Welcome to the online home of Tim Challies, blogger, author and web designer. My first book, "The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment," is now available everywhere.

Read about the blog or about the author.

Saturday March 1, 2008

Saturday Miscellania

Our church is hosting its first ever conference today, and I was supposed to help out. I was looking forward to serving there and just doing whatever needed to be done. But it wasn’t mean to be. Just around the stroke of midnight, both Aileen and Michaela came down with some awful strain of the flu and both were up pretty well all night. I didn’t fare much better, what with changing bedding, rinsing out buckets, and all the other joyous tasks befalling those whose family members are sick. It looks like they are both over the worst of it, so hopefully whatever it was is short-lived!

My brain is pretty well convinced that it’s time for bed and I certainly don’t have it in me to write anything intelligent or profound. Instead, I’ll provide some miscellania—a compendium of weird and wonderful things that, for one reason or another, I’ve decided to bookmark this week.

A Great Review (of an Awful Movie)

I greatly enjoyed reading Christianity Today’s review of the new film “Semi-Pro” (starring Will Ferrell). It does a great job dismantling what sounds like an exceptionally poor (and immoral) movie, and this from a publication that, in my judgment, can sometimes be a tad soft on bad movies.

It’s not simply that Semi-Pro is bad, it’s that it has the appearance of a film actively doing everything in its power to be rotten as it can possibly be. At one point in the film, after making a cruel joke at the expense of another person’s feelings, Harrelson’s character takes an emotional step backward and questions/confesses, “Still not funny?” No Woody, not by a long shot.

Despite a riotous cast and a battery of what should be hilarious cameos, Semi-Pro shoots and misses the mark by a wide margin. Even the usually reliable Ferrell falls flat, prompting one to wonder if this film is uniquely bad or if Ferrell’s brand of humor has finally reached its critical mass.

“Is there such a thing as an F minus?” one reviewer asked me as we filed out of the theater. If there is, it was invented for films such as this. Semi-Pro is the sort of film you’d describe as laughably bad except for the fact that you wouldn’t want anyone to get the wrong idea by seeing the film’s title and the word laughter together in the same sentence.

Semi-Pro has utterly no redeeming value, spiritual or otherwise.

An Interview with Warren Buffett

A couple of days ago I read a Q&A with Warren Buffett. Students from Emory’s Goizueta Business School and McCombs School of Business at UT Austin had been invited to visit Mr. Buffett for a session and one of the students recorded the answers. Though there were quite a few interesting points in the interview, one of them really stood out to me. Buffett was asked this: “Given your business success, your immense fortune, and your celebrity status, how do you stay so down to earth and humble? Are there specific people or lessons you have learned throughout your life that enable you to maintain this outlook?” Here is a part of his reply, focusing on the money he has given away in his lifetime:

“I have never given away a dime that has any meaning on how I live. There are people that go to church and they put money in the offering plate that truly makes a difference in how they will live their lives, what they will eat, what presents they will buy for their children. There’s no reason to get puffed up over things you didn’t control.”

I was reminded immediately of the biblical story of the widow giving her last pennies to God while rich men blew trumpets to announce their greater but still lesser gifts. It is always interesting to hear of the world’s wealthiest people giving away billions of dollars, but Buffett realizes that his gift of billions have nowhere near the impact of a much smaller gift from a much poorer person. The gifts that God seems to treasure are those that are sacrificial rather than those that come from the overflow. Buffett seems to have some awareness of this.

Superficiality

The day of the Oscars I noticed a story describing what the Hollywood superstars go through so they can look their absolute best on Oscar night. The story was fascinating, hilarious and horrifying all at once. It’s amazing the physical standards our society holds up for these people. We expect them to look absolutely perfect. We don’t really care how they act before and after, as long as they look good. So the celebrities do their best to deliver in what must always be a losing game. Here are some of the things they do to themselves so they look their best on the red carpet:

  • The most crowded waiting room pre-Oscars is at the Beverly Hills clinic of celebrity skin specialist Sonya Dakar - where stars line up for her signature £1,000 facial. Madonna is said to have headed there for a treatment last year which includes a diamond scrub (using diamond particles to exfoliate the skin), an exfoliating skin peel, green tea face mask and red-and-blue UV light therapy to prevent acne.
  • It seems there was a tiny bump of fat which stuck out over the back of her dress. Rather than change her outfit, she dialled Manhattan dermatologist Dr Patricia Wexler, who says “it was easier to do a little liposuction than to fix the dress.”
  • Reese Witherspoon once had some Oscar gold sprayed into her hair. Top LA stylist Mark Townsend used Vavoom Gold Heat, a dry oil spray containing real gold. That way, Reese really sparkled on TV.
  • Another popular pre-Oscars trick is the Suddenly Slimmer body wrap. Stars are wrapped in bandages soaked in a special mineral solution (said to remove toxins) and then jump on an exercise machine for one hour. The inches are guaranteed not to come back unless they gain weight.
  • “Most of the women in LA have been on the Master Cleanse (that’s lemonade with cayenne pepper and maple syrup, a saltwater drink and laxative tea) all week.”
  • While last year everyone clamoured for the best “eyebrow specialist,” this year it’s all about having your own “eyelash expert.”
  • The drugs Inderal or Atenolol are popular as they “slow down your heart so, when you’re up there on stage, you don’t get palpitations and become sweaty.”

It’s easy to laugh at these people when we see what they go through, but really the problem is with us and our crazy culture. We are the ones who make such absurd and unrealistic demands.

Escape the Trap

Escape the Trap” is a small booklet designed to give “men and boys a biblical basis for winning their battles with sexual temptation and pornography.” I read through it and found it to do a good job of describing the personal, relational and spiritual dangers of pornography and pornographic addiction. Sadly, such material is badly needed both within the church and outside of it. Thankfully, there are some good resources for people seeking to overcome or avoid such temptation. This booklet is one more example.

Language Rapists

A friend forwarded an excellent article from The Weekly Standard. David Gelernter, writing about feminism and the English language, asks “Can the damage to our mother tongue be undone?” He laments the gender-neutralizing of the language and the damage it does to our ability to express ourselves smoothly and easily. Here are a few choice quotes:

  • “How can I teach my students to write decently when the English language has become a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Academic-Industrial Complex?”
  • “When students have been ordered since first grade to put “he or she” in spots where “he” would mean exactly the same thing, and “firefighter” where “fireman” would mean exactly the same thing? How can we then tell them, “Make every word, every syllable count!” They may be ignorant but they’re not stupid. The well-aimed torpedo of Feminist English has sunk the whole process of teaching students to write. The small minority of born writers will always get by, inventing their own rules as they go. But we used to expect every educated citizen to write decently—and that goal is out the window.”
  • “The fixed idea forced by language rapists upon a whole generation of students, that “he” can refer only to a male, is (in short) wrong. It is applied with nonsensical inconsistency, too. The same feminist warriors who would never write “he” where “he or she” will do would also never write “the author or authoress” where “the author” will do.”
  • “We have accepted, implicitly, a hit-and-run vandalizing of English—the richest, most expressive language in the world. Languages such as French are shaped and guided by official boards of big shots. But English used to be a language of the people, by the people, for the people. “The living language is like a cowpath,” wrote White; “it is the creation of the cows themselves, who, having created it, follow it or depart from it according to their whims or their needs.” We have allowed our academic overlords to plow up White’s cow-path and replace it with a steel-and-concrete highway, hemmed in by guardrails and heavily patrolled by police.”
Amazon

Comments (9) »


1. Jeri
March 1, 2008
2:06 PM

Tim,
you did a great job of pulling together some interesting and helpful bits of info even while feeling bad! Sure hope everybody at your house gets over the bug quickly and that the rest of you can avoid it.


2. Steve
March 1, 2008
3:12 PM

Instead of “he” to refer to both male and female more writers would do well to use “she.”


3. G. Broaddus
March 1, 2008
3:53 PM

As a future teacher of English, I think the “language rapists” quotes are pure nonsense. For one, the question “How can I teach my students to write decently when the English language has become a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Academic-Industrial Complex?” is not also quite presumptuous (the English language has a lot of variation based on “vulgar” language - the author far overstates the influence of academia on modern English) but is easily answered: you teach your students that they need to adapt their language based on purpose and audience. (This is easily representable through the mnemonic PAR: Purpose, Audience, Rhetoric.)

And I’m not sure how gender-neutral language has hurt language or even writing ability; it’s just a consideration that writers have to understand when choosing language. It’s not hard and fast, and plenty of writers vary between ‘he’ and ‘she,’ simply use ‘she,’ or sometimes even the dreaded singular ‘they.’ There are plenty of rules that the average person breaks far more frequently - for instance, the awful homophone confusion, e.g. you’re/your, their/they’re/there - that are much more significant violations of writing conventions.

One last thing:

The same feminist warriors who would never write “he” where “he or she” will do would also never write “the author or authoress” where “the author” will do.”
That’s because “author” is generally considered applicable to both men and women. It’s not a matter of parsimony; it’s just common usage. So the characterization of feminists as being inconsistent is just absurd.


4. donsands
March 1, 2008
6:01 PM

“where stars line up for her signature £1,000 facial.”

So that would be over $2,000, right?


5. Tim Challies
March 1, 2008
6:49 PM

So that would be over $2,000, right?

Pretty close to it.

Instead of “he” to refer to both male and female more writers would do well to use “she.”

And that’s the funny thing. When you turn it around it just doesn’t work at all. One might think that this gives a certain dignity to the female pronouns (the male terms are general, the female are specific) but I guess many feminists don’t see it this way.

And I’m not sure how gender-neutral language has hurt language or even writing ability

I think the author demonstrates this very well. “They” is a perfect example—it makes no real sense in the context the author used as an example, but it is considered acceptable because it is neutral. Reason has taken a back seat to ideology.


6. Tim Challies
March 1, 2008
7:42 PM

Sorry if anyone’s been trying to leave a comment and hasn’t been able to. I was just upgrading the system a little bit.


7. DLE
March 1, 2008
11:52 PM

Tim,

As someone who writes for a living—and who absolutely loves the differences between the sexes—my opinion may seem odd. I think, though, that it represents the views of many professional writers.

Men need to be men and women need to be women. Let’s celebrate our differences! But it’s an act of sloppy writing to fall back on sex differences when a fine sentence can be crafted without them. Case in point: I see nothing wrong with substituting the powerful word firefighter for the juvenile-sounding fireman.

That’s true in many of these “gender neutral” issues. Sometimes leaving the sex of the individual ambiguous forces the writer to use a more powerful word or phrase.

Better writers also craft excellent sentences that do away with he and she. Any rube can throw the sex in, but good writers can create a universal sentence that makes that simplistic reliance a non-starter.

Now I’m all for making a masculine or feminine statement clearly one or the other when needed, but most times the default he simply comes down to lazy writing. I recently “de-genderized” a scholarly paper and it read far better for the lack of sex-specific pronouns.

In other words, Gelertner overstates his point and ends up arguing for sloppy writing.


8. Amanda
March 2, 2008
7:07 PM

I think the author demonstrates this very well. “They” is a perfect example—it makes no real sense in the context the author used as an example, but it is considered acceptable because it is neutral. Reason has taken a back seat to ideology.

While I do agree that ideology does influence the language one uses, the use of “they” to refer to a singular antecedent (the “singular they”) is nothing new. The Oxford English Dictionary cites usages of the singular they going back to 1526 AD, and other such usages can be found in the writings of Shakespeare, Austen, C. S. Lewis, and others. If you have an unhealthy interest in pronouns or have entirely too much time on your hands, I cite a handful of these at my blog.


9. G. Broaddus
March 4, 2008
5:37 PM

I think the author demonstrates this very well. “They” is a perfect example—it makes no real sense in the context the author used as an example, but it is considered acceptable because it is neutral. Reason has taken a back seat to ideology.
Well, here’s the dilemma: Many languages have different 3rd person pronouns for both masculine and feminine (and often at least one neuter) and for both singular and plural. Modern English doesn’t happen to have a neuter singular personal pronoun. So here’s your choice: either force a neuter plural pronoun (they) into a singular role or force a gendered singular pronoun (he or she) into a neuter role. (Well, or make up a singular neuter pronoun, start using it, and hope it catches on. Good luck with that one.) If you run a simple cost-benefit ratio on both, using they is an obviously better choice: for the cost of usage is roughly equal (you have to use a less than ideal word for the purpose), but using the gendered pronoun violates consideration of gender-neutrality. If your gendered pronoun is ‘he,’ then the problem is markedly worse. (Plus, as Amanda noted, there is a history of using “they” as a singular neuter pronoun.)

So no, I don’t think it’s at all true that “reason has taken a back seat to ideology” in this consideration. If anything, it’s the opposite.

And I still don’t see how the purported damage to writing has been done, especially not with the wide range of other errors that beginning writers make that are far more egregious. This strikes me as a personal pet peeve of the writer that he/she (see how easy that was?) attempted to make into a larger issue.