Wolfe Misses in 2016 Language Rumination

From Wikimedia Commons, White House Photo by Susan Sterner.March 22 2004. American writer Tom Wolfe. I'm in general, a fan.

Tom Wolfe is an entertaining spinner of stories, although I tire, sometimes, of his typographic trickery and long, rambling sentences. Nonetheless, in a series of nonfiction works and novels stretching back to the 1960s, he’s an enchanting, worthwhile American writer, a unique, acerbic jester of words.

Late last December, the weather was not all that good and we were looking for something indoors to do with a grandson, so we took him to the main Cedar Rapid Library. I am a slow reader in a house full of books, so I have been a very infrequent library visitor—my card was so old I had to get a new one in order to use it.

But there I saw Wolfe’s 2016 book, “The Kingdom of Speech,” and obtained a new library card so that I could check it out. I think I've read most of his books and liked most of them, so why not?

And I was disappointed. Wolfe attempts to discredit the Theory of Evolution, on his way to arguing that human language is not connected to our biological history, but instead a unique human creation, a tool.

In a sense, he’s right when he culminates by declaring language to be an artifact, like a Buick, and thus not something that comes from our evolution. He’s correct, as far as I can tell, in pointing out that language is artificial, constructed, invented, not something we’re born with.

As for Evolution, Wolfe seem to distrust that as a tale no less fanciful than any other creation story. He's deeply wrong about that. And the fact that language is artificial doesn’t meant that it’s not connected to our evolution as a species.

His attack on Evolution let me disenchanted. It seemed to be that the one who is mistaken here isn't Darwin, but Wolfe.

“There are five standard tests for a scientific hypothesis,” Wofle writes. They are, he states:

1. Has anyone else observed and recorded the phenomenon?
2. Could other scientists replicate it?
3. Could any come up with facts that contradict the theory?
4. Can scientists make predictions based on it?
5. Does it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas?

“In the case of Evolution … well … no … no … no … no … and no,” Wolfe declared.

And that was where I stumble. I’m not a scientist, so my understanding here is based on casual reading, yet in four of five points, I think he’s wrong.

Has anyone observed and recorded the phenomenon? Well, sure. There’s an extensive fossil record of many species, including ours, changing over time. Our fossil record isn’t complete—converting bone to rock is rare—but in the two centuries that Evolution has been an idea, the ancient bones seem to bear it out. And we even see it occurring in real time—the quick shifts in the virus that caused our recent pandemic, for instance. I think part of the issue here is that, even when it’s acting quickly, Evolution in complex species occurs at a time scale a human mind struggles to grasp. We as a species haven’t reached a million years yet, but even hundreds of thousands of years of modern humans walking the Earth is far beyond a single lifetime. We struggle to fully understand that time frame. And yet our modern knowledge of genetics confirms it—we not only know Evolution is real, we can track it; for example, we know the percent of the Neanderthal genome that is left in modern humans. So his first “no” is fully bogus. Lots of scientists have seen and continue to see the phenomenon.

Can other scientists replicate it? That’s a question asked when a testable hypothesis is being experimentally proved or disproved. Evolution is more of a framework incorporating lots of disparate evidence—but yes, serious biologists and paleontologists have all “replicated” this large hypothesis by replicating many of the small pieces that add up to the big idea. Wolfe’s "no" is a bit of sleight of hand, Evolution is not a hypothesis testable by a single experiment, but despite that, it’s been “replicated” repeatedly and reliably.

Can anyone come up with facts to discredit the theory? Although Wofle recounts several creation myths and seems to put them on equal footing with Evolution, he answers this one “no,” which seems like a win for Evolution, the one positive he concedes to the idea he’s attacking. You can come up with lots of alternative stories of how the world came to be, but none other that has the history of scientific observations that Evolution has.

Can scientists make predictions based on it? Sure. We get a new flu shot every year in response to a virus that is constantly evolving. The Theory of Evolution alone doesn’t help us concoct next year’s shot, but I think pretty much 100 percent of the scientists who are working on the 2024 flu shot are making projections based on genetic shift, on natural selection—Darwin’s machinery at work. It’s not exactly a “yes,” because, again, the phenomenon is not one observed in short-term human terms, but Evolution very much shapes what biologists conjecture about what comes next. The word “prediction” is a bit tricky here, since Evolution is messy and random, but sure, we expect constant change due to Natural Selection, and we correctly act on that understanding.

The final “no” is, to me, one of the weirdest. It seems to be that this big theory clearly illuminates a mystery. Evolution didn’t spring into Charles Darwin’s (or Alfred Wallace’s) brains from nothing, but were part of the burgeoning 19th century exploration of the world. The idea of inherited traits was barely being understood. The variety of plants and animals found that matched their sites yet were similar to related species nearby—the increasing catalog of life was providing hints. The question was, where did life come from? Darwin’s conception and understanding of Evolution is not the same as ours—scientists today understand DNA and genes and fossils much more than they did in his day—but he fundamentally was right. We can see at a molecular level that species did come from other species, we can trace how related different plants and animals are to each other based on their molecular fingerprints, we know so much more today about an origin story that was being explored but not understood in Darwin’s time. So, yes, Evolution illuminates. Why does Wolfe say "no" here? I do not understand.

I don’t mind Wolfe’s mocking of British social classes, nor even his attacks on modern academics. And I’ll concede that, like a Buick, language is something we create. But I think he’s missing an important point. Our capacity to create language (or Buicks) is not coincidental to understanding us.

A Buick is possible because we have among the largest and most complex brains in our mammal clan, combined with deft, opposable thumbs. Over the ages, we have used those evolving features of our biology to create and change the world. And Wolfe is not only correct that language is a created artifact, he’s on target that we use language as our most valuable human attribute, as the main artifact that gives us the world dominating (and world threatening) position we occupy today.

And yet, remember that the Buick has evolved. The Buick of 2024 isn’t the one of 1954. Before Buicks, there were wagons and chariots and the wheel. The Buick is an artifact, and thus did not biologically evolve, but artifacts are selected by us and I think there is a parallel in the changes in the stuff we make and in the critters we observe in that, over time, change seems unavoidable. Change is driven by selection, natural or human, and is a constantly seen reality.

Language? We made it. But when? Were the first speakers humans of our species or somewhere along that hominid path that diverged from the apes millions of years ago? Did Neanderthals sing and tell stories and chant prayers at funerals? Probably. Homo Erectus? Probably not. But when was the change? We don't know, but that doesn't mean our language ability didn't evolve.

Our faces, our jaws, our lips, our vocal chords—they give us an incredible ability to mimic a wide range of sounds, to hum and whistle and sing. And speak. One reason we’re unique is not just that we have a big brain that helps us to to craft the artifacts of Buicks and of language, we also have the vocal apparatus for vowels and constants and clicks and whistles. Chimpanzees, our closest relatives (see genetics, and no, we didn’t descend from them, their body rebuild since the time of our common ancestor has been more radical than ours—it’s accurate to say, from a chimp’s point of view, that they descended from humans) have an impressive variety of vocalizations.

They, too, can plan and coordinate actions. They make wars in groups. They even craft tools and use primitive spears for hunting (so much for Wolfe’s false assertion that only humans make artifacts). But their lack of language stunts their capacity to build a Buick—partly because their throats and sinus cavities and vocal chords can’t do the kind of subtle sound trickery as Home Sapiens can. To speak, we gave up, over eons, a large jaw and impressive canines—but we gained our ability to make and share words and shout and whisper in words our more complicated plans, to record our knowledge, to have a weird and marvelous bipedal body built, by natural selection to create our special brands of sound.

Our bodies’ aren’t revolutionary, they are similar to our cousins who went extinct, and to our ancestors. It is worth asking: When did we start talking? And were we even Homo Sapiens yet when our chimp-like wide variety of vocalizations began to grow so complex, thanks to our changing mouths and heads, that they became something we would call a language?

It’s a question hard for us answer. Spoken words leave no fossils. So linguists struggle and don't have an answer, now. But, (Taylor Swift, via Anne Reburn) what is Wolfe being when he dismisses the whole field of linguistics? "You, with your words like knives ..."

We known that we write and other species don’t, but it took us most of our existence on this planet before we mastered that trick of converting what we say into what we can read--before our created languages “evolved” to the point where setting them down in stone and clay and later, paper, occurred to us. Was it just a cultural shift or maybe a subtle evolution in our brains and hands? Both, maybe?

I’m not in Tom Wolfe’s league as a wordsmith. But I am a reader and a writer. And I can see that language is so embedded in the nature of us that it seems impossible it’s not embedded in our biology—a product of Natural Selection. Just as a Buick is (indirectly, because, again, we are evolved so that we can make Buicks, which no other species can. Yes, raccoons have opposable thumbs, but they don’t have poetry or owner’s manuals, and that makes all the difference).

“The Kingdom of Speech” was an interesting book—almost any Tom Wolfe book is interesting. To me, however, it is also deeply misleading. In the end, it is not fragile, unhealthy, selfish, and jealous Darwin who seems discredited, but a modern human master of language who seems to think that the notion we came from the same muck as worms and birds and lizards is icky.

It is not. “We were from the sewer, but so was everyone else” (lyric from “Your Light” by The Big Moon). Evolution is just how and who we are, thumbs, limbs, brains, verbs, nouns, verb tenses—all of us, arising slowly over thousands and millions and billions of years of change—with our evolving languages that do give us mastery of the planet, but aren’t separate from the evolutionary history that makes us, well, human. We may feel that way sometimes (again, Big Moon) but our words are not foreign objects in our mouths--they belong there, they are naturally there.

So OK, Tom. You’re right. There seems to be no “natural” language, at least not as far as we know now The history of language has a lot yet to be discovered and who knows what me might still find despite years of dead ends?.

But you’re deeply wrong, Tom, too. We have the language organ, or multiple language organs, and we ought not be offended by the fact that we evolved that way.

Students Begin New Blog Adventures

On Sept. 11, a student in my writing class works on a blog post draft.

I am teaching a writing class in this odd fall semester of 2020, and students in that class will be sharing their perspectives via personal blogs. I’m writing this on Sept. 11, 2020—a somber anniversary, but many students are choosing to write about the global pandemic. They are in a writing lab, drafting their first posts that should be published next week.

I always like this blog assignment—it’s one I often use in almost every media writing class. For one thing, it means students are gaining experience actually managing their own personal web sites. It also means that their writing is what professional writing should be—public. We get used, in school, to writing for each other and not writing for the world at large—but for my media students, the world at large is meant to be their audience.

A student in the school uniform of 2020. Masked, and focused on writing.

I have told students before about Jenny Valliere, the program manager of Z102.9 radio station here in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Jenny has told me that having her own blog was helpful to her in launching her radio career because she was able to show a prospective employer that she’s already active online and creating original content. Her blog.

Lindsay Leahy, another former student, writes a very interesting blog about how faith has helped her overcome adversity. She graduated long enough ago that I don’t think I required her to write a blog, but I did have a hand in helping her become a better writer, I hope—most of all, she was managing editor of the “Mount Mercy Times,” and although I thinking this blogging exercise is valid, student media experience is gold. Her blog.

Anyway, once students have started their blogs, I will share some links. In the meantime, it’s nice to see students at work, creating something new. That’s the power of writing—we writers get to be creators.

The power of blogging is that we then get to share those creations so easily with the world.

Bring a Hankie for These Blog Posts

That's a big hankie. My picture from 2010--was it really 6 years ago? Mount Mercy College had just become Mount Mercy University. And today, I'm pretty proud of my MMU writing students. Keep your blogs going, students ....

OK, that headline is a bit tongue in cheek, but still …

There are several writing classes that I teach at Mount Mercy University were I require students to maintain personal, public blogs. It’s partly because these are classes that attempt to teach professional writing skills, and professional writers need to be used to the idea that their writing is public performance. Of course, the downside of blogging is that it doesn’t teach another key point—that if you are a professional writer, you have a right to be paid for your work, but that’s a rant for another place and time, especially since I’m writing this as a blog post for free.

The blog assignment also serves to introduce students to the genre of blog writing. Doing multiple types of writing in different voices and genres is something media pros must be comfortable with—and, these days, students have to get used to thinking about their personal online “face” or media “brand”  to the world, too.

Anyway, I’ve given this assignment for several years. Many semesters, it feels like students resist and resent the blog assignment. It seems to be that something  different happened this semester.

I don’t’ know if the students who started personal blogs plan to continue them, although I hope they do. I check the blogs on a two-week rotation, and I just finished a two-week cycle.

And, well, wow. There is lots of good writing here. Writing that shows my students have the chops to be media communication pros if they keep at it. And writing that stands on its own, that’s just good to read.

Here are some examples of what was a very good recent cycle of blog writing:

• If had fairy dust: “Race: The Factor.” A half Black, half White student writes movingly about her racial identity and what it means. “Almost any time I meet someone, I get the famous question ‘Well what are you?’” I suppose homo sapiens is really the correct answer. To quote the font of all knowledge (Wikipedia): “Homo sapiens is the binomial nomenclature for the only extant human species.” And in biological terms, it wasn’t all that long ago that all of us emigrated from Africa, a fact we sometimes seem to want to forget. Anyway, please read this post. It helped me as a middle-aged White man see the world a little bit through a different lens.

• My life, My life, My life: “#JusticeforDanky.”  “Danky” is the nickname for an African American young man who was shot by police in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. My student writes movingly on what this case means and how she honestly feels about it. It’s a sad situation that is still unfolding, and I join her in hoping it doesn’t tear our town apart.

Well, there you have two posts on the rather heavy topic of race in America. I’ve been hoping for a sports theme for the next Fall Faculty Series, but maybe race needs more attention now in a semester-long conversation.

And, as they say in only the best quality “as seen on TV” ads: But wait, there’s more. Race wasn’t the only topic that prompted deep thoughts and good writing on recent student blog posts:

• IowaMatt: “Transcending Baseball.” I’m not personally a baseball fan, but I like his insight into the World Series this year from the point of view of a Cubs fan. Sure, he’s happy—but he’s thinking we all need uplifting, and I think he’s right.
• Courtney K. Snodgrass, Most days, I write: “The First Novel.” May she get to revising it so we can experience her finished product. Anyway, what does it really take to be a writer? It’s something this blogger considers.
• One of These Snow Days: “True Heroism.” This student makes me want to see a Mel Gibson movie, which is no small feat. Then again, given that my daddy served in the ETO in WWII, I guess I’m a sucker for a WWII story.
• Life As Kaylee Rae: “I Am Who I Am Because …” She has a positive take on small-town Iowa life, and I would want her to explore the downside, too, but if you ever wondered why people love “fly over” country, this is a good post to read. It’s only Iowa, it’s not Heaven, but there is much to love about Iowa life.

That seems like a high note to end on. There were other good blog posts in this cycle, too—interesting reviews of recent Netflix series, a track athlete’s rumination on the end of the season, a food review that made me a little hungry—but you’ll have to click the links and see what you think.

And it only seems appropriate that I promote my own blogs here, too. Check out some fall photos on my bike blog, or see my wrap-up of the 2016 Fall Faculty Series at MMU on my general blog.

I do hope that my students keep writing. They have worthwhile things to say.Check out their posts and leave them some comments--show them someone is reading!

A Visit to Morning TV Land

Rachael Faust, promotion coordinator for KGAN/KFXA speaks to Mount Mercy students April 26.

I unfortunately didn’t take her photograph or write down her name (since I didn’t write down anything), but for me a highlight of a tour of KGAN CBS2/KFXA Fox28 in Cedar Rapids was a chat with a news producer.

She explained that her job is mostly to write—and it  highlighted a message I often tell students. In any media work—journalism, PR, web, etc.—there are always writers.

In TV, there are many people behind the scenes who make the programs happen.

MMU CO 120 class tours TV studio. Can you spot the news anchor?

KGAN/KFXA kindly hosted a tour by my Introduction to Journalism class from Mount Mercy on April 26. Rachael Faust, the stations’ promotion coordinator, was our guide. Along the way, morning anchor Kelly D’Ambrosio and morning reporter Stephanie Johnson also chatted with the class.

News Anchor Kelly D'Ambrosio talks in TV studio.

It was, I hope, an eye opening visit for students. For one thing, even a small market TV station is a pretty substantial operation, and that spells opportunity for the motivated student. For another thing, if they listened as I did, they heard many pieces of advice that echo messages Joe has said before: For instance, learn all the media basic skills you can. Know InDesign, PhotoShop and basic video editing. In any communication career, flexible, basic skills are important. That was one message Rachael spoke about.

It was also interesting to speak to all several people whose days begin at 3:30 a.m. New Anchor Kelly was just back from lunch at 10 a.m. when she spoke with my class.

A TV studio looks a little like your crazy Uncle Ed's attic.

It was an interesting tour, and I’m glad that local media companies are willing to allow my students to poke around a bit.

And in a recycling bin in the news studio, I had to show several students the discarded scrips. They were done in split format, video on the left, audio on the right, what is meant to be spoken in ALL CAPS.

It looked just like the format students are using for their current video stories.

Fun with the green wall--Logan, above, and Connor, below, at TV studio.

Sam Hits a Nerve And Sami “Isn’t A Blogger”

Screen shot of Sam's anti-biker rant.

Blogging is an interesting media activity, one that a blogger I know called “emotional nudity.” It’s another genre of writing that students who aspire to any communication career should be comfortable with and understand.

Blogs, of course, have a mixed reputation. When a recent Coe graduate was arrested for an attempted terror attack in Canada, part of the way this lost and lonely young women found fellow dark and lonely people to plot with was through social media, including a blog.

But, that doesn’t make blogging all that different from any medium. After all, Hitler’s rise to power was partly fueled by his book “Mein Kampf.” Newspapers, magazines, books, movies, TV shows—all have and are used to spread terrible ideas and violence. But, as a proponent of the Marketplace of Ideas, I would observe that all of those media also can be used to educate, inform and positively persuade.

The internet is a bit different only in that facilitates unusual connections.

She doesn't have to hate not being good at blogging because she is. Good at blogging.

Anyway, 10 new blog voices have joined the internet babble, courtesy of a class writing assignment. One student, Sam, wrote a rant against bikers. One of my other blogs is called “CR Biker,” so you pretty much know how I felt about that. Was he yanking my chain? Perhaps, but that’s what a blog is for.

She is a blogger.

Samantha, aka Sami, is a bit profane on her personal blog—but I don’t think she does anything beyond what you would expect in this rather personal, emotionally nude medium. Hers is a blog worth reading. And she claims on her id that she is not a blogger. All I can say is au contraire.

And Madison also has a very visually stunning start to her blog.

One student, Meghan, is in the “mommy blog” school. Another student, also a mom, has a son who is planning his wedding, and Billie blogs about her experiences as a grown up in a young-adult world.

Each of the students is seeking to develop an online voice that is worth listening to, and to display themselves as writers. Take a glance and see what you think. Don’t troll them, please—but blog writers are partly rewarded by getting feedback on what they say:

Billie
Madison
Shavonda
Todd
Meghan
Matt
Jacob
Sam
Cody
Samantha

See her winter photos.

And, for the record, my two other blogs:

CR Gardenjoe
CRBiker

See what you think. And if you comment here, maybe you can suggest what you think are interesting blogs that Communication, Journalism, Multimedia or PR students should follow. Or just answer this question: What are your favorite blogs, and why?