Thesaurus Wars: #4

       I found the exact thesarus Stephen Sondheim uses at a local thrift store. I have no idea why he hangs out there--that's his business, not mine. Just kidding (it is my business). Anyway, I'm also kidding about finding the exact thesaurus he uses (because then he'd be using it, wouldn't he?) Furthermore, the thesaurus I found is an old pocket one. and is one year earlier than Sondheim's. But that's pretty darn close. 
       So I have this thesaurus project which stems from a slight facination with thesauruses. I'm trying to find out which thesaurus is better---Websters or Rogets?--just based on words they provide as synonyms. As you know, I found an old Pocket Rogets last week. This one is arranged as originally intended: by category, not alphabetically.

       Rogets: you look up the word you want in the back, and it gives you some meanings and their corresponding page numbers (for 'absolute,' it was 'not relative,' 'great,' and 'certain'). You turn to the meaning you want, and it puts you in a category with other subcategories, etc...it's kind of complicated at first, but you only really have to flip through the book twice: to find the word in the back, and to go to the intended meaning, which is surrounding by related meanings.

1. 'not relative' brings you to EXISTENCE...
real, actual, positive, absolute; veritable, true; substantial, essential

2. 'great' brings you to GREATNESS...
absolute, positive, stark, decided, unequivocal, essential, perfect

3. 'certain' brings you to CERTAINTY...
unqualified, absolute, positive, definite, clear, unequivocal, categorical, unmistakable, decisive

       Webster's: alphabetically
1. [Without limitation] total, complete, entire, infinite, fixed, settled, supreme, full, unrestricted, unlimited, unconditional, independent, whole-hearted, sheer, pure, unmitigated, utter, unabridged, thorough, clean, outright, downright, ideal, simple, perfect, full, blanket, all out, out-and-out

2. [Without limit in authority] authoritarian, domineering, supreme, arbritrary, offical, autocratic, tyrannical, fascist, fascistic, overbearing, czarist, nazi, totalitarian, communistic, oppresive, browbeating, antidemocratic, imperative, dogmatic, commanding, controlling, compelling, despotic, intimidating, fanatic, dictatorial, arrogant, with an iron hand

3. [Certain] positive, unquestionable, undeniable

 Analysis:
       In terms of sheer quantity, Websters wins. But I want to know where Rogets went wrong. How could it fail to include words like "unlimited," "total," and "unrestricted"? I flip back to a sub-section for 'absolute' to pinpoint the problem. I find that on the Rogets line for "absolute," we aren't given much--for the 'greatness' meaning, there's 'positive,' 'stark, 'and 'decided.' That's cold, very logical. We're missing the gushing emotion that Webster's "whole-hearted," "sheer," "pure" and "unmitigated" provide.
       Where can we find this fount of human feeling in Rogets?
       So Websters is large. So Websters is new. So Websters is political ("czarist"? "communist"? what about "absolutist"?) But Rogets has composed something that no Andrew Lloyd Websters can: a surrounding field of words. Ones like (for EXISTENCE, 'truth,' afloat,' 'essential,' 'in fact'), (for GREATNESS, 'mightily,' 'towering,' 'infinitely,' 'extreme',  (for CERTAINTY, 'manifest,' 'bigot,' 'undoubted') clump around the original word you requested, due to their being in the same category (but not the same exact meaning). Because isn't that the point? To get words that are similar, because they're in a similar category?
Go Rogets.
       But what about my extremely witty pun on Andrew Lloyd Webber's name? Shouldn't we dwell on that, or maybe look at some of the words themselves, like in my previous thesaurus-offs? No--we should glory in the coalescence of logic and spirit, math and manhood. Oh, what it is to be perusing a treasure trove of related words! I cannot see the gods in the air tonight, as they are in me. Can a word drop as if fruit from a sapling? Of course, my sweet. Absolutely. But swift, I discern the chatter of the patricians.

Silent Sustained Summer Reading

      So I've been barraged by requests for my summer reading list. The requests have proceeded as follows: "Willie, what the heck are you reading this summer?" and "Good, dear, sir, what are you reading this summer?" To the first, I answer, "Good question!" To the second, I answer, "You are a little too formal. Tone it down!"

Read:

• Finished the inner chapters from The Zhuangzhi
• God and Philosophy--Antony Flew
• Ecclesiastes---King Solomon?
• Gospel of John---...John?

Reading:

• Breakfast of Champions--Kurt Vonnegut
• God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics---C.S. Lewis

To Read:

• "Culture As Disability" (essay)--Ray McDermott and Hervé Varenne
• Finish "The Critic as Artist" (essay)---Oscar Wilde
• Woman in the Dunes---Kōbō Abe
• The Ego is Always At The Wheel: Bagatelles---Delmore Schwartz

      Maybe I should read something newer. But there are so many good things to read from, you know, before. From the times of LPs. From the times of horses and brick-paved streets. Rainbows.
      Anyway,  I knew I would enjoy the rest of Zhuangzhi because I like his philosophy and writing style. And I did enjoy it, even if it was a bit heavy and convoluted for just after school ended. God and Philosophy was interesting, as it was the first kind of athiest argument I've read. Flew is not a good writer--here's my Amazon review: My Reviews: God and Philosophy.
      Reading Ecclesiastes this time, I didn't get as emotional as, well, the first time I read it. Because I was looking at it more critically, I was more confused. Are we supposed to frown upon The Teacher's findings? Are we, in the epilogue, supposed to look back and say, "No, this existential kind of guy wasn't right: what we have to do is fear God and keep His commandments"? Or does fear of God stem from The Teacher's findings? Does living in the moment require fear of God, somehow? There is a difference in translation which also baffles--the version I read (from Jewish Publication Society) said something about the findings as harmful. The other three versions of it I have, though, say that it's harmful to go beyond the findings. That is, the findings are all a person needs. If you have any insight to these questions, please comment.
      Gospel of John was the first New Testament text I've read from 'cover to cover,' so to speak. It was interesting. Jesus was the Son of God, apparently.Who knew? Although a bit laborious and repetitive in its philosophizing, I'm grateful that there even is philosophizing--the metaphysics of the Word and the Light and all that. While I do not recommend the Gospel of John for those unsympathetic to the Christian faith, for the other camp, this gospel is odd in a good way. A final note: I liked how John was like, *spoiler alert*, "you know the guy who I was mentioning the entire time but we don't know who it is? That was totally me."

Arcadia and Others: A Reading List

Christmas Break (uh, Holiday Break)! Time to read!

I'm not going to read any 'great novels' this time around (as if I've ever been really successful at reading over break), but I checked out my bookshelves (which look like a free bookstore of all things that I like---I've forgotten about so many of these great finds! = pretentious?), and here's a reading list I'm going to try to...uh, read.

My Dinner With Andre--Wallace Shawn and Andre Gregory. Script of a movie. Two film producer-type characters talking over dinner about trying to find meaning in their lives.

The Woman in the Dunes--Kobo Abe. A suspense/existential novel that inspired an apparently famous Japanese movie. Written in a simple style, it's about two people stuck in the dunes near a town threatened by a windstorm. Or something. After reading Autobiography of My Mother, I'm liking simple, sparse prose.

Signed, Sealed, Delievered: The Soulful Journey of Stevie Wonder---Mark Robinson. Biography of the greatest vocalist and probably song stylist in pop music history. I don't really need to explain myself on this one.

Book of Nonsense--Edward Lear. This stuff is so funny! These have got to be some of the first anti-jokes. I'm just going to read the first book of nonsense poems in his Complete Nonsense of Edward Lear. I would put one of his poems on here but I'm too lazy to get up. This is why it's hard for me to read over break.

Arcadia--Tom Stoppard. Been wanting to read this one for a while. I think this has been on my "Books I've Pretended To Have Read" list for years (although it hasn't made the hall of fame of that list, like All The King's Men has). This renowned play is a philosophical journey through space and time, from the Classical era to the Romantic, evaluating different, uh, things. Oh, and, yes, I've read it. Haven't you?

The Ego is Always Behind the Wheel--Delmore Schwartz. Yup, the guy who wrote In Dreams Begin Responsibilities. Great Books, anyone? (Flintridge Prep? High school? Anyone?) Short collection of short essays.

Do Llamas Fall in Love?---Peter Cave. Follow-up to Can a Robot be Human? which I really liked in high school (...compared to now. I HATE it now). Fun, interesting philosophy puzzles. Pretty light. I mean, it's not Kant.

And that's it.

Thesaurus Wars: #3

         Let's go back to the beginning for a few moments: Stephen Sondheim used a Clement Woods 193(2)? rhyming dictionary and a Roget's Thesaurus 19th edition, which falls somewhere around the forties. Willie Plaschke uses Microsoft Word (or as Dr. Steve Brule puts it, 'Micosoft Word by Bill Grates') synonyms with a click of a button. I have found a thesaurus my aunt used to own (Websters) and one my mother owned (Rogets) and I've decided to waste time. See earlier posts.
I feel as if a lot of this is pretend profundity.

Rogets gets a point for being Sondheim's brand, while Websters gets a point for being more current. Zero, zero. A further caveat, or catch, or cinch, or boastful, beautiful babyhood ghost (just a smattering of Websters): I'm using Rogets while writing these thesaurus posts. Because it's Sondheim.

I've decided to divide this into four seperate rounds, adding a few words chosen at random from Websters, and subtracting others (like "hard," which is too general).

 So, first round: Main, Tumultous
       second round: Absolute, Wacky, Forgiving
       third round:  First-class, Boil, Arriving
       final round: Subtract, Thought

I'm realizing that while I want to finish this project, I want to finish it quickly, and I do not want to waste my energy on something not well-thought-out, or rather, something heedless and thin because of the absence of any actual research. I also chose the first two thesauruses I could find, attractive paperbacks some 20 years apart in publishing date. Talk about thin.

What I'm trying to say here is that I don't really CARE which thesaurus is better--I don't care because I know it's impossible to decide for sure, or even for a halfway sense of certainty. I haven't even established guidelines--I don't know what I want, and I don't know what the project wants; I don't know what is warranted for either. I want to get something out of this, though---which is why I will trek on, against all odds, to find something. What else do you expect? "Whale Watching"s unofficial slogan is "Where Fun Comes And Stays For a Long Time." Stay tuned for second round, where the unforeseen awaits: or, a bolt out of the blue.

Thesaurus Wars: #1

Webster's New World Thesaurus by Charlton Laird, 1974 (first printed 1971)

vs.

Roget's College Thesaurus by Albert H. Morehead, 1962 (first printing in 1958)


Let the games begin!

First round: Main, Tumultous, Hard, Absolute, Wacky, First-class, Boil, Arriving

Webster: Main: [Principal] chief, dominant, first, authoritative, significant, most important, superior, foremost, leading; see also major 1.2 [Only] utter, pure, simple; see absolute.

Rogets: Main: conduit, pipe; strength, power; sea, OCEAN. chief, principal; sheer. See SUPERIORITY.

Whoa.

Friends Don't...

Friends don't let friends have friends.


Discuss.

Hilarity At its Apex (or Zenith)

found in an offical college information book, "The Insider's Guide To The Colleges" 2008:

"In the alphabet of life, the letter 'T' stands for many things: tortoise, telepathy, toiletries, tots. But when 't' stands for tenacity, talent, tradition, and togetherness, all in one setting, that is when it also stands for TU, also known as the University of Tulsa. Now, you may be saying to yourself, TU? Did you say TU?"

something this man probably wrote.

Holy Boredom

I would like to think that I watch other people during church, to see their reactions to whatever is happening and see who is ugliest and who is the biggest pimp.

However, this is not what I do.

I sit there and stare straight ahead.

Happiness (I Guess)

There are times when I'm brushing my teeth or doing my homework or cleaning something and I realize that, oddly, I wouldn't choose to be anywhere else. When I take the garbage out, I realize that this is EXACTLY what happiness is. Yes--taking the garbage out to the curb is, essentially, as enjoyable as playing video games. Why? God help me if I know quite yet.