Here's why: this article isn't by claire c. cake
As stated in my previous entry, I am currently reading Bill Walsh's Lapsing Into a Comma: A Curmudgeon's Guide to the Many Things That Can Go Wrong in Print--and How to Avoid Them. Walsh is the copy desk chief for the Washington Post, so I value his expertise on writing and the English language. At times, however, his guidelines contradict progressive, modern trends and leave me wondering if political correctness should ever supercede grammar.
Early in the book, Walsh discusses capitalization. He argues that we are misguided about what we should and should not capitalize, even though the fundamental rules are taught to us in second grade -- proper nouns are capitalized; common nouns are not. One particular reason he believes we have problems determining capitalization is because advertising and marketing have taken precedence over grammar, and we often fail to see the difference between a company's name and its logo. The Visa logo may be written as VISA and the Adidas logo may be written as adidas, but that doesn't mean that writers should mimic the stylized logos when referencing them in print.
Walsh also uses the example of people's names like e.e. cummings and k.d. lang, which should be written as E.E. Cummings and K.D. Lang. This rule immediately made me think of Bell "bell hooks" Hooks -- an African-American woman, feminist, social activist and scholar who chooses not to capitalize her name -- as I remembered recently reading a review of Feminism is for Everybody: Passionate Politics in an acquaintance's LiveJournal. While reading the piece, I remember pausing when the reviewer would cite or mention Hooks as "hooks." The lowercase struck me as awkward -- especially when a sentence would begin with the author's name. It made me question what the correct way to address Hooks would be. After all, she chose to write her name as "bell hooks"; shouldn't her preference be respected? On page 25, Walsh answers my question: "Lowercased proper nouns can leave readers confused as well as jarred: Publications that indulge writer Bell Hooks's preference for the lowercase had better be ready to explain what bell hooks are."
I brought this information to the attention of my fellow blogger, because (a) it excited me that I had recently been pondering what to do in this exact situation and (b) she might be a sucker for grammar like I am and wish to correct her review accordingly. Turns out that she does not agree: "Many people criticize bell hooks in particular for the lowercase use, which I believe she uses to demonstrate that her works are more important than she is. In this situation, my social awareness trumps any love for the English language. It's just too bad more people don't believe a similar train of thought as her."
I did a little research, and Hooks does indeed lowercase her name for the above reason. According to a biography found here, Hooks, born Gloria Watkins, chose the pseudonym "both to honor her grandmother … but also because the name Gloria became associated with an identity that was not completely hers." In addition to the pseudonym, Hooks chooses to "decapitalize" -- not a word -- her name "to take the reader's focus away from the author and place it on the content of the work."
Oh, dear. Now I'm not just competing against improper grammar but social activism as well. But the truth is that I don't see how not capitalizing her name is going to make people take Hooks more seriously, let alone enhance the overall meaning behind her work. If I picked up a book in Barnes and Noble and the author's name was entirely lowercase, my first thought would not be "I bet the content of this book is really meaningful." In fact, my attention would most likely be drawn to the unconventional style the author chooses for her name. Perhaps if Hooks only wanted her message to be the focus, she would not even include her name on the cover.
Wouldn't it also make more sense that the more important Hooks feels her writing is, the more she would want her name associated with the text? People remember important ideas or stories both because of the message and because of who wrote them. They may not remember the author's name, but it certainly is not on purpose. And rarely do you hear someone say they read the most insightful philosophy by Anonymous. I realize that Hooks is making a statement against the importance our culture puts on labels, but at the same time what's wrong with considering herself important? Her thoughts are profound, and she spent the time creating a pseudonym to specifically voice those views as Bell Hooks. Let people celebrate both them and her.
Hooks's rationale for not capitalizing her name makes sense, but not in the way described above. In actuality, "bell hooks" serves as more of a logo than as a statement. Watkins chooses to market herself as an author and activist using the pseudonym, and it is her choice to stylize it in any way she chooses on her title pages and by-lines. She could likewise write and rationalize it as BELL HOOKS, BeLL HooKS or bell 'look at my words, not at my name' hooks -- Walsh asks where one draws the line and uses the example of an average man on the street who insists on being quoted as "john smith" -- but that does not mean that replicating her way in an article, biography or review is correct.
Early in the book, Walsh discusses capitalization. He argues that we are misguided about what we should and should not capitalize, even though the fundamental rules are taught to us in second grade -- proper nouns are capitalized; common nouns are not. One particular reason he believes we have problems determining capitalization is because advertising and marketing have taken precedence over grammar, and we often fail to see the difference between a company's name and its logo. The Visa logo may be written as VISA and the Adidas logo may be written as adidas, but that doesn't mean that writers should mimic the stylized logos when referencing them in print.
Walsh also uses the example of people's names like e.e. cummings and k.d. lang, which should be written as E.E. Cummings and K.D. Lang. This rule immediately made me think of Bell "bell hooks" Hooks -- an African-American woman, feminist, social activist and scholar who chooses not to capitalize her name -- as I remembered recently reading a review of Feminism is for Everybody: Passionate Politics in an acquaintance's LiveJournal. While reading the piece, I remember pausing when the reviewer would cite or mention Hooks as "hooks." The lowercase struck me as awkward -- especially when a sentence would begin with the author's name. It made me question what the correct way to address Hooks would be. After all, she chose to write her name as "bell hooks"; shouldn't her preference be respected? On page 25, Walsh answers my question: "Lowercased proper nouns can leave readers confused as well as jarred: Publications that indulge writer Bell Hooks's preference for the lowercase had better be ready to explain what bell hooks are."
I brought this information to the attention of my fellow blogger, because (a) it excited me that I had recently been pondering what to do in this exact situation and (b) she might be a sucker for grammar like I am and wish to correct her review accordingly. Turns out that she does not agree: "Many people criticize bell hooks in particular for the lowercase use, which I believe she uses to demonstrate that her works are more important than she is. In this situation, my social awareness trumps any love for the English language. It's just too bad more people don't believe a similar train of thought as her."
I did a little research, and Hooks does indeed lowercase her name for the above reason. According to a biography found here, Hooks, born Gloria Watkins, chose the pseudonym "both to honor her grandmother … but also because the name Gloria became associated with an identity that was not completely hers." In addition to the pseudonym, Hooks chooses to "decapitalize" -- not a word -- her name "to take the reader's focus away from the author and place it on the content of the work."
Oh, dear. Now I'm not just competing against improper grammar but social activism as well. But the truth is that I don't see how not capitalizing her name is going to make people take Hooks more seriously, let alone enhance the overall meaning behind her work. If I picked up a book in Barnes and Noble and the author's name was entirely lowercase, my first thought would not be "I bet the content of this book is really meaningful." In fact, my attention would most likely be drawn to the unconventional style the author chooses for her name. Perhaps if Hooks only wanted her message to be the focus, she would not even include her name on the cover.
Wouldn't it also make more sense that the more important Hooks feels her writing is, the more she would want her name associated with the text? People remember important ideas or stories both because of the message and because of who wrote them. They may not remember the author's name, but it certainly is not on purpose. And rarely do you hear someone say they read the most insightful philosophy by Anonymous. I realize that Hooks is making a statement against the importance our culture puts on labels, but at the same time what's wrong with considering herself important? Her thoughts are profound, and she spent the time creating a pseudonym to specifically voice those views as Bell Hooks. Let people celebrate both them and her.
Hooks's rationale for not capitalizing her name makes sense, but not in the way described above. In actuality, "bell hooks" serves as more of a logo than as a statement. Watkins chooses to market herself as an author and activist using the pseudonym, and it is her choice to stylize it in any way she chooses on her title pages and by-lines. She could likewise write and rationalize it as BELL HOOKS, BeLL HooKS or bell 'look at my words, not at my name' hooks -- Walsh asks where one draws the line and uses the example of an average man on the street who insists on being quoted as "john smith" -- but that does not mean that replicating her way in an article, biography or review is correct.
posted by Claire C. Cake at 7:10 PM
15 Comments:
After reading this article I have the strong impression that you have no idea who bell hooks is or what she stands for. You make gross assumptions but have you ever read any of her works for yourself? Or do you really consider that your opinion based off of a too brief summary allows you to make these sorts of judgment calls?
The quote by Walsh is insultive by implying a childlike image of indulgence from a superior figure who really out to know better towards a person who wants to have their way.
hooks argues from a multi-cultural and radical feminist perspective, which hugely supports choice and freedom (with some hints of postcolonial reclamation). This is no more than an arbitary way to deny an individual's right of choice and to disrespect them.
Grammar obviously plays an important aspect in the English language. Like an artist, such as a poet or a painter, breaking constructed rules of their trade once they've accomplished them is a respected rite of passage. hooks' choose her own name and to lower case it is her choice. (I won't even get started on the implications of her name and her African American heritage...)
Alternatively, language semantics and grammar has and is used as an oppressive force. According to your commentary Walsh does little more than support an oppressive and demeaning hiearchy. Your conclusion that hooks' uses her name as a logo - a commodity and an object - is equally offensive.
By spelling her name as "bell hooks" I'm respecting the woman.
PS I'm not sure how familiar you are with blogger etiquette but you really should link back to my original post and comment.
This commentary does not attack Bell Hooks or her ideologies, and I took special care not to dismiss her works. Another person who alters the style of their name could easily replace Hooks as an example. The article analyzes the use of a pseudonym as a logo and questions traditional/objective vs. individual/subjective style from a journalistic and copy-editing perspective. Walsh is a respected copy editor -- just as Hooks is a respected activist -- and his commentary on grammar usage and where one should or should not concede to social trends is important to members of the print media, especially when the passage being discussed is from a style guide.
The problem is that it does. While Walsh (and obviously yourself as a supporter) do not come out and directly attack bell hooks both of you have agreed to disrespect her choice to lower case her name. I spell my name as "Rebecca" and if it was printed as "Rebekah" it would be incorrect. Likewise, while people call me "Rebecca" and "Becky" I had a professor who insisted on calling me "Becca" despite my dislike of the name. That was disrespectful to me by denying my choice not to be called "Becca." What is a name, after all, besides a handle for my personal identity? The unfortunate problem in this case is the incapability to see beyond the mundane, mediocre and arbitrary rules of grammar and semantics.
You did not come out and dispute Feminism Is For Everybody but you have made the obvious choice to disrespect hooks. This wouldn't matter if it was k.d. lang, e.e. cummings or bill bissett. In any of these cases you would be disrespecting the person and their choice by not keeping their name in lower case form.
I feel a little akward coming in and interjecting myself here, but I feel compelled. I have been often known as a rabid grammar nazi, and yes, I will read books on grammar and style for fun. More recently I have become a rabid radical feminist (though hopefully not a feminist nazi).
First, a disclaimer for the record; I wrote about hooks in a review, and I do not remember when or where I capitalized or did not capitalize her name. I did not go find the article to check. More than I likely, I did not capitalize it at all.
That being said, I have a few brief points I would like to make.
First, can anyone find a direct quote from hooks describing her personal name choices? I have never been able to. Everyone tosses out theory as to why she doesn't capitalize it, but no one seems to be able to source her for the reason.
Terms are cropping up in relation to names - identity, psuedonym, logo - and for me this relates very directly into how we see the matter. Shakespeare eviscerated this whole discussion when he asked "What is is a name." However, the way we relate to our names is obviously quite important to us, and likewise how we view another's name is important in jow we relate to them.
If we view a name as a direct, intense expression and summation of oneself, then yes, if we respect that person we wuld want to respect thei choice of identity. (for further identity issues, let's say I identify as a "gay" man. However, I have slept with a woman or two. Is it disrespectful to refer to me as "bisexual" when I wish to convey my identity as a "gay" man?)
But if we view the name "bell hooks" as a psuedonym or a pen name, we are saying that no, this name is not her identity, that is is rather a character or at least an alternate identity from her true one. This idea posits that the author in question is really truly Gloria Watkins. Further, she then assumes this made up identity of "bell hooks" when writing or speaking. To me, this implies that at the end of the night, when she is home and being herself, that she is Gloria Watkins. I have (quite unfortunately) never had a sleepover with hooks, so I can't say what she calls the face she sees in the mirror. Nor do I know if she made a formal, legal name change. I wonder, though, if formal legal recognition of her name would signal an end to the debate. I have found no articles that describe her name change as being specifically legal or not (some describe it as a "name change" which I think at least implies legality, while others say she "adopted the psuedonym" which I think denies a legal change.)
I did find one article on the subject, which I would completely recomend [1]. Though I disagree with the thrust of the piece, it does lead some interesting ways. One of the lines stuck out for me, supplanting my own stance on capitaliztion. The author of the article says that hooks asking to never be capitalized is "a request [that] would be asking for a fundamentally different kind of treatment . . ." For myself, that is how I view the capitalization of hooks' name in relation to her body of work. (Side note - can anyone find any comment by hooks where she asks or demands others lower-case her name? Everyone says she is adamant on this issue, but never offers proof, and I could not find any.) Anyway, hooks is a radical feminist. That is, she is arguing for a "fundamentally different" kind of world, and a likewise fundamentally different worldview. The lower case name appears to me to be her theory put into practice. In addition to being a radical feminst, hooks is also very much a teacher. She teaches using a critical approach, and one of the most effective methods of critical teaching is getting students to question things they may have taken for granted. Her name being lower case forces us to ask about the assumptions we hold on language. Here's where my thinking takes me - Language is a system of accepted rules chosen to make communication possible. Mnay of these rules were chosen effectively at random, for instance, if we should capitalize all nouns (like in German) or only proper nouns (as in English) or no nouns at all (I dont know a language offhand that does this). These choices are just little, random turns in human occurence. But eventually we look to them in reverence, making them holey in a way. The critical question then becomes, If we cannot break with tradition that we can see as meaningless random choices with little to no consequence, what other more sinister traditions might we be afraid to break with as well.
The position of becoming a radical in any sense means that you are advocating a fundamental break with the way things are going. If we view something as simple as a name change in that regard, perhaps we can see it as at least a metaphorical form of practice of the radicalism that hooks argues for.
Now, on a personal note, I would find it acceptable to capitalize the name as the first word of a sentence (the question I can't asnwer would be in this case, would you capitalize solely the first name or first and last names). However, I also find it acceptable to not capitalize it as the first word of the sentence. But for me, to not capitalize her name is at least in part of a sign of respect.
An interesting example of practice; I have an anthology of women's rhetoric, a rather academic book that includes hooks. On the cover, it is all black, with authors' names just listed in repetition, with all names in all caps. So bell hooks is written this way, in all caps, because this stylistic choice trumps all others, both her personal choice and also the conventional rules. Likewise, inside the book, at the top of the page is the author's name, written in all caps. Again hooks is capitalized here, for the same reason. Yet the book does not capitalize her name inside any sentences, nor does it capitalize it when it opens the sentence with her name. The editors show deference to both their own choices of style, and deference to hooks' style as well.
[1]http://www.math.sfu.ca/~idmercer/case-sensitive.html
From: http://www.education.miami.edu/ep/contemporaryed/Bell_Hooks/bell_hooks.html
"hooks/Watson's use of a pseudonym is intended to honor both her grandmother (whose name she took) and her mother, as well as provide her the opportunity to establish a separate voice from the person Gloria Watson."
Obviously not a direct quote but it may help to explain her specific usage.
In contrast is k.d. lang who says: "I write in lower case, but there's no reason why I do it. Just lazy I guess."
This is also an interesting interview with bill bissett by Alan Twigg:
Twigg: Do you ever get tired of people asking why you don't capitalize your name?
bissett: It's just because there's nothing to emphasize with it.
Twigg: Yeah, I know but—
bissett: It's fun when people ask because then I get to talk about spelling and stuff like that.
Twigg: So let's talk about spelling and stuff like that. You're someone who seems to believe there's a power-mongering segment of society "up there" somewhere so if you spell in a way that's foreign to those people, it keeps the poetry safe. Maybe it's a protective thing. The only people who will read them are people who want to read them.
bissett: Yeah, I never thought of that. Wow, far out.
Twigg: They open a book and feel instant irritation. So maybe there's also a political side of you that wants to provoke a reaction, too.
bissett: Far out.
Twigg: Also if you spell phonetically like you do, it gives you an affinity with people who aren't literate. Like children.
bissett: Like a lot of people don't spell right. Like maybe two-thirds of the world or something. That's really neat. Those are three super reasons right there, aren't they? Of course the other reason is simply to get words closer to the way they really sound.
However, regardless of the reasoning it is the person's choice and it's a choice that should be respected.
And another bit of fun to toss out there that I adore: Another classic example is Tree Bressen who will only use lower case "i" when referring to herself: "The English language is one of the few (maybe the only?) in the world that uses a capital letter to refer to oneself but not to others in pronoun form.... I choose to treat myself as a part of the sentence, no greater or lesser than any other part, to be capitalized at the beginning and not in the middle."
In addition to the pseudonym, Hooks chooses to "decapitalize" -- not a word -- her name "to take the reader's focus away from the author and place it on the content of the work."
Ironically, this achieves precisely the opposite. If bell hooks wanted to draw attention away from herself and focuss it onto her work, she'd capitalise her name like anyone else writing in English. Not only does the lowercase usage draw instant attention but also causes the reader to wonder, "What the devil are 'bell hooks?'" This confusion could be avoided by regular orthography without major ideological/theoretical concessions.
In actuality, "bell hooks" serves as more of a logo than as a statement. Watkins chooses to market herself as an author and activist using the pseudonym, and it is her choice to stylize it in any way she chooses on her title pages and by-lines.
I fully agree. bell hooks is quite canny, creating a personal brand for others to buy into and invest in. The tie-in to Walsh's point about pop culture neologisms and orthographies (if we can even deem it that) is clear.
Now, from some of the commentary:
This is no more than an arbitary way to deny an individual's right of choice and to disrespect them.
This is poppycock. Because I choose to style my name Tim Thomas or tim thomas does not deny my choice. It establishes me as an equal participant in a formal universe of language, one which I engage everyday. To try and be excessively cute whilst doing so is nothing more than attention-garnering affectation. This is a political move, as any other (with "political" referring to the people, body politic).
The unfortunate problem in this case is the incapability to see beyond the mundane, mediocre and arbitrary rules of grammar and semantics.
I would dare say that our rules of discourse are anything but "mediocre, mundane, and arbitrary." They make it possible to effectively express (as much as possible in any language) our ideas and concerns. If one starts to diverge from rhetorical and grammatical sense, it is to the detriment of their argument in all but their own, specialised circles.
This is the problem with most theory today. It's impenetrable, foggy, and self-serving, precisely because it eschews clear and regular language in favour of some court style that no one can read. I just achieved an MA at the University of Chicago; I wrote about postcolonial movements in early Anglo-Indian literature, and let me tell you - Homi K. Bhabha? Impossible to work through for his want of clear sense. Have we completely forgotten Strunk & White?
All that I'm arguing for here is sanity in discourse, not polarizing gestures. You catch more flies with honey, etc.
***
I am honestly engaged by all this debate. I just don't think it's something to become so militantly organised around. Let bell hooks continue. She can and may. In an essay I'll style her as she likes, but if I find her in the NYTimes, I'll probably find her as Ms. Bell Hooks. Either way, her ideas survive intact, argued out through her books. That's the take-away and important point. And I'm sure bell hooks would agree on that.
Swaney has completely missed the point of the post (although she makes many GROSS assumptions about what it is about). And I think I can see why. This post arrives at original conclusions about the writer's own self arrived at by examining her reactions to the world around her (a la Montaigne), but Swaney can only accept information that can be supported by her textbooks. I can't see an original thought or personal gut reaction in her comment anywhere (I mean, clearly she's moved by the discussion, but she speaks through books and other people's words)...way too analytical for my tastes, so I'll be her rambling foil for now (for the sake of argument). But Andrew seems to understand and has hit it right on the head with a well put, non-overly-aggressive and insightful comment that I enjoyed reading. You can tell he actually wants to have a DISCUSSION. And even if he disagrees with me, I'll enjoy reading it because he knows how to talk to people, and I'll walk away from the discussion with the confidence that I will be all the better for it.
The identity (dangerous term, I know) "bell hooks" is a character that Gloria Watkins puts on. It's the image she wants to be seen as when she writes. It's a created character. This in no way implies that she is somehow less than genuine or fake in any way at all. And I think that some people assume that because it's channeled through this persona that the text is somehow one place removed from the reader...that there is something between the reader the writer, but there isn't. The blog entry is about deciding whether or not there is room for exceptions in her world of grammatical conventions...or taken one step farther, which conventions in life should people hold onto and which ones can people let go of completely. Rach just happens to explore this through a subject she understands very well: Grammar. Notorious for its strict scientific rules, Rach's world of grammar now has to confront an exception.... And the choice Rachel makes here will decide a lot about her life regarding coventions and exceptions.
Poet Nikki Giovanni was surprisingly critical of bell hooks at a private meeting before a reading and seemed to feel that bell hooks had become sort of a rock star of criticism even though she was usually well behind the curve (Giovanni's opinion). hooks knew how to get attention. (From here to the end of the paragraph is me taking that a step farther). As long as bell hooks is one of the rare few who chooses to spell her name in all lowercase letters, it will function as a logo (by "logo" I mean nothing more than an immediate recognition of the writer based on visual...even without reading the words, the eye can tell by the shape that is, in fact, bell hooks). And I think Giovanni was suggesting that spelling her name like that is the literary equivalent of Prince changing his name to a symbol (writers are much more subtle than...well, Prince). Sure the symbol had meaning to Prince, but the common person didn't bother to research it...it just drew a lot of attention to him. Ultimately it was Prince's decision...and he made it...he took the public guff...and I doubt he has any regrets. bell hooks made the decision (or maybe it was just a typographical error that started a trend early in her career) and she was more than aware that her public identity would be examined and studied by the public, so I see no problems with this blog entry and doubt that hooks would either. hooks, more than anyone, knows that even a self-created identity is never created in a vacuum.
It is certainly possible that individuals can gain meanings and insights into their own lives by exploring interpretations other than the author's intended meaning...in this case the text is a name (the text could just as easily be a body or an identity, etc.), but it is a name invested with meaning to the writer and contains a bounty of other meanings for anyone interested in pursuing them. Even gaining enough insight to ask, "Why do I capitalize my OWN name?" is a revolutionary thought process hooks would be proud of. Spotting social conventions and asking "Why?" What more could a Critic (with a capital C to separate her from Ebert) want his or her life to do?
By allowing her public image to be examined and critiqued, I'm respecting the PERSON. And Swaney would have us believe that there's nothing to be gained by even considering a world where it is written "bEll hooks." Swaney's refusal to open up to discussion suggests that she either believes it's off-limits (like the image of Muhammed...which has been shown several times on South Park alone) or that the name somehow wouldn't stand up to the test of debate (which clearly it has, so she has nothing to worry about). Or maybe she feels we're telling hooks that she can't spell her name like that (which I don't think anyone is even suggesting we do), but I don't believe that hooks is even aware of this blog (yet) so we're free to discuss, right? I think we should absolutely ponder a world with a writer named Bell Hooks and all of the implications that would come with it.
I have no quarrels with Swaney's content...but her style...well, sucks. She missed a perfect opportunity to spread the gospel of hooks by worrying too much about making it clear that she has read the entire hooks catalog and everything written about hooks. Her comment is so full of herself that it's hard to find any room for hooks. I'll say it up front...I don't know much about hooks, but I'm shallow enough to not want to hear anymore about her from Swaney. I may not know much, but I know how to spot people who want to talk without discussing and would rather talk down to people than inform them and would pass up an opportunity to share knowledge just for the chance to be a dick. That's bullshit, straight up. Step off the bookshelf and talk like a person to another person.
Although if Andrew were to edit Swaney's comments before they got to me, I would most certainly give them a thorough read. It's a matter of tone. I wouldn't listen to nails on a chalkboard even if they could debate well.
Dobler.
Eh...that last paragraph probably doesn't need to be there. I just read Tim's comment which sums up what I was getting at with the phrase "polarizing gestures." The complete dismissal of anything that disagrees with you doesn't make for good debate is what I was really getting at (I believe Bush called that, "You're either with us or you're against us" and it would appear as though Swaney is taking that line here).
And I apologize for the randomly missing words. I'm not sure why I do that.
And I would listen to nails on a chalkboard if they had good ideas...but only in short segments of time.
Ten points to Andrew for using "eviscerated." Fifteen to Tim Thomas (the man with two first names) for whipping out his "poppycock" in public debate.
Dobler.
Andrew, thank you very much for presenting "Why I'm so case-sensitive" by Idris Mercer. The article discusses almost every pro-case-sensitive angle (there's always room for debate), and that makes my job/rebuttle very easy. Also, Idris actually references Walsh, and the text cited is nearly identical with the passage referenced in my original post. I happen to agree with Idris entirely, and I wish my article was as well written and thorough.
Dobler, no need to be an ass and I don't think you actually read my comments. I was never attempting to spread the "gospel of hooks" (there are other feminists I far more agree with) through these comments and my suggested "text book" examples are because in discussion a basic in fact has great relativity. One can spread personal philosophy and dribble to any extent they would like but factual information, through quotes or statistics, provide a necessary basis for discussion and argument. If anything, it is Schmucker who provides a detailed argument - quoted from a text book - to deny hooks' choice and I'm supporting the idea of a social quandary where choice and respect become issues.
Yes, Rihn is less aggressive than I am in the debate forum, which is no secret. Schmucker has made a neat commentary agreeing and supporting Walsh's opinion to refuse the "indulgence" of hooks', cummings', langs' etc choice to keep their name lower case. It's certainly a nice argument that plays along some interesting lines but still plays into the hand of a language that has a structured hiearchy and has been used oppressively. Language is constantly changing, it's a beautiful and evolving force. (It also helps keep the AP, MLA, Chicago etc style guide people from going bankrupt.) This is why language, grammar and semantics is so often called into question. Whether it's the use of ebonics or the sexism of pronouns in certain writings, language is constantly being called into question in this manner. English grammar in particular needs to question and be called on its privilege.
The article is debating from the very limited view point of a Washington Post copy editor and refuses to acknowledge that other style guides acknowledge and respect hooks' wishes. If you feel Schmucker's interpretation was "which conventions in life should people hold onto and which ones can people let go of completely" then that's dandy but she never says this. It's your assumption and very likely true as you certainly know her better than I; however, she failed to convey this message if it was her original intent to her reading audience.
Dobler you make assumptions yourself - we all do, we're human. Never did I attempt to exemplify my personal cataloging of hooks' knowledge but I did call into question Schmucker's familiarity with the author beyond Walsh's commentary and a brief summary she located on the internet. Schmucker took it upon herself to take a stand on this issue and I say bravo, but I called her out and now can she back up her own opinion without the help of her boyfriend? If my personal style isn't pampered and mealy mouthed enough for you I do apologize. Though you don't seem to take a step down from the aggressive either.
Schmucker read Walsh and decided to write an opinion piece where she overall agreed that grammar in the English language has overriding rules and objectives. Her conclusion was to not to indulge artists, social activists, etc by lower casing their name in print. Oddly enough it reminds me of "The 40-Year-Old Virgin" as when it first came out (last summer I believe) it was advertised through the studios as "The 40 Year Old Virgin" (or perhaps one hyphen was tossed in, but either way it was "incorrect") and the media world largely made the decision to deny the studio's error and refer to it with "correct" hyphenation. These decisions do crop up though I'd strongly argue that bell hooks capitalization choice is different than a studio's blunder.
However, Schmucker decided to reference a feminist and activist webblog, Venus Pudica, and specifically focus on Rihn's reviw of bell hooks. Likewise, she took a direct quote from myself that I had made in response to her inquiry to "correct" my review. (At this point I'm wondering if Schmucker mis-cited the original review as the comment wasn't to Venus Pudica but rather was to the x-posting on my LiveJournal page. On that note, for further blogging etiquette each time a post is altered the author should make note of this for the reading audience.) She originally left the text uncited and posted to my Livejournal that she hadn't cited me as it "might be viewed as a personal attack."
Thus the argument was no longer a discussion only about Walsh's Lapsing Into A Comma (2000 - already dated, have to love the publishing/style world) and Schmucker invited in the commentary of social injustice, oppression and privilege because she made the choice of using an activist spin. If she had merely referenced that it had reminded her of a review than it would have simply been grammar rhetoric but she made the decision to call upon hooks' own personal beliefs and agree that grammar trumped personal choice.
I'm assertive and aggressive and I make no apologies for this. As the links were finally provided any reader could have followed through and read at least two different reviews on hooks' Feminism Is for Everybody and gain at least a more focused view point of the work. It was not my responsibility to educate or spread the gospel to Schmucker's audience - that should have been Schmucker's ambition as by calling hooks' personal and social choice into question. In my first reply there had been no citation and I actually had to scroll back through at least one other post as I caught up on my reading. My first comment was criticizing and calling Schmucker out. I recently wrote a review on an article discussing Midwives - it wasn't my objective to educate the audience but rather point out the journalistic mishaps and failures in the article.
Ultimately, I left the article with the experience of a juggling attempt between arbitrary - and yes, grammar rules are arbitrary as they change whether one's following a different style guide or from a different country or from a different decade - grammar allotment overriding a social activist's personal choice to keep her name lower case. bissett says it well when he doesn't capitalize his name because "there's nothing to emphasize with it" or Bressen using lower case "i" inside of a sentence because "I choose to treat myself as a part of the sentence." It was Schmucker's move into "specialised circles" where a lower cased name, a lower cased "i," or the use of zir/zie as gender neutral pronoun are a form of activism the challenges an oppressive hiearchy. (If you read your "symbolism" into the piece I certainly read mine into it.) In the world of liberal social activism denying a person's choice is offensive and Schmucker, whether intentionally or not, argued her point that openned it for an academic perusal of language..
Schmucker has made a neat commentary agreeing and supporting Walsh's opinion to refuse the "indulgence" of hooks', cummings', langs' etc choice to keep their name lower case.
You are implying here that either Walsh or myself can be quoted as saying these individuals are being indulgent, when in reality it is you who originally used this term in your first comment. In Walsh's book and online passage, the only time indulges is used is in reference to the exclamation point after Yahoo!
[Language] also helps keep the AP, MLA, Chicago etc style guide people from going bankrupt. … The article is debating from the very limited view point of a Washington Post copy editor and refuses to acknowledge that other style guides acknowledge and respect hooks' wishes.
And style guides also keep print media structured and clear. Have you ever read a newspaper that has writers who are unfamiliar with basic and AP/Chicago grammar usage? The text is inconsistent and hard to read, and it takes away from the paper's credibility. I will admit that every publication has its own exceptions and additions, but within that magazine, book, etc., things remain consistent. In newspapers especially, which are supposed to report the news objectively, it doesn't seem right to change the style of one person's name just because he/she prefers it that way. That implies that everyone should have their names capitalized or lowercased on an individual basis, which I find to be absurd. Think of the time wasted during interviews and fact-checking just trying to maintain that everyone's happy with their name. I'd much rather spend my time making sure that the message is correct. Swaney, you use the example of different spellings of your name. I completely agree that printing "Rebekah" instead of "Rebecca" is incorrect and disrespectful to you. However, that example addresses spelling and not capitalization. Spelling, to an extent, is objective -- sure you can choose how you spell your name, but it's objective in that that is the only way to address you, the individual. For more on this, please read Idris Mercer's article if you haven't already. I risk plagiarism and redundancy if I continue. I am not disputing how Hooks chooses to spell their name, nor am I calling her something different.
Andrew (I'm using Andrew because that is how he chose to address himself, and other readers may not know who Rihn is) notes his copy of an anthology of women's rhetoric where "bell hooks" is written as "BELL HOOKS" both on the cover and at the top of pages but not in the text itself. This is a good example, because it demonstrates exactly what I summarized in the first paragraphs of my article. In the case of the cover and pages, the names in all caps are not names, but logos. They are written the way the marketing/publishing company decided was best in order to achieve the look and feel of the anthology. Keeping it "bell hooks" in the actual text is a style choice as well, one that does indeed trump traditional grammar, and in this case the editors may have had similar thoughts as Swaney's or may have had a different reason altogether. However, the anthology is also not written in AP style, I assume, so they are under no obligation to follow AP rules. The book I referenced is an individual's supplement to the AP style guide, which bases its rules primarily off of Strunk & White. To call Walsh's view "limited" is unfair, because as far as journalism and copyediting goes, his knowledge is extensive.
I did call into question Schmucker's familiarity with the author beyond Walsh's commentary and a brief summary she located on the internet.
Just to be clear, many of the summaries I found on the Internet said basically the same thing, so I picked one that looked credible, as it was supposedly taken from "Voices From the Gaps: Women Writers of Color." It also supported your original quote.
Can she back up her own opinion without the help of her boyfriend?
This offends me, as you have not only taken the argument to a personal level, but you have also implied that I am unable to support my own opinions. Whether my boyfriend, Dobler, chooses to comment in favor of or not in favor of my article is not up to me. I have been in many debates in which he has chosen to not participate, and I've stood my ground nicely. Additionally, even though this is a public blog and anyone can and is encouraged to comment (I was a bit taken aback when Andrew said he was reluctant to comment. Why would he feel this way?), Dobler, like you, is subscribed to the RSS feed. Andrew is not, and I am left to assume that he learned about this debate through you. That's cool, and I'm glad he decided to enter into the discussion and encourage him to join the feed if he feels so inclined. The difference is that nobody directly acknowledged that you and he were dating, because it is irrelevant to the debate, and nobody accused Andrew of "helping" you. I took your comments as your opinions and Andrew's comments as his opinions. Even if I had thought he was called upon as a back-up, I certainly know better than to voice the thought. As you are a self-proclaimed feminist, I hope you can see why I'm taking offense.
"The 40 Year Old Virgin" example
Disclaimer: This commentary follows AP style rules.
In the example of the title "The 40 Year Old Virgin," things become blurry. The rules state that journalists write the title as it is copyrighted. If it is copyrighted without the hyphens, it's correct to write it sans hyphens. Walsh uses the example of the show "Thirtysomething," which appears in its logo form as "thirtysomething." Taking a moment to confirm the registered information one sees that a capitalized T is right. This goes for all literature, plays, movies, poems, etc., and that includes capitalization adjustments. Another interesting fact few non-journalists know about is the inclusion/exclusion of "the" before magazine titles. For example, it's the Washington Post ("the" is not part of the name), but it's The New York Times. What makes this different from Hooks, Cummings, Lang? The latter examples are names -- pen or otherwise -- and names are not logos. Swaney will probably point out that I appear to be contradicting myself, as my original article implies that "'bell hooks' serves more as a logo." To me, yes, it does. Andrew brings up that perhaps if Hooks had gone through a legalized name change where the B and H are lowercased, then things might be settled. That may be true. Likewise considerable would be if her name is registered somewhere exactly as "bell hooks," but to my general knowledge, I'm unsure how one goes about adopting a pseudonym and if pseudonyms follow name rules or title/copyright rules. Currently, it seems, the AP still treats pen names as names.
However, Schmucker decided to reference a feminist and activist webblog, Venus Pudica, and specifically focus on Rihn's review of bell hooks.
This mix-up is entirely my fault, so allow me straighten it all out. The link to Rihn's review is incorrect; it was supposed to be to Swaney's. The articles appear consecutively and are titled the same on Venus Pudica, so I accidentally and carelessly switched them. Swaney's review was cross-posted from her LiveJournal, which is where I originally read it. Upon reading Walsh's commentary, I left a comment in Swaney's LJ, because (a) it is the original review and (b) I am acquaintances with her and personally didn't feel comfortable giving grammar and etiquette lessons in her professional blog. (I commented in a medium where I know Swaney more personally, and I would appreciate future etiquette tips regarding my blog to be brought to my attention elsewhere -- my e-mail address is listed in my profile.) In that case, I really didn't even need to link to Venus Pudica at all because the blog review didn't have much to do with my article. I should definitely have linked to the LJ and comments, though.
If she had merely referenced that it had reminded her of a review than it would have simply been grammar rhetoric but she made the decision to call upon hooks' own personal beliefs and agree that grammar trumped personal choice.
I did indeed say that it reminded me of a review, and while I may have ignorantly chose to not directly link to your quote, I most certainly did link to the biography cited. No one has yet supplied a quote by Hooks herself, so I'm only making assumptions from second-hand information of her personal beliefs, whereas I do have concrete examples from Walsh's book. I also clearly stated in my final paragraph that it is Hooks's choice to present her name however she likes; that is indeed her personal choice. But in the world of grammar and journalistic copyediting, which is from where my argument stands, making exceptions for such a subjective preference often doesn't fly.
I'm assertive and aggressive and I make no apologies for this.
Personally I find that there's a huge difference between assertive and aggressive. I do not want to listen to aggressive people no matter how solid their argument is because it borders on being bullied. If this was a face-to-face debate, and I was unjustly attacked for presenting my opinion, I would most likely not even bother to reply. That is why my replies thus far have been sparse and to the point, as I'm more for making my point without being confrontational. If I would have responded immediately to either one of your first two comments, my tone would have undoubtedly mirrored yours, and I don't want that. Therefore I reacted how I would in real life, by composing my rebuttal and temporarily walking away.
One final note: You, Swaney, in your first comment say, "hooks … hugely supports choice and freedom."
If Hooks does indeed "hugely [support] choice and freedom," then do her teachings also not support my choice and freedom to follow a traditional writing form?
I have corrected all of the review and comment confusion in paragraphs three and four of my original article.
Quoted from your original post: "'Lowercased proper nouns can leave readers confused as well as jarred: Publications that indulge writer Bell Hooks's preference for the lowercase had better be ready to explain what bell hooks are.'" Thus I'm implying nothing as it's a direct quote from you where you cite Walsh as saying that it's nothing more than indulging hooks.
Not every print magazine (ie Ad Busters) follows and pursues the same style guide. This is increasingly true in the world of indie journals and zines. The hiearchy of language will never be challenged if activists don't challenge style and grammar. Walsh's article is obviously US-centric as well, which fails to acknowledge bell hooks as a global author, teacher, feminist etc. In that sense (as well as others), Walsh is narrow and limited.
I'm also confused with your concern of time taken during an interview process to clarify a name's spelling - as an ex-communications major we were taught that this is one of the most essential items of information to have correct. I'm not sure why a person identifying themselves in this manner is absurd or would be so difficult to represent in the print media.
Likewise, the spelling of my name is only objective and used to represent the individual in print as well. Whether you say "Rebecca" or "Rebekah" it sounds the same but only looks different. Saying k.d. lang or K.D. Lang sounds the same but only appears different in print.
I'm concerned you may have missed Andrew's point in his post. From the cover of the book and the top of the book a specific template was adapted where the letter in every name was capitalized. In this case the overriding template trump's However, throughout the actual article and pieces bell hooks name was respected in its lower case form.
I took the argument to a personal level when Dobler, at least I felt, reached to a personal level. When I first read your article I admit I sent it to a handful of fellow feminists and grammar lovers (prior to any commenting) as an interesting read. I did not comment immediately after my first reading. Andrew was reluctant to post - as he sits here stating - because he didn't want to be seen as the boyfriend entering to back me up. Simultaneously, considering that Dobler (and Thomas) only commented after two more posts had been made it's easy to assume that you forwarded the information to him.
I called you into question as a journalist and a blogger, which is something you're only now responding to. As a journalist and a publisher of your own blog it's something that comes hand in hand with criticism. I wanted your commentary and your replies as it is your article. Your boyfriend leaped into your defense and regularly throughout a previous comment decided to represent your opinion - whether or not it was true but it was his implication. Rather than interpreting your position through Dobler's posts I once again called you out. It was an easy interpretation to leave with - that Dobler was defending you on a personal rather than a philosophical or theoretical basis.
Likewise, as a feminist it's irritating to being charged as being too aggressive with language (when said accuser was most certainly aggressive and thus hypocritical), to have a need to maintain my language, and to reference that someone else - my boyfriend - should edit my comments prior to posting. (If you're charging me with sexist comment please feel free to spread this charge to other posts.) I'm aggressive and assertive and won't apologize for this. I am confrontational.
A direct quote from hooks explains her capitalization preference as: "about ego: What's in a name? It is the substance in my books, not who is writing them, that is important." As a radical feminist hooks undoubtedly promotes choice. However, it's an oddly conservative wordplay to equate her ideas to supporting a traditionally oppressive force. Here I can go into personal reflections of hooks' literature but I'll stay out of that area.
Some other things I'd like to generally clarify: Watkins and hooks are the same person. hooks is hooks and the name has replaced Watkins (a name she's not referred to outside of a biography). Calling her Watkins and continuously refering to hooks as a logo in its own way is disrespectful. Likewise, I don't see how in anyway that reading hooks is more challenging or distracting. Nearly every time hooks is mentioned in an article it is follow by a very brief explanation that this is her choice (rather than a printer's mistake). After reading this the first time the reader is fully capable of continuing through the literature without being blindsighted and dumbfounded each time the come across the lower case format.
Post a Comment
<< Home