it take away from the great work you do.

Re: On grammar

Kathryn — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 15:46:39 -0000

I second jaswant's suggestion of leaving grammar comments out of the comments section entirely.

If you have a problem with Ta-Nehisi's grammar, email him. Spare the rest of us.

Re: On grammar

jaswant — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 15:40:29 -0000

Perhaps an equitable solution would be for those who care about spelling and grammar to email TNC, who can then decide which, if any, changes he wishes to incorporate? That way, correct English may be achieved, the know-nothing tendencies on here can feel (self-)satisfied, and all will make progress together in discussing other topics, doubtless in perfect social harmony, with never a cross word to be heard.

Re: On grammar

Stephen Bank — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 15:28:38 -0000

I would find that extremely boring, honestly.

I don't notice any more problems with spelling and grammar here than at any other blog.

Re: On grammar

Mike Godwin — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 15:21:47 -0000

Not merely clean, but even squeaky! *s*

Re: On grammar

Hassan — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 15:19:12 -0000

lets not go on tangents people...affirmative action (huh!)...where on earth are people getting this stuff.

Re: On grammar

hmmm — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 15:13:26 -0000

I am just wondering why this entry has not been locked for comments yet. TNC clearly asked a simple question (part of corporate politics I presume) and there are simply two reactions to be had to this, affirmations or negations. For obvious reasons I expect more negations since we clearly don't come here for grammar lessons. Personally I think he is doing a great job and if something really bothers one of you. Then go else where!! I love the free flowing nature of this blog.

Re: On grammar

Mike — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 15:06:08 -0000

I don't know what the complaints are all about. I think you're very articulate. And clean!

Re: On grammar

Fred — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 15:05:52 -0000

Speaking as someone who does think that affirmative action motivated The Atlantic to hire you, but nevertheless thinks that you've demonstrated the chops to be worthy of this opportunity (and have shown up a few of your Ivy-grad colleagues as well), I say your grammar is fine. I caught more mistakes in the comments criticizing you than in this thread than in your recent posts. Blogging doesn't require the precise grammar of an E.B. White. Keep doing what you're doing, T-N C.

Re: On grammar

igloominious — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 15:03:32 -0000

Colin, I hate to nit-pick, but it's usually not possible to comment on the Atlantic blogs *s*. Douthat, Sullivan, Ambinder have all pulled up the drawbridge and prepared the boiling oil for their guests.

Re: On grammar

Colin — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 15:00:11 -0000

I'm a frequent reader of Atlantic bloggers, and I almost never comment. I felt the need to here though, because I think a grammar spot on your blog would be pointless. To be honest, I never even noticed you had grammar or spelling issues. I'm sure if I were to read very closely and do a proper proofreading (which I occasionally do as a side-business for professionals), than I would pick up on your errors. This is a blog though, and to be honest, as long as the entries are readable, interesting and well-thought out, than I could care less if there are small spelling or grammar mistakes. People who feel the need to comment on that stuff are being really anal. That's just my opinion, of course, so take it as you wish...

Re: On grammar

mikasilva — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 14:57:33 -0000

I am assuming that Grammar Fascist is simply hyperbole for "cares enough to write decent English". Also, mixing metaphors like "paperback" and "marble block" is a bit lacking in clarity and elegance.

Re: On grammar

Theo — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 14:51:20 -0000

There are grammar nerds, and then there are grammar fascists; if there's a blogger out there who can type as fast or efficiently as he or she thinks, I've never read them. We're all much better served by treating blog posts like the intellectual sparks they are, rather than fighting the nature of the medium itself and expecting text that reads like it passed through the digestive tracts of half a dozen assistant copy editors.

Someone actually bothered with a (gentle) critique of "I get to get better", which was a perfectly understandable phrase, it simply *sounds* better spoken than it reads as a straight line of text (a "Paris in the Spring" visual puzzle effect).

All I know is that I first came to the Atlantic site for Andrew Sullivan, and until Ta-Nehisi appeared his was the only work engaging enough to read with any regularity.

Blogging at its best allows the opportunity to see a writer's mind at work in something approaching real time—if it's that bothersome to have to deal with an improper comma or semicolon, or a misplaced modifier, wait for it in paperback.

Or get a chisel and a marble block and go to town yourself.

Re: On grammar

livius — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 14:46:58 -0000

That's entirely up to you. My tendency would be to vote nay because I much prefer your on topic posts to grammar debates.

In fact, I'm already feeling guilty for having posted about typos when I actually don't give a rat's ass where you put your commas.

Re: On grammar

Deborah — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 14:41:14 -0000

Grammar blogging would likely be boring, and would almost certainly devolve into

Commenter A: You're wrong.

Commenter B: No, you're wrong.

Commenter A: Am not.

Commenter C: Moose.

Commenter B. Are too.

That is, the sort of people who like to go around correcting others' grammar seem to inevitably add their own errors to the mix.

I enjoy reading your blog, understand everything but some music posts (and that's not grammar), and I'm an editor. Keep on keeping on, and don't let anyone son you. More background on the D&D posts might help, I suppose.

@DougE

Use a semicolon in two cases. First, a list that includes commas, as shown below:

The nominees include Joe Blow, DDS, of Nome, Alaska; Mark Smith of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Kara Thrace, viper pilot, of Newark, New Jersey.

Second, to separate independent clauses. A period and cap can be used in these cases, though you can wind up sounding like Hemingway. It's a style question, as are most comma debates:

Sarah Palin returned to her role as governor of Alaska; John McCain returned to house number 7.

The last post there settles it for me--few thins are as annoying as arguments about whether a comma should or shouldn't be there. No grammar posts unless we need to point out particularly amusing typos.

@Peter: Substantive policy questions that include a follow-up. e.g. "When you say balance of power in Eastern Europe, exactly what do you think of admitting Poland to NATO? What about missiles there? What should be our position in regards to Russia and its former republics?" Of course the first layer is canned; what's critical is that the nominee can think on his or her feet and give a real answer. I also want follow-ups to any skipped answers: if the nominee responds to a question about A with a canned answer about B, repeat the question until there is a substantive answer, or the nominee has made him- or herself look ridiculous.

I will also allow a certain number of "name an experience that helped inform your view of X," but these are almost guaranteed to elicit moving voter stories rather than insights into guiding philosophies.

Re: On grammar

Adam — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 14:36:19 -0000

Grammar IS that interesting, absolutely. But probably not what I (or many others) come to Atlantic to read about, at least not on a daily basis. (I'll go to one of my nerdy English/Writing/Lit blogs for that.)

Re: On grammar

mischa — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 14:34:54 -0000

Nate G, in the hope of saving your monitor, maybe it's worth considering that people who pick up on slips do so because they like the argument and the writer, and want to do a little bit towards giving a helping hand. If you don't care either way, you just shrug and pass by on the other side of the road. Think of it more as friends helping out a friend, rather than people disrespecting what was said.

(And yes, I should have included an "is" in my post.)

Re: On grammar

Nate G — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 14:30:45 -0000

As long as the point gets through, who cares? People also sweated Matt Yglesias for grammar and typos, and I think he is one of the best bloggers out there. I generally don't read commentary because it gets so toxic.

The atlantic is better than nyt or wash post(in that it doesn't get toxic as fast), but when you say something as insightful as your post about not needing barack obama to be a civil rights leader--which gave me a completely new pov looking at the media and barack--and people start correcting your grammar, I want to throw my monitor at the wall.

Re: On grammar

QueenTiye — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 14:29:44 -0000

^^Wait - who did that? (make assumptions of race?) Sorry if I haven't read clearly enough...

Re: On grammar

kevinsmith — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 14:19:22 -0000

I see people throwing around accusations of racism, and gate-keeping, so let me ask the question: what makes you people so sure that any of the guys writing comments on here are white? Or non-black? Or have any agenda except to shout out, as TNC just said he was happy for us to do? Playing the victim card in advance and without facts FOR SOMEONE ELSE is the worst sort of lame victimology. Stop it, please. Also, sure, errors in argument matter, but that doesn't mean you should give spelling and grammar a pass.

Re: On grammar

Deep*3000 — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 14:11:52 -0000

"A lot of jokers out runnin in place, chasin the style

Be a lot goin on beneath the empty smile

Most cats in my area be lovin the hysteria

Synthesized surface conceals the interior

America, land of opportunity, mirages and camoflauges

More than usually -- speakin loudly, sayin nothin"

- mos

And I'm a college professor, who flexes on grammar issues in class.

Re: On grammar

QueenTiye — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 14:10:51 -0000

WTF? And I say that as someone who tries not to use that language...

You were brought on-board to represent an authentic, UNDERrepresented stream of intellectual thought and I've appreciated your point of view - and your willingness to engage vernacular in conveying that pov. I've not seen evidence of you having any issues of grammar - and if there have been evidences of it - it would be ideal if someone from the Atlantic undertook to edit your grammar - not us.

The only grammar discussion I'd like to have is of urban grammar. That would be of interest - despite being African American - I'd not heard of the use of the word "son" as a verb. Like most African Americans - I caught on pretty quickly, but still enjoyed the discourse.

Seriously - screw anyone who has a problem with it. You're here to be a part of the American fabric - same as anyone else.

BTW - I would like to link to your blog from my site. Is that ok? (My site is http://obamaproject.windonwater.net)

Re: On grammar

Watson — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 14:10:48 -0000

I think that you’re an excellent writer/analyst. That’s what keeps me coming back. The typos are de minimis. It’s professional of you to be concerned about them and considerate to share the concern with your readers.

More generally on the King’s English, writing proficiency is usually a legitimate requirement in the world of white-collar work. I’ve frequently seen much ado made over few/minor errors in writing samples from candidates who ended up being rejected despite other strong qualifications. Pointing to those bloopers can give gatekeepers a cover for their racism. So it’s good to encourage young people coming up to emphasize sharpening their skills so that they don’t trip on this hurdle.