Jonathan Finch
Language With Literary Clout
“If ‘twere done…”
Are you sitting comfortably and have you got your thinking-hats on? Yes? Well, then, I’ll begin.
“…then ‘twere well it were done quickly…” (1)
and
“Better do it fast.” (2)
Think about these two quotes. Do they match that great puncher-line boxer, Mohammed Ali – “…..floats like a butterfly / Stings like a bee (which dies after sting-time). / He is the greatest, (boxer for some years) / Mohammed Ali!”? But I’m not trying to compete (at least not consciously). I just want you to vote on those two quotes, on which one impresses you more. You’re allowed 0 – 10.
I think you will give more marks to the first quote (“If ’twere done, then ’twere well it were done quickly”) because it is deviant English and so impresses more. “Better do it fast” is normal and prosaic and we say and hear it wherever and whenever, but not so number (1). It isn’t in common circulation. If my hypothesis is OK with you, then deviant English gets the prize.
Now, the most deviant English is poetry, and nobody reads it and no conventional publishing-house publishes it. Independent poets do publish and they find a marvellous audience. They rank on Amazon in the 1 – 8,500,000 at about – yep, you’ve guessed it – at about 8,500,000 (if they’re lucky).
And yet deviant English strikes harder, is better, and is more than just exciting.
<a href="https://pixabay.com/en/welding-welder-work-machine-2819146/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Source</a>
So, what’s the problem? Poetry and deviance are ab-normal, not easy, not acceptable. To write well, I mean really well, is not going to make you a best-selling author even though it gives you lots of satisfaction. Maybe my contention here is wrong but I don’t think abnormal English is generally accepted.
However, I hope I’ve (kind of) defended deviant language.
Nice I like it very good ok bye
Thank you for your interest and comment. It’s always good to get feedback.
Nice post! Thank you for sharing!
Many thanks for your feedback. Comments always appreciated.
DocAndersen and I both prefer that folks get to the verb, but that having been said I still love a clever turn of phrase. Oscar Wilde was a master of being both wicked and concise so the two may not be mutually exclusive…
Agreed about Wilde. I think if you love language then you’re even going to try to get to grips with “Finnegans Wake”. (I find reading the critics on the novel is easier than dipping into the work itself.) Surely, there’s a place for all sorts of language but for me the poets often do something extraordinary, and Shakespeare was a poet! (Wilde was, too. Joyce was, too…..)
Cliff notes for Finnegan’s Wake? Sounds excessively strange to me
Well, it is excessively strange! Joyce only published “masterpieces” (except perhaps for “Dubliners”). “Finnegans Wake” is over the top with Joyce going crazy for linguistic experimentation. However, it stands alone, and that’s often one of the ways of establishing uniqueness in creative endeavour.
Yes, and this is why they’re called landmarks
Sadly I think the Internet is leading us all towards brevity – we want a quick headline, perhaps a nice picture and if we’re really interested a paragraph or two. The world in general has lost the art of really taking the time to think about things.
Which means that deviant English will become some archaic thing of the past sadly – even though it will always be my preference…
There is nothing wrong with brevity, in fact a predisposition to brevity can only make deviant English look all the better by comparison!
Mmmm, agreed. (I sent the message off and back it came telling me to use more words!!!)
Okay, but Virily comments aside there is nothing wrong with brevity
A great comment. I often see guys and gals looking at screens over the restaurant table….so a social setting has got deviant! However, language is what we have from babyhood up, and when it’s squeezed up its own consonants and vowels, is the world richer? Has the internet made us all too busy?
I see your point very clearly…..but…..when Macbeth is beating about the bush (he’s thinking of murder!) he is likely not to be brief because he is very frightened of what he’s getting himself into. The words he uses clash, too, so in the end I’ll go for Shakespeare’s getting his “hero” into a pickle even with language. Shakespeare’s the guy who really knew deviance and he’s going to make his falling characters as bent as pins!
Context surely makes a difference, but standing alone gives opportunity for different applications, which the our old friend Shakespeare would certainly smile at. :- )
Yep, context is overwhelming. Indeed, words outside context are problematic. Even chapters can be misleading when singled out.
Interesting thoughts on this topic. Most people do like brevity, but being able to communicate clearly and succinctly is a skill that takes time and effort to develop. As a word lover I like thought-provoking verbiage and as an artist I like things that are different so I’ll go with the first quote for this post.
That’s my quote, too, but Shakespeare is not everybody’s cup of tea!
I think there is one more point, I like brevity (get to the point) so for me the second gets a 10, the first gets an 6. The second is short and sweet. The first is verbose and long winded.
Actually, brevity is also very important. Think of summary-skills. But I’m glad Shakespeare didn’t write “Venetian black guy, jealous as hell, did what’s-her-name in…” “Othello” is much better, n’est pas?