Scan barcode
mcnan's review against another edition
5.0
Quack This Way offers a glimpse into the mind of David Foster Wallace and a conversation about writing, reading, language, and structure. A short read (transcript of an interview) warranting a slow consumption and re-reads. Keep a dictionary on hand.
DFW is so engaging you will forget you're reading the transcript of an interview, he actually articulated these ideas in real time - amazing.
DFW is so engaging you will forget you're reading the transcript of an interview, he actually articulated these ideas in real time - amazing.
overhaul's review against another edition
challenging
hopeful
informative
reflective
medium-paced
4.25
almartin's review against another edition
4.0
very enjoyable free-wheeling conversation with more than a touch of sadness, knowing what events would soon come to pass.
not buying DFW'S defense of economy of language as presented here, and I wish Garner had pushed him on it in the conversation. As presented here good usage & clarity of speech are virtues because they don't make the listener do extra cognitive work, which is very shaky ground for such a prescriptive stance.
the argument I wish/hoped he would make is that written language encodes thought - you are writing to infinite future audiences! - and you should be aware of what your language is doing. somewhere in one of his books (maybe in the authority and usage essay?) he reports that his manuscripts to editors have the note "all departures from standard usage are intentional". the intentional is what's key to me - you follow rules of usage because NOT following them is across device that should be deployed for specific effect, not out of ignorance.
not buying DFW'S defense of economy of language as presented here, and I wish Garner had pushed him on it in the conversation. As presented here good usage & clarity of speech are virtues because they don't make the listener do extra cognitive work, which is very shaky ground for such a prescriptive stance.
the argument I wish/hoped he would make is that written language encodes thought - you are writing to infinite future audiences! - and you should be aware of what your language is doing. somewhere in one of his books (maybe in the authority and usage essay?) he reports that his manuscripts to editors have the note "all departures from standard usage are intentional". the intentional is what's key to me - you follow rules of usage because NOT following them is across device that should be deployed for specific effect, not out of ignorance.
kjboldon's review against another edition
challenging
slow-paced
2.0
There are some gems to be truffled here, but only a few. Like David Foster Wallace and Bryan Garner, I am a snoot: syntax nudnik of our time. I like reading about usage, and to have two smart experts chatting about it in a transcribed interview seemed likely to be my jam. Did you read the full length 95-page essay in Consider the Lobster and want more? Then this is for you. I would have thought it was for me! But from Garner's overly pedestalized portrayal of DFW ("probably the greatest writer of his generation"? Nope. One of? Sure.) To his hand wringing over DFW's suicide and whether it was prefigured by crossing out his name inscriptions, this started off with a weird tone and once it launched into the interview, did not get better.
There's a reason DFW had a laborious process to bring a work to completion. His constantly churning brain is all over the place. This man needed editors. Reading him hem and haw and backtrack and digress, made it tough to find the good points. Garner's questions were slanted toward snootiness, and while DFW sometimes resisted, sometimes he didn't. "Louise Erdrich when she's firing on all cylinders"? Puh-lease. I never felt a spark ignite in their talk, only two geeks affirming one another as they chatted.
This was a passion project for Garner, who clearly felt deeply for his friend. But this one is for DFW completists only. It made me want to re-read Dreyer's English. This book could have really used an editor like Dreyer.
There's a reason DFW had a laborious process to bring a work to completion. His constantly churning brain is all over the place. This man needed editors. Reading him hem and haw and backtrack and digress, made it tough to find the good points. Garner's questions were slanted toward snootiness, and while DFW sometimes resisted, sometimes he didn't. "Louise Erdrich when she's firing on all cylinders"? Puh-lease. I never felt a spark ignite in their talk, only two geeks affirming one another as they chatted.
This was a passion project for Garner, who clearly felt deeply for his friend. But this one is for DFW completists only. It made me want to re-read Dreyer's English. This book could have really used an editor like Dreyer.
gvenezia's review against another edition
3.0
Two snoots* review a few linguistic communities in Quack This Way. Perhaps my favorite David Foster Wallace interview, Bryan Garner's deep love for and knowledge of standard English pushes DFW to expound his views on very specific debates and ideas in linguistics, academia, writing, and grammar. The conversation focuses on "dialects" central to daily life (business-speak, advertising, officialese and government doublespeak, and political propaganda) as well as one central to Wallace's career (academic jargon). One could easily imagine some insightful DFW nonfiction essays based on his cursory assessments of these dialects. While it's easy to ridicule academic jargon or incorrect grammar in advertisements, DFW's hints at the important functions of these dialects—which ordinary English might not accomplish as well. The interview is sprinkled with many such insightful comments on contemporary language and writing styles (see some exemplary quotes at the end).
The obvious complaint for most will be that the brief discussion isn't suited for a book. Except for facilitating notes and highlighting, the book format only detracts from the content. The charm of DFW's spoken voice and accompanying mannerisms—which might redeem the brevity—is lost (a small clip suggests the missed value). Moreover, due to very narrow appeal, the book is difficult to borrow or buy cheaply. Quack This Way was a nice afternoon morsel worth the price of admission for me, but I've also been known to read the dictionary for fun, listen to podcasts on regional vowel shifts, and reference the etymology of every new word I don't know. And even for this snooty reader, the full video interview would have been preferable. Buyer beware these multiple barriers to entry.
———
* snoot: stands for Syntax Nudniks of Our Time, DFW created this acronym in his review of Garner's Modern American Usage, which started their friendship. (The review can be found in full in Consider the Lobster under the title "Authority and American Usage". I'd recommend that essay before this interview.)
———
Quotes:
"We always get these corporations [saying]: 'We care about you. Therefore, we proactively try to facilitate your growing business needs'" Well, that second clause communicates the opposite of 'We care about you' because that second clause isn't a human-to-human contact" (101)
"There's a lot of advertising stuff that's really ridiculous. Right? There's special, super special, [raising voice] mega super special, triple exclamation points!!! Or my favorite as a child was 'Save up to 50% and more'.
[...]
"It's occurred to me, though, that it's possible that advertising English is a dialect unto itself—very different from regular English. And its main job is to penetrate your consciousness[...] The point is not that this is okay[...] but I've stopped thinking that it's just idiots who weren't paying attention in eight grade and don't how to do this stuff.
"In fact, I think there are probably about a thousand different professional dialects of English, and they're often motivated by incredibly complicated premises."
(103-105)
On officialese, business-speak and other formal, public dialects:
"I don't know. I've stopped thinking, 'Gosh darn it, I wish they would just simply start speaking good English,' and started thinking that . . . You know what? There are reasons behind this stuff. Very complicated reasons or not, but there are reasons. And we really don't know what the consequences would be if we all started using English in human, urgent interpersonal tones in all kinds of public situations" (102)
On writing:
"It's true, I think, that a lot of the muscles you use, skills you use, in trying to get better as a writer, are skills and muscles that pay off in ways that don't immediately seem to have to do with writing simply because language and interpersonal communication... it's our world, right?" (42)
"if you spend enough time reading or writing, you find a voice, but you also find certain tastes. You find certain writers who when they write, it makes your own brain voice like a tuning fork, and you just resonate with them. And when that happens, reading those writers[...]becomes a source of unbelievable joy. It's like eating candy for the soul." (61)
On the pros of a usage dictionary for a specific community of discipline:
"It is the trunk cable into the linguistic heart."
The obvious complaint for most will be that the brief discussion isn't suited for a book. Except for facilitating notes and highlighting, the book format only detracts from the content. The charm of DFW's spoken voice and accompanying mannerisms—which might redeem the brevity—is lost (a small clip suggests the missed value). Moreover, due to very narrow appeal, the book is difficult to borrow or buy cheaply. Quack This Way was a nice afternoon morsel worth the price of admission for me, but I've also been known to read the dictionary for fun, listen to podcasts on regional vowel shifts, and reference the etymology of every new word I don't know. And even for this snooty reader, the full video interview would have been preferable. Buyer beware these multiple barriers to entry.
———
* snoot: stands for Syntax Nudniks of Our Time, DFW created this acronym in his review of Garner's Modern American Usage, which started their friendship. (The review can be found in full in Consider the Lobster under the title "Authority and American Usage". I'd recommend that essay before this interview.)
———
Quotes:
"We always get these corporations [saying]: 'We care about you. Therefore, we proactively try to facilitate your growing business needs'" Well, that second clause communicates the opposite of 'We care about you' because that second clause isn't a human-to-human contact" (101)
"There's a lot of advertising stuff that's really ridiculous. Right? There's special, super special, [raising voice] mega super special, triple exclamation points!!! Or my favorite as a child was 'Save up to 50% and more'.
[...]
"It's occurred to me, though, that it's possible that advertising English is a dialect unto itself—very different from regular English. And its main job is to penetrate your consciousness[...] The point is not that this is okay[...] but I've stopped thinking that it's just idiots who weren't paying attention in eight grade and don't how to do this stuff.
"In fact, I think there are probably about a thousand different professional dialects of English, and they're often motivated by incredibly complicated premises."
(103-105)
On officialese, business-speak and other formal, public dialects:
"I don't know. I've stopped thinking, 'Gosh darn it, I wish they would just simply start speaking good English,' and started thinking that . . . You know what? There are reasons behind this stuff. Very complicated reasons or not, but there are reasons. And we really don't know what the consequences would be if we all started using English in human, urgent interpersonal tones in all kinds of public situations" (102)
On writing:
"It's true, I think, that a lot of the muscles you use, skills you use, in trying to get better as a writer, are skills and muscles that pay off in ways that don't immediately seem to have to do with writing simply because language and interpersonal communication... it's our world, right?" (42)
"if you spend enough time reading or writing, you find a voice, but you also find certain tastes. You find certain writers who when they write, it makes your own brain voice like a tuning fork, and you just resonate with them. And when that happens, reading those writers[...]becomes a source of unbelievable joy. It's like eating candy for the soul." (61)
On the pros of a usage dictionary for a specific community of discipline:
"It is the trunk cable into the linguistic heart."
will_cotton4's review against another edition
5.0
Probably not worth $18, but required reading for snoots.
elbeavers's review against another edition
4.0
Great to "hear" DFW's voice again discussing grammar and language with Bryan Garner in this wonderfully transcribed record of his last meeting with his like-minded colleague and friend.
cfc's review against another edition
3.0
It's not really a "book" so much as it is a transcript of two fastidious "vocational snoots" bantering (somewhat entertainingly if you're into such things) about English usage and dialect.
Read along with "Tense Present," DFW's review of Garner's Dictionary of Modern American Usage, was republished in Consider the Lobster.
Read along with "Tense Present," DFW's review of Garner's Dictionary of Modern American Usage, was republished in Consider the Lobster.
georgewhatup's review against another edition
4.0
This book is an absolute delight for a very specific sliver of humanity. I am part of that sliver.