Some years back, Joe Schwartz interviewed Daphne Athas for a Chapel Hill newspaper when
her memoir, Chapel Hill in Plain Sight: Notes From the Other Side of the
Tracks, which covers the Depression, World War II, McCarthyism and the present
was released. She knows a good story, even before she knows she'll write it.
"I just knew I knew things that other people didn't know," she said
of her last book. Schwartz described her as being “treasured by her creative
writing students at UNC for her wit and creative idiosyncrasies and noted for Entering
Ephesus, a Chapel Hill-inspired novel originally published by Viking Press
in 1971. It was hailed by the critics, made
Time Magazine’s Ten Best
Fiction List, won the Sir Walter Raleigh Award for fiction in 1972, and was
published in England that year by Chatham and Windus to equal acclaim.
This tale about three school-aged sisters was republished
buy us in 1971 under our Second Chance Press imprint, with Publishers Weekly calling it “a big book in every sense of the word,
glorious, fascinating and holding up perfectly in the 20 years since its first
publication. Written in nearly mesmerizing language, it’s an unforgettable
story.” And it is still in print with
us.
Daphne’s other titles were Crumbs for the Boogie Man,
a book of poetry, and Gram-o-Rama, a textbook of modern-day grammar
exercises.
I’ve always been so impressed by
her, still on the faculty of the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill
where she began teaching six decades ago, and still, at age 92, a remarkable
writer who has her own blog. What follows comes from her own posting on July 13th,
THE GRAMMAR OF POWER.
* *
*
“I’m sitting in a fishing town on the south coast of
Crete on the weekend of June 19th and 20th with nothing to read but my Kindle
stoked with Victorian novels and ancient Greeks: Aristotle, Thucydides,
Herodotus. Non-evanescent reading. My only alternative: the International New York Times, which used
to be the International Herald Tribune.
“To vie in silent awe with the inspiring mass of
night sky, stars, and the lick of the Libyan sea, I read the headlines: Taylor
Swift has just yanked her album 1989 from Apple’s new three month trial period
free streaming. When in doubt as to who wields power over who, check financial
pages.
“She did it on Sunday, day of rest posting on
tumblr.com, her letter of reaction to Apple’s plan to stream pop artists and
singer-song-writers free. No royalty payout. She wrote: ‘To Apple, With Love,
Taylor’ telling them their announcement was ‘shocking,’ ‘disappointing,’ and
uncharacteristic of a company she deemed the most historically progressive in
the world.
“ ‘We don’t ask you for free iPhones. Please don’t
ask us to provide you with music for nothing,’ the INTNYT quotes her as saying.
“She used the respectful ‘Please’ despite the huge
TV mug shot of her painted doll-face, tarted-up lipstick and eye liner looming
over her tiny dancing onstage body, expressing in naked, possibly
self-demeaning words the emotion: ‘Why is it fair to ask artists and pay them
nothing?’ She tells them casually she speaks for other artists, and it’s true;
lots of them asked her to.
“You could feel Apple on the receiving end as if it
were a person not a corporation or a fruit. Even the Supreme Court judges
corporations the same as individual citizens. You could feel Taylor’s raw hurt
like Dear Johns, and Hurt Parents whose children have betrayed the family love,
smarts, and trust. Betrayal!
“You feel her moral justification like boiling
blood, but it’s really ice-cold.
“Apple, the smartest, most loveable company in
history? Like Google and other smart, progressive, successful companies, Apple
deals politics of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness begets self
righteousness. But Group think is not Individual Think.
“Like Google’s weekly cute film cartoons, Google the
Gentle Giant Teacher encourages people to better themselves. ‘Read, Exercise,
Love’. Six months ago I refused to click the Google cartoon of a bearded old
man wagging his head above my incoming mail, suspecting it might be Tolstoy.
But my curiosity won. I clicked, and yes, it was Tolstoy.
“Why is Google giving me my lesson on Life Values on
Tolstoy’s back? Why should I give it my respect? This was not Taylor’s first
nose-thumb to the corporate. She’d dumped Spotify in the past.
“Within twenty-four hours a man named Eddie Cue,
Senior Vice President of Internet Software and Services caved. ‘When I woke up
this morning and read Taylor’s note,’ he is quoted, ‘it really solidified that
we need to make a change.’ Apple thenceforward offered a different plan: three
months with more than full payment for the artists.
“ ‘Thank you,’ Taylor wrote back. ‘I am elated and
relieved. Thank you for your words of support today. They listened to us.’ Who is ‘They?’ Did she mean Eddie’s pressuring
peers? Did she mean her ravenous fans? (Did she tweet or did she email?) Who did
she address it to? Her sole antecedent is: ‘Words’ but words don’t have ears.
Only humans do. Words have effects. I had a teacher long ago who attacked students
justifying themselves with ‘But they all do it!’ The old teacher attacked
History too: ‘History proves this that or the other. Who is History?’ he asked
‘Is History a person? Can History speak?’ Why did Taylor change from treating Apple like a
person, and introduce us to the shadowy pronoun ‘They’? Is her unhinged writing
the fault of INTNYT? Did they leave
her antecedent by mistake? All we’ve got is muddled writing.
“In the 50s Carson McCullers wrote a best seller, Member of the Wedding, and with
Tennessee Williams, transformed it into a popular play and movie. Frankie, the
adolescent girl, is in love with her older brother, but he’s getting married,
and she faces abandonment forever. The plot shows her struggle to reconcile the
separation of male and females selves in her own psyche. Only when she realizes
the bride will become a part of her does she discover her mantra: ‘They are the
We of Me.’
“Taylor may be swift but she’s been tailored to be.
She knows how to bifurcate a plural pronoun and switch from relief and elation
to secret codes of corporate usage. At least she is the They of She. Who is
Apple the They of?
“The only info we get is Eddie cueing us (or Taylor)
in. Eddie uses the impersonal construction: ‘It’ solidifies for ‘It’ signifies.
Sounds more like a loose bowel movement turning into a firm deposit.
“In case anybody thinks I meant my title to mean The
Power of Grammar instead of The Grammar of Power they’re wrong. There are clues
to codes passing themselves off as Aesopian Morals. ‘Learn Grammar. Understand
Better. Be Smarter.’ That’s inspirational. Gram-O-Rama doesn’t aim for
Inspirational Ick; it doesn’t promise Money. It wants the challenge of Fun.
“About the second ‘who’ of the question in the
second paragraph of this blog: I deliberately omitted the letter ‘m’ on the
second ‘who’. Who wants to be an Object? I’d rather be colloquial.”
*
* *
This entry was posted under The Grammar Guru Speaks. You can get in touch with Daphne directly
by email daphne.athas@gmail, or by posting a comment here. You can also email me at shepard@thepermanentpress.com
COMING
NEXT WEEK is a perfect follow-up from Karen Owen, THE BOOK
DOCTOR, who continues this discussion, Be sure to stay tuned for next
Wednesday’s posting.