Writing, Media & Blogs: December 2004 Archives

I just finished The Dark Tower VII: The Dark Tower by Stephen King, and I don't quite know what to say about it yet other than that it concludes what is possibly the best modern fantasy epic I've read, say true. Here we -- the last of his friends; silent members of his ka-tet -- finally travel with Roland to the object of his quest: the Dark Tower. The journey took Mr. King more than 34 years to complete, and ages longer for his hero, and the end is as sweet as the alkali desert that set our boots to earth was bitter, though it left me just as thirsty. Not for more of the same -- this story is done, and well-done for it -- but thirsty for a water of my own creation, if I can dig a deep enough well to find it.

The A Song of Ice and Fire series by George R. R. Martin is close in power, but since it's not finished yet (and not as fresh in my mind) I can't rightly compare it. Mr. King avoids the extraneous trappings that bog down the later volumes of Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series, say thankee, but still delivers enough meat to gorge a ravenous imagination.

My only disappointment was in the ignominious fate of Walter o' Dim, that black rogue. But alas, what's done is done.

Lots of people, particularly those familiar with the King James Version of the Bible, probably wonder about the difference between "thou" and "you". It's really pretty simple: "thou" is an archaic second-person singular pronoun, and "you" was originally a second-person plural pronoun. "Thou" faded from use in the 16th and 17th centuries (and was, in fact, quint if not archaic even when the KJV was translated) and almost entirely disappeared from use by the 18th century. In it's place, "you" is now used as both the singular and plural second-person pronoun -- sometimes it refers to you individually, and sometimes it refers to you all as a group.

"Thou" was a much more personal and intimate pronoun because it could only refer to a single person. To the best of my knowledge, English is now one of the only languages without a so-called "tu-vous" (T/V) distinction. No one knows why this is the case, but it seems as if the transition started with the upper classes as early as the 13th century. In modern T/V languages, such as French, I understand that it's considered more respectful to use the V pronoun; T is used in intimate situations or by superiors to inferiors. (Is this right?)

For more information, look up the work by linguist Dick Leith.

I don't get how anyone could be so naive as to long for an "independent press", particularly someone as old Bill Moyer.

"I'm going out telling the story that I think is the biggest story of our time: how the right-wing media has become a partisan propaganda arm of the Republican National Committee," says Moyers. "We have an ideological press that's interested in the election of Republicans, and a mainstream press that's interested in the bottom line. Therefore, we don't have a vigilant, independent press whose interest is the American people."

Set aside the blatant lunacy of characterizing the mainstream media as "right-wing" and just consider the more subtle delusion of "a vigilant, independent press whose interest is the American people". Lots of people seem to want that, and anyone who does so reveals a profound ignorance of How The World Works.

This isn't rocket science, so try to follow along. People need food and shelter; therefore, people have to spend their time doing things that provide food and shelter. One way to do that is to get a job (stay with me, lefties), and some jobs are in what's called "the media". Where does the money come to pay reporters' and journalists' salaries, buy food, and provide shelter? That's right, media consumers. Ergo, "the bottom line" that Mr. Moyer so ludicrously maligns.

Unfortunately, reporters and journalists don't volunteer to work for free, which means someone has to pay them, which means they aren't independent. I somewhat doubt that Mr. Moyer was donating his time to PBS, even though the whole network is basically a welfare program for journalists and ideas who/that couldn't compete in the free market. Mr. Moyer didn't have to worry about the evil "bottom line" because his salary was paid involuntarily by "taxpayers like you":

PBS receives its funding through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), a private, non-profit corporation created by Congress through the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. The CPB oversees the dispersal of the funds set aside by the government for all public broadcasting, including television and radio; it distributes direct grants for the operation of public radio and television stations. CPB’s appropriation of funds for PBS alone totals approximately $250 million per year; state governments allocate $300 million; and federal grants and contracts contribute another $70 million.

It sure is easy for leftists to condemn us lesser folks for aspiring to earn our own wealth while they ride high on the public hog. So to Bill Moyer, farewell. My tax dollars insulated you from reality for so long that I doubt you'd be able to survive without whatever retirement plan I'm buying for you.

I really don't see all the fuss about Chattanooga Times Free Press reporter Edward Lee Pitts planting questions for soldiers to ask Donald Rumsfeld. I mean, yes, it violated the general essence of "reporting news" and crossed the line into "creating news", but that's hardly novel. As bloggers are so fond of pointing out, journalists aren't a magical breed of wall-flowers, they're just regular people who write stuff down.

The only problem I have is that Mr. Pitts didn't reveal his involvement when he wrote the story, which was rather misleading. He was a major player; he should have made sure his readers knew about the set-up, just like whenever reporters run sting operations. Was he trying to damage Mr. Rumsfeld? Maybe. But is the lack of armor appalling? Yeah, they've had a long time to get the armor there, and the problem needs to be solved. It's damaging because it's true. (Assuming my assessment of the armor usefulness is correct, of course, but it's not as if the Army is saying they don't want or need it.)