Maddenation
An Advisor’s Advisor
I was amused to find a negative review of a collection of essays by David Lazar, Patrick’s advisor, in the Summer 2004 Ohioana Quarterly (for which I occasionally do reviews). The reviewer, Shari Goldhagen, referred to a blurb written by M.F.K. Fisher that called Lazar a “writer’s writer’s writer.” I thought that was an interesting descriptor. Shari equated it to “overwriting” and later explained that “The words—big, beautiful, interesting words—kept getting in the way.” Indeed, if a writer’s writer is a person who writes for other writers (presumably more discerning readers who appreciate vocabulary and subtle uses of grammar more than the rest of us), then a writer’s writer’s writer (WWW) writes at an even higher level, perhaps for academics who teach others how to write. I wondered if Ms. Goldhagen had to be a reviewer’s reviewer to be allowed to comment on Lazar’s work.
I thought of other double word descriptors (DWDs) like, “a man’s man.” In my father’s day, this meant a tough guy admired by other men, but who could also be adored by women. John Wayne comes to mind, or possibly Clark Gable (“Frankly, Scarlet, I don’t give a damn.”) Today, of course, “man’s man” could take on an entirely different meaning, which I won’t go into. To my knowledge, “a man’s man’s man” has never been used, and I don’t even want to think about what that guy might be like. There are other DWDs that I’ve heard used though the years, but I’m unable to produce a specific example at the moment. The general idea is to use DWDs to convey the idea that this person is really, really (really?) good at what they do. A food critic’s food critic. A soldier’s soldier. A designer’s designer. You get the idea. It’s kind of like “valley girls” talking about something that is beyond their vocabulary to describe, y’know?
I think David Lazar is not the type of guy who would be so lacking in vocabulary that he would have to resort to MWDs (Multiple Word Descriptors; not to be confused with WMDs). Still, I’ll bet he wishes he could write books that could be appreciated by regular folks like us rather than just by WWs.
Dad • Reviews • 07/16/04 • 2 comments
Comments
Patrick • 07/16/04 • 4:11 PM:I just read, yesterday, a description of Rush as “musicians’ musicians.” The same used to be said of King’s X. The connotation is usually a good one: they’re so good that only other musicians can really get what they’re doing. The public be damned! And yet I also just read a quote from Samuel Johnson (filtered through Brian Doyle, interviewing himself):
I would caution, though, that the “common reader” in Samuel Johnson’s day was educated. Not everybody knew how to read, and nobody had a television.
As for David Lazar, I don’t think he wished he could write books that could be appreciated by regular folks. It’s not a demeaning thing, but I don’t think regular folks are very discriminating in their reading. And if Dr. Lazar is an advisor’s advisor, then I guess I’m ready for advising others.
David • 07/21/04 • 10:31 AM:Let it be known that you, Dad, crack me up. “I don’t even want to think about what that guy might be like.” - Love it.
My favorite DWD from a movie has to be from The Three Amigos,
“El Guapo, you’re a man’s man!” - Jeffe
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
Please capitalize your name properly and use the same information each time you comment. We will not send you spam, and your email address will not be posted.