So I started reading my first assigned reading of the new semester, a book considered (by my professor, at least) fundamental to my discipline, entitled Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man by Marshall McLuhan. I was asked to read from page ix (introduction) to page 73, or roughly 85 pages of text, for tomorrow. As I’ve been required to do (much to my humiliation) since starting grad school, I kept a scrap of paper nearby to write down any words I didn’t have a mental image of that I felt I probably should. I recorded these (with the notes as in the original):
garret (need exact definition), haruspex, monomaniac, quixotic (again… sigh), aphorism, decedent, remanded, diktats (greek?), leitmotifs, pointillist, homily, cairn (exact def), beneficence, debutante, aplomb (I know it), sententious
I wrote down sixteen words in all. Several of them I knew once I saw the definition, but I couldn’t call up a mental image at the time of reading. What made matters horrific is that these all came from the introduction to the text (written by Lewis H. Lapham). I gave up on my recording exercise when I got to the text proper, fearing I’d spend more time writing than reading. Quinn tried to reassure me this morning by suggesting my problem with the introductory prose had more to do with Lapham’s inflated style than my lack of understanding, but still. I was feeling pretty low. I mean, I’m an English major in Rhetoric, reading a forty-year-old classic book on media, and I’m struggling. Here’s a sample of the stuff I was plowing through:
Just as when information levels rise in physics and chemistry, it is possible to use anything for fuel or fabric or building materials, so with electric technology all solid goods can be summoned to appear as solid commodities by means of information circuits set up in the organic patterns that we call “automation” and information retrieval. Under electric technology the entire business of man becomes learning and knowing. In terms of what we still consider and “economy” (the Greek word for a household), this means that all forms of employment become “paid learning,” and all forms of wealth result from the movement of information. The problem of discovering occupations or employment may prove as difficult as wealth is easy.
So, after spending manyplus hours reading that stuff, I finally made my way through and moved on to my next reading: a piece called “Politics and the English Language” written by George Orwell in 1946. Oh, halleluijah. I have never felt more immediately vindicated by a piece of academic writing in my entire life. The entire piece is a bitch-slap to prose that, to me, looks an awful lot like McLuhan’s. This is probably my favorite line:
The inflated style is itself a kind of euphemism. A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outlines and covering up all the details.
Clear, interesting, and to the point. God bless you, George Orwell. You made me feel a little bit better about myself today.
PS — Don’t get me wrong: I think McLuhan’s got a lot of really good ideas in this book, even just considering the first section I’ve read. I just wish he hadn’t struggled so mightily to hide his point.