People will cluster into cultural "regions" based not on physical proximity but on mutual attitudes

[koganbot]

At the very end of my Why Music Sucks broadside of February 1987 I wrote a paragraph that in retrospect might seem supernaturally prophetic. Whereas now, such a paragraph, with a few of the words changed, would be the common, received wisdom. However, despite almost every sentence of it being right, I think it's fundamentally wrong. But see for yourself:

A prediction: Music will (continue to) become more local, regional, less mass media. But by "local" I don't mean tied to a physical locale; by "regional" I don't mean a physical place. The locales will be mental. Due to the ever-increasing availability of cheap recording, cheap photo-copying, cheap communication, people will communicate easily with other people all over the country and all over the world. Without going through the mass media. People will cluster into cultural "regions" based not on physical proximity but on mutual attitudes, tastes, hobbies, beliefs, etc. It's already happening; indie-cassette-fanzine culture is one example; the Moral Majority, I think, may be another. I'm sure there will be more. THIS MENTAL REGIONALIZATION IS NOT NECESSARILY A GOOD THING. IT MIGHT BE HORRIBLE. A couple hundred years ago many people were tied to locales, only seeing people from the area, the nearest village. This could have been very constricting; one only got to deal with a small group of people, most of whom had the same religion, values, etc. Nonetheless, a person would have to deal, to some extent, with ALL the people in the locale. Now, one is likely to live very near people with whom one has little in common. But, thanks to modern communication technology, networking, all that shit, one can avoid dealing with these people. Especially once one has gotten out of high school. Or one can deal with them superficially day-to-day if one has to on the job but then go home to a supportive people-like-me communications network for "real" interaction. This may be the true meaning of indie-cassette-'zine culture. This is why I can't accept its self-justifications, its self-congratulation. Even though I'm part of it, perhaps need it.

[This paragraph was something of an elaboration on a more interesting passage I'd written the previous year for an aborted book on punk rock: "It is a social achievement that parents can't understand their kids' slang or that one child will become a punk and another a Mormon and a third will go into interior design (and discos and cocaine) and none will have much to say to the others. Each incomprehensibility is a kind of vengeance."]

Comments

diction?

[dubdobdee.livejournal.com]

what's wrong with: "despite almost every sentence being right"? it's not as if the sentences you're referring to can sensibly belong to anything else...

"despite its every sentence being right" is workable, though the almost gets in the way of this formulation a bit)

"despite almost every sentence of its being right" means something ore like "in spite of every sentence that belongs to that aspect of it which is right" -- which is not meaningless, but surely a different thing

Re: diction?

[dubdobdee.livejournal.com]

in other words, "its being right" redirects the possessive from the sentences towards the rightness: "the sentences of its rightness" would be a slightly strange way of referring to all the sentences n it that were right, as opposed to "the sentences of its wrongness" and "the sentences of its who-knows-ness"

Re: diction?

[dubdobdee.livejournal.com]

besides being strange, this second version would offer no implication what proportion of all its sentences "the sentences of its rightness" took up: almost all or almost none

An editor always helps

[koganbot]

Well, imagine we were discussing a person, we'd want to say "despite every sentence of his being right" rather than "despite every sentence of him being right," though of course that's not quite parallel. But yes you're right, we can and should get rid of the "of it" altogether; thank you; talking to an editor always helps, though we now are faced with the choice between, "Despite every sentence being right" and "despite every sentence's being right"! Compare, "despite his being right," which I'd generally prefer to "despite him being right," though I don't know why. I'm not clear on the principle, not sure what it is or how to apply it. Follett must have some opinion on the matter. (But probably you should get offline and stop thinking about such things. When is BSF due?)

Re: An editor always helps

[dubdobdee.livejournal.com]

i imagine i will start getting anguished "where oh where is it?" squeaks in the next couple of days: i actually have -- for the first time in about three months -- nothing else due to anyone on any kind till the end of next week

"despite every sentence of his being right": is strictly speaking also ambiguous -- could mean "despite his every sentence being right" or "despite every sentence of the rightness that is his"; though i think the latter is odd enough idiomatically that we needn't worry... the former is better though: "despite his every sentence being right"

Re: An editor always helps

[koganbot]

Getting farther away from my example, let's say I'm writing, "Despite his being right in this instance, I still don't trust his judgment." I would definitely use "his" there rather than "him." So what's the principle that makes "Despite his being right in this instance, I still don't trust his judgment" much better than "Despite him being right in this instance, I still don't trust his judgment"?

(In "despite almost every sentence of his being right," the "his" is pointing backwards at "every sentence" but feels like it's trying to point forward; so as you say my sentence would be righter if it were "despite his every sentence being right," and I think this construction can handle an "almost": "Despite almost his every sentence being right.")

Re: An editor always helps

[dubdobdee.livejournal.com]

First para query: I think the principle is what the despite is best attached to -- which (in this case) is the rightness rather than him; "him being right" and "his being right" aren't particularly different contentwise but "despite him" feels like the phrase could end just there and thus of allows to you stop paying so much attention after "him", whereas "despite his" tells you there's more to come and what's more it's the important bit; so the sentence has more internal spring.

Second para query: "Despite almost his every sentence being right" is fine yes. I like it in fact. Again, internal spring: in this case because at first blush it seems a little weird, and then somehow unfolds itself properly.

[dubdobdee.livejournal.com]

"Despite" seems a bit wrong just attached to people

"Despite your sister, the party was nice" isn't ungrammatical I don't think, but "Despite your sister's behaviour [or presence or cooking or dress sense], the party was nice" seems a big improvement.

So that's what's at work here, to my ear.

[koganbot]

This all depends on how well the listener knows the sister in question.