Rating: 
Summary: Rambling indignation masquerading as thoughtful analysis.
Review: (Since I have limited review space, I'll talk only about the part of this book that deals with music. As the title suggests, it's a very important part, and I personally think that the problems with it say a lot about the book as a whole.)McWhorter's main theme, in this part of the book, is that music, as an art form, was greatly trivialized and degraded by the big, bad, evil sixties counterculture. Yet, for some reason, he brings up musical theatre, talks about how some musicals were still somewhat true to the old ideal of music, then suddenly asserts that even the best of them were only "minor" accomplishments. This has no bearing on the evil counterculture or the music that it spawned; if anything, it contradicts McWhorter's point by implying that the decline of music began long before the sixties. McWhorter goes on these digressions all the time, and the more aimless they are, the more he seems to think that they strengthen his main point. Another such digression is McWhorter's idea that post-sixties music is above all driven by the desire of white people to emulate black people. I don't think this says anything about the quality of that music, even if it's true, but McWhorter thinks it's really important. In support of this idea, he gives the following evidence: a) rock stars such as Mick Jagger affect a Southern accent, despite not being from the South, and b) the song "Play That Funky Music, White Boy" implies that a "white boy" is unsuccessful at emulating the "black" concept of being "funky," and thus fails to attain the ideal of rock music. One might ask why this ideal would be so important in England, the homeland of many classic rock bands, or in Russia, Japan, Finland, or any other country where rock bands exist. McWhorter doesn't, though. Instead, he rambles about songs sung by black slaves in the nineteenth century. The conclusion? The evil sixties counterculture destroyed music! In reality, the evil counterculture's musical ideas had numerous precedents. For instance, the musical aspect of the notion of "doing one's own thing," which McWhorter ridicules so much in this screed, might be seen as having risen out of the emphasis placed by jazz music on improvisation and "free-form" playing. As for imitating black people, the tiny grain of truth in that claim can be traced back to nineteenth-century European artists' fascination with African art and the self-styled "primitivist" movements that resulted from it. But McWhorter doesn't raise his mighty fist against Coltrane or Picasso; instead, he chooses to present the evil sixties counterculture as some kind of sudden, extreme turning point that single-handedly destroyed music (including jazz). What's funny is that, when jazz was on the rise, it was subjected to these exact same arguments from music critics of the time. Now, it has become an important musical genre, and nowadays one can listen to it in big concert halls as if it were classical music. As for how the evil counterculture destroyed music: according to McWhorter, rock and roll shifted the focus of music from skilled songwriting to "the way one sings." That is, McWhorter claims that in today's music, an aura of "genuineness" surrounding a singer is more important than the quality of a singer's voice or songwriting. Naturally, he completely ignores the fact that a rock singer's role is by no means just that of singer and musician, but that of actor, storyteller, and commentator as well. This is not a new phenomenon, either: opera singers, for instance, are not only singers but also actors, and since they spend their time onstage singing, they have to "act" with their voices. Why it is so egregious that modern singers place a heavy emphasis on this exact same thing, I'll never know. Additionally, many renowned singers in history, prior to the evil sixties counterculture, wrote none of the songs they sang, and weren't expected to write them. If anything, the rock era brought a new emphasis on singers also being songwriters instead of downplaying it. But that's not all: in support of his dubious thesis, McWhorter claims that Bob Dylan and Tom Waits are well known solely because of this aura of "genuineness" that they have, and not for their songwriting or singing. While it's true that neither Dylan nor Waits has a very good voice, anyone can go to allmusic.com and see that both of them are in fact praised for their songwriting (e.g. "...The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan...firmly established Dylan as an unparalleled songwriter..."), and that Waits's post-1983 albums are all noted for their original musical ideas. Their aura of "genuineness," in contrast, is discussed very little, meaning that McWhorter has no idea what he's talking about, and fails to honestly talk about the songwriting of either Dylan or Waits. In fact, for a book that's supposed to prove the "decline" of music, this one shows very little familiarity with the music in question. McWhorter has a lot of contempt for rap, for example, but he appears to know of practically no rappers aside from Eminem. I don't know much about rap, either, but that's precisely why I'm not qualified to issue blanket condemnations of it. Also, McWhorter appears to be completely ignorant of electronica, and even his rock knowledge doesn't go beyond a few of rock's most well-known figures. He tends to get things wrong when talking about them, too, like with Dylan and Waits. Nowhere does he approach the level of familiarity with his subject that would be necessary to even begin to analyze it. Of course, one can't really expect an honest, in-depth discussion from a 280-page, sparsely printed pamphlet that claims to demolish modern music, and rhetoric, and literature, and everything else, and neatly pin the blame on the evil sixties counterculture in the process. As far as its discussion of music goes, at least, this book delivers only hot air.
Rating: 
Summary: Words and the Way We Use Them
Review: An easy language English is, no one ever said. Out reel the sentences till back they reel in. Like a slow and sinuous snake, a passage may, with calm deliberation, slide through dozens of subordinate clauses to form periodic constructions of some genuine stateliness. Or not. English syntax, like English grammar, is the despair of schoolchildren and the joy of poets. Then, of course, there is the vocabulary. With its natural tendency to distinguish apparent synonyms, its love of technical nouns, its doubled root in a Germanic Anglo-Saxon and a Latinate Norman French, and its willingness to steal from anywhere -- every word that begins with "sk" is borrowed, for instance, often from Danish -- English has a stock of an astonishing half-million words. Add up all the advantages and speakers of English possess a linguistic instrument unrivaled in the history of the world for suppleness, precision, subtlety and force. So why do we speak and write it so bad? I mean, we really, really suck, and it's like every year we get worser and worser. It kind of makes you wonder. Or at least it has made John McWhorter wonder. As a professor of linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley, Mr. McWhorter has written such books as "The Power of Babel," an upbeat popular history of language. As a cultural commentator, he has written such downbeat analyses as "Losing the Race" and "Authentically Black." With "Doing Our Own Thing," he has combined the two moods of John McWhorter to celebrate the English language and to bemoan our present incapacity to use it in an elegant, formal or elevated way. His favorite measure of what we've lost is the oratory at Gettysburg in 1863. Set aside Abraham Lincoln; the world has much noted and long remembered what he said there, and he proved that the right use of language can, in fact, consecrate and hallow the ground of which it speaks. But Lincoln was a rhetorical genius of such power that no one could blame us for failing to match him. Far more revealing is Edward Everett, the orator who preceded Lincoln and spoke for two hours to a rapt audience with such ornate apostrophes as: "Standing beneath this serene sky, overlooking these broad fields now reposing from the labors of the waning year, . . . I raise my poor voice to break the eloquent silence of God and nature." Mock this as much as you like. It's a long way from Gettysburg to George Bush's "Bring 'em on" -- and all of it downhill. That's not President Bush's fault. "The key concept here," Mr. McWhorter writes, "is formality" -- something about which Americans have grown so suspicious that no one now would dare to use language in the way the 19th century required of politicians. And not just politicians. As Mr. McWhorter observes after quoting an 1864 love letter from Washington Roebling: "Writing to women in language like this today would all but ensure his dying alone." The cause of this decline -- well, actually, Mr. McWhorter names lots of causes, from a native impatience in the American soul to the vast wasteland of television to the devastating effects of the counterculture to the sloppiness of e-mail. "Doing Our Own Thing" never quite decides whether the decay of formal prose is the consequence or the origin of a more general problem. But insofar as there is a linguistic reason for the way we use English these days, it involves the relation of written and spoken language. Everyday speech has always been baggy, repetitive and careless. Mr. McWhorter does not suppose that our ancestors were all linguistic giants who addressed their children in grand Miltonic periods when telling them it was time to get out of bed and drive the cows to pasture. But he does believe that our ancestors did assume that there exists a higher way to use language than speech -- an elevated and literary tongue that is possible only when it is written out rather than effused extemporaneously. As recently as World War II, talk still aspired to the condition of writing. Now writing has uniformly descended to the condition of talk. "A society that cherishes the spoken over the written . . . is one that marginalizes extended, reflective argument," Mr. McWhorter concludes persuasively. "The implications for an informed citizenry are dire." The field of linguistics so long ago rejected prescriptive grammar that even in a jeremiad against the loss of formal language Mr. McWhorter mocks or ignores the schoolmarm distinctions of who and whom, farther and further, like and as, less and fewer. Will such latitudinarian linguistics take Mr. McWhorter where he wants to go -- curtailing our casual habits without adopting a quaint formality himself? Probably not. "Times have changed, permanently," Mr. McWhorter writes. Still, there is something promising in the very idea that a writer today might defend Edward Everett's elevated diction against the decades of ridicule it has suffered. Standing beneath a serene sky -- perhaps even overlooking broad fields now reposing from the labors of the waning year -- John McWhorter has raised his voice to address America's ineloquent babble.
Rating: 
Summary: Read The Power of Babel Instead
Review: First off, let me say that McWhorter's The Power of Babel was one of the best books on language I have read. It is so dense with information presented in a readable, positive style, that I think I'll read it again. Doing Our Own Thing seems to have been written by McWhorter's evil twin. He assures us near the beginning that this will not be a John Simon-type screed bemoaning the degradation of language in America. Then he goes on to bemoan the degradation of language in America. He manages to be just as pedantic as any language maven about the fact that "Billy and me went to the store" is NOT an ungrammatical sentence, mentioning the same example at regular intervals throughout the book. Doing Our Own Thing seems like a collection of the author's pet peeves loosely connected to make up a book. McWhorter is concerned about the lack of memorable public speech today and the decline in quality of lyrics, especially in musical theater. He is also annoyed by baggy pants, poetry, and Democrats. In decrying the decline of American speech today, he claims that no public figure can extemporaneously concoct complex sentences and thoughts. Everyone speaks like a regular guy, or worse, like someone a regular guy can feel superior to. But I can recall Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton giving speeches, that while not memorable in a William Jennings Bryan or even John F. Kennedy style, were complex, yet clear. Bill Clinton's speech at the memorial service for the two security guards who were killed at the House of Representatives was eloquent, for instance. McWhorter mentions screenwriter David Mamet as someone who is in touch with real speech and can write dialogue that is both authentic and dramatic. This was a particular surprise to me, since I recently saw Heist on video, a Mamet film, and was distracted from the plot several times by painful dialogue. Not only did all of the characters speak with the same voice, they said things like "cute as a bucketful of kittens" and "as quiet as an ant pissing on cotton." If that is authentic speech, then I must be hanging out with a different crowd than McWhorter. And so it would seem. McWhorter mentions, more than once, that he likes to go to piano bars where you can not only listen to show tunes, but sing along. He notes that there are few straight men at these bars, and for that reason, he finds them an excellent place to meet women. Indeed. It is not surprising that someone who loves language enough to have made it his life's work would be upset at what he perceives to be the decline of his first langauge. But sometimes his complaints have little to do with language at all. He shows us a soap ad from 1929 that has six panels and quite a bit more text than the typical print ad today. Then McWhorter wonders whether ordinary people in 1929 would have used words like "dainty," which appear in the ad (as he uses the word "exquisite" to describe this very ad). Perhaps a better observation is that few ads these days are as wordy because they need to get our attention fast. When was the last time you saw a 60-second commercial on TV? They used to exist, but now advertisers know they only have 15 seconds to get our attention. Is that a language problem, or something else? Doing Our Own Thing is definitely readable and there is enough here to get you thinking (not unlike talk radio), but if you want to read a good book about language, I recommend Power of Babel instead.
Rating:
Summary: crass, jackass spumes about that of which he knows naught.
Review: I didn't make it up- it's on the book jacket. Only a complete dunce would be blind to this tome's innumerable inconsistencies. Tripe. Pure and Simple. You are warned.
Rating: 
Summary: Yes, but. . .
Review: I was disappointed in this book. Several times while reading it I was tempted to toss it aside and pick up something more worthwile, but I plodded through it to the end. The author, a linguist, has an admitted distaste for "traditional" rules of grammer. (Which explains why he butchers grammer throughout the book.) He decrys the degradation of literature (and music), but at the same time his own writing style is casually-styled (he even admits this at the end) and even vulgar throughout. On top of this, there are numerous places in which he misuses words (e.g., "anymore" instead of "any more" on p. 115). From another author on another topic, errors like that would be overlooked. But, for a LINGUIST writing a book lamenting over the degradation of language??? In the end, I had to give him two stars, simply because I agree with the premise of his book. I just wish it had been better written. It's not one I can recommend to other readers.
Rating:
Summary: Yes, but. . .
Review: I was disappointed in this book. Several times while reading it I was tempted to toss it aside and pick up something more worthwile, but I plodded through it to the end. The author, a linguist, has an admitted distaste for "traditional" rules of grammer. (Which explains why he butchers grammer throughout the book.) He decrys the degradation of literature (and music), but at the same time his own writing style is casually-styled (he even admits this at the end) and even vulgar throughout. On top of this, there are numerous places in which he misuses words (e.g., "anymore" instead of "any more" on p. 115). From another author on another topic, errors like that would be overlooked. But, for a LINGUIST writing a book lamenting over the degradation of language??? In the end, I had to give him two stars, simply because I agree with the premise of his book. I just wish it had been better written. It's not one I can recommend to other readers.
Rating:
Summary: McWhorter should learn grammar
Review: In only the first chapter of McWhorter's nmew book, I found a half dozen grammatical errors, nor to mention the fact that McWhorter believes that "artful" means something that is praiseworthy for being artistic. "Artful" means sleazy, sneaky, dishonest. Doesn't this professor of language know that?
In addition, there is repeated flouting of the rules on the use of pronouns. Here is a sentence that you must re-read a few times to parse: "The person who only processes information beyond their immediate purview in nuggets is not educated in any meaningful sense." What does "their" refer to? Is it really what McWhoreter wanted to write?
And he commits what this retired copy editor regards as the cardinal sin: "He might not have even made it off of the lectern."
The "of" after "off" is a crime. But beyond that, the "even" belongs before the "have."
Rating: 
Summary: A Fabulous Book By A Fabulous Scholar
Review: John McWhorter has made the gay/lesbian community proud once again by publishing yet another scholarly sociological masterpiece! After having been abused himself as a child, he gives a formula for other abused African Americans to embrace their sexuality and achieve success in spite of, and TO SPITE their abusers, while analyzing the decay of urban African American society at a scholarly level. This is such a wonderful work at so many levels that I give it 5 stars wholeheartedly. Gay/Lesbian Black American rejoice, because we have yet another prodigy in our midst! John McWhorter, I tip my hat to you!
Rating:
Summary: Intelligent look on a contraversal subject
Review: John McWhorter's "Doing our own thing" is one of the many books that examine the decline of formal English in 20th century America, along the same vein as George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language". McWhorter's thesis is, that the anti-authoritarian attutide, prevalent to the North American (youth) culture, is responsible for erroding the art of written English.
In supporting this thesis, McWhorter presented plenty of examples from literature and mass media alike. In my opinion, this is an excellent book on trends in (written) American English, and McWhorter's comments are both insightful and humourous, particularly his footnotes.
Despite the richness in evidence, they are merely circumstancial. Nowhere in his book did McWhorter directly discuss the "anti-authoritarian" movement, that was central to his argument. He did, however, admit this shortcoming in various occasions. Most of these examples, in his words, are "symtoms" to a bigger phenomenon. By that, he also implied that Bob Dylan, Tom Waits, and Britney Spears were products, not causes, of said movement.
On two points I would disagree with McWhorter. First is on his discussion on performing operas in translation, of which he is a strong advocate. McWhorter did contradict himself when he rediculed the French language edition of Seinfeld, confirming by belief, that the issue is simply a matter of taste.
The other point is McWhorter's criticism of students preparing for the SAT. Quite clearly, if given the means, McWhorter would propose a more rigorous school curriculum for the English language. The point which he (delibrately) missed, is that these students are preparing not to further their understanding of the language. They will have little understanding of the nuances and the shadings behind the words which McWhorter strived for throughout the book.
Going back to the theme, McWhorter emphasised, that the problem goes much deeper than poor grammar, and he proved the point by writing the entire book with "poor" grammar. Formally written English is higly processed and demands conscious participation from both the writer and the audience. The thinking process stopped with the gradual substituion of spoken English. The people are effectively reduced to a bunch of automatons, effectively throwing their liberty away, an ironic consequence of the counter-culture revolution.
Although McWhorter's opinions are somewhat contraversial, and I do not agree with every one of them wholeheartedly, "Doing our own thing" does make me question the way I perceive the English language, and become conscious of my own thought process.
Postscripts:
1) In response to Mr. Stephen G. Esrati, who commented on the meaning of the word "artful", which Mr. McWhorter generously used throughout said book. All assured, the context of the term in question is perfectly acceptable for this book. In Mr. Esrati's defence, the word "artful" does imply an act of cunning and trickery, indicative of one's mental faculty. This, however, is but one particular aspect of the definition of it's root term "art", and the implication is far from the sinister interpretation provided in Mr. Esrati's review.
2) A lot of people think McWhorter is a sellout for his views on racial issues. I think otherwise. The Chinese identity in America, though emerges much later than the Blacks, is no longer built upon head tax, piggy tails, and laundry stores, and yet we still preserve the core of the Chinese culture. Along the same argument, the Black identity needs not be built upon slavery, violence, and poverty. McWhorter urges others not to yielf to social pressures and break free from the invisible boundage, a struggle that is universal and transparent.
Rating:
Summary: Doesn't deliver
Review: Mr. McWhorter says it is inconceivable that anyone in America today would make a statement such as, "Wow, I love the way she (or he) uses English". But, in fact, that's a close approximation to what I said to myself when I heard Mr. McWhorter interviewed and why I went out and bought his book. Although he documents with trained ease the decline of written and spoken English, I was left with the impression that he's not going to take his hands off the keyboard and do any dirty, heavy lifting to reverse the trend. Makes me think of the young man in the FedEx commercial who has an MBA and doesn't "do shipping". An interesting read but in the end disappointing.
|
