The Internet has proved its value as a self-publishing tool, but has it actually been good for writing — or for writers? 10 Zen Monkeys posed that question to 10 authors and scholars, and their responses are often quite revealing.
“The short answer is yes,” says Mark Amerika, an associate professor of art at the University of Colorado at Boulder, before issuing a caveat: “We probably need to expand the concept of writing to take into account new forms of online communication as well as emerging styles of digital rhetoric.”
But Mark Dery, a professor of media criticism and literary journalism at New York University, warns against “this ghastly notion,” propagated by some bloggers and Web 2.0 enthusiasts, “that every piece of writing is a ‘conversation.’”
“It’s a no-brainer that writing is a communicative act, and always has been,” says Mr. Dery. But the professor criticizes “the beige, soul-crushing logic of the PowerPoint mind” and the idea that “all writing, online or off, should sound like water-cooler conversation.” —Brock Read
33 Responses to Writers Debate the Net’s Effect on Their Craft
mbelvadi - April 23, 2012 at 6:39 am
Yet another in a string of reasons not to consider the Washington Post a serious newspaper any more.
lobokate - April 23, 2012 at 8:55 am
Hopefully, people will get over the shock . . .
dank48 - April 23, 2012 at 8:59 am
It’s amazing how few people over the years bothered to turn to a dictionary about “hopefully” etc. But then it’s amazing how few people bother to turn to a dictionary, period.
nice poet - April 23, 2012 at 10:01 am
I just looked at it, and I’m not sure it’s not ironic. A bit of a pointless post, but the writer’s tongue certainly seems stuck in her cheek.
darccity - April 23, 2012 at 10:11 am
This is an ideal time to reintroduce you younger folk to the Tom Swiftly adverbial jokes (a list of many painful ones may be found at http://thinks.com/words/tomswift.htm). Examples are:
“How long will I have to wait for a table?” asked Tom unreservedly.
“I’m not sure about Heisenberg,” said Tom uncertainly.
“What’s the value of a dollar bill?” asked Tom noteworthily.
“I refuse to make an agenda,” Tom said listlessly.
“I’ve mixed up my gloves,” Tom said intermittently.
“I only have diamonds, clubs and spades,” said Tom heartlessly.
“This house is in good taste!” said Hansel and Gretel gingerly.
“I’m on social security,” said Tom dolefully.
“The prisoner escaped down a rope,” said Tom condescendingly.
sisgett - April 23, 2012 at 10:19 am
Hopefully, more people will read Hesse’s column.
senecan - April 23, 2012 at 11:55 am
Professor Pullum’s apparent need to browbeat and belittle those with whom he disagrees makes for unpleasant reading and simply mirrors the overheated prescriptivist discourse he decries. Without defending the “aging” Follet or the “flailing” White, I would respectfully suggest that the case made here for the modal-adjunct use of “hopefully” is weak. I take the supposedly parallel examples (with “clearly” and “obviously”) to mean something like ”That he saw her is clear” and “That he was flirting with her is obvious.” “Hopefully they’ll wait,” on the other hand, I take to mean something like “I hope that they’ll wait” or possibly “We hope that they’ll wait” and not “That they’ll wait is hopeful.” That reading is not logical, Captain. English grammar is not always logical, of course, and usage shifts. But there is an argument based on clarity and precision for avoiding “hopefully” as a modal adjunct.
theatheist - April 23, 2012 at 11:59 am
A complete reading of Hesse’s article makes it clear (at least to me) that her opening statements are ironic and that she is on Pullum’s side of the argument.
Or, to be more precise, it seems she’s using the AP moment as an opportunity to say something larger about these types of arguments.
YMMV
akeller - April 23, 2012 at 12:00 pm
I’m reminded of the PBS documentary about the Oxford Enlish Dictionary where the narrator discussed the differences between the English Dictionary and the French Dictionary being assembled at the same time. It seems the English wanted a dictionary that reflected how language was used while the French wanted a dictionary that defined the language. To my mind living with an evolving language has allowed us certain freedoms in other areas as well.
mikegrubb - April 23, 2012 at 12:17 pm
Perhaps, someday, hopefully, after the raging debate finally cools, people will stop laying the seeds of doubt and confusion by using “hopefully” so recklessly.
magyar - April 23, 2012 at 12:22 pm
Sadly, this kind of response was inevitable though, frankly, it is filled with the peever’s usual lack of clarity. Luckily, most readers will take a little time to reflect before posting their comments and, happily, I see that some already have. Hopefully, we will see less and less of this particular peeve in upcoming posts. It is, after all, just part of the language’s ongoing development.
dank48 - April 23, 2012 at 12:42 pm
Look up “hopefully” in MWCD10 or some equally reliable source.Read the explanation, including “Disjuncts serve as a means by which the author or speaker can comment directly to the reader or hearer usu. on the content of the sentence to which they are attached.” Compare “interestingly,” “frankly,” “clearly,” “luckily,” “unfortunately,” etc. to “hopefully.”
“Hopefully they’ll wait” is pretty much the same as “It’s to be hoped that they’ll wait,” but not at all the same as “They’ll wait hopefully.”
As Hesse points out in the article, these nice linguistic distinctions, harmless in themselves, become markers of social status in the eyes or ears of those wishing to make broader distinctions between people. The Washington Monthly once ran a cartoon showing folks going on and on about another person’s use of “fulsome,” which they regarded as if it were a gross lapse of etiquette, when it was merely the original sense.
Apparently your eyes are sharper than mine; I can’t find enough belittlement and browbeating to spoil the essay for me.
nordicexpat - April 23, 2012 at 1:32 pm
One example of the use of “hopefully” I’ve never understood is from Dr. Seuss’s The Lorax:
“Where will they go to? I don’t hopefully know.”
I imagine it is a manner adjunct, but I am lost about how to parse it.
yabba - April 23, 2012 at 1:38 pm
hopefully has arrived.
better travel,
prescriptivist sadly said.
darccity - April 23, 2012 at 2:14 pm
(It is clear that) Clearly, he gave his speech clearly.
(It is lucky that) Luckily, his blackjack activities ended luckily.
(To be frank about it) Frankly, I doubt her negotiations were conducted frankly.
So how are these any different from the distinct positional implications of the following:
(I am hopeful that) Hopefully, they left the theatre hopefully after watching my new play.
senecan - April 23, 2012 at 2:30 pm
Regrettably, the “Comments” section of a blog post is an inadequate forum for reasonable discussion. Regretfully, I now see the pointlessness of commenting.
senecan - April 23, 2012 at 3:05 pm
Yes, I see the distinction between the senses ascribed to “hopefully” in those two statements. My point is that the traditionalist objection to “hopefully” as a modal adjunct is not merely arbitrary. A person can be full of hope but “that they’ll come” or some other such statement cannot be. Taking your further examples, an action or statement can be interesting, clear, lucky, or unfortunate, and possibly frank, too, though “frankly” usually precedes a statement of the speaker’s opinion (Frankly, I don’t give a damn about this use of “hopefully”).
“Poppycock,” “peevers,” “aging,” “absurdly overwritten rant,” and “flailing” are not neutral descriptions and they make a poor substitute for an actual argument. You can find similar disparaging language in Pullum’s other posts. He may possibly be correct about the overwriting, etc., but I hesitate to take the word of a reader who doubts the ironic intent of the Hesse piece.
dsclaussen - April 23, 2012 at 3:25 pm
Where words go in a sentence still matters because of vast differences in meaning, as the “obvious” example obviously shows. Note the huge difference between, “Naked, I saw the pope” (say, pope on TV, while viewer is coming out of the shower) versus, “I saw the pope naked.” Or “Only I assaulted him” versus “I only assaulted him” (as contrasted with, say, murdered) versus “I assaulted only him” (Americans can’t get “only” in the right place most of the time!) Perhaps the “hopefully” usage doesn’t bother everyone because Americans are much more likely to talk about their own hopes, or mention hope generically/abstractly, than to casually refer to others as being hopeful…..
dank48 - April 23, 2012 at 4:00 pm
“Importantly” is the one I can’t stand. It’s usually in effect an ellipsis for “What is really important is that” but it always hits me as “In an important manner,” whatever that might mean. The thing is, though, that “the traditionalist objection” to “hopefully” and so on is anything but; it’s relatively recent, in reaction to the popularity of the usage in mid-century.
Perhaps I simply misunderstand Professor Pullum’s point of view here, but it seems to me that his ire is expressed vividly and memorably, but not ad hominem, and with reasonable precision, rather than just turned on a world of sinners. Frankly, I prefer this to the “typical of leftists” and “like all conservatives” and so forth encountered all too frequently here and elsewhere. And unless I’m mistaken, he’s pretty much up on irony, and he’s dishing out the criticism to people who either don’t know what they’re talking about or who are trying to attach moral significance as well as social labels to language.
senecan - April 23, 2012 at 4:26 pm
“Traditionalist” views are often relatively recent; I should have found a better word. I agree with most of what you say here, except that Pullum does resort to ad hominem arguments. What does his calling Follett an “_aging_ usage specialist” add, other than the implication that Follett was out of date or perhaps becoming senile? And how different is his offhand use of “peevers” from “typical lib,” etc.? Calling a wrong opinion stupid (as he has done in other posts) is to sink to the rhetorical level of a schoolyard bully.
As for his being up on irony, his comments on the Hesse article speak for themselves.
cbres - April 23, 2012 at 4:48 pm
We used to play this game in college, but didn’t limit ourselves to adverbs. My favorite:
‘But I wanted to install Formica,’ he countered.
rrhersh - April 23, 2012 at 5:00 pm
I, for one, appreciate the exercise in pearl-clutching at mean ol’ Doc Pullum. As if browbeating and belittling aren’t the standard tactics of the prescriptivist purveyors of ignorant superstition. The difference is that ol’ Doc Pullum has facts and logic and stuff behind him, which prescriptivists work to keep out of the discussion. (And no, splitting hairs to find minuscule distinctions between ‘hopefully’ and other modal adjuncts doesn’t count.)
magyar - April 23, 2012 at 5:26 pm
Naturally, you would say that.
widder4 - April 24, 2012 at 4:22 am
Anything that allows me [officially] to use hopefully as I would hoffentlich is appreciated. [There is no ambiguity in 'Er wartet* hoffentlich' or 'Hoffentlich wartet er']. Hopefully the traditionalists does not blame German immigrants for the change…
[*thanks dank48, I lived too long abroad and had parents from Saxonia...]
dank48 - April 24, 2012 at 12:15 pm
“Er wartete hoffentlich”; “Hoffentlich wartete er.”
Na ja.
dank48 - April 24, 2012 at 12:34 pm
”Frankly, I don’t give a damn” seems equivalent to “To dispense with the social niceties and just spit the truth out on the table, let the devil take the hindmost, I don’t give a damn.” I don’t see how “frankly” could possibly describe how I don’t give a damn. Even assuming that I don’t give a damn, it’s not the case that “frankly” is the manner or way in which I don’t. Of course, “She expressed her opinion frankly” does have “frankly” modifying the verb in what I think of as the usual way.
“Hopefully,” on the other hand, can disjunctively express the speaker’s hope that something might occur. The Stevie Smith line about the young lady “lingering hopefully” in hopes of catching a man’s eye is the usual.
It seems to me that the line between ad hominem and not is sometimes less clear than it might be. It’s always possible that the remark about Follett was meant compassionately: let us not be too harsh on him; he was old and full of years, and it’s not fair for us to judge him by a late-in-life lapse in his judgment. And much as I love and respect E. B. White, that much loved and much respected book just doesn’t deserve its reputation. You’ve very correctly pointed out the distinction between “regrettably” and “regretfully” above. White quotes Strunk using “forcibly” for “forcefully,” without comment. Frankly, I find it hard to believe that neither man knew the distinction, but I’d hesitate to put forward an explanation, lest I be accused of attacking the men not the argument.
senecan - April 24, 2012 at 1:55 pm
Even read as you suggest, “aging” still functions as an ad hominem argument or fallacy, and possibly a begging of the question as well. But I’m sure we all have other gardens to tend.
Begrudgingly, the modal-adjunct use of “hopefully” has become respectable.
mikegrubb - April 24, 2012 at 3:19 pm
I’ve always understood that line to mean that the narrator has dire expectations about the likely fate of the… fish (if I remember the moment accurately). “I” + “know hopefully” + [negation]. I would suggest that you’re correct in reading it as a manner adjunct, for whatever my opinion’s worth.
Richard Grayson - April 24, 2012 at 4:14 pm
Both modal adjuncts and manner adjuncts need to be treated more like regular adverbs because they work just as hard, aren’t paid enough, and don’t get the benefits they deserve.
kilpikonna - April 25, 2012 at 8:36 am
Professor Pullum’s apparent need to browbeat and belittle those with whom he disagrees makes for unpleasant reading
I think you meant “hilarious reading.” Professor Pullum is my favorite curmudgeon in the whole world. He can yell at me to get off his lawn any day.
marcleavitt - April 25, 2012 at 2:13 pm
The more things change…
lazybones - April 26, 2012 at 12:01 pm
You only need to go back to April 17 and Ben Yagoda’s post to read what he thinks about “Americans can’t get “only” in the right place most of the time”. I prefer his version.
Chad Nilep - April 26, 2012 at 9:06 pm
Hopeably the neologism suggested by Senecan will catch on. Hopeably, as an early adopter, I will gain a measure of crediblearity. (Hopeably I’m using it correctfully.)