By Elizabeth Anne Hull
To those folks who attended the Frederik Pohl memorial service on August 2, my thanks to every one of you! I and everyone who spoke to me thought it was a moving and joyous tribute to a great man, with whom I was happy to share my life for over thirty years. Thanks also to everyone who spoke or performed for the occasion. I appreciate that you took the time and effort to participate. I will eventually post links to as much as I can of the service here on the blog.
The Fredzine I was planning to distribute for the occasion turned out to be a lot more work than I had anticipated, and so it was not ready for the service. Many thanks to Mike Page, who let me copy a selected bibliography of Fred’s work to give attendees. His critical biography of Fred’s life and analysis of his major works should be available from the University of Illinois Press. Meanwhile, I am still working on editing and assembling the zine, and if all goes well, I expect to have it done by Thanksgiving, around what would have been Fred’s 95th birthday. I think it will be worth the wait. Stay tuned.
Meanwhile, my granddaughter Christine Wintczak, married Joseph McElwee the following month at St. Thomas More Church in Elgin, in another grand celebration of family and friends. The wedding itself was long enough to give it solemnity but short enough to satisfy young and old alike. The reception and banquet afterward had the best food and drinks and courteous efficient service of any large party I’ve ever attended—the hot food was served piping hot and the cold quite crispy and cold.
In particular, Steve Claussen really put the icing on the cake for me. (Steve and his daughter Melissa had provided the music to open Fred’s service and Steve had been a wedding singer at both our marriage in 1984 and our renewal of vows in 1994.) He presented me with a garter which Fred took off my leg and threw for the assembled bachelors; Steve had caught it and kept it all those years!
11 a.m.–3 p.m. Saturday, August 2, 2014
Wojcik Conference Center
William Rainey Harper College
1200 W. Algonquin Road, Bldg. W, Palatine, IL 60067
Please join his family, friends and fans to celebrate the life and career of Science Fiction Grand Master Frederik Pohl (1919–2013), award-winning author, editor and fan writer; influential literary agent; futurist; lecturer, and member of First Fandom, whose career began in the Pulp Era and continued until his death last year.
The free event will include a program of speakers with a reception to follow.
Hotel rooms for Aug. 1–3 are available at Country Inn & Suites, 1401 N. Roselle Road, Palatine, for $94 per night (includes breakfast), for August 1-3. Reserve by July 18 at (847) 839-1010 or (800) 456-4000 with code “Pohl Memorial” to get this rate.
For further details, email the blog team at email@example.com.
By Elizabeth Anne Hull
According to AAUW, since the 1990s, a hot topic in the field of college-level feminist/gender studies is dealing with gender-specific pronouns when discussing unknown persons. (Feminists don’t all read SF, so they might not realize that Suzette Haden Elgin’s Native Tongue addressed the situation from a linguist’s perspective in the previous decade.)
Loyola being a Jesuit university, you might well understand the conservative emphasis on grammar in assessing writing and assigning grades. In fact, the grading guidelines given us teaching assistants stipulated that a paper with too many mistakes in grammar, punctuation, spelling, and the conventions of Standard English — what we called basic skills — should be penalized in grading or even failed altogether, no matter how well that essay succeeded in other ways, such as organization, soundness of facts/research, clarity of thought, freshness of language, delightful sense of humor or other signs of original creativity, logical reasoning, and general effectiveness.
One cardinal sin of grammar was violating the principle that pronouns should agree in person and number with their antecedents and referents.
Mind you, it wasn’t a new problem then, either. A bit of history: this was one of the reasons that classes in English composition, usually known as 101 and 102 and sometimes called “bonehead English,” were introduced after World War II. Prior to that, professors could usually assume that only well-prepared students were admitted to colleges and universities (and legacies, of course, the sons of alumni, men who were happy with a “gentleman’s C”). From the late 1940s onward, however, GIs returning with their education benefits were enrolling in record numbers in pursuit of the American Dream
These were men (almost all were men) who, by and large, had never intended to go to college, but with the support of the grateful government and the encouragement of the American people, were willing to work hard and learn the proscriptive rules that prevailed in those early years. In hindsight, this may have been a large factor in the success of American enterprises in those years of the Greatest Generation.
Pluralizing the noun and using the plural pronouns will solve a lot of the agreement problems, but occasionally a singular noun seems essential for clarity, so I came up with my own solution, which allows the writer to be both grammatical and not seem forced. It’s simply to recast the sentence to avoid or eliminate the need for an antecedent. For example, instead of “Each applicant has to submit his own supporting documentation,” try “Each applicant must submit individual supporting documentation.”
Since English has many ways to phrase almost any idea, writers have the advantage over speakers in that they can reflect on both what they want to convey and how they choose to phrase the ideas. As true as it was in my youth and my first years of teaching, the mechanical aspects of writing are far less important than the other aspects of communication.
But it seems there will always be judgmental readers who are looking for reasons to reject the point the writer is trying to convey, and basic literacy skills are one easy way to eliminate those whose opinions we wish to ignore or discount. In my childhood, when someone rejected me, my mother always used to comfort me, “Consider the source.” But I still believe that it’s best not to alienate readers unnecessarily, and I will continue to try to avoid grammatical mistakes.
Spelling errors are another particularly easy way for those who disagree with us to reject what we have to say, because for the last several hundred years we have had standard spellings in dictionaries. Despite my tolerance for dyslexics, I admit I was comforted by fact that some young people are still trying to be correct in spelling in the age of texting.
In a record-setting regional contest of the Scripps National Spelling Bee, two outstanding students quickly eliminated the other competition and continued to spell word after word correctly. After they exhausted the list of over 60 words, local administrators requested that both children be allowed to advance to the national finals. But eventually the judges decided to continue the standoff, adding another 20-some more words, till seventh grader Kush Sharma finally beat fifth-grade Sophia Hoffman in an exciting match in Jackson County, Missouri. Let’s hope Sophia returns and tries again. The spirit of the Greatest Generation is not dead.
There’s plenty of wind energy in the Midwest, but to get it to the East where it could cheaply replace fossil fuel electricity would take some 20,000 miles of new transmission lines.
The Republican Supreme Court, however, has ruled that states, and not the federal government, control permission for building lines in their own territory.
What this basically means is that no such lines are ever going to be built. Which means that clean Midwestern wind electricity is not going to replace stinky East Coast coal-powered plants.
By Elizabeth Anne Hull
When Pope Francis named 19 new cardinals to be installed in February, it underscored the efficiency of a nondemocratic government. The elevation of Les Cayes Bishop Chibly Langlois (at 55 the youngest of the appointees) from Haiti, shows how much can be done very quickly by an autocrat, in this case, to implement Francis’s agenda of ministering to the poor of the world. Bishop Langlois’ youth makes likely he will still be around and under age 80 when the time comes to vote for the next pope. All this in less than a year since Francis became the pontiff.
I likewise saw how efficient the totalitarian government of China could be in clearing the roads blocked by a landslide after a great rainstorm in 1991, when Fred and I were stranded for an extra day in the Tibetan foothills while visiting the Panda Breeding Station.
With us were Charles Brown, Brian Aldiss, Brian Stableford, Malcolm Edwards, and a couple of dozen others from outside China for the occasion of the World SF meeting in Chengdu, Sichuan. The authorities were not going to let their honored guests be inconvenienced one more day than absolutely necessary!
Contrast this with our seemingly dysfunctional Congress in the United States where democracy rules. Well, actually we have a representative democracy, which means we have established checks and balances that are supposed to preserve the basic rights of minorities and prevent too hasty decisions from being implemented by well-meaning people who fail to see potential unintended consequences of their agendas. But for the sake of brevity, we call it “democracy” and are quite proud of it.
Democracy as we practice it is, undeniably, a much slower and more cumbersome way to reach decisions and implement change. And it’s an equally self-evident logical principle — sorry, those who want to maintain the old ways no matter what — that situations can not ever be improved without making changes. But democracy (we’ll call it that for shorthand) has one big advantage over totalitarian, top-down management. That is, when everyone can have his or her say before a decision is finally reached, the decision is likely to be fairer and last longer before it too needs to be changed. Americans don’t like having stuff shoved down our throats.
I’m looking forward to seeing how the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on the question of whether the president has the right to make interim appointments to key positions, including judicial appointments, which in turn may lead to appointments to the Supreme Court itself. We do live in interesting times!