Two Clams in the Soup
Two Beavers on the Left Bank, One Dick in the Red Room, and A Couple of Ellipses in Paris. Something is happening here, but I can't quite put my finger on it. Or them. It's a Moveable Feast.
That is a great book. Its author said of William Faulkner.
"Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words? He thinks I don't know the ten-dollar words. I know them all right. But there are older and simpler and better words, and those are the ones I use."
Older and simpler and better words.
And he didin't meant ellipsis.
The truth, as George Carlin pointed out, is that there are no bad words. Just bad thoughts. Bad intentions.
- Login Or register To Post Comments
- Send To A Friend
- Share With:
William Poy Lee says:
The 7 No No Words
James -- glad you found them and posted them, at least elliptically. Your "c" word is prominently included by the cunning linguist Mr. Carlin.
I wonder if there is a way to create a forum on RedRoom to discuss the meaning of free speech and set some standards as to when some word or phrase is absolutely, positively, 95% removable. That would help management and writer-contributors.
I haven't read opinions on it for awhile, but the US Supreme Court left the definition of obscenity or expression that appeal to the prurient interest to be determined by local community standards. Thus it is relevant to determine the thoughts and feelings of this writing community as to when it's OK, and not OK, for management to excise a writers' words.
What do you think?
William Poy Lee says:
From NY Times vs. Sullivan, a US Supreme Court Decision
James -- this and other heart-stirring freedom gems can be found throughout this sometimes rather daunting legal read:
Justice Brandeis, in his concurring opinion in Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357,274 U. S. 375-376, gave the principle its classic formulation:
"Those who won our independence believed . . . that public discussion is a political duty, and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies, and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law -- the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed."
James Whyle says:
Thank You
Thank you, William. Isn't it wonderful how beautiful the best constitutional writing is?