…con el cabello gris, me acerco a los rosales del jardín…
Darío lived in Paris for 4 months–who knew? 4, rue Herschel, 75006. Picture source: DanielaBPSept.
For National Poetry Month, here’s some Rubén Darío. I first came across this poem sitting in a night class at Old Dominion University, purveyor of fine educational experiences to a wide range of traditional and non-traditional students, including a hell of a lot of sailors. The first stanza was carved into the top of the desk at which I was sitting (the desk I was sitting at, more commonly):
Juventud, divino tesoro,
¡ya te vas para no volver!
Cuando quiero llorar, no lloro…
y a veces lloro sin querer…
Youth, divine treasure, // you’re gone, never to return! // When I want to cry, I can’t… // and sometimes I cry without wanting to….
I thought it was the saddest thing I’d ever read, and in isolation, it most certainly, certainly is.
In isolation. And, oddly: even more so at 25 or so than at 55.
Eventually, I tracked down the rest of the poem–much harder back in those pre-Google days–and made it to the end.
Mas a pesar del tiempo
terco, mi sed de amor no tiene fin;
con el cabello gris, me acerco a los
rosales del jardín…
But despite pig-headed // time, my thirst for love is endless; // gray-haired, I approach the rose-bushes in the garden…
(Don’t feel bad–I had to look up terco, too.)
As the grandson of a man who started a new family in the United States in his 60s (¡muy fuerte!, say my Mexican buddies when I tell them the story–I’ll spare you the accompanying gesture of admiration), I think I get the metaphor. You go, pépère. You go, Rubén. Do I ever cry without wanting to? Rarely–I am certainly an American male of my generation–but, yeah: it happens. Nonetheless: I’m headed out to the back porch for a cigarette next to the lilacs, and the plum tree, and the flowering chestnut…
JUVENTUD DIVINO TESORO DE RUBEN DARIO
Juventud, divino tesoro,
¡ya te vas para no volver!
Cuando quiero llorar, no lloro…
y a veces lloro sin querer…
Plural ha sido la celeste
historia de mi corazón.
Era una dulce niña,
en este mundo de duelo y de aflicción.
Miraba como el alba pura;
sonreía como una flor.
Era su cabellera obscura
hecha de noche y de dolor.
Yo era tímido como un niño.
Ella, naturalmente, fue,
para mi amor hecho de armiño,
Herodías y Salomé…
Juventud, divino tesoro,
¡ya te vas para no volver!
Cuando quiero llorar, no lloro…
y a veces lloro sin querer…
Y más consoladora y más
halagadora y expresiva,
la otra fue más sensitiva
cual no pensé encontrar jamás.
Pues a su continua ternura
una pasión violenta unía.
En un peplo de gasa pura
una bacante se envolvía…
En sus brazos tomó mi ensueño
y lo arrulló como a un bebé…
Y te mató, triste y pequeño,
falto de luz, falto de fe…
Juventud, divino tesoro,
¡te fuiste para no volver!
Cuando quiero llorar, no lloro…
y a veces lloro sin querer…
Otra juzgó que era mi boca
el estuche de su pasión;
y que me roería, loca,
con sus dientes el corazón.
Poniendo en un amor de exceso
la mira de su voluntad,
mientras eran abrazo y beso
síntesis de la eternidad;
y de nuestra carne ligera
imaginar siempre un Edén,
sin pensar que la Primavera
y la carne acaban también…
Juventud, divino tesoro,
¡ya te vas para no volver!
Cuando quiero llorar, no lloro…
y a veces lloro sin querer.
¡Y las demás! En tantos
climas, en tantas tierras siempre son,
si no pretextos de mis rimas
fantasmas de mi corazón.
En vano busqué a la princesa
que estaba triste de esperar.
La vida es dura. Amarga y pesa.
¡Ya no hay princesa que cantar!
Mas a pesar del tiempo
terco, mi sed de amor no tiene fin;
con el cabello gris, me acerco a los
rosales del jardín…
Juventud, divino tesoro,
¡ya te vas para no volver!
Cuando quiero llorar, no lloro…
y a veces lloro sin querer…
¡Mas es mía el Alba de oro!
A failure to archive some data leads to discussion of a colorful American English expression. Trigger warning: rampant obscenity referring to poop.
You’ve probably heard: there is a crisis in science. You don’t have to be on top of the literature to be aware of this–it’s covered in the popular press, too. This piece in Forbes is representative: How the reproducibility crisis in academia is affecting scientific research. The term “crisis” might be a bit overblown, but certainly researchers in many fields have recently been paying a lot more attention to planning their analyses for reproducibility, which can sometimes mean planning the experiments that precede the analysis for replicability (also known as repeatability). The contrast between these is that you can think of reproduction as arriving at the same values, the same findings, or the same conclusion as an earlier study; replication, on the other hand, refers to the ability to repeat the initial experiment. Replicability is important for a number of reasons, one of them being that as an initial attempt to assess the reproducibility of a study, you might want to see if you can replicate the results when you repeat the original experiment.
Lately I’ve been talking and writing about this kind of thing a lot. When I do that, I’ve found that what audiences and reviewers seem to enjoy the most is when I give details on my own failures to be able to repeat my own studies. The irony is lost on exactly no one, including (obviously) me: in theory, I have some expertise on the relevant issues, and yet I struggle just to keep my own shit together in this regard. (To keep one’s shit together explained in the English notes below.)
So: for your amusement, I present today’s reproducibility fail. To wit: I just had a paper accepted that involved doing manual examination of hundreds and hundreds of words, all of which started with letters that could be one of the negating morphemes of English. (A morpheme is a part of a word. For example, cat has one morpheme, while cats has two: cat, and the plural -s.) When I say negating morpheme, I mean things like the prefix de in deoxygenate, or the prefix in in inefficient.
Now, I said that we were examining words that start with letters that could be one of the negating morphemes of the English language. Those strings are not always negative–think of examples like these:
ineffective (not effective) versus intuitive (nothing negative in there)
unclear (not clear) versus uncle (nothing negative in there)
deactivate (cause to not be active) versus deal (nothing negative in there, although the word’s current association with Donald Trump–the molesting, draft-dodging, tax-dodging, race-baiting, disabled-mocking, religiously bigoted, lying assclown that is now the president of my fatherland–makes it somewhat nauseating for me to type it)
…the moral of which is that you can’t find all of the words with negative prefixes in a text just by starting with a list of negative prefixes and looking for all words that start with them. Doing this would lead you to count intuitive, uncle, and deal as words that start with negatives, which they are not.
affix: something that cannot be a word, but can be added to one. English examples: un-, pre-, -‘s.
prefix: an affix that is added to the beginning of a word. English examples: un-, pre-, pro-.
suffix: an affix that is added to the end of a word. English examples: -‘s, -ing, -ed.
So, when I wanted to find out how the incidence of affixal negation compares between different kinds of biomedical texts–I care about that kind of thing because my job involves researching computer programs that do things with biomedical texts, and I need to know things like how much does negation add to the burden of understanding medical texts by patients’ family members?–I knew that I could write a program to pull out all of the words that start with things like de-, un-, in-, and anti-, but I also knew that I would have to have actual human beings look at those lists and mark which ones actually started with negative prefixes, and which didn’t.
Now, when you do something like this–that is to say, when you have humans look at data (linguistic or otherwise) and make judgments about it, you typically want to have more than one person do it. Then you calculate how often they agree with each other. If they agree with each other, say, 90% percent of the time, then you probably have pretty good judgments in hand. On the other hand, if they agree with each other only 60% of the time, then you’ve got a problem. Maybe you’ve defined a task that’s just too difficult for humans to do consistently, in which case you want to redefine it in a way that makes more sense. Maybe you wrote crappy instructions, in which case you want to improve them. Maybe one of your humans is smoking what we call in France shit (marijuana–no, I do not indulge). In any case, it’s that calculation of agreement between the humans that lets you decide whether or not you have a problem that needs to be dealt with.
Coincidentally, at the moment I’m teaching a course on what I do for a living, and I wanted to give my students the opportunity to get some hands-on practice with the process of making the human judgments that provide the data that we use to do our research. This little project seemed like a good one to offer them, for a number of reasons:
It’s relatively straightforward (we got good agreement on the original project)…
…while still difficult enough to be challenging (we had to take a couple passes at developing the instructions, and even then, we didn’t have complete agreement on everything)…
…plus, you don’t need a special program to record the judgments, while more complicated tasks frequently do require that the human learn a complicated program in order to record their analyses (did you notice that little subjunctive? …that a human learn… versus …that a human learns…?)…
…and I actually need the data for future research, which means that I’ll use it to write papers, which means that the students will have the opportunity to participate in writing the papers, and for students, published papers are the key to getting your doctorate and getting the hell outta Dodge.
Now, because I care about reproducibility of research, I use a publicly available web site to archive the code (computer programs) that I use to do my analyses. (You can find the stuff for the project that I’m talking about here.) So, getting my students started seemed like it would be straightforward: send them to the web site, and tell them to download the instructions, the list of words that needed judgments, and the actual judgments of the two analysts so that they could use those to figure out how to use the analysis program and to evaluate their own judgments.
It happens that I was one of those analysts, and that a colleague who happens to be a practicing emergency room physician was the other. It also happens that we annotated a randomized mixture of text from two sources: from scientific journal articles, and from the clinical records (totally anonymized, and available free to researchers) of actual patients. In the case of the clinical records, I found when doing the analysis of our agreements and disagreements that when we disagreed, I mostly thought that he was right and I was wrong. (Not surprising, since he is currently practicing, and I haven’t touched a patient since 1991.) In contrast, I tended to be right when we disagreed on the scientific journal articles–not surprising, either, since I spend all day, every day with my nose stuck deep in them. So: it was super-important to me that my students have access to both of our data, both so that they could compare their own judgments to it, and so that they could see what kinds of things we had disagreed on. (It’s usually the differences in the world that are the most interesting, right?)
Seulement voilà, the thing is: when I went to the web site where I had archived all of the code and the data on which the analysis was based, I saw that I had totally forgotten to put the other analyst’s data there. Think about the context of this:
In theory, I have some expertise on issues of reproducibility in computational science.
I was very deliberately making an effort to make this experiment as repeatable as possible.
…and yet, I still screwed it up. This is important in that when you read about reproducibility problems in science, sometimes you’ll see–often implicitly, and sometimes even explicitly–the view that reproducibility problems come from deliberately deceptive actions on the part of the researcher. Now, I know that a certain amount of self-deception can take place pretty easily in research, typically taking the form of screwing around with statistical tests of significance. But, that’s a pretty different thing from deliberately publishing crap research. When you consider that someone who is pretty deeply invested in doing, and in promoting, reproducible research–that is: me–can still fail to archive everything that would be needed to repeat one of his own experiments, it gives you an object example of how difficult it can be to ensure even the less-ambitious goal of repeatability of one’s work…and a fortiori, reproducibility of one’s results.
In French, there are some very interesting things associated with affixal negation, including the phenomenon of verbs like dératiser and décafardiser that we talked about in the post that you can find here. Several of the English-language examples in this post come from this paper on affixal negation by Chantal van Son, Emiel van Miltenburg, and Roser Morante, all of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
English notes
One of the expressions in this post, along with its many relatives, strikes me as interesting because it contains the word shit, which is almost always an “inherently negative” word, and yet it describes a desirable state. The expression in question: In theory, I have some expertise on the relevant issues, and yet I struggle just to keep my own shit together in this regard. (I should point out that you can only use these expressions in contexts, and with people, such that it would be acceptable to use obscenity. So, I would use this with my siblings and cousins, maybe or maybe not with my aunts, depending on which one, and most definitely not in front of my grandmother.) Unless otherwise stated, the examples here come from the OPUS2 English corpus, a collection of 19.7 billion words of English texts. I searched it through the Sketch Engine web site, purveyor of fine linguistic corpora and tools for searching them.
to have one’s shit togetheris the most basic of this surprisingly large family of expressions. In its most central sense, it means something like to be functioning in an efficient way. Here are some examples of how it’s used.
That’s because Ihave my shit togetherand I prioritize properly.
If you don’t have your shit together chances are it’s because you surround yourself with people who don’t have their shit together(Twitter) (Note: “chances are” means “probably.”)
I know I probably sound like Ihave my shit together, but really I feel confused inside.
And pretending Ihave my shit togetherwhen it comes to deadlines and paperwork is one of my specialties, a skill to which I probably owe every job I’ve ever had.
I thought, perhaps naively, that by almost a year along I wouldhave my shit together– or at least have some sort of clue and I do not.
Turns out she’s sharp as a tack and reallyhas her shit together. (Note: “to be sharp as a tack” means “to be quite intelligent.”)
And so perhaps this is why he doesn’t find himself attracted to his students, and instead finds himself attracted to Audrey’s silver hair and faintly lined face: these things signify a woman whohas her shit together, who has moved on to the next level.
With that established: if to have one’s shit together means to be in a particular state–the state of having one’s shit together–to keep one’s shit together means to maintain that state. Some examples:
I am now one of the countless unemployed because I could notkeep my shit together.
I’m trying to navigate the holiday season as a crafter,keep my shit togetherat work, plan the holidaze both for Thanksgiving at my mom’s house and what will surely be a painful Christmas Eve . . .if we could decide who’s host/essing it.
“As long as you keep improving.” I raised my eyebrows. “Is that your way of telling me to keep my shit together?” (Michelle Hodkin, The evolution of Mara Dyer)
Ruby Pelletier put her hands on her skinny hips, threw her head back, and bellowed laughter. “You think you can keep your shit together when twelve CB cowboys pull in all at once and order scrambled eggs, bacon, sausage, french toast, and flapjacks?” (Stephen King, The dead zone. A CB cowboy is a truck driver–very, very old slang, although not quite as old as I am. 1970s, I would say. French toast is pain perdu. Flapjacks are pancakes.)
There are several more of these odd expressions where shit means something positive–so many that if I tried to get them all into one post, I would be writing this for the next two weeks. Watch this space for more, as the spirit moves me–and don’t say this stuff in front of my grandmother.
You’ll often hear people bemoan the loss of dialects due to television. No worries: it’s not happening. Also, a cute kid and some off-color language.
Just in case you’re worried that television is taking away all of the dialects: every study I’ve ever heard of concludes the opposite. What’s different today from 100 years ago is that geographic proximity has become somewhat less important in dialect differentiation relative to other social factors. For example, all of the action in American dialects at the moment is in increasing differentiation between urban and rural speech. All other things being equal, the dialects spoken within an American city are more likely to change to become more like dialects in other cities than they are like the dialects in the immediately surrounding rural areas. That’s not to say that they’re all becoming the same, either! But, what drives dialect differentiation in early-21st-century America is increasingly about the urban/rural split. (Note that I’m not claiming that urban/rural distinctions in America or anywhere else are new–this is about a shift in degrees of relative importance, not a wholesale appearance of a new phenomenon.)
In fact, regional dialects of English can still be sufficiently distinct that native speakers of one regional dialect of English can’t necessarily understand native speakers of other regional dialects of American English. Hilarious stories of the ensuing misunderstandings abound, but few of them (or few of my stories of the ensuing misunderstandings, at any rate) are as adorable as this video of a little Scottish girl speaking with her (much bigger) Scottish father. Take a look/listen–if you can’t follow it, there’s a version with subtitles floating around out there somewhere. Scroll past the video for linguistic details (and considerably less cute examples of the local dialect), if you’re interested.
Linguistics trivia, for those who are geeky enough to care
It’s actually difficult to find evidence for television playing a role in language acquisition–that is, learning by children of their native language(s). However, here’s a nice paper by Jane Stuart-Smith and her colleagues that shows a role for television in increasing dialect differentiation amongst adolescents.
Here is a master’s thesis written byMichaela Zikmundová, a graduate student in the Czech Republic at the time, on language in the novel Trainspotting. It is a very Scots novel, and Americans have to watch the movie version with subtitles. She concludes that Scots is itself composed of so many different dialects that it should be considered a language, not a dialect of English. (This is not actually a valid argument, for my money–see this blog post on the surprising irrelevance of linguistics to the definitions of the terms language and dialect.)
Family trivia, for those of us who are related closely enough to me to care
My father is extremely fond of mixing languages with…wild abandon, I guess one might say. A typical email from him might have six, I would suppose–English (obviously), Portuguese, Hebrew, French, Latin, and Yiddish being the standards, with occasional guest appearances by Hawaiian (my father remains convinced that the similarity between the Hawaiian word for priest (kahuna) and the Hebrew word for priest (kohen) are evidence for one of them being the original human language, and I’ll give you a hint: he’s not thinkin’ Hawaiian. More on this another time), Polish, and a déclinaison of Scandinavian tongues.
Despite this linguistic profligacy, none of those languages is ever Scots. In fact, my childhood exposure to Scots consists all and only of the following:
…which is from Robert Burns, and therefore, I hear, linguistically suspect as to authenticity (whatever exactly that means in this context). However: it’s a damn good line or two to keep in mind, nonetheless.
More Scots listening practice
Here’s an interview with a Scottish airport worker, just after he attacked a terrorist who had just dumped gasoline over himself and gone after a police officer; from what I’ve read, he kicked him in the ballsbollockscouillesbeitzimcojones testicles so hard that he broke his foot. Crucially (from our perspective), he did this after yelling something at the guy in Scots which I understand every Scottish male would mean let’s fight!, but that is so not like any dialect that I speak that I can’t remember it. (Native speakers? C’mon’en, or something like that?) I can understand maybe a bit more than 90% of this, I would guess–for perspective, I’ve been a native speaker of English for my entire life, and I’m old. (And, for more perspective: this guy’s a native speaker of English, too. See this blog post for how that’s an example of using what’s called mutual intelligibility for labelling things as languages versus dialects.)
I can’t find a picture of Dimitar Pantaleev, so here’s a picture of Schliemann’s wife. I’ve loved it since childhood, though I couldn’t tell you why. Here she’s dressed in jewelry that they dug up in Turkey. Picture source: Storia Illustrata n. 167. Public domain.
My father once told me that the archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann spoke 14 languages, all of which (other than his native German) he learnt by memorizing a book in the language. Whether or not this is true, I don’t know–my father’s level of willingness to just make things up is non-zero (although never malicious). But, memorizing things in your language of choice makes as much sense to me as any other way of learning a language, and it’s certainly more fun than memorizing long lists of vocabulary. Unfortunately, my choices of what to memorize are mostly drawn from the stuff that I like to read, which means that (from what I’m told), way too much of what comes out of my mouth is either off-color (Céline, Queneau) or marivaudage (Laclos, Molière). (See the English notes below for what off-color means.)
As National Poetry Month continues, here’s the first poem that I ever tried to memorize in Bulgarian. I only got as far as the first stanza, which may explain why my Bulgarian sucks (see here for a good example of the trouble you can get into when you don’t speak Bulgarian quite as well as you think you do). By Dimitar Pantaleev, in theory it’s a Communist poem, although I don’t understand why, since it’s entirely anti-authoritarian–the title means I cross against a red light. Also, as far as I can tell, he was considered a formalist, and Communists (Reds, if you will) were pretty anti-formalism, to the best of my (very limited) knowledge.
Amazingly, the poem was recorded as a song by the officially government-sanctioned rock group Diana Express. The production is as unfortunate as most music recorded in the 1980s that wasn’t either Joan Armatrading, Simon and Garfunkel, or Elton John, which isn’t to say that you shouldn’t spend $0.99 (literally) to buy it on Amazon, just for its inherent cool-value. Amazingly, these guys are still around–here’s footage of them giving a concert two months ago in Atlanta, Georgia.
минавам на червена светлина
by Dimitar Pantaleev
Аз пазя свято земните закони,
но в дни, когато леден дъжд се рони
и трябвада спася една старица,
едно дете, една ранена птица
или една разплакана жена –
минавам на червена светлина.
Когато гинат младите тополи,
когато нечий глас за помощ моли
или когато в топлата ни есен
внезапно слъхва млада чиста песен
по чужда необмислена вина –
минавам на червена светлина.
А някой път, когато трябва смело
да се спаси едно човешко дело,
една любов или една страна,
провиквам се на кръстопътя ясно:
минете, въпреки, че е опасно,
минете на червена светлина.
English notes
Off-colormeans something like not quite obscene, but not quite OK, either, at least not for the context. Here are some examples from the OPUS2 and enTenTen13 corpora, collections of 1.1 million and 19.7 billion words of English, respectively, that I searched through the Sketch Engine web site, purveyors of fine linguistic data in more languages than I care to count. You’ll notice that it frequently modifies either joke or remark, and almost always a noun whose semantics have inherently to do with communication–
It’s an off-color remark, it was highly inappropriate.
Tom never tells off-color jokes.
You also need to be careful of the language you use – nothingoff-color, or discriminatory.
For the most part, Smith said she overlooked theoff-colorjokes, sexist remarks and rituals that permeated the fighter pilot culture.
The event host was Leonard Maltin who remained professional during an event riddled with technical problems and a fewoff-colormoments.
…on many other websites normal people converse sans real names and do so without rancor, without hostility, without profanity, without racism, without sexism, without misogyny, without venom, without bile, without hatred, bigotry, obscenity and lameoff-colorjokes.
A disgruntled employee, or one with anoff-colorsense of humor, could post something reckless under the company’s name.
One of the most vivid characters in the show, whoseoff-colortantrums have become an audience favorite the way Kramer’s clumsy entrances once were.
This is the time to Get Yer Ya-Ya’s Out! in terms of cursing andoff-colortalk.
Crow is the most likely of the four movie-riffers to makeoff-coloror lewd comments during the film, and receives frequent scoldings from Joel, Mike, and occasionally Tom because of this habit (see Crow Syndrome ).
And we hear what is believed to be Tiger telling anoff-colorjoke.
Sure this is an extreme case but it’s a reminder that we all eventually have that moment when we get a complainer, anoff-colorremark, or misleading information posted by users on our social media sites.
The humor here is ribald andoff-colorand noone is safe from abuse including tuners, parents and vendors.
You’ll be teaching him the principles of keyword searching; at the same time, you’ll be able to steer him away from off-base oroff-colorcontent.
To get a really solid sense of how to use off-color, it’s useful to look at the other words that it occurs with. (With which it occurs, if you prefer your sentences non-preposition-final.) Here’s a screen shot of something called a “word sketch”–again, from the Sketch Engine web site. Scroll down past the figure and I’ll talk you through it.
Picture source: screen shot from the Sketch Engine web site.
At the top left, you see the adverbial modifiers that are most commonly associated with off-color. Note that they are similar–mildly and slightly. What you’re not seeing here are intensifiers–you wouldn’t typically say that something is very or horribly “off-color.” Why? I don’t know–that’s just the statistical tendency with this adjective. You certainly could say that–but, a native speaker probably wouldn’t.
In the next column, you see the nouns that have the strongest statistical associations with off-color. You won’t be surprised to see that the most common ones are joke, remark, and humor. Most of the other words with strong statistical associations are other nouns that refer to humor–gag, limerick, hilarity, quip, banter, antic, and pun.
The next column over is a nice example of how you can get insight into a word by seeing what other words it’s joined with by and or or. Most of the words that are joined with off-color in this way fall into one of two categories: they’re either related to humor, or they’re clearly negative. The first category is related to the fact that off-color itself is so often used to modify joke and, as we saw in the preceding paragraph, other words that refer to humor. In that category, we have:
hilarious
quirky
humorous
funny
In the second category, we have:
tasteless
vulgar
inappropriate
incorrect
crude
offensive
racist
rude
dirty
racial
If you had any questions about whether being off-color is good or bad, this should make it pretty clear to you that it’s not good.
In case you’re wondering: no, Sketch Engine does not pay me to shill for them. In fact, I pay them quite a bit of money every year for access to their corpora and search engine.
It’s amazing how many Republican politicians have gone down in flames over the years because they talked a lot of shit about immigration and then turned out to have an illegal housecleaner. Some examples:
Meg Whitman, Republican candidate for governor of California, 2010
Tom Tancredo, long-time Republican congressman from Colorado and one of the worst of the hypocritical people in the area of pushing anti-immigrant policies and then hiring them. He bragged about turning in a high school student when an article about him receiving an honors scholarship mentioned that he was in the US illegally–and then got busted hiring illegal immigrants to work on his mansion.
I’ll point out here that two of Bill Clinton’s nominees for Attorney General (the highest law-enforcement office in the United States) went down over illegal nannies–and I’ll also point out that unlike the Republicans, they were not hiring illegal immigrants while hypocritically talking trash about hiring illegal immigrants. Of course, most past misdeeds seem less relevant under the Trump administration, which seems positively gleeful about being a bunch of crooks, bigots, and–I suspect we’ll soon know clearly–traitors.
On that note, here’s a nice post from the France Says blog on the subject of French vocabulary related to people who clean things. Enjoy–and if you’re going to hire illegal aliens to work for you, have the grace not to build your career on talking about how bad they are!
5:01 AM Wake up. Check phone to see if Trump launched a missile strike last night because a teenager made a web site where you can watch a kitten scratch his face and his feelings were hurt. (Remember how he used to say that Hillary isn’t “tough enough?”) Lie in bed for half an hour listening to the news and trying to get back to sleep.
5:30 AM Get up. To the balcony with coffee and a cigarette. Wonder if the drunk guy staggering down the street is “your” drunk. (Fascinating guy–gave me a long lecture the other day on the differences between Western European and Eastern European Roma, with statistics.) Make sure you have passport & French visa.
5:39 AM Check email. Find a web site that lets you tinker with minor changes to variables and watch the level of statistical significance go up and down.
6:00 AM Alarm goes off. Be happy that you’re half an hour ahead of schedule.
6:20 AM Realize that you have a plane to catch and you’ve just spent 40 minutes tinkering with minor changes to variables and watching your level of statistical significance go up and down. Into the shower. (Sous the shower, in French–I still struggle with this.)
6:30 AM Start downloading TV shows onto your phone.
7:06 AM Realize that you have a plane to catch, and you’ve just spent 36 minutes downloading TV shows onto your phone. Charge spare battery while you empty the refrigerator.
7:10 AM Take pre-flight aspirin and drink pre-flight glass of water–blood clots suck. Pack daily medications. Pack emergency medications. Pack the extra emergency medications that you need when you fly, because you just can’t take 15 hours on airplanes like you used to. Sucks getting old…
7:30 AM Update Gmail Offline. Check to see if Trump has launched a missile strike to distract from yet another revelation about members of his campaign being unregistered agents of foreign government, and a hostile one, at that. (Remember when he always called her “Crooked Hillary?”)
7:31 AM American keys: check. American dollars: check. American driver’s license: haven’t seen it in months. Whatever. Make sure you have passport and French visa.
7:35 AM Make sure you have your passport. Pack paper to edit on the plane: semantic relations in compound nouns. Download another TV show.
7:40 AM Pack gifts: poster of a skeleton playing a banjo that you bought from a bouquiniste for your father. Camembert box and a snail tray for your mother. Mustard for an ex. Remember to pick up macarons and salted butter caramel at the airport. Pack another paper to edit on the plane: inter-annotator agreement and linguistic data.
7:45 AM Stick the clothes that you pre-packed last night into your suitcase: only two days’ worth, ’cause this is a passage éclair, plus you have spare clothes pre-positioned in Denver–must pre-position stuff when you live out of your suitcase.
7:49 AM Wonder why you have 18 euros in 2-euro coins in your pants pocket.
7:53 AM Empty ashtrays. Check news again to see if Trump has launched a missile strike because he’s pissed that he can’t violate the Constitution by discriminating against people because of their religion. Empty trash. Make sure you have your passport. Second pre-flight glass of water–blood clots suck.
8:00 AM Out to the balcony for a cigarette. Think a lot about how well the woman who’s walking down the street’s shoes match her dress. Advantage of having a boyfriend who’s descended from a long line of women’s clothing retailers: I will notice what you’re wearing, and if you ask me what I think about it, I’ll give you my honest opinion. Disadvantage of having a boyfriend who’s descended from a long line of women’s clothing retailers: I will notice what you’re wearing, and if you ask me what I think about it, I’ll give you my honest opinion. Get into a discussion on the phone of how to say “awakeness” in French.
8:33 AM Realize that you’ve just spent 33 minutes having a discussion on the phone of how to say “awakeness” in French–and you have a flight to catch. Hang up and shave–I look disreputable enough as it is, and getting on a plane unshaven just isn’t a good idea if something should happen to go wrong with my ticket/seat assignment/United club membership/whatever.
8:55 AM Pre-flight back stretches. Sucks getting old…
9:20 AM Time to head to the airport. Realize on your way out the door that you almost left your iPhone headphone adapter on the kitchen table, without which your 15-hour trip to the US would be hell since Apple’s stupid iPhone 7 redesign. First World Problem, I know–but, still: flying without the ability to listen to podcasts is miserable. Make sure you have your passport. Carry your luggage down the stairs. The big suitcase first, before your legs are exhausted. Suitcase in your left hand even though that’s the side of your back that hurts, so that you can hold on to the railing on the tight, tight, tight circular staircase of your poor-man’s-Hausmannian apartment building.
9:24 AM Look for a taxi cab, because you see the taxi cab drivers’ point of view in the whole Uber issue. As usual, there’s no taxi, so duck into a side street and call Uber. While you’re waiting, look up at your apartment and hope that the zombie apocalypse doesn’t start while you’re gone, because Paris is definitely going to be a better place to survive the zombie apocalypse than where you’re going.
Whether a system looks good or bad can depend on a lot of things. When I measure accuracy here AND I test it on 50 or more data points, the system looks almost perfect. But if I measure something called the F-measure, or measure accuracy but only test it on a few data points, it doesn’t look terrible, but you wouldn’t bet your life on it, either. Guess which of those is a better reflection of how good this system actually is?
Now, I know what you’re thinking: what kind of sick bastard spends 40 minutes on a web site that lets you tinker with minor changes to variables and watch the level of statistical significance go up and down? Well: you should spend a little while watching statistical significance levels go up and down as you make minor tweaks in variables. Ever hear someone claim about how they’ve given up trying to follow the news about health or science because it seems like what’s good for you one day is bad for you the next, and then good for you again the next, and eventually they just give up and stop listening to the science and health news? Well, in fact it’s not the case that caffeine, or meditation, or oatmeal was good for you one day, and then it wasn’t the next. Rather, some thing can be true in one set of conditions but not in another. Even given the exact same data, the way that you frame the research question and do the analysis can have crucial effects on the statistics of the results. It’s not like people are running around deliberately manipulating their data or their analysis–often, it just isn’t clear what the relevant conditions are for your experiment, or how exactly you should be framing the research question, or how exactly you should be doing the analysis. Take 5 minutes to go play with this web site, where you’ll find data on the US economy going back to 1948, and a bunch of options for analyzing it. Then we’ll talk about the difference between the paper that the economist writes about this data, and how an economics journalist will talk about those research findings in the newspaper.
You’re back? Great. Let’s talk about what you saw.
You were working with the same data the entire time–the facts never changed. What you changed by making different selections was the way that you framed the question and did the analysis. This is hidden to some extent by the way that the web site explicitly frames the question: Is the US economy affected by whether Republicans or Democrats are in office?
You’re going to have to frame that by looking at the economic numbers with either Republicans in office, or with Democrats in office. When I picked Republicans to be the party on which I did my statistics, the Presidency as the definition of “being in office,” employment as my index of the performance of the economy, and I excluded recessions, then guess what? When Republicans are in office, the economy is affected, and in a bad way. But, guess what? If I include recessions, then the answer to the question Is the US economy affected by whether Republicans or Democrats are in office? is “no.”
Oh–what was all of that stuff about what you use as your index of performance of the economy? It turns out that how you measure “performance of the economy” has a big effect on the statistics. If you define it as holding the Presidency, then if you use employment as your index of economic performance and exclude recessions, then Republicans hurt the economy, and the answer to the question Is the US economy affected by whether Republicans or Democrats are in office? is “yes.” But, if you measure economic performance in terms of employment and inflation and Gross Domestic Product and stock prices, then there’s no effect on the economy at all, and so the answer to the question is “no.”
Is it possible to find some set of conditions in which we can say that the answer to the question is “yes, the US economy is affected by whether Democrats or Republicans are in office,” and it’s the case that the economy does better when Republicans are in office? Yes! If you define “being in office” as controlling the Presidency and the House of Representatives (but not the Senate or the state governorships), and you measure economic by GDP or GDP and stock prices (but not any other combination of variables, including just stock prices), and you weight the Presidency more heavily than the other offices, and you include recessions, then the economy does better under Republicans, and the answer to the question Is the US economy affected by whether Republicans or Democrats are in office? is “yes.”
Now: how is that going to be reported in the newspapers? There are a number of possibilities–and, one important way that it won’t be reported.
Here’s how it won’t be reported: it won’t be reported as the US economy is not affected by whether Republicans or Democrats are in office. The economist is not going to be able to publish that paper in the first place, and so the reporter is not going to come across it.
Here’s one way that it will get reported: the US economy is affected by whether Republicans or Democrats are in office. Is that true? Under a very specific way of framing the question (we picked Republicans to look at, rather than Democrats) and a very specific way of doing the analysis (we defined “in office” a particular way, selected a specific way of defining economic performance, and made a decision about whether or not to include recessions), it certainly is true.
Here’s another way that it will be reported: Republicans hurt/help the economy. Is it true? Yes, whichever way you state it–under a very specific definition of the question and set of decisions about how to do the analysis.
What should you conclude from this? Let me tell you some things that you should not conclude from it.
Don’t conclude that the economist who published the paper is a liar. He/she/it didn’t make the claim that the reporter made. The economist laid out exactly the conditions under which it is/isn’t the case that the US economy looks like it’s affected by which party is in office. The reporter simplified it.
Don’t conclude that the reporter is a liar. The reporter probably has no clue how to think about the contents of that paper critically. The reporter got the message that under certain conditions, it is the case that the US economy seems to be affected by which party is in office, and left out the “under certain conditions” part, not realizing that they are crucial to interpreting the finding.
Don’t conclude that science is hopelessly screwed, or that statistics are not believable. That study is going to be done by lots of people, with lots of different ways of framing the question and lots of different ways of doing the analysis. Looking at those results in the aggregate, we’re going to end up with a decent understanding of under what conditions, and in what ways, the ruling political party does (or doesn’t) affect the US economy. Can the economist report all of those studies in their paper? No–they haven’t been done yet.
How does this relate back to reporting on science and health? It relates back to reporting on science and health in that we have exactly the same issues about framing questions and doing the analysis that the economists do. So do psychologists. So do historians. So do educators.
What to do? This: understand that when you read about a scientific result–or any study that involves numbers, for that matter–in the paper, it’s always more complicated–and almost always less clear-cut–than it sounds. Look at the overall picture. Ask yourself questions like the ones that we’ve asked ourselves here: which population, exactly, did the researchers look at? Out of all of the things that they could have measured, what did they measure? How many subjects did they have? You may not be able to design an experiment–really, we spend our entire careers trying to get really good at that–but, you can ask yourselves this kind of basic question about pretty much anything that you read. Try it–it’s empowering!
I fell asleep as lunch was being served. Two hours later, I woke up. I edited the paper on semantic relations and compound nouns. Then I edited the paper on inter-annotator agreement and linguistic data. I never got around to watching the TV shows. I didn’t get a blot clot!
An LVTP7 amphibious assault vehicle. Picture source: USMC.
One day some decades ago, the amphibious assault vehicle in which I was riding around Camp Pendleton, California while we practiced assaulting hills and the like made an unplanned stop. I reached into one of those voluminous pockets that military uniforms tend to be covered with and pulled out a book to read while the platoon leader tried to figure out where the fuck we were. Whatcha reading, Doc?, some big, bulky Marine or another asked me. (I was a medic in the Navy. The US Marines don’t have their own medical personnel–they’re all provided by the Navy. This came as a surprise to lots of young men who volunteered to join the Navy during Vietnam thinking that there was no better way to avoid finding yourself in a rice paddy with leeches on your scrotum and somebody shooting at you than working in a naval hospital–and then found themselves in a rice paddy with leeches on their scrota and somebody shooting at them. Technically, the term for a Navy medic is hospital corpsman, but by long tradition, the Marines call us “Doc.” But, back to Camp Pendleton…)
The social animal, I said. Social psychology. (You might think that I wouldn’t remember what I was reading in the early 1980s–but, the paperback fit perfectly in my left thigh pocket. My right thigh pocket was for a bag of licorice. You never know when you will/won’t get to eat, and licorice doesn’t leave your hands covered with melted chocolate.) Social psychology…hm… I like to read about history, myself, said the big, bulky Marine. The Wars of the Roses–that was some crazy shit… The second lieutenant gave the staff sergeant an embarrassed smile and folded up his map; the big, bulky Marine and I climbed back into our hatches; and we all went back to assaulting whatever we were practicing assaulting–the Wars of the Roses would wait. In the military, every branch has their stereotypical insults for the other branches, and everyone’s insult for the Marines is that they’re stupid, but I’ll tell you this: I know exactly two guys who dropped out of high school, joined the service, and then got a doctorate, and the one who isn’t me is a Marine. (I don’t say “was” a Marine, because once a Marine, always a Marine, and they are, indeed, bad motherfuckers. “Bad motherfucker” explained in the English notes below.)
You tend to think of poets as ethereal, wispy types who are super-sensitive and probably wouldn’t be the person you would want to cover your back if you got into a fight in a metro station. However, if you’ve been paying attention to the stuff that we’ve been reading for National Poetry Month, you’re already aware that there are plenty of counter-examples to that. Case in point: Guillaume Apollinaire. He may or may not have been sensitive, but he was definitely a serious scrapper. He tried to join the army when the First World War came to France in August 1914, but was turned away due to not being a French citizen. No problem–he left Paris and headed south-east to Nice and tried again, this time successfully. He was initially assigned to an artillery unit, but this wasn’t hard-core enough for him, so he got himself transferred to a decimated infantry unit, picking up a promotion to second lieutenant in the process. (That’s a very low rank for an officer, but for an enlisted man to get promoted to it is a pretty big deal.)
Calligramme. Public domain.
Apollinaire was one of the greats of French poetry; if you’ve only heard of one French poem, it was probably his Le pont Mirabeau. One of his innovations was his role in the development of what’s known as “concrete poetry.” It is “concrete” in the sense that not just its linguistic elements, but its typographic shape are essential to the poem. The one to the left is my favorite of his works in this genre. In the form of the Eiffel Tower, the words translate something like this:
Hello, world of which I am the eloquent tongue. Oh Paris, may your tongue stick out, and stick out always, at the Germans.
Guillaume Apollinaire. Public domain.
Now, being poetry, it is, of course, a bit more complicated than that. What I’ve given here as “may your tongue stick out” comes from a volume of translations of Apollinaire by Anne Greet and S.I. Lockerbie that I like. “To stick one’s tongue out” is a plausible translation of tirer la bouche, but it’s not necessarily the most obvious one. Certainly it fits with the facts that (a) Apollinaire refers to la langue éloquante, “the elegant tongue,” and the Eiffel Tower does have a tongue-like shape. But, given that this was written by a guy who was putting his life on the line in the trenches at the time, I tend to think that he was playing on another meaning of the verb tirer: to fire a weapon. For a poet in an infantry unit, the metaphor of the mouth as a weapon (que sa bouche…tire et tirera toujours aux Allemands) is certainly an apt one.
A cardiac catheterization lab. Picture source: Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
The Navy eventually sent me to school, and I finished my time in the service in a cardiac catheterization lab, which over the course of some rather bizarre decades led to me being a faculty member at a medical school, where I specialize in biomedical language. Apollinaire caught a shell fragment in the temple (when a bombardment started while he was reading a literary magazine, they say); although he survived trepanning, he never fully recovered, and in his weakened condition, died in the flu epidemic of 1918. Whenever I visit the Panthéon, I take a moment to slip away from my friends and find his name on the (long) list of writers who gave their lives for France–and to pay my respects.
English notes
bad motherfucker: One of the cute things about American English is that bad–and similar words, depending on the region of the country that you’re in–can have positive connotations. (Connotation is the cultural meaning of a word, as opposed to its denotation, which you could think of as its “dictionary meaning.” Connotation and culture both start with a C; denotation and dictionary both start with a d. That’s how I remember them, at any rate.)
So: a bad motherfucker is someone who is really tough, with some implication that this toughness involves fighting. You would want to be called a bad motherfucker. When I was a kid, it was common to use bad to mean something like cool, impressive–our favorite bands were “bad,” a nice leather jacket was “bad,” etc.
The spelling of “smart” as “smaht” here is important, in that it’s meant to reflect the stereotypical regional pronunciation of the Northeast US, where this use of “wicked” comes from.
Less common, but incontestably much cooler, is the use of wicked to mean “very” in front of an adjective, especially one with a positive meaning. I believe it’s a Northeast thing, although I’ve seen it as far west as Oregon. Scroll down for lots of examples.
The spelling of “smart” as “smaht” here is important, in that it’s meant to reflect the stereotypical regional pronunciation of the Northeast US, where this use of “wicked” comes from.
The Larousse version of Baudelaire’s “Les fleurs du mal.” Picture source: me.
Being old, bald, and fat, I don’t get a lot of admiring glances when I ride the train to work in the mornings. I do, however, get a lot of funny looks when I pull out a book to read. The reason: I’m fond of reading French literature, but I tend to read it in the sorts of annotated versions of a work that you would read if you were a middle-school student in France (collégien in French, I think–roughly 7th and 8th grades in the American system). For me, they’re perfect–they have definitions in simple French of the kinds of words that the editors think will be difficult for a French child, which as a non-native speaker, I have trouble with myself. (Think back to the footnoted versions of Shakespeare that you read in high school and college.) If this kind of thing interests you, you can find them used by the score (see this post for an explanation of what by the score means) in boxes in front of the Boulinier bookstore on boulevard Saint Michel in the Quartier Latin. They’re so cheap–typically one euro–that there’s no reason not to by multiple versions of a play that you’re planning to see. (17th-century French theater is actually probably more intelligible than Shakespeare is in English, although as is the case with Shakespeare, it’s a good idea to read a play before you go see it.) I find it interesting to see the contrast between the sorts of things that one would (not) dare to teach middle-school students in the US and the sorts of things that one can teach middle-school children in France–definitely edgier in France.
In honor of National Poetry Month, here’s some Baudelaire, from Les fleurs du mal. Baudelaire popularized poetry about cities, as opposed to nature, glorified ad nauseum by Romanticism. In his delightful book The flâneur, Edmund White describes him as “the great apostle of dandyism,” which explains a lot about the picture of him that you see below. Odd 6-degrees-of-separation stuff: he went to high school across the street from the university where my grandfather would later study.
dandy: in Baudelaire, this is a compliment, as you might guess from this painting of him by Emile Deroy from 1844. Picture source: Wikipedia.
La ruche: a strip of pleated fabric. La ruche qui se joue au bord des clavicules, Comme un ruisseau lascif qui se frotte au rocher… Picture source: https://goo.gl/0TignC
Fière, autant qu’un vivant, de sa noble stature,
Avec son gros bouquet, son mouchoir et ses gants,
Elle a la nonchalance et la désinvolture
D’une coquette maigre aux airs extravagants.
Note the inversion that moves un soulier pomponné, joli comme une fleur to the end of the sentence, indicated only by the relative maker que rather than qui.
s’écrouler: to fall, e.g. le mur s’est écroulé, s’écrouler sur le canapé.
Vit-on jamais au bal une taille plus mince ?
Sa robe exagérée, en sa royale ampleur,
S’écroule abondamment sur un pied sec que pince
Un soulier pomponné, joli comme une fleur.
la ruche: a strip of pleated cloth (see picture above)
lascif: sensual, lascivious
lazzi: jibes, ribbing
appas: “charms”
La ruche qui se joue au bord des clavicules,
Comme un ruisseau lascif qui se frotte au rocher,
Défend pudiquement des lazzi ridicules
Les funèbres appas qu’elle tient à cacher.
frêle: fragile, frail
attifé: dressed, not necessarily well
Ses yeux profonds sont faits de vide et de ténèbres,
Et son crâne, de fleurs artistement coiffé,
Oscille mollement sur ses frêles vertèbres.
Ô charme d’un néant follement attifé.
Note ivre here and enivré later.
armature: framework; also the underwiring of a bra, although I don’t know whether or not that sense was current in Baudelaire’s time
Aucuns t’appelleront une caricature,
Qui ne comprennent pas, amants ivres de chair,
L’élégance sans nom de l’humaine armature.
Tu réponds, grand squelette, à mon goût le plus cher !
éperonner: to spur, to spur on; also to ram
encor: an old literary spelling of “encore”
Viens-tu troubler, avec ta puissante grimace,
La fête de la Vie ? ou quelque vieux désir,
Éperonnant encor ta vivante carcasse,
Te pousse-t-il, crédule, au sabbat du Plaisir ?
Au chant des violons, aux flammes des bougies,
Espères-tu chasser ton cauchemar moqueur,
Et viens-tu demander au torrent des orgies
De rafraîchir l’enfer allumé dans ton coeur ?
aspic: asp
errer: to wander, roam, rove
Inépuisable puits de sottise et de fautes !
De l’antique douleur éternel alambic !
A travers le treillis recourbé de tes côtes
Je vois, errant encor, l’insatiable aspic.
Love the ne expletif after craindre!
Pour dire vrai, je crains que ta coquetterie
Ne trouve pas un prix digne de ses efforts ;
Qui, de ces coeurs mortels, entend la raillerie ?
Les charmes de l’horreur n’enivrent que les forts !
gouffre: gulf, chasm, abyss
Le gouffre de tes yeux, plein d’horribles pensées,
Exhale le vertige, et les danseurs prudents
Ne contempleront pas sans d’amères nausées
Le sourire éternel de tes trente-deux dents.
Pourtant, qui n’a serré dans ses bras un squelette,
Et qui ne s’est nourri des choses du tombeau ?
Qu’importe le parfum, l’habit ou la toilette ?
Qui fait le dégoûté montre qu’il se croit beau.
bayadère: sacred dancer from India
gouge: old word for a prostitute
offusqué: offended
musqé: musky
Bayadère sans nez, irrésistible gouge,
Dis donc à ces danseurs qui font les offusqués :
” Fiers mignons, malgré l’art des poudres et du rouge,
Vous sentez tous la mort ! Ô squelettes musqués,
Antinoüs: according to the footnotes in my middle-school-student version, jeune esclave d’une beauté parfaite, qui était le favori de l’empereur Hadrien
flétri: faded (beauty), withered, wilted (like the roses sitting on my table–I really need to toss them)
dandy: in Baudelaire, this is a compliment, as you might guess from the painting of him at left
lovelace: séducteur pervers et cynique, according to the footnotes in my middle school version of the poem
chenu: white-haired from age
le branle: a kind of dance. (If you are French: you can just imagine what happens when you try looking for videos of this on YouTube)
Antinoüs flétris, dandys, à face glabre,
Cadavres vernissés, lovelaces chenus,
Le branle universel de la danse macabre
Vous entraîne en des lieux qui ne sont pas connus !
se pâmer: to faint; to swoon, either literally or in a state of strong emotion, whether good (with synonyms délirer, exulter, se griser, s’émerveiller, s’enthousiasmer, s’exalter, s’extasier) or bad (elle s’est pâmée de douleur).
béant: gaping, wide open, cavernous
le tromblon: blunderbuss
Des quais froids de la Seine aux bords brûlants du Gange,
Le troupeau mortel saute et se pâme, sans voir
Dans un trou du plafond la trompette de l’Ange
Sinistrement béante ainsi qu’un tromblon noir.
la contorsion: contorsion, but also “a face” in the sense of “to make a face”
En tout climat, sous tout soleil, la Mort t’admire
En tes contorsions, risible Humanité,
Et souvent, comme toi, se parfumant de myrrhe,
Mêle son ironie à ton insanité ! “
Henry Reed’s “Returning of issue” for Day 6 of National Poetry Month.
Returning of issue is the sixth and final part of Henry Reed’s Lessons of the war cycle. Published two and a half decades after Naming of parts, it is in two voices, like the rest of the cycle, but they are difficult to tell apart. The recording of the poem on the Sole Arabia Tree web site (follow the link and scroll down to the bottom of the page) differentiates the two voices very nicely; it’s also a somewhat different version of the poem, and you may find the differences interesting. The version that you see here is the written one from the aforementioned site.
From a linguistic point of view, the most obvious (to me, anyways) thing going on in this poem is that Reed goes back to plays on the various meanings of the English word issue, and in the case of this poem–as opposed to his Unarmed combat–the sense of progeny is one of the meanings that he draws on, as the sadder parts of the poem are a dialogue with the trainee’s deceased father. Here are a couple of the relatively obscure items of vocabulary–scroll down past the illustrations to find the poem.
A sergeant-major is a very senior enlisted man in the US military; in the UK of Reed’s time, I think it was a warrant officer. The “RSM” of the poem is the regimental sergeant major, a leadership position that is held by someone who has been in the military for quite a while. The photo is of a British RSM; no date, sorry. Picture source: https://goo.gl/aV1Z9IIn theory, “stupefaction” is the state of being surprised into silence. You’ll also hear it use to mean something like a state of silence or dullness from any cause whatsoever. Picture source: https://goo.gl/SLM93N
Reed, Henry. “Returning of Issue.” Listener 84, no. 2170 (29 October 1970): 596-597.
LESSONS OF THE WAR
VI. RETURNING OF ISSUE
Tomorrow will be your last day here. Someone is speaking:
A familiar voice, speaking again at all of us.
And beyond the windows— it is inside now, and autumn—
On a wind growing daily harsher, small things to the earth
Are turning and whirling, small. Tomorrow will be
Your last day here,
But not we hope for always. You cannot see through the windows
If they are leaves or flowers. We hope that many of you
Will be coming back for good. Silence, and stupefaction.
The coarsening wind and the things whirling upon it
Scour that rough stamping-ground where we so long
Have spent our substance,
As the trees are spending theirs. How much of mine have I spent,
Father, oh father? How sorry we are to lose you
I do not have to say, since the sergeant-major
Has said it, the RSM has said it, and the colonel
Has sent over a message to say that he also says it.
Everyone sorry to lose us,
And you, oh father, father, once sorry too. I think
I can honestly say you are one and all of you now:
Soldiers. Silence, and disbelief. A fact that will stand you
In pretty good stead in the various jobs you go back to.
I wish you the best of luck. Silence. And all of you know
You can think of us here, as home.
As home: a home we shall any of you welcome you back to.
Most of you have, I know, some sort of work waiting for you,
And the rest of you now being, thanks to us, fit and able,
Will be bound to find something. I begin to be in want.
Would any citizen of this country send me
Into his fields? And
Before I finalise: one thing about tomorrow
I must make perfectly clear. Tomorrow is clear already:
I saw myself once, but now am by time forbidden
To see myself so: as the man who went evil ways,
Till lie determined, in time of famine, to seek
His father’s home.
Autumn is later down there: it should now be the time
Of vivacious triumph in the fruitful fields.
As he approached, he ran over his speeches of sorrow,
Not less of truth for being much-rehearsed:
The last distilment from a long and inward
Discourse of heartbreak. And
The first thing you do, after first thing tomorrow morning,
Is, those that leave not been previously detailed to do so,
Which I think is the case in most cases, is a systematic
Returning of issue. It is all-important
You should restore to store one of every store issued.
And in the case of two, two.
And I, as always late, shall never know that lifted fear
When the small hard-working master of those fields
Looked up. I trembled. But his heart came out to me
With a shout of compassion. And all my speech was only:
‘Father, I have sinned against heaven, and am no more worthy
To be called thy son.’
But if I cried it, father, you could not hear me now,
Where now you lie, crumpled in that small grave
Like any withering dog. Your fields are sold and built on,
Your lanes are filled with husks the swine reject.
I scoop them in my hands. I have earned no more; and more
I shall not inherit. And
A careful check will be made of every such object
That was issued to each personnel originally,
And checked at issue. And let me be quite implicit:
That no accoutrements, impedimentas, fittings, or military garments
May be taken as souvenirs. The one exception is shirts,
And whatever you wear underneath.
These may be kept, those that wish. But the rest of the issue
Must be returned, except who intend to rejoin
In regular service. Silence. Which involves a simple procedure
I will explain in a simple group to those that rejoin.
Now, how many will that be? Silence. No one? No one at all?
I see. Very well. I have up to now
Spoken with the utmost of mildness. I speak so still,
But it does seem to me a bit of a bloody pity,
A bit un-bloody-feeling, after the all
We have bloody done for you, you should sit on your dumb bloody arses,
Just waiting like bloody milksops till I bloody dismiss you.
Silence, embarrassed, but silent.
And am I to break it, father, to break this silence?
Is there no bloody man among you? Not one bloody single one?
I will break the silence, father. Yes, sergeant, I will stay
In a group of one. Father, be proud of me.
Oh splendid, man! And for Christ’s sake, tell them all,
Why you are doing this.
Why am I doing this? And is it too late to say no?
Come speak out, man: tell us, and shame these bastards.
I hope to shame no one, sergeant, in simply wishing
To remain a personnel. I have been such a thing before.
It was good, and simple; and it was the best I could do.
Here is a man, men! Silence.
Silence, indeed. How could I tell them, now?
I have nowhere else to go? How could I say
I have no longer gift or want; or how describe
The inexplicable tears that filled my eyes
When the poor sergeant said: ‘After the all
We have bloody done for you’?
Goodbye forever, father, after the all you have done for me.
Soon I must start to forget you; but how to forget
That reconcilement, never enacted between us,
Which should have been ours, under the autumn sun?
I can see it and feel it now, clearer than daylight, clearer
For one brief moment, now,
Than even the astonished faces of my fellows,
The sergeant’s uneasy smile, the trees, the relief at choosing
To learn once more the things I shall one day teach:
A rhetoric instead of words; instead of a love, the use
Of accoutrements, impedimenta, and fittings, and military garments,
And harlots, and riotous living.
For National Poetry Month, Day 5, here is “Psychological warfare,” Part 5 of Henry Reed’s “Lessons of the war.” Trigger warning: racist and homophobic language.
When I was a kid, my father would give me helpful life lessons, such as what to do when slapped to the ground by a German soldier versus what to do when slapped to the ground by a Japanese soldier. Note that there are two assumptions here: (a) you’re a prisoner of war when this happens, and (b) the advice was presented as what to do when you’re slapped to the ground by a German or Japanese prisoner-of-war-camp guard, not if you’re slapped to the ground by a German or Japanese prisoner-of-war-camp guard. This phrasing, amongst similar phrasing in many of my father’s life lessons for me, contributed to a number of things in my life: (a) I didn’t realize that the Second World War was over until I was probably 9 years old–I used to freak when planes would fly overhead, not knowing whether they were friend or foe–and (b) I always assumed that really horrid shit was going to turn my world and my life upside down, one way or the other. I tell you all of this to give you some context (which is to say: my selfishly personal context) for today’s celebration of National Poetry Month: the fourth in Henry Reed’s Lessons of the war cycle. I’ll warn you again that there is reprehensibly racist language, as well as homophobia, in this poem; in reading it, I keep in mind that this comes out of the mouth of a character that Reed is criticizing. Reading this as an adult who “gagne son croûte” by working with language, I’m reminded of Krippendorff‘s discussion of pre-WWII Fascist propaganda and by the similarity between that Fascist propaganda and Trump’s message; it’s the weird mix of nationalism, racism/homophobia, and craven cowardice (is that a pleonasm? probably) in the character’s words that brings both pre-WWII Fascist propaganda and Donald Trump to mind for me.
The version of the poem that I’m giving you here is from the Sole Arabian Tree web site, your source for all things Reedian. Unfortunately, I don’t have a source for a recording of Reed reading this one. The promised illustrations precede the poems, and explain (or try to) some of the language in the poem.
“To ebb” is to flow down, as in the receding of the tide. Note the wet sand–that is what has been left uncovered by the receding of the tide or of a wave. To “ebb up,” as it is used in the poem, sounds awfully odd, and I haven’t found it in the British National Corpus. Picture source: https://goo.gl/A8r13sPart of the cemetery at Passchendaele, the site of a prolonged battle that took about 400,000 lives and moved the front line only several kilometers. When the speaker asserts that the trainees will all have heard of it, he’s probably right; how he managed to get captured there is hard to imagine, given that the German casualties were enormous. I speculate that this is part of Reed’s way of showing us what an idiot this guy is. Picture source: https://goo.gl/ej8DpxWhen the speaker refers to the recent “mobs,” he’s using an old slang word for a “mobilization” or call-up of civilians to the military. Here are Brits responding to the August 1914 mob, I believe. Picture source: https://goo.gl/Eha36AThe “helpless men descending from the heavens” to whom the speaker refers are German paratroopers. Don’t spend too much time searching for pictures of them on line, or you will be looking at pictures of little children waiting in line for gas chambers before you know it. Picture source: https://goo.gl/pIYaly
LESSONS OF THE WAR
V. PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE
This above all remember: they will be very brave men,
And you will be facing them. You must not despise them.
I am, as you know, like all true professional soldiers,
A profoundly religious man: the true soldier has to be.
And I therefore believe the war will be over by Easter Monday.
But I must in fairness state that a number of my brother-officers,
No less religious than I, believe it will hold out till Whitsun.
Others, more on the agnostic side (and I do not condemn them)
Fancy the thing will drag on till August Bank Holiday.
Be that as it may, some time in the very near future,
We are to expect Invasion … and invasion not from the sea.
Vast numbers of troops will be dropped, probably from above,
Superbly equipped, determined and capable; and this above all,
Remember: they will be very brave men, and chosen as such.
You must not, of course, think I am praising them.
But what I have said is basically fundamental
To all I am about to reveal: the more so, since
Those of you that have not seen service overseas—
Which is the case with all of you, as it happens—this is the first time
You will have confronted them. My remarks are aimed
At preparing you for that.
Everyone, by the way, may smoke,
And be as relaxed as you can, like myself.
I shall wander among you as I talk and note your reactions.
Do not be nervous at this: this is a thing, after all,
We are all in together.
I want you to note in your notebooks, under ten separate headings,
The ten points I have to make, remembering always
That any single one of them may save your life. Is everyone ready?
Very well then.
The term, Psychological Warfare
Comes from the ancient Greek: psycho means character
And logical, of course, you all know. We did not have it
In the last conflict, the fourteen-eighteen affair,
Though I myself was through it from start to finish. (That is point one.)
I was, in fact, captured—or rather, I was taken prisoner—
In the Passchendaele show (a name you will all have heard of)
And in our captivity we had a close opportunity
(We were all pretty decently treated. I myself
Was a brigadier at the time: that is point two)
An opportunity I fancy I was the only one to appreciate
Of observing the psychiatry of our enemy
(The word in those days was always psychology,
A less exact description now largely abandoned). And though the subject
Is a highly complex one, I had, it was generally conceded,
A certain insight (I do not know how, but I have always, they say,
Had a certain insight) into the way the strangest things ebb up
From what psychoanalysts now refer to as the self-conscious.
It is possibly for this reason that I have been asked
To give you the gist of the thing, the—how shall I put it?—
The gist.
I was not of course captured alone
(Note that as point three) so that I also observed
Not only the enemy’s behaviour; but ours. And gradually, I concluded
That we all of us have, whether we like it or lump it,
Our own individual psychiatry, given us, for better or worse,
By God Almighty. I say this reverently; you often find
These deeper themes of psychiatry crudely but well expressed
In common parlance. People say: ‘We are all as God made us.’
And so they are. So are the enemy. And so are some of you.
This I in fact observed: point four. Not only the enemy
Had their psychiatry, but we, in a different sense,
Had ours. And I firmly believe you cannot (point six) master Their psychiatry before you have got the gist of your own.
Let me explain more fully: I do not mean to imply
That any, or many, of you are actually mentally ill.
Though that is what the name would imply. But we, your officers,
Have to be aware that you, and many of your comrades,
May have a sudden psychiatry which, sometimes without warning,
May make you feel (and this is point five) a little bit odd.
I do not mean that in the sense of anything nasty:
I am not thinking of those chaps with their eyes always on each other
(Sometimes referred to as homosensualists
And easily detected by the way they lace up their boots)
But in the sense you may all feel a little disturbed,
Without knowing why, a little as if you were feeling an impulse,
Without knowing why: the term for this is ambivalence.
Often referred to for some mysterious reason,
By the professionals as Amby Valence,
As though they were referring to some nigger minstrel.
(Not, of course, that I have any colour prejudice:
After all, there are four excellent West Nigerians among you,
As black as your boot: they are not to blame for that.)
At all events this ambivalence is to be avoided.
Note that as point seven: I think you all know what I mean:
In the Holy Scriptures the word begins with an O,
Though in modern parlance it usually begins with an M.
You have most of you done it absentmindedly at some time or another,
But repeated, say, four times a day, it may become almost a habit,
Especially prone to by those of sedentary occupation,
By pale-faced clerks or schoolmasters, sitting all day at a desk,
Which is not, thank God, your position: you are always
More or less on the go: and that is what
(Again deep in the self-conscious) keeps you contented and happy here.
Even so, should you see some fellow-comrade
Give him all the help you can. In the spiritual sense, I mean,
With a sympathetic word or nudge, inform him in a manly fashion
‘Such things are for boys, not men, lad.’ Everyone, eyes front!
I pause, gentlemen.
I pause. I am not easily shocked or taken aback,
But even while I have been speaking of this serious subject
I observe that one of you has had the effrontery—
Yes, you at the end of row three! No! Don’t stand up, for God’s sake, man,
And don’t attempt to explain. Just tuck it away,
And try to behave like a man. Report to me
At eighteen hundred hours. The rest of you all eyes front.
I proceed to point six.
The enemy itself,
I have reason to know is greatly prone to such actions.
It is something we must learn to exploit: an explanation, I think,
Is that they are, by and large, undeveloped children,
Or adolescents, at most. It is perhaps to do with physique,
And we cannot and must not ignore their physique as such.
(Physique, of course, being much the same as psychiatry.)
They are usually blond, and often extremely well-made,
With large blue eyes and very white teeth,
And as a rule hairless chests, and very smooth, muscular thighs,
And extremely healthy complexions, especially when slightly sunburnt.
I am convinced there is something in all this that counts for something.
Something probably deep in the self-conscious of all of them.
Undeveloped children, I have said, and like children,
As those of you with families will know,
They are sometimes very aggressive, even the gentlest of them.
All the same we must not exaggerate; in the words of Saint Matthew:
‘Clear your minds of cant.’ That is point five: note it down.
Do not take any notice of claptrap in the press
Especially the kind that implies that the enemy will come here,
Solely with the intention of raping your sisters.
I do not know why it is always sisters they harp on:
I fancy it must ebb up from someone’s self-conscious.
It is a patent absurdity for two simple reasons: (a)
They cannot know in advance what your sisters are like:
And (b) some of you have no sisters. Let that be the end of that.
There are much darker things than that we have to think of.
It is you they consider the enemy, you they are after.
And though, as Britishers, you will not be disposed to shoot down
A group of helpless men descending from the heavens,
Do not expect from them—and I am afraid I have to say this—gratitude:
They are bound to be over-excited,
As I said, adolescently aggressive, possibly drugged,
And later, in a macabre way, grotesquely playful.
Try to avoid being playfully kicked in the crutch,
Which quite apart from any temporary discomfort,
May lead to a hernia. I do not know why you should laugh.
I once had a friend who, not due to enemy action
But to a single loud sneeze, entirely his own, developed a hernia,
And had to have great removals, though only recently married.
(I am sorry, gentlemen, but anyone who finds such things funny
Ought to suffer them and see. You deserve the chance to.
I must ask you all to extinguish your cigarettes.)
There are other unpleasant things they may face you with.
You may, as I did in the fourteen-eighteen thing,
Find them cruelly, ruthlessly, starkly obsessed with the arts,
Music and painting, sculpture and the writing of verses,
Please, do not stand for that.
Our information is
That the enemy has no such rules, though of course they may have.
We must see what they say when they come. There can, of course,
Be no objection to the more virile arts:
In fact in private life I am very fond of the ballet,
Whose athleticism, manliness and sense of danger
Is open to all of us to admire. We had a ballet-dancer
In the last mob but three, as you have doubtless heard.
He was cruelly teased and laughed at—until he was seen in the gym.
And then, my goodness me! I was reminded of the sublime story
Of Samson, rending the veil of the Temple.
I do not mean he fetched the place actually down; though he clearly did what he could.
Though for some other reason I was never quite clear about,
And in spite of my own strong pressure on the poor lad’s behalf,
And his own almost pathetic desire to stay on with us,
He was, in fact, demobilized after only three weeks’ service,
Two and a half weeks of which he spent in prison.
Such are war’s tragedies: how often we come upon them!
(Everyone may smoke again, those that wish.)
This brings me to my final point about the psychiatry
Of our formidable foe. To cope with it,
I know of nothing better than the sublime words of Saint Paul
In one of his well-known letters to the Corinthians:
‘This above all, to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day
No man can take thee in.’
‘This above all’: what resonant words those are!
They lead me to point nine, which is a thing
I may have a special thing about, but if so,
Remember this is not the first war I have been through.
I refer (point nine this is) to the question of dignity.
Dignity. Human dignity. Yours. Never forget it, men.
Let it sink deep into your self-consciousness,
While still remaining plentifully available on the surface,
In the form of manly politeness. I mean, in particular, this:
Never behave in a manner to evoke contempt
Before thine enemy. Our enemy, I should say.
Comrades, and brothers-in-arms,
And those especially who have not understood my words,
You were not born to live like cowards or cravens:
Let me exhort you: never, whatever lies you have heard,
Be content to throw your arms on the ground and your other arms into the air and squawk ‘Kaputt!’
It is unsoldierly, unwarlike, vulgar, and out of date,
And may make the enemy laugh. They have a keen sense of humour,
Almost (though never quite, of course) as keen as our own.
No: when you come face to face with the foe, remember dignity,
And though a number of them do fortunately speak English,
Say, proudly, with cold politeness, in the visitor’s own language:
‘Ich ergebe mich.’ Ich meaning I, Ergebe meaning surrender, and mich meaning me. Ich ergebe mich.’ Do not forget the phrase.
Practise it among yourselves: do not let it sound stilted,
Make it sound idiotish, as if you were always saying it,
Only always cold in tone: icy, if necessary:
It is such behaviour that will make them accord you
The same respect that they accorded myself,
At Passchendaele. (Incidentally,
You may also add the word nicht if you feel inclined to, Nicht meaning not. It will amount to much the same thing.)
Dignity, then, and respect: those are the final aims
Of psychiatric relations, and psychological warfare.
They are the fundamentals also of our religion.
I may have mentioned my own religious intuitions:
They are why I venture to think this terrible war will be over
On Easter Monday, and that the invasion will take place
On either Maundy Thursday or Good Friday,
Probably the Thursday, which in so very many
Of our great, brave, proud, heroic and battered cities,
Is early closing day, as the enemy may have learnt from their agents.
Alas, there may be many such days in the immediate future.
But remember this in the better world we all have to build,
And build by ourselves alone—for the government
May well in the next few weeks have withdrawn to Canada—
What did you say? The man in row five. He said something.
Stand up and repeat what you said.
I said ‘And a sodding good job’, sir, I said, sir.
I have not asked anyone for political comments, thank you,
However apt. Sit down. I was saying:
That in the better world we all have to try to build
After the war is over, whether we win or lose,
Or whether we all agree to call it a draw,
We shall have to try our utmost to get used to each other,
To live together with dignity and respect.
As our Lord sublimely said in one of his weekly Sermons on the Mount
Outside Jerusalem (where interestingly enough,
I was stationed myself for three months in 1926):
‘A thirteenth commandment I give you (this is point ten)
That ye love one another.’ Love, in Biblical terms,
Meaning of course not quite what it means today,
But precisely what I have called dignity and respect.
And that, men, is the great psychiatrical problem before you:
Of how on God’s earth we shall ever learn to attain some sort
Of dignity.
And due respect.
One man.
For another.
Thank you; God bless you, men. Good afternoon.