#engl321

Tatler N 230 is without a doubt one of the funniest things I have ever had the delight of reading. Tatler spends pages of writing doing the 18th century version of, “Them Damned Kids and Their Slang are Ruining English and Writing and Everything!” Except he does it so wonderfully elegantly. His has several refinements that he believes are necessary to save the English language, and since they amused me to no end, let’s go through some of them, shall we? #1 - Relapsing into a natural tendency for barbarity by delighting in monosyllables. Specifically, “pronouncing the first syllable in a word that has many, and dismissing the rest.” And I totes, understand why this is such a legit prob, after all this fad* is still seen today. #2 Degrading yourself by choosing “words invented by some pretty fellow, such as banter, bamboozle, county put, and kidney.” He goes on to say, “I have done my utmost for some years past to stop the progress of mobb and banter, but have been plainly borne down by numbers, and betrayed by those who promised to assist me.” There are two things that I just adore about this “refinement”. First, that apparently banter, bamboozle, and kidney are just made-up words that infuriated the old people of the 18th century in the same way that the new dictionary entries never fail to cause a hissy fit with the snobs of today (myself included). Secondly, the melodrama of that final line. I’m sorry Tatler, but you sound like spoilt teenager who just found out his girlfriend was going to dump him and everyone else already knew. *fad developed in the 19th century from fidfad which was in turn created from fiddle-faddle. In this case, I completely agree with Tatler. We need to make fiddle-faddle a thing again.

Alexander Pope When reading Pope’s Essay on Criticism, it’s hard not to recall John Locke’s philosophy in Of the Association of Ideas. Both men write about the complexity of making judgements and the dangers of bias. Pope challenges us to not trust our first impressions and to know the blind spots in our world view. Locke’s focus is on how it’s difficult to see the flaws in our own logic and perspectives. Simply put, every world view has blind spots. Our ability to live and exist in society is in part because of our fantasy and no fantasy is flawless. In order to protect our fantasies, and thusly our ability to interpret and function within the world, we tend to just ignore conflicting evidence. This could be a religious person believing in an all powerful, all merciful, all loving, and all mighty god, despite that children die everyday from terrible diseases. One would assume that if such a god existed s/he would stop making the unnecessary death of children a thing, and yet people continue to believe. They simply have to leave those deaths out of their understanding of god less their entire world view falls apart. Similarly, many vegetarians and vegans like to think of themselves as not harming animals through their dietary decisions. Despite this, millions of insects and rodents are killed in harvesting the plants that they eat. I, as a meat-eating, atheist, also have blind spots in my world view. But damn if it isn’t way harder to think of example of the inconsistencies in my own fantasy. Of course, that’s the point that Pope and Locke are trying to make. It’s as easy to poke holes in other people’s fantasy as it is hard to accept the holes in your own.

Alexander Pope Like many critics today, Pope suffered from believing all contemporary works were rubbish compared to the classics of old. He bemoaned the destruction of the English language by poor writers, and he wished that we could return to the golden days of excellent writing. His main reason for believing that writings from the past were superior to the contemporary writing of his day was his belief in the "rule of Nature." Basically, he thought that classical literature had truer expression because it didn't make nature artificial. Instead, Pope said that the older literature built upon nature and improved it without altering it. In his Essay on Criticism, Pope spends his poem arguing that those unfamiliar with the classics should not and cannot judge contemporary literature. In fact, he believes critics should be more than just familiar with the works, they should have a strong and intuitive understanding of the work. (Presumably, because those who don’t find Homer’s work a delight fail to have a firm grasp of nature.) You then who judgement the right course would steer, know well each ancient’s proper character; His fable, subject, scope in every page; Religion, country, genius of his age: Without all these at once before your eyes, Cavil you may, but never criticize.

This is a great overview of John Locke's philosophy for all the keeners who have already started studying!

There are many interesting ideas addressed in Fantomina. Deception, the role of the mask to grant women agency, morality, how reputation affects the way we look and think about a person. This selection from the novella, works to introduce many of these themes. Despite Fantomina's first disguises being subpar, her decision to embrace the fashions of a prostitute means no body truly recognizes her. They all spot the resemblance, but her reputation prevents them from putting the obvious together. This grants her an agency not usually permitted to women of her standing. No one expects a prostitute to act appropriately. As long as she maintains her disguise, she is free to pursue Beauplaisir or another man of her choosing. This brings to question her morality. While earlier in the novella, we are told that she chooses to disguise herself out of innocent curiosity, here we are told she is naturally vain. Later in the text, she continues to use disguise in order to pursue and sleep with Beauplaisir. She is clearly taking on a mascluine role which would have been much frowned upon. It's interesting to wonder whether, within the context of the 18th century, readeres would have judged her and Beauplaisir more or less harshley than today. It feels as though Beauplaisir, in his role as a rake, gets off with little question of his morality. It's simply more socially acceptable for men to pursue hook ups than it is for women. Their respective roles hardly differ, but even today, men who sleep with many women are studs, hookup artist, admired. Women who sleep with many men are used up, dirty, whores. This issue of women sexual freedom is one that is still very much present today.

So, today John Green posted a video about the gender pay gap, and this is an important video and an important conversation for several reasons. The big ones being, that 1- the gender pay gap exists and 2- some people (*cough* most of them men *cough*) seem to think that this pay gap...doesn't exist... And that makes solving this problem really, really difficult. But the thing is, when I see people (men) denying the existence of the gender pay gap, I see a very similar dynamic that one sees, for example, when anti-vaxxers are exposed to scientific evidence or when a young earth creationist has to confront evolution. And just like anti-vaxxers and creationists aren't intrinsically assholes, neither are the men that deny the gender pay gap. They're just living within their personal fantasy (as we all are), and the idea of a gender bias giving them a very real, empirical advantage in their lives is at odds with that fantasy. They, like all of us, want to believe that we've earned what we have. That if we make more money than our neighbours, it's because we are somehow, in a very real sense, more valuable. That we deserve the good things that come to us. Of course, this fantasy is very problematic. It leads to the idea that unsuccessful people (or less successful people) are that way because of the same very-real reasons. That they must be lazy or stupid -- or at least lazier and stupider than you. It leads to an unconscious bias against the poor, people of colour, women, and everyone else who has to struggle a little (or a lot) more than you do to succeed. People don't want to think that they got ahead while another person didn't because of the sheer dumb luck of being born to the right parents, in the right continent, as the right race or gender or sexuality. The people denying the gender gap are (for the most part) intelligent, mature adults. They're the kind of people that want to take responsibility for their actions. They want to see their successes as a result of those actions, and other’s failures as a result of their lack. It's asking a lot to have these people admit that maybe they didn't get by because they’re so much more clever than everyone else. Or so much more determined. That maybe they're average (like most of us are), and the reason they got that job or that promotion has less to do with hard work and more to do with a rigged system that put them at an advantage. This isn’t to lessen a person’s achievements. People who strived and studied and worked in order to get their engineering degrees or whatever achievement, did those things, and those things should be rewarded with success. But not everyone is rewarded. It's not their fault that they were placed on the winning side of a rigged game, and when they've never experienced playing on the losing side, maybe it's also not their fault that some of them struggle to understand or even believe that the rulebook is different for the other team at all. But it is different. And this is not a new problem. John Locke wrote about the same phenomena of being unable to perceive your own unreasonableness hundreds of years ago. He begins Of the Association of Ideas with: "There is scarce any one that does not observe something that seems odd to him, and is in itself really extravagant, in the opinions, reasonings, and actions of other men. The least flaw of this kind, if at all different from his own, every one is quick-sighted enough to espy in another, and will by the authority of reason forwardly condemn; though he be guilty of much greater unreasonableness in his own tenets and conduct, which he never perceives, and will very hardly, if at all, be convinced of. This proceeds not wholly from self-love, though that has often a great hand in it. Men of fair minds, and not given up to the overweening of self-flattery, are frequently guilty of it; and in many cases one with amazement hears the arguings, and is astonished at the obstinacy of a worthy man, who yields not to the evidence of reason, though laid before him as clear as daylight. This sort of unreasonableness is usually imputed to education and prejudice, and for the most part truly enough, though that reaches not the bottom of the disease, nor shows distinctly enough whence it rises, or wherein it lies. Education is often rightly assigned for the cause, and prejudice is a good general name for the thing itself: but yet, I think, he ought to look a little further, who would trace this sort of madness to the root it springs from, and so explain it, as to show whence this flaw has its original in very sober and rational minds, and wherein it consists." Basically, what Locke is saying in this quotation is that, everyone eventually comes across an observation that seems weird to them. Some that challenges how they think about the world and themselves. When confronted with this weirdness, that person will try to attack the weird observation. Often, they’ll attack it much more viciously than some of the silly things they believe personally. They’ll argue that, anyone with reason, must condemn this weirdness, without realizing (and even being unable to realize) that they themselves are the unreasonable party. That the person refuses to be convinced that the weirdness can possibly be true or that they are in fact being unreasonable. He argues that this doesn’t come wholly from arrogance (though it does often at least in part). He says reasonable people sometimes can’t come to terms with the evidence of reason even when it’s laid out before them. Like the anti-vaxxers, the climate change deniers, and the creationists, the gender-gap deniers are grappling with their fantasy and the facts. Admitting an advantage means having to reevaluate their successes and fortunes. But being privileged isn’t about giving up your success. It’s not about the under-privileged wanting you to admit you didn’t earn what you’ve got and demanding you stop prospering. Instead, it’s about reaching out to the under-privileged and saying, “You’re right. This is harder for you. Let me help.” So that maybe one day, we can all play using the same rules, and our successes truly will be a reflection of just our own volition rather than a mix of skill and luck.

One of the ideas presented in 18th century science was the concept of science as a way of praising god. That science is a creation of god, and that it is his pleasure (and the pleasure of people) to learn and understand the splendor that he created through observation and experiment. While I am not even remotely religious, I really appreciate this approach. I wish more religious folks took it and didn't view scientific progress and understanding as an afront to their ability to believe in god. Of course, I don't feel it's at all necessary for scientists to leave room for god, so I'm more than a little bias...

In books, or work, or healthful play, Let my first years be passed, That I may give for every day Some good account at last.