Against the use of dictionaries and other extraneous materials

[Paul Mackin]

On Apr 29, 2006, at 12:33 PM, Dave Monroe wrote:

> Actually, I think it's been shown here and elsewhere
> that Pynchon would almost have to have been familiar
> with various dictionary entries, certainly with
> etyomlogies, secondary and/or archaic definitions, et
> al.  Sure, he wouldn't necessarily have had to have
> gotten 'em from a dictionary, er se--he could've
> learned everything on the street, it's concievable, at
> any rate, or at least in teh course of reading other
> books, but ...


It's probably necessary to make a distinction here (at least try to)  
between
using a dictionary  1) to learn about words and ideas so as to  
generally increase
one's knowledge  and 2} in the creative process of expressing  
actions, thoughts,
feelings, desires. (this goes for interpreting as well as expressing)

The former is highly recommended.

The latter is what I can't envision a novelist doing much of.


>
> And do note that it's not likely that "we," whoever
> "we" might be, th ANYONE would "have" the entirety of
> the language Pynchon "has."  Esp. keeping in mind that
> proper names, dates, specialized terminology, slang,
> et al., are also part and parcel of language ...
>
> That judge perhaps didn't take into consideration (I
> haven't yet read the article, but it's beside the
> point for me at the moment ...) that knowledge,
> memory, et al., isn't so neatly compartmentalized into
> "internal" and "external."  And that, certainly, not
> everything taht anyone knows is picked up on "the
> street," and even if/when it is, it ultimately came
> from somehwere else, very likely, esp. in the case of
> the "special" cases (which  are actually quite common,
> in both Pynchon and in everyday life) mentioned above
> (names, slang, jargon, et al.).  Esp. given the
> (overtly or otehrwise) figurative ways in which much
> of this language is used ...
>
> That there is no such thing (pace Noam Chomsky, but
> he's speaking of structures, not the specificities
> tehy presumably structure) as "innate" knowledge, at
> least--especially, even--when it comes to language ...
>
> Gotta run, will be back ...
>
> --- Paul Mackin <paul.mackin at verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> There might be something to be said for applying
>> the judge's ruling in the Moussaoui sentencing trial
>> (to some degree anyway) to the reading of novels.
>> including Pynchon novels.  It's better to rely on
>> the language we have, not the language the
>> dictionary has.
>>
>> I don't imagine many novelists ever look up the
>> words they use in the dictionary....
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com