Modifier snark

Before letting this go, a longish digression about modifier use in the article about Zadie Smith I wrote about in previous posts. Here are two examples:

One of Smith's most lucid essays pits Nabokov's reading style ...

And yet, try as she might, Smith cannot get the two to join together. They're basically irreconcilable.

I would not use lucidity to admit of degrees but lots of other people have and do use the concept that way so it isn't ridiculous to say "most lucid". But what can "lucid" possibly mean in this case? This is the only time in the piece that the author uses the word lucid or alludes to the clarity of expression in Smith's work so why single this one essay out as one of the most lucid? Are the other essays opaque and badly expressed?

No, what has happened here is that "lucid" is just a synonym for "good" in Nathan Heller's vocabulary. He just means this is one of the better essays and, having said that, he wants to drive the point home by piling yet another modifier on so that we get "most lucid".

Most excellent dude, party on!

Now, consider the literary wonder of "basically irreconcilable". That "basically" is doing a lot of useful work don't you think? It means something so very different from saying just "irreconcilable". What could he mean here? That they are irreconcilable in their basic elements?

And it's not just sloppy language use here, it's sloppy language use that is driving sloppy thinking. Lets step back and consider the problem that Nathan Heller is using this expression to describe:

1. Nabokov's reading style (based on the idea of the author's absolute control) against
2. Roland Barthes' famous "death of the author" theory (that meaning is created in the act of reading, independent of the author's wishes).

Does it seem likely that it is going to take a lot of deep thinking to determine that these two theories about reading are going to be irreconcilable? Isn't it plain from the very statement of the problem that it cannot be done? (And what difference does it make that Barthes theory is famous?)

And I could go on and on and on. For example, Heller writes:

Zadie Smith is both an envy object and a kind of hero, plucked out of the world's slush pile to churn out three hefty, precocious books.

Okay, I'll be generous and let him get away with "envy object" because that means something, although it is hardly elegantly expressed, but do tell me, what in tarnation is a precocious book? Is it a book that is developmentally advanced compared to others in its age group?

The book isn't just a group of gently argued judgments and critical reinterpretations; it's an unsettled look at the systems of thought that make those judgments and interpretations possible.

What is an "argued judgment" and what does that argued judgment gain by being "gently" argued? And does he really mean an "unsettled look" or did he instead mean to say an "unsettling look"?

You can choose one way of reading and persuade yourself the other is completely wrong.

The word "completely" is doing so much valuable work in that sentence isn't it? Why it would not be nearly so effective so simply say "wrong".

And there is more but ...

This brings me back to a point I've made before about modifier use and social class. Heller is a copy editor and I'd say he is a good one based on this article. The mistakes here are not grammatical. The problems are entirely linguistic though. Language, as Wittgenstein put it, has gone on holiday here. The words are just hanging around in familiar arrangements but they are not working, they're on vacation.

And Heller should be the top class in language use. He should be the example that others can emulate. Instead he writes the way the lowest classes in our society speak.