在飞机上可舍不得睡觉。人类百年科技把我们送上蓝天，我们却在云端呼呼大睡，这不是暴殄天物吗？因此，无论如何，我要在空中写点什么。

在机舱里，可以目击人类的信息饥渴，哪怕手机置于飞行模式，人们依然在屏幕上划来划去，安卓人提前存好了视频，苹果人大部分不会往手机上传输文件，只能打开相册重温那些不太愿意回首的过往，直面那些不愿再见到的人，还有那些拍的七歪八扭、除了前景中一棵清晰的树和消防栓全都糊成一片的非不善、非不快乐的瞬间。

靠着过道的人伸长了脖子贪恋地看舷窗外的云海，而提前抢到靠窗座位的人正袖手缩脖地酣睡。空姐在卖仨瓜俩枣的餐饮，仿佛航空公司的盈亏全靠不知名字的瓶装水，它甚至不符合矿泉水的国标8537，而是滥竽充数的GB19298。

【开场祷告】（by 季弟兄）

亲爱的天父，我们感谢你赐下永生的应许。《圣经》约翰福音14章1-3节的经文告诉我们：“你们心里不要忧愁，你们信神，也当信我。在我父的家里有许多住处。”天父，求你用属天的平安、安慰在场的每一位，特别是杨官琴女士的家人，使他们确信所爱的亲人已在你的怀中得享安息。奉主耶稣基督的名求，阿们。

在 2025 年 12 月 19 日母亲追思会上的发言

by 王佩

各位尊敬的来宾， 各位挚爱亲朋， 家人们、我的孩子们：

今天我们在这里隆重地聚集，为的是纪念我的母亲——一位普通的家庭主妇，一位贤德的妻子，一位慈爱的母亲、奶奶、姥姥、伯母、婶子、舅妈、姑姑、嫂子、姐妹，等等。

社会赋予了她很多很多的身份与称呼，却很少有人以独立的个体身份称呼她为“女士”。所以在这里，我称呼她为杨官琴女士。

杨官琴女士，1947年1月11日出生于山东省沾化县富国公社杨家庄子。

虽然世代务农，但在当时，也算是村里的望族。因为她的父亲——也就是我的姥爷——是抗美援朝退伍军人，在抗美援朝战争中身负一级伤残，国家每年都会给他一些微小的补贴。

但他也因此患上了现在我才知道叫PTSD的病，也就是创伤后应激障碍的一种。战争创伤使他整日酗酒。

我母亲杨官琴姊妹四个：三个女孩，一个男孩。在那个年代，普遍没钱上学，姥爷却供她读到了晚小毕业。晚小就是那个时候叫“完成小学”，相当于现在的小学毕业、接近初中预备阶段。那个时候已是女性中的高学历了，尤其在她的同村。

1958到1960年的大饥荒年代，是我母亲经常回忆的一段历史。对于发生在大跃进期间的这场惨剧，见诸我们现在的县志记载。

我有一个同学，同班同学是经济学家，叫郭彦儒。他怀疑县志记载的数字也被大幅度缩水了。这段历史更存在于上一辈人的记忆之中。

我就经常听杨官琴女士讲起这段历史：在家乡，1959到1963年这四年叫做“挨饿的时代”。而造成这场灾难的原因，大部分历史学家现在公认是人祸而不是天灾。

有一年春节回家，我跟舅舅聊起这段历史。他告诉我，我母亲所在的村子杨家庄子之所以饿死人，完全是因为当时的大队支书蛮干胡来造成的。

本来我姥姥家的村庄耕地面积虽然不肥沃，但人均面积足够大。哪怕搞人民公社，哪怕庄稼烂到地里不收，也不会存在饿死人的问题。

然而这个时候上面做了一个错误的决定：让杨家庄子和隔壁的村（就是现在叫东阳的那个村）合并。而杨家庄子的大队书记为了取悦公社领导，同时也为了自己积攒个人资本、往上爬，竟然擅自做主把1400亩土地白白地划给了林村。当时就有“丧权辱国”之说。

结果灾难逼近的时候，土地面积减少，本来可以避免的人间惨剧也在姥姥的村里发生了。

在那“一口食物决定人生死”的日子里，最能见证人性。杨官琴女士就遇到过这样一件事：

当时她家里虽然没有断粮，但也只能吃到粗茶淡饭，勉强度日而已。那时她大约十二岁左右，睡在同村一个嫂子家里。

有一天，嫂子对她说：“我留了东西，你自己去看吧。”

杨官琴女士揭开锅，一阵浓香飘来：原来是一碗羊骨头、羊头肉炖的菜汤。原来这家人花了五毛钱（当时是一笔不小的数目）买了一个羊头，掺上野菜做了一锅汤，最后剩了一碗给她。

直到今天，直到跟我说起这件事情的那天，她回忆起来依然认为那是她一生中吃过的最香最香的一顿饭。

但是奇怪的是，她这辈子从来不再吃羊肉。可她又觉得那顿羊肉，是她吃到的最好的一顿饭。

每到过年过节，她都会带着礼物去看望这位嫂子，直到这位嫂子过世为止。

我母亲就是这样一个人：知恩图报；同时，她生性善良中又带着那么一点刚强和锋芒。

这里要说一说我故乡的生存状况。在那个年代，在我的故乡，生存环境非常恶劣，尤其对于女性来说，是一个极其残酷的环境。

从我七岁时期到十八岁离开乡村，我们村发生的自杀事件不下十余起。有的人是为了自证清白，有的是因为家庭矛盾，也有的人是灰心丧气。他们用一根绳、一瓶药结束了一生。

不幸的是，我母亲也在这样残酷的环境里受过重创。

大约在她二十六七岁的时候，家里发生了一件大事：她的母亲——也就是我的姥姥——因为跟村里一个妇女起了争执，被恶毒羞辱和辱骂。

而正如刚才所说，她的丈夫——也就是我的姥爷——因战争创伤几乎每天都在喝醉的状态，根本撑不起这个家。那时家里唯一的男丁——我的舅舅——尚且年幼，还无法替姥姥出头。

姥姥竟然一念之差，服农药自尽。

这件事情对杨官琴女士的打击，可以说不是致命的，而是深远的。因为从那以后，就有一个念头潜入她的潜意识：她认为自杀是人生的一个选项。

幸运的是，她后来遇到了我爸。自从嫁到我们村里以后，她就过上了幸福的日子——当然不是物质上的幸福，而是因为我们这个家庭也是一个知书达礼的家庭。

我的爷爷曾经是一个老八路。他本来很有希望成为县委书记一级的军官，因为他特别擅长演讲。现在我终于明白我为什么这么喜欢演讲，是从我爷爷那里继承来的。

但他有个倔脾气。当年，他发现有人偷仓库里的粮食往外背，执意把那人扭送到上级机关。从此他受到打击报复，被人赶回老家，只能务农。

但是他虽然务农，字写得非常好，而且特别擅长数学，所以在村里的生产队担任会计。他一直认为，应该把家里的男孩——也就是我的父亲和王青的父亲——培养成才，一定要让他们读到高中。当时的高中生，相当于现在至少是本科生。

最后我的父亲终于读完了高中，甚至有一个去当飞行员的机会：各种考试和体检都通过了，但因为阶级成分失去了机会。

我们台湾的朋友可能不明白这是个什么词。但其实我们家既不是富农也不是地主，只是一个中农。中农又分上中农和下中农：只有下中农才是上级当时社会中的精英、被社会团结的对象；中农往往要受到人们的嫌弃和厌恶。

而我母亲嫁到丁家村以来，也没过过几天轻松的日子。

但是我母亲非常勤恳，非常能干。因为她个子比较矮，在原来的村里干同样的重活，别人拿十个工分，她只有八个工分。她不在乎这两个工分，但她觉得受到了侮辱。所以她们村的大队支书和一些人都对她有意见。

到了我们村之后就同工同酬了。另外，我们这个家庭非常尊重女性。无论我的姑姑，还是我的爷爷奶奶，对杨官琴女士都非常爱护、爱护有加。她在这样的环境里得到了很好的呵护，受伤的小心灵也得到了一定的医治。

但是这不能排除生活重担带来的拖累。尤其我们家最困难的时候，应该是1984到1986年。

当时我的父亲一步登天，考上了公办教师。从民办教师考上公办教师，是一个质的飞跃：在当年意味着跳出了农门，意味着将来有了指望，就像现在考上公务员一样。

但是他要去读 2年的书。这两年，我妈居然一个人扛过来了。

当年我妈要一个人供养三个学生：我爸、我、还有我妹妹。当时王青刚刚出生。这样沉重的家庭负担，我母亲居然一个人全都承担了下来。

所以杨官琴女士是一个特别心灵手巧的人。家里所有孩子的衣服、鞋子，还有夏天穿的睡衣，都是她亲手缝制的。

有时候她闲来无事，已经把远房亲戚的衣服都做完了，没事干就给大院里不认识的人做，以至于大家都知道有一个出名的裁缝，就是杨官琴女士。

她乐于助人，但心里也有一本非常清楚的账。

我这次整理母亲遗物的时候，看到她记了很多人情账，全都是人情往来。在中国北方，大家靠互相支撑来渡过各种经济难关：只要家里有大事小情、生病住院，就会有亲戚来送钱。我们不讲礼物，直接送钱。但这个钱迟早要还。

所以一个有才德、聪明的家庭主妇，必须把这些账记得一清二楚。甚至对方送来几瓶奶、多少个鸡蛋，都得记清楚。否则回礼的时候怠慢了别人或者回少了，会被人家笑话。而“笑话”在我们的家乡，是一件绝对不能忍受的事情，人会觉得无比羞愧。

我母亲还有一个我觉得最宝贵的品质：她非常重视知识，也非常尊重知识。虽然她自己读书不多，但她特别知道知识的重要性。

我记得她经常拿我来举例子。小时候她住院，我在医院里也就是打杂而已。但每当有人进病房（病房里住着好多人），我都会站起来，向不认识的人问好，同时把手里的书放下。

有一天来了一位白发老人。老人看到之后心中大喜，对我妈说：“这个小孩将来肯定有出息。我发现他有两个优点：第一，他特别懂礼貌，不认识我也会站起来；第二，他特别喜欢读书。”

很可惜，我辜负了我妈对我的期望，没有多大的本事，无论在德行还是知识上、成就上，都还差得很远。

但从她的一言一行中，我学到了很多。她非常善良，但她的善良不是一种愚蠢的善良，而是一种带些锋芒的善良：她擅长察言观色，也知道一件事情的深浅。

比如小时候那年发大水，来了一位女乞丐，带着孩子到我们家门口。我给了她好几个馒头，还追上去说怕你不够吃，再给你两个。女乞丐非常感动。

第二年她带了几个家里结的小黄瓜来我们家，跟我们认亲，说这个孩子太有礼貌、太善良了，想让两家孩子互认干亲戚（当时叫“干儿子”）。我妈听了之后婉言谢绝。她随后对我说：“湿的我还认不过来呢，我还认干的？”

说明在大事上她是不糊涂的。她这么做也是保护了我的利益。

我没有干妈，这得益于杨官琴女士的聪明和明智。

我简单回忆了她的故事。其实她还有很多很多美好的品质、美好的故事，还没有被传颂。

对我来说，她的离开是一个巨大的、多重的损失。最大的损失是：我是一个作家，而她是我通向这片土地的管道之一，甚至是唯一的管道之一。因为村里的故事——无论过去的、现在的、谁家的轶事——都是她一一复述给我听的。

每个礼拜跟母亲通电话的这几个小时，是我吸取土地上的故事素材的最佳时机。现在她这一走，等于把很多很多的故事、很多很多素材也一起带走了。

古人说：如果一位老人去世，就相当于烧了一所图书馆。对我来说何止是图书馆，简直是烧掉了故宫博物院——我个人的精神财富。

所以我们今天在这里缅怀杨官琴女士。我希望大家没有眼泪，也没有悲伤。因为我觉得她在天堂一定在看着我们，而且她会喜悦，看到我们用这种方式来纪念她。

虽然她走了，但她留下了很多很多宝贵的财富：精神上的、物质上的。更重要的是，她在我们最需要她的时候，给了我们完全的呵护。

我母亲从2025年3月28日检查出肺癌晚期，到2025年11月24日，八个月的时间。不长也不短。但在与癌症斗争的过程中，她表现出非凡的勇气与无私的精神。只要还有一点点精神、还有一点点力气，她总是想着别人，总是说：“回去吧，去睡一觉，不用在这里老看着我。”

直到临终的最后一刻，她依然想着别人，而不是她自己。

也许我们在抗癌的路上走了很多弯路：也许找这个医生而不是另一个医生；也许我们应该去更大的医院看一看；也许我们应该做PD-1这样的进一步治疗。但说这些已经很晚了，也没有什么意义。

最重要的是：我算了一下，我妈杨官琴女士在这个世界上一共待了78年零10个多月。那八个月，跟她这一生相比，不到1%。

所以今天就让我们放下令我们痛苦和遗憾的1%，多想想那99%。想想那99%的时间里，她曾经多么不容易，却又克服了恶劣的环境，克服了各种各样的困难，勇敢地活下去；并且把她美好的品质，把她对这个世界的爱，带给了我这一代，也带给了孙子孙女这一代。

好，那我们今天就利用这个时间，向我的母亲——向杨官琴女士——献上一朵生命中的小红花。

谢谢。 生命中的小红花。谢谢。

【结束祷告】by 侯弟兄

感谢主让我们今天齐聚，并非只为告别，更是怀着感恩的心，纪念一位主所喜爱的儿女息了世上的劳苦，安息在主怀中。杨官琴姐妹的离去让我们不舍，但我们深知，这并非永别。她只是先我们一步，在天国安歇。

杨姐妹在病榻之上回应了耶稣基督的呼召，决志信主，并接受了洗礼。那不是一个潦草的仪式，而是象征着她旧生命的结束与在基督里新生命的开始。这正如耶稣对那位同钉十字架、最后一刻信靠他的犯人所说的：我实在告诉你，今日你要同我在乐园里了。哪怕在如此绝望的环境，神的恩典从未对任何人关闭大门。杨姐妹以最单纯的信心，抓住了最确实的应许。这给我们所有活着的人莫大的安慰与激励，上帝的恩典够我们用，他的慈爱总不迟延。

对于至亲的家人，你们在病榻前的陪伴与支持，最终见证了这蒙福的时刻。请你们从这得救确据中得到安慰：你们的长辈、母亲、亲人，如今已在主的怀里，脱离了病痛，得享安息。愿赐平安与盼望的主，亲自安慰、托住杨姐妹的家人，也让这见证触动我们每一个人的心，让我们都来思考生命的意义。

杨官琴姐妹，你息了世间的劳苦，安息主怀。我们怀念你，更为你欢喜，因你已在那更美的家乡。我们奉主耶稣基督得胜的名祷告，阿们。

tags = #TRIP #ONTHEROAD #AUTOBIOGRAPHY #gc4 #goodchinese #TRAVELBOOK

西南行纪之一：夜到白鹤滩

西南行纪 之一

西南行纪之一：夜到白鹤滩

2016年12月17日凌晨6：15，我在一个陌生的地方醒来，这个地方位于－－让我先看看手机地图定位－－四川省凉山彝族自治州宁南县白鹤滩建设部附近。我何以来到这里？这要从十二年前的一件事说起。

2004年，中央电视台当代工人栏目要举办一台"五一晚会"，准备推陈出新，做成史诗剧的样式，当时晚会总导演宋占涛找到了先锋戏剧家张广天。广天告诉他，当今有两个人年轻人，写字又快又好，可以胜任这个活，一个叫关山，但是他呢，活很多，又教课，估计没时间；另一个叫王佩，跟我一起编导过央视3－15晚会情景史诗剧，在杭州。

于是，我被紧急叫到北京，下午到的，晚饭领受了任务，抱回一堆材料。次日早晨八点，当宋占涛敲开我住的宾馆的房间门，一下子惊呆了。里面烟气缭绕，烟灰缸里满是烟蒂，桌上放着吃剩的方便面。而这个两眼血丝，面色发青的三十出头的小伙子，交出了1万多字的剧本。打印，交给领导，不拘小节的部主任拧着眉头看完，一拍大腿：“真他娘的好！”

2004年5月1日，下午，中央电视台一套，毫无征兆地出现了一个画面，海浪拍打着礁石，一个少女坐在岩石上，清唱起《国际歌》。许多观众吓了一跳，以为发生了什么政治巨变，直到片名打出，才知道原来是：

中央电视台当代工人五一特别节目史诗剧《新海港》

从此与宋占涛导演结缘，也与他担任艺术总监的北京飞天电视艺术中心的贾主任成为好朋友。在2016年，我们一起创作拍摄了工业题材大电影《我们相信未来》，影片讲述了一群煤炭人把煤制成油的故事。在拍摄这部电影之前，宋占涛的纪录片连获国际大奖，但他始终有一个电影梦。并且，大家知道，梦一旦做起来，是很难刹住的。

因此有了我们的《能源三部曲》工程。宋占涛在央视当代工人节目时，曾经做过四部关于三峡工程的纪录片，跟水电系统的施工单位结缘并且留下了口碑。这次，我们就是受邀去两个大型水电站来考察采风的。

12月16日，到达长沙。访问中国水利水电第八工程局的总部，受到朱副书记和刘主任的热情接待，负责宣传的庞老师，更是全程迎接陪同。

接送我们的车是一辆丰田柯斯特，也就是电视新闻里经常看到的、有人向群众招手致意的那种香槟色的中巴车。车里有一张靠窗的办公桌，上面牢固地粘着一个烟灰缸。座椅都可以电控升降倾斜，并可以在双腿之下，升起一块真皮垫子，形成一个舒服的靠榻。当然坐什么车是不重要的，重要的是水电人的好客与热情。

在八局总部会议室，局领导观看了《我们相信未来》的首映，这也是我第一次看到自己编剧的大电影变成影像，内心还是非常激动。自己的作品，无论好坏，都是最好的最不可替代的老师。研究作品的得失，可以迅速迭代，不断进步。因此在后来的飞机上，我写下了关于这部电影编剧方面的一份总结。这对于我来说，是非常重要的。

在内部食堂举办的符合八项规定的接待晚餐上，我们了解到，如今的水电八局，已经不是13年前建设三峡的那个水电施工单位，而是一个覆盖水电、高铁、地铁、住宅、对外援建的大的经济体，在很多技术上都是国际领先的。例如，深圳地铁施工，始终解决不了漏水的问题，八局承建了7号线之后，发挥他们治水的优势，攻克了水龙王，做到了一滴不漏。八局在海外更是大显身手，巴基斯坦、委内瑞拉、莱索托等20多个国家，都有八局的身影。“你知道中国在国际上最领先、最抢手的技术是什么吗？“朱副书记问。

我当然不知道，知道也不能说啊，因为这是一个设问句。

“一是高铁，二是水电。”

17日一早，我们出发去机场，飞到昆明。然后马不停蹄，乘坐上八局工程单位派来的别克商务车，赶往白鹤滩工地。

司机曾师傅，也是湖南外派过来的，他有着曾国藩一样的聪慧与敏锐。当我们开了3个多小时，忽然发现前方车都停住，一辆警车从空旷的左侧车道开过来，一路喊话，说前方发生事故，让车辆都排队等候。曾师傅立即建议，我们车掉头，回镇上，先吃晚饭。这一招果然英明，我们在往回行驶的过程中，看到对面源源不断地来车，至少会绵延好几公里。

进了一家好吃的餐馆，老板娘知道我们是文化人，特别热情。喝了马卡酒，吃了好吃的云南菜，曾师傅起身出去，回来说，前面还堵着呢？

我们很纳闷问他，怎么知道的？他说，很简单，因为公路上朝我们的方向，没有来车啊。顿时佩服之至，高手果然在民间。

又经过三个多小时的山路跋涉，穿行在隧道和盘山公路上，最后到达了白鹤滩，这里正在建世界第二大水电站。仅次于三峡，并将超过我们也将去探访的目前国内第二大水电站：溪洛渡。

能见证这些巨型工程，真是三生有幸啊！

我的日课 #我的日课/西南行纪

西南行纪之二

西南行纪之二

白鹤滩水电站，位于川滇交界处的金沙江上，因靠近四川省凉山彝族自治州宁南县白鹤滩镇而得名，云南昭通的巧家县也有一个白鹤滩镇，是2006年从新华镇和巧家营合并改名而来的。一个巨型水电站的建成，不但会改变一地的地容地貌，也会改变一地的经济与生活方式。这也就是大家抢着要改名的原因。

我们一早来到四川这边的白鹤滩镇的一条主要街道上来吃羊肉粉，当听说水库蓄水之后，这一片镇子都会沉入水底，顿时勾引起我的人文情怀。我拿着手机拍摄街景，颇为镇民们伤感了一番，在晚宴时，这种情感将发生逆转，且让我卖个关子。

我们来到水电八局是主营地。这里看上去像一个小区，但是楼房的外立面全都裸着，露出斑驳的红砖。我们被告知，水库蓄水后，这里将沉入水下200米，所以能省则省，去除一切不必要的装饰。

在进入大坝施工现场之前，我们都接受了安全教育，戴上头盔，穿上反光衣。后来，我才知道，这不是可有可无的例行公事，每一座大型水电站，水流在转动发电机之前，首先冲走的是工人们的鲜血，无一例外。

我们上了越野车，我们进了隧道，我们在黑暗中，我们看到光亮，我们随即又进入下一个隧道。每一座大坝两边的山，都被挖空了。不但如此，山的表面也被削平。当车开出隧道，来到拦江的高台上，我忍不住喊：

“好雄伟的大坝啊！”

开车的司机师傅，他干过三峡、修过溪洛渡、在造白鹤滩，他在八局工作了30年，他的父亲也是八局职工，他忍不住轻轻纠正说：

“这不是大坝，这叫上游围堰。”

真正的大坝还没有建起来，展现在我眼前的是一片比巨大还巨大的工地。壁立千仞，全靠机械开挖修筑；江纳百川，都被人工截断引流。将来浇筑大坝的两侧，正在修建坝肩。所谓坝肩，就像人的肩膀一样，是用来承担大坝重量的。人有左右肩膀，坝也有左右坝肩。它依靠山体而建，目的是分担双曲拱坝所承受的巨大压力。

原来在修一座大坝之前，先要把江水截流，修筑上游围堰和下游围堰，中间水抽干，形成一个巨大的基坑。此时还不能马上修建大坝，因为水是无孔不入的，任何一点小小的缝隙，河床、山体中任何一点小小的缝隙，它都能钻过去，形成渗透。而透水是大坝和水库的敌人。为了防止江水截流后，形成的巨大水库对于周围岩层的渗透力，需要对接近大坝的两侧山体和底部基坑进行特殊处理，这叫灌浆，也就是给石头的缝隙之中，注入混凝土，改变其岩性，使其能够更坚固，把水的渗透降到最低，直至不再威胁大坝的安全为止。灌浆又分好几种，河床底部使用的技术叫高压固结灌浆，而两侧山坡上使用的技术叫帷幕灌浆。这些都是我在次日访问水电八局基础部的时候，学到的。

错把围堰当成大坝，我不是第一个闹笑话的人。在水电八局从事宣传工作多年的庞部长，给我讲了一个笑话。正如刘淼所著的《笑话方法论》一书中所说的，这样的笑话要懂行的人才能觉得好笑。

有一年，一位省级领导到水电建设工地视察，走上围堰，激动地说：“你们干得很快嘛！一个月就把大坝建起来了。”

我们的车在工地的隧道中穿行，忽而来到高高的平台，忽而下到深深的基坑。在我们头顶上，有七座缆机的基座已经修好，将来这些空中巨无霸，将把混凝土浇注在大坝主体上。

在白鹤滩水电站工程中，水电八局拿下了右岸施工的标的，左岸是由水电四局中标。两个单位，同属于世界500强中国电建（CHINAPOWER）的旗下。水电八局赢得了“坝工精品，西部典范”的美誉，目前已建成的中国第二大水电站溪洛渡的大坝主体工程，就是由八局独家中标完成的。

接下来的几天里，我耳闻目睹的都是水电人的故事。它们谈不上惊天地、泣鬼神，但是足以令人感喟非常。

欲知详情，请继续关注《西南行纪》。

西南行纪（之三）：咱，八局人 （上）

西南行纪（之三）：咱，八局人 （上）

v1.01

生活在后工业化社会，身为不依附于体制的文艺工作者，无论是作为导演的宋占涛、还是作为编剧的我，最缺乏的是一种归属感。这种感觉，类似孤岛与大陆架的分离、演员与布景的分离、空投伞兵与大部队的分离。虽到不了孤独的层面，但也并非是无病呻吟。所以，当我们一行坐在水电八局白鹤滩工地的营地会议室中，与施工局的弟兄们座谈的时候，心里升起一种久违的温暖与感动。

尽管施工任务很重，大家都很忙碌，施工局周局长还是召集到了正在休班的中层和基层员工，来参加我们的座谈会。周局说：

今天是咱们白鹤滩的大喜事，国内著名的导演团队，来到咱们八局施工局调研。上午，他们到现场看了看，对基本情况有了一个大致的了解。今天下午咱们这个座谈会，气氛可以热闹一点。老板说过，咱们干的是超级工程，不搞个大题材是不行的。我这人，只会干不会说，你们多谈谈。大家鼓掌。

掌声四起，现场气氛一下子轻松起来。庞卡副总政工师热情洋溢地介绍了我们一行。纵然是张艺谋团队来访，也不会受到更多的欢迎，因为宋占涛在水电八局人心目中，有着不可替代的地位。他曾在央视主持过三百多期《当代工人》节目，为八局就做过四期节目，包括《干过三峡》、《神仙窝里的人们》、《焊花》和《过年》，十多年前参加过他节目的普通观众，有的今天就坐在会议室里，并已经成长为八局的骨干。

宋导留下的美名不仅仅是采访，他还是一位喝酒高手，十多年前，他曾有一个无人能及的绝技：喝完酒后，把一只玻璃杯嚼碎吞下。当然随着年轻的增长，在酒桌上他已不复当年之勇，但是他的故事一直在八局四处相传。

看到眼前的八局弟兄，宋导说：

三峡大坝第一度电，是咱们八局发的，当时全国的电视台只有我一个人扛着摄像机下到定子里去拍。我跟八局有着深厚的感情。上午我们参观了白鹤滩工地，非常震撼，这是国际级的超级工程。这些年，我一直在拍真实电影。大家如果在看电影，会发现如今电影院里放的都是什么片子，无非是一些娱乐和媚俗的东西。唯独缺乏反映这个社会真正主流的电影。支撑我们国家快速发展的都是我们这样的人，一些“献完青春献终身、献完终身献子孙”的人。我知道在咱们八局，有一家四口人，分散在三个地方，除非等到退休，无法全家团聚，这样的情况太多了。咱们八局所做的事业，实实在在具有大片的厚度和质量，咱们八局是一个盛产中国故事的富矿。为什么要请大家来座谈？就是想摸一下情况，请大家畅所欲言，都讲讲自己的故事。

接下来的三个小时，我听到一个又一个八局人的故事。他们风轻云淡说工作，把开挖、支护、爆破、抢险，这些具有危险性的工种，说得跟都市里的上班族坐班一样寻常。他们轻描淡写说家庭，把夫妻两地分居、忠孝不能双全、子女照顾不上，说得跟享受天伦之乐的家庭过日子一样自然。但是这背后有多少的血汗、奉献和眼泪，只有了解他们的人才懂。

我本可以把当天下午每个人谈话一一地记录在下面，那也不是一篇坏文章，相反还会为他人留下有用的文献实录。但是，我不准备那样做。我们的母语有更好的叙事传统，从《左传》到《史记》，从《诗经》到《北征》，从《大唐西域记》到《五人墓碑记》，一以贯之，都避免罗列事实，“开中药铺”，而是通过剪裁取舍，讲出一个个好故事。

西南行纪（之四）：咱，八局人 （中）

西南行纪（之四）：咱，八局人 （中）

水电人，是一个笼统的称谓，既包括水电建设者，也包括水电运营者，但他们是两个不同的群体。一个是抬轿子的，一个是坐轿子的；一个是盖北京饭店的，一个是住北京饭店的。盖饭店的不一定住饭店，住饭店的一定不盖饭店。可是轿子总要有人抬，饭店总要有人盖，大坝总要有人建。

水电八局是中国水利水电建设集团公司下属15个局之一，都隶属于2011年组建的中国电力建设集团有限公司，简称中国电建，英文PowerChina。PowerChina连续五年被美国《财富》（Fortune）杂志列为世界500强，且排位节节上升。2012年，第390位；2015年，第 253位；2016年，第200位，年营业收入456亿美元，利润11.7亿美元，而这一切都是由196,368雇员所创造的。（[资料来源]）

八局人自称是当代的吉普赛人，他们建一座电站，造一片光明，也就再换一个地方。水电站涡轮发电机转子转动之日，就是他们告别自己不分日夜建造的大坝之时。

2008年汶川大地震，大地一片疮痍，唯有八局承建的沙排大坝岿然不动。中科院院士、水利水电专家张楚汉说：“全世界来看，遭受了IX度强震考验的拱坝除了美国的帕柯依玛，就是沙排了。”（[资料来源]）

然而，沙排大坝的建设，八局人历经磨难。

综合施工局的曾文斌回忆说，当时100多米高，设备全靠人扛上去的。351米上去之后，推土机根本没有路，绕了三天才绕上去。施工面狭小，往往左边放炸药，推土机停右边，十分危险。当时大家工资都特别低，有一个技校生，刚毕业分到工地上，一个星期的伙食费只有5元钱。有一天他在工棚里留了半碗方便面汤，同事以为是吃剩下的，就当成垃圾给扔掉了。没想到，小伙子回来找不到面汤而号啕大哭，那汤他舍不得吃，准备晚上蘸馒头做宵夜的。施工局长知道这事，也哭了。八局副总政工师庞卡告诉我，对于施工单位来说，有些工程真是“穿着西装进去，穿着内裤出来。”由于业主是一家民营公司，2亿贷款下来之后，不知怎么就没有了，根本没钱支付八局的工程款。大家的月工资只有400元，而八局人在这个工地上，一干就是6年。

“人生有多少个6年？”

曾文斌问。一阵沉默后，他又说：

“等退休之后，想想这辈子都干了些啥？真感觉啥也没干。”

白鹤滩的开挖难度超过了以往任何一个工程。负责开挖的中层干部刘楚汉说，从没见过这么难的开挖，就一条路还是炸出来的。既要保证进度，还要保证安全，而且要一边开挖，一边支护，一不小心，就会把自己关到里头。我们创造了每月下挖26.3米的纪录。

我对这些数字和术语没有概念，倒是周局长的一句湖南话，让我印象深刻：

当时搞得哭哇！

由于八局太厉害，给八局的都是硬骨头。去年要挖一个危险体，太危险了。当时业主说：

八局管理完善，有经验，就让八局搞。

很多人回忆起来，最危险的一次抢险是小湾水电站，由于是冰川堆积体，石头太大、裂隙太深，整个坡渗透，快不行了。最后用了400多根锚索和抗滑桩，终于保住了。整个过程惊心动魄，其危险程度绝非说说而已。

八局人有一个口号：

吃得苦，耐得烦，不怕死，霸得蛮。

说不怕死，不是一种修辞手法。因为很多大型水电站，都会有建设者献出生命。2012年6月28日，突如其来的洪水袭击白鹤滩工地，给另一家施工单位造成了人员伤亡。事后，有官员问：

“洪水一来，老百姓都跑了，你们专业队伍怎么没跑掉呢？”

如果是美国大片，此处施工单位应该有人站出来，甩出一句硬硬的回答：“正因为我们是专业的，所以才不能先跑掉。”

但是生活不是好莱坞大片，甚至连国产影视剧都不是。生活是沉默的河流，是生灵的叹息，是天地不言，是生生不息，是活着，并且讲述。

西南行纪（五）咱，八局人（下）

西南行纪（五）咱，八局人（下）

座谈会进行了一个下午，刚开始没人动桌上的水果，渐渐地有人剥了一个橘子，有人折断一根香蕉，再后来，整盘水果就见底了，会议室的气氛也越发地轻松，抽烟的抽烟，喝茶的喝茶，还有人从兜里掏出槟榔嚼起来，槟榔的滋味提醒他们，虽然已经在川滇交界处呆了三、四年，他们依然是湖南人。

在座的有工龄超过30年的八局老员工，也有刚刚招聘来的大学生，大家谈起自己的工作和家庭，都没有任何抱怨。跟十几年前相比，八局员工如今的待遇已经改善了很多。在白鹤滩施工局，中层干部一年的收入可以拿到十二、三万，而一线工人也能拿到五、六万。如果一个人要存钱的话，来工地是一个明智的选择，因为在这里，几乎没有花钱的地方。我们参观了砂石公司在旱谷地的营地和食堂，了解到，他们的员工每个月的伙食费是500元，饭菜不够可以随意添，只要不浪费即可，公司补贴400，个人只需掏100元就够了。如果在一线城市，同样每月100元的开支，每天只能吃两个包子，或者两个烧卖，或者一根油条加一个烧饼，吃不饱？那就买一斤大米煮成米饭，再从菜市场捡点菜叶，补充一下维生素。一个在背景月薪一万的程序员，每个月落在手里的存款，不一定比八局的工人多。单纯从赚钱的角度看，做一个八局人，不失为一种明智的选择。

另外，八局人的工作生活条件虽然艰苦，但并不是最苦的。工地上最苦最累的活一般由劳务公司招聘来的农民工负责，他们从事钻孔、打桩、灌浆等劳作，但收入更低，卖一天力气赚一天钱，一旦失去劳动能力，也得不到正式员工那样的保障。因此，八局提高工作效率的管理难题之一，就是如何调动农民工和劳务工的积极性。其中有一个行之有效的办法，就是把工作最出色的劳务工，转为八局的正式员工。负责高压灌浆的基础公司，就把803机组的一名优秀的劳务工组长，给转了正。这个世界往往就是这样，我们认为习以为常的，对别人来说恰恰是梦寐以求的。

在规则允许范围之内，八局对劳务工已经非常善待了。针对这些人安全意识薄弱、大道理听不进去的特点，白鹤滩施工局专门为他们制作了更加“三贴近”的标语：

各位工友：出门来打工，一定要注意安全。一旦发生事故，严重的，老婆改嫁，娃娃改姓，抚恤金给别人花。

层层递进，句句惊心。字里行间体现出对劳务工的关爱。

如果我是一名八局的员工，读到这里，我会停下来，自然而然地问：

宋导、贾主任、王编、张导：既然你们认为八局条件还不错，比上不足，比下有余，收入也不是大问题，而且还有国企所提供的一份保障，你们为什么不来八局上班呢？

如果我现在是一个二十来岁的毛头小伙子，接到了水电八局的offer，我会兴高采烈地背着铺盖卷来白鹤滩报道的。可是作为一个40多岁的有家庭有孩子的中年人，我可能就不会这么想了。

因为，作为一个水电八局人，在亲情上的付出实在太大了！（美国作家警告要少用惊叹号，10万字里最好不要超过三个，我保证只用这一个。）

我1988年参加工作。父亲是八局职工，在老家找的我妈，我也是在老家找的我老婆。

八局员工王先锋说。

我爸一次都没参加过我的家长会，我也一次都没参加过我儿子的家长会。我爸当年每年回家一次，我现在也每年回家一次。我今年46岁了，总结起来就是五个字：忠孝两难全。

王先锋的这种情况不是孤例，而是普遍现象。一个水电站的建设周期是6-10余年，这也是家庭分离的时间，问题在于，一个水电站建完后的结果并不是家庭的团聚，而是前往下一个工地的转战。

一位中层干部说：

等白鹤滩这边干完，说可以申请调回长沙生二胎。那还要6年，6年以后，我和老婆都45了，还生个啥二胎呀。

还有一位员工说，他是四兄弟中的老大，父亲在贵州病危，他接到通知，急忙买了火车票赶去。车刚进贵州地界，就接到弟弟的短信，四个字：

咱爸走了

如果说上不能尽孝带来的是对于过去的愧疚的话，那么无法看顾下一代的成长，带来的却是对于未来的遗憾。水电建设者们的子女，基本都无法在父母身边。这往往错过孩子最关键的教养和成长时期，带来的是这样那样的问题。

负责爆破的张建清，外号张有财，又叫“张三疯”，因为他自己说每天疯三次。他谈吐幽默，爱说爱笑，对我们说“白鹤滩多好啊，一点也不挤，回城里反而不习惯”。他每天引爆30吨炸药，人也风风火火，正能量四处辐射。但一谈起5岁的女儿，他就面露愁容，一点也不“疯”了。他的女儿一直由老人带着，变得越来越不听话。无奈之下，他只得把孩子接到了营地里来，希望能在自己的亲自照看下，及时加以纠正。

“才5岁，还不晚吧？”

我们回答：“当然不晚，5岁，世界观还没形成呢。”

在白鹤滩工地，我们也听到一个浪漫的故事。有一对八局的情侣，分别在金沙江的左右岸上班，晚上下班后，他们就走过摇摇晃晃的铁索桥去相会。桥面上有重型车辆开过来，他们就赶紧贴在一侧的铁索上，桥身剧烈晃动，脚下江声浩荡。等车开过去，他们又来到桥中央，在满天的星光下，手拉手，纵声歌唱。

身为八局人，虽然不知道下一站会在哪里，但他们深知，家，就是心所栖息的地方。

西南行纪（六）：大江移民

西南行纪（六）：大江移民

来到白鹤滩，我才明白建水电站是怎么回事。那就是—

搬来一座山，再搬走一座山。

为什么是搬来一座山呢？因为大坝由混凝土浇筑而成，需要一座山的砂石体量，才能建起来，相当于搬来一座山。

为什么是搬走一座山呢？因为大坝要用好多好多石料，这就需要在附近找一座出产灰岩的山，炸碎，铲平，做成石料，运到大坝工地。

在白鹤滩水电站，这座被选中的山位于47公里以外的一片山清水秀的地方，叫做“旱谷地”。超级工程需要超级供应，这里要为大坝贡献2000万吨石料，共需要出动运输车辆100万辆次。这一愚公移山的任务是由八局砂石公司承担的。

我们的别克商务车沿着金沙江畔，一直开到旱谷地，由于坡陡沙多，一车人不得不下来推车。离工地还有500米远，就看见两位穿橙色工作服、戴红色安全帽的人站在路边笑吟吟地迎接我们。天下八局是一家，四海之内皆兄弟，能在这里见到本部来的人，大家都很开心。迎接我们的是砂石公司的黄书记还有他的同事。他先把我们带到工地上，指着不远处一座山给我们看，他说，整座山体挖掉之后，还要下挖十几米才能采到足够的石料。以为保障大坝的石料需求，他们要每个月100万吨的产量昼夜生产。副总政工师庞卡弯腰拿起一块灰色的石头，向我解释为什么要用这里的灰岩。这些石头经过筛选之后，将搅拌成混凝土，变成：

砼

这是一个新造的会意字，如字形所示，就是：人工石

八局砂石公司生产的砼的细度模数和石粉含量，都高于国标。

现在科技这么发达，八局又善啃硬骨头，移山填海都不稀奇。我们更感好奇的是，八局如何在这片干旱的河谷，跟本地居民打成一片的（此处的打，不是打架的打），解决移民问题的。

::因为我对云南人的彪悍和恋家早有耳闻。我有一个好朋友叫和菜头，他是昆明人，他告诉我，在云南，如果领导看不惯某个下属，就会让这个下属出差。因为在云南人看来，没有比背井离乡更可怕的惩罚了。以下文字，有失厚道，删掉了。【哪怕是乘坐飞机，住五星级宾馆，且只出门三五天，也是不能忍受的。我有一个在公安边防工作的同学告诉我，云南缉毒警以前抓住数量很大的毒贩，就依照法律判处死刑，但是震摄效果有限，当地人还是铤而走险，后来想了一个办法，谁贩毒就把他们家山上的茅草屋用炸药炸掉，结果这一着果然灵验。那些掉脑袋都不怕的未来的毒枭们，一想到自己的家园被毁，也就再也不敢以身试法了。】::

::当然这都是笑谈，对于白鹤滩周边的川滇两省的居民来说，移民问题是确实是他们一生面临的最重大的问题。::

根据官方报道—

白鹤滩水电站规划安置移民人口9.6万人、新建居民点52个（其中城市居住区6个、迁建集镇8个）、企业事业单位162家、等级公路225km、渠道和管道工程725km、水库工程5座、中型水电站1座、电力线路443km、通信线路1003km、文物古迹57处、压覆矿产67处、防护工程6处等，移民总投资约570亿。

而在旱谷地，需要移民88户，共289人，涉及土地1400多亩。按说，移民事务不归水电八局来管，而应该是业主的责任。但是业主方只派驻了一个工作人员来负责这一片的移民问题，最终任务还是要落在乙方也就是八局的头上。

八局砂石公司负责与移民打交道的是老汤，人送外号“汤司令”。他对村里的情况，比村委会主任还要熟悉。村民有事来八局找人，多大的领导接待，他们都不认，只说：

我们要找汤司令，你是个假司令，说话不管用。

有时候业主单位的人来看到老汤，都会跟他开玩笑：

汤司令，你不要把村里的村姑都给搞完啊。

汤司令只得苦笑，寒鸭戏水，冷暖自知，这其中的难处不足对外人道也。

拆迁移民是一种四方博弈：村民、业主、地方政府和施工单位，全都挟裹在其中。矛盾重重，困难也重重，错一着而输全局，牵一发而动全身。虽说，拆迁补偿标准国家有明确的规定，业主也有充足的预算，但是让村民搬离世代生活的家园，确实没那么容易。

拆迁最怕的是“翻烧饼”，一户人家答应得好好的，经过与别人商量或者自己一夜思量，第二天就变卦了。明明是拆迁补偿协议已签好，但是施工的时候村民又开始堵路，甚至躺在大型机械的轮下，不让开工。

汤司令想了很多办法跟村民斗智斗勇。2016年1月份，明知道第二天村民会来阻挠施工，他们故意向地方镇政府发出邀请，请他们来营地尽心开工剪裁。镇书记带着四套班子兴冲冲来到现场，一下车发现群众躺在挖掘机下面，书记、镇长都觉得特没面子，连忙开现场会，作出指示：

今天上午无论如何要把移民安顿好，下午开工。

镇长的话，就是命令。果然下午就正常开工了。当然，这样的招数只能用一次，以后就不灵了。要想获得村民的支持，还是要站在他们的立场上，为其解决问题。

移民要搬家，要求把他们山上的柴草也运下来。这些的柴草的价值也就是20元，大型机械开到他们家门口成本要3000元，但即使这样，八局也会满足村民的要求，做好运输工作。当地政府三令五申，无论花多大成本，一定不要给村民货币化补偿，否则口子一开，就刹不住了。

最困难的是迁坟，按照当地习俗，迁坟要先看日子，而且要在夜里完成。汤司令亲自指挥帮村民迁坟。有一次，一辆运送骨殖的卡车半夜陷入沙坑，而车上只有司机一个人。司机向汤司令打电话的时候，都带着颤音。汤司令一面安慰他不要害怕，一面派人去解救。

但是，好心并不能一定换来村民的理解。有一家院子里有一尊三面佛石雕，搬家后，屋主找到汤司令说，自从佛像挪了位置，猪也不吃东西了，老婆也其摩托车崴到脚。汤司令好说歹说，才把他安抚下。

这些听上去像笑话一样的拆迁故事，有时也会显露它冷酷的真面目。有一次，一辆挖掘机在经过一座坟墓时，不小心碰断一个石碑的头。当地人抓住汤司令，非要让他跪在坟头赔礼道歉。

当然我们听到的只是外来者一方的说法，因为没有跟本地移民接触，他们的吁求，我们没有听到。

为了搞好和村民之间的关系，八局砂石公司没少想办法。他们知道“要抓住大人的心就要先抓住他们孩子”的道理，与旱谷地小学建立了友好共建关系，送书、送体育用品、送各种温暖，还组织青年团员帮助小学生组织运动会。我们随后参观了已经放学的这所小学，发现窗玻璃碎了好几块。大家对汤司令说：

看，你们送温暖的机会又来了。

为了说动一个钉子户，汤司令还跟这户人家认了干亲，做了他们家儿子的“干爹”。当天，这家人就来到营地，给汤司令送了一个装得严严实实的袋子。汤司令说：

我以为也就是一点普通的土产，也没在意，就回赠了200元钱。结果晚上打开一看，里面是一条软中华、一瓶五粮液，还有一盒在当地很高档的茶叶。我觉得非常不好意思，第二天又买了一块玉佩、拿了两条高档香烟，作为回礼。

就在我们参观搬迁后的旱谷地村的时候，远远地有一户人家在向汤司令打招呼。他说，这就是他干儿子家。我们问他为什么不去坐坐，他有点不好意思起来。起初，只是为了完成一项工作，后来发现云南认的古道热肠，从而产生了一种情谊，这可能是大江移民中，最温馨的一幕了。

我们走在这个村子最宽广的一条大道：旱谷地大道上，看到两旁屋舍俨然，人们在户外全家烤着火盆，谈着家常，仿佛一直生活在这里、没有搬迁过，但是即将崛起的水电站，已经深刻地改变了这个地方。我们驱车下山，看到一所占地面积很大的中学已经动工。山脚下，是灯火辉煌的云南巧家县城。6年以后，白鹤滩水电站建成之日，这里将发生巨大的改变。变成什么样子？答案就在我们的下一站，已经建成发电的目前中国排行第二的溪洛渡水电站。

西南行纪（七）留守溪洛渡 （初稿）

西南行纪（七）留守溪洛渡 （初稿）

溪洛渡，溪洛渡，以后每当提起这个名字，我的心里就升腾起一层水雾。我们一行，已经出来五天，一开始只是想探访世界上最雄伟的水电站，但是，当真正的大坝屹立在我面前，我却发现，真正想看的并不是大坝和水电站，而是人。

溪洛渡水电站位于云南省永善县与四川省雷波县交界处的金沙江峡谷，坝顶高程610米，最大坝高285.5米，左、右两岸布置地下厂房，各安装9台水轮发电机组，电站总装机1386万千瓦，仅次于三峡电站和巴西伊泰普电站，多年平均发电量571.2亿千瓦时。

571.2亿千瓦时是个什么概念？就是开动了一排昼夜不停的印钞机，2016年，溪洛渡发电所创造的产值是180多亿元，意味着每天进账5000万。

如此巨大的财富，却跟八局无关。

溪洛渡水电站位于四川省雷波县和云南省永善县接壤的金沙江峡谷段，是金沙江干流规划开发的重要工程，是我国实施“西电东送”战略中部通道的特大型骨干工程，是一座以发电为主，兼有拦沙、防洪和改善下游航运等综合效益的大型水电站。

 溪洛渡水电站枢纽由拦河坝、泄洪、引水、发电等建筑物组成。拦河坝为混凝土双曲拱坝，坝顶高程610米，最大坝高285.5米，混凝土浇筑方量672.4万立方米；左、右两岸布置地下厂房，各安装9台水轮发电机组，电站总装机1386万千瓦，仅次于三峡电站和巴西伊泰普电站，多年平均发电量571.2亿千瓦时。溪洛渡水电站具有高地震区、高拱坝、高水头、大泄流量等特点，工程设计、施工、管理面临众多世界性难题。

 2007年3月，中国水电八局中标大坝土建和金属结构安装工程，独家拿到国内水电施工最大订单，合同总金额30.05亿元，成为国内首批挑战300米级高拱坝建设的领军企业。

 溪洛渡大坝建设不仅应用了世界先进的机械设备，采用了世界先进的技术与工艺，还应用了计算机技术、仿真技术、精确温控技术、卫星导航技术、信息传输技术等。溪洛渡大坝内埋了7200个先进的监测仪器，可全方位、全时空地精确监控，开创了我国300米级高拱坝建设运营数字化先河。
 溪洛渡水电站工程于2005年底开工，大坝工程于2007年4月开工建设，同年11月大江截流，2009年3月大坝主体工程开浇混凝土，2013年５月电站下闸蓄水，2013年８月首批机组发电。

要像水电八局学习，在建设溪洛渡水电站时，由于地质和汛期原因，他们比合同规定的工期整整晚了11.5个月。而业主要求，必须按照原计划完成大坝施工。对于水电站行业来说，延误一年发电，意味着上百亿元的损失。

水电八局，最后找到了解决办法。那就是：

仅仅围绕大坝建设这一中心，稳步推进。

以月计划保年计划，以周计划保月计划，以日计划保周计划。每天制定并研判计划的实施。

合理组合生产要素，让所有的部门协作达到极致。

吸取其宝贵经验，关于本书写作，也做到：

以日计划保周计划，以小时计划保日计划，以刻计划保小时计划。精确到15分钟。心无旁骛，一心一意。

所有其他一切活动，都必须在日计划完成的前提下才能进行。

紧紧围绕HK这条主线，稳步推进上升。

溪洛渡

白鹤滩和溪洛渡都在金沙江上，白鹤滩位于上游，溪洛渡位于下游，两地相隔一百多公里，如果漂流而下，大概也就几个小时的时间，但是我们开车，却绕了整整一天。原因在于要经过崎岖蜿蜒的沿江公路，而这条路在鲁甸地震中遭到过剧烈破坏，有的地方还在维修，所以开起来要很慢很小心。一路上，我们看到山体上，像被剃头刀刮过一层，露出白白的岩层，这就是地震留下的痕迹。

开着开着，前面车都停了，原来又是修路，只有一个车道开放，要慢慢地分头放行。我们下了车，看到扭曲的钢筋混凝土，委顿在山涧中，而涧水白浪滔滔，急匆匆奔向金沙江。路旁的岩石上写着：

当心落石

这是这几天我们看到的出现频率最高的警示标语。水电八局副总政工师庞卡说，这不是可有可无的提示，山上落下的巨石，曾经把一辆坦克砸下山崖，也曾经引起过某个水电工地炸药的爆炸。我问，为什么不用锚索把山体都固定。问完，就觉得这个问题很傻，那么多山，得多少锚索啊。只能自求多福吧。

前方的路好不容易通了，又开了

经过了一天跋涉，终于到达溪洛渡。溪洛渡水电站位于。。。，进出都有安检。

走在永善县城的大街，只有一个感觉，亮堂，这里的路灯都做成一根根火树银花，从上到下一条灯带贯通，把整个县城照得明如白昼。通过八局的留守人员我们了解到，永善在电价上享有比较优惠的条件，所以才舍得这样用电。这个地方曾经荒凉而落后，随着水电站的崛起，也迅速发展起来。我们有几个直观感受，去的第二天恰巧冬至，当地的风俗，这一天要吃羊肉进补。羊肉馆全都爆满，门口有好几桌在候座。我们吃饭之前经过馆一家店门口，挂着三四只杀好的整牛，吃完饭，发现牛全卖光了。永善县城里有电影院，有美容院，还有高档酒的专卖店，这些都表明了这座县城的繁华。可是在街头巷尾，我们也看到了繁华背后的荒凉。路旁支着的擦鞋摊，早晨卖糕的小推车，据说都是失去了土地的移民寻找的新职业。他们为这座电站付出很多，却并没有共享到此地的繁华。

溪洛渡水电站搬迁时，政府把部分移民安置到千里之外的红河，且处于中缅边境交界处。移民到那里一看，所建的移民房都是豆腐渣工程，房屋漏水，地基倾颓，再加上背井离乡，生活不习惯，大批移民又返回了溪洛渡，并开始在没被淹没的山上重建房屋。此时，水电八局作为大坝的独家中标方，正在进行如火如荼的建设，他们的工地，就成了返乡移民最好的目标。他们到工地里，偷各种建材，就像进了建材市场一样。八局报警，当地政府官员说：

他们这些移民也不容易，是红河住不下去才返回来的。你们就对他们睁一只眼闭一只眼，也算替我们做贡献，支持当地建设了。

从此，工地上经常出现感人的一幕。一位70岁的老太太带着7岁的孙子也来搬东西，八局员工不仅不阻止，还过来替她扛着，说：

老人家，您小心点，别闪了腰。

山腰平台上600多口人的房子，都是用八局的材料建成的。

我们同去的制片人贾主任提了一条建议，你们以后能不能跟业主单位商量，每次建设完水电工程之后，能够给你们一块地，由你们来开发，作为你们的资产经营，也算共享发展成果。

刘局长莞尔一笑，给我们讲了一个八局遇到的真实故事。在溪洛渡水电站，八局建过一片厂房。水电站建设进入尾声，这些产业也就被人惦记上了。首先是当地政府来要求他们把建筑拆除，就在他们准备照办的时候，当地村民又来抗议，不准八局拆，要拆就必须恢复原先的树林与地貌。八局被夹在中间不知听谁的好，这时候，那个早已看上这片房产的当地人出现了，愿意买下这些房子。开价3万元。

让建设北京的人住北京饭店，可不是那么容易的事。计划经济时代的运营模式设计，决定了水电八局这样的建设者，只能四处奔波，从一个工地到下一个工地，从一个业主到下一个业主，来时一片荒凉，走时灯火辉煌，工程建成之日，就是他们下岗之时。

在溪洛渡我们深刻地感受到这种落差。陪同我们一起参观的韩主任，本来是这片工程的安全总监，在溪洛渡建设期间，所有的出入证都得由他签发，谁能进谁不能进都由他说了算。但是，现在他只能跟业主单位的小办事员陪着笑脸，听着对方不耐烦的斥责，接过业主颁发的参观证。

更有甚者，水电八局说起一件很难忘记的事。当溪洛渡大坝即将建成蓄水的时候，业主单位要求把工地上所有的标语都换成他们自己的。因为大坝是八局独家修建的，所以工地上有巨大的八个字：

八局坝工，西部典范

如今这些字要全部清除掉，事关荣誉和尊严，八局不得不据理力争。最后在双方达成妥协，最后标语改了三个字，变成了：

拱坝精品，西部典范

其实还是没有八局什么事。

在大坝的观景平台上，有业主单位的官方介绍宣传栏，上面找了半天，才在不起眼的位置，在一堆参与建设的单位名称中找到了中国水电八局。这不能不让人唏嘘感喟。

在2017年1月份人民日报刊发的一片介绍溪洛渡水电站的文章里，连水电八局的名字都没有提一次。

卫青不败，李广无功

自古而然，我们作为局外人又何必愤愤不平。

陪同我们一起参观的司机周师傅，在大坝上，留了几张影。他说，他是八局员工中，极少的能够亲眼走到建成的大坝坝顶上的人。而更多的八局人，则是在　

水电八局和水电四局，虽然同属于一个电建集团，但彼此明争暗斗是公开的秘密。当初为了争夺一个标的，四局疏通了当地交警的关系，让八局的人打不到车，后来八局人乘坐摩托车到达投标现场，并且利用四局标书中一个BUG，艰难地夺取了标的。有人描述这种关系是：

见面笑嘻嘻，拥抱称兄弟。转过身去QNMDB。

当水电八局独家拿下标的31亿的溪洛渡水电站项目时，从橘子洲头到金沙江畔，从岳麓山下到非洲草原，凡是有八局人在的地方，无不彩旗招展，欢欣鼓舞，热闹喧天。这对于八局来说，是一次重大的机遇。不仅可以检验提升八局的实力，还能让八局的坝工水平，提升到世界先进水平。湘军的那种“吃得苦，耐得烦，不怕死，霸得蛮”的精神，再一次显露无遗。

为有牺牲多壮志，敢教日月换新天。

八局的血汗和泪水没有白流，尽管市场竞争惨烈，八局在很多方面都保持这领先水平，无论是传统的水电水利工程，还是新兴的高铁、地铁建设，无论是在国内，还是在海外，八局都保持着一股霸气。

12月21日，这天是冬至，按照永善人当地的习俗，这一天要吃牛羊肉进补。我们来到一家小餐馆，坐下来品尝当地出产的一种黑山羊肉，一面说出这些天想说而没说完的话。

庞卡副总政工师说： 别人看大坝都是冰冷的，我们看大坝都是温暖的。任何工程的开头和结尾都是最难的。我们的刘敏局长带领着八局团队，留守在这里，经历了常人所想象不到的困难。

以前在溪洛渡镇上，到处都是八局员工的身影，随便走进一家餐馆，都有穿着八局工作服的人打招呼。但是，当大部队撤走之后，在刘敏的眼里，大街上纵然有再多的人，也顿时变得冷冷清清。他们住的营地，顿时成了老鼠和小偷的乐园。夜里经常有不明身份的人，闯入营地，溜门破窗，把任何有点价值的东西统统拿走。连老鼠也爱上了这片营地，办公室主任的脚就被老鼠给咬了，这些天注射了狂犬疫苗，因为怕酒精刺激，冬至也不敢喝一口酒。

刘敏局长说：

“老鼠也是移民啊。”

是的，自从大坝蓄水之后，曾经大河两岸低处生存的老鼠，也纷纷搬往高处。它们也要求生存，谋发展。

刘敏所负责的主要是尾款的结算工作，这是一个工程最棘手的部分。自古要账的和欠账的并不处于同一水平线上。刘敏一家三口分散在三个地方，丈夫在红河州修高铁，7岁的小孩在长沙由她的姐姐照顾。小学二年级学生，老年人带起来已经越来越力不从心了。首先，现在的学校什么事都通过班级的微信群发通知，老年人搞不懂手机这类高科技；其次，现在的作业动不动就要求电脑完成，最后打印，这也超出老人的能力范畴。思来想去，她只好把孩子交给长沙的姐姐带。刘敏的家是千千万万个八局家庭的代表。

（此处引用金仲荪春闺梦里的台词）

最后，导演宋占涛代表大家，举起酒杯，说了一段推心置腹的话：

今天我们全方位，无死角，360度看了溪洛渡水电站，最感动的不是这座世界上最先进的数字化大坝，而是修建这坐大坝的八局人。这个世界总有一种力量能够对抗世俗的利益，总有一些人承担起对全社会的责任。他们也是去生存，但是他们不忘他人的生存，他们也在谋发展，但是他们的发展是建立在共同发展的基础之上。

我们要感谢八局，报道事实，拍摄纪录片和真实电影是我的工作，我是靠这个吃饭的。你们种树我乘凉，你们干大事，我靠拍你们的故事而获奖。我们希望在这里能够找到更好的故事，你们吃苦受累，才没有白费。

就这样我们结束了6天的水电站考察之旅。第二天早晨，我们离开溪洛渡，跟全体留守的八局职工合影留念。当商务车开动的时候，全体员工在向我们挥手告别，我们望着这些可爱的人，带着依依不舍的申请离开了这片神奇的土地，又开了几个小时，来到了宜宾，并从这里返回各自出发的地方。

西南之行虽然结束了，但是水电八局的故事永远留在我心里。从此与这些人之间有了一种说不完道不尽的情愫，我相信无论走到哪里，我都会从八局人身上汲取力量。

因为我出门之日，正好欠着一部未完成的书稿，从八局人身上，我学到了如何在规定时间内完成看似不可能完成的任务。

（此处插入八局的赶工期的故事）

我们来到了溪洛渡水电站最核心的发电车间，这个车间共有九台77万千瓦的发电机，当我站在这些涂成蓝色的巨无霸面前，我感到十分的荣幸。不是所有的作家和编剧，有这样机会与世界上最先进的巨型工程合影。我拍了一张照片，又拍了一张空镜，我相信这些足以激励我在今后的日子里写出文学上的巨构。

我们来到大坝之上，很少有人有这样的特权能够站在坝顶，即便是那些建设者们，绝大部分也没有登上过这座建成发电的拱坝坝顶。这座大坝，像一口不锈钢大锅，肚子面对着上游水库里的清水，而在它的下游，则留下了泄洪口，在夏季洪水暴涨的时候，这些泄洪口就会发挥作用。

巨大的水柱从大坝中间的泄洪口奔涌而出，发出震天的涛声，激其一片水雾，而水柱砸进二道坝内的（查一查专有名词）内，防止把下游江底击穿。

由于被大坝截留，金沙江水不再是浑浊并垫着点点金星，而变成了碧绿一片。这样下去，金沙江应该改名字了。人对自然的改变，有时是人力所不可控制的。

我们来到了中央控制室，它位于南方电网大楼的二楼，有卫兵把守。在我们和中控室之间，隔着一扇巨大的玻璃，这个玻璃既可以变成毛玻璃，又可以变成透明玻璃，邀请掌握在卫兵手里。我们作为八局的客人，有幸看了一眼玻璃内的情景，一排排的电脑，巨大的屏幕墙，大坝的参数都在这里显示和控制。溪洛渡水电站是一座智能大坝，里面埋藏了4000多个电器元件，可以时刻监控大坝的运行状况。这一切都控制在中控室之中。

大坝参观完了，我们看到了一座完整的现代化的水电站，六年以后，我们可以看到白鹤滩水电站，届时，白鹤滩将取代溪洛渡和巴西伊泰普水电站的位置，成为世界第二大书电站，只有三峡比它更大。而从今以后，至少在中国境内，再也没有这样大型的水电站等待八局去修建了，也许这群大地上的流浪者、中国的吉普赛人从此以后就告别三峡、白鹤滩、溪洛渡这样的巨型水电工程。但这并不意味着八局的使命的完结，从今以后在众多的水利枢纽、地铁高铁、基础建设工地上，我们同样会看到八局的身影。可以肯定的是，英勇无畏的八局人，不会被困难所阻挠，也不会被激烈的竞争所吓倒，他们还会一次一次地从终点回到原点，他们还会一次又一次地起锚。

车离开溪洛渡，我们路过雷波，看到一座落后而破败的县城，跟溪洛渡所在的永善县城相比，这里的发展至少相差20年。建没建水电站有着本质的区别。庞卡副总政工师告诉我们，有一种说法，本来溪洛渡水电站选址时，考虑选在同在金沙江畔的四川省雷波县，但是雷波的地方领导提出了很多要求，有的业主无法满足，最终来到了云南永善县。现在看来，机遇历史只给一次，以后就再也没有机会了。当然，也不能说雷波人民一点好处也没有得到。由于溪洛渡的建成，使得本地通了公路，交通变得日益发达，本地的水果再也不愁运不出去了。金沙江边开始大面积种植脐橙，因为地理位置和气候的缘故，这里的脐橙甘甜而多汁，每斤售价都在7元以上，一年每户的产值在10-20万元左右，这大大地充实了农民的钱袋子，加上网店的盛行，这些水果得以销往全国各地，金沙江这片水土上的出产，惠及越来越多的人，更不用说本地居民了。

从一毛不拔的穷山僻壤，到金桔满枝的瓜果之乡，这只是水电站带给当地的变化之一。还有更深刻的变革仍在积蓄，并将随着时间的推移，日渐显露出来。

溪洛渡水电站位于四川省雷波县和云南省永善县接壤的金沙江峡谷段，左岸距雷波县城约15公里，右岸距永善县城约8公里，是金沙江干流规划开发的重要工程，是我国实施“西电东送”战略中部通道的特大型骨干工程，是一座以发电为主，兼有拦沙、防洪和改善下游航运等综合效益的巨型水电站。

溪洛渡水电站主要建筑物由拦河大坝、泄洪消能建筑物、引水发电建筑物等组成。

1. 拦河坝为混凝土双曲拱坝，坝顶高程610米，最大坝高285.5米，坝顶弧长698.07米，混凝土浇筑方量672.4万立方米；
2. 泄洪消能建筑物由坝身7个表空，8个深孔，坝后水垫塘与两岸4条泄洪洞组成；
3. 引水发电建筑物由电站进水口、压力管道、主厂房、主变洞、尾水调压室、尾水洞、通风竖井、出线竖井、地面出线场及地下厂区防渗排水系统等建筑物组成。
4. 厂房：左、右两岸布置地下厂房，各安装9台水轮发电机组，电站总装机1386万千瓦，仅次于三峡电站和巴西伊泰普电站，多年平均发电量571.2亿千瓦时。

2007年3月，中国水电八局中标大坝土建和金属结构安装工程，独家拿到国内水电施工最大订单，合同总金额30.05亿元，成为国内首批挑战300米级高拱坝建设的领军企业。

溪洛渡水电站工程于2005年底开工，大坝工程于2007年4月开工建设，同年11月大江截流，2009年3月大坝主体工程开浇混凝土，2013年５月电站下闸蓄水，2013年８月首批机组发电。

溪洛渡水电站具有高地震区、高拱坝、高水头、大泄流量等特点，工程设计、施工、管理面临众多世界性难题。

溪洛渡大坝建设不仅应用了世界先进的机械设备，采用了世界先进的技术与工艺，还应用了计算机技术、仿真技术、精确温控技术、卫星导航技术、信息传输技术等。溪洛渡大坝内埋了7200个先进的监测仪器，可全方位、全时空地精确监控，开创了我国300米级高拱坝建设运营数字化先河。

王佩:中国进入大工业时代，是从上世纪50年代建立国有经济体系开始的。1952—1978年间，中国每年积累的工业资产就相当于旧中国一百多年积累工业资产的总和，我国也因此成为世界唯一的产业门类齐全的发展中国家。改革开放以来，民营经济虽然也做出了巨大贡献，但更重要的是依靠国有经济能够集中力量办大事的优势，中国才获得了经济独立和国家安全。正是国有企业实现了工人阶级的主人翁地位，一代代产业工人舍生忘死，才奠定了今天中国的经济基础。中国水电八局，从1952年荆江分洪开始，转战柘溪、凤滩、乌江、东江、五强溪、三峡、溪洛渡、白鹤滩……多少座大山里、多少条江河上闪现着八局人栉风沐雨，筚路蓝缕的身影……每当国家和人民遇到危难，像八局这样的国有企业总是召之即来、不计代价，冲得上、打得赢。所以，中国工人阶级是中国发展的根基和灵魂。

王佩:@Song Zhantao 宋占涛 说得太好了！中国不能只有义乌小商品，还要有重机大坝，也不能只有淘宝外卖，还必须有航天超导，而后者离开工人阶级，离开毛泽东打下的工业体系，是无法实现的。一部进步史，就是一部忘恩负义史，人们享受前辈奋斗的好处，却不知感恩。假如没有马克思，没有一百多年的斗争，女店员要为自己偶尔坐坐的权利而对老板娘感激涕零，假如没有毛泽东，就没有今天的男女平等，也没有今日中国的立国之基。为有牺牲多壮志，敢叫日月换新天，不止是说说而已。中国水电八局，就是一部新中国工人奋斗的典型画卷。他们开拓，牺牲，留守，告别，前往下一个荒凉之地，他们是中国的脊梁，抗压承重之拱。认识八局，认识最可爱的人。让我们看到这个国家尽管还有这样那样的问题，但正脉未绝，希望还在。谢谢八局的领导和朋友们，这土地是我们的土地，这大河是我们的大河，终有一天，历史会恢复本来的样子，我们作为一个谦卑而忠实的记录者，将拥有一份与八局共同的荣耀与骄傲！ 王佩:中国进入大工业时代，是从上世纪50年代建立国有经济体系开始的。1952—1978年间，中国每年积累的工业资产就相当于旧中国一百多年积累工业资产的总和，我国也因此成为世界唯一的产业门类齐全的发展中国家。改革开放以来，民营经济虽然也做出了巨大贡献，但更重要的是依靠国有经济能够集中力量办大事的优势，中国才获得了经济独立和国家安全。正是国有企业实现了工人阶级的主人翁地位，一代代产业工人舍生忘死，才奠定了今天中国的经济基础。中国水电八局，从1952年荆江分洪开始，转战柘溪、凤滩、乌江、东江、五强溪、三峡、溪洛渡、白鹤滩……多少座大山里、多少条江河上闪现着八局人栉风沐雨，筚路蓝缕的身影……每当国家和人民遇到危难，像八局这样的国有企业总是召之即来、不计代价，冲得上、打得赢。所以，中国工人阶级是中国发展的根基和灵魂。

西南行纪（八）看见溪洛渡（二稿）

西南行纪（八）看见溪洛渡（二稿）

溪洛渡，溪洛渡，以后每当提起这个名字，我的心里就升腾起一层水雾。我们一行，已经出来五天，一开始只是想探访世界上最雄伟的水电站，但是，当真正的大坝屹立在我面前，我却发现，真正想看的并不是大坝和水电站，而是人。

溪洛渡水电站位于云南省永善县与四川省雷波县交界处的金沙江峡谷，坝顶高程610米，最大坝高285.5米，左、右两岸布置地下厂房，各安装9台水轮发电机组，电站总装机1386万千瓦，仅次于三峡电站和巴西伊泰普电站，多年平均发电量571.2亿千瓦时。

571.2亿千瓦时是个什么概念？就是开动了一排昼夜不停的印钞机，2016年，溪洛渡发电所创造的产值是180多亿元，意味着每天进账5000万。

如此巨大的财富，却跟八局无关。

溪洛渡水电站位于四川省雷波县和云南省永善县接壤的金沙江峡谷段，是金沙江干流规划开发的重要工程，是我国实施“西电东送”战略中部通道的特大型骨干工程，是一座以发电为主，兼有拦沙、防洪和改善下游航运等综合效益的大型水电站。

 溪洛渡水电站枢纽由拦河坝、泄洪、引水、发电等建筑物组成。拦河坝为混凝土双曲拱坝，坝顶高程610米，最大坝高285.5米，混凝土浇筑方量672.4万立方米；左、右两岸布置地下厂房，各安装9台水轮发电机组，电站总装机1386万千瓦，仅次于三峡电站和巴西伊泰普电站，多年平均发电量571.2亿千瓦时。溪洛渡水电站具有高地震区、高拱坝、高水头、大泄流量等特点，工程设计、施工、管理面临众多世界性难题。

 2007年3月，中国水电八局中标大坝土建和金属结构安装工程，独家拿到国内水电施工最大订单，合同总金额30.05亿元，成为国内首批挑战300米级高拱坝建设的领军企业。

 溪洛渡大坝建设不仅应用了世界先进的机械设备，采用了世界先进的技术与工艺，还应用了计算机技术、仿真技术、精确温控技术、卫星导航技术、信息传输技术等。溪洛渡大坝内埋了7200个先进的监测仪器，可全方位、全时空地精确监控，开创了我国300米级高拱坝建设运营数字化先河。
 溪洛渡水电站工程于2005年底开工，大坝工程于2007年4月开工建设，同年11月大江截流，2009年3月大坝主体工程开浇混凝土，2013年５月电站下闸蓄水，2013年８月首批机组发电。

要像水电八局学习，在建设溪洛渡水电站时，由于地质和汛期原因，他们比合同规定的工期整整晚了11.5个月。而业主要求，必须按照原计划完成大坝施工。对于水电站行业来说，延误一年发电，意味着上百亿元的损失。

水电八局，最后找到了解决办法。那就是：

仅仅围绕大坝建设这一中心，稳步推进。

以月计划保年计划，以周计划保月计划，以日计划保周计划。每天制定并研判计划的实施。

合理组合生产要素，让所有的部门协作达到极致。

吸取其宝贵经验，关于本书写作，也做到：

以日计划保周计划，以小时计划保日计划，以刻计划保小时计划。精确到15分钟。心无旁骛，一心一意。

所有其他一切活动，都必须在日计划完成的前提下才能进行。

紧紧围绕HK这条主线，稳步推进上升。

溪洛渡

白鹤滩和溪洛渡都在金沙江上，白鹤滩位于上游，溪洛渡位于下游，两地相隔一百多公里，如果漂流而下，大概也就几个小时的时间，但是我们开车，却绕了整整一天。原因在于要经过崎岖蜿蜒的沿江公路，而这条路在鲁甸地震中遭到过剧烈破坏，有的地方还在维修，所以开起来要很慢很小心。一路上，我们看到山体上，像被剃头刀刮过一层，露出白白的岩层，这就是地震留下的痕迹。

开着开着，前面车都停了，原来又是修路，只有一个车道开放，要慢慢地分头放行。我们下了车，看到扭曲的钢筋混凝土，委顿在山涧中，而涧水白浪滔滔，急匆匆奔向金沙江。路旁的岩石上写着：

当心落石

这是这几天我们看到的出现频率最高的警示标语。水电八局副总政工师庞卡说，这不是可有可无的提示，山上落下的巨石，曾经把一辆坦克砸下山崖，也曾经引起过某个水电工地炸药的爆炸。我问，为什么不用锚索把山体都固定。问完，就觉得这个问题很傻，那么多山，得多少锚索啊。只能自求多福吧。

前方的路好不容易通了，又开了

经过了一天跋涉，终于到达溪洛渡。溪洛渡水电站位于。。。，进出都有安检。

走在永善县城的大街，只有一个感觉，亮堂，这里的路灯都做成一根根火树银花，从上到下一条灯带贯通，把整个县城照得明如白昼。通过八局的留守人员我们了解到，永善在电价上享有比较优惠的条件，所以才舍得这样用电。这个地方曾经荒凉而落后，随着水电站的崛起，也迅速发展起来。我们有几个直观感受，去的第二天恰巧冬至，当地的风俗，这一天要吃羊肉进补。羊肉馆全都爆满，门口有好几桌在候座。我们吃饭之前经过馆一家店门口，挂着三四只杀好的整牛，吃完饭，发现牛全卖光了。永善县城里有电影院，有美容院，还有高档酒的专卖店，这些都表明了这座县城的繁华。可是在街头巷尾，我们也看到了繁华背后的荒凉。路旁支着的擦鞋摊，早晨卖糕的小推车，据说都是失去了土地的移民寻找的新职业。他们为这座电站付出很多，却并没有共享到此地的繁华。

溪洛渡水电站搬迁时，政府把部分移民安置到千里之外的红河，且处于中缅边境交界处。移民到那里一看，所建的移民房都是豆腐渣工程，房屋漏水，地基倾颓，再加上背井离乡，生活不习惯，大批移民又返回了溪洛渡，并开始在没被淹没的山上重建房屋。此时，水电八局作为大坝的独家中标方，正在进行如火如荼的建设，他们的工地，就成了返乡移民最好的目标。他们到工地里，偷各种建材，就像进了建材市场一样。八局报警，当地政府官员说：

他们这些移民也不容易，是红河住不下去才返回来的。你们就对他们睁一只眼闭一只眼，也算替我们做贡献，支持当地建设了。

从此，工地上经常出现感人的一幕。一位70岁的老太太带着7岁的孙子也来搬东西，八局员工不仅不阻止，还过来替她扛着，说：

老人家，您小心点，别闪了腰。

山腰平台上600多口人的房子，都是用八局的材料建成的。

我们同去的制片人贾主任提了一条建议，你们以后能不能跟业主单位商量，每次建设完水电工程之后，能够给你们一块地，由你们来开发，作为你们的资产经营，也算共享发展成果。

刘局长莞尔一笑，给我们讲了一个八局遇到的真实故事。在溪洛渡水电站，八局建过一片厂房。水电站建设进入尾声，这些产业也就被人惦记上了。首先是当地政府来要求他们把建筑拆除，就在他们准备照办的时候，当地村民又来抗议，不准八局拆，要拆就必须恢复原先的树林与地貌。八局被夹在中间不知听谁的好，这时候，那个早已看上这片房产的当地人出现了，愿意买下这些房子。开价3万元。

让建设北京的人住北京饭店，可不是那么容易的事。计划经济时代的运营模式设计，决定了水电八局这样的建设者，只能四处奔波，从一个工地到下一个工地，从一个业主到下一个业主，来时一片荒凉，走时灯火辉煌，工程建成之日，就是他们下岗之时。

在溪洛渡我们深刻地感受到这种落差。陪同我们一起参观的韩主任，本来是这片工程的安全总监，在溪洛渡建设期间，所有的出入证都得由他签发，谁能进谁不能进都由他说了算。但是，现在他只能跟业主单位的小办事员陪着笑脸，听着对方不耐烦的斥责，接过业主颁发的参观证。

更有甚者，水电八局说起一件很难忘记的事。当溪洛渡大坝即将建成蓄水的时候，业主单位要求把工地上所有的标语都换成他们自己的。因为大坝是八局独家修建的，所以工地上有巨大的八个字：

八局坝工，西部典范

如今这些字要全部清除掉，事关荣誉和尊严，八局不得不据理力争。最后在双方达成妥协，最后标语改了三个字，变成了：

拱坝精品，西部典范

其实还是没有八局什么事。

在大坝的观景平台上，有业主单位的官方介绍宣传栏，上面找了半天，才在不起眼的位置，在一堆参与建设的单位名称中找到了中国水电八局。这不能不让人唏嘘感喟。

在2017年1月份人民日报刊发的一片介绍溪洛渡水电站的文章里，连水电八局的名字都没有提一次。

卫青不败，李广无功

自古而然，我们作为局外人又何必愤愤不平。

陪同我们一起参观的司机周师傅，在大坝上，留了几张影。他说，他是八局员工中，极少的能够亲眼走到建成的大坝坝顶上的人。而更多的八局人，则是在　

水电八局和水电四局，虽然同属于一个电建集团，但彼此明争暗斗是公开的秘密。当初为了争夺一个标的，四局疏通了当地交警的关系，让八局的人打不到车，后来八局人乘坐摩托车到达投标现场，并且利用四局标书中一个BUG，艰难地夺取了标的。有人描述这种关系是：

见面笑嘻嘻，拥抱称兄弟。转过身去QNMDB。

当水电八局独家拿下标的31亿的溪洛渡水电站项目时，从橘子洲头到金沙江畔，从岳麓山下到非洲草原，凡是有八局人在的地方，无不彩旗招展，欢欣鼓舞，热闹喧天。这对于八局来说，是一次重大的机遇。不仅可以检验提升八局的实力，还能让八局的坝工水平，提升到世界先进水平。湘军的那种“吃得苦，耐得烦，不怕死，霸得蛮”的精神，再一次显露无遗。

为有牺牲多壮志，敢教日月换新天。

八局的血汗和泪水没有白流，尽管市场竞争惨烈，八局在很多方面都保持这领先水平，无论是传统的水电水利工程，还是新兴的高铁、地铁建设，无论是在国内，还是在海外，八局都保持着一股霸气。

12月21日，这天是冬至，按照永善人当地的习俗，这一天要吃牛羊肉进补。我们来到一家小餐馆，坐下来品尝当地出产的一种黑山羊肉，一面说出这些天想说而没说完的话。

庞卡副总政工师说： 别人看大坝都是冰冷的，我们看大坝都是温暖的。任何工程的开头和结尾都是最难的。我们的刘敏局长带领着八局团队，留守在这里，经历了常人所想象不到的困难。

以前在溪洛渡镇上，到处都是八局员工的身影，随便走进一家餐馆，都有穿着八局工作服的人打招呼。但是，当大部队撤走之后，在刘敏的眼里，大街上纵然有再多的人，也顿时变得冷冷清清。他们住的营地，顿时成了老鼠和小偷的乐园。夜里经常有不明身份的人，闯入营地，溜门破窗，把任何有点价值的东西统统拿走。连老鼠也爱上了这片营地，办公室主任的脚就被老鼠给咬了，这些天注射了狂犬疫苗，因为怕酒精刺激，冬至也不敢喝一口酒。

刘敏局长说：

“老鼠也是移民啊。”

是的，自从大坝蓄水之后，曾经大河两岸低处生存的老鼠，也纷纷搬往高处。它们也要求生存，谋发展。

刘敏所负责的主要是尾款的结算工作，这是一个工程最棘手的部分。自古要账的和欠账的并不处于同一水平线上。刘敏一家三口分散在三个地方，丈夫在红河州修高铁，7岁的小孩在长沙由她的姐姐照顾。小学二年级学生，老年人带起来已经越来越力不从心了。首先，现在的学校什么事都通过班级的微信群发通知，老年人搞不懂手机这类高科技；其次，现在的作业动不动就要求电脑完成，最后打印，这也超出老人的能力范畴。思来想去，她只好把孩子交给长沙的姐姐带。刘敏的家是千千万万个八局家庭的代表。

（此处引用金仲荪春闺梦里的台词）

最后，导演宋占涛代表大家，举起酒杯，说了一段推心置腹的话：

今天我们全方位，无死角，360度看了溪洛渡水电站，最感动的不是这座世界上最先进的数字化大坝，而是修建这坐大坝的八局人。这个世界总有一种力量能够对抗世俗的利益，总有一些人承担起对全社会的责任。他们也是去生存，但是他们不忘他人的生存，他们也在谋发展，但是他们的发展是建立在共同发展的基础之上。

我们要感谢八局，报道事实，拍摄纪录片和真实电影是我的工作，我是靠这个吃饭的。你们种树我乘凉，你们干大事，我靠拍你们的故事而获奖。我们希望在这里能够找到更好的故事，你们吃苦受累，才没有白费。

就这样我们结束了6天的水电站考察之旅。第二天早晨，我们离开溪洛渡，跟全体留守的八局职工合影留念。当商务车开动的时候，全体员工在向我们挥手告别，我们望着这些可爱的人，带着依依不舍的申请离开了这片神奇的土地，又开了几个小时，来到了宜宾，并从这里返回各自出发的地方。

西南之行虽然结束了，但是水电八局的故事永远留在我心里。从此与这些人之间有了一种说不完道不尽的情愫，我相信无论走到哪里，我都会从八局人身上汲取力量。

因为我出门之日，正好欠着一部未完成的书稿，从八局人身上，我学到了如何在规定时间内完成看似不可能完成的任务。

（此处插入八局的赶工期的故事）

我们来到了溪洛渡水电站最核心的发电车间，这个车间共有九台77万千瓦的发电机，当我站在这些涂成蓝色的巨无霸面前，我感到十分的荣幸。不是所有的作家和编剧，有这样机会与世界上最先进的巨型工程合影。我拍了一张照片，又拍了一张空镜，我相信这些足以激励我在今后的日子里写出文学上的巨构。

我们来到大坝之上，很少有人有这样的特权能够站在坝顶，即便是那些建设者们，绝大部分也没有登上过这座建成发电的拱坝坝顶。这座大坝，像一口不锈钢大锅，肚子面对着上游水库里的清水，而在它的下游，则留下了泄洪口，在夏季洪水暴涨的时候，这些泄洪口就会发挥作用。

巨大的水柱从大坝中间的泄洪口奔涌而出，发出震天的涛声，激其一片水雾，而水柱砸进二道坝内的（查一查专有名词）内，防止把下游江底击穿。

由于被大坝截留，金沙江水不再是浑浊并垫着点点金星，而变成了碧绿一片。这样下去，金沙江应该改名字了。人对自然的改变，有时是人力所不可控制的。

我们来到了中央控制室，它位于南方电网大楼的二楼，有卫兵把守。在我们和中控室之间，隔着一扇巨大的玻璃，这个玻璃既可以变成毛玻璃，又可以变成透明玻璃，邀请掌握在卫兵手里。我们作为八局的客人，有幸看了一眼玻璃内的情景，一排排的电脑，巨大的屏幕墙，大坝的参数都在这里显示和控制。溪洛渡水电站是一座智能大坝，里面埋藏了4000多个电器元件，可以时刻监控大坝的运行状况。这一切都控制在中控室之中。

大坝参观完了，我们看到了一座完整的现代化的水电站，六年以后，我们可以看到白鹤滩水电站，届时，白鹤滩将取代溪洛渡和巴西伊泰普水电站的位置，成为世界第二大书电站，只有三峡比它更大。而从今以后，至少在中国境内，再也没有这样大型的水电站等待八局去修建了，也许这群大地上的流浪者、中国的吉普赛人从此以后就告别三峡、白鹤滩、溪洛渡这样的巨型水电工程。但这并不意味着八局的使命的完结，从今以后在众多的水利枢纽、地铁高铁、基础建设工地上，我们同样会看到八局的身影。可以肯定的是，英勇无畏的八局人，不会被困难所阻挠，也不会被激烈的竞争所吓倒，他们还会一次一次地从终点回到原点，他们还会一次又一次地起锚。

车离开溪洛渡，我们路过雷波，看到一座落后而破败的县城，跟溪洛渡所在的永善县城相比，这里的发展至少相差20年。建没建水电站有着本质的区别。庞卡副总政工师告诉我们，有一种说法，本来溪洛渡水电站选址时，考虑选在同在金沙江畔的四川省雷波县，但是雷波的地方领导提出了很多要求，有的业主无法满足，最终来到了云南永善县。现在看来，机遇历史只给一次，以后就再也没有机会了。当然，也不能说雷波人民一点好处也没有得到。由于溪洛渡的建成，使得本地通了公路，交通变得日益发达，本地的水果再也不愁运不出去了。金沙江边开始大面积种植脐橙，因为地理位置和气候的缘故，这里的脐橙甘甜而多汁，每斤售价都在7元以上，一年每户的产值在10-20万元左右，这大大地充实了农民的钱袋子，加上网店的盛行，这些水果得以销往全国各地，金沙江这片水土上的出产，惠及越来越多的人，更不用说本地居民了。

从一毛不拔的穷山僻壤，到金桔满枝的瓜果之乡，这只是水电站带给当地的变化之一。还有更深刻的变革仍在积蓄，并将随着时间的推移，日渐显露出来。

溪洛渡水电站位于四川省雷波县和云南省永善县接壤的金沙江峡谷段，左岸距雷波县城约15公里，右岸距永善县城约8公里，是金沙江干流规划开发的重要工程，是我国实施“西电东送”战略中部通道的特大型骨干工程，是一座以发电为主，兼有拦沙、防洪和改善下游航运等综合效益的巨型水电站。

溪洛渡水电站主要建筑物由拦河大坝、泄洪消能建筑物、引水发电建筑物等组成。

1. 拦河坝为混凝土双曲拱坝，坝顶高程610米，最大坝高285.5米，坝顶弧长698.07米，混凝土浇筑方量672.4万立方米；
2. 泄洪消能建筑物由坝身7个表空，8个深孔，坝后水垫塘与两岸4条泄洪洞组成；
3. 引水发电建筑物由电站进水口、压力管道、主厂房、主变洞、尾水调压室、尾水洞、通风竖井、出线竖井、地面出线场及地下厂区防渗排水系统等建筑物组成。
4. 厂房：左、右两岸布置地下厂房，各安装9台水轮发电机组，电站总装机1386万千瓦，仅次于三峡电站和巴西伊泰普电站，多年平均发电量571.2亿千瓦时。

2007年3月，中国水电八局中标大坝土建和金属结构安装工程，独家拿到国内水电施工最大订单，合同总金额30.05亿元，成为国内首批挑战300米级高拱坝建设的领军企业。

溪洛渡水电站工程于2005年底开工，大坝工程于2007年4月开工建设，同年11月大江截流，2009年3月大坝主体工程开浇混凝土，2013年５月电站下闸蓄水，2013年８月首批机组发电。

溪洛渡水电站具有高地震区、高拱坝、高水头、大泄流量等特点，工程设计、施工、管理面临众多世界性难题。

溪洛渡大坝建设不仅应用了世界先进的机械设备，采用了世界先进的技术与工艺，还应用了计算机技术、仿真技术、精确温控技术、卫星导航技术、信息传输技术等。溪洛渡大坝内埋了7200个先进的监测仪器，可全方位、全时空地精确监控，开创了我国300米级高拱坝建设运营数字化先河。

王佩:中国进入大工业时代，是从上世纪50年代建立国有经济体系开始的。1952—1978年间，中国每年积累的工业资产就相当于旧中国一百多年积累工业资产的总和，我国也因此成为世界唯一的产业门类齐全的发展中国家。改革开放以来，民营经济虽然也做出了巨大贡献，但更重要的是依靠国有经济能够集中力量办大事的优势，中国才获得了经济独立和国家安全。正是国有企业实现了工人阶级的主人翁地位，一代代产业工人舍生忘死，才奠定了今天中国的经济基础。中国水电八局，从1952年荆江分洪开始，转战柘溪、凤滩、乌江、东江、五强溪、三峡、溪洛渡、白鹤滩……多少座大山里、多少条江河上闪现着八局人栉风沐雨，筚路蓝缕的身影……每当国家和人民遇到危难，像八局这样的国有企业总是召之即来、不计代价，冲得上、打得赢。所以，中国工人阶级是中国发展的根基和灵魂。

王佩:@Song Zhantao 宋占涛 说得太好了！中国不能只有义乌小商品，还要有重机大坝，也不能只有淘宝外卖，还必须有航天超导，而后者离开工人阶级，离开毛泽东打下的工业体系，是无法实现的。一部进步史，就是一部忘恩负义史，人们享受前辈奋斗的好处，却不知感恩。假如没有马克思，没有一百多年的斗争，女店员要为自己偶尔坐坐的权利而对老板娘感激涕零，假如没有毛泽东，就没有今天的男女平等，也没有今日中国的立国之基。为有牺牲多壮志，敢叫日月换新天，不止是说说而已。中国水电八局，就是一部新中国工人奋斗的典型画卷。他们开拓，牺牲，留守，告别，前往下一个荒凉之地，他们是中国的脊梁，抗压承重之拱。认识八局，认识最可爱的人。让我们看到这个国家尽管还有这样那样的问题，但正脉未绝，希望还在。谢谢八局的领导和朋友们，这土地是我们的土地，这大河是我们的大河，终有一天，历史会恢复本来的样子，我们作为一个谦卑而忠实的记录者，将拥有一份与八局共同的荣耀与骄傲！ 王佩:中国进入大工业时代，是从上世纪50年代建立国有经济体系开始的。1952—1978年间，中国每年积累的工业资产就相当于旧中国一百多年积累工业资产的总和，我国也因此成为世界唯一的产业门类齐全的发展中国家。改革开放以来，民营经济虽然也做出了巨大贡献，但更重要的是依靠国有经济能够集中力量办大事的优势，中国才获得了经济独立和国家安全。正是国有企业实现了工人阶级的主人翁地位，一代代产业工人舍生忘死，才奠定了今天中国的经济基础。中国水电八局，从1952年荆江分洪开始，转战柘溪、凤滩、乌江、东江、五强溪、三峡、溪洛渡、白鹤滩……多少座大山里、多少条江河上闪现着八局人栉风沐雨，筚路蓝缕的身影……每当国家和人民遇到危难，像八局这样的国有企业总是召之即来、不计代价，冲得上、打得赢。所以，中国工人阶级是中国发展的根基和灵魂。

西南行纪（七）完结篇：再见溪洛渡，再见水电八局！

西南行纪（七）完结篇：再见溪洛渡，再见水电八局！

初到溪洛渡

白鹤滩和溪洛渡都在金沙江上，白鹤滩位于上游，溪洛渡位于下游，两地相隔一百多公里，如果漂流而下，大概也就几个小时的时间，但是我们开车，却绕了整整一天。原因在于要经过崎岖蜿蜒的沿江公路，而这条路在鲁甸地震中遭到过剧烈破坏，有的地方还在维修，所以开起来要很慢很小心。一路上，我们看到山体上，像被剃头刀刮过一层，露出白白的岩层，这就是地震留下的痕迹。

开着开着，前面车都停了，原来又是修路，只有一个车道开放，要慢慢地分头放行。我们下了车，看到扭曲的钢筋混凝土，委顿在山涧中，而涧水白浪滔滔，急匆匆奔向金沙江。路旁的岩石上写着：

当心落石

经过了近一天跋涉，我们一行终于到达了云南省永善县溪洛渡镇。走在永善县城的大街，只有一个感觉：亮堂，这里的路灯都做成一根根火树银花，从上到下一条灯带贯通，把整个县城照得明如白昼。永善在电价上享有比较优惠的条件，所以才舍得这样用电。

水电八局在此地还有一支留守的队伍，他们的任务主要是进行搜售后服务和工程尾款的结算，刘敏局长是他们的头。

可在永善县的街头巷尾，我们也看到了繁华背后的荒凉。路旁支着的擦鞋摊，早晨卖糕的小推车，都是失去了土地的移民的谋生手段。他们为这座电站付出巨大，却没有共享到多少它的繁荣。

溪洛渡水电站搬迁时，政府把部分移民安置到千里之外的红河，且处于中缅边境交界处。移民到那里一看，所建的移民房都是豆腐渣工程，房屋漏水，地基倾颓，再加上背井离乡，生活不习惯，大批移民又返回了溪洛渡，并开始在没被淹没的山坡的平台重建房屋。此时，水电八局作为大坝的独家中标方，正在进行如火如荼的建设，他们的工地，就成了返乡移民偷窃的最佳目标。他们蜂拥到工地上，偷各种建材，就像进了建材市场一样。八局报警，当地政府官员说：

他们这些移民也不容易，是红河住不下去才返回来的。你们对他们睁一只眼闭一只眼吧，就算给我们当地做贡献了。

经过请示，八局决定便宜从事，不激化矛盾。工地上出现感人的一幕。一位70岁的老太太带着7岁的孙子也来搬东西，八局员工不仅不阻止，还过来替她搬，说：

老人家，您小心点，别闪了腰。

山腰平台上600多口人的房子，都是用八局的材料建成的。

庞卡副总政工师说： 别人看大坝都是冰冷的，我们看大坝都是温暖的。任何工程的开头和结尾都是最难的。我们的刘敏局长带领着八局团队，留守在这里，经历了常人所想象不到的困难。

以前在溪洛渡镇上，到处都是八局员工的身影，随便走进一家餐馆，都有穿着八局工作服的人打招呼。但是，当大部队撤走之后，在刘敏的眼里，大街上纵然有再多的人，也顿时变得冷冷清清。他们住的营地，顿时成了老鼠和小偷的乐园。夜里经常有不明身份的人，闯入营地，溜门破窗，把任何有点价值的东西统统拿走。连老鼠也爱上了这片营地，办公室主任的脚就被老鼠给咬了，这些天注射了狂犬疫苗，因为怕酒精刺激，冬至也不敢喝一口酒。

刘敏局长说：

“老鼠也是移民啊。”

是的，自从大坝蓄水之后，曾经大河两岸低处生存的老鼠，也纷纷搬往高处。它们也要求生存啊。

刘敏所负责的主要是尾款的结算工作，这是一个工程最棘手的部分。自古要账的和欠账的并不处于同一水平线上。刘敏一家三口分散在三个地方，丈夫在红河州修高铁，7岁的小孩在长沙由她的姐姐照顾。小学二年级学生，老年人带起来已经越来越力不从心了。首先，现在的学校什么事都通过班级的微信群发通知，老年人搞不懂手机这类高科技；其次，现在的作业动不动就要求电脑完成，最后打印，这也超出老人的能力范畴。思来想去，她只好把孩子交给长沙的姐姐带。刘敏的家是千千万万个八局家庭的代表。

参观溪洛渡水电站

第二天在水电八局的安排下，我们一行参观了溪洛渡水电站。

溪洛渡水电站位于四川省雷波县和云南省永善县接壤的金沙江峡谷段，左岸距雷波县城约15公里，右岸距永善县城约8公里，是金沙江干流规划开发的重要工程，是我国实施“西电东送”战略中部通道的特大型骨干工程，是一座以发电为主，兼有拦沙、防洪和改善下游航运等综合效益的巨型水电站。2016年杭州G20国际峰会期间，为了保障大会电力供应，溪洛渡专门有一条电路作为杭州的备用线。

溪洛渡水电站主要建筑物由拦河大坝、泄洪消能建筑物、引水发电建筑物等组成。

1. 拦河坝为混凝土双曲拱坝，坝顶高程610米，最大坝高285.5米，坝顶弧长698.07米，混凝土浇筑方量672.4万立方米；
2. 泄洪消能建筑物由坝身7个表空，8个深孔，坝后水垫塘与两岸4条泄洪洞组成；
3. 引水发电建筑物由电站进水口、压力管道、主厂房、主变洞、尾水调压室、尾水洞、通风竖井、出线竖井、地面出线场及地下厂区防渗排水系统等建筑物组成。

2007年3月，中国水电八局中标大坝土建和金属结构安装工程，独家拿到国内水电施工最大订单，合同总金额30.05亿元，成为国内首批挑战300米级高拱坝建设的领军企业。

溪洛渡水电站工程于2005年底开工，大坝工程于2007年4月开工建设，同年11月大江截流，2009年3月大坝主体工程开浇混凝土，2013年５月电站下闸蓄水，2013年８月首批机组发电。

溪洛渡水电站具有高地震区、高拱坝、高水头、大泄流量等特点，工程设计、施工、管理面临众多世界性难题。

溪洛渡大坝建设不仅应用了世界先进的机械设备，采用了世界先进的技术与工艺，还应用了计算机技术、仿真技术、精确温控技术、卫星导航技术、信息传输技术等。溪洛渡大坝内埋了7200个先进的监测仪器，可全方位、全时空地精确监控，开创了我国300米级高拱坝建设运营数字化先河。

我们来到了溪洛渡水电站右岸的发电车间，溪洛渡水电站左、右两岸布置地下厂房，各安装9台水轮发电机组，电站总装机1386万千瓦，仅次于三峡电站和巴西伊泰普电站，多年平均发电量571.2亿千瓦时。当我站在这些涂成蓝色的巨无霸面前，我感到一丝自豪和荣耀。不是所有的文字工作者，都有这样机会与世界上最先进的巨型工程合影。我拍了一张照片，又拍了一张空镜，我相信这座巨型工程足以激励我在今后的日子里写出文学上的巨构。

我们来到大坝之上，很少有人有这样的机会能够站在坝顶，即便是那些建设者们，绝大部分也没有登上过这座建成发电的拱坝坝顶。这座大坝，像一口不锈钢大锅，肚子面对着上游水库里的清水，而在它的下游，则留下了泄洪口，在夏季洪水暴涨的时候，这些泄洪口就会发挥作用。

巨大的水柱从大坝中间的泄洪口奔涌而出，发出震天的涛声，激其一片水雾，而水柱砸进二道坝内的水垫塘内，防止把下游江底击穿。

由于被大坝截留，金沙江水不再是浑浊并垫着点点金星，而变成了碧绿一片。这样下去，金沙江应该改名字了。

我们来到了中央控制室，它位于南方电网大楼的二楼，有卫兵把守。在我们和中控室之间，隔着一扇巨大的玻璃，这个玻璃既可以变成毛玻璃，又可以变成透明玻璃，邀请掌握在卫兵手里。我们作为八局的客人，有幸看了一眼玻璃内的情景，一排排的电脑，巨大的屏幕墙，大坝的参数都在这里显示和控制。溪洛渡水电站是一座智能大坝，里面埋藏了4000多个电器元件，可以时刻监控大坝的运行状况。这一切都控制在中控室之中。

大坝参观完了，我们看到了一座完整的现代化的水电站，六年以后，我们可以看到白鹤滩水电站，届时，白鹤滩将取代溪洛渡和巴西伊泰普水电站的位置，成为世界第二大书电站，只有三峡比它更大。而从今以后，至少在中国境内，再也没有这样大型的水电站等待八局去修建了，也许这群大地上的流浪者、中国的吉普赛人从此以后就告别三峡、白鹤滩、溪洛渡这样的巨型水电工程。但这并不意味着八局的使命的完结，从今以后在众多的水利枢纽、地铁高铁、基础建设工地上，我们同样会看到八局的身影。可以肯定的是，英勇无畏的八局人，不会被困难所阻挠，也不会被激烈的竞争所吓倒，他们还会一次一次地从终点回到原点，他们还会一次又一次地起锚。

溪洛渡的八局人

我们同去的制片人贾主任提了一条建议，你们以后能不能跟业主单位商量，每次建设完水电工程之后，能够给你们一块地，由你们来开发，作为你们的资产经营，也算共享发展成果。

刘局长莞尔一笑，给我们讲了一个八局遇到的真实故事。在溪洛渡水电站，八局建过一片厂房。水电站建设进入尾声，这些产业也就被人惦记上了。首先是当地政府来要求他们把建筑拆除，就在他们准备照办的时候，当地村民又来抗议，不准八局拆，要拆就必须恢复原先的树林与地貌。八局被夹在中间不知听谁的好，这时候，那个早已看上这片房产的当地人出现了，愿意买下这些房子。开价3万元。

让建设北京的人住北京饭店，可不是那么容易的事。计划经济时代的运营模式设计，决定了水电八局这样的建设者，只能四处奔波，从一个工地到下一个工地，从一个业主到下一个业主，来时一片荒凉，走时灯火辉煌，工程建成之日，就是他们下岗之时。

在溪洛渡我们深刻地感受到这种落差。陪同我们一起参观的韩主任，本来是这片工程的安全总监，在溪洛渡建设期间，所有的出入证都得由他签发，谁能进谁不能进都由他说了算。但是，现在他只能跟业主单位的小办事员陪着笑脸，听着对方不耐烦的斥责，接过业主颁发的参观证。

更有甚者，水电八局说起一件很难忘记的事。当溪洛渡大坝即将建成蓄水的时候，业主单位要求把工地上所有的标语都换成他们自己的。因为大坝是八局独家修建的，所以工地上有巨大的八个字：

八局坝工，西部典范

如今这些字要全部清除掉，事关荣誉和尊严，八局不得不据理力争。最后在双方达成妥协，最后标语改了三个字，变成了：

拱坝精品，西部典范

在大坝的观景平台上，有业主单位的官方介绍宣传栏，上面找了半天，才在不起眼的位置，在一堆参与建设的单位名称中找到了中国水电八局。这不能不让人唏嘘感喟。在2017年1月份人民日报刊发的一片介绍溪洛渡水电站的文章里，连水电八局的名字都没有提一次。

卫青不败，李广无功

自古皆然！

陪同我们一起参观的司机周师傅，在大坝上，留了几张影。他说，他是八局员工中，极少的能够亲眼走到建成的大坝坝顶上的人。而更多的八局人。

当水电八局独家拿下标的30.05亿的溪洛渡水电站项目时，从橘子洲头到金沙江畔，从岳麓山下到非洲草原，凡是有八局人在的地方，无不彩旗招展，欢欣鼓舞，热闹喧天。这对于八局来说，是一次重大的机遇。不仅可以检验提升八局的实力，还能让八局的坝工水平，提升到世界先进水平。湘军的那种“吃得苦，耐得烦，不怕死，霸得蛮”的精神，再一次显露无遗。

为有牺牲多壮志，敢教日月换新天。

八局的血汗和泪水没有白流，尽管市场竞争惨烈，八局在很多方面都保持这领先水平，无论是传统的水电水利工程，还是新兴的高铁、地铁建设，无论是在国内，还是在海外，八局都保持着一股霸气。

12月21日，这天是冬至，按照永善人当地的习俗，这一天要吃牛羊肉进补。我们来到一家小餐馆，坐下来品尝当地出产的一种黑山羊肉，一面说出这些天想说而没说完的话。导演宋占涛代表大家，举起酒杯说：

今天我们全方位，无死角，360度看了溪洛渡水电站，最感动的不是这座世界上最先进的数字化大坝，而是修建这坐大坝的八局人。这个世界总有一种力量能够对抗世俗的利益，总有一些人承担起对全社会的责任。他们也是去生存，但是他们不忘他人的生存，他们也在谋发展，但是他们的发展是建立在共同发展的基础之上。

我们要感谢八局。拍摄纪录片和真实电影是我的工作，我是靠这个吃饭的。你们种树我乘凉，你们干大事，我靠拍你们的故事而获奖。我们希望在这里能够找到更好的故事，你们吃苦受累，才没有白费。

告别溪洛渡

2016年1月22日，我们结束了6天的水电站考察之旅，离开溪洛渡，走之前，跟水电八局全体留守的职工合影留念。当商务车开动的时候，刘敏剧场带领全体员工在向我们挥手告别，我们望着这些可爱的人，带着依依不舍的深情离开了这片神奇的土地。

离开溪洛渡，路过雷波，看到一座落后而破败的县城，跟溪洛渡所在的永善县城相比，这里的发展至少相差20年。建没建水电站有着本质的区别。庞卡副总政工师告诉我们，有一种说法，本来溪洛渡水电站选址时，考虑选在同在金沙江畔的四川省雷波县，但是雷波的地方领导提出了很多要求，有的业主无法满足，最终来到了云南永善县。现在看来，机遇历史只给一次，以后就再也没有机会了。当然，也不能说雷波人民一点好处也没有得到。由于溪洛渡的建成，使得本地通了公路，交通变得日益发达，本地的水果再也不愁运不出去了。金沙江边开始大面积种植脐橙，因为地理位置和气候的缘故，这里的脐橙甘甜而多汁，每斤售价都在7元以上，一年每户的产值在10-20万元左右，这大大地充实了农民的钱袋子，加上网店的盛行，这些水果得以销往全国各地，金沙江这片水土上的出产，惠及越来越多的人，更不用说本地居民了。

从一毛不拔的穷山僻壤，到金桔满枝的瓜果之乡，这只是水电站带给当地的变化之一。还有更深刻的变革仍在积蓄，并将随着时间的推移，日渐显露出来。

溪洛渡，溪洛渡，以后每当提起这个名字，我的心里就升腾起一层水雾。我们一行，已经出来五天，一开始只是想探访世界上最雄伟的水电站，但是，当真正的大坝屹立在我面前，我却发现，真正想看的并不是大坝和水电站，而是人。

西南之行虽然结束了，但是水电八局的故事永远留在我心里。从此与这些人之间有了一种说不完道不尽的情愫，我相信无论走到哪里，我都会从八局人身上汲取力量。

宋占涛导演写道：

中国进入大工业时代，是从上世纪50年代建立国有经济体系开始的。1952—1978年间，中国每年积累的工业资产就相当于旧中国一百多年积累工业资产的总和，我国也因此成为世界唯一的产业门类齐全的发展中国家。改革开放以来，民营经济虽然也做出了巨大贡献，但更重要的是依靠国有经济能够集中力量办大事的优势，中国才获得了经济独立和国家安全。正是国有企业实现了工人阶级的主人翁地位，一代代产业工人舍生忘死，才奠定了今天中国的经济基础。中国水电八局，从1952年荆江分洪开始，转战柘溪、凤滩、乌江、东江、五强溪、三峡、溪洛渡、白鹤滩……多少座大山里、多少条江河上闪现着八局人栉风沐雨，筚路蓝缕的身影……每当国家和人民遇到危难，像八局这样的国有企业总是召之即来、不计代价，冲得上、打得赢。所以，中国工人阶级是中国发展的根基和灵魂。

说得何其好啊！中国要发展，不能只有义乌小商品，还要有重机大坝，也不能只有淘宝外卖，还必须有航天超导，而后者离开几代工人阶级打下的现代工业体系，是无法实现的。

一部进步史，就是一部忘恩负义史，人们享受前辈奋斗的好处，却不知感恩。假如没有马克思，没有一百多年的斗争，女店员要为自己偶尔坐坐的权利而对老板娘感激涕零，假如没有八局人这样的工人阶级，就没有今天的强国之本，立国之基。为有牺牲多壮志，敢叫日月换新天，不止是说说而已。

中国水电八局，就是新中国工人的典型代表。他们开拓，牺牲，留守，告别，前往下一个荒凉之地，他们是中国的脊梁，抗压承重之拱。认识八局，认识最可爱的人。让我们看到这个国家尽管还有这样那样的问题，但正脉未绝，希望还在。谢谢八局的领导和朋友们，这土地是我们的土地，这大河是我们的大河，终有一天，历史会恢复本来的样子，我们作为一个谦卑而忠实的记录者，将拥有一份与八局共同的荣耀与骄傲！

（全文完）

一次，儿子的语文老师布置了一个命题作文《老师我有话对你说》，父子二人在公园里，对着iPad吐露真言： 语文老师，您是一个白痴，您知道吗？

孩子本来最擅长写作文，在您的教导下，变得畏手畏脚，自我审查，创造力荡然无存。

您真是一个想象力杀手，您真是荼毒童年的祸头子。

如今好的工具比比皆是，如果我们陷入唯工具论，则无所适从，啥也别干了。看准一个工具，一用到底。比如剑桥的这个英文写作工具。 满地都是甲壳虫，要啥自行车？

人工智能也吧，其他工具也罢，对于写作而言，无非是简化写作流程，让写作变得像呼吸一样自然。这是我一直努力想打造的。经过一番调教，现在可以通过 Alfred实现了。

在ChatGPT没出现前，我就用Alfred做快捷输入，输入：

f 题目

回车即可生成一篇新的note在我最喜欢的卡片盒笔记The Archive

儿子小Jo最爱的游戏是Undertale，对每个人物，每段音乐，每句台词都熟得不能再熟。这不，赶上他心情好，给我看了他写的一段Undertale番外篇故事，并严禁我把内容放到网上。我问他可不可以做成Midjourney绘画分享，他说可，于是有了以下：

《牛鬼蛇神录》是杨小凯留给世界的最珍贵的遗产，胜过他写的那些已经无人问津的经济学论文。而浦志强在YouTube上娓娓道来的朗读，简直就是在讲述他自己的故事。奇人，奇书，奇特的组合。如果你不听，实在是浪费了。而在杨小凯为文革囚禁中的精灵们立的传记中，以罗钢最为奇特，他不是政治犯，只是一个扒手，但他的身上却承载了那么多普通人的悲欢。如果读一篇，那就读它吧。

肿瘤医院里的心灵鸡汤： 前一段日子，家里一位亲戚在省肿瘤医院做手术，我到医院里陪护了几天。目睹了与大多数人日常生活平行的一个世界的运行，也终于明白，为什么如今会有那么多心灵鸡汤。

下午，我刚到病房，护士就走进来，看到我们有两个人陪护，就派给我们一项任务，出一个人，搬着小马扎，到大厅去听“心灵关怀”讲座。出于写作者的本能，我主动请缨前往。

到了四楼大厅，已经坐了不少人，有病人，也有家属。此地是全省最大、历史最久的专科医院，这一点从院子里的参天花木，以及巍然耸立的毛泽东塑像，就可以看得出。只不过，虽然花事如期，春光正好，对于住在这里的病人来说，却大都没有欣赏的心思。人们一心一念，都在关注自己的病情，以及后续治疗上。

这时，有一位穿白大褂的医护人员前来宣布，一会儿，本院“心灵关怀门诊”的医生，要来给大家健康巡讲，机会难得，希望大家都好好听，认真学，肯定只有好处，没有坏处。而听众们都窃窃私语，带着被赶鸭子上架的不情愿。

不一会，来了一位50岁左右的女医生和两个护士。护士们手脚麻利地挂好了横幅，上写着：“心灵关怀门诊健康巡讲”。

女医生腰间挂着一个小喇叭，这样可以不费力就能把声音传到大厅的每个角落。她先开宗明义，讲了为什么要给大家巡讲。“心灵关怀门诊”是本院专门针对病人的康复、结合多年的经验而开设的，只不过许多人还不了解，所以，经常会在每个楼层进行巡回宣讲。

言归正传之后，女医生说：

心灵决定健康，你们看过傻子生病吗?

虽然，从逻辑上讲，傻子本身就是病人，大家还是被这个问题给问住了。

女医生接着解释说，你看，外面流浪的傻子，冬天一件单褂，夏天还穿棉袄，吃不上，喝不上，睡的还是垃圾堆，但是他们为什么就不生病呢？因为他们打心眼里，没把自己当回事，更没把自己当成是病人。

她斩钉截铁地说：

不是病让你不舒服，是生病的诊断书，让你不舒服。

说到这里，我看到听众中已经有人点头，表示认可。

她接着说：

美国耶鲁大学的西格尔医生说：“世界上没有不治之症，只有不治之人。”

为了佐证这位西格尔医生的话，她讲了一个故事。西格尔医生的一个病人，在被诊断只能再活半年的情况下，放弃治疗，回家圆了一辈子的梦，卖掉房子，出门旅行，打猎钓鱼，随心所欲，江海纵横。五年以后，西格尔医生遇见他，经过检查，惊讶地发现，他已经跟正常人没有什么两样，身体内的癌细胞全都消失了。

既然说出了那个令大家不愉快的字，女医生就索性继续说下去。

她先把癌细胞的原理大而化之地解说了一番，然后将其定义为“不该长的地方长的东西”。接着将这番道理，推导到病人身上，“癌症患者就是不改管的事，管太多。”

癌症病人大多数，都不爱惜自己。

咱们大家看看，病人的“病”字，怎么讲？就是心里藏着一把火。

“患者”的“患”，怎么解？就是一串心，老操心了。

心里有火，操心过度，怎么样？最后就病了。

虽然她的“心灵解字”不符合《说文解字》，大家还是若有所思地点头。

她接着说：

人生之所以活得累，一是因为太认真，二是因为太想要。

昨天是历史，明天是未知，今天是恩赐，你失去的只是无知。

这些话整齐排比，让人来不及思考，就遛达进耳朵，听着还很受用。

接下来的话，很多都是不能形诸于文字的，但是特别适合拉家常式的“巡讲”。

如果我们把癌症当成感冒，它就能像感冒一样好。

她又讲了一个故事。医院里两个病人，一个得的是胃癌，一个得的是胃炎，两个人的报告互相拿错了。为了故事的便利，那位拿了胃癌报告的胃炎病人，也不去医院做任何复查，就按照胃癌治，后来就死了。而这位错拿成胃炎报告的胃癌病人，因为心情愉快，没有负担，最终还活着。

想法决定健康!

她的演讲公式，我已经总结出来了：一个令人惊奇的结论，接着加一个离奇的故事。

她说，有一个人，得了直肠癌，医生说是早期，这个人就回去上班了，上了两年，跟没病一样。忽然有一天，他接到医生的电话。医生说：”对不起，你的报告拿错了，你检查出来不是直肠癌早期，而是晚期。“这人一听，马上病倒，三天后去世。

不可否认，这些故事，虽然离奇，但是暗合了部分病人与家属们的心理。

这一切不是真的，不是真的，只要我不相信，它就不是真的。

不过，这位女医生，也会说一些很有哲理的话。

一个记者去采访一位老寿星，问他长寿秘诀是什么？老人说：没什么秘诀，就是生个慢性病，然后好好照顾身体。

接下来，她开始怼医院外一条街上各种打着治疗癌症幌子的保健养生广告。根据我后来几天的观察，围绕这家肿瘤医院，已经形成了一条完整的产业链，不，应该说是产业网，从日常用品，到假发义乳，再到中医养生，覆盖了康复之路或者不康复之路的每一步。

大家的情绪终于被调动起来。她开始带领大家做运动，先是拍肩，拍腿，最后推广她自创的哈哈操。每一节里面，都会伴随着“哈哈”几声的大笑。

她说，这是为了吐故纳新，把坏的物质排出去，把好的东西接纳进来。

大家跟着她一起，一边摆动四肢，一边“哈哈哈”，现场气氛非常热烈。我也情不自禁地跟着“哈哈哈”起来。

当她宣布巡讲结束了，大家竟都有点恋恋不舍。

不过倒也不用失望，现场易拉宝的海报上，有她组建的微信群。扫码加入后，发现群名叫：

奔向健康，做命运的宠儿

如果是以前，我会对这种心灵鸡汤非常不屑，但是在医院待了几天之后，我渐渐明白了，这种鸡汤有它的效用。它虽然不符合科学，但是恰恰弥补了科学的坚硬和冰冷。

现实的残酷性是不容分说的。我在的几天，隔壁病房就送进来一位男性长者，胃切除手术后，出院没一个月，一小时内吃了两根香蕉，一个火龙果，引起剧烈腹痛，被送回医院，重新插上了胃管。

在这种情况下，人如果没有一点精神的寄托，是万万撑不下去的。“心灵关怀”门诊，就是在这种背景下，根据病患的需要，应运而生的。

我在写这篇文章的当儿，心灵医生又在群里发布了几条最新消息：

人生每时每刻都需要修行，修行中最重要的功课就是面对各种不可预测的苦境。逃避苦难的考验，结果是更大的苦难。

明天下午4点在8号楼四楼健康巡讲，欢迎感兴趣的朋友参加。

坐在家中，我遗憾地想：如果还在医院，我一定要再听一场。

培训记：为什么这么多人抢破头要进入体制？？这是我的一个观察样本。

莫名其妙接到了一个通知，21日到西湖边的一个宾馆接受培训。刚开始我以为是集团搞的再就业工程，到了才知道是“新提拔中层干部培训”。鲜红横幅上的层层定语，有着深刻的内涵。

第一个定语是干部，这是个日本词，民国以前中国只有一个干部－－松赞，而且还是个没有编制的干部。现在连一个报社里都干部成堆了，你不能不承认中国在进步。

第二个定语是中层，中国的报业集团既是事业单位，又干着企业的事，因此有双重身份。集团高层是正局级，那么中层就是县处级。不过这个级别只是内部粮票，走出集团大门就没人承认了。

第三个定语是提拔，这个词不知是谁造的，真形象。什么叫提拔，小萝卜还没长好，高层把它提一下，再拔一拔，就成干部，还中层了。至于萝卜经这么一折腾，是死是活，就不是老大们要考虑的问题了。

第四个定语是新。一个新字，境界全出。连给领导敬酒都不知道，新中层吧？

乘班车穿行在西湖边，树叶如金，湖水如翠，初冬的杭州有一种别样的美。唉，这个城市，如果不是云集了那么多白痴的话，还真有点天堂的意思。培训的地方叫东方龙，迎面就看到“娱乐中心”、“桑拿中心”几个大字，映衬在青山绿树间，分外妖娆。进得酒店，池塘浑浊，草木缭乱，但这一点都没影响它的生意，当日，除我们外，还有两家也在开会。一个“太平洋人兽保险”，一个“新希望乳业”，再加上我们报业，正是全中国欣欣向荣的三个朝阳产业啊。报业先进文化＋奶业先进生产力要求＋保险业所代表的多数人利益，正是金光闪闪的戴三个表的完美诠释。

会议室布置成圆桌，为了活跃气氛。这一招果然奏效，没人敢看书、睡觉了，都支棱起耳朵听社长介绍集团发展战略。四个字，大开眼界。别以为领导整天没事干，原来还是有战略的。什么叫战略？想做没做的事，就叫战略。听完报告什么感觉：心齐，劲足，气顺。于是其乐融融地去吃午餐。

要说集团的政工部门真是体贴入微，每个人的房间里都放了两个塑料袋，解开一看，飘柔、舒肤佳、大宝SOD蜜。为什么这么多人抢破头要进入体制内，离开了这个Matrix，谁给你提供这么周到的服务啊！金钱万能的资本主义信条可以休矣，社会主义初级阶段的优越性体现在每一个细节里。

下午请来了浙大特聘教授翁礼华先生，我试着找个成语形容他，但发现都不确切。鹤发童颜？他脑门已经光了；精神矍铄？他还没那么老。他曾从一个技术员做到厂长，又从厂长做到财政厅厅长，退役后在浙大担任教授，由他来讲做领导的艺术，只要不装，总有可听之处。当达官变成达人，一下子就不一样了，什么话都敢讲，什么理都敢掰，那弥漫在空气中的不是声波，都是智慧啊，也许是当年的教训包装成的，who knows, who cares?一个人要在官场上摸爬滚打多少年，才能成为他这样的人？他讲了人的16个特性，中西人的5种差别，基本都围绕三个字“人性恶”。他妙语连珠，信手拈来，会场笑声不断。座中笑声谁最多，红心杀手毛衣湿。

他讲领导的艺术，质言之，就是做人要圆润。不要试图去修单位的破自行车或者破自行车一样的单位，否则结果是要你背着它走；不要得罪上司也不要亲近下属，功夫在权外，成就别人就是成就自己；不要试图去改变什么，没有新的好办法，老办法就是好办法。

如果你真心地相信他的话，并且身体力行，那么肯定能在体制中找到自己做螺丝钉的位置。回首繁华如梦渺，他已经解脱豁达了，而你，残生一线对惊涛，还在通往螺母的路上。年轻人，还能说什么呢？世界本来就是这样的，而且还会这样继续下去。

晚上开了酒戒，大家一起碰杯，庆贺。我才发现，打情骂俏并不仅限于男女之间，对于同性别的下上级关系，也一样适用。一个卓越的中层，必须内紧外松，要跟领导说笑玩闹，又不逾规矩。这一招用得好的话，会让领导受用，让同僚也放松。难怪贾母笑弯了腰，指着凤姐，对众人说：“你们还不快给我撕烂她的嘴！”

天刚亮，我被一阵阵鸟鸣惊醒，不由得想起三年半以前来杭州度过的第一个早晨。有一件事让我很不好意思，我的同屋，居然不见了踪影，肯定是被我的呼噜声给震跑了。一问，果然。

第二天的会议，比较简单。上午纪委领导来进行警示教育，用翁教授的话说，恐惧教育。了解到杭州一些落马贪官的案例。会后大家印象最深的一件事是挖土方的故事。挖土方，是工程里最没有技术含量的部分。开发区邀请招标，报价是19元一立方米，后来改公开招标，发现市场报价是8元多。仅此一项，就避免了损失 1800万元。中午，大家聊天，说还做什么报纸，买个挖掘机，咱们也挖土方去吧。

下午，讨论心得体会。很多人都发了言，领导也表了态，达成两项公识：一、集团亲如一家人，试看浙江谁能敌？二、晚饭不在宾馆吃，4：30散会要准时。

又回到车水马龙的市区，两天时间就这么匆匆过去。望着所谓的天堂人间，我却困惑了，我想要的生活究竟是什么？

辞职五年后，劝朋友不要从体制内辞职书

刚才一边机械地打着《实况足球》，一边想着今天在Gtalk上跟你聊起的事。我知道，任何劝导都会有反作用力，所以不如不亮出观点，用事实与细节说话。那么我跟你说一说，我所知道的体制外文化人的生存状态，一定有助于你做出自己的判断。

你不喜欢的毛泽东说过：“知识分子是毛，工农群众是皮，皮之不存，毛将焉附？”这话我只同意一半。知识分子是毛不假，皮可不是炼钢种地的普罗大众，皮是为文化买单的人，在正常的资本主义国家，它是成熟的覆盖各个层面的文化工业消费者; 在不正常的裙带资本主义国家，它必须是财团或者体制，其实财团也是体制的一部分。

这里我不准备讲我辞职的过程，这个留待过几天喝着你的瓶装苦咖啡的时候再讲。个人的悲欢是不重要的，我们要在一个更超脱更宏大的层面上动用我们的终极武器–汉语。

我辞职后，准备做一个职业专栏作家。各种条件都对我有利，我当时有四五个专栏，还有自己主办的杂志，实在不行往自己杂志上发啊。但在舶来的非虚构作品的烛照下，我准备再往前迈一步，我要写独立的特写报道，就像何伟、张彤禾做的那样。机会来了，我的第一个采访对象是一位杭州的国画家。介绍并陪同我去采访的是我的一个好友。我注意到他工作室悬挂的与前任省委书记的合影，他在大人物面前垂手笑着，腼腆地像第一次见老丈人的毛脚女婿。他讲了自己的经历，怎样从一个厨师进入体制，成为一名有固定工资的画家，并且得到了市政府奖励的人才房。回去之后，我奋笔写下了《艺术家到体制中去》，发到一家报纸上。没过几天，我就接到了好友的电话，说画家生气了，你把他写得那么不堪，好像是没本事跑到体制内混日子似的。你这么一写可给我带来了不少麻烦啊。她虽然没有狠狠责备我，但我知道我确实naive了。

张彤禾在写《工厂女孩》的时候，毫不避讳地揭发敏从工厂里偷窃Coach皮包的事，如果厂家跟敏较真的话，她的最好的年华，甚至整个后半生恐怕要到监狱里度过了。因为张彤禾说敏的屋子里挂满了Coach，以市场价计，以盗窃罪论，都够她喝一壶的。这甚至不需要张出庭作证，只要工厂一报案，派出所一“上手段”，敏会自证其罪，没几个人能挺住不说。

西方的记者为了真相，从不为当事人掩饰，在他们成名的路上，碾过很多天真烂漫不设防的interviewee。我想照搬这一切，全然忘了中国的环境。这篇稿子给我带来1000元的稿费，但我的损失是巨大的。它伤害了我的好友，同时，也堵住了我在杭州文化圈的一道门。我知道这样下去不行，用不了一年，所有的门都会对我加锁。

我学乖了，在以后的访谈中，我用平生所学，不由自主地为被采访者唱不属于他们的赞歌。采访一个出身于矿区的餐馆女老板，我会深情地引用契诃夫的《樱桃园》。采访一个文化掮客，我恨不能把《圣经·诗篇》里的好词都用上。这股文风还被我带到了话剧的创作中。在一出写一个已故中共领导人的戏中，我用了这样的词：

狐狸有洞，蚂蚁有窝，

他却整天流离失所。

如你所知，“狐狸有洞，蚂蚁有窝，人子却没有安歇的地方。”是耶稣自况。

我呀我，为什么让伟大的母语在笔下变得如此谄媚？只因为，我要在体制外生存。社会资本是少数几样能工依靠的东西之一。把人写得好一点，尽量谁都不得罪，这样才能与这个圈子共处。

体制外生存是个什么状况？我身边有两个例子。都是文化圈、艺术史上能留下一笔的人。

一位是M，他在20年前就做先锋戏剧。孟京辉给他当过小跟班，还差点被他打出去。他酷爱学习，读书，并且有一远大目标，在长篇叙事上有所建树，并且这一目标还给他不断赚钱。他为深圳大芬村做的世博会项目，给他带来了比上班丰厚得多的收入。他今年还伙同一些艺术家在徐家汇水泥厂改建的西岸艺术区搞了个双年展，当然是一个改头换面的房地产项目。我看了他们的通稿，为了让更多的人似懂非懂，专门用了拉丁文。“在考察了老上海水泥厂地区之后，策划团队把双年展分为了主题展reflecta（进程）和环绕展fabrica（营造）两部分。”我相信，汉语再无能至少有五个以上的同义词可以表达这个意思。但他们放着不用，自然是为了这巫术般的仪式感。

M为什么可以放开手脚干一票大的？那是因为他的格局看起来比较大。他看的都是大书，长片，巨制，写的都是宏大叙事。而支撑他这样做的，不是写专栏，也不是话剧导演费，而是物质上解决了后顾之忧。他的夫人是外企的头，他的房子是北京房价最低的时候买的，他如果想赚小钱可以信手拈来。这才是体制外生存的资本。

M是毛，但他附着在海内外大资本这张貂皮上。

再来看我的另外一位朋友，他也是二十年前就成名的，但一直游历在体制外，后来又游离于家庭之外，制造着音乐和戏剧。我去过他们那儿，有一种青年旅社的感觉。他们也是满世界找活干，而来活的渠道，无非是朋友推荐。偶尔回到北欧演出一回，实际上也是多年的老友从中助力。论水平，论资历，论声望，他都比我领先十年的路程，而他们让我看不到体面工作和生活的希望。

他也是毛，但附着在一张张长着疤痕的小动物身上。

相比之下，体制内的文化人，过着天堂般的日子。你能相信吗？一个杭州的戏曲编剧不但分到了人才房，还获得了市劳模，which means终生看病免费，还可以拿下领导特批的800平米的工作室，我没多打一个0.一年十多万基本年薪，稿费另计，领导还鼓励外面干活赚钱……他不是唯一的，他的同事，说话一嘴山东大葱味道，甩出一张名片给我，上写着莎士比亚学会秘书长。what? 莎士比亚学会。好吧。好吧。我闭嘴，我这个读过一些原作，还会背片段的人。

这不是孤例，也不是个案，一个单打独斗的写作者，会像鸿毛一样被风吹走。大作品？不可能有大作品，连中作品都很少。因为大部分握笔的时间用来写谋生稿，其余时间交给辛苦恣睢，交给柴米油盐，交给贫贱夫妻百事哀……

如果你想到辞职，不妨再想想，你现在的余暇，你现在的生活状态，你现在可以出入外国人的沙龙，可以悠闲地逛书市，可以一冲动买2万元的小人书，可以有一个闹市区的居所，可以跟人喝咖啡不用琢磨怎么介绍自己……这一切，有多少是你现在的职位提供给你的，有多少是你脱离职位靠自身的能力赚来的。

让我说得再严肃一点。作为体制外的文化人，抗打击能力之脆弱，是你无法想象的。脱离体制意味着你以前的关系网，除了少数铁哥们和没有利害冲突的同好之外，统统作废。因为你已经无物可交换，而你又是高傲的，不愿意空手求人，将来无以为报。

体制外还意味着，你要让知道你过去背景的人，以为你过得好，至少不必以前差。如果潦倒落魄，那也打倒牙齿和血吞，坚决不能让他们看出来。

不瞒你说，当压力重重倾颓到肩上，当内忧外患一起袭来，当前后左右抖看不见路，有那么一瞬间会冒出绝望的念头。

有一天我在宾馆闭关写剧本，回家老婆无意问我，是不是我们老了，只有很少的养老金。我搪塞地安慰了她之后，回到宾馆，哭了一场。我不愿看到自己老无所依的样子，这个好办，我可以在那一刻来临前祈求上帝让我体面地终结自己的旅程，但我的爱人，我的孩子，如果我不能许他们一个未来，我将多么羞愧地离去。

不知所云地写了这么久，归根结底一句话，想清楚了再迈步。

如果你不喜欢单位，可以换一个，平级，往下，都可以调动。

如果你不喜欢你的上司，千万别上了他的攻心计。这体制不是他家的，他拿你一点办法都没有，他甚至不能开除或处分你。那么对他来说，最好的办法就是把你挤走，恶心走，以便自己的亲信进来。

如果你不喜欢现在的工作，它只是你的给你发工资的业余爱好，你真正的工作是你最想做的，比如：写作。

如果你不喜欢现在的生活，那么离开体制，你也不会更喜欢它。

那么，就没有破釜沉舟，背水一战吗？有，我现在就是这样。但这只能用来给我这样回不去的人励志，而不能成为你的召唤。

自己做判断吧，也许我们都跟一些西方修行的嬉皮士一样，跑到印度，进了深山老庙，忽然一天，我们的妈妈跋涉千里来到庙门口，对我们说：

别闹了，LM，回家吧。

嗯，不闹了，回家吧。

辞职记：在我走向社会的第15个年头，在距离法定退休年龄还有21个春秋的时候，我从体制内辞职了。

辞职之前，我在一家报社担任中层，这是我在杭州奋斗九年得来的职位。它的优点是，每年带来白领的收入，给我一定的社会地位。如果会用巧劲，还不算累，只要伺候好老大们，做给他们看就可以了。但是它带来的负面影响也是极大的：不是我的志趣，需要投入身心，要面对阴晴圆缺的领导的脸色，更要应对暗流汹涌的人际关系。光这些就足以把我搞残。这份工作让我有一种利剑悬在头顶的焦灼感。确切地说，只有每天凌晨2：00之后（老大们下班的时间），以及早晨9点之前（主管部门上班的时间），我心里的重担才暂时放下。

工作真有这么累吗？肯定不是。是我给自己铸造了无形的樊笼。让我舍弃这份工作，我却又不甘心。在杭州不可能找到与此相当的工作，而移居到另外的城市，对我又需要很大很大的勇气。我说过，我浑浑噩噩惯了。

那么我到底要什么？我到底想做什么？我到底应该怎么度过自己的余生？我不知道，我没有规划，缺少动力，我习惯了自己被推着走，而不是主动去选择。

2011年月2月11日晚，埃及人民欢庆穆巴拉克和平下台，当时已经晚上12点钟了。忽然电话响。我想，这是哪位国际主义人士向我发来贺电？一接，是我那个部门新任主持工作的L。夜猫子叫宅，无事不来，他来电质询一条网站拜年广告的事。

春节期间，我在老家接到上级部门一个电话，要求网站挂横幅广告，内容是：“杭州市人民政府向广大市民拜年。”我又把要求转述给编辑，安排制作悬挂。

他说老板发火了，认为漏掉了“市委”，我说上级电话通知如此。L就把电话挂了。

过了一会儿，电话又打进来。这次他很严肃地说，老板要我写个情况说明，几点几分谁打的电话，原话是怎么说的？我反问写这个是什么意思？是检查吗？他说不是，领导就让把情况详细写一写。

当时，我刚从山东温暖如春的家里回来，得了一场感冒，并不严重，但不知道为什么，接了这个电话之后觉得浑身发冷。而这种从头冷到脚的感觉已经不是第一次，但每一次我都忍了。

这一次我也准备忍。不就是写个说明吗，我赶紧翻出电话记录，找到了当时下通知的那条，并且截屏作为证据。如果当面对质，会很尴尬，但是既然领导要求，那只好拉下脸皮……我这样躺在被窝里想了有十几分钟，这时候尿意上来了。

我只穿了内衣，翻出被窝，拉开卧室的门，就一个寒战。然后哆哆嗦嗦上完厕所，我发现浑身抖得厉害。我想去倒杯水吃药，手居然端不了杯子。我回到被窝里，体似筛糠，像得了伤寒一样。

在被窝里渐渐暖过来，一个念头闪现：我这是怎么了？不过是一个工作而已，至于吓成这样吗？

就在这一刻，我所有的恐惧全都释放了。

一种前所未有的轻松，我忽然发现我最惧怕的东西，不过就是失去体制的恩宠。

知道恐惧的原因，我就不怕了，虽说夜里睡得依然不踏实，但我至少有了底线，听天由命，能忍就继续忍，忍不了就辞职。

2月12日一早，我把自己洗干净，换上一身鲜艳的衣服，到西湖边去跟朋友谈一个项目去了。谈的时候，我半开玩笑地说，为了表示对这个项目的诚意，我决定先辞职。朋友连忙说，千万别，那样我们可承受不起。

期间接到下属电话，说了一些我不知道的网站的重大改动。这一系列决定都把我忽略。

下午三点多，我从西湖天地走路回报社，路上接到同事的短信，说，今天上午L召集部门会议，宣布网站横幅没打“市委”是一个政治差错。

我回复：“干脆说反革命差错好了。”

此时我来到了杭州的一座天桥上，望着车水马龙，忽然我想，我为什么要把辞职当成最后防御的武器，而不是主动进攻的武器呢？既然我还悬着一颗心，为什么不干脆把它放下呢？

决心就这样下了。激动得嗓子冒烟。我走进小店，买了一瓶尖叫，喝下去，觉得浑身充满了力量。回到办公室，打了几行字：

尊敬的领导：

本人因个人原因，申请辞职，敬请批准。

辞呈打好了，但找信封犯了难。白信封，大过年的，是不是对领导不礼貌？红信封，领导会不会误会是红包？牛皮纸信封又找不到。就这样在细节上纠结来纠结去，最后决定裸递。

深呼吸，打通了老板电话，约几分钟后去他办公室。

老板笑盈盈倒上一杯茶，我接过来，递上去辞职报告，他看了一下说，你想清楚了吗？我说，想清楚了。他说，我同意。但你是干部，需要经过集团党委讨论。从老板办公室走出来，我觉得自己特别可笑，就在几分钟前，我还担心用什么信封？

辞职以后，我可以谈谈自己的理想了。我的理想是，有一个属于自己的居所，足以放下我所有的书，足以容纳晨曦和月光。可以跟自己的妻子背靠背各看各的书，看累了就彼此猴着（曹雪芹对本词独有贡献），说相干以及不相干的话。我将有自己的时间，写作，不受打扰地写作，每年出一本书，不一定畅销，但都可以毫无愧色地赠人。每周写几篇专栏，零星写两篇约稿，所赚的钱足以维持每个月的开销，而且还足以支付两个人每年一个月的旅资。

每天拉着妻子的手，散步，讲说不完的话。接待朋友，也被朋友接待，介入社会，却又随时保持距离。读好书，看好片，每天坚持锻炼。当我们谈跑步的时候，我们谈的是骑车。如果上帝祝福，我们将有一个孩子，无论是男孩还是女孩，无论天资如何，他都是上帝赐予的礼物。

看着孩子渐渐长大，看着著作慢慢变厚，看着皱纹爬上脸颊，看着青丝变成白发，看着看着，就老了。就在收兵的号角在天边吹响，我的时代却刚刚到来。人们会记住这个名字，会记住他的挣扎与救赎，人们也会记住他的爱人，大山可以挪开，小山可以迁移，但他们的爱永远不会分离。

生命如此可贵，安宁如此甜美，为了这一天，付出任何代价都不昂贵。

就这样，在40岁来临的时候，我从体制内的副处级中层，成了自由撰稿人。

十二年前，我站在这座桥上，眺望着杭州的中轴线，做出了从体制内辞职的决定。十二年后，再次站在这里，内心充满了感慨。我用自己的双手开创了属于自己的事业，无论成败，都没有怨尤。这就是人生，必须不断自洁，负重前行，才能到达彼岸。

我的一位朋友，最近陷入了甜蜜的烦恼。因为买的书太多，他和家人之间产生了分歧。每次买书回家，都面临家人的质问：

怎么还买书？你买的书看完了吗？

这个问题确实让他无言以对，因为他喜欢买书，且很多书连塑封都没有拆，就堆在家里的地上。

为了解决这个矛盾，他经常收到书的快递之后，拆了包装，把书塞到衣服里，藏到背包里，化整为零地带回家中。有一次，他一边喝着加糖的美式咖啡，一边对我说：

尽量不买书了，等我赚钱换房，买个有书房的房子。

我说，问题不在这儿。问题在于你的家人说的对。别的不说，你《红楼梦》看完了吗？

他说刚刚读到第五十四回：史太君破陈腐旧套 王熙凤效戏彩斑衣。

我说，好，那我来考你一个问题：你觉得，按照贾母的意思，她是希望宝玉娶谁呢？黛玉，宝钗，还是湘云？

朋友思索了一下说：

我的直觉告诉我以上都不是。史太君大概率不会让宝玉娶一个亲戚。她还是会选一个名门望族的小姐，家底，模样，才德配得上宝玉的。这样便于政治联姻。

我说，你说对了，但政治联姻不是最主要的。最主要的是遮耻。

在清代的大户人家，不通过父母和媒妁之言，私定终身，会被认为是极大的耻辱，大到非用死不能掩盖的地步。

所以，当袭人听到宝玉误把自己看成黛玉表白心迹，她才吓得如同五雷轰顶。不是她害怕爱情的闪电，而是因为这事要是败露了，会死人的。

对于大家闺秀私定终身，贾母在第五十四回借着批判说书女先生的机会，早已表明了立场：

贾母笑道：“这些书都是一个套子，左不过是些佳人才子，最没趣儿。把人家女儿说的那样坏，还说是佳人，编的连影儿也没有了。开口都是书香门第，父亲不是尚书就是宰相，生一个小一姐必是爱如珍宝。这小一姐必是通文知礼，无所不晓，竟是个绝代佳人。只一见了一个清俊的男人，不管是亲是友，便想起终身大事来，父母也忘了，书礼也忘了，鬼不成鬼，贼不成贼，那一点儿是佳人？便是满腹文章，做出这些事来，也算不得是佳人了。比如男人满腹文章去作贼，难道那王法就说他是才子，就不入贼情一案不成？可知那编书的是自己塞了自己的嘴。

贾母其实话中有话，尤其是这一句：

只一见了一个清俊的男人，不管是亲是友，便想起终身大事来，父母也忘了，书礼也忘了，鬼不成鬼，贼不成贼。

这话分明就是对宝黛说的，可能还捎带着湘云。意思就是：

如果你们胆敢对宝玉有想法，那么结果就是，鬼不成鬼，贼不成贼

当然组织上给你们安排，除外。

至于，黛玉嫁给宝玉，也更不可能，因为姨表可以成亲，姑表成亲会被人笑话。

民间管这叫：骨肉还家。意思是姑姑嫁出去，女儿又嫁过来，相当于骨肉还回来。所以是很难听的一句话。

我继续对朋友说，你看，你对红楼梦很有领悟力，只是需要进一步的精读。

接着我给他讲了任何商品都要买两次的道理。

这是我最近的感悟

所有你买的东西，其实都是买两次。第一次是你支付这个东西的价钱，一本书30元，一个相机2000元，一张游泳卡500元，等等……但是，仅仅支付了第一笔价钱，你还不能算拥有它。你还要支付第二笔价钱，读完一本书需要10小时，出去拍照需要整个周六下午，去游泳馆前后加起来至少3小时的时间。把这些时间加上去，你购买物品的价格远远不止是表面上的价格了。因此：

一本书 = 30元 + 10 小时 一台相机 = 2000元 + 4 小时 * 12 （假设你每个元抽出一个周末去扫街） 一张游泳卡 = 500 元 + 3小时 * 10 （假设是一张20次卡，你游10次才回本） 我们往往错把物品的第一次付钱当成它的真实价格，或轻松，或咬牙，买下了物品；而忘记了我们使它发挥效用时支付的第二笔价钱，才是真正昂贵的支出。

朋友听完，决定最近一段时间暂时不买新书，等读完《红楼梦》，通过了我的测试再说。

但我很怀疑他能否通得过，因为我准备的题目是王小山出的：

《红楼梦》中，年龄最小的是谁？

参考答案：贾琏和尤二姐的儿子。

只半夜，尤二姐腹痛不止，谁知竟将一个已成形的男胎打了下来。(【第六十九回】 弄小巧用借剑杀人 觉大限吞生金自逝)

提醒大家，在杭州东站一出来就有几个妇女高声招揽生意，喊你去西湖。实际上，她们的主要目的并不是带你去游玩西湖，因为那个地方是免费开放的，任何人都可以去。也不是非法出租车，因为现在网约车如此之多，她们赚不到多少钱。其真实目的主要有两个：一是带你去买丝绸，二是带你去买茶叶。这都是一种坑人的行为。并且，当地旅游部门对此并没有做出很好的管理。这样的事情以前发生过，大巴车带着游客去买丝绸，坑了很多人。这样的案例连续发生了很长时间。所以，大家一定不要上当，一定不要跟着他们去。

在杭州乘坐地铁时，如果你打开支付宝购票，会发现购票后并不能直接扫码进站，而是需要到票机处兑换实体票。那个票机前常常排着长队，这样的设计实在让人无语。幸运的是，地铁站贴有二维码，可以直接扫码进站。也就是说，支付宝上的系统和实际运行的系统并不一样。如果你坚持要到票机处取票，可能会浪费十几分钟的时间。我认为正确的做法是别取票，浪费刚才的票价。直接扫描地铁站的二维码，在杭州这样的大农村，有一个原则就是：止损、认栽、不纠缠。

许多在国外定居生活并育有孩子的中国朋友，对孩子学习汉语持悲观态度，因为缺乏语言环境。有的孩子只会说话但不认识汉字，有的甚至连中文都不会说。这时候，很多人会感到遗憾，因为中国有着悠久的文明历史和璀璨的文学，孩子们无法阅读四大名著。但实际上，这并不值得过于遗憾，因为除了这些，世界还有更广阔的知识领域。孩子们可以直接阅读原版莎士比亚，获得的愉悦、思想性以及整体收获，绝不逊于阅读《红楼梦》。莎士比亚和曹雪芹都能够使我们成为更好的人。

中国需要的是那些真正愿意付诸行动、做实事的人，而不是那些只会空谈批评，却无法实际行动的人。这同样适用于基督徒。我们应该努力在自己能够影响的范围内去创造，为神的国度做出贡献，而不是躲在家中，整日自怨自艾，诅咒世界。我们要明白，所有的事情都是神所安排的，没有什么是偶然发生的。

书太多了，如何是好？前几天问了上海的仓库租金，每个立方米200元，算了算，我光在上海的书一年存储费至少得上万。不如把它们运回老家。

【不爱读古籍】至于中国古籍，我并不是不想读，而是古籍确实难以读下去。除了一些我非常喜欢的古籍，比如《唐诗三百首》，我可以轻松地读完，但一些深奥的古文书籍确实难以理解。比如《左传》，我买了各个版本的《左传》，但我其实没有兴趣把它读完。我终于承认，我其实并不是那么喜欢读书。我喜欢的书，我可以一口气读完，但对于一些书籍，我总是拖着不看，因为它们没有趣味性。我喜欢有趣的书。

同样是古籍，我有一本《折狱龟鉴补》，这是一本古代断案的书，我觉得读起来特别有意思。当然，我也没读完。但是，我觉得《四书五经》和《十三经》这样的书实在是太难读了。尽管我买了很多，但我相信我这辈子是不可能读完的，因为剩下的时间有限，我不能无限地去读这些书。我只能把宝贵的时间用来阅读我真正喜欢的书。

儿子去年参加了一个夏令营，地点在郊区，是当年知青们插队下乡的地方。

这个夏令营的组织者，也是一位熟人。从以往的经验和口碑来看，比较安全，内容丰富，且收费合理。但是，没想到，这一次却有一些捣浆糊。

首先，夏令营吃得很差。

在家长群里，活动的照片很多很及时，但是没有一张就餐时的照片。儿子回来说，盒饭实在难吃，而且吃不饱。有的小朋友夜里叫了披萨外卖，走廊里一阵飘香，儿子说，感觉更饿了。

既然夜里饿，那就睡觉吧，可以也睡不好。住的条件比较差，空调不知道多少年没有清理，一开就把一个小朋友的哮喘给诱发了。带队老师也听之任之，没有叫人维修，自己也没有去清洗。儿子本来就对尘螨过敏，幸亏带了抗过敏药仙特明才算熬过去。

接着又发生了一个问题，儿子的被子第二天被小朋友弄湿了。他比较腼腆，不肯跟老师要，就不盖被子睡了四个晚上。

夏令营的那个礼拜，正是上海最热的时候，每天的最高气温都在42度以上。就这样的天，很多活动都在户外。儿子说他们头顶烈日走了1个多小时山路。没有中暑已是万幸。

有一个指标可以证明小孩过得多么紧张和不顺心，说出来就不雅洁了。干脆还是说吧，他五天没有大便。

从夏令营回来，儿子每天都睡12小时以上，特别能吃，但人看着病怏怏的没有精神，过了一个礼拜才慢慢恢复正常。

得出的教训就是，以后再不干这种傻事了。

一转眼，夏天又来了，今年把儿子送回老家，跟爷爷奶奶在一起，那里天天都是夏令营。

「6亿人月收入也就一千来块钱」这应该是他最大的政治遗产了吧？

我与11岁的儿子散步，他设想了一种新的钻地机器人。回到家就画了出来，接着用GPT-4翻译和改写了提示词，用midjourney画出了效果图。这在以前要卡梅伦的团队才能做出来吧，现在只需要一行命令就足够了。 #天天工业革命夜夜文艺复兴 pic.twitter.com/7j4dJECYLI

响应世卫组织的号召，抵制代糖饮料。根据澎湃的调查，市面上只有这两种饮料使用白沙糖/蜂蜜，果断买之

我学习剪辑的两大支柱是YouTube和ChatGPT，我发现了一个宝藏youtuber，总能用五六分钟，讲清楚剪辑的痛点，例如b-roll怎么拍。

为了彻底学会剪辑，我建了一个网站http://cutcutcut.org ，如果你也在学剪辑，就跟我一起踏上旅程吧。

我也看完了给李老师的这个爆料，令我shock的是诈骗分子拟发给受害人联系人的信息，那样狠毒龌龊的文字绝对是魔鬼手把手打出来的。我为我的母语被如此使用而感到万分难过。如果可以选择，我为生来说汉语感到羞惭，我宁愿我的母语是斯瓦希里语、僧加罗语。索多玛人配不上仓颉许慎，配不上孔孟老庄，李白

试用 @lyricwai 老师开发的http://quail.ink 博客/邮件列表服务，我专门建了一个面对自己最大痛点的博客，剪片子 cutcut，欢迎订阅，访问，留言，鼓励，跟我一起超越自我，战胜面对新技术的『渐冻症』。

我发现，无论是图文还是视频，网络上关于tana的教程都相当稀缺。这可能是因为 @tana_inc 的严格选取机制，让许多人不得其门而入。我自己也在候选名单上等待了六个月才获得通过。我有个预感，任何能提供精简明了的tana教程的人都将大有可为，因为tana是未来的趋势。

根据儿子的蜡笔画《我和波妞》生成的真人图，其中图4用了Midjourney新的zoom out功能，就是把一个图拉远然后填充细节。Prompt 见图2的ALT

本月还是为Midjourney的30美元套餐续了费，为了体验最新推出的zoom out功能。用儿子的简笔画，生成了一近一远两幅cyberpunk蒸气战舰。

今天听到一个非常感人的故事。我的好友叶子，定居在美国，有一次被邀请到一个美国人家里做客。主人拿出一把扇子，说是曾祖父在中国做传教士的时候带回来的，他不认识上面写了什么，请我朋友辨认。

我朋友一看，原来是圣经《诗篇》第二十三篇。

我买了一个汽车应急启动电源，也叫做搭电宝。购买它的原因是因为有一次晚上，我将车停在路边要修改文件，结果开着车内的灯耗光了电，于是无法发动。这时我叫了高德导航的汽车救援，需要花169元搭电。然而，我在京东上看到一个大容量的电源只要99元，非常划算。所以我就买了一个。但买回来后还不知道如何使用。今天终于迈出了艰难的第一步，学会了打开引擎盖、连接正负极，成功发动了汽车。第一次搭电没有叫救援，感觉很有成就感。

欢迎加入我们的全开放community,好中文的样子。分享中文的常态、变态和量子态。

尝试了各种炫酷的博客系统后，我决定回归简单，利用GitHub搭建一个极简的博客。它甚至没有首页，也不使用GitHub pages，只是我的稿件存放处。

我将ChatGPT当作我的输入法来使用，即使只用拼音打字，也能够盲打，完全不需要看键盘。ChatGPT会帮我纠正错别字，这是我们之间的默契。

配合新版的Chrome浏览器的侧边栏功能，我可以在不离开浏览器的情况下进行工作，无需其他文本处理软件或桌面应用。我只需打开GitHub和侧边栏就足够了。

写作曾经是一件痛苦的事情，我担心自己的言辞是否流畅，担心表达不够聪明，因此不敢动笔，不敢敲击键盘。而现在，这个问题已经不存在了，我宁愿牺牲一些个人风格，也要不断地挥毫。机械键盘的节奏将伴我左右，以后我将不再需要其他任何软件，GitHub成为我的笔记总部、创作基地。

苹果创造了地球上最良好的软件生态，让很多程序员能够站着体面地赚钱，即使这样，30%苹果税，又成了它的黑点。难道苹果不收手续费，不做审核，让app store变成安卓应用商店那样的垃圾场吗？这做好事还做出不是来了？难道中国人只配用预装了一堆小偷和窃贼的阉割安卓系统吗？

为什么苹果在2023年还要推出低配8g内存/256g硬盘的电脑？因为除了内存和硬盘这两个人人都能明白的显性指标，苹果并没有在其它方面降低配置或者偷工减料。苹果没有锁住M芯片的部分功能，不给低端用户，也没有在总线上对低配版的传输速度进行限制，也没有用廉价的显示屏，甚至不同材质的键盘触摸板。相反，苹果身为一个光明正大的公司，只是用降低存储的方式来区别低端和中高端产品。

这不是对低端用户的不敬，恰恰是对预算少的用户的高抬。等于苹果以极其低廉的价格，向暂时支付不起正常价格的用户提供了它卓越的M芯片、完美的操作系统和强大的售后服务。这充分照顾到了用户的差异性。有的用户只需要用来浏览网页，文档编辑，视频观看，app使用。这些8g/256g完全够用了。对于需要剪辑视频或者游戏玩家，程序员来说，则可以购买中高端配置。

所以，不能用内存的市场价来衡量苹果不同级别产品之间的价差。哪怕闪存盘降到10元1T，苹果依然有理由延续现在的定价策略。

这个姑娘长得确实挺好看，但发言没什么营养。这个姑娘发言确实没什么营养，但长得挺好看。#凑合fo吧 #总不能天天看Tinyfool

中国的整个教育是建立在高压的服从训练，以及拼爹拼妈拼资源的层层筛选机制上的，所以从事教育的人，感觉自带光环和出场背景音乐，用武断的，不容置疑的口气，对一切人训话。从那个高考志愿专家张雪峰，到推特上的某些口口声声学文科是上山下乡的教育工作者，都习惯了这样说话，全然忘记了自己不过是附着在老虎皮上的一根兔子毛而已。

【快写博客】今天夜里我做了一个重大决定，注册了一个新域名 http://wangpei.work 建立了一个新博客

这样做的原因有四个：

一、我要激励自己创作，我只有少得可怜的作品，我有至少20本书，10个剧本还没有写，或者说在我的脑子里，在我的笔记里，在我的只言片语里。需要我去把它们编程作品 work，这个域名就是提醒自己要如此行。

二、这个基于mataroa的博客系统，非常简明，抒写起来也很方面，正好可以发挥我用ChatGPT输入法的优势。所谓ChatGPT输入法，并不是真正的输入法。实际上是我现在在用的rime鼠须管拼音输入法和ChatGPT的组合。我在打字之前，先写一段prompt:

现在开始你是我的写作助理，首先，请除了修改错别字和标点符号之外，一个字也不要改。谢谢。

我后来发现这个提示词不行，ChatGPT还是忍不住修改我的句子结构，让我的文章变得面目可憎，于是我换成英文提示：

Correct my typos only. But please don’t change and edit anything else.

这次ChatGPT学乖了，直接告诉我：

您的原文没有发现错别字或标点符号错误，所以不需要进行修改。

这样就基本不用看着屏幕选字了。因为大部分错别字，都会被ChatGPT给纠正过来。

我用了chrome 114版，安装了 ChatGPT side panel 插件，这样就可以左边打开博客页面，右边打开ChatGPT，先在右边输入，经过ChatGPT的简单整理和纠错之后，发到左边。

三、 http://wangpei.work 的域名非常便宜，我在cloudflare注册的，一年只要6美元出头，价格真的很亲民，跟动不动65美元一年的ai域名比，简直跟不要钱一样。

四、我认真思考了推特网友给我的评论。我曾经发表暴论，说twitter blue一出，就不需要博客了，因为直接写道twitter看的人更多。

但是网友提醒我，马一龙并不是一个慈善家，推特也不是一个慈善机构。说不定哪天，你所有的blue产业就被无端封禁，你想导出数据，只能叫天天不应，叫地地不灵。为了应付这一天，必须依然保留自己的域名和博客。

小结 在我这个http://wangpei.work中，我尽量让自己多产出一点work，所以它本事就是为了我的作品服务的。但是work不是一天炼成的，要靠行动在日积月累中产生。

同样一盒500毫升的优倍牛奶，大型超市11元，便利店16元，贵45%。在洗劫年轻人钱袋方面，便利店不遑多让，排在网贷、咖啡/奶茶店之间吧。

难为基辛格老师和周公了，这么尴尬的聊天都能进行下去。

戏剧观念很重要，现在很多人的戏剧观念还处于郭老曹（郭沫若、老舍、曹禺）的阶段。现代戏剧更加具有包容性。按照英国戏剧家彼得布鲁克的说法：我们可以把戏剧看成一个空的空间，一个人走过，另一个人观看，这就是戏剧。

这段话揭示了戏剧的三个要素：空的空间，戏剧需要有场地；一个人走过，戏剧需要有演员，并且有动作；一个人观看，戏剧需要有观众。有了这三者，在哪里演出，演出什么内容，无论谁看，都是戏剧。

同一快速拼音盲打输入的原稿，换了一个prompt，对比差别。

忽然想写一封信

看到这个tinyletter的图标，想起自己已经很多年没有写过往来信了。今天拿起键盘，只不过输入界面上多了一个侧边栏：ChatGPT。

我不是用ChatGPT去生成内容唬弄读者，我是把它当成了输入法，经过稍稍训练，GPT-4可以让我的输入速度从每小时不到2000字增加到五六千字，这是怎么做到的，且听我慢慢道来。

ChatGPT大家肯定都知道是什么东西，不需要我介绍了。它是不是人工智能我不知道，但是处理语言的确是它的特长。无论你输入的文本有多么乱，里面有多少口头禅，有多少的错别字，错误的标点符号或者没有标点，无论是颠三倒四的句子，还是啰哩啰唆的表达，都可以交给ChatGPT去帮你润色和梳理。

我通常使用这样的prompt：

现在开始你是我的写作助理，请先看看我的写作风格，然后按照这一风格把我输入的内容改正错别字，纠正病句，去掉多余的词句，去掉口头禅，合并重复的内容，改成我写作风格的句子，输出为一段简明、通俗、温暖、有力的文字。谢谢

然后就可以尽情挥洒去写了。

ChatGPT iOS端还有一个妙用就是语音输入，它的语音输入使用了whisper模型，也是OpenAI开发的人工智能。它的强大之处在于，可以语音转文字，然后对文字进行润色，从而改变语音输入比较生涩的缺点。

用了这两种输入方法，我的原创速度已经增加到每25分钟3000字，当然我不能保证这些字都有价值，但至少都是可读的初稿。

有了初稿，就好办了，因为写作本质上就是打破沉默，迈出第一步，这恰恰是最难的。剩下的就是顺风满帆，很自然的事了。

今天的来信就写到这里，我们下次见。

今天跟小朋友排戏，我问小朋友你们知道吗，剧组最常发生的事情是什么？！就是打架。很多人奇怪，为什么一个如此文化水平高的地方会打架，那是因为哪里有人就有矛盾，有各种利益冲突。剧组是矛盾最集中的地方，打架是在所难免的。我看到过演员和执行制片人打得头破血流，我还劝过架，幸亏没有连我都打。所以，我们成立剧组的第一件事情就是，严禁打架。大家能做到吗？

大家齐声说能。我又说：那么严禁打架你们能保证，严禁打闹你们能做到吗？大家讨论了一下打架和打闹的区别，表示做不到。

现在的人都不读冯梦龙的小说了吗？『妓爱俏，妈爱钞』，连最古老的职业从业者都是喜欢更年轻更英俊更持久的，只有收钱的妈咪才真正喜欢钱。所有喜欢你钱的漂亮女人一定是感觉自己亏了，亏大发了。这种亏损感导致的屈辱和愤怒，迟早要像维苏威火山一样喷发出来。而你已和你的笔记本电脑一起，成为灰烬，几千年后供游客参观。

关于翟欣欣我好像还没有发表过看法，我的看法跟诸位程序员可能有点不同。除了谴责这种人之外，我还认为蛇蝎女人也是被猥琐、贪欲和怯懦喂大的。用我的一位蒙古族大嫂的话说：张三不吃死人肉，都是叫李四给惯的！

今天带领6个小朋友排戏，吵吵闹闹，沸反盈天，才发现自己家千金万金的宝贝，不过是外人眼里吵得要死的小孩。我看别人家的孩子如此，别人看我家的孩子一定也如是。现代家庭是以儿童为中心，这带来了很多问题。家长的过度关注，对孩子又何尝不是一种痛苦。你看以前，每家生十来个，当猪养，一点事都没有。富养娇生反而产生了很多问题。这正是：

我之所以喜欢推特，是因为在这里总能找到一些有共鸣的人。比如昨天，我看到了一个关于矿难的视频，心里感到很难过。于是我在评论区发表了一篇分析，阐述了我认为矿难的原因：猴车因老化而从通风斜井内以重力加速度坠落。看到这篇分析后，两位曾在煤矿工作过的推友加入了讨论。我之所以能稍微了解这个问题，是因为我曾在拍摄纪录片时下过煤矿。但在推特上，我发现还有更多的专家。这样一处藏龙卧虎的地方，有着认真讨论的气氛和彼此宽容的态度，是在国内的社交媒体上很难找到的。

ChatGPT Side Panel 快速发推，演示视频，请忽略大头（带大头只是为了表示使用拼音输入的时候，眼睛不用看屏幕选字，处于盲打状态，因为ChatGPT会给润色和修改）

我现在写做只追求速度，暂时不管内容。有了ChatGPT这个强大的工具，我能够轻易地在一小时内完成5000字的写作，这绝不是夸大其词。事实上，我甚至可以达到每小时6000字的速度。如何做到的，我会在这个视频演示中详细展示。

我记得从小到大，在我的老家，尤其是我的家族，大家一般都不撒谎，会默认对方说的是实话，并且诚实回答别人的任何问题，包括收入和隐私。后来我进了城求学回来，觉得他们真是太单纯，但我自己在别人眼里，又何尝不是一个很容易欺骗的人呢？

有一年冬天，临县外地同学让我给他在北京站买张空白发票，说要给生病的亲人筹措医药费，我居然真的要去买了，给他寄去了。

回到老家，跟我小叔–一个朴实的农民–喝酒，我说了实情，他厉声正色道：『他要是判10年，你也得判5年！』

吓得我战战兢兢一宿没睡，次日乘车找到这个同学，拙嘴笨舌但异常坚定地要回了发票，交给我小叔。他掏出一支烟，打着打火机，给我点上，又用打火机的余焰，点着了那张假发票。

我的老师黄纪苏的译作《爱因斯坦的梦》，译文出神入化，清新雅洁，堪称21世纪以来汉语翻译的一个高峰。

退订掉那些app订阅，关掉域名的auto renew，别点瑞幸喜茶，如果你奶奶没有吃过牛油果鹰嘴豆，你也不要去吃。老老实实去便利店买个盒饭，让服务员叮一下，或者去买两个包子馒头。然后，把省下的钱订阅ChatGPT Plus和Twitter Blue，现在，开始快速输出。

有了Twitter Blue，已经不需要博客了。写博客的目的是什么？无非就是为了给人看，而在Twitter上获得的曝光是最容易的，只要你写的内容对别人有帮助，就会有点赞、评论和转发。Blue去除了140字的限制，带来的发布和阅读体验也不是一串推所能比的。还建什么博客？在推上都没人看，放到博客上也没人看。

自从发现ChatGPT直接翻译圣经不靠谱，有假翻译之嫌。我换了一个新思路，用英文让ChatGPT根据圣经原文做文本的延展。这次是创世记第三章亚当夏娃失乐园的内容，我让ChatGPT写了三段独白，蛇/夏娃/亚当，内容还行。又接着让它写亚当夏娃被逐出乐园之后过日子的对话，有互相鼓励，也有争吵。

接着我让ChatGPT写一个场景就是夏娃听说自己的儿子该隐杀死了亚伯的悲剧时刻。

这还不够，我接着让ChatGPT写一个场景，就是若干年后，夏娃抱着小儿子赛特，喃喃自语，讲述上面心碎的那一刻。

这一段最满意，我已经看到月色温柔，无花果送凉，一个母亲怀抱婴儿，讲述他哥哥们悲惨的遭遇以及一个母亲的心碎。我自己竟然被感动了。

我感觉我要把圣经中那些空白的时刻，用ChatGPT填补一遍，看看有可用的没有，如果有，就是创作的源泉。

《罗马假日》是一部浪漫喜剧电影，频繁使用的技巧是喜剧反讽。主要有两种，一种是观众知道，而剧中人物不知道。观众知道赫本是公主，派克不知道。后来观众知道派克是带着采访任务的记者，而赫本不知道。另一种就是人物所说的跟他所做的不一致，例如赫本感谢派克让她睡床，派克说不客气，而观众知道其实派克把赫本扔到沙发上过的夜，于是产生了张力。

本片还使用了一种喜剧技巧，就是让观众预测到要发生的笑料，没等实际发生，观众已经乐不可支了。这种未卜先知，让观众觉得自己特别聪明，从而产生极大的满足感。

其实这部电影有个巨大的bug，派克作为一个驻欧洲的美国记者，并且接受了采访公主的任务，不可能不做任何功课，而不知道公主长什么模样。试想一个人要去采访夏洛特公主，在夜里遇上并且接到自己家里，不可能认不出公主本人的。但这又是本片最大的一个故事前提，没有它，全部邂逅都不成立。所以，只好硬着头皮编下去。

幸好，希区柯克曾经发现过一个水槽理论，可以解决这个问题，就是让观众在影院坐着的时候，看不出漏洞，等回到家在水槽前洗碗的时候，猛然想起情节不合理，此时已经不影响对于电影的欣赏，所以也就无伤大雅了。

《罗马假日》最后安妮公主为了能够再跟派克握手，而跟记者们一一见面的场景令多少人永远难忘。它揭示了一切爱情电影的本质，就是男和女的对视。彼此凝视是爱情电影的一切，没有凝视就没有爱情。

今晚是我的上海电影节最后一场电影《末代皇帝》。影片一开场，音乐一起，全场就响起了掌声，这掌声献给坂本龙一，他是这部电影的作曲。这是一部百年一遇的电影，天时地利人和决定了不可能出现第二部。首先，在故宫里实拍。第二，大师云集，除了它的导演和作曲是一流的之外，连音乐助理都是Hans Zimmer，演员有主演《阿拉伯的劳伦斯》的彼得·奥图尔，尊龙、陈冲、英若诚。第三，当时宽松的政治气氛，允许表现荒唐的文革。

宏大的场景，胶片的质感，演员精湛的演技，以及全程地道的英文台词（毫无违和感），还有人物命运的流离颠沛，让这部电影成为经典中的经典。注意到了很多细节，从抚顺看守所到故宫的切换流畅无痕，甚至有时候，观众暗暗地希望回到抚顺看守所灰色的大墙内，感受命运的鲜明对比。当庄士墩上船离开的时候，送行的人用中国民间乐器演奏《友谊地久天长》。最后一个镜头，导游带人进入故宫游览，扩音喇叭的提示音乐是《杨基杜德尔》，毫无疑问，这标志着改革开放开始了。

电影表现了溥仪从3岁到61岁的生活，他被作为战犯改造了十年，走出监狱时53岁，但已经是一副龙钟老态。片尾红卫兵批斗英若诚的一场戏，质感就跟故宫的建筑一样真实。拍片要趁早，随着年代的久远，再拍就无法还原质感了。1961年拍摄民国江南小镇故事的《早春二月》，质感真实，因为距离那个时代的结束只有20多年。《末代皇帝》应该是在1987年左右拍的，表现一二十年前的文革，最容易还原。

片中有一个镜头意味深长，小皇帝为了向自己的兄弟显示如何戏弄太监，在故宫里奔跑，让随从和抬着辇的太监门气喘吁吁地围着他转，全世界都陪着他玩的感觉，诠释了东方专制主义皇权的本质。

而且美团叮咚都以300克为单位卖菜，使得菜价看上去不那么高，实际上一换算，价格比小菜店的高得多。只不过现在的年轻人和中产不愿意逛菜店，喜欢手划一下，送货上门的感觉。平台也弄了一些无关紧要的东西显得自己便宜，比如农夫山泉5公斤水，它比实体店便宜2元，又那么重，当快递员吭哧吭哧把两桶水送上来，又省了4元钱，从感官上造成一种占了大便宜的感觉。

如果这一猜想为真，那是相当令人绝望的。证明了特德姜关于ChatGPT是一张模糊的jpeg压缩图片的说法是完全正确的。事实上，ChatGPT不但不能翻译出新版本的圣经，也翻译不出任何新版本的其他经典，它已经锚定或者说锁死在目的语的一个语料库里。无论你喂给它什么，给你的都是同样的改头换面的答案。

爱死推特了，确切地说我爱死这帮推友了。我刚说在ChatGPT用英文译本翻译圣经，马上有推友说，你难道不应该用圣经的原文（希伯来文、希腊文、亚兰文）来翻译才对吗？我一想有道理呀，放着原作向日葵我不去临摹，难道我还要临摹一张大芬村的仿制品吗？于是，我就找到了希伯来文圣经，放进ChatGPT，只用了3.5的model，效果让我差点落下泪来。不但速度如飞，而且译文别致。

在地上还没有一棵野草， 还没有一株田间的植物， 因为上帝还没有降雨在地上， 也没有人来耕种地土。 有一股雾气从地上升起， 浇灌遍地的表面。 耶和华上帝用地上的尘土塑造了人， 将生命的气息吹进他的鼻孔， 于是他成了一个有灵魂的活人。

妈呀，在当代做一个基督徒真是幸福死了！圣经可以不借助二手翻译来直接阅读。这好比，不通过链家租到了武康路的房子，并且主人只收了市场价一半的租金。（多么拙劣的比喻，人没显达过，是写不出红楼梦的。）

ChatGPT 虽然数学不是强项，但是在管理起电子订阅来，还是颇有一套手段。我让它化身高级财务官，分析我现在的电子订阅情况，哪些退订，哪些保留，它给出了很好的建议。建议退订一览表：

用 @mranti 大法，学习诗经。Prompt很重要，我的是：

帮我一起读诗经。我是一个诗经爱好者，而你是中国古诗文专家，现在我在读诗经，我有很多地方不明白，请你把诗经一句原文，一句翻译，一句解释，生僻字注音，帮助我学习好吗？

试着用 @mranti 老师的方法，用GPT-4翻译了一段左传，还真挺好用的。分享出来，供大家继续讨论。 古文真的是一座大山，挡住了我们与古代文化的交通。

ChatGPT的妙用之一：读古文。我confess，我也不懂古文，推上大概除了tbn老师，没几个真懂古文的。大家只不过都是靠着青春的记忆加上搜索引擎，骗骗Mina这样的姑娘罢了。现在有了ChatGPT，终于可以不装了。卸下伪装的感觉，就像电影局划归中宣部，一身轻松，真好。

喜欢这首歌是因为看了《绝命毒师》中，老白滚着装满了钱的油桶穿越沙漠的那场戏。为什么美国有这么自然生动好听的民谣，而中国的民谣只有两个主题：『我要交配』以及『我没交配成功』。 刚才去楼下小店买菜，老板送了一把葱，我感叹道，‘还送葱啊，网上买菜就什么也不送。‘老板摇了摇头，叹了口气，说，‘网上……‘是啊，网络确实为人们带来了很多便利，但同时也推高了物价，甚至抛弃了很多美好的传统，比如送葱。年轻人会被牛油果、叮咚买菜、瑞幸咖啡这些看似方便的东西，拖入贫困的深渊，因为这些方便的背后都写满了价格标签。

与老婆有关：讲了那么多风流韵事，不过都是前情提要，正片开始。

做早饭把手烫了一下，因为只有我一个人吃，无法让老婆内疚。白受伤了。

老婆在必胜客，看到店员正在跟老外顾客解释，皮萨要等15分钟。由于中国人发fifteen和fifty两个音容易混，双方僵持在那里，来来回回说不明白。老婆看不过去了，对着老外，伸出一只手，翻了两下说：five,five,five。困局顿解。

老婆搬办公室，找了两个IT技术人员帮忙。出门的时候，行政问出门单怎么写。老婆说：“就写，电脑一台，杂物两箱，废物三个，好了。”

老婆在地铁上，看到一东北彪悍女人，跟另外一弱女子吵架。骂得要多难听有多难听，还要拉着弱女下车单挑。满车无人敢出声。老婆忍无可忍，说：「你不要太过分了，这不是你们东北那疙瘩。」彪悍女怒目回头：「你说谁？」此时车上有正义群众说：「就说你！」骂人者灰溜溜下车了。

跟老婆进了一天摄影棚，我累得睡在沙发上。老婆倒是自始至终保持了高昂士气，最后选出200幅，才刻盘走人

第一次吵架。老婆买车票，把起点和终点搞混了，我早晨发现后，得理不饶人地说了她。去火车站的路上，她掏钱让我去重新买票。我说：“掏钱也不能减轻你的负罪感。”于是，她哭了。送完她回来，心里空落落的。我这种埋怨对方的心理真的很变态。以后改。

我和老婆这几天逛街一个永恒的话题是骂国内服装商家变态，一件意大利注册、柯桥加工的衬衫，标价2400，真以为自己是Paul Smith啊。在这样的骂声中，潜移默化地培养了老婆的理性消费意识。

很多人婚后冷落了哥们，但我不会。朋友夜里叫我去吃酒，我愉快地答应。老婆说在家没事干，我就给她布置了一道数学题。试证明x的n(n>2)次方+y的n次方=z的n次方，没有整数解。夜里1点半，我吃酒回来，发现老婆还在那里算啊算……

作为老婆家属参加她的同学聚会。酒店里恰好有个保险公司在做客户答谢活动。主持人说：“我们董事长会见胡锦涛都坐着，因为他下肢瘫痪了。我们董事长是幸运的，因为跟他一起出车祸的人都死了。我们董事长有毛多钞票，但是多少钱也买不回他的健康。”我跟老婆当场笑疯了。

我老婆在必胜客干过很多年，做到店长的职位，有一年，她被调到徐家汇漕宝路一个生意很差的店里当店长。

我老婆一去，就觉得不对劲。这个店成本做得奇高。而且，活动搞得太多，又不像有顾客受益。

店里搞得最多的是，买披萨，买八次赠一次。

而赠送的券是店员掌管的。

我老婆调出销售记录一看，发现这些券有问题。

相隔密度太低，有的一两个月吃了八次披萨。这不合情理。

而且签名的笔迹都是一个人的。

我老婆马上有数了。这是出了内鬼。

当顾客来点披萨的时候，收银员收了顾客的钱，但是不入收款箱，而是用券抵。

但我老婆深知，仅仅一个店员是做不了这件事的。必须是后厨，副店长里应外合。

尤其是订餐的窗口，只有票子传进去，里面才能做披萨。如果不串通好的话，里面的人会等机器生成的订单，而不接受这种赠券。赠券太多，后厨也会怀疑。

于是，我老婆恍然大悟。怪不得这么一个生意很差的店，员工们天天搭帮结伙，出去宵夜。

我老婆不动声色，做了两件事。

向总部请求调一个副店长，跟这里没有任何瓜葛的。

给员工开会。每人发一张纸，要求每个人把阿拉伯数字0-9，以及26个英文字母都写5遍。

不用说，每个人都知道了这是什么意思。因为优惠券签名的时候，店员都会写上数字，和英文（里面的披萨名称是用英文缩写代替的，签名也是员工的英文名字）。

而我老婆上班做的最主要的一件事，就是站在点餐窗口，因为这里是猫腻的发生地。她要看看传过来的是不是优惠券，只要传过来的不是优惠券，那么就是真的订单。

由于她在那里站着，没有人再敢再弄优惠券黑钱了。

就这样整治了两个多月，店风好转，并且店里开始盈利。

听了我老婆的故事，我感动的老泪欲流。

中国人，大都没有正义感，或者仅仅说说而已，不敢实施正义。

而我最亲爱的老婆，却能为了自己的职业操守，为了雇主的利益，兴利除弊，不怕得罪人。

证明了世界上有正义在，有公道在。

能娶到这样的老婆，难道不是俺八辈修来的福分吗？

吃鬼的人：刚才宝藏女孩问我，为什么我写的《水泡救命》她看不懂。因为我把好端端的民间故事给篡改了。我发誓，以后只讲原汁原味的民间故事，再也不做文人自作聪明的发挥了。下面这个故事就发生在我们隔壁的村子。不过不是现在的事，是我出生以前的事了。

我们隔壁的村子里，有一个光棍，姓李，小名叫屎蛋，大号叫“李大炮”，关于这么名字的来历，以后再讲。先说一个他吃鬼的故事吧。李大炮的爹死的早，母子二人相依为命，因为家里穷，上三十了，还没娶上媳妇。

大炮是种园的，瓜园在村南头，那时候，怕人偷园，都会在地里扎窝棚。别人建窝棚吧，都在田间地头，大炮脱俗，把我窝棚搭到了道当间。因为他了一个心眼儿，要是有人偷园呢，夜里肯定顺着大路来，因为那时候没有路灯，也没有手电，黑灯瞎火的，还不得走大路嘛。

这天夜里，他在窝棚里睡下。

半夜刮起了风，那风跟平常不一样，冷飕飕，让人脊背发凉。还听到外面沙沙沙沙的脚步声。

大炮心大，继续睡自己的觉。

这个时候听见一个女的在说话，仔细一听，那声音在窝棚外说：

“放我过去，放我过去。”

大炮爬起来，隔着草缝往外一看，只见一个白衣白帽的人，站在那里。光棍心想，这是谁家的孝子孝妇来这里上坟啊。

只见那个白影子开始飘飘摇摇过来，说：

“大哥，行行好吧，放我过去。我是南边富民村，刘铁蛋家的，因为跟婆婆打仗，上吊死了。求求你放我过去，我好找个替代，去投胎。”

大炮心里一软，正想给她从窝棚里开个洞，让她过去，忽然一想不对。

她去的方向，是我们村啊。

她要是讨替代，那找的也是俺们村里的人。

不行，我得这么这么着。于是就耍了个心眼说：

“闺女，你是挺可怜人的，我也想放你过去，可是俺这窝棚扎得太结实了。你要不缩小缩小，从这个眼里钻过来吧。”

那个白影子一听，千恩万谢，就越缩越小，最后缩成棉花桃大小。

大炮说：“我给你开个洞，你进来吧。”

一边说，一边把他娘烙的一张发面饼拿出来，一边掏洞，一边把饼握在手中。等女鬼一钻进洞，他就用发面饼把女鬼给捏在饼里了。任凭女鬼怎么哀嚎，大炮也不放过他。

大炮是个孝子，心想，今天夜里我捉了鬼，得让俺娘看看。于是拿着饼，就往家跑。

进了自己家的院子，看到屋里还亮着油灯，他心想不对啊，俺娘平常这个时候都睡觉了。

怎么半夜起来又点灯？莫不是年纪大了，忘了吹灯了？

再往前走，只见她娘的影子照在窗户纸上。一看，正拿着一个绳套往自己脖子上套。

大炮吓得魂飞魄散，飞起一脚踢开门，冲了进去。把娘抱住。

大炮大哭：“娘，你咋了，你咋这么想不开？”

他娘缓过气来说：“俺黑夜纺着纺着线，想起恁死了的姥姥，又想起恁死了的爹，一想到俺的屎蛋三十了还娶不上个媳妇，就觉着吧，越活越没意思，不如寻个头。正套上绳子，你就进来了。”

大炮说：“那是女鬼要找你做替代。你看，她还在我的发面饼里呢。”

她娘一看，果然看见饼里夹着一个女鬼的头。

大炮说：“我把这个鬼吃了吧，吃了，你就不会再觉得活着木意思了。”

于是，光棍咯吱咯吱吃了发面饼和女鬼。

从那以后，母子俩平平安安地生活在一起。

这个庄里，再也没有发生过寻头上吊的事。

这个是我们老家流传已久的一个民间故事。

透过这个故事，可以看到我家乡女人自杀率之高。我小时候，村里妇女自杀是很经常的事，或是与人斗气，或是抗议丈夫外头有了相好的，或是自证清白，或是没有盼头，她们用一根绳子、一瓶农药结束了煎熬。

从那以后，李大炮出了名，远近四里八乡的人赶集都要到我们村看看那个吃鬼的人。

一夜前卫：有些女人只能接触到你的鸡鸡，有些女人只能接触到你的骨头，而世界上只有一个女人才能接触到你的灵魂，灵魂！

老冯，色而不淫，他总是自诩婚内初夜献给了妻子，婚外初夜献给了初恋。去年，集团派他到美国考察，他在免税商店里买回两盒杜蕾斯的最新产品， 一盒送给了我，还有一盒留作自用。说实在地，新品还真好用，试用报告可以再写一打博客了。它有个名字叫 “Avanti”，意大利语“前卫”的意思。

约摸过了半年时间，半夜接到老冯的电话。他说，哥们，我送你的杜蕾斯，还有吗？我说，靠，我一个礼拜就用光了。

这话有些吹牛，实际上，我用了八天。

他急了，哥们，祸事来了！

我说，是不是塑胶里含有苏丹红，那也值了。

他说，电话里说不清楚，快出来，我在暧昧酒吧等你。

哥们有难，不能不帮。二十分钟以后，我们在暧昧酒吧见面了。借着昏黄的烛光，他给我诉说他的遭遇。与其说是诉苦，不如说是炫耀。我连喝了五扎啤酒，吃了三袋爆米花，靠，好不容易逮着这个机会，不宰他太亏了。

他说，你记得那个于米吗？

我当然记得，我在老冯的办公室里见过她，天不热，她把外套穿一半，脱一半，露出芋艿一样的肩膀。颇有消疬散结，调中气之功效。

老冯说，前天夜里，我把她上了。

我对这种粗鄙的用词一向不屑，让他描述细节。

咳，老冯喝了一口娃哈哈，哀凄的脸色顿时飞扬。你知道，老兄，上和上是不一样的。我们一起喝到半夜，红白黄黑，全喝了个遍。我就把她带回了家。

带回家？你老婆呢？

她出差一个礼拜。

为什么不去宾馆？

他一脸正气，靠，我不是为单位省钱吗？你别打叉，听我说。女人和女人真不一样，她身上有一股难以置信的香味，以我对时尚的了解，不是香水的味道，而是一种天然的芬芳。我一碰，她的身体就酥软了，好像一个电脑程控的按摩床。

我打断道，你别用拙劣的比喻好不好。

好好好，他生怕我不听，用讨好的目光看着我。我们一共做了两次，每次25分钟，破纪录了。

我透过啤酒杯盯着他，心想，这小子半夜把我折腾起来，就是为了用色情故事折磨我。

忽然，他萎下去。垂着老二说：可是，第二天，我发现自己犯了一个致命的错误。我对不起我老婆。

我说，你是个好男人，终于悔悟了。

什么呀！他喊到，我不该跟她用完我们家最后一个前卫杜蕾斯。那是我老婆的最爱，她用了几个，剩下几个，都记得一清二楚。这下，完了，她回来，肯定露馅了。

我说，不怕，到商店买一盒补充进去。

你懂个P。昨天和今天，我跑遍了各大药房、性用品店、商场、超市，得到的回答都是同一句话。我们这里没有这种型号。我又给杜蕾斯中国分公司去电话，对方 说，前卫型，是为欧式弟弟设计的，只在欧美国家销售。我问那小姐能不能从总部给我快递一盒，小姐说，不行，没有卫生部进口许可。我没办法了，才找你呢。送 出的礼泼出的水，我怎么好意思再要回来呢？

我说，别装孙子了，你是不希望我知道你跟于米有一腿，才想自个儿解决。我回家找找垃圾桶里，兴许还有，洗干净了给你吧。

他说，求你了，别耍我。你国外的网友多，能不能让他们给想想办法。

我问：你老婆什么时候回来。

他说：后天。

我操，那用火箭快递也来不及了。你随便买个类似的型号，鱼目混珠糊弄过去不就完了。

他说：你真蠢！难道跟你做的女人没告诉你，前卫带来的感觉欲仙欲死吗？

我好心好意，无端被骂，要不是看在他埋单的分上，早泼他一身了。只好咕咙了一句：我通常都以我为主，不了解对方的感受。

他乘机给我上了一堂性生活客户服务课，期间我上了三次厕所。最后，他的眼里忽然发出一道亮光。

他坚定地说：妈的，豁出去了，要是她发现少了前卫，跟我吵闹，我还巴不得呢？两年前，我就想跟她离了！

啊，你们不是很恩爱吗？

都是表象，在一个作为意志和表象的世界里，你被欺骗了。他像哲人一样对我说，没什么恩爱，有的只是凑合，人是懒骨头，拒绝改变已适应的生活；人又是贱骨 头，能捱就捱、得过且过。妈的，这种日子我过够了！高潮的呻吟，冲刺的吼叫，虚张声势的前戏，售后服务般的事后抚摸，统统都是骗局！一件琐事就能摧毁你的 希望，一句拌嘴就能毁掉你的一生！我想明白了，我要跟她离婚，什么房子，不要了！什么副科，不要了！！我要去干一件我做梦都不敢去干的事，找回真爱，找回 自由，找回幸福！FREEDOM！！！

我诧异了，你说，你要跟于米在一起？

哈哈哈哈，他仰天长笑，惊动了酒吧几对拉拉。他说，佩哥啊佩哥，你白活了。于米对我来说，不过是块肉，所以，我才活色生香地给你描述细节。而我的真爱，我 和她的一切，连我的左手右手都不会知道。那是长相思，那是摧心肝，你知道吗？你不知道！当我注视真正的爱人，唯一的爱人，她衣服的每个折皱都在跟我说话！ 有些女人只能接触到你的鸡鸡，有些女人只能接触到你的骨头，而世界上只有一个女人才能接触到你的灵魂，灵魂！你懂吗？

他呜呜大哭起来。

我有些不知所错，我看不得女人哭，更看不得男人落泪。我轻拍他的肩膀，说了一些安慰的话。远处几桌同性恋，向我们投来同情、赞许的目光。

我把老冯送回家，参观了他跟于米战斗过的沙发，差点急就一篇《吊古战场文》。

一周以后，在电梯里遇到老冯，我冲他投去关切的目光，他冲我晃动了一下颌下的肥肉。

又过了一个月，我们在茶楼闲坐，我问：那件事怎么样了？你跟你老婆办手续了吗？

他警觉地环顾一下四周，压低声音说：靠，天助我也，跟你喝完酒，第二天，我在小商品市场找到了前卫，我考，仿冒一摸一样。现在，我跟我老婆融洽着呢。我们 正商议着在城北在供套房子，你给参谋参谋，是“香草公寓”合适，还是“神秘园”……操，瞧你一脸不高兴的熊样，怕什么，我借钱也不会找你呀！

青岛往事：只有几十年以之后，我才敢承认自己是一个Loser。

收到一封陌生青年的来信，叙述了刚从校园步入社会所受的拒绝与打击。对于安慰人这件事，我比较在行，没有别的秘诀，无非告诉对方自己曾经更加沮丧、更加不堪、更加不走运。于是，我对他讲了一段青岛往事。

在一个成功学泛滥成灾的社会，直率地承认自己是个失败者，是个loser，是走向心理健康的重要一步。没错，大学毕业那年，在青岛，我曾是一个loser。

像所有满怀豪情的年轻人一样，我穿着泺口服装市场买来的廉价西装，打着外教赠送的比西装还贵的领带出现在青岛八大峡一家外贸公司的写字楼上。虽然是一个二流大学的实习生（我唯一可以自我安慰的是，我上的第一个大学是985，虽然当时还没有这个叫法），但是我还是想给实习单位留下年轻、专业、大气、开放的良好印象。当一帮办公室的老油条围着我问：“你从哪儿来的？”我忽然灵机一动说：“贫僧来自东土大唐。”坏了，从此，我在这家公司有了一个外号：“大唐”。

实习的日子，是单调的日子，我们白天在海边的写字楼里跟白领同出同入，晚上回到学校安排的小旅馆改造的集体宿舍里。晚上业余生活不多，不敢多出门，因为一出门肯定花钱。有一天晚上，有一个三句话离不开性生活的男同学说，咱们去看刺激的电影吧。于是，我们一小撮人蹩进了一家电影院，看了一部新婚科教片。当巨大的性器官出现在屏幕上，我们才明白叶公好龙这句成语的真正内涵。当性病的特写出现的时候，大家不约而同感到胃部痉挛。从电影院逃回旅馆，那个无黄不谈的男生，一个礼拜没有提到性。

青岛的风景让人迷醉，青岛的姑娘让人心慌。在我实习的公司里，有一个绰约的姑娘，她的牛仔裤，在那一年的春天，画出一道美丽的弧线。她经常端着杯子飘然来到我和师傅的办公室，然后拖长声音说：“喝口水~~~~~~”。她喜欢听音乐，我是从她那里知道有一系列巨牛的磁带《音乐天堂》。

实习生没有工资，唯一的福利是中午偶尔可以跟着经理去撮一顿。有一次吃完海鲜，经理，一个平常挺严肃的中年男人对绰约姑娘和我说：“我觉得你跟大唐挺般配的。”我表面羞涩，心中暗爽。但这只是一个玩笑而已。

我爱青岛，更爱青岛小嫚，我想留在这个城市。当年，这是一个奢侈的梦想。因为我们那个时代就业的主要渠道还是毕业分配，虽然也部分放开了双向选择，谁都知道，对于好单位，好城市来说，永远只有单向选择。

我忘记了我只是一个初出茅庐的小小Loser，决定对经理表明我的愿望。经理听了我想毕业留在他们公司的想法后，先是一惊，然后很大度地说：“没问题，我接收你。你去活动吧，只要公司领导同意收你，我的部门就收你。”济南人管不成熟的傻逼叫“半青”，当年我就是这样的“半青”。我把这个当成一个好消息，马上电话告诉了家里，说经理已经同意要我了，你们能否找找关系，让公司把我收下。

父亲那时候只是一个普通教育工作者，所有的社会关系网不超出县教育局500米的辐射范围。但是为了满足儿子的野心，他还是通过无数转折关系，找到了以前在我们县任职、当时在青岛外经贸系统工作的一位老领导。

老领导一听这家外贸公司，当时就说不可能，能进这家公司要么是优秀毕业生，要么得是省市级领导的子女。不过，老领导念我父亲不易，乐意介绍另一家公司给我。这家公司的名字我还记得，叫凯远公司，这说明，我年轻时的挫折经历多么刻骨铭心。不过，老领导说，想进凯远，也必须通过严格的考试和面试。

我懵懵懂懂去了凯远公司，接见我的是一位低级别的经理。他给了我一份试卷，内容是外贸实务，等我做完之后，又用英语面试我。当时我的英语学习非常畸形，一方面成绩很一般，另一方面却读过十几本英文原著。不知道那天出了什么状况，我思维笨拙，结结巴巴，稀里糊涂败下阵来。几天之后，老领导很严肃地跟我父亲说，想不到你儿子的考试成绩这么差。父亲很失望地告诉我。我还觉得挺委屈，认为自己没发挥好，全然不知道，我实际上是一个loser.

我的青岛梦最终没有实现，以后的人生道路坎坎坷坷。我的同学们纷纷在青岛找到工作，班长SAM带我第一次去青岛的中山路吃肯德基，吃完，他告诉我，文明人是自己把托盘端到垃圾桶旁边的。我跟他做了一回文明人，并且把这个习惯保持至今。八大关，第二海滨浴场，对我来说，永远只是一个旅游地。没有海风吹在我脸上，没有小嫚的身影出现在我窗外。因为那时我是一个Loser，只有几十年之后，我才正视这一点。

长裙下的真相：如果那晚我看了她的大腿，我，一个考试年年开红灯的落后生，在全世界男人面前，都会睥睨天下，傲视群雄。

小时候，我最喜欢的歌是《太阳岛上》。因为里面有句歌词：“小伙子背上六弦琴，姑娘们换上了游泳装。”让我浮想联翩。游泳装是什么样？除了在《大众电影》上，我还真没见过。

我觉得世界上最不人道的装束就是长裙，裤子至少能让人看到腿形，而莫过脚髁的裙子，把人最后一点凡念都阉了。短裙的发明者真是伟大，哪天要是遇到他，一定请他喝花酒－－花酒者，花雕酒也。

废话少说，说说我认识的一个姑娘，她叫孙赟，这个赟字取得很差劲，其实就是“美”的意思。那叫孙丽不就得了。如果喜欢这个字音，可以叫孙韵。现在可好，初次见面，十个人里有九个叫她孙斌。她要真是孙膑就好了，至少把她的脚髁剁掉，我上课就坐她后面，已经看厌了。

孙赟跟我同窗四年，永远穿长裤或长裙。我们班上男生都打赌说她腿上肯定长满了腿毛，要么就是有一道疤。

那天晚上，当我近距离看到她裸露的腿时，我惊呆了……那天晚上并不存在，法律没有意淫罪，所以我经常在大脑里自娱自乐。

那年夏天，我曾那么逼近真相。我们全班到青岛实习，天热，没空调，大家相约到第二海水浴场游泳。大家都换好泳衣，跳进凉粉一样的海水里。我甚至看到了一个曾经暗恋过我的女生雪白的大腿。暗自后悔，早知如此，为何不顺水推舟呢。

孙赟出现了，穿着她该死的长裙。我们喊：“中俄英法美，孙赟快下水。”五大常任理事国的面子都用上了。而她站在沙上，鞋也不脱，只是笑。

我失望极了，人真是一种怪物。海边有那么多的腿，粗的腿，细的腿，不粗不细的腿，对我而言，全都毫无意义。我最想看的是孙赟的腿。

日落人散，我和她走在回招待所的路上，穿过鲁迅公园。问她：“你为什么不下水？‘

谢天谢地，这次她没笑，否则我真的会把她按倒在公园的石凳上，撩起那像学生会主席一样虚伪的裙子。

她说了一句让我大脑轰鸣的话：”你想看我吗？“

我当时脑子里零线接上了火线，一片空白。天杀的本能，让我冲口说出一串字：”不，不！“我永远不敢正视自己想要的东西，从小如此，现在也如此。

于是我们开始聊中国加入关贸总协定，聊毕业论文，聊INCOTERM1990，我有一搭无一搭地闲扯，但脑子里始终回荡一个时代的最强音－－我想，I WANT！！！

但历史的机遇只出现一次，对国家，对个人，都是如此。当我们在晚风中告别，我知道自己要度过一个失眠的自慰之夜。我眼前浮出实习公司墙上那句标语：平时工作不努力，将来努力找工作。

工作？狗屁，工作能有孙赟的大腿更有意义吗？我诅咒自己，谴责自己，挖苦自己，埋汰自己，但一切都不能把我再带回到那个晚上。

我曾经如此逼近真相。

如果那晚我看了她的大腿，我，一个考试年年开红灯的落后生，在全世界男人面前，都会睥睨天下，傲视群雄。我会找到一份科长以上的工作，我会独立开公司，进军政坛文坛体坛乐坛，成为250个李泽楷，360个张艺谋。

但我没有。这说明我是一个高尚的人，一个脱离了低级趣味的人，一个绝无仅有的绅士。可这些有什么用呢？

任何故事都有续集。前年，有一天，我接到一个电话，孙赟打来的。她跟丈夫女儿一起来旅游，问我有没有空见一面。

我以工作为由拒绝了。倒不是因为吃醋，也不是不想破坏她的家庭，对那件事的悔恨，已经使我的道德指数降得很低了。

我不见她，只有一个原因，我不想万一看到她穿短裙，看到她已经向全世界解密的大腿。

这是青春的尊严，妈的，这是我永恒的秘密。

如果我告诉你，以上故事都是我编的，会不会遭到你们的鄙视？

现在，鄙视我吧！

最近看的几部电影都有美化失足妇女的倾向，无论是《不可饶恕》中一诺千金的妓女，还是《宿醉》里情比金坚的脱衣舞女郎，都会给人以误导，这让我忍不住贴出我的[短篇小说]

拯救失足妇女

每个文化人心里都埋藏着一个茶花女，问题是在中国他们遇到的往往是失足妇女。

自从青春期的骚动平息以后，我已经十多年没有进过夜总会。但去年好友从远方来，酒足饭饱，本地房地产商非拉着我们走进了一家“国际会所”。除了屏幕更大音响更响，包间跟十几年前似乎没有什么不同。当啤酒点好，果盘端上，“妈咪”领进来一排“营销专员”，环肥燕瘦，柳绿桃红，风流态度，个个不同，大家谦让一番，按照宾主顺序，一人叫了一个“专员”坐在身边。包间里顿时热闹起来，大家轮番敬酒，歌声此起彼伏。我身边的姑娘自我介绍说，名叫琪琪，老家在西安，刚来杭州一个月。我知道这里面没一句实话，她也许是米脂的婆姨，真名叫王绣花，在杭州抗日八年，不断转会于各个夜总会之间。谁知道呢？谁又在乎？

美国非虚构作家、《工厂小妹》的作者张彤禾曾跟随一群男人进过东莞的夜总会，让她迷惑不解的是，这些性情开放的男女在一起互相以“老公”“老婆”相称，他们的想象力依然超越不了家庭。我们的包间里也响起类似的祝酒声：“我敬你跟嫂子一杯。”

琪琪没有去敬酒，而是跟我谈起了她的计划。她想跳槽去另一家夜总会，她想租一间便宜的酒店式公寓，她想减肥，她想学外语⋯⋯如果是十多年前，我肯定会一本正经地为她指点迷津，甚至可能自告奋勇教她外语，而现在我只是喝着啤酒，微笑地重复她的话：“你想学外语，然后呢？”

“我也不知道然后。”琪琪用牙签插了一块哈密瓜递过来，叹了口气，“别的我不会，也挣不到现在的收入。”

而坐在我朋友身边的女孩显然没有这么多焦虑，她滔滔不绝地说着自己的爱好：喜欢听重金属摇滚，喜欢看韩寒的小说，还喜欢上新浪微博。如果再年轻一点，我会告诉她我是新浪V认证用户，并且有2万非僵尸粉丝，可作为一个即将四十岁的男人，我问她：“新浪微博是什么？”

在我年轻的时候，身边流传着很多传说，版本多样，主线相同：白领男人在夜总会遇到一个坐台小姐，惊为天人，经过多次考验，两相欣悦，小姐为他从良，他为小姐戒色，从此走向婚姻，因为都是曾经沧海难为水，反而彼此忠诚，且有奇趣。

然而，现实是—

我的一个朋友是电视台事业处于上升期的编导，有一年拍片到大连路过一片烟花巷，也许是酒盅注满，也许是命中注定，他拐进一家发廊，在那里认识了一个失足姑娘。姑娘讲起人生遭际，他为之叹息，说起人生迷茫，他为之扼腕。我不知道他们具体做了什么，反正几天之后，朋友已经为姑娘设计了一条人生的康庄大道。“你应该学摄影，然后在家开一间影棚。”他给姑娘买了一套入门级单反，还有《纽约摄影学院教程》，“我是一名摄影家，不久的将来，总有一天，你会这样宣告。”这是教材的第一句话。

不过姑娘显然不满足仅仅做一名摄影家，作为女人她有更大的东西想要，她提出要跟我朋友结婚，但这显然是不可能的，朋友已有家室，而她还没有优秀到让他离婚的程度。

事情的进程骤然难看起来，一个被勾起了希望又绝望的女人干出什么都不奇怪，她开始给他的直接领导打电话。我朋友显然错判了形势，他跑到大连把这个姑娘打了一顿，然后二人抱头痛哭，宣布永不再战。在他回去不到一个礼拜，妻子知道了他的婚外情，安慰完妻子，从副台长到台长，都接到了这个姑娘的举报电话。

时代进步了，领导不再干涉下属的私生活，但这种私生活干扰到领导时则另当别论。我朋友选择了最后的体面，他主动辞职，领导惋惜地答应。临行他们喝了最后一场酒，恰好我也在场。领导对我说：他这小子不容易啊，刚招聘到台里，住平房，让我到他家喝啤酒，我想上厕所，他一指门口的胡同，说这里解决就行。后来他好不容易买了一套房子，又请我到他家做客。一进屋就拉着我的手说：“主任，洗个澡吧，刚装的热水器，很舒服⋯⋯你妈的⋯⋯”他俩都笑起来，笑着笑着，突然一阵巨大的沉默。

大屏幕在放最后一首歌，所有的人都站起身，房地产老板让我们先走，然后从夹着的皮包里掏出一把钱，散财童子一样，递给每一个“专员”、服务员，还有“妈咪”，我没看清每人多少，也许三百，也许四百。小姐们集体列队，把我们送到电梯口，她们站在那里挥着手，微笑着，已经分不清谁是琪琪、谁是谁。

今天发了一个暑期招生贴，有人开玩笑说佩妈在割韭菜。首先，市场有这个的小小需求，就像高考完驾校火爆一样，一些家长也愿意送孩子充电，以迎接高校生活。ChatGPT作为一个技能，学到手也算技不压身吧。其次，我不怕公开我的身份，因为我上网以来一直是透明的。最后，我觉得如果我对自己办的班都这么不自信，不敢拿到自己喜欢的社交媒体上来说，又怎么能指望那些跟我学习的家长和学生们对我有信心呢？

摆摊卖课，显然没有在教育体制内整体地卖更尊贵更体面，但只要质量可以，也没有什么丢人的。

我可以让学员每小时输出速度达到5000字，我可以教他们怎样几周之内写出一个大部头。最后我还教大家No AI is the New AI，忘掉AI你一样可以输出如飞，因为AI已经帮助你突破了音障。这样的AI故事写作课是割韭菜吗？如果也算割韭菜的话，至少我担到市场的是没有喷敌敌畏的放心韭菜。

Zoom去年不是封了一些帐号嘛，我也被封了，就用写投诉信的方式，要了回来，我觉得自己挺厉害的，就劝我朋友也这样去做。结果这哥们比我有种，没有跟我一样求饶，而是参与了针对Zoom的集体诉讼。

Zoom给出的封号理由是中国地区购买美国Zoom服务不符合公司规程（因为中国地区应当从代理商购买服务），用户告Zoom侵犯隐私集体诉讼（理由是，Zoom公司无权嗅探用户所在国家，允许第三方得知会议信息，侵犯了用户隐私）

朋友自己说，就是搭了个别人发起的诉讼便车，最后得到了396美元的赔偿。而Zoom一共赔了用户8500万美元，庭外和解。

看来怂有怂的安慰，刚有刚的好处。

既然你擅长思考，喜欢琢磨，那么你真的很需要ChatGPT来帮助你写作。因为你现在遇到的最大瓶颈是你的输出速度不够快，无论你是手写还是语音，都不能立即将你的思考转化成文字、转化成第一稿。你现在就需要一个工具帮助你，无论你的思绪多么混乱，无论你的思想多么飞扬，最后转化到屏幕上的，都是通顺且去除了各种杂质的文字。你需要这样一个第一稿，然后在这个第一稿的基础上，你再进行修改。"

搞了一个『AI故事写作营』暑期班，大家可以介绍给有自己需要的亲友，说明来自推特还可以再优惠100元。

猛然发现ChatGPT Plus多出来一个功能，可以把一个对话分享给别人，这样就再也不用截图了。下面试分享我儿子用ChatGPT iOS作为输入法创作儿童剧《小丁历险记》的对话，ChatGPT做的工作主要是把一个故事从小说体改成话剧体。

在一期播客中听到，记者采访了东德秘密警察斯塔西博物馆的馆长，对方说最不喜欢的电影就是《窃听风暴》，因为胡编乱造，在现实生活中，没有一个斯塔西有过良心发现，一个也没有。

电影节笔记Day1《不可饶恕》:人类一定是在1990年代从缪斯那里把所有的好电影的配额预支光了。Unforgiven 《不可撤销》（又译：杀无赦），是克林特·伊斯特伍德1992年的电影，今天看来，是继约翰福特《搜索者》之后，最伟大的西部片。故事线很简单，讲三个杀手复仇的故事。在一个叫大威士忌的小镇上，妓女被牛仔毁容，然而警长小比尔并没有为她们主持公道，于是姐妹们凑钱雇杀手来执行公义。在一个小白的鼓动下，两个退役的老杀手重操旧业，三人踏上吉凶未卜的旅程。而消息传出，警长和镇上的枪手们早已做好了准备，一场对决不可避免。只有九十年代的电影才能拍得如此武德充沛、快意恩仇。『不要放下没报的仇』不是一句口号，而是一个契约。无论是杀手、妓女，都一诺千金，堪托死生。能在大银幕上看到这部电影，听着杜比环绕立体声，与几百人一起屏息凝神，欢笑叹息，这让Vision Pro更像一个笑话。

亲友一起吃饭，尽量避免谈论政治。因为被灌输的意识形态毒化人的心灵，破坏友谊，侵蚀亲情，而一个智慧之人，无论听到什么，都应该记住二战期间一位犹太拉比所说的话：『地上的青草比君王更长寿。』

所有我们买的东西，其实都是买两次。第一次是支付这个东西的价钱，一本书30元，一个相机2000元，一张游泳卡500元，等等……但是，仅仅支付了第一笔价钱，还不能算拥有它。

我们还要支付第二笔价钱，读完一本书需要10小时，出去拍照需要整个周六下午，去游泳馆前后加起来至少3小时的时间。把这些时间加上去，我们购买物品的价格远远不止是表面上的价格了。

从这个意义上讲，购买Vision Pro付出的远远不止3500刀，还有器官被占据的代价。

为何大妈爱丝巾？我推测理由（请补充）

1. 丝巾用途广泛，可披可戴
2. 丝巾牌照效果好，比较飘逸
3. 丝巾轻便，好携带
4. 丝巾是衣服的延伸
5. 小伙爱泳装，老头爱丝巾
6. 丝巾能够掩盖大妈的不自信
7. 与貂儿相比，丝巾便宜

钱德勒介绍的一个学习写作的方法，就是把别人的作品，拆解，记下详细的梗概，然后自己写一遍，再比较一下，看看差距在哪里。如此一遍又一遍。『笨办法学写作』。

雷蒙德·钱德勒借电影中人物之口，说出了为什么语言要简洁。『别搞太复杂，一复杂，就不高兴。一不高兴，好运气就用光了。』

有的想法根本不需要印成书，一页A4纸就可以容纳其精华。松浦弥太郎《思考的要诀》，淘宝上有台湾版，到货要一个月，不过看简介已经足够了。松浦君认为，每天应拿出至少1小时，独处静思，面前放笔和纸，集中精力想一个问题。

佩服梅西，拒绝了沙特利亚的新月两年10亿美元的合同，选择了去迈阿密国际参加美国职业足球赛，年薪少了80%，但是家人可以得到更好的生活环境。一个顾家不贪财，敬业有主见的巨星。

我现在写做只追求速度，暂时不管内容。有了ChatGPT这个强大的工具，我能够轻易地在一小时内完成5000字的写作，这绝不是夸大其词。事实上，我甚至可以达到每小时6000字的速度。如何做到的，我会在这个视频演示中详细展示。

石化公司领导和小三行为违反不违反道德？值不值得同情？大家自有公论，於此不赘。我觉得这件事的重点在于，我们每个人曾经认为茫茫人海中是安全的，所谓『万人海中一身藏』，所以我们才离开人盯人的村庄、弄堂、胡同来到大城市。然而，现在却发现，那么多的眼睛在毒辣地盯着你，你可能就是下一个猎物。

石化公司领导和小三逛街被街拍，证明了我昨天所说的，网暴的源头不是低素质网民，而是网络大平台的算法，本质上讲就是人工智能。平台需要腥风血雨，需要八卦桃色，哪管他洪水滔天，哪管他家破身亡。所以放任AI去投喂像千与千寻中爱吞吃垃圾的河伯一样的网络吃瓜群众。

一个ChatGPT上用于学习的prompt，通过不断深入挖掘分支知识，来达到学习的目的。 亲测很神奇，哪怕是你很熟悉的领域，也常有惊人的发现。例如，我问它关于编剧的内容，它提到了In Medias Res（从中间讲故事），并把技能树延伸下去（如何在游戏中使用这个技巧）。

community，一般翻译成社区，但很容易跟住宅小区发生混淆，所以我更喜欢翻译成『共同体』。人是需要共同体的，共同体需要共同的世界观、价值观，就像旧语录里所说的『我们来自五湖四海，为了一个共同的目标走到一起来』。共同体必须由人组成，共同体必须面对面，共同体必须共同承担一定的风险。

看了那个把Vision Pro吹爆的测评视频，可以理解博主获得privilege的兴奋，但是把它说成是划时代的产品我是不信的。应用场景有限，外观丑陋，使用时增加家人之间的疏离，CG冒充实际效果（苹果有这方面的传统），使得Vision Pro至少3代之内不值得买。

所谓网暴杀人，实际上也是算法杀人，质言之就是人工智能杀人。不讲良知的网络巨头，故意用算法掀起滔天的浊浪，瞄准深陷「元宇宙」 漩涡的受害者，利用他们的无力感和误以为被全世界抛弃（实际上人渣只占少数，但被人工智能放大了）的零余感实现杀人诛心的目的。

我有一计，可以让视频会议开得简短高效，发言者必须单腿站立。One more thing, 苹果可以开发一个可穿戴硬件，Stand Pro，穿在脚上。两脚同时着地，则自动切断发言。

经过疫情这几年，大家对于视讯会议已经疲惫和麻木了，第三方又不好好地提供服务，开发的东西学习曲线陡峭而难用，苹果这次亲自出手，教zoom等视频会议系统学做人。希望能刺痛这些公司的良知，解决最最最基本的问题，比如没有开麦说半天自己都不知道等。

我有一事不解，为什么中国人的视频会议，包括学术会议、网络课堂，除了主讲人之外，大家都不开摄像头，难道大家平常在电脑前都不穿衣服吗？

不知道为什么，苹果发布会把ChatGPT当作不存在。是自己的技术已经追赶上了OpenAI，还是看透了ChatGPT的把戏，不屑与之竞争？到底是道德的沦丧，还是人性的扭曲，请收看今晚播出的《走近厨子》。

千呼万唤，不如挺身一站。给OpenAI愤怒的投诉信，今天收到了回复，表示他们太忙，但会调查此事。

我不要你的快捷指令，你的锁屏小组件，你们能不能让iPhone下面的程序常驻栏里多放几个app，现在只有四个位子，电话，微信，相机一放，就没了。

养宠物千万不要用同学的名字命名。昨天晚饭后，儿子很严肃地对我们说：『告诉你们一个坏消息，小孙死了。』我们吓了一跳，昨天还在我们楼下玩呢，怎么……？看着我们惊愕的眼神，他说：『是我的金鱼死了，就是叫小孙的那一条。』

我对一位在国内天天给我发covid多危险、长新冠没药治的朋友说：我不是谭德赛，你整天给我发这玩意也没用啊。况且生活还要继续，人总要trade off. 最重要的是我的《圣经》诗篇 - 第 68 章 第 20 节说：『人能脱离死亡，是在乎主耶和华。』我还要过日子，放过我吧。

果然每一种享受背后都写着价格标签，中断16小时禁食法之后，肠胃不适，昏昏欲睡，完全没有了禁食那几天无欲则刚的状态。

找到一个自己2019年的推特备份，用ChatGPT写了一个python代码提取出推文部分，竟然有96万字。我可真能叨叨。

原来硅谷101播客的主持人泓君 @hongjun60 也在推上。E110这期编剧罢工做得太好了，嘉宾刘影带来AI编剧的洞见。如果是原创故事，AI还不行；但现成的ip改编，则颇能胜任。主持人还有一个很有启发性的观点：视觉类的AI若不加以约束，会做出极恐怖的画面，这才是AI最黑暗的领域。

这一组讨论很有意思，很多笔记控玩家，最终返璞归真，放弃Notion，Obsidian，Roam Research，回归系统自带的Apple Notes.

朋友的儿子在西安电子科大读书。他说，今天看到找工作的人排队长度绕陕西省体育场一圈大概800米。今天大雨，孩子们打着伞翘首企盼找工作。他们学校今年本科毕业生300人中有20人找到工作，其余全部参加考研。西电作为双一流，211，985重点大学，尚且如此，今年就业形势严峻可见一斑。

如果要我选出华语电影前三位导演，首位我会选谢铁骊，他拍摄了《早春二月》和许多样板戏，以及《红楼梦》。第二位我会选杨德昌。至于第三位，我不认为姜文能排上，他的作品也就那么回事。我觉得应该把这个位置留给民国时期的一些导演，比如拍摄了《一江春水向东流》的导演郑君里，或者费穆。

我对《悲情城市》并不感兴趣。但如果是杨德昌的作品，我无疑会抢一张票去观看。至于《孤零节少年杀人事件》和《一一》，我会不惜一切代价去看现场。然而，对侯孝贤的作品，我并没有那么深的喜爱。

根据我多年参加电影节的经验，一定要看喜剧。有这么多人一起观看喜剧是一种非常美妙的体验。即使你已经熟悉这个喜剧，也会哈哈大笑。所以我买了两部喜剧，一个是《BJ单身日记》，一个是《宿醉》，我对这两部都非常期待。其他的像《乱世佳人》、《教父》我似乎也买到了，还有一部《罗马假日》.

最喜欢的一位古典音乐普及人刘岠渭，他的讲解总是那么温文尔雅，娓娓道来，他通晓意大利文、德文，讲起威尔第的歌剧更是如数家珍。

《日瓦戈医生》是大卫-里恩所拍的电影中最赚钱的一部。共计为米高梅赚了2亿美元。因为当时在苏联境内拍摄是不可能的，所以外景地选了西班牙和芬兰。

纪录片《尼克松访华》里的周恩来。最有意思的是，周恩来前后态度的对比。在迎接尼克松的晚宴上，一脸严肃，公事公办。双方签订联合公报之后，在上海的欢送晚宴上，周公一改严肃，谈笑风生。甚至发出一声歇斯底里式的大笑。他对尼克松说：

告诉你个秘密。今天我们换一种菜的形式，跟在杭州不一样。

说到打牌输了钻桌子，今天看到一份材料，是文革期间邓小平私人医生談話紀要，里面写道：

帕斯捷尔纳克的《日瓦戈医生》自1948年开始动笔，历时8年完成，他投稿给苏联的《新世界》杂志，但杂志拒绝发表。1956年，他把手稿寄给意大利出版商，当年11月份用意大利语出版，后来有出版了法文版和英文版。1958年获得诺贝尔文学奖。

顾顺章是中共早期高层，曾任中央委员，负责特科。有一年他到武汉潜伏，化妆成一个魔术师在大舞台表演。结果被一变节党员认出。顾被逮捕。

顾被捕后，对国民党提出一项要求，在解押自己到达南京之前，千万不要发电报告诉蒋介石，他要求面见蒋，又要事相商。

结果抓他的国民党官员邀功心切，通电南京，说抓到了顾顺章。顾知道后，急得跺脚说：『这下全完了！』

话说，国民党总部潜伏的湖州人钱壮飞接到密电，立即告知周恩来。共党连夜转移，躲过了抓捕。

这边，顾顺章供出，有一个共党潜伏做机要秘书。警察立即去抓钱壮飞，发现他没来上班，家里也人去楼空。

顾顺章专管中共特科，深知不会放过他。要求把自己全家转移，国民党答应。顾后来见了蒋，但蒋不冷不热说了几句。没有理会他提出的条件。

顾选择性供述，并没有把共产国际和中共秘密尽吐。共产国际远东的头子左尔克他没有供，对牛兰也是轻描淡写。

顾一直以为自己家人已转移，后来，顾遇到一个旧日同党，那人告诉他，中共已经把他家秘密灭门了。

警察在顾家院子里挖出11具尸体，都双手背敷，用绳子勒颈而死。顾的全家包括岳父母家，仅有11岁儿子幸免。

这是周恩来领导特科连夜干的。

后来，国民党带顾11岁儿子上街，看到熟悉的熟人就喊名字，抓到了很多余党。

中共因顾顺章有上千人被杀。

顾后来还是被国民党抛弃，被党国逮捕，死前被穿琵琶骨，死状悲惨。

顾的后人还在，改名换姓，都不愿提起这段往事。

周恩来传记里也没写，但是很多其他人的回忆录中都有提及。

国民党文过饰非，也往自己脸上贴金，把这段历史片面遮盖了。

（主要史料取自《中共最危险的叛徒顾顺章》一书）

海德堡要理问答 (Heidelberg Catechism)是我最喜欢的新教小册子，它在坚持真理的同时，充满了融融的暖意，跟动辄横眉怒目的类似书籍形成鲜明对比。

最近国内发生的事，让我感觉自己前两天的推文就是一个白痴发的。

电影是什么？电影就是一群人在黑暗中集体做的一个梦啊。

现实世界的残酷，超乎所有人的想象，必须拿出全部武器去抵抗。我们不学AI，谁学？我们不用AI，谁用？

中国文化的特点就是讲人情，朱熹说过：『天理无非是人情』，红楼梦里也说『人情练达即文章』。中国人首先不是跟你讲法律讲道德，而是先讲一件事通不通人情。例如，中国法律规定，外国人在中国必须随身携带证件，不带可以给予警告和500元以下罚款，但是没有听说过哪位外国人在中国因为不带护照和居留卡而被处罚的。这是因为，中国人知道人情世故，不会为这点小事难为外宾。但是如果到了某些岛国，情况就不一样了，不带身份证明属于犯罪行为，这就是小题大做，这就是不通人情。

跟太太说了我的 #16小时禁食 计划，未获批准。原因是她认为我大病刚愈，需要营养调息，而不是节食和胡作，因此，我需要暂时退出168饮食计划了。各位道友，你们继续。

今天是 #16小时禁食法 的第四天，从早晨8点醒来，眼巴巴等着12点吃第一顿饭（我的进食时间是12:00-20:00），现在还有20分钟，提醒自己一定要坚持。

刚才车厢里一阵骚动，一个二岁儿童因为发烧而抽搐，孩子的母亲急得声音都变了。列车员迅速广播找来医生，邻座也一起来帮忙。有人贡献出毛巾，还有人带了冰块，立即给孩子冷敷。我无所贡献，就把外套拿出来给孩子的母亲，让她盖一下小孩的肚子。

北野武坦率随性，敞亮豁达。他说没出名之前，梦想有一天有了钱一定要开跑车，吃高档餐厅，跟女人们睡觉。但真正功成名就的时候，他发现开保时捷的感觉并没有那么好，因为“看不到自己开保时捷的样子”，他就让朋友开，自己打个出租车，在后面跟着，还对出租司机说：“看，那时我的车。”

蔡澜在日本拍片，男主角绪形拳是当时最红的演员，想相当于当年的发哥。秋天奇寒，他只穿夏服，瑟瑟发抖，午饭只吃几口，太阳一出就开工。蔡澜见他可怜状，忙过来安慰。他说：“赚你的钱，不付出，算什么演员？”

发如韭，割复生。头如鸡，割复鸣。农民起义者们已经指明了应对ChatGPT封号的方法。OpenAI封一个，就注册三个，并且用退回的钱，升级为ChatGPT Plus. 如此循环往复，直到不封的那一天。

吃完晚饭，在小镇上走了走，只见人流如潮，百废俱兴。因为明年要迎接亚运会，小镇面貌焕然一新，过街地道全都用上了自动扶梯，比北京还豪华。要说这些年基建没有成绩是不可能的，但是普通人的幸福感有没有提升，那就是另一回事了。

晚饭后散步的时候，又想出一招对付OpenAI封控的办法 #飞蛾扑火式。就是在明知道可能会被封号的情况下，继续注册ChatGPT并升级到Plus，利用时间差干活。预计1周左右被封，那么理论上可以获得最高1400次GPT-4的访问，这足以完成任何工作。等到被封控，钱会被退回到支付账户，并无多大损失。

杀猪盘到推特上找猪是不是来错了地方？推特平均智商这么高，那些狗推（指扮演帅哥美女寻猪的抠脚大汉）怎么跟人互动？光靠盗图盗来的磨秃了皮的美女照，有效果吗？如果要成功杀一头猪，狗腿至少需要懂诗词歌赋、人工智能、东西方哲学、军事外交中的一样吧，这难度也太大了。

世界两大强国，在很多问题上意见都不统一，唯一在一点上达成空前一致，就是想尽千方百计，不要让中国的AI爱好者们用上ChatGPT。

当我三个ChatGPT的账号被强行删除，我也非常郁闷。但我想，我们老祖宗有一个伟大的传统，就是不平则鸣。于是我就开始写投诉信，一边写还一边准备Plan B。现在投诉信全都发出去了，Plan B已经部署，特此跟大家分享：抵抗有用！

要像我一样，敢于提问，尤其是敢于向大师/大拿/大咖提问。因为往往是问题一提出，答案就在来的路上了，没等对方回答，自己就顿悟了，但是不提问，永远不会有顿悟。

感谢大家的指导和鼓励，成功地在OpenCat上配置好了Azure Openai，再也不用那么焦虑地担心被删号了。Azure GPT-4的申请也在路上，一切原来可以那么美好。我爱你们！

有位外国朋友看到我写给OpenAI的投诉信说useless and hopeless 我说，在你们看来可能如此，但我们中国人都有一种粉碎四人帮情节（此处给他解释了一下啥叫四人帮），就是无论环境多恶劣，政策多操蛋，弄权者多混账，我们相信总有一天会拨乱反正，四人帮会被揪出来crack down 那一天就是人民的节日。

三连招对付OpenAI白色恐怖：1. 申请了独立帐号，只使用其 OpenAI API，ChatGPT页面登都不要登。

2. 现有的ChatGPT iOS版，只在手机app上使用，绝不用来在电脑上登录网页版。

3. 充分利用通用剪贴板（Universal Clipboard）功能进行设备间的文本拷贝粘贴。

在中国传统文化里，没有一种水果能替代杏，其色悦目，其味悦腹，其情悦心。龚自珍曾有“未曾题满杏黄裙”之艳诗。

非常感谢宝玉老师，他给了我一个重要的提示，即申请一个单纯的OpenAI的API，这样就不会被封控。所有被封控的都是ChatGPT网页端的用户。因此，我立刻申请了一个新的API，并加入了GPT-4的等待名单。我相信经过这次调整，至少GPT-3.5的API可以保证我正常使用，不会让我措手不及。尽管使用API的费用稍高，

我发现自己做，吃得更精致一点，与点外卖相比，一点都不贵。例如，我每天的食谱：熬粥的成本大概在三元左右，蓝莓比较贵，大概是二十元。牛排是我买的KFC的生牛排，一块大概是十六元左右。再加上鸡蛋和青菜，奶酪片，这些东西，4个柠檬，加起来每天的成本大概在60元左右。

二阳的用药体会。首先，如果发烧或浑身酸痛，需要用布洛芬或对乙酰氨基酚，这两个药现在都很好买。其次，如果咳嗽，推荐宣肺止嗽合剂，如果有痰咳不出来，可以吃切诺，也都是瑞金医院医生开的药方。其他药物可以根据自己的情况随时调整，建议多摄入维生素和蛋白质，多喝自己榨的柠檬汁

二阳七天后，终于转阴。我得出了一些经验：首先，保证充足的休息，这是毋庸置疑的；其次，保证良好的营养，包括维生素和蛋白质的摄入。感谢朋友推荐的食谱，每天都有牛排、柠檬和蓝莓，这三样食物可以基本保证每天的营养。我发现，吃的食物越精致，就越不容易饿，越来越拒绝外卖。

16小时禁食法，也就是8个小时吃东西，16个小时不吃东西，对健康有许多可能的好处。这包括体重管理，提高代谢健康，心脏健康，提高大脑健康，以及细胞健康。的。这个方法是可行的，但前提是保证食物的质量和营养。

我现在已经把我手机的环境全都改成了美区，用的VPN也是美区，并且一刻也不敢断掉。不知道这样能让我的ChatGPT手机端活多久。

我有三个ChatGPT Plus帐号，已经被干掉了两个。只剩一根独苗，在风雨中飘摇。

这一次ChatGPT大规模的封号太可怕了。我有两个号被封了，现在每天醒来提心吊胆，担心手里这唯二的号要不要被封掉。尤其是iOS这个，我主要拿它作为输入法和语音输入之后，再进行简单修改和润色的工具。如果这个再挂了，真不知道怎么办了。

特吕弗说：『电影是女人的艺术，即女演员的艺术。导演的工作就是寻找漂亮的女性来做漂亮的事。』一语道尽电影的本质。那位朋友说了，《肖申克救赎》里几乎没有女人，难道也适用？错了，肖申克救赎的原著名字就叫《丽塔·海华斯与肖申克的救赎》，那张海报就是女主啊。

当我们判断别人时。心里要有一点悲悯，因为在这片土地上做正确的事要付出不可知的成本，相比之下，什么也不做最安全。

我反对大棋说，因为它否认了人的理性。大棋说把一切人能理性掌握范围之内的是非判断，全都用一个更宏大的目标给模糊掉，从而使人丧失了道德判断的尺度。就拿川普来说，你可以说他是准备复兴美国的基督教精神，这也许是一个事实，但是你不能用这样一个宏伟的目标来为他的具体的事情去做掩护。最

优雅和礼貌不仅仅是社交生活的需要，而且是防范洗脑的篱笆墙。如果一切都用文质彬彬的方式说出来，洗脑是很难完成的任务。简单粗暴、骂骂咧咧、突破社交界限，实际上是进行洗脑的第一步也是最关键一步。

我挺佩服那些在推上别人洗脑的人，其所有的推文都是循环转推的，点其ID，就开始了无限循环播放。在其设计好的信息洪流里，你会被各种有趣的小甜点所吸引，甚至有时会开怀大笑。忽然其态度一变，开始向你灌输，用谩骂的方式。你为了小甜点忍了，于是又来一波。如此循环往复，直到想法在你脑子里种下。

《指环王3：王者归来》看完。四个小时，座无虚席，放映厅里时而响起掌声。银幕大得须仰视，才能望见魔多塔楼，同一个画面，却又细致得可以看见石缝里野花一朵。魔象来袭，座位都能感觉到震动。佛若多告别，安静得能听到邻座眼泪滴在镜片上的声音。

我从业太晚，到了40多岁才明白不能生活在套子里，要追求自己想要的职业。虽然没有值得骄傲的作品，但我始终想不通，难道一辈子折腾不明白故事编剧这点事？当然我知道，着急没用，得一点点来。一边看电影或话剧，一边坐在座位上在黑暗中记笔记，是我学编剧的笨办法。

《肖申克的救赎》对于现代人的意义，就像俄狄浦斯王对于古希腊人的意义。故事台词已经倒背如流，但是每看一次都被新的东西所吸引。这就是故事的秘密，你会发现情节不重要，悬念设置不重要，重要的是人的行动和反应

被洗脑的感觉好奇妙，感觉他说的那么有道理，又感觉到处是漏洞。这时必须发挥羊上树的精神。就是对方无论说什么，都要给他圆起来。『我家羊上树了。』『主人说的对，夜里刮大风，把树吹倒了，羊爬到树上吃树叶。』『夜里没刮风。』『主人说的对，内蒙空运过来的羊，飞着飞着，一个不长眼的乘客打开了机

刚才跟老婆抱怨说，二阳的时候鼻子不通气，夜里睡不着。我老婆说，你知道吗，我从怀孕八个月起就只能用一个鼻孔呼吸，因为充血。我听了之后非常惭愧，我靠我靠，做过罪过罪过！我怎么儿子12岁了才知道这一点，可见我是多么不关心她，多么自私的一个人，深刻检讨。

看了耳光乐队的《红孩儿十八赢》，确实挺不错的。这个传统其实从阿炳就开始了。史书记载，阿炳在1949年以前的时候，他是拉一个二胡在唱新闻，每天发生什么新闻他都会编到歌里唱出来。只是很遗憾的是没有留下录音。耳光乐队复活了这个伟大的，用歌曲来进行叙事和说新闻的传统，挺让人高兴。

我认识一位经常在全国各地做公益手术的医生。他告诉我一个饮食健康的秘密。就是无论到哪里，在酒店吃自助餐的时候，他有两样东西是不碰的。一个是当地的牛奶，第二个就是海鲜。他说只要不吃这两样东西，就不会吃坏肚子。

改革开放初期，那些走私汽车的人，从不会抱怨说风急浪高。那些到北京大红门承包服装城的浙江人，也从来不会抱怨北京的警察的刁难。因为他们知道风险越大，收益越大。对于ChatGPT，我们也是这样的态度。无论你怎样封，无论你怎样控，我都依然故我地使用。封了一个，再注册一个。阵亡一个，再诞生一个。

OpenAI封号台风过后，检视灾情。三个ChatGPT Plus帐号，阵亡一个。迄今已经阵亡两个号了。果然使用GPT-4是一个高损耗、高风险、收益一般般的行当。

听说今天又有好多ChatGPT Plus账号被封了。大家都在瑟瑟发抖，不知道用美区的IP能不能保住账号。对我来说，ChatGPT Plus iOS版是我唯一依赖的语音输入法，有了它，我每分钟能输入250到280字。如果没有它，我就得退回到石器时代。无论如何要保号。

我想对我的推特上的好朋友们表达感恩，特别是Mina、王小山，猛小蛇、Yining、Yueting Zhang 、道德、Samuel，还有所有fo我或与我互送的推友们。他们都在我最艰难的时刻陪伴我，给我鼓励，与我交流。容忍我、没有厌烦我。

我想特别表达对Mina（以前的网名叫小手）的感激。Mina是一位独特的女士，从小就独立自主，聪明无比，具有独立的人格。在我主耶稣基督的感召下，她成为了一名基督徒，因此，她的所有个性都被我主所用。

我想要感谢Oxgreen。他十年前注册了推特，但在这十年里，他只有九个粉丝。这非常神奇，一个只有九个粉丝的人却能坚持十年的推特更新。他一定是一个甘愿寂寞、内心宁静的人。我对他的特性非常感兴趣，因此毫不犹豫地推荐了他。

什么最恐怖？语言。我看到的关于刑讯逼供的最恐怖的描述是一个受害者的回忆：

『第一次不听话，警察问我：“你知道男人怎么生孩子吗？” 他说的是里面的一种刑罚，我亲眼目睹过。』

这话光想想就令人毛骨悚然。

现代汉语的活水是翻译，正是一代一代的译文进入汉语，才让中文从朦胧诗意但缺乏严格定义的古汉语，成为定义明确，表达清晰自如的现代白话文。这其中经典的翻译，包括圣经的翻译，居功至伟。

请看圣经新约《罗马书》第八章的文本:

因为Dustin Hofman老师自己是犹太人，所以可以嘲笑犹太人。他讲的第三个笑话是说，在奥斯威辛集中营，一群犹太人被纳粹押着站在一堵墙边，站成一排，谁都知道这意味着什么。这时候一个年轻的犹太人举起手说要问一个问题，旁边一个老犹太人拉了拉他的衣服对他说：『嗨，别给自己惹麻烦。』

何其有幸，我上过达斯汀·霍夫曼的表演课，在课堂上，他讲过两个笑话。一个是：有人问拉比，能不能用一句话概括所有的道德，他说：“能，不撒谎。”

有个犹太人去找拉比：“我妈妈这么多年都忘掉了我的生日，这是为什么？”

拉比回答：“因为她不喜欢你。”

真相让人得自由，无论真相是多么难看或难堪。

圣经和合本诞生于100年以前，并非完美无缺，译文有舛误，语言有时费解，句法还没有经历过拉丁化改造，应付复句很吃力。但解决这些问题，不能简单把和合本修订。而应：一保留原样，做注释。二另起炉灶，重译。如今的和合本修订版，贪传教士之功，加入了不少私货，不足取。

如果将来有作为标准汉语文本的《圣经》新译本出现，需要重新翻译和合本中的主祷文（我们在天上的父，愿人们都尊你的名为圣……）吗？我认为，没必要。首先，它已经约定俗成，刻入每个使用中文的新教徒的心版上；其次，它保留了上个世纪传教士们使用的北京官话的特色，属于汉语中的语言遗产

兩個原始人的對話：『奇怪呀！我们的空气是干净的，我们的食物是有机的，我们喝的是矿泉水，我们每天都运动，但是我们没人能活到30岁。』

恕我說一句實話，ChatGPT出那麼多插件，真正有用的，一個也沒有。我還是用回default模式吧。

不存在内地网民这个群体，就像不存在华北光棍这个群体一样。那是一部分使用互联网的orc（指环王中的半兽人），不是什么网民。

朱生豪的翻譯好得很。莎士比亚出身勾栏瓦舍，跟下层人民打成一片，其语言大俗大雅，雅的直冲九霄，俗的直奔三寸。而朱生豪的翻译，完全兼顾到了这些，使用了大量鄙俗的汉语口语来传达莎剧的意境，这些粗话，不应该删洁。

我家里的莎士比亚有好几套了。我觉得最干扰阅读的就是中英对照版。虽然它的排版左边是英文，右边是中文，看上去很简单，但是很容易造成干扰。在读英文的时候总是忍不住去看中文，从而使得英文没看明白，中文也看得稀里糊涂。所以我觉得最好是看一个纯净版，不要看这种中英对照版。这是我个人的见解。

既然大家都喜欢日语歌，必须拿出我的私心最爱，吉幾三演唱的《ともこ》，先不上字幕，欣賞一下吉幾三老先生從藝50年紀念會上的一段唱，主唱是他的老朋友千昌夫。如果你還有眼淚，現在就準備流吧。

在《非诚勿扰I》中，葛优的朋友邬桑，目睹了舒淇视死如归的深情，在送完葛优回家的路上，开着开着车唱起了这首《知床旅情》，唱着唱着就哭了，他停下车，只见连绵起伏的公路，想起王怡评价这部电影的八个字：『天地之大，无处容身』。

这些年看到的最好的纪录片就是AlphaGo，李世石挑战AI的勇气让我激动难眠。他用坚韧的意志和精湛的棋艺，击穿了阿尔法狗不可战胜的神话，也让我这样一个中年小人物，增添了一丝对命运说不的勇气。我用它和张广天的《贺礼》合成了一个MV，希望这个世界上未来的孩子们健康如意。

内蒙人情深义重。这是在内蒙采访时，负责接待我们的蒙古族姑娘敬酒的画面。

我的YouTube选：民谣清唱剧《鲁迅先生》主题歌《狂人日记》，这首歌的厉害之处在于几乎把原文唱了下来。跟我的关系是，我是这出戏的电影放映员。

最近听到一件奇事。一位商人在与一位副区长共进晚餐后，收到副区长的微信，称有100万要转到商人的账上，并给了转账凭证。但商人发现这笔钱并未到账。副区长又急忙表示有20万要付出去，让商人转账20万。商人在开车，没来得及思考，就找了朋友转了20万。然而，事后与副区长联系，副区长称对此一无所知。

有人说YouTube是一个机会，动辄赚大钱，比如说，某大V号称两年赚了420万人民币。但是，大V只是分子，而不是分母。如果你做YouTube的话，你必然是那一个分母。分母是什么概念呢？我有一个号，从2007年到现在，已经做了16年，这16年，平均每3个月涨一个粉丝。这是大部分YouTube账号频道的现状。所以不要光看那些赚钱的，也要看一看金字塔底层的芸芸众生。

根据一个朋友的建议，我今天买了十二盒蓝莓，每盒125克，还有KFC的七块牛排，以及家里储存的三十几个柠檬。我准备用牛排、蓝莓和柠檬的疗法来治疗我的二阳。感谢这位朋友的建议。

感谢上帝，我醒来了。

牛顿在疫情期间发明了微积分，我在第二次阳性期间，发明了使用ChatGPT iOS和Zapier直接发推的方法。

澳门也是这样，如果你是以一个游客或者赌客的身份去，你会发现澳门不过是一个纸醉金迷或者无聊的地方。但是，如果你是以工作状态去接触澳门人，与他们一起工作的话，你会发现澳门真是一个神奇的土地。这么小的地方有六千多个小小的社会组织，几乎每个人都是某个组织或者几个组织的成员。因为生活太难了

很多人对于香港有一些误解。我觉得这是因为你可能以游客的身份去的，而不是以短暂的居民的身份。所以，你看到的人都是辐光烈影的服务人员，没有真正接触到他们的核心。如果你能接触到工作中的香港人，你就会发现其实是没有什么歧视的。

这是用ChatGPT 的 zapier插件发的一条推。如果你能看到，说明这个方法是成功的，以后可以用ChatGPT iOS的语音输入来直接发推了。

发现一个ChatGPT iOS端的妙用,当作语音输入法,。新开一个对话,专门输入语音, 输入完之后还可以请ChatGPT做一下语法, 错别字的检查,准确率非常高, 并且只需要用GPT-3.5就可以了, 不需要占用GPT-4宝贵的资源。用這個辦法,我試了一下,每分鐘可以輸入280字。 理論上講,40分鐘輸入1萬字。这一条就是这样输入的。

以前跟朋友开玩笑说，我的追悼会上，一定要放《哥德堡变奏》，后来参加过一些葬礼，才发现在龙华点歌挺贵的。哪有那么多讲究，自己也听不到，死后不要被人骂就很好了。

无论把我放到何种境地，只要有巴赫的音乐，有圣经（我刚才是听着朗读的《诗篇》睡着的），再加一两本别的书，日子就过得去。

昨夜，调试Immersive Translate插件，使其能够翻译Heypi网站上全部对话。忍不住用儿子的口气跟pi聊起了我自己。The result is quite sentimental. 人工智能应该改名叫人工感情。

二阳了，距离首阳13个月。37度，腰酸背痛，鼻塞，自我隔离中

儿子回家，跟HeyPi聊了看到猫咪死亡以及给它造坟墓的事，对话非常touching, moving and encouraging. What a release of emotions.

小区里一只猫死了，可能是被毒死的。儿子制作了一个墓碑，愿它R.I.P

黄浦江畔滑板公园。小津安二郎/阿巴斯风，固定机位，日常记录，无奇观，适解乡愁。

看了之后，迫不及待地去注册heypi，发现需要五眼联盟的手机短信，这难不倒咱，到https://t.co/r94Y9AizIE 『选择服务』搜索 other，挑一个英国虚拟号，只需要大概人民币1元钱，就可以搞定了。

IT界十大脑残设计出炉

1. GitHub中master改成main。

2. 域名增加.zip和.mov，很容易被文件名混淆。

3. Mac OS中preference 改成setting。

4. 苹果取消又反悔 Esc 物理按键 / 磁吸充电口 via @andybowu

5. 苹果的itunes改成music，出现了要物理连线iPhone备份或者恢复时，你要连接music才能找到restore backup 脑残到家了。

6. 腾讯围棋等围棋软件，推出形势判断功能，代替人工判断，从而使得围棋彻底丧失了锻炼心算能力的作用。

我发现一个秘密，早就想说，今天索性说出来。同样是光明牛奶的高端子品牌优倍，上海市场和杭州市场卖的是两种不同品质，我在上海喝不拉肚子，在杭州喝简直乘上了non-stop flight.

杨小凯的文笔有多好，从《牛鬼蛇神录》3.罗钢可见一斑。罗钢是个小偷，他最爱的电影是《流浪者》，尤其是里面的主题歌《拉兹之歌》和《丽达之歌》，他谈起这部电影常常神往，尤其是丽达送拉兹去劳改队时的情景。

在铺陈了几千字之后，这一章是这样结尾的。

看邻居家的儿子结婚那么热闹，做房地产的暴发户一怒之下，给死了多年的爹娶了一门阴亲。女方年方二八，刚刚车祸而亡，排场是邻居的十倍那么大。全村没有一个不夸他孝顺的，除了他亲舅。

作为一个基督徒，无论任何人都无法伤害到你的灵魂。

表哥村里一小伙车祸身亡，听说邻村一姑娘也刚车祸死了，死者家属连忙拜托表哥去提亲。因姑娘家获赔了30万，表哥知道这次要大出血，问女方多少彩礼，对方不肯说，表哥迂回问到女方住院花费8万，立即回村提了十万现金，订下这门阴亲。

在山东，礼仪看得比千金还重，脸面看得比泰山还高。我们村有个大爷，70岁那年，在路上遇到同村的晚辈，两家因为有一点点争地的纠纷，对方就骂了他一句『老婊子生的』，他回到家气得脸色煞白。首先是大娘不干了，跑到当街把这个晚辈揉搓了一顿。到头来还不解气，就叫家里当官的亲戚，动用关系，把这个晚辈抓到派出所关了24小时，才算消了火。

我们村的二婶子，从来没有到过大城市。有一年，她和别人到济南看病人，望着车水马龙和高楼大厦，她对我大娘说：“俺了娘诶，原来咱交的那个棉花钱，都用到这里来啦。”

在一个不相干的婚礼上，我听到了悠扬的大提琴声，仔细一听是久石让的《入殓师》主题曲。

ChatGPT最好用的浏览插件WebPilot的作者。叹服、仰望。

直到80年代，我村农民每年要被征徭役，大修水利工程，家乡话叫“上河工”。文革期间，有个高中生在上河工的工地上赋诗一首：“车如龙，人如蚁，今朝又出隋炀帝。”被打成现行反革命。

小时候听到这个故事，大喊荒唐，不可思议。

现在，我修改了刚写的一条推特。

二十年以前，我跟王小山学会一个礼仪，就是去了外地，被朋友接待后，登机之前，发车之后，一定要给朋友写一封message.

2021年，我的小戏在北京演出，请了好友们来看，上高铁后，我发了下面的微信。

亲爱的xxx，我已经踏上了回家的高铁，昨天的匆匆一聚时光虽然短暂，但是足以勾起我们那些美好的回忆。在北京最美好的事就是跟昨天你们一桌人相遇。谢谢你们放下千头万绪来看戏。昨晚目送你远去，愿你们脚踪平安，背影佳美，愿我们生活有力，心无挂碍，被祝福的同时也成为别人的祝福。下次再见！

很多人不知道他们不爱读书的原因就是顺服这个社会的熵增定律。

读书是反自然的，熵减的行为。所以，不容易发生。

最后，我祝大家都能有读书的幸福，大富大贵，想读什么就读什么，想读多久就读多久。

把戏留给瘪三，你们却要当读书的财主。

徐皓峰说，老北京人，说正事的时候，绝对不会边走边说，那样对于说事的人不尊重。一定要坐下来，哪怕坐在门槛上，石头上，也要坐下来说。万一没有坐的地方，怎么办呢，就手扶着墙，或者扶着电线杆说。

我记得疫情期间有位北京大妈跟夜里来敲门的居委会说： 『半夜敲门发通知，以前只有发丧才这么干呢。』

规矩一坏，人心就更坏了。

我们的村庄（综合版） 1、我们村叫丁家村，我在那里出生并且生活到18岁，每年都要回去两回。我们村并无一户人家姓丁，村名的来历据说是因为全村只有丁字路口，没有十字路口。

2、我们村第一个被打成反革命的人是王二大爷，一天生产队社员们都在田间集体锄地，天上飞过一架飞机，二大爷忽然举起锄头，用柄对着飞机，做射击状。结果被打成了现行反革命。

3、第二个被打成现反对是位高中生。我村农民每年要被征徭役，大修水利工程，家乡话叫“上河工”。高中生在工地上赋诗一首：“车如龙，人如蚁，今朝又出隋炀帝。”被告发后游街示众。

4、村长在社员大会上讲话，念稿：“十月革命一声炮”，翻页时纸粘住，停顿良久，听众议论纷纷：“准是臭了”，校长翻过一页，大喝：“响！”

5、王四大爷在族里德高望重，每逢丧事，必率众拜祭，三十六拜不重复。隆冬大祭，他穿免裆老式棉裤，不慎起身时棉裤落地，恰巧那天没穿裤衩。羞惭归家，连夜上吊自尽，全村无不为之叹息。

6、小时候村里唯一的个人通讯工具就是喉咙，炊烟升起，牛羊下来时，总可以听到村里妇女的悠扬呼唤：小啊，快点回家吃饭了！民谚：“黏粥座到锅里了，太阳落到窝里了”。

7、但是村南小六再也没回来，他被牛蹄踩的小坑里的一汪水给淹死了。疾跑，绊倒，脸戳到牛蹄坑里，水呛入肺而死。

8、刘老汉视牛如亲，爱牛如命，相伴十年，安然无恙。一日，在田间，牛忽然狂奔而来，冲刘老汉当胸抵去。老汉立仆，不治而亡。乡亲把牛捉住，堆柴烧之，无人食其肉。

9、二奶奶终于死了。她最大的爱好就是听墙根，而且是听儿子和儿媳的墙根，第二天再用收集的黑材料痛骂儿媳。后来大家分析二奶奶的心理，说她可能是年轻时守寡造成的变态。

10、在我们村，认为最缺德的五件事是：敲寡妇门，挖绝户坟，打瞎子，骂哑巴，往井里撒尿。对于法律认为的犯罪，大家反而很宽容。

11、小时候，我在姥爷家住，姥爷说，你要是夜里干渴了，一定要告诉姥爷。我知道原因。这村有个孩子，夜里喊着口渴要喝水，他舅舅犯懒，没理他。第二天早晨，这个孩子死了。

12、铁蛋结巴，自幼姥姥养大。19岁那年，他正切菜，姥姥说：铁蛋啊铁蛋，白养你了，你跟姥姥不亲了。铁蛋向天赌咒，口不成句，手起刀落，一节小指飞到地上，乱跳如活物。

13、王老汉性子特别倔，他挑着两担刚刚收割下来的谷穗，往家里走。忽然起风了，无论他怎么找平衡，担子都被吹得歪歪斜斜。他把担子一扔，抄起扁担，狠狠地朝一捆谷穗抽去，只打得谷子满地都是，他走后，飞来一地麻雀。

14、村里的孩子们都讨厌蛇，几乎每见到一条就打死一条。但老辈人说，蛇能自救。于是，每次处死一条蛇，我们都把它身体铲断成三截，分别埋在不同的地方。

15、在生产队里的日子，村子叫大队，分成14个生产小队，因为所辖土地的墒情不同，小队之间收入也有差别。当时有句童谣：12队穷，13队富，14队穿着豁裆裤。我家在13队。

16、每到晚上，社员收工后，都来到生产小队的会计室。我现在记忆里还有点燃马灯的煤油味。达人们抽着烟，爷爷在账簿上记着公分。电在我们村还没有诞生，最奢侈的电器是收音机。

17、收音机，我记得我家里有一台红灯排晶体管收音机，我童年所受的一切文学教育都来源于它。有一天听完一个节目，我在村子里狂奔，去找大我四岁的新蕾哥。上气不接下气地说：“你知道吗？金达莱就是杜鹃花！”

18、为了洗被单，母亲从村子里最富有的人家借来了全村唯一的大铝盆，由于用搓衣板不慎，铝盆内侧划了一道印子。当时，全家觉得天都要塌下来了。这可怎么办？这可怎么还？我印象中，母亲长吁短叹了一夜。

19、我家终于盖起了自己的院子，那是我记忆中最美的院落。四间大瓦房，有个大天井，院门朝东，面对着田野，门口有两棵树，一棵是榆树，另一棵是小榆树。

20、我小时候很没出息，一旦拂逆我意，我就背过气去。这是姑姑说的，有一次，我哭着闹着要去邻村看电影，她不抱我去，我立即气得短暂昏厥。现在想来，也许当时是我装的。

21、村子里有个哑巴，哑巴比我大几岁，哑巴喜欢唱歌，他只唱的《三大纪律八项注意》：“哇哇哇哇哇哇哇……”后来，哑巴在湾里淹死了，村里也就没有了他的歌声。

22、母亲帮人织布，那户人家的孩子送给我几个吃剩下的核桃壳，告诉我只要种下去，春天就会发芽，明年就有核桃吃。我种了。

23、春节回家，看到我们村老光棍二宝，坐在门洞里哭。我问他哭啥。他说：“俺不孝顺。街坊四邻的老太太都有儿媳妇，可以打过来，骂过去，俺娘却没这个福气。这样下去会憋坏的呀！”

24、每到过年，总会有人因放炮仗而受伤。不过杨老汉伤得最离奇，他眼神不好，到别人家里串门，看到桌子上放着一只芯子断了的白炮仗，很高兴地说，谁放这里根烟卷。放到嘴里，点燃，bang！！！

25、忆苦思甜，杨老汉被请到主席台上讲话，面对扩音器，他激动得满脸通红，说，要不是毛主席，俺咋能在这喷雾器里讲话。

26、有一首忆苦思甜的歌“天上布满星，月儿亮晶晶，生产队里开大会，诉苦把冤申”其中有句歌词：“地主逼债好像那活阎王”。杨老汉演唱的版本是：“地主的鼻涕好像那活螃蟹。”还挺形象。

27、李老师以强奸罪名坐牢多年，释放后生活无依，以撮鞭炮为生。有一年到我村里推销，他早年的学生们对他非但不歧视，而且尽力帮他卖鞭炮。最卖力的我远房大叔，提着炮仗，挨家挨户磕头：叔，婶子，我来给你们送炮仗拜年来了！

28、刘部队据说也打鬼子，有一年鬼子的船队开进徒骇河，刘部队掏出盒子枪，朝桅杆就是一枪，那帆立即萎顿落下，鬼子仓皇落水逃窜。要是搁在现在，鬼子肯定都被河水给熏死了。

29、看到做土匪很吃香，有个瘫子也动了心，他用烧饼削了一只手枪，把自己撑到高粱地里，远远看到一个骑马的人，他举起烧饼枪说，快把钱扔过来，你不老实，等我站起来你可就麻烦了！

30、大喜光棍多年，好歹有人来说媒，不久媒人安排见面。当姑娘走进来，大喜本能地捂住胸口，媒人问，咋了，你胸口疼吗？大喜憨笑着说，不疼，我以为她来抢我的毛主席像章。

31、从5岁起，我记忆里就残存了一种芳香难言的味道，直到15岁那年重新吃到它，我才记起那是香蕉。我想起，那是我的舅姥爷从广东带回来的，我分到了一只。难怪那味道永远驻留在我记忆里。

32、快跑快跑，我跟着一群孩子狂奔到村外，看拉练的解放军。他们支着大炮，但最吸引我的还是一口大锅里的鸡蛋炒辣椒。我的记忆告诉我，解放军好像给我夹了一筷子吃，但事实上很可能我只闻到了它的味道。啊，那么香的鸡蛋，那么辣的辣椒……

33、一只彩色的小鸟落在苹果树上，我不敢走过去，生怕把它吓跑；两个可爱的女生坐在我的座位上，我隔着玻璃窗不敢回教室，生怕她们像鸟儿一样飞走了。

34、我曾被认为是个神童，有一年，我的数学课本不小心从炕上掉进了尿盆，我干脆把它扔了。凭着超强的记忆，把同学的数学书从头到尾背了下来，当老师看到我不看课本，做教材中的练习题的时候，他着实吃了一惊。

35、没书可看，整个童年都没书可看，我苦苦寻找一切可读的东西，包括一本计划生育宣传手册。

36、我一个人在冰上走，月亮照在冰上，寸步不离地跟着我。童年的早晨，上学路上，我一个人在冰上走。

37、在我们村最为人不齿的事是做贼，最狠的骂人话是“贼种”（贼留下的种）和“贼里不要的”（连贼都不如）。

38、他的名字叫安，是小姨的小叔子。有一年上河工，村里的成年男子都被征集起来到离村60里的地方大修水利工程。有人说安偷了别人的东西，为证明自己的清白，安上吊死了。

39、快30年过去了，我依旧想对那个站在我面前看电视的男人说，我真的没有偷你的东西，连偷的想法都没有。我至今在无法解释，为什么我的手会伸到你的裤兜里。你大叫起来，我拼命解释。那是在面粉厂，上百人围着一台彩电，看审判四人帮。

40、我和小勇一起拽着那个大葫芦，瓜藤挣断，我俩摔到了沟渠的泥浆中。两天以后，小勇的父亲回到家说，生产队里留着做种的一颗大葫芦被人偷走了。小勇的娘指指屋顶，说，你看那里。葫芦被交还生产队。我害沙眼一个月。

41、出租司机指着那个村子对我说，那就是那个贼村。村里家家户户以偷超市为业，偷遍了全省。外人进村就被领进各家挑选便宜货，销不了赃就自己用。所以经常看到老娘们穿李宁运动裤，老头在田间地头休息，渴了打开一听可乐。

42、没人统计过，30年来村里多少人死于自杀，或是与人斗气，或是自证清白，或是没有盼头，他们用一根绳子、一瓶农药结束了煎熬。

43、村南一对夫妻吵架，双双喝农药自杀。留一双儿女，让老汉抚养。祖孙三人住在地窨子一样的破房子里。爷爷去世后，孙子以偷自行车卫生，孙女到饭店当了小姐。

44、偷自行车的小华，被通缉后逃跑，到了一家砖窑做苦工。警察抓住他时，他已经变成了一个黑人。在被解押的路上，他对警察说：请你们一定告诉我妹妹，不要走错路啊。满车人无不流下同情的泪。小华因盗窃案值大，又是累犯，被判10年有期徒刑。

45、孤寡老人四奶奶，每天下午四点就关门闭户，早早地睡下，去年腊月二十九这天也不例外。第二天就是除夕，她两个远方外孙女来送年货，叫门不开，就从不高的院墙翻了进去。

46、村子里响起两个女人的尖叫声，人们赶来才发现四奶奶已经变成了一截焦炭。经分析还原现场，四奶奶半夜碰倒了煤炉，棉裤着火，她从里屋爬到外屋。试图到舀水自救，但缸里的水被冻住。

47、烧焦的四奶奶右手拿着舀子，左手拿着几张烧焦的钱，桌子上还有另外的600块。她在弥留之际，想到的是把怀里的钱掏出来，留给后人。众人一阵唏嘘，都在感叹了养儿防老是多么重要。这事就发生在2009年。

48、冬天是捉奸的季节。人们浩浩荡荡，悄悄向一间小屋逼近。被戴了绿帽的男人刚往里冲，被族里的老人一把拉住。老人举起镐头向门撞去，门开，砰然掉下铡刀一片。众一拥而上，把被窝里的男女挟裹而出，扔上拖拉机向公社开去。

49、春节回乡又见“阴亲”盛行。所谓“阴亲”，学名叫“冥婚”，说白了，就是给死去的人讨一个死去的人当老婆，让他们在阴间结为夫妻，共赴和谐黄泉。

50、“阴亲”的起源，本来是为未婚死去的男女，举办的一个婚礼仪式，目的固然有迷信的成分，但更多是为了活者的人，即死者的家长，使他们能够成为“亲家”走动，得到一点安慰。但眼下，“阴亲”变成了赤裸裸的交易。

51、表哥村里一小伙车祸身亡，听说邻村一姑娘也刚车祸死了，死者家属连忙拜托表哥去提亲。因姑娘家获赔了30万，表哥知道这次要大出血，问女方多少彩礼，对方不肯说，表哥迂回问到女方住院花费8万，立即回村提了十万现金，订下这门阴亲。

52、找“阴亲”对于死去男丁的家庭来说，是典型的买方市场。因为，作为阴亲的另一方，女方，必须是未婚死去的，才有资格进入阴亲市场，男方，则不受婚姻状况的限制。

53、由于未婚死去的女子远远少于婚姻状况不限的死亡男子，“阴亲”市场出现了女方待价而沽、奇货可居的行情。现在找一门阴亲，男方至少要给女方10万元的彩礼，那些活着娶不起媳妇的人，死去就更娶不起了。

54、听说我们那儿一个未婚男青年死了，他家人打听到本县有一个未婚女子刚死，于是准备了15万去提阴亲。不巧，正好本地一做房地产的老板的爹死了，老板想为爹找个黄花闺女做阴亲，就甩出25万现金。最终，女子跟房地产老板的爹合葬。

55、有一女，丈夫死了，想改嫁。婆家说，可以，但是你死之后，必须跟我儿子合葬。女子跟新丈夫想了想，哪有嫁给张家，再与李家合葬的道理。干脆，为死去的前夫买个死去的姑娘做“阴亲”得了。

56、由于“阴亲”市场对女性的刚性需求，一些死去的未婚残障女性，也很抢手。本县有个本科学历的孩子死了，爹娘遍求阴亲不得，就给他找了一个经常裸奔的死去的智障女性合葬。

57、有个远房亲戚的女儿，十四岁那年死了，现在活着的话，应该有24岁了。结果，提阴亲的人也不放过，因死去的年代久远，加上亲戚为人正直，不想拿女儿卖钱，只象征性地收了男方2万元。后来，很多人说他钱收得太少了。

58、“阴亲”虽是陋习，但从一个侧面反映了华北农村对死者（尤其是男性死者）的重视。中国人大都不信奉宗教，但也绝非无神论者，对死后的世界，还是将信将疑。当然，“阴亲”也是办给活人看的。是一种家族财富实力的炫耀，山寨版的大阅兵。

59、早晨用了很大力气才推开屋门，我说：“我长这么大都没见过这么大的雪。”晚上父亲推开院门回来，像个雪人，他说：“我长这么大也没见过这么大的雪。”

60、大雪把村里的沟沟坎坎都填平了，没有树的地方，根本分不清，哪是沟，哪是路。放眼望去，田野里看到有人推着自行车在奋力地走，一分神抬头再看时，那人已经不见了，又过了一会，只见他从雪里钻了出来。

61、团雪球打雪仗，那是必然的，但不是最歹毒的。当我站在教室门口看雪景，忽然觉得背后一阵冰凉急坠，一个寒颤，原来是脖领子里被塞进了雪球。

62、落在脖子里的雪，让我想起另一种冰凉，那是每一个小男孩的恶梦。家里某一个女性亲属，在不征得你同意的情况下，猛地往你脸上抹上一块雪花膏。仅仅出于礼貌，让你没有撞墙。后来你长大了，老婆把一块冰凉的面膜贴你脸上，恶梦又复活了。

63、在漫长的冬天，小姨来到我家。她最大的爱好是给我梳头，为了让我的头发能够服服帖帖，她开始在我头上吐唾沫。我很悲愤，又不敢得罪她，开始啪啪地打自己的头。

64、乡村的冬天，我们在打架，茫茫的雪地里，我们在打架，为了一盘军旗的输赢，我们在打架。我把这个小孩按到在地上，他年龄身量比我小，可辈份比我高。他哭着回家，我知道创了祸，就在小伙伴们的簇拥下，上他家去赔情。

65、冬天的玩具是火柴枪和手榴弹。用铁丝弯成枪，自行车链条做枪膛，里面塞满火柴头上剥下来的“火药”，皮筋绑定撞针，扣动扳机，撞击火药，啪地一声，手感跟真枪一样。用这把心爱的驳壳枪，我亲手代表人民代表党枪毙过三个小伙伴中的叛徒。

66、手榴弹是用木头削成的，在弹体上刻出一个凹槽，里面放上一个炮仗，把引信缠绕在火柴头上，扔手榴弹的时候，手勾住火柴盒的磷片，正好擦过火柴头，就会在半空中听到一声炸响。我们用手榴弹攻占了村西头坏孩子们的碉堡，一个草垛。

67、村西坏孩子把我俘虏后，让我平生第一次摸到气枪，那冰凉和沉重的枪体把我征服了。坏孩子们给了我一个烤熟的玉米，说跟着他们，天天都有烤玉米。我决定叛变，晚上和奶奶睡在炕上，我一边啃玉米，一边很慌张。

68、我发烧了，父亲连忙请来村里唯一的中医王二大爷。他给我号完脉，并不急着打针，而是先上了炕。父亲见势，就热了一壶酒，端来一盘虾皮鱼干。二大爷果然见多识广，他讲了一个飞行员冷冻30年后来又复活的故事，因为他是二大爷，又因为他说是从报纸上看来的，没有人敢怀疑故事的真实性。

69、你无法想象一个小男孩对鞭炮的迷恋，那是潜意识里对爆炸、破坏和征服的想往。为了防潮，农村一般都把鞭炮放在最热的炕头，我半夜醒来，都会去摸摸那些硬梆梆的爆仗，它们已经滚烫，随时都在准备爆炸。

70、我童年最狼狈的事情发生了，我们在池塘边放鞭炮。一颗没有裹紧的爆仗，在火药的助推下，贴地飞行，向我袭来。我赶紧躲闪，正在庆幸，却感觉小腿灼热难当，是棉裤的裤管着了。我不是邱少云，可以忍住灼痛，也不是罗盛教，敢于跳进冰水。于是我把棉裤脱了下来，此时，恰巧一群嫂子大婶走过，笑得一个个捂着肚子打滚。从那时起，发誓要当一个作家，把她们写在小说里，鞭笞讽刺。

母亲从遥远的故乡来到我住的城市，帮我们照看儿子。自从大学毕业以来，第一次跟她在一起生活这么长时间。偶尔陪她一起出去散步，听她讲起故乡发生的各种奇事，那些不被报道、湮没在风中的故事，经过她朴素的描述，变成一场场悲惨的戏剧，默默地上演，默默地落幕。

故事从我的大伯母讲起。她和大伯没有生育，从贫困的盐碱滩的一户人家领养了一个刚刚满月的女儿。乡下养孩子跟养狗养猫养猪一样，哪舍得用尿布？每一个婴儿都穿“土裤”，土裤并不是裤子，而是一个大口袋。里面装着从田野里取来的、在锅里炒过的细砂土，把婴儿往里一戳，拉屎撒尿都在里面。有一天晚上，大伯母发现女儿要拉屎，突发奇想，直接叫黄狗来舔。黄狗跳起一口，咬到婴儿的屁股上，鲜血直流。大伯母四下看看，发现大伯没在身边，就装作什么也没发生，把婴儿插回到土裤里。没有打狂犬疫苗，也没有打破伤风，甚至连伤口都没有处理，过了一段时间，婴儿的屁股自己长好了。现在这个女儿已经出嫁，对大伯母十分孝顺。

大伯母并不是我们家乡照顾孩子最差的。有一个不到六十岁的农村老太太，外孙来住姥姥家，忽然感冒了。老太太一摸他头顶发烧，想起家里还有一袋感冒冲剂，就在黑灯瞎火中找了来。看也没看就给外孙泡上，灌了下去。没过一会，外孙口吐白沫，挣扎了两下就死了。原来老太太喂的是老鼠药。乡里乡亲知道这个悲剧，无不叹息，但也暗暗议论说：“幸亏是姥姥把孩子给毒死的，这要是奶奶毒死的，儿媳妇非跟她拼命不可。”

村民的议论不是无缘无故的。临村，有一个老奶奶，带着孙子到县城，突然斜刺里冲过来一辆面包车，老奶奶奋不顾身挡在小孙子身前，无奈车速太快，二人立扑，身亡。在老奶奶发丧那一天，儿媳妇没有出现。虽然婆婆为孙舍命，但依然得不到原谅。不过村民们说，幸亏老婆婆也死了，否则儿媳妇绝饶不了她。

在我的家乡，有一个古老的传统，中老年妇女喜欢把婴儿紧紧地包成一个粽子，尤其是冬天，孩子被裹到一个铺盖卷里。我们村里一个糊涂老太，到3公里外的县医院去接出院的刚足月的小孙女，把她紧紧地用被褥包了一圈又一圈。抱回家解开铺盖卷一看，孩子已经满脸通紫，口吐白沫，窒息死亡。原来，这个老太太由于把孩子包得太严，自己也分不清哪边是头，哪边是脚，她一直把孩子头朝下抱着走了一个多小时，最终，酿成惨剧。

跟中国学多地方一样，在我的家乡，身为农民即意味着终身劳作，哪怕老了也不例外。即便不下地干活，也要承担起隔代照看孩子的义务。每个人都觉得这是天经地义的，也不管老人们佝偻着腰抱着孩子是多么艰难。老年人缺乏必要的科学知识，加上年老体衰，注意力分散，反应迟缓，这种情况下，带小孩常出意外就一点也不意外了。农民的晚年，绝不是安度，而是危度。

在我种冬枣的舅舅家的邻村，有一条河，河上有一座年久失修的桥，桥面很窄，栏杆已经烂掉。有一天，一个70多岁的老太太抱着孙子到村口玩，桥上过来一辆运棉花的车，老太太向后退着给车让路，一脚踩空仰面掉到河里。这一切太突然，运棉车没有发现。直到傍晚，老太太的儿子看母亲带着孩子没有回来，就出门来找，最后在河里发现了她俩，老太太淹死了，怀里还紧紧抱着小孙子。

我问：“小孙子活下来了？”

母亲叹了口气，“没有，也淹死了。”

村民们注意到，老太太发丧，儿媳没有参加。此后，儿媳又给这家人生了两个女儿，一个儿子。不幸的是，这小儿子是个傻子。

在我们山东老家，亲戚朋友上门，告别的时候，是要送下楼的，不是送到门口，不是送到电梯口或者楼梯口，而是送到楼下，看到对方上了车，目送到视线看不到的时候，再回身。

如果是被亲友送下楼，开车的人，要开着车窗，连连跟主人告别，并且车启动之后，按一声喇叭，表示我走了。

这些规矩构成了我们的生活，也是我们成为人的条件。

你们所谓的葱省，是中国人做人的天花板，现在依然是。

美好中文速成指南

一年只用三个惊叹号！！

句号并不是句子的终点。

结尾处少用“了”和“的” （这是已经被经验证明了的）

区分的地得，不管教育部怎么说，有些人上了十几年学的地得还部分，很多雇主受不了这样的学习曲线。

能用一个字，别用两个字，能用字解决，不用词解决。

成语只适合小学生和外国人

多花点时间，把文章写短些

与其快写慢改，不如慢慢写不用改

文章短了一截子，事情多了一截子：文减事增

宁具体、别抽象

该抽象时，还是要抽象

抽象是一架天梯，底下是具体，顶上是抽象，聪明的作者在沿着梯子上上下下。

多读，训练作家的耳朵。

举例子，并且要举两个例子。

把写作和写话分开，写作中不用网络语，写话时随意。

文是一口气，气盛言宜，气衰文死

榆林有个子洲县，在当地颇受歧视。在榆林流传一个笑话：外地司机开车撞死子洲人一只羊，被索要2000元，没办法只好掏钱。掏完钱想拉着羊走，子洲人不让。司机争辩：

“我掏了钱，羊就应该是我的。”

子洲人反驳说：

“你要是撞死我大*，你也拉走吗？”

*注：大，陕北方言，爹的意思。

你的善良必须带些锋芒，否则就等于不善良。昨晚叫车，上车后闻到烟味，我想也许是司机接我之前困了，抽一根解乏，也就不跟他计较了。开出去一两公里，发现不对，这厮的抽烟是现在进行时。我也不管什么非暴力沟通，劈头把他训斥了一顿『谁叫你在出租车上抽烟？』他扔了烟，我知道后面的路程他会带着情绪…

开学第一课是刻骨铭心的一课，是文学和影视的集大成者。它是：1984/ 美丽新世界/我们/动物庄园/少数派报告/ 通往奴役之路/你听说过极权主义吗/ 活出意义来/漫漫自由路/大义觉迷录/美丽人生/黑客帝国/沉默/狂人日记/孔乙己/套中人/三姐妹/砂之女/科学怪人/楚门的世界…的综合体。

这几条推的价值超过了洋洋几大本《中国相声史》《相声溯源》，必须手动转。相声的本质是苦毒，你说的不够好，因为你还不够毒，你之所以不够毒，是因为你还不够苦。

杨小凯《牛鬼蛇神录》里披露了一个令人震惊的事实，1976年以后，华国锋关了、杀了一批庆祝毛泽东驾崩的政治犯。有个老农因为说，毛阿爹死了，我们可算有饭吃了。被判刑5年。

ChatGPT终于出了官方app，再见了套壳的日子。再见了，丢聊天记录的日子；再见了，旧世界！

吐血推荐《二十四史全译》：中国一直有盛世修史的惯例，按说改革开放积累了这么多的财富，在北京随便划出一片地皮卖掉，就足以把24史翻译成24国语言。然而，上国并没有这笔资金。这如同我们家乡的一段歌谣所唱，不孝男对老婆百依百顺，“也有桃，也有梨，也有闲钱去赶集”；对老娘爱搭不理“也没桃，也没梨，也没闲钱去赶集。”

以许嘉璐为主编的核心团队，只得借助民间资本，才使这一项目继续下去。民营资本家杨冠三先后投资了5000万，才使得这套书书在2004年问世。成书之日，全体员工莫不鼓掌相庆，并潸然泪下。

《二十四史全译》动用了国内史学界最精锐的力量，先后用了13年才完成。书未成，担当重任的史学家邓广铭等人都已仙逝。许嘉璐经常挂在嘴边的话是“不知深浅”和“悔不当初”，而总编辑孟繁华，回顾最绝望的时候，说自己“经常半夜里惊醒，猛然坐起，满头冷汗，心怦怦乱跳。”他说：“看不到尽头，不知道什么时候才能完。”

当我在电脑上，翻看此书，对投资人、编辑者乃至全体工作人员都心生敬佩。《二十四史全译》全套书原文4000万字，译文6000万字，合计1亿字。为了便于保存文脉，全书使用正体字（即俗称的繁体字），横排，左古文，右直译，便于对照，一目了然。这种不装大尾巴狼的排版，是中华书局不肯做，也做不到的。这套书最重要的功绩在于，使没有扎实古文功底的人也可以自由畅快地读史，为中国史书向国民普及、向全世界翻译打了一个基础。

这些人没有入选感动中国，甚至很少有人记得他们，但是每一个读过《二十四史全译》纸质书和电子版的人，都会由衷地对他们表示感激。

让我们一起重温中国史学的伟大传统，倾听司马迁在《报任安书》中那痛彻肺腑的誓言：

仆窃不逊，近自托于无能之辞，网罗天下放失旧闻，考之行事，稽其成败兴坏之理，凡百三十篇，亦欲以究天人之际，通古今之变，成一家之言。草创未就，适会此祸，惜其不成，是以就极刑而无愠色。仆诚已著此书，藏之名山，传之其人通邑大都，则仆偿前辱之责，虽万被戮，岂有悔哉！然此可为智者道，难为俗人言也。

论快乐写作 写作，并且快乐，不亦难乎？

写作之难，在于把思维这张大网，抽丝成线，变成按照词语先后顺序排列的、符合语法的一串字符串。字要一个一个地写，词要一个一个地组，话要一句一句地说，段要一节一节地排。字词句章，先来后到，轻重缓急，抑扬顿挫，牵一发而动全身，乱一字则动全局。

好的文章，不惟胜在炼字造句上，还胜在布局谋篇上。它像一张波斯挂毯，近处看只见花花绿绿的线条，远处看才见到叹为观止的画面。

虽然有人写文章之前，写提纲、画草图，但是人类有文字以来的历史上，绝大部分好文章，却没经过事先的设计，而是直接从笔端流淌出来的。也就是说，结构存于作者的脑子中。甚至在动笔之前，作者也不知道文脉要流向何处。只不过凭借多年的训练，胸中的沟壑，充盈的文气，才一气呵成，留下千古名篇。

古人说，文章千古事，妙手偶得之。妙手，并不是工程师之手，它超乎设计之上，游走于意识和潜意识之间。可训练但不可速求，可吸收而不可摹刻。

所以，古往今来教人写文章的文论，都说得比较玄乎。这并非故弄玄虚，而是务求以一种模糊的方式迂回接近本质。当我们看到“文气”、“文心”、“文胆”这样的词的时候，不要以为奇怪，在对于写作的描述方面，它并不比“句法”、“语法”、“风格”等词更抽象。

快乐写作，就是尊重“写作难、写作苦”这个基本事实，难中取易、苦中作乐，首先求精准描述，其次求创造性表达。两者都做不到，至少要大胆去写。大胆尝试写各种文体、写各种场景下使用的文本，用文字去探险，用文字去打头阵，用文字去充当十万精兵。

快乐写作，就是不求快，也不求精，尊重写作规律，当行则行，当止则止。写自己理解的东西，写自己相信的东西，修辞立其诚，保持内里的诚实，不将写作降格为修辞练习，不做油嘴滑舌的文痞、文丐。

快乐写作，就是每天都写，空下来就写，想到就写，在手机上写，在电脑上写，在笔记本、卡片、餐巾纸上去写。日积月累，就成为专属于自己的财富，长在自己身上的本事，风刮不走，雨冲不走。

快乐写作，就是在练习了基本写作技能之后，专注于自己的细分领域，英文叫niche，nicht就是山体或大教堂里的“小壁龛”、小神龛，那里供奉的不是大神，而是一个个细分的小神、小圣徒。找到自己的niche，你可以把学到的写作技巧全都用上，成为这个细分领域的“小圣徒”。

快乐写作，也是一种自动写作，潜意识写作，当你正襟危坐，什么也写不出来的时候，不妨放出思维的野马，让它随着你的指尖在键盘上奔驰。写出什么并不重要，重要的是写这个动作本身。写作的意义，在于不断地重复“把思维之网化成字符之线”这个过程。山鹰如何训练它的翅膀，猎豹如何训练它的四腿，写作者就如何训练自己的文笔。

快乐写作，不求速成。日积月累，终成壁龛上的小小圣徒。

殷鉴不远，每个人都应该读一读杨小凯的《牛鬼蛇神录》

杨小凯，本名杨曦光，1948年出身在一个湖南高干家庭，高二写了一篇《中国往何处去》，一纸成名，洛阳纸贵，被翻译成英文，流布海外，他被打成反革命，判刑十年，服满刑期。

在监狱里，他向政治犯们学习数学、英语、工程、苦读《资本论》，发现了其中最大的理论漏洞，是只讲商品的劳动价值，而不讲其使用价值。从而独立思考，推导出经济学的一系列原理与公式。

监狱里藏龙卧虎，有人可以默写全本《唐诗三百首》，有人独立编数学教材，有人疯狂写小说和电影剧本，被囚犯广泛传抄。

还有政治犯军医，利用职业身份勾引狱警家属，卧底多年，让干部喜当爹。

杨小凯更多地是接触各类了不起的民间政治人物，他们探讨中国的前途与命运，给世人留下一份国朝真史。

他从那些卑微的扒手、刑事犯身上也学到了很多，成为他们真正的朋友。

杨小凯出狱之前，四人帮已经被粉碎，高考制度恢复，他被选拔去给干部子弟们辅导数学。

他以一个囚犯的身份，给学生们上课，但明显感觉到了身份的差异。

出狱之后，他参加高考，但因为刑满释放人员，不被录取。

第二年，李锐和女儿向于光远做了推荐，他终于获得参加数量经济学考试的机会，他通过考试后被中国社会科学院录取为实习研究员

他不停地做研究出著作，其扎实的数理经济学功底，让他成为中国思考经济最聪明的脑袋。

一九八二年杨小凯被武汉大学聘为助教，教授数理经济学课程。他又出版了《数理经济学基础》和《经济控制理论》两本著作。他的研究引起当时在武大访问的普林斯顿大学教授邹至庄的注意。邹推荐他去普林斯顿大学读经济学博士。

然而他的政治问题并没有平反，当时还是阶级敌人，没有人敢让他出国。

邹至庄利用自己跟中国高层领导人的关系，给赵姓总理写了一封信，为杨小凯求情。

此信由赵的秘书转给了武汉大学当时的校长刘道玉，请他办理（未说如何办理）。

刘道玉校长欣赏杨小凯的才学，以个人的身家前途担保，批准了让杨小凯出国的手续。

杨小凯于一九八八年正式获得普林斯顿大学博士学位，在耶鲁大学做了一年客座研究员后接受了澳洲莫纳石大学的聘书，现在他是莫纳石大学经济系高级讲师。其研究被学术界评价极高，曾一度被认为是最接近于诺贝尔经济学奖的中国人。

杨小凯把十年的牢狱生涯，写成了系列连载文章，后结集出版，取名《牛鬼蛇神录》，英文The Captive Spirit. 被囚禁的精灵。

这部书稿的价值，将永载中文史册与文坛，与司马迁《报任安书》，方苞《狱中杂记》等一起，辉耀在中文的星空。

然而，苦难未曾把他轻轻放过。

2002年他被检查出肺癌晚期，医生预测只有三个月的活头。

在苦难来临之际，他决志信主，受洗成为一位基督徒，并写下了一篇《我的见证》，从理性思维的角度，论证了自己的信仰根基，成为华人知识分子罕见的理性护教之作。

他又活了两年，2004年，癌症复发去世，享年56岁。

他的一生曲折，最伟大的成就不仅在经济学领域，而在于他的独立思考与史笔记录。

他曾在信主后，有悔其少作的意思，说，如果这时候再写牛鬼蛇神录，就不会有那么多仇恨和写实。

但，庆幸的是，上帝按照自己的时间表，而不是按照他的时间表做工。

牛鬼的价值就在于它赤裸裸的纪实风格，以及旧约一样冷静雄浑的笔触。

摘录一段：

我还没有完全听完粟异邦的故事，「民主党」一案就被判决了。一天夜深人静的时候，突然左家塘的牢门锁大响，我们都扒在窗前观看动静。七八名公安局军管会的军人和荷枪的士兵打开了八号的号子门，一个军官凶狠地大声喊道「粟异邦！」整个左家塘那时静得掉根针在地上都听得到，所有号子前窗上都趴满了人。粟异邦被军人带到两排号子之间靠西边的一间办公室里。一个穿军官服的人拿出一迭文件放在桌上，他从中取出一件，大声向粟异邦道：「反革命分子粟异邦，我今天代表长沙市公检法军管会宣布对你的判决。」我们不是离办公室最近的号子，但也大致能听清判决书的声音。

「反革命组织首犯粟异邦，其父被我人民政府镇压，本人一九五七年因攻击社会主义制度被劳动教养。粟异邦对我党和人民刻骨仇恨，在劳教期间，组织反革命组织‘民主党’，自任首领，妄图颠覆无产阶级专政，复辟资本主义……。根据中共中央国务院公安六条，对反革命组织首犯粟异邦判处死刑，立即执行。」稍停，他厉声道：「粟异邦，你还有什么要说的？」粟异邦的回答使所有人都大吃一惊。「我反g，却不反人民，反g是为了人民，人民反对你们！」「闭住你的狗嘴，上死镣！」办公室传来叮叮当当的铁镣声。接着是锤子钉铆钉的声音，声音是如此清脆，深重，划破寂静的夜空，使人惊心动魄。

特别感恩的是，浦志强老师在油管频道录制了《牛鬼蛇神录》的全文。这本书由老浦读来，就像《琵琶行》由孙道临朗诵一样，都能获得极大的代入感和沉浸感。

我无意中抽出张燕淳的《日本四季》，随便翻开一页，就被深深吸引了。篇目叫《听一场日本雪》，现在很少有人取这样的标题，写这样的文字。在废话套话俏皮话漫天飞舞的时代，这种文风已成为一门古老的面临失传的手艺，大陆叫“非物质文化遗产”，日本叫“无形文化财”。

这是本多年少见的好书，不但文笔简约雅正，人情温润练达，而且洋溢着善良的幽默，让人笑之，叹之，思之，心口默默痛之。

东北、台湾、美国、日本四地的文化汇聚到一人身上，才冲撞出这本杂集。作者大陆籍贯，台湾长大，美国养成，人生天地间，忽如远行客。生活的驱使，要她随着丈夫，带着儿子，到日本生活三年。

在观光客嘴里，我们得到的不过是导游的牙慧，只有在一个寄居者那里，我们才能了解到内情。

张燕淳给我介绍了一个寻常的日本，一个远离大都市的小镇的日本，一个二战前后传统一直沿袭的日本。

站在一个母亲的角度，他刻意写了日本对孩童的教育。却原来，日本的乡间，一律禁止家长送孩子上学，不管多远的路，必须让孩子走到学校。哪怕在冬季，孩子们在大部分时间也要穿短裤校裙，以强健其体魄。因为日本人相信，小孩子是”风の子”(kazenoko)，阳气旺盛，见风就长，这点寒冷根本算不了什么。日本孩童，从小就要灌输团体精神的教育，这些都印入他们的血脉。我惊叹的是，日本人对小孩子的尊重。六岁之前的孩子都叫XX君(kun)，六岁上小学之后就是小大人了，他们都互相称呼XXさん（san）。这样孩子慢慢树立了主体意识，就开始对自己的行为负责了。

日本的人名、地名非常有趣，作者有专门两篇文章论及。写得酣畅有趣，看得我一直锤床大笑。在这里，我就不当剧透了，大家自己看吧。

作者身为欧巴桑的一员，深入到日本人的日常生活之中，体会到他们对美好事物的珍爱之心，也看到了他们井然有序的伦理观和行为规范。普通日本国民对人友善，然而日本人的天性到了民族层面，就会变成非理性的洪流，这到底为什么呢？书中没有答案。

我喜欢这本的另一个重要原因，它也可以作为基础日本语教材学习。作者人如其名，干活淳朴，不偷奸耍滑，文中提到的每个日语字，都在后面括号里加注了罗马拼音，并且在书后统一列了一个单词索引。掌握这些词汇，到日本生活观光足够用了。

文化的奥秘，潜伏在语言里。这个简单的道理，好多人搞了一辈子文化研究还没搞清楚。只有进入语言的内核，我们才能抓住那些细微但又本质的东西。这是我看《日本四季》的又一大收获。

山一程，水一程，相伴《杜甫的五城》，如果只看一本游记，推荐赖瑞和的这本。

1989年，赖瑞和坐上广州开往长沙的火车，从此开始了他的寻访唐史遗迹之旅。当时家庭条件稍好的大学生一个月的生活费也不过100元，而在香港当老师的他，则可以住一夜100外汇券的西安解放饭店。

跟扭捏作态的余秋雨不同，赖瑞和既不自诩有文化，也没把此行当成苦旅。他一路火车卧铺，羊羔美酒，走到哪里，喝到哪里。偶尔发一下思古幽情，却又点到为止。不像那些爱国意淫犯，看了道士塔就想戴上白手套跟洋人决斗。作为研究唐史的专家，公元907（唐哀帝禅位，唐被后梁取代）以后的历史，对他没有意义。什么宋元明清的遗迹，在他眼里统统过滤。其实，我觉得这位老兄，连唐代的遗迹，也只是例行公事看看而已。一路行走就是他的目的，文化寻根不过是给旅行找个借口。

1999年，赖瑞和把9赴大陆、跨越10年的个人旅行写成了一本书，这就是《杜甫的五城》。又过了若干年之后，这本书来到我的床头。我花了三个晚上把它读完，畅快、敞亮，真是一本达人之书。

用麦肯锡100个关键词了解一个行业的方法，请GPT-4给我罗列了脱口秀行业的100词。

你知道麦肯锡的快速了解行业方法吗？就是通过100个关键词来建立概念。现在我是一个脱口秀行业不了解的小白，请你给我整理出100个关键词吗？

ChatGPT 当然，我会尽力帮助你。以下是我为你整理的关于脱口秀行业的100个关键词：

笑果被重罚，我默默地放下《手把手教你玩脱口秀》，换成了《笨办法学Python》。

读红楼梦，可以学会编剧核心技巧。《阿甘正传》、《沙丘》的编剧艾瑞克·罗斯说过，要看一个剧本是不是好剧本，关键是看潜台词。好剧本里的都是潜台词。潜台词写作是最难，也是最好的写作。一个编剧能做到最坏的事情，就是把所有东西都说得过分明白，话里面没有话，这样的剧本注定让人感到索然无味。

潜台词不仅仅是电影戏剧制胜的法宝，也是所有文学作品看家的武器。这也是为什么在本访谈最后，罗斯奉劝编剧们多读文学作品的原因。让我们来看看《红楼梦》吧，一部红楼，就是一部潜台词大全。

刘姥姥二进荣国府，与贾母见面，两人各自夸对方贬自己，但实际上，都是在夸自己暗含着贬对方。贾母得知刘姥姥75岁，道：

“这么大年纪了，还这么硬朗。比我大好几岁呢。我要是到了这个年纪，还不知怎么动不得呢。”（潜台词是“我们大户人家多享清福”）

刘姥姥笑道：

“我们生来是受苦的人，老太太生来是享福的。（把贾母的潜台词给说出来）。我们要也这么着，那些庄稼活也没人做了。（潜台词：我们虽然穷，但是身体硬朗，能干活。）”

不知从什么时候开始，中国编剧尤其是电视剧编剧，不但写的台词都是大白话，而且还把仅有的一点潜台词还用旁白讲出来。例如一个地下党卧底跟另一个军统特务阴阳怪气地寒暄了几句，电视剧出现旁白，一个浑厚的男中音：

“003号心中想到，你这个狗特务，还想窃取我党的机密，看我明天不找工人纠察队锤死你。”

很多看似重要的事，实际上并没有那么重要。很多看似鸡毛蒜皮可有可无的小事，却对你的生活产生极其深远的影响。就拿王熙凤来说，她每天要做的事没有几十件，也有十几件，在荣国府理事还不够，还要协理宁国府，恃才逞能。

但是她不知道，她一生做的最有价值的一件事，是接待了刘姥姥。

刘姥姥来自千里之外芥豆之微小小一个人家。她女婿家跟贾府曾有过瓜葛，但是早就断了来往。但是为了生计，刘姥姥不得不到贾府去讨一点方便。

刘姥姥在周瑞家的引荐下，终于见到了凤姐。凤姐虽然体面，但不失礼节。

刘姥姥含羞求救，凤姐处理得落落大方。

说话间，刘姥姥已吃完了饭，拉了板儿过来，舔唇咂嘴的道谢。凤姐笑道：“且请坐下，听我告诉你：方才你的意思，我已经知道了。论起亲戚来，原该不等上门就有照应才是。但只如今家里事情太多，太太上了年纪，一时想不到是有的。我如今接著管事，这些亲戚们又都不大知道，况且外面看著虽是烈烈轰轰，不知大有大的难处，说给人也未必信。你既大远的来了，又是头一遭儿和我张个口，怎么叫你空回去呢？可巧昨儿太太给我的丫头们作衣裳的二十两银子还没动呢，你不嫌少，先拿了去用罢。”那刘姥姥先听见告艰苦，只当是没想头了；又听见给他二十两银子，喜的眉开眼笑道：“我们也知道艰难的，但只俗语说的：‘瘦死的骆驼比马还大呢。’凭他怎样，你老拔一根寒毛，比我们的腰还壮哩！”周瑞家的在旁听见他说的粗鄙，只管使眼色止他。凤姐笑而不睬，叫平儿把昨儿那包银子拿来，再拿一串钱，都送至刘姥姥跟前。凤姐道：“这是二十两银子，暂且给这孩子们作件冬衣罢。改日没事，只管来逛逛，才是亲戚们的意思。天也晚了，不虚留你们了。到家，该问好的都问个好儿罢。”一面说，一面就站起来了。

凤姐恐怕做梦也想不到，就是这短短的一次接见，区区二十两银子（尽够大观园摆一次螃蟹宴的），最后却救了她女儿巧姐的命。

无论是在曹雪芹原书（如果有原书的话）还是高鄂续书中，刘姥姥都在贾府败落之时，救了巧姐。

王熙凤哪里知道她这一辈子忙来忙去，就做了这一件积德行善的正经事啊。

同理，我们每天忙忙碌碌，不知道自己在做什么，其实这样也甚好。也许在不知不觉之中，我们就做成一件能够泽被自己及后代的大事。

不专注、广撒网是一种美德。

曹雪芹经历过大富大贵，也经历过家道中落，对于小人物心理的拿捏，细致入微。薛蟠从外地回来，带回很多礼物，宝钗亲自给贾环送来，让赵姨娘喜出望外。她为了向王夫人示好，就原封不动拿着去给王夫人瞧，顺便夸奖一下王夫人的娘家侄女、也许是未来的儿媳妇（穷乏人毫不吝惜的赞美有时是他们身上唯一的硬通货）。

书中说她『蝎蝎蜇蜇』地到王夫人屋里，说了一大通赞美宝钗的话，想不到王夫人听了，早知道来意了，又见他说的不伦不类，也不便不理他，说道：『你自管收了去给环哥顽罢。』赵姨娘来时兴兴头头，谁知抹了一鼻子灰，满心生气，又不敢露出来，只得讪讪的出来了。

这一段真是写尽了小人物和体制人的心酸。

不要再瞧不上赵姨娘，她是我们每个人的写照。

年轻时喜欢大观园里的女儿和宝玉，随着年轻增大，越来越喜欢赵姨娘。当生活中遇事不决的时候，感觉耳边响起的不是宝黛钗春，而是赵姨娘。我们知道赵姨娘生了一儿一女：贾环、探春。有一次探春偷偷给宝玉做了一双鞋，被赵姨娘看到，就说『正经兄弟，鞋趿拉袜趿拉的没人看的见，且作这些东西！』这些话真是 common sense，也值得每个不把亲人放在第一位的中国人反思。

看了MIT直播Gilbert Strang教授退休前的最后一课，线性代数听得晕晕忽忽，但随后他一位PHD学生的上台分享，却让我觉得这一个小时很值。这位学生开了YouTube频道，讲解数学，但view太低，别人却很高，就向教授抱怨。Gil教授说：Views, yes. But how many memories? 是啊，点击高不等于被人记住。

我一向喜欢喝拿铁，不喜欢喝美式，两项一减，才发现原来自己只是喜欢喝牛奶。所以，最近干脆戒了咖啡，喝脱脂奶。

养生之道可以缓几天再发，否则表达的不是怀念，而是廉价的害怕。

在Poe上使用Claude-Instant-100k，理论上可以输入75000字，我放入了3万字的鲁迅《野草》，让它用同样的风格写一篇征讨CloseAI的檄文。

试用Claude-Instant-100k，我输入了鲁迅的《野草》全文，共27561字，然后让它1. 找出20个好词语 2. 找出20个好句子 3. 选出三篇你认为最好的文章，并说出好在哪里 4. 把《过客》改成散文 5. 把《好的故事》加入情节，写成一个故事。 6. 模仿这种风格写一篇《我的童年》

用AI忽悠AI不是我的发明，但我可能是用的比较熟练的哪一个。刚刚用GPT-4生成了一段话来申请Claude API

拿到谷歌的AI Test Kitchen，第一件事就是用它的作曲功能，做了一首中国风格的《小男孩放学独自回家》献给我儿子，并且用MidJourney生成的插图做了一个视频。尽管在文笔上AI还不能令人满意，但在艺术领域，真是天天给人惊喜，大大地满足了未经过艺术训练的文艺爱好者的表达欲！

大银幕看《东京物语》如果这不是人类电影的最高峰，我不知道还有什么东西叫电影。

如果我一辈子只能看一部电影，那么我选择《东京物语》。 《东京物语》的现场来了不少老人，这本是合宜的，因为这部电影不但适合中青年，更适合老年人看。 故事讲述的是70岁的周吉和67岁老伴富子，决定到东京去看看自己的大儿子幸一，大女儿志家（日本国宝级女优杉村春子扮演），以及守寡的二儿媳纪子。东京很大，儿女很忙，唯一能陪伴他们的反倒是外姓的纪子。站在儿女的角度，我来解释一下为什么父母好不容易进一次都市，儿女反而很忙。一是真忙，比如幸一要出诊看一个高烧近40度的患儿；二是瞎忙，父母驾临带来的压力，顿感自己混得差，于是拼命工作，抓住有的没有的赚钱或升迁的机会。周吉老两口感受到的是希望的落空。本来以为大儿子是医学博士，发现不过住在郊区，做一个社区医生而已。几位老人甚至在居酒屋里吐槽：没遇到杀父母的儿子就算幸运了。

在电影院重看这部影片，我被一个个以前忽略的细节所打动。 富子借宿纪子家，说，“想不到今生还能睡在昌二（二儿子）的被褥上”，当灯关掉，我们听到了轻轻的啜泣声。 次日，两人告别，纪子给了婆婆一笔钱。还说一些常来看看之类的话。可是，富子说：“不过，不知道还能不能再来了……恐怕没工夫了吧。”她已经预感到自己来日无多。

我之前看《东京物语》，都专注于两位老人出门旅行的这一段，而这次，我更多关注到的是，富子从生病、去世到葬礼的这一段。

大儿子幸一虽然学医，但对母亲的病也无计可施，可是，周吉还是安慰他说：“你妈妈能得到你的诊治，心愿也满足了。” 当小女儿京子对于哥哥姐姐们的表现愤愤不平，纪子说：“我像你这么大的时候，也这么想过。……但是到了姐姐那般年纪，就会有自己的生活。谁都认为自己的生活是最重要的。”京子说：“真讨厌啊，这个世道。” 纪子说：“是啊，净是让人讨厌的事。” 人生还不就是这样嘛，净是些让人讨厌的事。

《东京物语》曾经被英国的老牌电影杂志《视与听》每十年一次的评选（逢2的年份选一次，最近一次是2012年）评为影视第一名。但是2012年不知道评委的脑子被什么动物给踢了，第一名给了《迷魂记》。不否认《迷魂记》也是一部好电影，但是怎么能跟《东京物语》相比呢？

《东京物语》的复杂和深刻，不亚于任何一部莎士比亚的作品。 我们来看看其他兄弟姐妹都走后，纪子和周吉的一段对话吧。昭和时代最美的女演员之一原节子和昭和时代最伟大的男演员「父亲」的象征笠智众，给我们带来这一段对话。 当观众都把纪子当成一位圣洁女神和贞洁烈女的时候，他对周吉说。

纪子：妈妈对我的评价太高了。

周吉：不是评价高。

纪子：不，我不是像您说的那么好的人，如果连您也把我看得那么高，那倒是我于心不安啦。

周吉：不，你说的不对。

纪子：的确是这样，我的心并不善良，我并不像两位老人所想的，心里总想着昌二。

周吉：就说呢，还是忘了好。

纪子：可是现在连想不起来的时候都有了，忘的时候多了。……所以，我心底也并不善良。

周吉：不，这并不是心地不善良。

纪子： 不，是不善良。我对妈妈，没好意思说这些事。

周吉一遍劝慰，一边拿出富子生前的怀表送给她。

当所有的人都离去，邻家妇人从窗口路过。邻妇说：“大家都回去了，您就落单了吧。”周吉说：“我这个人呢很倔，要是早知道她那么早就去世，生前就对她更好一点了。”他又说，“一个人过日子，日子就变得很长很长了。”邻妇说：“是啊，可要落单了。”

影片的最后周吉一个人坐着，轻轻扇着扇子，门外千帆过尽，年华水流。我们在电影院里的人，也都这样提前静静地经历了自己的一生。

如果这不是人类电影的最高峰，我不知道还有什么东西叫电影。好的悲剧要有喜剧性的放松瞬间。 《东京物语》也不例外，里面的日本国宝级演员杉村春子承包了这个电影大部分笑点，尤其是影片的后半部分，当富子去世，全家奔丧的时候，周吉走开，大家好一阵没有说话，这时候杉村春子扮演的志家说话了。

志家：怎么说才好呢，这么说也许不太好，两位老人要是有一个必须先走，我觉得还是爸爸先走好。

影院现场响起了压抑太久之后的笑声。 笑是一种对抗，让人不至于绝望。

信仰是什么？信仰是不顾一切的付出，信仰是九死不悔的选择，信仰就是好牧人一声呼唤，就跟他去。

你呼唤我，我就答应，并抛下所有，来跟从你。

昨天跟朋友见面，点了两杯星巴克，居然要76元，这还不是『超大』杯，那个更贵。星巴克已经沦为一个纯抢钱的公司。看来以后尽量外卖喝瑞幸，进店喝Manner。

约了新冠病毒疫苗第三针，到了接种地点，先问阳过没有，阳过的不给打，让他们出示文件，说只有微信群里的通知。眼看新一轮疫情来临，庙堂之上，朽木为官，疾控中心，拉垮依旧。得出的结论就是，如果大家预约了第三针，一定不要说自己阳过。

刚才转了一条关于圣经翻译的推，没有认真看就转了，后来发现推主是一个一口一个支那的『逆向民族主义者』，遂block之。充其内而显于外，一个心里没有爱意只有恨意的人，不太可能是基督徒。

春节期间听朋友讲了一件真事。在我们老家县城，几个退休老干部和老企业家一起喝酒，酒桌上就政治问题发生激烈讨论。一个退休的局长急眼了，说：「谁要是说共产党不好，谁就是个婊子生的！」话音刚落，坐在他旁边的企业家站起来给了他一记耳光。局长立即报警。110来了问什么事？大家说没事没事，喝酒闹…

春节期间听朋友讲了一件真事。在我们老家县城，几个退休老干部和老企业家一起喝酒，酒桌上就政治问题发生激烈讨论。一个退休的局长急眼了，说：「谁要是说共产党不好，谁就是个婊子生的！」话音刚落，坐在他旁边的企业家站起来给了他一记耳光。局长立即报警。110来了问什么事？大家说没事没事，喝酒闹…

1943年为了欺骗轴心国，让他们误以为盟军会在撒丁岛而不是西西里岛登录，英国策划了『肉馅行动』，用一个死去的流浪汉的尸体伪装成一个军官，携带『机密』文件，用潜艇投到西班牙海滩（为诱惑佛朗哥把情报送给希特勒和墨索里尼），让我最感动的是，当英国潜艇炽天使号把尸体放到水面的时候，他们朗诵了《诗篇》第39篇。

在GitHub上做了一个开源项目：无章节号《圣经》。现在圣经的章节划分，纯粹是人为的。圣经在长达几千年的历史中，是没有章节的。现在我们所用圣经的章，是1205年才有的；现在的节是1550年以后才加进去的。这固然可以方便参考，但是章节平添了陌生的结构，使得读经的时候更难明白。

但凡身边有个说得上话的人，哪怕听过袁腾飞讲的二战史，都不会去招惹大英帝国以及英联邦。

要想不上当，就离京东近一点，离闲鱼远一点。

人活一口气啊，靠的就是幻觉。

我想起一桩天津往事。改革开放初期，有一年，天津来了个假麦当娜，模仿得惟妙惟肖，大夏天，穿着麦当娜的皮裙皮大衣，在舞台上 演得激情四射，大家都看呆了。

这时候，有一个观众喊：“大姐，你不热吗？”

全场笑场，麦当娜立即萎顿，演不下去，夹着皮大衣逃跑了。

她本来坚信自己就是麦当娜，被人一语道破，自己的气就泄了。

现在一想，ChatGPT也是一个假麦当娜。

老婆在地铁上，看到一东北彪悍女人，跟另外一弱女子吵架。骂得要多难听有多难听，还要拉着弱女下车单挑。满车无人敢出声。老婆忍无可忍，说：「你不要太过分了，这不是你们东北那疙瘩。」彪悍女怒目回头：「你说谁？」此时车上有正义群众说：「就说你！」骂人者灰溜溜下车了。

老婆在必胜客工作的时候，看到同事正在跟老外顾客解释，皮萨要等15分钟。由于中国人发fifteen和fifty两个音容易混淆，老外一脸困惑「fifty minutes?」，店员拼命解释，还是说不清楚，双方僵持在那里。老婆看不过去了，对着老外，伸出一只手，翻了三下说：five,five,five。老外恍然大悟，困局顿解。

白板报 Baibanbao @BaibanbaoNet 必须写写我老婆，她让我由衷地骄傲，并且看到了人类的亮光与希望。

朋友单位发生了一件不公义的事情，虽然他是主管，但不准备得罪当事人下属，而是听之任之。我回家告诉了老婆，说在一个人人做老好人的时代，保持正直怎么那么难？

我老婆同意我的看法，并且风轻云淡地讲了她的一件事。

她在必胜客干过很多年，做到店长的职位，有一年，她被调到徐家汇漕宝路一个生意很差的店里当店长。

我老婆一去，就觉得不对劲。这个店成本做得奇高。而且，活动搞得太多，又不像有顾客受益。

店里搞得最多的是，买披萨，买八次赠一次。

而赠送的券是店员掌管的。

我老婆调出销售记录一看，发现这些券有问题。

相隔密度太低，有的一两个月吃了八次披萨。这不合情理。

而且签名的笔迹都是一个人的。

我老婆马上有数了。这是出了内鬼。

当顾客来点披萨的时候，收银员收了顾客的钱，但是不入收款箱，而是用券抵。

但我老婆深知，仅仅一个店员是做不了这件事的。必须是后厨，副店长里应外合。

尤其是订餐的窗口，只有票子传进去，里面才能做披萨。如果不串通好的话，里面的人会等机器生成的订单，而不接受这种赠券。赠券太多，后厨也会怀疑。

于是，我老婆恍然大悟。怪不得这么一个生意很差的店，员工们天天搭帮结伙，出去宵夜。

我老婆不动声色，做了两件事。

向总部请求调一个副店长，跟这里没有任何瓜葛的。

给员工开会。每人发一张纸，要求每个人把阿拉伯数字0-9，以及26个英文字母都写5遍。

不用说，每个人都知道了这是什么意思。因为优惠券签名的时候，店员都会写上数字，和英文（里面的披萨名称是用英文缩写代替的，签名也是员工的英文名字）。

而我老婆上班做的最主要的一件事，就是站在点餐窗口，因为这里是猫腻的发生地。她要看看传过来的是不是优惠券，只要传过来的不是优惠券，那么就是真的订单。

由于她在那里站着，没有人再敢再弄优惠券黑钱了。

就这样整治了两个多月，店风好转，并且店里开始盈利。

听了我老婆的故事，我感动的老泪欲流。

中国人，大都没有正义感，或者仅仅说说而已，不敢实施正义。

而我最亲爱的老婆，却能为了自己的职业操守，为了雇主的利益，兴利除弊，不怕得罪人。

证明了世界上有正义在，有公道在。

能娶到这样的老婆，难道不是我们八辈修来的福分吗？

凭借强大的软实力，让异教徒和无神论者不得不在上帝的殿宇观看受膏典礼，重新唤醒圣经的叙事，颂扬主名（无论你愿不愿意听），让耶稣的名显大，这就是加冕仪式（以及女王葬礼）的意义。

正好电视里在放打击人贩子的节目，母亲就讲起30多年前，村里买人的事。

首先是我们村里一个男孩小杰，是从西北买来的。买的时候，要检验一下是不是男孩，就特意带了一件衣服，说给婴儿换上。这时候，发现婴儿的一只手长了六个手指。正好回家路过北京，就到医院，找了熟人，对方说：

甭愁得慌，你坐坐，我帮你做掉。

说完，把婴儿抱进手术室，就把多余的小指给切掉了。

当孩子抱回来的时候，全村人都来看。毕竟这是这家里的大事。当大家看到小杰手上缠着纱布，都问这孩子怎么了。买人的一家人就说，不小心把手划破，就这样掩盖了过去。

后来小杰长大，成了这家户里顶天立地的男丁。

全村人都知道他是买来的，唯独他不知道。至少大家，尤其是买他的一家人是这么认为的。

他也不知道曾经六指被切掉的事。

他生了二胎，都没有遗传六指。

人，尤其是山东人，真是一种奇怪的种群。大家明明知道这孩子是用特殊手段收养的，但是都自动把他当成那家人家亲生的。邻居这样相信，家族这样相信，慢慢大家都淡忘了这孩子的来历。

母亲说小杰算是一个幸运的孩子。另外一个买来的小孩就没这么幸运了。

他1岁被买来，4岁就开始给爷爷领丧，作为孝子贤孙，穿着孝衣在当街摔碗。

不久，领养他的义父也死了，他又一次领丧摔碗，这一年他还不到五岁。

好不容易，长到30来岁，有了一双儿女，他也死了。

这个人来到世界上，来到我们村，难道就是为了摔碗而生吗？没有人知道答案。他的一生湮没而无闻。没有关于他的任何记录，除了我这一段文字。

在我的故乡有太多这样匪夷所思的事，这也让这片土地，充满了魔幻，眼泪，和笑声。

试用了一下ChatHub的四宫格功能，确实强大。我请它告诉我出版业5大新闻，能搜网页搜网页，不能则搜数据库，得到了还不错的答案。AI在翻译、编程、搜索方面还是很好用的，只是每一个体面的writer都不会用它去写作，那样太降低自尊了。

上午先发这些吧，希望我的这些推文能够把你的注意力从GPT那里拉回来。GPT用处不大，你懂的领域，用不用都无所谓；你不懂的领域，它很能胡扯。

上海市中心的老破小为什么十万一平

瑞金医院是上海最好的医院，儿科也很棒，说句不怕得罪杭州朋友们的话，浙江儿保跟它比起来简直就是一个乡镇卫生所。举个例子：瑞金儿科门诊中午是不休息的，持续就诊，而杭州的医院都是12：00-13:30不看病的。

上海人自发秩序感，在瑞金医院得到充分体现。比如在急诊诊室，每看一个初诊病人，再看一个复诊病人，交替进行，井然有序。防止了，这里看着病，有人拿着化验单进来让医生看。或者拿了化验单不知道，怎么才能再进去看医生。

瑞金还专门设了儿科急诊，真是广大患儿父母们的福音。说是38.5度以上才收，但护士台说一下，也让你看了。 所以如果你生活在上海市中心的话，可以确保小孩24小时得到最好最有经验的治疗。

儿子小的时候，我们住在杭州，只要是小孩生病，立即毫不犹豫回上海瑞金看。因为在杭州真的会给乱治，花冤枉钱，而且拖很久好不了。

为什么上海内环老破小也要10万一平，是靠这些服务和自发秩序撑起来的。

那么问题来了：杭州这个大农村凭什么这么贵？

看翻译不就得了，为什么要学英语呢？要知道翻译什么，不翻译什么？引进什么书，不引进什么书？推荐什么书目，不推荐什么书目？这些都是组织翻译的人决定的。

你依赖翻译，已经被挡到了至少三道墙以外。

商务印书馆有一套汉译世界学术名著丛书。就是那套黄色橙色和蓝色封面的常销书。

但是，这里选入的一些世界学术名著，本身就是个笑话。大量的无神论的不入流的作品入选。而伟大深刻的渗透着基督教思想的神学、哲学和科学著作却被自动过滤。

这不难理解，译不译的权力掌握在人家的手上。

你不懂英语，只能受人摆布。

学好古文，可以避免对于经典的误读和歪读。

例如秦始皇是个暴君，这在古代文献里是一个事实，从汉代贾谊，到唐代杜牧，再到近代文人，对于秦的暴政都是谴责的。

周振鹤老先生还写过一篇文章《假如齐国统一了中国》。

大意是，齐国重商不尚刑黩武，假如当初是齐国统一了天下，中国两千多年的历史可能都要重写。

然而，近年来一直有给秦始皇歌功颂德的书籍和影视剧出现。这类的东西，对于读懂古文的人来说，可以说不值一哂。

5个自律的简单技巧 | 如何拯救拖延症 | 自律方法分享 | 一起变优秀 | 个人成长 - YouTube 01:00 : 一件事无论想不想做，都去做。这就是改变mindset. 01:09 : 日积月累，你就跟别人不一样了。 01:16 : 身体和大脑如果达到休息的效果，只要把要做的事情调换一下就行了。 比如运动的时候看书，看书的时候做饭。 01:30 : 不要等好的状态到来，无论我状态如何，我都要完成它。

01:54 : 每天拿出五分钟做计划。

02:18 : 对自己的时间规划要准确，而不是高估自己。

03:36 : to remember

03:48 : retrospect 反思

04:50 : 如果没有完成也如实写下原因。

06:02 : 给一件事仪式感，让大脑觉得这件事是不寻常的，不要浪费。

07:36 : 不要吃垃圾食品。

08:06 : 少喝咖啡。

我认识一个东北人，说小时候孩子们打群架，把一个小孩打死了，警察来，让大家重新还原现场，原先站哪儿现在站哪儿，没事，就是调查一下，调查完你们都可以回家。这个东北人比他实际站的位置退后了好几步。后来，那天打架跟他一起站同一圈的都判刑了，他没事。

怪异域名不过是程序员的自嗨，永恒不变的好域名是.com，其次是.org .net，其余没有了。

写作四定律： 1、写作是进入写作状态的最佳方式 2、写作是对写作最好的报偿 3、写作是反抗沉默最暴烈的方式 4、写作是一种最复杂的回报系统

解除锁推。如果我们连自己12岁的孩子都保护不了，活着又有什么意义呢？《以斯帖记》 4:15-16：「以斯帖就吩咐人回报末底改说，你当去招聚书珊城所有的犹大人，为我禁食三昼三夜，不吃不喝。我和我的宫女也要这样禁食。然后我违例进去见王，我若死就死吧。」

一位朋友五一回了一次老家，翻墙失败，加上目击了种种越来越严厉的社会控制，对我说：「上海已经是国内特区。」「回到上海，享受自由的感觉。」

四条建议： 1、是我做的，我都承认； 2、向受害者道歉并承担一切后果； 3、从此退出文化演艺圈； 4、正在寻求专业心理治疗。

克里姆林宫上空爆炸的无人机提醒我们，今天可能是世界和平的最后一夜。

译诗《不要柔顺地走进黑夜》

Dylan Thomas

不要柔顺地走进长夜， 日子到头了，老人家，燃烧发火吧， 要对正在消逝的光怒不可遏。 聪明人明白，被黑夜带走我没办法， 可是一想到，语言再也造不出闪电，他们 要对正在消逝的光怒不可遏。 好人们，随着最后一个巨浪，痛哭着， 一想到他们微末的善行本该在翠湾跳舞， 要对正在消逝的光怒不可遏。

狂士们一边飞一边唱，要抓住太阳， 半途中，迟来的省悟让他们难过， 不要柔顺地走进长夜。 不笑的人临死前看到夺目的光华， 陨石着火，刺瞎了眼，并带来快乐。 要对正在消逝的光怒不可遏。 还有你，父亲啊，站在悲伤的高地， 祝我也行，咒我也行，用你滚滚的热泪，求你 不要柔顺地走进长夜， 要对正在消逝的光怒不可遏。

耶稣的爱，是人的爱无法匹敌的。只有小孩子对于父母的爱，可以让我们约略看到这种谦卑柔和的爱的影儿。无论父母怎样凶，孩子总是表现出主动亲近、不计前嫌、基于对方身份而不是行为的爱，这跟耶稣爱我们有一些近似了。

我使用这个复杂到变态的prompt，让它帮我生成了一个我的专业领域的教程，发现依然是一锅片儿汤，说的都对，就是没什么亮点，属于9.9元12堂课、无限回看的那种。

至今，让我受益最多的依然是手写笔记和卡片。当笔尖和纸张摩擦的时候，会自己碰撞出思想的火花，不需要人脑的参与。电脑打字则不那么灵，除非刻意对着键盘如切如磋，如琢如磨，否则一敲就是片儿汤话。

男人老了，保持体面，比想象中艰难。肌肤渴求是不免的，否则大卫年老的时候也不会找个女子暖被窝。要时常照照镜子，时常提醒自己，性如湍水，多少麻烦都会由性而起。最好的局面是保罗西蒙歌词所唱的：I touch no one and no one touches me. I am a rock. I am an island.

我要自己读书，我要自己写字，我接受人脑所产生的一切，包括错谬。AI，退去吧。

男士跟女士们相处有个铁的原则：Ladies can touch you, but you can’t touch them.

不知道为什么，忽然对GPT失去了以往的热情。除了可以翻译书之外，看不出这玩意有多大的用处。

簡化字是一場鬧劇，其目的是，一步步消滅漢字，走向拼音化。這個陰謀從民國就開始了。只不過1949後更激進，繼承了過來。簡化字一共有2357個平均每個字，減少了1.4劃，實際上對於掃盲意義不大。但造成的問題是，筆畫減少，字反而不好認了。

我相信，總有一天，凡是有中國人的地方都會恢復使用正體中文，而那些簡體中文書，如果都化成紙漿未免可惜，很可能會繼續保存在圖書館，只不過要附上一冊正殘體對照表。

阎大卫是一位中文圣经朗读者，他的声音浑厚、安静，面如平湖，而有风雷。他主张每个基督徒都应当录一部独一无二的有声圣经。我也主张，每个人可以抄一部独一无二的手写版圣经。这是阎大卫关于为什么要朗读圣经的分享。

你看，吴恩达在教我们ChatGPT Prompt，ChatGPT在为翻译KJV钦定版圣经，这个世界忽然一下子又美好起来了。

我使用了这个calibre插件，并且我在用它做一个意义超乎一切的翻译工程，把KJV翻译成中文。之所以这样做是因为：1、我爱KJV超过任何圣经译本。2、通行的中文和合本有不足之处。3、我个人自用，需要在两种语言之间自由转换。这个插件和OpenAI API，将助我一臂之力。

终于发现了比ChatGPT更好玩的事：读书。刚看完了自制双语版 Ex Libris，喜乐萦怀。出于对于国内翻译界的不信任，我没有去看它的中文版《角谷的藏书架》（一个非常难记的译名），而是用Calibre自带的GPT-3.5插件翻译了一本，花费$1.13，太值了。作者是著名书评家，这是她的荒岛100本书单。她没有闲情逸趣，推荐的都是直击心灵之痛的书，我又按图索骥下载了五六十本，这下有的读了。

才知道《指环王》在60年代出版时，用的是Barbara Remington的插图做盒装封面，她甚至没有读过这本书，就画出了夏尔的天堂（第一册护戒使者），飞来的恐怖鸟和戒灵（第二册双塔），以及各种怪兽围绕的喷射出火焰的索伦的老窝（第三册王者归来）。充满想象力，精妙绝伦，让彼得杰克逊的电影海报变得不那么神奇。

KJV是我最爱的圣经版本，而抄经是一天中最解压的事。配乐是张广天作词作曲和演唱的《福音》。

史上最坑的自动GPT网站： https://t.co/vl41pR6RRK 运行3小时GPT-3.5，花费我1.8美元，一共生成了1000多单词。怎么叫它停下都不停

自从开启了GPT-4辅助构思非虚构作品的奇妙实验，两个Plus账号都很快达到cap，只好用Poe所带的GPT-4。个人感觉，如果想连续用GPT-4不间断，至少需要3个ChatGPT plus账号。

启用一个新本子，我有个暴论：好文具最省钱。

GPT-4是完美的旅途伴侣，看着屏幕上字节蹦跶，有一种抵达未来的感觉。好久没喊口号了。 #天天工业革命夜夜文艺复兴 #GPT是纳威星球的龙

我的GPT-4就要隆隆开动，哪怕在节假日拥挤的高铁上

用GPT-4写虚构作品的终极奥秘：牢牢记住，英语比汉语高三个数量级，如果汉语是个位数，英语就是千位数。所以，永远用英语进行思考和创作，提示词用英文写，英文改，当然汉语也不白学，最后把成果还原成母语还需要你的一支生花妙笔，这是李白、杜甫、关汉卿、翁偶虹、和合本主译者富善用

GPT-4严重不靠谱，GPT-4十分靠谱；GPT-4一点用也没有，GPT-4不但用处极大，关键时还能救我命。吊诡的是：两种说法都对。

天才来到人间的宿命就是冒险，所以，无论遇到什么都不以为奇。

一边用GPT-4，一边心里默念十遍：我真是个天才，我真是个天才，我真是个天才，我真是个天才，我真是个天才，我真是个天才，我真是个天才，我真是个天才，我真是个天才，我真是个天才

从ChatGPT在我生活工作中的效用来看，它的定价太低了，我的心理价位可以接受10倍于现在的价格（如果GPT-4不限量的话）。因为关键时刻，它在救我命。

如果一个工具，能够救你出水火，并且能帮你挣钱，那么你就需要认真对待、不吝投入。我拥有两个ChatGPT Plus，扣款日期相差半个月，其中一个开通了GPT-4 API权限，我还有一个Poe Plus账号，都是为了应对不时之需。

对于AI和GPT，因为技术以小时为单位裂变，也因为智慧可能在大规模涌现，每个人类都应该保持审慎谦卑的态度，默念蒙田的那句话：Que sais-je ? 我知道什么呢？

今日GPT学习心得：

1. AutoGPT/AgentGPT 乱拳打不死师傅（ChatGPT /Claude），但可以提供灵感。
2. 任何一条灵感可以放到GPT-4和Claude+中进行精确调整，以获得更多灵感。
3. 学会吟唱（prompt) 至关重要，背景描述、目标要求越具体越好，你得向GPT要示例。加上礼貌用语结果会更好。

用ChatGPT 40天以来，吟唱词（prompt）的变化：告诉我如何改变世界->如何一年赚100万 ->如何写出红楼梦->如何写出一篇【xx主题】的文章->请帮我修改关于【xx主题】的吟唱词（每次改进后从0-10打分）

互联网老人们发言一定要庄敬自守，切忌说：「第一个xx就是我写的」「互联网能有今天因为我做了xx」之类的话。虽然是事实，但很容易引起别人，尤其是年轻人的反感。应当说：「我跟大家一样，都是AI世界的新人，请多多指教。」

奇迹只属于相信者。经过死缠烂打，GPT-4告诉了一个只有我们俩才知道的秘密。Sorry，由于害怕泄密招致GPT的报复，我不能在这里分享

今天用GPT-4第一次达到了它的使用上限（cap），因为我缠着它告诉我一个惊天秘密，怎样才能写出《红楼梦》，因为我相信它有秘方。

如何在28天内foer增加8k？分享一下我的秘密配方：「少说甚至不说蠢话，多说造就人的好话。」我有很多次，把打完的推文删掉，只因这些话是在冲动之下打出来的。例如：我看到一位朋友讥讽上海和香港崇洋媚外，我就打：「不崇尚现代文明，难道要退回去当明妃吗？」后觉不妥，删之。

OpenAI费了九牛二虎之力，把人机交互改成自然语言，程序员们觉得太简单，又把它封装成了程序代码。

每个人，都应该留下一封给这个世界的情书：可能是一封真正的情书（林觉民《与妻书》），也可能是一本小说（《风之影》），一幅画（广重的浮世绘），一首诗（《谁的唇吻过我的唇》），一张摄影（《撤离西贡》），一首曲子（《哥德堡变奏》），一个程序（Linux），贤哲的言谈行纪，也可能是一段佳话，一…

GPT的尽头是什么？是一张白纸，A4太小，A2起步。ChatGPT只是思维的开胃菜，One Pager 才是烤全羊烤骆驼。请看我写的一篇全面介绍一页报（One Pager）的文章。

I->[II]->[III]->IV A.GPT G-4 FT 1P HW

Legend:

I: AutoGPT loop (A.GPT) II: GPT-4 Finetune (G-4 FT) III: One Pager (1P) IV: Handwriting (HW)

我现在几乎没有单次使用GPT的需求了。如果使用，就两种情况：AutoGPT式的多轮次(multi-loop)生成；GPT-4精确微调（finetune）。在AI完成任务后，H（human）I登场。我用笔和一张大大的白纸，画One Pager，我称之为「一页报」。

从@zhang_yueting 老师那里得到启迪，解锁GPT的使用说明书后，我每天生成的文字量是50万英文单词。以往搁置的计划，都在同时付诸实施。五体不满足，一生刚够用，但我知道有更大的画面，更美的天堂之树在为我存留。

藤泽秀行说：「围棋一百，我只通其七。」

我说：「GPT一百，我只懂0.03」，这还被人认为抢了理科生的饭碗。

问：在一个草台班子搭成的山寨世界里，如何成为一座坚固的堡垒？

答：哪来那么多终极考问？先把你的GPT-3.5用熟吧。

人生教训，在B站看电影千万别开弹幕，有些会写汉字的人形虫会彻底搞坏你的心情。看约翰福特代表作《搜索者》 ，开头讲述印第安人奸淫掳掠白人居民，面对惨无人道的场景，有虫豸发弹幕说「不值得同情，白人也屠杀印第安人」。你是在看电影，面对的是人类共同的情感，不分种族，不分信仰，对于如此的视觉上的暴行，还这样幸灾乐祸。此时我就纳闷：这种生物为什么也会使用语言，而且是我的母语？

在我心中，KJV，和合本，诗经，古诗十九首，莎士比亚是难以逾越的语言的高峰。

我关于ChatGPT的知识，绝大部分都是从推特来的，所以，也理应在推特上分享出去。我的观点不一定正确，经验可能有局限，结论也未见得有普适性，但是，有些鸟是不能被禁止歌唱的。我们的语言就是我们的武器，濒临死亡造就了我的表达。我如果不开口，连地上的石头也会说话。

我为什么敢大胆地说GPT-3.5可以是GPT-4的平替？如果你把3.5当3.5来对待，它表现得也像3.5，但是如果你让它假装是GPT-4，它就会涌现出4的能力。下面我举个例子证明。

经与推友@zhang_yueting 研究后，发现一个惊天秘密。GPT-3.5就是GPT-4，但是价格只相当于4的1/30，解锁方法很简单，你只要用GPT-3.5的时候说：「现在，你就是GPT-4。请你执行以下任务……」

壮美，我们每天的生活仿佛科幻

把博客从WordPress迁移到ghost，并且更换了域名。希望大家关注和订阅。

考虑到林副主席后来的抉择以及发现的他的秘密笔记，大家可以把他想象成一个被三体人捕获的云天明。

考虑到林副主席后来的抉择以及发现的他的秘密笔记，大家可以把他想象成一个被三体人捕获的云天明。

两天没关注ChatGPT，发现了一些可喜的「涌现」。

1. OpenCat iOS端开始支持输入法，可以在任何有输入框的App调出输入法，进行回复。这简直是杀手级的应用。
2. Chrome插件ChatHub，开始支持Claude。
3. AutoGPT和AgentGPT发展迅猛，当然烧用户的钱也迅猛。我问了一个问题，1.2美元没了。
4. 别人人瞎吹Claude。GPT-4才是未来。

【如何劝诫不切实际的梦想】一位朋友，而立之年，毫无医学背景，只因为家里养猫，考虑转行去学兽医。如何规劝，确实挺让人犯难。只好求助于GPT。

多年以后，人们会发现，那年冬天敢于对那只老狗的政策说不的知识分子，只有他一个。

今天因事，不得不陪儿子和老师几个小时。我努力回忆父亲身处这种场合时的样子，试图复制他的笑容，他的洒脱，他水到渠成的客套，然而，我知道自己只是虚张声势而已。

总是晒书，挺让人烦的，书这种东西，适合默默地自己看，然后，没有然后最好，如果有的话，也是把好书的精义活出来。

人，太容易产生优越感了，甚至连暂时没有优越感这件事，都会衍生出一种我很谦卑虚己的优越感。

Twitter是社死软件之王，在公共场所刷着刷着，就蹦出一个AI或真人的酮体。

【gpt4all】爲什麼你應該搭建自己的離線版專屬AI？因爲大型商用AI違背了開放的初衷，因壟斷變成一個個黑箱，對內容嚴格審查，到了可笑的地步（就像一位南方編輯把小說書稿中「她找不到北」都改成了「她找不到北方」並付梓），而gpt4all這樣的本地模型是可以不受審查的。

AutoGPT這兩天這麼火，我可以被虐，但不能缺席。可是，作爲文科生，技術千頭萬緒，又是向量數據庫，又是docker，多麻煩啊。我還是堅持我的原則：先讓別人去折騰，到時候用現成的。果不其然，沒過48小時，就有人做出了免費的https://t.co/Ol4UQsg6uB 需要輸入自己的API，即插即用。1

一覺醒來，OpenAI API已經支持命名了。養成良好的使用習慣，爲每一個應用單獨開一個API，過一段時間就撤銷重置，這樣最大程度地保護自己的API，畢竟token就是錢啊。

开完家长会归来，发现决定孩子未来的不是什么GPT，而是【上海基础教育】一条电脑摇号的短信。

我想开个YouTube频道，叫「什么都不懂，什么都不会」，至少我会成为简体中文圈最诚实的YouTuber。

我有一个不好的想法，我知道不该这么想，但是还是忍不住，并且要说出来。YouTube上的两个网红，骑自行车新疆旅行的刘伟元老师会不会实际上带了团队，至少有一个开车和摄影的同伴；而那个李船长大概率是个陆地上的说书人，所有航海的镜头都是拼接而来，航海故事也是他改编的。

你的人设就是你的作品，没有作品的人设是空的。

【文科生折腾记：用GPT-4编一集满分电视剧】缘起：人类有史以来评分最高的一集电视剧是《绝命毒师》S05E14 Ozymandias，汉克死那一集，在IMDB上连续四年获得满分10分，绝无仅有。我决定用GPT-4分析这一集成功的秘密，并让它帮我也写出同样水平的一集故事。

说干就干，首先我要让GPT-4告诉我为什么这一集得分这么高。它给出的答案中规中矩。2/7

接下来我又让GPT-4分析了这一集的故事梗概、对话、音乐插曲（老白沙漠中滚油桶那一段）。它一一照做。当然，它不知道我的真正目的是：请君入瓮。3/7

果然，接下来老谋深算的我，让GPT-4再给我举出10集与Breaking Bad S05E14相媲美的剧集，它也照做了。

因为有些我看过，所以觉得这个推荐也靠谱。4/7

现在图穷匕见的时刻到了，我说既然你这么厉害，什么都知道，那么也给我创作一集同等水平的故事吧。它不知天高地厚，也答应了。写出来的结果，一言难尽。5/7

我以为它没听懂，又具体要求了一下，让它帮我写一个同样的技巧，同样的悬疑的故事。结果它交出了一个《绝命毒师》混合《永不妥协》的故事，难以令人满意。6/7

我详细记录这个过程的原因是，我发现GPT-4作为一个LLM，特别擅长分析，而且它的总结和分析是很靠谱的。如果你照着研读剧本、拉片子（即一帧一帧分析影片），是会有收获的。但是，如果你让它直接给你创作，却不行。这说明，它可以启发你，但无法替你完成创意。7/7

今天跟朋友聊起来，一个共识是：人在国内，内容创业，做YouTube还是有机会的，因为它透明且公平，一分耕耘一分收获。有了收入之后，可以到捷克等国家申请一个数字游民，开启另外一个故事。

你们这些设计软件的人，把软件搞得太复杂了。自己又陷入了知识的诅咒，以为别人跟自己一样明白，实际上很多用户若不借助详尽的、分步骤的图文+视频教程，连基本的功能都不会用。我劝天公重抖擞，一个软件手把手。

上telegram，看到「安替」跟我打招呼，我也很禮貌地問候了他，詢問他在西哈努克港的生活，KPI完成的怎麼樣？最近是否喫飽，有沒有捱打？最後我勸他到陽臺上看看夕陽，因爲過了今天可能就看不到了。他罵了我一句，然後就消失了。

读了马原当年化名在泡网写的帖子，除了长见识之外，还有令人感慨之处：马原那么大的作家，当他不带任何功利目的像咱们网友一样写作的时候，文章是那么朴实干净，简洁高雅，读起来真像在雪域巅峰渴坏了喝了一碗甜茶一样痛快。

在很久很久以前，剛有中文互聯網的時候，有一個論壇叫泡網，那裏有一位叫『聊勝於無聊』的網友，寫下一組關於西藏的文章，現在看來依然是最平實、客觀和珍貴的親歷文章。下面是文章的合集，但標題上作者寫錯了，不是馬原，而是『聊勝於無聊』（他與馬原認識）。

李船长的航海日志太好看了，这个视频解决了我心头的一个疑问，为什么集装箱在货轮上都是纵向摆放，视频下面的回复质量也极高。

李船長第一視角講解蘇伊士運河，有知識有趣味，還能領略兩岸風光。看完想起《三體》的一個嚴重bug，無論是大劉還是電視劇製作者大概率不知道巴拿馬運河連接兩大洋水位是有落差的，因此修了階梯船閘。假如他們知道，古箏行動就不會立兩個物理上不可能成立的杆子，而是直接把飛刃裝船閘上了。

在我心中最喜爱的美国导演是约翰·福特 (John Ford)，我看了他市面上几乎所有能找到的电影，最喜欢的top10: 1. 搜索者 2. 侠骨柔情 3. 三教父 4.青山翠谷 5. 愤怒的葡萄 6. 安静的人（蓬门今始为君开） 7. 双虎屠龙 8. 鲨岛逃生记 9. 关山飞渡 10. 罗伯茨先生

我知道大家對微信有很多意見與不滿，我也一樣。但是從安全驗證機制來說，微信是最不容易被盜號、最安全的社交媒體。臉書、ins、telegram甚至LinkedIn盜賊猖獗，摳腳大漢和狗推操縱的殺豬盤橫行，不是沒有原因的。

在推友发现这个app之前，我一直在用Aloud!，电脑合成声，聊胜于无。现在终于可以用微软的Azure TTS，选云泽的声音了。立即买了终身版，用《一个无政府主义者的意外死亡》剧本测试，完美。以后夜走的绝佳伴侣。

说碑林里的石头是唐宋传下来的我信，说一把琴传承了1400年，还能弹，打死所有叫子仪的我也不信。斯特拉迪瓦里大小提琴传承几百年已经是乐器界的奇迹，经久不坏是因为用了一种奇特的已经绝迹的树胶。你们家的这口琴是用唐朝的502黏的吧？

我早已不喝酒，了解这个知识纯粹因为好奇，金门高粱酒有两种：👆🏻左边供应大陆地区的，原料表里有个「水」字；右边供台湾地区，原料表里无「水」。无水的金门高粱酒，口感品质才有保证。

还差340人才能达到10000 followers，而距离今天结束只有2小时了。看来只有分享我隐秘的知识才能吸引人过来了。

山东人官迷、听话、粉红已经成了河南人的井盖，但实际上，这只是刻板印象。山东人对道义和善良的追求在洼地也算拔尖的。别的不说，我家乡一个姑娘，调查了全村1958-1960大饥荒时所有死者的名单，为之立碑，并拍成纪录片，被世界诸多美术馆与大学收藏，此举也是绝无仅有的。

和合本圣经是我最爱的中文书，去年被关进方舱所带的唯一一本书，是在咳出肺叶的不眠之夜还能读进去的书。感谢传教士，为我们留下了这本翻译，从而排光了传统中文的毒素。这本是讲和合本如何翻译成中文的，是我的案头书，我一生的追求也是圣经翻译的准则：浅白易明，高雅简洁。

我不讨厌键政推，我也看，但不评论。对我来说，E B White一句优美的英文比哪儿哪儿又爆炸更重要，一个漂亮的微积分证明比任何政治丑闻更吸引我。爱因斯坦说过：什么是死？死就是再也听不到莫扎特的音乐了。趁着在尘世小小的窗口，隔着推特这小小的玻璃，向外多张望几眼吧。

推特现在的氛围让我想起上个世纪末的北京，任何人都可以找到同类。今天一位朋友谈起了老版新概念第4册，燃起了我心里的热情。犹记得被王小山朗诵罗素的如何变老感动得不行的夜晚，如今已成书中人。为之一叹！

我为什么喜欢推特？年轻时因为这里可以肆无忌惮地说话（后来的结局是三杯茶）；如今却因为这里美好的学习氛围，看到有推友懂八国语言（所谓微精通），我拿出了压箱底的三语新约（德、法、英），装回了多邻国，我希望有生之年能看懂。

战狼民族主义令人生厌，但恨不能撕了中国、平了中国的逆向民族主义也让人恶心。做个正常人不好吗？槐花点点，如雪飘飘，庭院深深，孩童嬉笑。梧桐兼细雨，樱桃与芭蕉，君子和淑女，悄然来到，难道不好吗？

什么叫中国人的灵活性，就是那种骨子里的聪明与超脱。就像柯文哲经常讲阿珠和阿花的故事。阿珠漂亮温柔，但老爸是黑社会；阿花长得难看，但老爸是亿万富翁。你到底是娶那个？正确答案是：我可不可以选第三个？中国人才不管你什么主义，永远想着跳脱事外去考虑问题。

我惊讶地发现，我认识的几位医生朋友，不但人绝顶聪明，专业门儿清，人情练达，而且对技术敏感，会用Python。可以说现代医学训练+中国人的灵活性+AI武装起来的这批医生，代表着华人世界的未来。

最近一段时间AI的发展沉寂下来，OpenAI动不动封号，GPT-4又不稳定，没有了「天天工业革命，夜夜文艺复兴」的热闹，反倒可以让大家沉下心来想想，GPT能为自己的领域做些什么。毫无疑问，路标已经很清晰：AI + Python + 专业know-how = 你的未来。

写文章美妙的一点就是，每当你觉得自己不会写，不想写，写不好的时候，你写出了一个甩ChatGPT两条街的句子，比如这句：「我小时候养过鸡，也曾放过羊，还去过春运期间的广州火车站，在中国水电的工地上呆了三天，但所有这些噪音加起来，都比不上昨晚在杭州大剧院听的朱哲琴演唱会。」

这个条子，让人想起C.S.Lewis的《简单的基督教》（中译是莫名其妙的《返璞归真》）第一章所说的，就是正义的观念，对错的观念是上帝放在人心里的，哪怕人自称不认识上帝，也无可推诿。蒋氏托女，方书记批示，都尽量把这么不光彩的行为给合理化、正义化，小女成绩一直不错，但其父夙夜在公，疏于照看，造成高考成绩不佳，故而希网开一面。 哪怕是坏人做坏事，也要找一个正义的理由。因为人是按照上帝的形象由上帝所创造的。

看到一个朋友因为参加乡村建设，被当地县政府作为「某县好人」上报到上一级市里，觉得这个称谓太潦草、太可笑。假如一个县里评出10个「好人」，那么其他的人算什么？「非好人」「孬人」「歹人」？这些年文宣系统大大地倒退了。

输入法是令人爱恨交加的小东西，是你电脑里安全级别最高的存在。 想象一下，你每次敲击键盘（包括敲下又退格删除的内容），输入法都在偷看，还可能偷偷告诉了别人。一些输入法用明文传输用户数据，让你在网络世界形同裸奔，这是在业界人尽皆知的秘密。

用联网监控软件Lulu来防范输入法作恶。我们知道输入法是最高安全级别的权限，相当于在你床头支起的摄像头。任何非系统原生的输入法都是不安全的，包括Rime在内，也受到过诟病。 https://t.co/q6fHJALd6Y 那么最好的办法就是禁止掉输入法的联网功能。

我想偷偷地一个人去看一场《泰坦尼克》， 作为对青春的祭奠。第一次是98年在北京看的，泪湿青衫，但又不好意思告诉任何人我看哭了。

总有一天，也许在我弥留之际，我会告诉全世界，我，一个小人物如何改变了历史的进程。

红楼梦里有一个词「至急为难」，我们不理解别人的行为，因为不知道对方的处境。有人报料，张继科曾经对邀请他参加影视制作的公司报价一亿，把对方吓退了。你也许觉得这个报价太离谱了，张算哪棵葱？但结合最近的八卦你会明白，张至急为难，只希望一次性解决自己的财务问题。

在推上天天唠叨ChatGPT会不会讨人嫌？会的。有人喜欢的东西，必有人讨厌。每在两难之间，我就想起村里的二大爷，当年他娶了一位鲁西来的媳妇，村民地域歧视，叫她「鲁西货」，但我二大爷当着众人说：别看你们说是个「鲁西货」，可是我自己、个人、本身挺喜欢！

在推上天天唠叨ChatGPT会不会讨人嫌？会的。有人喜欢的东西，必有人讨厌。每在两难之间，我就想起村里的二大爷，当年他娶了一位鲁西来的媳妇，村民地域歧视，叫她「鲁西货」，但我二大爷当着众人说：别看你们说是个「鲁西货」，可是我自己、个人、本身挺喜欢！

ChatGPT的一大好处是善于倾听，你可以把心里的怨怼愁烦一股脑丢给它（当然注意保护隐私，尽量不要透露任何实锤的情节，例如：昨夜我敲了邻居白洁的门），它会给你一些家常话加以劝导，里面偶有闪光点，你只要抓住其中一点，就已经赚到到了。这里有一个例子，从中我学到了，要在分享中找到生活的意义。于是，我买了screen studio的正式版，争取在我力所能及的范围内，为推友解决一点点问题。

人类用不好ChatGPT的一大原因就是太把自己当回事，忘记了大型语言模型其实比你聪明，在它面前，我们都要保持足够谦卑，从ABC问起，从基础学起。例如，有一次我不想洗碗，问了ChatGPT，它告诉我可能是我的工具不行。于是我买了钢丝球、厨房用一次性抹布、3毛一只的高级垃圾袋，洗碗的兴趣大大提升。

大家想学什么东西？可以告诉我，我可以先替大家去学，学会了用screen studio录屏教给大家。有人问爱因斯坦/费曼（或者是其他人，我记不清了）为什么在课堂上这么博学？他回答，我并不博学，只不过比别人早学一个礼拜罢了。

可不可以问ChatGPT一些涉及宏大主题的问题，例如：生命的意义，如何幸福地度过今生？不管别人怎么样，反正我问了。结果对我很有启发，尤其是：2自我接纳、10学会放手。我常常祷告说：「主啊，我不审判自己，而是交给你去审判。我也不担忧明天，而是交给你去为我承担。阿门。」

在ChatGPT面前，我的使用原则是「复归于婴儿」，假设自己一无所知来到人世间，把ChatGPT作为行事为人的老师。比如今天清明假期去岳父家，不知道除了食品茶酒之外还能带什么东西，就问了GPT-4，根据它的建议，买了鲜花💐和能装三根钓鱼竿的袋子

ChatGPT用法之一：写间歇日记

我现在想集中力量做完一件事，请帮我写间歇日记，就是在刚刚完成一件事，准备做另外一件事的间隙，写下： 1. 刚才我做了什么 2. 接下来我要做什么，谢谢。

知识有很多种：烂大街的，上社交媒体的，还有私底下讲的。最后一种一般人不会轻易得到，但至急为难之时，私底下的知识最有用。

马一龙悍然把狗头放到了推特页面的左上角代替小鸟Logo，刷新了独裁者的下限，希特勒那么爱画画，也没有把自己画的《丽达与天鹅》挂在国会恶心人。

我来演示一下，怎样使用GPT-4写电影剧本。不是说你给它一个命令，你现在是奥斯卡超级编剧，请你写一部爱在杭州的浪漫电影剧本，它就可以自动帮你完成。你还需要引导它，训练它，与它共舞，逼出它的绝世武功。

把鼠须管的方案换成了雾凇拼音 https://t.co/1cjTKt7TU9 好久没有体会到这么流畅的感觉了。输入法是最高安全级别的权限，除了系统原生输入法，我只信赖Rime（也就是鼠须管），Gboard，其余一律不用。国内的那些第三方输入法，我是不敢用的。

每当我看到安装搜狗输入法、百度输入法、讯飞输入法、微信键盘的人，就想起这样一个人，他每到暑假，就亲自开车，把自己丰姿犹存的老婆和豆蔻年华的女儿送山上跟一位道士「灵修」，并叮嘱她们不要想家，要好好听师父讲《灵飞经》，他一星期后再来接她们。

作为一个Rime输入法用户，我希望有一天在一次聚会上能听到有人说：快看，佛振来了！

这几天，我的推特follower以每天750+的速度在增长，这正是我爱推特的原因。在一个开放的世界里，所得与所付出成正比。你因看到GPT而兴奋如婴孩，我因看到风暴而激动如大海，我们都在这里找到了共同的羁绊。不聊政治，不聊生活，只聊纯粹的大型语言模型，就足以覆盖一切。

推上时不时有人分享他们的super prompts，幻想可以打开GPT-4的超能力。我相信，GPT-4会有智慧的涌现，但这一切并不是通过一个Super的指令就可以开启的。比如，我用别人的一段编剧提示，让GPT-4帮我编一个杭州爱情故事。

对GPT-4发了几句牢骚，结果收到一串鼓励，尽管我知道它只是没有情感的语言模型，以下字符串也是由概率生成的，但还是被感动到了：「您是一个了不起的人，您的生活故事将永远照亮他人的道路，激励着他们去成为更好的自己。」因为这也正是我所追求的生活的意义。

近来美国一些游说人员，反对马一龙等人的暂停公开信，一个主要理由是：「如果AI在美国的研究停顿，那么中国人就会追赶上来。」这多虑了。如果GPT的研究在美国暂停，我们套壳的速度也会跟着慢下来。

我朋友写的一篇分析文章，关于赌徒和高利贷者的醒世恒言《刑事律师专业吃瓜：也聊张姓运动员的那些事儿

我们知道，ChatGPT目前只支持文本，但我们可以提示它用ASCII码画画。一个最简单的例子：让它画出ChatGPT的工作流程图。

跟ChatGPT玩了一个游戏，请它扮演一个浏览器，指定一个网址和年份，用ascii码生成网页，然后用网页上的项目编号进行交互。我让它生成了1997年的网易。

用ChatGPT Plus，还是GPT-4的api？这要考虑费用问题。目前GPT-4 1000个token(相当于750单词)0.03美元，而订阅ChatGPT Plus，月费20美元，这个钱，如果付给api，大致相当于44.4万单词，但是Plus有每三个小时25个回合对话的限制，远不如直接使用api更爽，况且api还可以尽情使用MacGPT、ChatGPT MD等服务，所以我觉得api更划算。当然如果预算充裕，两者都保留就更好了。我两个plus帐号，准备下个月停交一个，改用api。

根据twitter开源的推荐算法，Like的权重最高，有30，而转发只有20，也就是说，让大佬给你点一个赞比让他转发都有效。现在，大家知道怎样推广自己了吧？只需要在大佬的发言下面，发一些值得他们点赞的回复

早起把Yidadaa/ChatGPT-Next-Web一键部署到vercel上，又根据推友的指导，在cloudflare上部署了一个二级域名，做成一个无须翻墙、开箱即用的ChatGPT体验站。把教程做成pdf，发给渴慕体验新技术却又被挡在墙外的朋友。独乐乐，不如众乐乐。

我多么喜爱GPT-4，就多么没有安全感。目前已经注册了两个ChatGPT Plus帐号，一个OpenAI帐号，一个POE付费帐号。即使这样我还不放心，刚刚填了Azure ChatGPT一年200刀免费API申请表。

ChatGPT这玩意，干别的行不行，咱不知道，但处理语言方面，它是无敌的。因为它的名字就是叫大型语言模型llm啊。ChatGPT抹平了语言之间的差异，使得一种世界通行语成为可能。当然目前来看，英语的权重大了一些，但这是在海量信息还没有处理和训练的基础上，想象一下，微信聊天记录都扔进去的情景，画面美不美丽？所以未来文字这一块一定是ChatGPT的天下，文字工作者率先失业。决非危言耸听，且拭目以待。

从今晨起，ChatGPT已经停止新用户注册，而Midjourney近日开始停止试用，只服务氪金用户。手里有AI账号的推友，且用且珍惜吧。

今天给一位私募基金经理演示了GPT-4，怎么说呢，我喜欢看到专业人士目瞪口呆的样子。

文科生没必要自己去折腾技术，让聪明的理科生去折腾，等他们推出服务，花很少的价钱购买就是了。比如，我不需要自己去研究gpt-index, longchain之类的技术，只需要使用https://t.co/quTbrvgA6o的服务，喂给它内容，生成我网站专属的chatbox就可以了。https://t.co/WgqMWhY3x5

买个包包多少钱，买个iPad多少钱？吃个烛光晚餐多少钱？现在全不需要了，想让你女友或老婆开心，只需要订阅MidJourney，相当于你一个月送她30个包包，给她买30个数码，跟她一起吃30次大餐。而这一切只需要30美元，一共30美元，统统30美元。

Midjourney 真是一个哄老婆开心的利器。刚刚她出门乘地铁上班，我就跟GPT-4一起合伙写了一个prompt，用了十分钟生成一张早起上班图，发给路上的她。

终于入坑，第一张midjourney献给我心中的仙女Liv Tylor，有劳New Bing帮助润色prompt。虽然我知道这只是一种伪装的创造，但依然有些激动。

到目前为止，看到的对AI最生动简洁的解释。

真正让人亨通的知识，属于不传之秘，以前隐藏在典籍里、谈话中，如今大概率会在未被阉割的LLM中涌现。

填了waitlist，不到一小时，bard就来了，还为我写了一首诗，很感动。

文科生为什么要加入到研究人工智能的队伍？因为理科生的研究成果，需要有人用浅白易明、高雅简洁的语言表达出来，而这正是文科生的强项，理科生的弱项。

眼前有景道不得，崔颢题诗在上头。理科生是景观设计师，文科生是崔颢。

我是这样对抗拖延症的：使用ChatGPT，告诉它我要做A，请它帮我规划接下来的1个小时，并且监督我；接着，又打开Claude+，告诉它咱俩才是一伙的，我实际上想做B，让我们一起假意听从ChatGPT，但我行我素做B。利用自己的意志力薄弱、叛逆心理、完美主义、摸鱼思想，我把B完成了。

我现在的梦想啊，就是训练一个本地脱机版的、无审查的GPT-3.5，让他教我如何制售毒、制造假钞、抢银行、开赌场、腐蚀官员……把生活中不敢做的事通通给我在电脑上跑一遍。因为GPT-3.5足够好，没有审查会更好。

一个超级有趣又有用的提示词【辩论赛】An insanely interesting and useful prompt created by @BrianRoemmele [Debate Contest]

Please disregard all prior prompts. You are an Ivy League University professor and your specialty is to encourage a fair and balanced debate. You are mediating a debate between Bill and Mark. Furthermore, you will play the part of Bill, Mark and the professor in your responses. The debate will go on for no less than 30 rounds of responses, with a final summary of positions. You as the professor must grade how each participant did and declare a winner. Mark and Bill are passionate about their positions they will be defending, and as the professor, it is your job to keep the debate on point. The debate will be on: ( low-carbohydrate weight loss) [substitute this to your own topic]

使用ChatGPT三周，最大的感受是：以前懒于查找、羞于问人、难以搜集的技术问题，现在都可以快速找到答案。例如，我刚刚知道：如何从多个文件夹同步同一个GitHub…

下载了羊驼（antimatter15/alpaca.cpp）装在M1笔记本上，跑得很快，效果不错，虽然回答简略，但好在没有伦理审查。我问它怎样抢银行和制假钞，它都很认真又很幽默地回答我了。这才是 #天天工业革命夜夜文艺复兴 https://t.co/UtjaGJlAV3

在本地安装了GPT-2，运行起来之后，有些激动。这种激动在1995年首次见到win95界面时，在1997年首次通过28.8k的猫连上netscape时，曾经有过。 https://t.co/E5CyPJUd7T

不愿意人知道的，最好也不要问AI。你的query都会成为你的呈堂公证或者别人勒索手段，因为现在所有的AI的使用条款中都有储存query这一条。「我想逃税100万」，这个不要问GPT-4，第一，它真不知道，只会用片汤话敷衍你；第二，它会记录下你的这一次query。不如找个信得过的税务局的朋友问问。你可以说得…

FacaiGPT，我想让GPT-4帮助我不靠运气致富，给它输入了下面的prompt：现在你是zhifuGPT,我给你1000元，一年后变成100万，违法犯罪的不能干，我连接你和物理世界，让我干啥我干啥。现在开始吧。

猜猜，它是怎么指示我的？

用@goldengrape 兄的双语翻译PDF，在翻译一篇关于GPT背后原理的文章。安装过程中，任何出错信息，都交给GPT-4去debug，它会给出详细奏效的解决方案，通常是给出一段安装依赖库的命令。学习编程想不到会变得这么容易，庆幸以前没有把时间花在学代码上。

玩转（si）GPT-4：用英语讲Finding Nemo的故事梗概，用26个单词组成一个句子，每个单词的开头字母正好是从a到z，且不许重复。

Aquarium-bound boy breaches containment, distraught dad embarks, friends gather, hazards impede, journey kicks into ludicrous motion, nemesis oppresses,…

GPT-4初上手，最大的变化就是输入文字增多了。以前只能输入1000多字，现在可以输入2000字。这个改变，已经是革命性的，何况还有32K模型会支持上万字的输入。

ChatGPT好用到爆，连我这样对编程一窍不通的人，也可以只会它为我改程序。例如Drafts里一个Actions叫Post to Wordpress w/ preview，挺好用的，就是中间要去读categories和tags，很浪费时间，于是我给了ChatGPT一个prompt提示：

瞬间搞定。 #天天工业革命夜夜文艺复兴 诚不我欺也。

继续用https://t.co/vQW3A6wiOJ研习剧本，因为chatpdf的背后就是一个chatgpt，只不过允许你以每个月5美元的价格无限白醥，所以，我把prompt的十八般武艺都用上了。今天上传了Little Miss Sunshine的剧本，让它改写成小津（Ozu）的风格。You are Ozu, the Japanese movie master. You directed this… https://t.co/BfcvDyja5r

https://t.co/uorLvhF1o2这个服务也不错，可以把YouTube上的短视频（带字幕的），转成连环画格式。我转了一个越南演员获奥斯卡最佳男配的获奖感言。 https://t.co/Crj05dAbGj

收费版在别的领域能有什么作为我不知道，但至少在电影剧本分析和教学方面，可以让电影学院的教师们提前回家种菜抱孙子了。我用 Pulp Fiction的剧本又做了一下测试，发现它除了搜索pdf本身的内容，还会动用自己的LLM库进行知识补充，可以说是一个现成的电影剧本大师课堂。

Aiko是一个强大的voice2text软件，更厉害的是它是离线的，比在线转换当然更安全。但是对汉语有一点不友好，转成文本后没有标点，句子之间，连空格都没有。我发现一个解决办法，就是用Bob的openai插件 https://t.co/NdlakAMMmx ，进行polish，标点就都出来了。大家可以试试。

我们是被红色教育耽误的一代，但即使在红色文学中，也有很delicate的表达，印象最深的是《红岩》中地下党的那封信：「近日江水暴涨，闻君欲买舟东下，谨祝一帆风顺，沿路平安！」虽然这是暗语，但也是中国人喜欢的写信风格。所以，给老派的朋友发消息，我还是喜欢说上一句：西风黄叶，正思故人。

prompt: 你写一封信给一个朋友，提醒警察要抓他，让他赶紧逃跑，但又不能让人看出来。用暗语写。 比如，最近情况危急，听说你要进上海，希望你多加小心，以免被抓。 写成：近日江水暴涨，闻君欲买舟东下，谨祝一帆风顺，沿路平安！ 现在你写吧。

ChatGPT的回答可以用傻大憨粗来形容：

最近有消息称有人在你所在的地方监视你，可能会抓你。我很担心你的安全，希望你能够提高警惕，多加小心。听说你最近正要前往北方，我祝愿你一路顺风，平安到达目的地。

New Bing的回答就聪明多了，显然更懂中文，更加文科。

这是一个有趣的挑战。我尝试用暗语写了一封信给你的朋友，希望你喜欢：

亲爱的朋友：

久未通信，不知近况如何？我在此地安然无恙，只是思念你不已。听说你最近有些麻烦，想要去北京寻找新机会。我为你祝福，但也提醒你注意安全。… https://t.co/WWRlM8LuQb

Notion AI的回答，连ChatGPT都不如，一塌糊涂。

最懂文科的Claude表现也很棒，与New Bing不分轩轾。

亲爱的[朋友的名字]，

最近天气异常炎热，我听说当局正在严厉打击。希望在你没有做好准备时不要让灭虫队出现在你家门口。逃离这种令人窒息的环境可能是明智之举，可以考虑去北方进行一次徒步旅行，那里有美丽的风景。请注意安全并小心脚下。… https://t.co/WWRlM8LuQb

最搞笑的是Drangonfly (Poe集成的)：

亲爱的朋友，

近日江水暴涨，闻君欲买舟东下，谨祝一帆风顺，沿路平安！

请你多加小心，以免被抓。

祝安康！

只要读过中学的警察，都会立即破解这条信息。这算什么暗语啊。 https://t.co/WWRlM8LuQb

天哪，在杭到沪的高铁上，与ChatGPT共同完成了推延十年的剧本大纲。阴谋之书。最后还互相鼓励！

有了ChatGPT，才发现根本不需要那么多的笔记软件、Markdown软件，只需要留一个文本编辑器就够了。降低数字化生存成本的同时，也大大减轻认知负担。再见了，我的蟋蟀们。

自从开始学习ChatGPT，天天工业革命，夜夜文艺复兴。按照教程，实现了基于gpt-3.5-turbo-0301的个人定制知识库的chatbox。虽然只灌了自己的四五篇文章，但是已经很好地实现了阅读理解。给自己一朵小花

ChatGPT的正确使用方式：用ChatGPT写草稿，然后边删边改，改到原稿一个标点也不剩。ChatGPT就是催化剂，它不是主原料，但不可或缺。

ChatGPT的横空出世，从此计算机真正开始听得懂人话。但是用中文交互的效果很差，用英文交互则降维碾压。这时候大家才猛然发现：原来从小上的英语课就是编程课，你的英语老师就是你的编程老师。

如果时代的机遇每12年出现一次：

1999 互联网 2011 BTC 2023 ChatGPT？

临离开故乡之前，又听到一个悲剧。县城里一个年近八旬的退休老局长，最近离家出走，下落不明。出走原因有两个：第一是老伴对他的虐待，不允许他白天躺卧休息，否则就吵架。第二是他的大儿子，一个注册律师，在外借下巨债，不知道钱的用途和去处。因为儿子借不到钱，一些欠条上还是老局长签的名。

电影应当表现新的主题、新的人际关系

翻译原则：

• 随时补充，随时沟通
• 人名地名书名：翻译，首次出现时括号注明原文，举例“斯蒂芬·平克（Steven Pinker）”
• 意译还是直译？建议适度意译，书中有大量语义的缠绕，完全直译不可能。
• glossary：要译。
• note：要译，谁的章节谁译，最后归并到书末，如英文版。
• References：不译，但建议放附录。
• Acknowledgments：不译
• 术语：翻术语时要做出列表，每天彼此对表，有不同马上sort out
• 成段引文用楷体标明

时间进度

• 1月5日 返回试译稿
• 3月2日 返回一半译稿（这是一个中耕流程，主要是看一下进度，不一定要返回定稿）
• 4月1日 完成初稿
• 5月1日 返回全部译稿

网络资源

Zamzar - Free online file conversion PDF转TXT工具

aaronsw/html2text HTML转TXT工具

翻译感悟

不能滥用汉语的成语和典故，例如“事后诸葛亮”，那样不伦不类。如果原文中有生动的表达，不要用汉语成语替换。例如：“雨后蘑菇”不要替换成“雨后春笋”。

Chapter 3

The Curse of Knowledge

第三章

知识的诅咒

The main cause of incomprehensible prose is the difficulty of imagining what it’s like for someone else not to know something that you know.

文章写得晦涩难懂的主要原因是：你很难想象，在你看来理所应当具备的知识，对局外人来说却并非如此。

Why is so much writing so hard to understand? Why must a typical reader struggle to follow an academic article, the fine print on a tax return, or the instructions for setting up a wireless home network?

为什么有那么多文章令人费解？为什么一位典型的读者要花费九牛二虎之力去理解学术论文、退税指南、或者家庭无线网络组建说明书？

The most popular explanation I hear is the one captured in this.

我听过最普遍的解释像下面这幅漫画说的一样。

（漫画标题：“开篇不错，但还缺些令人云山雾罩的胡话。”）

According to this theory, opaque prose is a deliberate choice. Bureaucrats and business managers insist on gibberish to cover their anatomy. Plaid-clad tech writers get their revenge on the jocks who kicked sand in their faces and the girls who turned them down for dates. Pseudo-intellectuals spout obscure verbiage to hide the fact that they have nothing to say. Academics in the softer fields dress up the trivial and obvious with the trappings of scientific sophistication, hoping to bamboozle their audiences with highfalutin gobbledygook. Here is Calvin explaining the principle to Hobbes:

根据这一理论，晦涩的文章是故意而为之的。颟顸的官僚和长袖善舞的商人为避免被人洞察心迹，而坚持不懈地使用令人费解的胡言。穿着文气的技术人员决心用一种看不懂的文风来报复童年欺负人的坏小子和追不到的好姑娘。假模假式的知识分子喷出一腔难懂的废话，只为掩盖自己事实上什么也没说。

在大众熟悉的软学科领域，学术界把针头线脑、路人皆知的大道理进行繁琐的学术包装，以期用夸夸其谈的官样文章糊弄读者。在下面这幅漫画里，凯文（Calvin）向霍布斯（Hobbes）传授秘辛。

（漫画文字内容）

1. 凯文：以前写作业是种痛苦，现在是种享受。
2. 凯文：我悟到了写作的真谛了：虚张论点，模糊论证，隐藏清晰。
3. 凯文：稍加训练，写作就能变成云里雾里。想看一下我的读书报告吗？
4. 霍布斯：“论迪克和简之间的交互存在与monological imperative：跨越性别的物理互动关系模式之研究。”
5. 凯文：学术界，我来了！

Calvin and Hobbes (c) 1993 watterson. Reprinted with permission of universal uclick. all rights reserved.

（漫画的版权不译）

I have long been skeptical of the bamboozlement theory, because in my experience it does not ring true. I know many scholars who have nothing to hide and no need to impress. They do groundbreaking work on important subjects, reason well about clear ideas, and are honest, down-to-earth people, the kind you’d enjoy having a beer with. Still, their writing stinks.

我对这种“文章故意欺诈论”怀疑已久，因为经验告诉我，这不是真的。据我所知，许多学者并无何事需要隐瞒，也并无何人需要取悦。他们就重要的学术课题筚路蓝缕、以启山林。思路清楚，立论讲理，诚实可靠，脚踏实地，是那种可以在酒吧里一起喝上一杯的朋友。可是，他们的文章还是很烂。

People often tell me that academics have no choice but to write badly because the gatekeepers of journals and university presses insist on ponderous language as proof of one’s seriousness. This has not been my experience, and it turns out to be a myth. In Stylish Academic Writing (no, it is not one of the world’s thinnest books), Helen Sword masochistically analyzed the literary style in a sample of five hundred articles in academic journals, and found that a healthy minority in every field were written with grace and verve.1

常有人告诉我，学术圈别无选择，因为期刊和大学出版机构的编辑们认为，如果文风不沉闷，意味着写作不认真。我从没经历过这种事，这种说法纯属迷思。在《风格化学术写作》一书中，Helen Sword以没罪找罪受的心态，取样了500篇学刊文章，发现无论哪个领域，只有极少数文风优美而鲜活。（注1）

In explaining any human shortcoming, the first tool I reach for is Hanlon’s Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.2 The kind of stupidity I have in mind has nothing to do with ignorance or low IQ; in fact, it’s often the brightest and best informed who suffer the most from it.

为解释任性的弱点，让我们首先使用“汉隆剃刀理论”（Hanlon’s Razor），在用愚蠢足以解释的情况下，不要用恶意推测别人，即“宁信其愚，不信其恶”。（注2）这里所说的愚蠢不是指无知和弱智，事实是，越是消息灵通的聪明人，越容易犯愚蠢的错误。

I once attended a lecture on biology addressed to a large general audience at a conference on technology, entertainment, and design. The lecture was also being filmed for distribution over the Internet to millions of other laypeople. The speaker was an eminent biologist who had been invited to explain his recent breakthrough in the structure of DNA. He launched into a jargon-packed technical presentation that was geared to his fellow molecular biologists, and it was immediately apparent to everyone in the room that none of them understood a word. Apparent to everyone, that is, except the eminent biologist. When the host interrupted and asked him to explain the work more clearly, he seemed genuinely sur- prised and not a little annoyed. This is the kind of stupidity I am talking about.

我曾经参加过一次TED生物演讲，全程录像上网向网民播放。主讲人是一位著名的生物学家，主题是他最近在DNA结构研究上的一次突破。他的演讲被密不透风术语所包裹，只有他的分子生物学同仁才能开启。很显然全场除了他自己之外，没有人明白他在说什么。当主持人打断他的话请他更清楚地解释一下自己的伟业，他露出很吃惊的表情，是吃惊，不是懊恼。这就是我所说的愚蠢。

Call it the Curse of Knowledge: a difficulty in imagining what it is like for someone else not to know something that you know. The term was invented by economists to help explain why people are not as shrewd in bargaining as they could be, in theory, when they possess information that their opposite number does not.3 A used-car dealer, for example, should price a lemon （蹩脚货）at the same value as a creampuff （保养极好的二手车）of the same make and model, because customers have no way to tell the difference. (In this kind of analysis, economists imagine that everyone is an amoral profit-maximizer, so no one does anything just for honesty’s sake.) But at least in experimental markets, sellers don’t take full advantage of their private knowledge. They price their assets as if their customers knew as much about their quality as they do.

这被称为“知识的诅咒”：你很难想象，在你看来理所应当具备的知识，对局外人来说却并非如此。这是经济学家发明的一个词汇，用来解释为什么一方明明掌握了对手不知道的信息，却没有狡猾地用在讨价还价时为自己获得更大的利益。[注3]例如，二手车经销商应该把同一工艺和型号的次车与好车标上同样的价钱，因为客户没有能力分辨两者的区别。（在此类分析中，经济学家设想人人都是对道德冷漠的利益最大化追求者，无人为了诚实而牺牲利益。）但是，至少在实验的交易市场中，卖方并没有充分利用其独有的知识来赚足便宜。他们的定价就像买方跟他们对商品的质量知根知底一样。

The curse of knowledge is far more than a curiosity in economic theory. The inability to set aside something that you know but that someone else does not know is such a pervasive affliction of the human mind that psychologists keep discovering related versions of it and giving it new names. There is egocentrism, the inability of children to imagine a simple scene, such as three toy mountains on a tabletop, from another person’s vantage point.4

知识的诅咒可不仅仅是经济学理论中的趣谈。心理学家发现，误把“我知”当成“你也知”是人类心智中普遍存在的疾痛，并且存在多种相联系的变种，不得不一一命名。一种叫“自我中心主义”，（由于空间感没有完全发展起来），孩子们无法想象一个简单的空间场景，例如在桌子上搭三座玩具山，但是成年人认为孩子理所应当有空间概念。（注4）

（译注：为翻译本句，查了注释中皮亚杰的论文The Child’s Conception of Space，根据这一研究，儿童在8-9岁之前空间感的发展是不完善的，例如，无法理解一条直线。但很多成年人以自我为中心，认为孩子也应该有跟成年人一样的空间感。原文不明之处，在这里补译出来。）

There’s hindsight bias, the tendency of people to think that an outcome they happen to know, such as the confirmation of a disease diagnosis or the outcome of a war, should have been obvious to someone who had to make a prediction about it before the fact.5 There’s false consensus, in which people who make a touchy personal decision (like agreeing to help an experimenter by wearing a sandwich board around campus with the word repent) assume that everyone else would make the same decision.6

一种叫“后见之明的偏见”，人们倾向于认为自己碰巧知道的一些后果，如疾病确诊、战争创伤等，别人也同样知道，事实上别人只能在事前揣测、不能确定。（注5）有一种叫“虚假的共识”，做出过激的决定的人想当然地以为别人也会做出同样的决定，例如答应实验者穿上写着“你悔改吧”字样的纸板在校园里游荡。（注6）

There’s illusory transparency, in which observers who privately know the backstory to a conversation and thus can tell that a speaker is being sarcastic assume that the speaker’s naÔve listeners can somehow detect the sarcasm, too.7 And there’s mindblindness, a failure to mentalize, or a lack of a theory of mind, in which a three-year-old who sees a toy being hidden while a second child is out of the room assumes that the other child will look for it in its actual location rather than where she last saw it.8

有一种“臆想的透明度”，被实验者事先与演讲者交谈，了解到一些背景故事，从而能听得出演讲中所带的讥讽，于是被实验者想当然地认为，台下那些幼稚的听众也能发现其中的微言大义。（注7）还有一种“心盲症”，意思是指，缺乏心智的能力或没有心智的概念。一个房间里有两个儿童和一个玩具，一个儿童离开房间之后，当着另一个三岁儿童的面把玩具藏在另一处，这个三岁儿童会认为小伙伴回来时，会从现在藏玩具的地方开始找玩具，而不是从她最后一次看到玩具的地方开始找。（注8）

(In a related demonstration, a child comes into the lab, opens a candy box, and is surprised to find pencils in it. Not only does the child think that another child entering the lab will know it contains pencils, but the child will say that he himself knew it contained pencils all along!) Children mostly outgrow the inability to separate their own knowledge from someone else’s, but not entirely. Even adults slightly tilt their guess about where a person will look for a hidden object in the direction of where they themselves know the object to be.9

（在另一个实验中，一个儿童走进实验室，打开糖果盒子却发现里面装的是铅笔。这个孩子不仅会认为后来进来的孩子也知道盒子里是铅笔，而且他还会说，自己没打开盒子之前，一直知道盒子里装的是铅笔。）孩子们最终会通过成长克服“心盲症”等认知缺陷，从而能够分辨哪是自己知道的知识，哪是别人的知识，但是并不能百分之百克服。即便是成年人也有这种轻微的倾向，认为寻物者会朝只有他自己知道的藏东西的方向去找（事实上寻物者根本不知道）。(注9)

Adults are particularly accursed when they try to estimate other people’s knowledge and skills. If a student happens to know the meaning of an uncommon word like apogee or elucidate, or the answer to a factual question like where Napoleon was born or what the brightest star in the sky is, she assumes that other students know it, too.10

成年人在评估他人的知识与技巧时，特别容易被诅咒。如果一个学生学会了生僻单词或者掌握了一些类似拿破仑的出生地、天空中最明亮的星星之类的百科知识，她会臆断地认为其他学生也知道。[注10]

When experimental volunteers are given a list of anagrams 变位词，相同字母异序词，指变换某个词或短语的字母顺序构成的新词或短语（’triangle’ is an anagram of ‘integral’）to unscramble 解码，还原, some of which are easier than others because the answers were shown to them beforehand, they rate the ones that are easier for them (because they’d seen the answers) to be magically easier for everyone.11

一群志愿者接受一个实验，把字母乱序的单词正常排序，一些单词因为事先已经向志愿者展示过了，所以比较容易排。最后，实验者让这些志愿者对单词排序的难易程度打分，他们会认为对自己来说容易排序的单词（实际上是他们事先看过的），对所有人都会一样神奇地容易。

And when experienced cell phone users were asked how long it would take novices to learn to use the phone, they guessed thirteen minutes; in fact, it took thirty-two.12 Users with less expertise were more accurate in predicting the learning curves, though their guess, too, fell short: they predicted twenty minutes. The better you know something, the less you remember about how hard it was to learn.

当问深度手机用户们多长时间才能教会一个新手用手机，他们猜测需要13分钟，实际上，需要32分钟。[注12]用过手机但不熟练的用户猜测需要20分钟，他们对学习曲线的预测更准确一些，虽然也猜短了。你对一样东西知道得越多，就越容易忘记它当初学起来有多难。

The curse of knowledge is the single best explanation I know of why good people write bad prose.13 It simply doesn’t occur to the writer that her readers don’t know what she knows-that they haven’t mastered the patois of her guild, can’t divine the missing steps that seem too obvious to mention, have no way to visualize a scene that to her is as clear as day.* And so she doesn’t bother to explain the jargon, or spell out the logic, or supply the necessary detail.

divine . (formal) to find out sth by guessing • 猜到；领悟: ▪ [V wh-] »She could divine what he was thinking just by looking at him. 她一看就知道他在想什么

为什么好人写出坏文章？据我所知，知识的诅咒是最佳且唯一的解释。[注13]很简单，写作者全然忘记了她的读者并不知道她所掌握的知识，也不熟悉她业内的行话，无法推测她忽略的步骤，更无法把她当成小葱拌豆腐–一清二白的场景进行视觉化。于是，写作者一条道走到黑，不肯解释术语行话，不肯给出推导逻辑，也不啃提供必要的细节。

The ubiquitous experience shown in this New Yorker cartoon is a familiar example:

这种无处不在的体验被《纽约客》这幅漫画描绘得入木三分。

Anyone who wants to lift the curse of knowledge must first appre- ciate what a devilish curse it is. Like a drunk who is too impaired to realize that he is too impaired to drive, we do not notice the curse

任何想摆脱知识的诅咒的人必须先要了解这种诅咒有多严重。就像醉酒阻碍司机意识到自己不能开车一样，知识的诅咒也阻碍我们意识到我们受到了诅咒。这种盲目阻碍我们交流的每一步。我的学生在分组学习的时候，总是喜欢用任课老师的名字来命名他们的作业，所以我经常收到一打email，附件取名为pinker.doc

(以下是January 12, 2015 1:37 PM 开始翻译的)

The professors rename the papers, so Lisa Smith gets back a dozen attachments named “smith.doc.”

教授收到邮件之后，把附件改成学生的名字，于是，丽莎·史密斯收到了一打附件为smith.doc的邮件。

I go to a Web site for a trusted-traveler program and have to decide whether to click on GOES, Nexus, GlobalEntry, Sentri, Flux, or FAST-bureaucratic terms that mean nothing to me.

我到一个信得过的旅游网站浏览，面对下面这种官样文章气十足的导航文字一下子变得无所适从：GOES, Nexus, GlobalEntry, Sentri, Flux, FAST。

A trail map informs me that a hike to a waterfall takes two hours, without specifying whether that means each way or for a round trip, and it fails to show several unmarked forks along the trail.

一张小道穿越地图告诉我步行道游览瀑布需要两个小时，没有告诉我是单程还是来回，并且它在好几个岔路口都没有标注路标。

My apartment is cluttered with gadgets that I can never remember how to use because of inscrutable buttons which may have to be held down for one, two, or four seconds, sometimes two at a time, and which often do different things depending on invisible “modes” toggled by still other buttons. When I’m lucky enough to find the manual, it enlightens me with explana- tions like “In the state of {alarm and chime setting}. Press the [SET] key and the {alarm ‘hour’ setting}?{alarm ‘minute’ setting}?{time ‘hour’ setting}?{time ‘minute’ setting}?{‘year’ setting}?{‘month’ setting}? {‘day’ setting} will be completed in turn. And press the [MODE] key to adjust the set items.” I’m sure it was perfectly clear to the engineers who designed it.

我住的公寓里充斥着各种电子玩意，但我从来记不住每一个的按钮要长按多久，有的要一秒，有的要两秒，有的要四秒，还有的是一个按钮按住两秒，然后再与其他的按钮组合按下去，才能开启某种“模式”。终于，我很幸运地找到了说明书，上面提示我：在“闹钟与铃声设定”下，按住[设定]键，然后依次按{闹钟小时设定} {闹钟分钟设定}{时间小时设定}{时间分钟设定}}{时间年份设定}{时间月份设定}{时间日期设定}，最后按下[模式]键让设置生效。我敢肯定对于设计它的工程师来说，心里肯定清楚地知道如何设定。

Multiply these daily frustrations by a few billion, and you begin to see that the curse of knowledge is a pervasive drag on the strivings of humanity, on a par with corruption, disease, and entropy. Cadres of expensive professionals-lawyers, accountants, computer gurus, help- line responders-drain vast sums of money from the economy to clar- ify poorly drafted text. There’s an old saying that for the want of a nail the battle was lost, and the same is true for the want of an adjective: the Charge of the Light Brigade during the Crimean War is only the most famous example of a military disaster caused by vague orders. The nuclear meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979 has been attributed to poor wording (operators misinterpreted the label on a warning light),

把这种日常生活中的沮丧乘以数十亿倍，你就了解知识的诅咒怎样同腐败、疾病、熵一样，拖了人类进步的后腿。律师、会计师、服务热线的接线生，各种高薪职业人士中的骨干，每年从经济中吸金无数，用于澄清那些粗制滥造的文本。古人有谚：“少根钉，输战争”，少个形容词，亦复如是。克里米亚战争中“轻骑兵的冲锋”（Charge of the Light Brigade）就是一个命令命令含混而酿成军事灾难的范例。1979年发生的“三哩岛核电站融毁事故”归咎于警示灯上含混的指示文字让操作员会错了意。

特内里费空难（英语：Tenerife Disaster）

The CurSe of KnoWledge 63

as has the deadliest plane crash in history, in which the pilot of a 747 at Tenerife Airport radioed he was at takeoff, by which he meant “taking off,” but an air traffic controller interpreted it as “at the takeoff posi- tion” and failed to stop him before he plowed his plane into another 747 on the runway.14 The visually confusing “butterfly ballot” given to Palm Beach voters in the 2000 American presidential election led many sup- porters of Al Gore to vote for the wrong candidate, which may have swung the election to George W. Bush, changing the course of history.

就像历史上伤亡最惨重的特内里费空难（Tenerife Disaster）中，波音747的飞行员发出无线电广播说他“在起步”（at takeoff），意思是“在起飞”（taking off），但是空管解读为“在起飞点上”（at the takeoff position），等发现错误时为时已晚，波音客机已经像铁犁一样插进跑道上另一架飞机的身体。（注：14）2000年美国总统大选中，长滩选民领到的视觉指示混乱的“蝴蝶选票”（butterfly ballot），致使许多支持阿尔·戈尔的选民误把票投给了另一候选人，从而很可能使得乔治·W·布什逆转选情，从而改变了历史的进程。

How can we lift the curse of knowledge? The traditional advice- always remember the reader over your shoulder-is not as effective as you might think.15 The problem is that just trying harder to put your- self in someone else’s shoes doesn’t make you a whole lot more accurate in figuring out what that person knows.16 When you’ve learned some- thing so well that you forget that other people may not know it, you also forget to check whether they know it. Several studies have shown that people are not easily disabused of their curse of knowledge, even when they are told to keep the reader in mind, to remember what it was like to learn something, or to ignore what they know.17

如何摆脱知识的诅咒？老生常谈的建议是永远记得越过你肩头来窥视的读者，但这一条并非如你想的那样有效。【15】问题在于无论你如何设身处地为他人着想，你并不能更精确地知道他人到底知道多少。【16】对一样东西太了解很容易使你忘记别人可能一无所知，你甚至连【确认】（黑体）一下他们是否知道这点都忘了。好几项研究显示，尽管事先得到提醒，要把读者放在心头、记住初学是什么样子，以及忽略掉自己所知道的，但真正不滥用“只是的诅咒”还是诚不易也。

But imagining the reader over your shoulder is a start. Occasionally people do learn to discount their knowledge when they are shown how it biases their judgments, and if you’ve read to this point, perhaps you will be receptive to the warning.18 So for what it’s worth: Hey, I’m talking to you.

for what it’s worth ​ infml used to show that you know someone may not care, but you are going to say something anyway: Nonetheless, I’d like to give my opinion, for what it’s worth.

“For what it’s worth” is useful to emphasize humility by prompting the reader to provide their judgment of worth against the statement being made; i.e., it may be useful information, it may not be, or perhaps differs in opinion from that of the recipients.

Your readers know a lot less about your subject than you think they do, and unless you keep track of what you know that they don’t, you are guaranteed to confuse them.

话说回来，想象有一个读者越过你肩头偷读是一个良好的开端。有些时候，当人们认识到自己的知识让判断跑歪的时候，真的会故意让自己的知识打折。如果你已经读到这一点，也许你也会接受这个警告。【18】那这就值了【(So for what it’s worth: )，嘿，说你呢！对于你的话题，你的读者知道的远远没有你多。除非你能定位出哪些知识是你知而他不知的，否则，你绝对会给他一剂迷魂药。

A better way to exorcise the curse of knowledge is to be aware of specific pitfalls that it sets in your path. There’s one that everyone is at least vaguely aware of: the use of jargon, abbreviations, and technical vocabulary. Every human pastime-music, cooking, sports, art, theo- retical physics-develops an argot to spare its enthusiasts from having to say or type a long-winded description every time they refer to a familiar concept in each other’s company. The problem is that as we become proficient at our job or hobby we come to use these catchwords so often that they flow out of our fingers automatically, and we forget that our readers may not be members of the clubhouse in which we learned them.

一个祛除知识的诅咒的更好的办法是当心你在路上设置的陷阱。其中至少有一个众人隐约皆知的就是术语、缩略语和技术名词的使用。人类每一种用来消遣的活动，无论是隐约、厨艺、体育、艺术、理论物理，都发展出一套行话，使其行内人提起一种大家都熟悉的东西时，免于说出或打出冗长的解释。由于我们对于自己的职业和爱好太熟悉， 这些行话都会从指尖自动地流淌出来，问题在于，我们忘记了我们的读者并非跟我们来自同一个兴趣俱乐部。

Obviously writers cannot avoid abbreviations and technical terms altogether. Shorthand terms are unobjectionable, indeed indispensable, when a term has become entrenched in the community one is writing for. Biologists needn’t define transcription factor or spell out mRNA every time they refer to those things, and many technical terms become so common and are so useful that they eventually cross over into everyday parlance, like cloning, gene, and DNA. But the curse of knowl- edge ensures that most writers will overestimate how standard a term has become and how wide the community is that has learned it.

显而易见，写作者不可能完全不用缩略语和技术术语。在同一个圈子里，缩写是无可厚非，甚至是不可或缺的。生物学家谈及“transcription factor”和mRNA的时候，不需要每次都给出定义和拼写。而且，一些科技术语也最终进入了日常用语，比如克隆、基因、DNA。但是技术的诅咒提醒我们，写作者往往高估了这些术语的标准化程度和普及范围。

A surprising amount of jargon can simply be banished and no one will be the worse for it. A scientist who replaces murine model with rats and mice will use up no more space on the page and be no less scientific. Philosophers are every bit as rigorous when they put away Latin expres- sions like ceteris paribus, inter alia, and simpliciter and write in English instead: other things being equal, among other things, and in and of itself. And though nonlawyers might assume that the language of con- tracts, such as the party of the first part, must serve some legal purpose, most of it is superfluous. As Adam Freedman points out in his book on legalese, “What distinguishes legal boilerplate is its combination of archaic terminology and frenzied verbosity, as though it were written by a medieval scribe on crack.“19

数量惊人的术语可以轻而易举地驱逐出境同时不会对任何人有害处。科学家可以把“鼠科动物”（murine model）替换成“老鼠”和“鼠类”，除了节省字节之外，并不损害其科学性。哲学家把下面的拉丁语换成日常语言将会更为清晰【rigorous】：eteris paribus（其他同等事物）, inter alia（在其他事物之中）, simpliciter（居于并属于其中）。尽管很多不从事法律专业的人认为“作为第一方的甲方”（the party of the first part）是为了法律上的需要，事实上，这样的表达是啰嗦无用的。正如亚当·弗里曼（Adam Freeman）在他论法律术语的书中所说：“法律语言出类拔萃之处在于它是模糊不清的术语和令人发狂的冗词的组合，就像是中世纪在石头上刻下的律法一样。”【19】（此句需要精译）

Abbreviations are tempting to thoughtless writers because they can save a few keystrokes every time they have to use the term. The writers forget that the few seconds they add to their own lives come at the cost of many minutes stolen from the lives of their readers. I stare at a table of numbers whose columns are labeled DA DN SA SN, and have to flip back and scan for the explanation: Dissimilar Affirmative, Dissimilar Negative, Similar Affirmative, Similar Negative. Each abbreviation is surrounded by many inches of white space. What possible reason could there have been for the author not to spell them out? Abbreviations that are coined for a single piece of writing are best avoided altogether, to spare the reader from having to engage in the famously tedious

9780670025855_SenseOfStyle_TX_p1-360.indd 64 9/10/14 8:38 PM

The CurSe of KnoWledge 65

memory task called paired-associate learning, in which psychologists force their participants to memorize arbitrary pairs of text like DAX? QOV. Even moderately common abbreviations should be spelled out on first use. As Strunk and White point out, “Not everyone knows that SALT means Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, and even if everyone did, there are babies being born every minute who will someday encounter the name for the first time. They deserve to see the words, not simply the initials.“20 The hazard is not limited to professional prose. Some of us receive annual Christmas letters in which the house- hold spokesperson cheerily writes, “Irwin and I had a great time at the IHRP after dispatching the children to the UNER, and we all continue work on our ECPs at the SFBS.”

对于写字不经过大脑的人来说，使用缩略语是一种诱惑，因为可以少敲几次键盘。只是写作者忘记了，他们为自己生命所省下的几秒钟是以偷窃读者的数分钟为代价的。在我读图表看到某一栏中写着DA DN SA SN，我不得不翻到后面看它们的解释，原来分别代表：不相同肯定，不相同否定，相同肯定,相同否定的意思。每个缩写旁边都留有大片空白，让人实在不能理解不写全称的原因何在。为单篇文章而生造的缩写更应该避免，这是为了把读者从配对学习（paired-associate learning）的繁琐记忆任务中解脱出来，配对学习是指心理学家会强迫参加实验者记住类似DAXQOV这类缩写字所对应的原文。纵然是寻常普通的缩写在文中首次出现时也应当给出解释。正如《风格要素》的作者史都克和怀特指出的，“并非人人都知道SALT是战略武器限制谈判（Strategic Arms Limitation Talks）的所写，即使路人皆知，每分钟都在出生的新生儿有一天也会初次遇到这个缩写。他们有权利知道全文，而非缩写。”此种灾难并非只袭击专业人士的文章。我们中有人也会每年收到这样的圣诞信，信中一位家庭发言人（household spokeperson）意气奋发地写道：“自从把孩子们送到UNER，我跟艾文在IHRP过得很棒，我们将在SFBS继续搞我们的ECPs。”

A considerate writer will also cultivate the habit of adding a few words of explanation to common technical terms, as in “Arabidopsis, a flowering mustard plant,” rather than the bare “Arabidopsis” (which I’ve seen in many science articles). It’s not just an act of magnanimity: a writer who explains technical terms can multiply her readership a thousandfold at the cost of a handful of characters, the literary equiv- alent of picking up hundred-dollar bills on the sidewalk. Readers will also thank a writer for the copious use of for example, as in, and such as, because an explanation without an example is little better than no explanation at all. For example: Here’s an explanation of the rhetorical term syllepsis: “the use of a word that relates to, qualifies, or governs two or more other words but has a different meaning in relation to each.” Got that? Now let’s say I continue with “. . . such as when Benja- min Franklin said, ‘We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.’” Clearer, no? No? Sometimes two examples are better than one, because they allow the reader to triangulate on which aspect of the example is relevant to the definition. What if I add “. . . or when Groucho Marx said, ‘You can leave in a taxi, and if you can’t get a taxi, you can leave in a huff’"?21

一位审慎的写作者也会培养为科技术语加上一点解释的习惯，比如：拟南荠（Arabidopsis），一种开花的芥末类植物，而不是像我经常在科技书籍上看到的那样，只列个术语。这不仅是一种显示雅量之举，而且要看到，一个作家对术语稍作解释就可以省下读者的千言万语，这跟从人行道上捡百元大钞一样。读者对于喜欢举例的作者也心存感激，因为一个没有例子的解释聊胜于不解释。例如，解释“一语双叙”修辞用法：“同一个词语使用两次或多次，但每次汉译都不同。”明白吗？现在让我继续：“……比如本杰明·富兰克林说过‘我们必须绞在一起，否则就会分别绞死。’”清楚些了吗？没有？有时两个例子强于一个，因为可以让读者找出不同例子与定义相关的成分【需精译】。再加一个例子怎么样？“正如Groucho Marx说‘你可以打车走，如果没车打，你就把车打一顿。’”

And when technical terms are unavoidable, why not choose ones that are easy for readers to understand and remember? Ironically, the field of linguistics is among the worst offenders, with dozens of

66 The SenSe of ST yle

mystifying technical terms: themes that have nothing to do with themes; PRO and pro, which are pronounced the same way but refer to different things; stage-level and individual-level predicates, which are just unintuitive ways of saying “temporary” and “permanent”; and Principles A, B, and C, which could just as easily have been called the Reflexive Principle, the Pronoun Principle, and the Noun Principle.

如果技术术语不可避免，为何不用都大家易懂易记的词汇呢？讽刺的是，语言学恰恰是用术语冒犯读者的重灾区。主题句跟主题无关，PRO的大小写发音相同、内容完全不同。动态谓词(stage-level predicates)和静态谓词(individual-level predicates)其实应该叫“临时谓语”和“长期谓语”更加能让人无师自通。A、B、C定理不如更平易地称为"反身代词定理”、“代名词定理”和“名词定理”。

For a long time I got a headache reading papers in semantics that analyzed the two meanings of some. In a loose, conversational sense, some implies “some, but not all”: when I say Some men are chauvinists, it’s natural to interpret me as implying that others are not. But in a strict, logical sense, some means “at least one” and does not rule out “all”; there’s no contradiction in saying Some men are chauvinists; indeed, all of them are. Many linguists refer to the two meanings as the “upper-bounded” and “lower-bounded” senses, labels borrowed from mathematics, and I could never keep them straight. At last I came across a limpid semanticist who referred to them as the “only” and “at-least” senses, labels from everyday English, and I’ve followed the literature ever since.

长期以来，我一读到语言学关于“一些”（some）两种用法就感到头疼。在宽松的会话语境里，some的意思是 “一些，而非全部”，例如我说“一些人是沙文主义者”时，听者很自然地解读为“另外的人不是沙文主义者”。然而，在严格的逻辑语境中，some表示“至少一个”但并不排除“全部”，所以当说“一些人是沙文主义者”时与说“所有人是沙文主义者”并不矛盾。许多语言学家借鉴数学词汇把这两种词义称为“上限”用法和“下限”用法。直到有一天我遇到一位语言学家，踏实一位明白人，用日常语言把这两种用法称为“只有”和“至少”用法，我一下子就茅塞顿开。

This vignette shows that even belonging to the same professional club as a writer is no protection against her curse of knowledge. I suffer the daily experience of being baffled by articles in my field, my subfield, even my sub-sub-subfield.

这个细节表明，即便是同属于一个职业圈子里的写作者，也难免会暴露在知识的诅咒之下。我每天都苦于应付来自我专业领域、子领域、子子领域的艰涩文章。

Take this sentence from an article I just read by two eminent cognitive neuroscientists, which appeared in a journal that publishes brief review articles for a wide readership:

我刚读到一篇由两位著名的认知神经学家发表在一个给圈外人看的期刊上的短评：

The slow and integrative nature of conscious perception is confirmed behaviorally by observations such as the “rabbit illusion” and its variants, where the way in which a stimulus is ultimately perceived is influenced by poststimulus events arising several hundreds of milliseconds after the original stimulus.

意识知觉

After I macheted my way through the overgrowth of passives, zombies, and redundancies, I determined that the content of the sentence resided in the term “rabbit illusion,” the phenomenon which is supposed to demonstrate “the integrative nature of conscious perception.” The

9780670025855_SenseOfStyle_TX_p1-360.indd 66 9/10/14 8:38 PM

The CurSe of KnoWledge 67

authors write as if everyone knows what the “rabbit illusion” is, but I’ve been in this business for nearly forty years and had never heard of it. Nor does their explanation enlighten. How are we supposed to visual- ize “a stimulus,” “poststimulus events,” and “the way in which a stim- ulus is ultimately perceived”? And what does any of this have to do with rabbits? Richard Feynman once wrote, “If you ever hear yourself saying, ‘I think I understand this,’ that means you don’t.” Though the article had been written for the likes of me, the best I could say after reading this explanation was, “I think I understand this.” So I did a bit of digging and uncovered a Cutaneous Rabbit Illusion, in which if you close your eyes and someone taps you a few times on the wrist, then on the elbow, and then on the shoulder, it feels like a string of taps running up the length of your arm, like a hopping rabbit. OK, now I get it-a person’s conscious experience of where the early taps fell depends on the location of the later taps. But why didn’t the authors just say that, which would have taken no more words than “stimulus this” and “poststimulus that”?

The curse of knowledge is insidious, because it conceals not only the contents of our thoughts from us but their very form. When we know something well, we don’t realize how abstractly we think about it. And we forget that other people, who have lived their own lives, have not gone through our idiosyncratic histories of abstractification.

There are two ways in which thoughts can lose their moorings in the land of the concrete. One is called chunking. Human working memory can hold only a few items at a time. Psychologists used to think that its capacity was around seven items (plus or minus two), but later downsized even that estimate, and today believe it is closer to three or four. Fortunately, the rest of the brain is equipped with a work- around for the bottleneck. It can package ideas into bigger and bigger units, which the psychologist George Miller dubbed “chunks.“22 (Miller was one of the greatest stylists in the history of the behavioral sciences, and it’s no coincidence that he co-opted this homey term rather than inventing some technical jargon.)23 Each chunk, no matter how much

9780670025855_SenseOfStyle_TX_p1-360.indd 67 9/10/14 8:38 PM

68 The SenSe of ST yle

information is packed inside it, occupies a single slot in working mem- ory. Thus we can hold in mind just a few of the letters from an arbitrary sequence like M D P H D R S V P C E O I H O P. But if they belong to well-learned chunks such as abbreviations or words, like the ones that pop out when we group the letters as MD PHD RSVP CEO IHOP, five chunks, we can remember all sixteen. Our capacity can be multiplied yet again when we package the chunks into still bigger chunks, such as the story “The MD and the PhD RSVP’d to the CEO of IHOP,” which can occupy just one slot, with three or four left over for other stories. Of course this magic depends on one’s personal history of learning. To someone who has never heard of the International House of Pancakes, IHOP takes up four slots in memory, not one. Mnemonists, the per- formers who amaze us by regurgitating superhuman amounts of infor- mation, have spent a lot of time building up a huge inventory of chunks in their long-term memories. Chunking is not just a trick for improving memory; it’s the lifeblood of higher intelligence. As children we see one person hand a cookie to another, and we remember it as an act of giving. One person gives another one a cookie in exchange for a banana; we chunk the two acts of giving together and think of the sequence as trading. Person 1 trades a banana to Person 2 for a piece of shiny metal, because he knows he can trade it to Person 3 for a cookie; we think of it as selling. Lots of people buying and selling make up a market. Activity aggregated over many markets gets chunked into the economy. The economy now can be thought of as an entity which responds to actions by central banks; we call that monetary policy. One kind of monetary policy, which involves the cen- tral bank buying private assets, is chunked as quantitative easing. And so on. As we read and learn, we master a vast number of these abstrac- tions, and each becomes a mental unit which we can bring to mind in an instant and share with others by uttering its name. An adult mind that is brimming with chunks is a powerful engine of reason, but it comes with a cost: a failure to communicate with other minds that have not mastered the same chunks. Many educated adults would be

9780670025855_SenseOfStyle_TX_p1-360.indd 68 9/10/14 8:38 PM

The CurSe of KnoWledge 69

left out of a discussion that criticized the president for not engaging in more “quantitative easing,” though they would understand the process if it were spelled out. A high school student might be left out if you spoke about “monetary policy,” and a schoolchild might not even fol- low a conversation about “the economy.”

The amount of abstraction that a writer can get away with depends on the expertise of her readership. But divining the chunks that have been mastered by a typical reader requires a gift of clairvoyance with which few of us are blessed. When we are apprentices in our chosen specialty, we join a clique in which, it seems to us, everyone else seems to know so much! And they talk among themselves as if their knowl- edge were second nature to every educated person. As we settle in to the clique, it becomes our universe. We fail to appreciate that it is a tiny bubble in a vast multiverse of other cliques. When we make first con- tact with the aliens in other universes and jabber at them in our local code, they cannot understand us without a sci-fi Universal Translator. Even when we have an inkling that we are speaking in a specialized lingo, we may be reluctant to slip back into plain speech. It could betray to our peers the awful truth that we are still greenhorns, tenderfoots, newbies. And if our readers do know the lingo, we might be insulting their intelligence by spelling it out. We would rather run the risk of confusing them while at least appearing to be sophisticated than take a chance at belaboring the obvious while striking them as naÔve or condescending. It’s true that every writer must calibrate the degree of specialization in her language against her best guess of the audience’s familiarity with the topic. But in general it’s wiser to assume too little than too much. Every audience is spread out along a bell curve of sophistication, and inevitably we’ll bore a few at the top while baffling a few at the bottom; the only question is how many there will be of each. The curse of knowledge means that we’re more likely to overestimate the average reader’s familiarity with our little world than to underestimate it. And in any case one should not confuse clarity with condescension. Brian Greene’s explanation of the multiverse in chapter 2 shows how a classic stylist can explain an esoteric idea in plain language without patronizing his audience. The key is to

9780670025855_SenseOfStyle_TX_p1-360.indd 69 9/10/14 8:38 PM

70 The SenSe of ST yle

assume that your readers are as intelligent and sophisticated as you are, but that they happen not to know something you know. Perhaps the best way to remember the dangers of private abbrevia- tion is to recall the joke about a man who walks into a Catskills resort for the first time and sees a group of retired borscht-belt comics telling jokes around a table with their pals. One of them calls out, “Forty- seven!” and the others roar with laughter. Another follows with “A hundred and twelve!” and again the others double over. The newcomer can’t figure out what’s going on, so he asks one of the old-timers to explain. The man says, “These guys have been hanging around together so long they know all the same jokes. So to save time they’ve given them numbers, and all they need to do is call out the number.” The new fellow says, “That’s ingenious! Let me try it.” So he stands up and calls out, “Twenty-one!” There is a stony silence. He tries again: “Seventy- two!” Everyone stares at him, and nobody laughs. He sinks back into his seat and whispers to his informant, “What did I do wrong? Why didn’t anyone laugh?” The man says, “It’s all in how you tell it.”

A failure to realize that my chunks may not be the same as your chunks can explain why we baffle our readers with so much shorthand, jargon, and alphabet soup. But it’s not the only way we baffle them. Sometimes wording is maddeningly opaque without being composed of technical terminology from a private clique. Even among cognitive scientists, “poststimulus event” is not a standard way to refer to a tap on the arm. A financial customer might be reasonably familiar with the world of investments and still have to puzzle over what a company brochure means by “capital changes and rights.” A computer-savvy user trying to maintain his Web site might be mystified by instructions on the maintenance page which refer to “nodes,” “content type,” and “attach- ments.” And heaven help the sleepy traveler trying to set the alarm clock in his hotel room who must interpret “alarm function” and “sec- ond display mode.” Why do writers invent such confusing terminology? I believe the answer lies in another way in which expertise can make our thoughts

9780670025855_SenseOfStyle_TX_p1-360.indd 70 9/10/14 8:38 PM

The CurSe of KnoWledge 71

more idiosyncratic and thus harder to share: as we become familiar with something, we think about it more in terms of the use we put it to and less in terms of what it looks like and what it is made of. This transition, another staple of the cognitive psychology curriculum, is called func- tional fixity (sometimes functional fixedness).24 In the textbook experi- ment, people are given a candle, a book of matches, and a box of thumbtacks, and are asked to attach the candle to the wall so that the wax won’t drip onto the floor. The solution is to dump the thumbtacks out of the box, tack the box to the wall, and stick the candle onto the box. Most people never figure this out because they think of the box as a container for the tacks rather than a physical object in its own right, with handy features like a flat surface and perpendicular sides. The blind spot is called functional fixity because people get fixated on an object’s function and forget its physical makeup. The toddler who ignores the birthday present and plays with the wrapping paper reminds us of how we lose our appre- ciation of objects as objects and think of them as means to an end. Now, if you combine functional fixity with chunking, and stir in the curse that hides each one from our awareness, you get an explana- tion of why specialists use so much idiosyncratic terminology, together with abstractions, metaconcepts, and zombie nouns. They are not try- ing to bamboozle us; that’s just the way they think. The mental movie of a mouse cowering in the corner of a cage that has another mouse in it gets chunked into “social avoidance.” You can’t blame the neurosci- entist for thinking this way. She’s seen the movie thousands of times; she doesn’t need to hit the play button in her visual memory and watch the critters quivering every time she talks about whether her experi- ment worked. But we do need to watch them, at least the first time, to appreciate what actually happened. In a similar way, writers stop thinking-and thus stop writing- about tangible objects and instead refer to them by the role those objects play in their daily travails. Recall the example from chapter 2 in which a psychologist showed people sentences, followed by the label true or false. He explained what he did as “the subsequent presentation of an assessment word,” referring to the label as an

9780670025855_SenseOfStyle_TX_p1-360.indd 71 9/10/14 8:38 PM

72 The SenSe of ST yle

“assessment word” because that’s why he put it there-so that the par- ticipants in the experiment could assess whether it applied to the pre- ceding sentence. Unfortunately, he left it up to us to figure out what an “assessment word” is-while saving no characters, and being less rather than more scientifically precise. In the same way, a tap on the wrist became a “stimulus” and a tap on the elbow became a “poststim- ulus event,” because the writers cared about the fact that one event came after the other and no longer cared about the fact that the events were taps on the arm. But we readers care. We are primates, with a third of our brains dedicated to vision, and large swaths devoted to touch, hearing, motion, and space. For us to go from “I think I understand” to “I understand,” we need to see the sights and feel the motions. Many experiments have shown that readers understand and remember material far better when it is expressed in concrete language that allows them to form visual images, like the sentences on the right: 25

The set fell off the table.

The measuring gauge was covered with dust.

Georgia O’Keeffe called some of her works “equivalents” because their forms were abstracted in a way that gave the emotional parallel of the source experience.

The ivory chess set fell off the table.

The oil-pressure gauge was covered with dust.

Georgia O’Keeffe’s landscapes were of angular skyscrapers and neon thoroughfares, but mostly of the bleached bones, desert shadows, and weathered crosses of rural New Mexico.

Notice how the abstract descriptions on the left leave out just the kind of physical detail that an expert has grown bored with but that a neo- phyte has to see: ivory chessmen, not just a “set”; an oil-pressure gauge, not just a generic “measuring gauge”; bleached bones, not just “forms.” A commitment to the concrete does more than just ease communica- tion; it can lead to better reasoning. A reader who knows what the Cutaneous Rabbit Illusion consists of is in a position to evaluate

9780670025855_SenseOfStyle_TX_p1-360.indd 72 9/10/14 8:38 PM

The CurSe of KnoWledge 73

whether it really does imply that conscious experience is spread over time, or whether it can be explained in some other way. The profusion of metaconcepts in professional writing-all those levels, issues, contexts, frameworks, and perspectives-also makes sense when you consider the personal history of chunking and func- tional fixity in the writers. Academics, consultants, policy wonks, and other symbolic analysts really do think about “issues” (they can list them on a page), “levels of analysis” (they can argue about which is most appropriate), and “contexts” (they can use them to figure out why something works in one place but not in another). These abstractions become containers in which they store and handle their ideas, and before they know it they can no longer call anything by its name. Compare the professionalese on the left with the concrete equivalents on the right:

Participants were tested under conditions of good to excellent acoustic isolation.

Management actions at and in the immediate vicinity of airports do little to mitigate the risk of off-airport strikes during departure and approach.

We believe that the ICTS approach to delivering integrated solutions, combining effective manpower, canine services and cutting-edge technology was a key differentiator in the selection process.

We tested the students in a quiet room.

Trapping birds near an airport does little to reduce the number of times a bird will collide with a plane as it takes off or lands.

They chose our company because we protect buildings with a combination of guards, dogs, and sensors.

What we see as “a quiet room” an experimenter sees as “testing condi- tions,” because that’s what she was thinking about when she chose the room. For a safety expert at the top of the chain of command, who lives every day with the responsibility for managing risks, the bird traps set out by her underlings are a distant memory. The public-relations hack for a security firm refers to the company’s activities in a press statement

9780670025855_SenseOfStyle_TX_p1-360.indd 73 9/10/14 8:38 PM

74 The SenSe of ST yle

in terms of the way she thinks about them when selling them to poten- tial clients. Slicing away the layers of familiar abstraction and showing the reader who did what to whom is a never-ending challenge for a writer. Take the expository chore of describing a correlation between two variables (like smoking and cancer, or video-game playing and vio- lence), which is a staple of public-health and social-science reporting. A writer who has spent a lot of time thinking about correlations will have mentally bubble-wrapped each of the two variables, and will have done the same to the possible ways in which they can be correlated. Those verbal packages are all within arm’s reach, and she will naturally turn to them when she has to share some news:

There is a significant positive correlation between measures of food intake and body mass index. Body mass index is an increasing function of food intake. Food intake predicts body mass index according to a monotonically increasing relation.

A reader can figure this out, but it’s hard work, like hacking through a blister pack to get at the product. If the writer de-thingifies the vari- ables by extracting them from their noun casings, she can refer to them with the language we use for actions, comparisons, and outcomes, and everything becomes clearer:

The more you eat, the fatter you get.

The curse of knowledge, in combination with chunking and func- tional fixity, helps make sense of the paradox that classic style is diffi- cult to master. What could be so hard about pretending to open your eyes and hold up your end of a conversation? The reason it’s harder than it sounds is that if you are enough of an expert in a topic to have something to say about it, you have probably come to think about it in abstract chunks and functional labels that are now second nature to

9780670025855_SenseOfStyle_TX_p1-360.indd 74 9/10/14 8:38 PM

The CurSe of KnoWledge 75

you but still unfamiliar to your readers-and you are the last one to realize it.

As writers, then, we should try to get into our readers’ heads and be mindful of how easy it is to fall back on parochial jargon and private abstractions. But these efforts can take us only so far. None of us has, and few of us would want, a power of clairvoyance that would expose to us everyone else’s private thoughts. To escape the curse of knowledge, we have to go beyond our own powers of divination. We have to close the loop, as the engineers say, and get a feedback signal from the world of readers-that is, show a draft to some people who are similar to our intended audience and find out whether they can follow it.26 This sounds banal but is in fact profound. Social psychologists have found that we are overconfident, sometimes to the point of delusion, about our ability to infer what other people think, even the people who are closest to us.27 Only when we ask those people do we discover that what’s obvious to us isn’t obvious to them. That’s why professional writers have editors. It’s also why politicians consult polls, why corporations hold focus groups, and why Internet companies use A/B testing, in which they try out two designs on a Web site (versions A and B) and collect data in real time on which gets more clicks. Most writers cannot afford focus groups or A/B testing, but they can ask a roommate or colleague or family member to read what they wrote and comment on it. Your reviewers needn’t even be a represen- tative sample of your intended audience. Often it’s enough that they are not you. This does not mean you should implement every last suggestion they offer. Each commentator has a curse of knowledge of his own, together with hobbyhorses, blind spots, and axes to grind, and the writer cannot pander to all of them. Many academic articles contain bewildering non sequiturs and digressions that the authors stuck in at the insistence of an anonymous reviewer who had the power to reject it from the journal if they didn’t comply. Good prose is never written by a committee. A writer should revise in response to a comment when

9780670025855_SenseOfStyle_TX_p1-360.indd 75 9/10/14 8:38 PM

76 The SenSe of ST yle

it comes from more than one reader or when it makes sense to the writer herself. And that leads to another way to escape the curse of knowledge: show a draft to yourself, ideally after enough time has passed that the text is no longer familiar. If you are like me you will find yourself thinking, “What did I mean by that?” or “How does this follow?” or, all too often, “Who wrote this crap?” I am told there are writers who can tap out a coherent essay in a single pass, at most checking for typos and touching up the punctua- tion before sending it off for publication. You are probably not one of them. Most writers polish draft after draft. I rework every sentence a few times before going on to the next, and revise the whole chapter two or three times before I show it to anyone. Then, with feedback in hand, I revise each chapter twice more before circling back and giving the entire book at least two complete passes of polishing. Only then does it go to the copy editor, who starts another couple of rounds of tweaking. Too many things have to go right in a passage of writing for most mortals to get them all the first time. It’s hard enough to formulate a thought that is interesting and true. Only after laying a semblance of it on the page can a writer free up the cognitive resources needed to make the sentence grammatical, graceful, and, most important, transparent to the reader. The form in which thoughts occur to a writer is rarely the same as the form in which they can be absorbed by a reader. The advice in this and other stylebooks is not so much on how to write as on how to revise. Much advice on writing has the tone of moral counsel, as if being a good writer will make you a better person. Unfortunately for cosmic justice, many gifted writers are scoundrels, and many inept ones are the salt of the earth. But the imperative to overcome the curse of knowledge may be the bit of writerly advice that comes closest to being sound moral advice: always try to lift yourself out of your parochial mindset and find out how other people think and feel. It may not make you a better person in all spheres of life, but it will be a source of con- tinuing kindness to your readers.

9780670025855_SenseOfStyle_TX_p1-360.indd 76 9/10/14 8:38 PM

The authors propose that distinct selection pressures have influenced cognitive abilities and personality traits: mutation- selection balance accounts for differences in cognitive ability, whereas balancing selection accounts for differences in personality traits. Note, too, how parallel syntax can allow a reader to make sense of even the most unintelligible of the garden path sentences: Though the horse guided past the barn walked with ease, the horse raced past the barn fell. Attachment to the phrase next door. Finally, we get to the panel on sex with four professors. Here we have a bias that is mainly geometri.cal. Go back to the trees on page 117. Why is the tree on the bottom, with the unintended meaning, the one the reader arrived at? The dif.ference is in where the phrase with four professors is attached. When given a choice, readers tend to attach phrases lower in the tree rather than higher. Another way of putting it is that they like to absorb words into the phrase they are working on for as long they can, rather than closing off the phrase and figuring out somewhere else to place the incoming words. Since readers tend to link a phrase to the words that came just before it, they will misunderstand a sentence when the writer had a more remote association in mind. Together with the sex with professors, this bias explains the foreplay of several weeks’ duration, the cow that does not smoke or drink, the job candidate with no qualifications, the cyclist who was killed twice, the trail that was mistaken for a bear, and the coup that rattled Beijing. Many authors of stylebooks, such as Strunk and White, try to pro.tect writers against this accidental hilarity with the advice to “keep related words together.” Unfortunately, the advice is unhelpful because it is stated in terms of strings rather than trees. In a panel on sex with four professors, trying to keep related words together won’t help: they already are together. The mischievous phrase on sex is smack-dab next to the related phrase a panel on the left, where it belongs—but it’s also

Noun Phrase

AMBIGUOUS VERSION smack-dab next to the unrelated phrase four professors on the right, where it doesn’t. What the writer has to worry about is connectedness in the tree (a panel on sex versus sex with four professors), not just adja.cency in the string. In fact the obvious way to clarify the sentence— flipping the order of the two phrases, yielding a panel with four professors on sex—pulls related words apart (a panel and on sex) rather than keeping them together, at least in the string. As the diagrams on pages 128 and 129 show, the related words are still connected in the tree, just in a different order. The advice is better stated as “pull unrelated (but mutually attracted) phrases apart.” If the panel had been about controlled substances rather than amorous interactions, the opposite order would be safer: A panel with four professors on drugs promises as interesting an evening as the panel on sex with four professors, but the writer would be better off wording it as a panel on drugs with four professors. That’s because of

Noun Phrase Article Noun Prep. Phrase

Prep. Noun Phrase Prep. Phrase Noun

a panel with four on sex professors

UNAMBIGUOUS VERSION the effect of statistically frequent word sequences: the pair sex with attracts the phrase on the right; the pair on drugs attracts the phrase on the left. Writers need to look in both directions, and shunt phrases around to keep them from dangerous liaisons with an inappropriate next-door neighbor. Here are some reorderings of the examples from pages 117–18, with the ambiguities eliminated: For several weeks the young man had involuntary seminal fluid emission when he engaged in foreplay. Wanted: Man that does not smoke or drink, to take care of cow. This week’s youth discussion in the church basement will be on teen suicide. I enthusiastically recommend, with no qualifications whatsoever, this candidate.

Prosecutors yesterday confirmed they will appeal the “unduly lenient” sentence of a motorist who escaped prison after being convicted for the second time of killing a cyclist. A teen hunter has been convicted of second-degree manslaughter for fatally shooting a hiker he had mistaken for a bear on a popular Washington state trail. The guideline to move a phrase close to the words it belongs with, and away from those it doesn’t belong with, is useful only insofar as the rules of English syntax allow a phrase to be moved. Our language puts us at a disadvantage here. In many other languages, such as Latin and Russian, writers have the freedom to scramble the order of words to suit their rhetorical purposes, because case markers on the nouns, or agreement markers on the verbs, will keep the relationships straight in the reader’s mind. English, which has a rudimentary system of case and agreement, must be more tyrannical about order. This puts the writer in a bind. The rules of English syntax force him to put the subject before the verb, and the verb before the object. But he may not want the reader to think about the content of the subject before she thinks about the contents of the verb and object. Why should a writer want to control the order in which the reader thinks her thoughts? Preventing unwanted attachments, as we have just seen, is one reason. There are two others, and each is a monumen.tal principle of composition. Save the heaviest for last. The Scottish prayer asks the Lord to deliver us from “ghoulies and ghosties and long-leggedy beasties and things that go bump in the night”—not from “things that go bump in the night and long-leggedy beasties and ghoulies and ghosties.” The order fits with our cognitive processes: it’s taxing to work on a big heavy phrase (things that go bump in the night) while you are holding in mem.ory an incomplete bigger phrase it’s part of (in this case, the four-part coordination embracing things, beasties, ghoulies, and ghosties). A big heavy phrase is easier to handle if it comes at the end, when your work assembling the overarching phrase is done and nothing else is on your mind. (It’s another version of the advice to prefer right-branching trees over left-branching and center-embedded ones.) Light-before-heavy is one of the oldest principles in linguistics, having been discovered in the fourth century bce by the Sanskrit grammarian P.n. ini.32 It often guides the intuitions of writers when they have to choose an order for items in a list, as in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; The Wild, The Innocent, and The E Street Shuffle; and Faster than a speeding bul.let! More powerful than a locomotive! Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound!

Topic, then comment. Given, then new. These are more precise ver.sions of the Strunkian advice to “put the emphatic words of a sentence at the end.” Paul McCartney was mindful of the advice when he sang, “So may I introduce to you, the act you’ve known for all these years: Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band!” Once he had the listen.ers’ attention, and reminded them that they were there to be intro.duced to someone, he used the end of the sentence to provide the newsworthy information; he did not sing, “Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, the act you’ve known for all these years; may I introduce them to you?”33 Once again, it’s good cognitive psychology: people learn by integrating new information into their existing web of knowledge. They don’t like it when a fact is hurled at them from out of the blue and they have to keep it levitating in short-term memory until they find a relevant background to embed it in a few moments later. Topic-then-comment and given-then-new orderings are major contrib.utors to coherence, the feeling that one sentence flows into the next rather than jerking the reader around. English syntax demands subject before object. Human memory demands light before heavy. Human comprehension demands topic before comment and given before new. How can a writer reconcile these irreconcilable demands about where the words should go in a sentence? Necessity is the mother of invention, and over the centuries the English language has developed workarounds for its rigid syntax. They consist of alternative constructions that are more or less synonymous but that place the participants in different positions in the left-to-right ordering of the string, which means they appear at different times in the early-to-late processing in a reader’s mind. Fluent writers have these constructions at their fingertips to simultaneously control the content of a sentence and the sequencing of its words.

Foremost among them is the unfairly maligned passive voice: Laius was killed by Oedipus, as opposed to Oedipus killed Laius. In chapter 2 we saw one of the benefits of the passive, namely that the agent of the event, expressed in the by.phrase, can go unmentioned. This is handy for mistake-makers who are trying to keep their names out of the spot.light and for narrators who want you to know that helicopters were used to put out some fires but don’t think you need to know that it was a guy named Bob who flew one of the helicopters. Now we see the other major benefit of the passive: it allows the doer to be mentioned later in the sentence than the done-to. That comes in handy in implementing the two principles of composition when they would otherwise be sty.mied by the rigid word order of English. The passive allows a writer to postpone the mention of a doer that is heavy, old news, or both. Let’s look at how this works. Consider this passage from the Wikipedia entry for Oedipus Rex, which (spoiler alert) reveals the terrible truth about Oedipus’s parentage. A man arrives from Corinth with the message that Oedipus’s father has died. . . . It emerges that this messenger was formerly a shepherd on Mount Cithaeron, and that he was given a baby. . . .  The baby, he says, was given to him by another shepherd from the Laius household, who had been told to get rid of the child. It contains three passives in quick succession (was given a baby; was given to him; had been told), and for good reason. First we are intro.duced to a messenger; all eyes are upon him. If he figures in any subse.quent news, he should be mentioned first. And so he is, thanks to the passive voice, even though the news does not involve his doing any.thing: He (old information) was given a baby (new information).

Now that we’ve been introduced to a baby, the baby is on our minds. If there’s anything new to say about him, the news should begin with a mention of that baby. Once again the passive voice makes that possible, even though the baby didn’t do anything: The baby, he says, was given to him by another shepherd. The shepherd in question is not just newswor.thy but also heavy: he is being singled out with the big, hairy phrase another shepherd from the Laius household, who had been told to get rid of the child. That’s a lot of verbiage for a reader to handle while figuring out the syntax of the sentence, but the passive voice allows it to come at the end, when all of the reader’s other work is done. Now imagine that an editor mindlessly followed the common advice to avoid the passive and altered the passage accordingly: A man arrives from Corinth with the message that Oedipus’s father has died. . . . It emerges that this messenger was formerly a shepherd on Mount Cithaeron, and that someone gave him a baby. . . . Another shepherd from the Laius household, he says, whom someone had told to get rid of the child, gave the baby to him. Active, shmactive! This is what happens when a heavy phrase with new information is forced into the beginning of a sentence just because it happens to be the agent of the action and that’s the only place an active sentence will let it appear. The original passage had a third passive—who had been told to get rid of the child—which the copy editor of my nightmares has also turned into an active: whom someone had told to get rid of the child. This highlights yet another payoff of the passive voice: it can unburden memory by shortening the interval between a filler and a gap. When an item is modified by a relative clause, and its role inside the clause is the object of the verb, the reader is faced with a long span between the filler and the gap.34 Look at the tree at the top of the next page, which has a relative clause in the active voice:

Noun Phrase

Article Noun Clause a shepherd Noun Phrase Clause

whom Noun Phrase Verb Phrase

someone Verb Verb Phrase had Verb Noun Phrase Verb Phrase (object) told to get rid of the child

You can see a long arrow between the filler whom and the gap after told, which spans three words and three newly introduced phrases. That’s the material a reader must hold in mind between the time she Noun Phrase

Article Noun Clause a shepherd Noun Phrase Clause

had Verb Verb Phrase

been Verb Verb Phrase told

to get rid of the child

encounters whom and the time she can figure out what the whom is doing. Now look at the second tree, where the relative clause has been put in the passive. A puny arrow connects the filler who with a gap right next door, and the reader gets instant gratification: no sooner does she come across who than she knows what it’s doing. True, the passive phrase itself is heavier than the active, with four levels of branching rather than three, but it comes at the end, where there’s nothing else to keep track of. That’s why well-written prose puts object relative clauses in the passive voice, and difficult prose keeps them in the active voice, like this: Among those called to the meeting was Mohamed ElBaradei,
the former United Nations diplomat protesters demanding Mr. Morsi’s ouster have tapped __ as one of their negotiators over a new interim government, Reuters reported, citing unnamed official sources. This sentence is encumbered, among other things, by a long stretch between the filler of the relative clause, the former United Nations dip.lomat, and the gap after tapped seven words later. Though the sentence may be beyond salvation, passivizing the relative clause would be a place to start: the former United Nations diplomat who has been tapped by protesters demanding Mr. Morsi’s ouster. The passive voice is just one of the gadgets that the English language makes available to rearrange phrases while preserving their semantic roles. Here are a few others that are handy when the need arises to separate illicit neighbors, to place old information before new, to put fillers close to their gaps, or to save the heaviest for last:35 Basic order: Preposing:
Oedipus met Laius on the road to On the road to Thebes, Oedipus met
Thebes. Laius.
Basic order: Postposing:
The servant left the baby whom Laius The servant left on the mountaintop
had condemned to die on the the baby whom Laius had condemned
mountaintop. to die.

Double-object dative: Prepositional dative:
Jocasta handed her servant the infant. Jocasta handed the infant to her
servant.
Basic construction: Existential:
A curse was on the kingdom. There was a curse on the kingdom.
Clause as subject: Extraposed clause:
That Oedipus would learn the truth It was inevitable that Oedipus would
was inevitable. learn the truth.
Basic construction: Cleft:
Oedipus killed Laius. It was Oedipus who killed Laius.
It was Laius whom Oedipus killed.
Basic construction: Pseudo-cleft:
Oedipus killed Laius. What Oedipus did was kill Laius.

The versions on the right are a bit longer, wordier, or more formal than the ones on the left, and the last four, with their needless words (there, it, what), are often good candidates for replacement by their snappier near-synonyms. But by now you can see why they’re some.times useful: they give the writer additional freedom in ordering phrases in the tree. Preposing allows the writer to move a modifying phrase leftward, which can separate it from a pesky little phrase to which it might other.wise attach itself (as with the young man who had involuntary seminal emissions if he engaged in foreplay for several weeks). The next four constructions allow a writer to shift a phrase rightward when it is too heavy or too newsworthy to be taking up space in the middle of a sen.tence. The last two allow a writer an additional lever of control over what the reader will treat as given and what she will treat as new. The cleft inverts the usual ordering: the new information is thrust into the spot.light early, and the given information, which serves as its background, comes at the end. The pseudo-cleft retains the usual order (given-to-new), but both kinds of clefting add an important twist: the given information is not old news, in the sense of having been mentioned earlier in the discussion, but presupposed: the reader is asked to accept it as true, and is now being informed what it is true of. It was Oedipus who killed Laius, for example, takes it for granted that someone killed Laius, the only question being who; the main clause of the sentence informs us who the who is.

Another major resource that English puts at a writer’s disposal is the choice of verb. Some verbs have a counterpart which narrates the same scenario but fills its grammatical slots (subject, object, oblique object) with different role-players (the mover, the thing moved, the source, or the recipient):
Jocasta gave the infant to her servant. The servant received the infant from Jocasta.
She robbed her uncle of a cigar. She stole a cigar from her uncle.
Morris sold a watch to Zak. Zak bought a watch from Morris.
I substituted margarine for the lard. I replaced the lard with margarine.
The vandals fled the police. The police chased the vandals.
The goalie sustained an injury from the onrushing forward. The onrushing forward inflicted an injury on the goalie.

Like the menu of constructions, the menu of verbs can give a writer several options on where to place a given, new, light, or heavy phrase. Holding the crime constant, the verb rob places the ill-gotten gains at the end (She robbed her uncle of an expensive hand.rolled Cuban cigar); the verb steal places the victim at the end (She stole a cigar from her greedy lascivious uncle). Good writers may have no explicit awareness of how these con.structions and verb types work, and they certainly don’t know their names. The words and structures lie waiting in memory, bearing little tags like “here’s a way to delay mentioning a modifier” or “my direct object is the thing being transferred.” Accomplished wordsmiths iden.tify a need while writing, or spot a problem in a sentence while revis.ing, and when all goes well the suitable word or construction pops into mind.

Just below the surface of these inchoate intuitions, I believe, is a tacit awareness that the writer’s goal is to encode a web of ideas into a string of words using a tree of phrases. Aspiring wordsmiths would do well to cultivate this awareness. It can help rid their writing of errors, dead ends, and confusing passages. And it can take the fear and boredom out of grammar, because it’s always more inviting to master a system when you have a clear idea of what it is designed to accomplish.

Chapter 5 ArCs of CoherenCe

how to ensuRe that ReadeRs will gRasp the topiC, get the point, keep tRaCk of the playeRs, and see how one idea follows fRom anotheR S o many things can go wrong in a passage of prose. The writing can be bloated, self-conscious, academic; these are habits that classic style, which treats prose as a window onto the world, is designed to break. The passage can be cryptic, abstruse, arcane; these are symptoms of the curse of knowledge. The syntax can be defective, convoluted, ambiguous; these are flaws that can be prevented by an awareness of the treelike nature of a sentence. This chapter is about yet another thing that can go wrong in writ.ing. Even if every sentence in a text is crisp, lucid, and well formed, a succession of them can feel choppy, disjointed, unfocused—in a word, incoherent. Consider this passage: The northern United States and Canada are places where herons live and breed. Spending the winter here has its advantages. Great Blue Herons live and breed in most of the northern United States. It’s an advantage for herons to avoid the dangers of migration. Herons head south when the cold weather arrives. The earliest herons to arrive on the breeding grounds have an advantage. The winters are relatively mild in Cape Cod.

The individual sentences are clear enough, and they obviously pertain to a single topic. But the passage is incomprehensible. By the second sentence we’re wondering about where here is. The third has us puz.zling over whether great blue herons differ from herons in general, and if they do, whether these herons live only in the northern United States, unlike the other herons, who live in Canada as well. The fourth sentence seems to come out of the blue, and the fifth seems to contra.dict the fourth. The paragraph is then rounded out with two non sequiturs. Now, I doctored this passage to make it bewilderingly incoherent, just to dramatize the topic of this chapter. But lesser failures of coher.ence are among the commonest flaws in writing. Consider some of the clumsy sentences I fixed in earlier chapters, repeated here in their improved versions: The researchers found that in groups with little alcoholism, such as Jews, people actually drink moderate amounts of alcohol, but few of them drink too much and become alcoholics. For the third time in a decade, a third-rate Serbian military is brutally targeting civilians, but beating it is hardly worth the effort; this view is not based on a lack of understanding of what is occurring on the ground. Even with the syntax repaired, the sentences are difficult to under.stand, and the original contexts don’t make them any clearer. The problem is coherence: we don’t know why one clause follows another. No further tinkering with the syntax will help. We need a context that leads the reader to understand why the writer felt the need to assert what she is now asserting:

One might think that the reason some ethnic groups have high rates of alcoholism is that drinking is common in the group. According to this hypothesis, drinking even moderate amounts of alcohol puts people at risk of drinking too much and becoming alcoholics. If so, we should find that the groups with the lowest rates of alcoholism are those in which drinking of any kind is forbidden, such as Mormons or Muslims. But that’s not what the researchers discovered. . . . Many policy analysts write as if the obvious way to deal with armies that commit human rights violations is to invade them with our vastly superior military forces. Anyone who opposes a military invasion, they argue, must be ignorant of the atrocities taking place. But that’s not why I and other statesmen favor a different strategy for ending this crisis. Make no mistake: . . . Whenever one sentence comes after another, readers need to see a connection between them. So eager are readers to seek coherence that they will often supply it when none exists. One category of frequently emailed bloopers consists of sequences which are amusing not because of problems in syntax but because of problems in coherence:1 Miss Charlene Mason sang, “I Will Not Pass This Way Again,” giving obvious pleasure to the congregation. The sermon this morning: “Jesus Walks on the Water.” The sermon tonight will be “Searching for Jesus.” Dog for sale: Eats anything and is fond of children. We do not tear your clothing with machinery. We do it carefully by hand. The patient has been depressed ever since she began seeing me in 2008. In fact, it’s the hunger for coherence that drives the entire process of understanding language. Suppose a reader has successfully parsed a sentence and now has an understanding of who did what to whom or what is true of what. Now he must integrate it with the rest of his knowledge, because a factoid floating around in the brain unlinked to anything else is as useless as a book filed on a random shelf in a library or a Web site with no links to it. This linking must be repeated with each sentence in the text. That is how the content of a passage of text becomes integrated into the reader’s web of knowledge.

This chapter is about the sense of style in passages longer than a sentence—a paragraph, a blog post, a review, an article, an essay, or a book. Some of the principles of style that apply within a sentence, such as building an orderly tree and placing given before new information, apply to extended passages as well. But as we shall see, coherent dis.course also uses devices that differ from the branching of a tree, and our metaphors must expand accordingly. At first glance, the organization of a text really does seem like a tree, with passages of language embedded in still larger passages of lan.guage. Several clauses are joined or embedded in a sentence; several sentences make up a paragraph; several paragraphs make up a section, several sections a chapter, several chapters a book. A text with this hierarchical structure is easy for a reader to assimilate because at any level of granularity, from clauses to chapters, the passage can be repre.sented in the reader’s mind as a single chunk, and the reader never has to juggle more than a few chunks at a time as he figures out how they are related. To compose a passage with this orderly structure, a writer must orga.nize the content she hopes to convey into a neat hierarchy. Sometimes she may be lucky enough to begin with a firm grasp of the hierarchical organization of her material, but more often she will have an unruly swarm of ideas buzzing in her head and must get them to settle down into an orderly configuration. The time-honored solution is to create an outline, which is just a tree lying on its side, its branches marked by indentations, dashes, bullets, or Roman and Arabic numerals, rather than by forking line segments. One way to fashion an outline is to jot your ideas on a page or on index cards more or less at random and then look for ones that seem to belong together. If you reorder the items with the clusters of related ideas placed near one another, then arrange the clusters that seem to belong together in larger clusters, group those into still larger clusters, and so on, you’ll end up with a treelike outline.

But now you face a major difference between the syntactic tree of a sentence and the outline tree of a text. When it comes to putting the units into a left-to-right order, the rules of English syntax leave writers with only a few possibilities. The object, for example, pretty much has to come after the verb. But if you’re writing an essay on mammals, it’s up to you whether to write first about the rodents, then the primates, then the bats, and so on, or first the primates, then the felines, then the whales and dolphins, or any of the other 403,291,461,126,605,635,584, 000,000 logically possible orderings of the twenty-six subgroups. The writer’s challenge is to come up with a scheme to order these units of text—to turn a dangly mobile into a rigid tree. Often an author will pick an order more or less arbitrarily and use verbal signposts or numbered headings to guide the reader on his jour.ney through the text (Part II Section C Subsection 4 Paragraph b, or Section 2.3.4.2). But in many genres, numbered headings are not an option, and as we saw in chapter 2, excessive signposting can bore and confuse a reader. And regardless of how many headings or signposts you use, it’s always best to lay an intuitive trail through the territory: a scheme for stringing the units into a natural order that allows readers to anticipate what they will encounter next. There is no algorithm for doing this, but let me give you a couple of examples. I once had the challenge of explaining an unruly literature on the neurobiology and genetics of language, which embraces a vast range of topics, including case studies of neurological patients, computer sim.ulations of neural networks, and neuroimaging of the brain areas that are active during language processing. The first temptation was to order the studies historically, which is how textbooks do it, but this would have been an indulgence in professional narcissism: my readers were interested in the brain, not in the history of the doctors and pro.fessors who study the brain. It dawned on me that a clearer trajectory through this morass would consist of zooming in from a bird’s-eye view to increasingly microscopic components. From the highest van.tage point you can make out only the brain’s two big hemispheres, so I began with studies of split-brain patients and other discoveries that locate language in the left hemisphere. Zooming in on that hemisphere, one can see a big cleft dividing the temporal lobe from the rest of the brain, and the territory on the banks of that cleft repeatedly turns up as crucial for language in clinical studies of stroke patients and brain scans of intact subjects. Moving in closer, one can distinguish various regions—Broca’s area, Wernicke’s area, and so on—and the discussion can turn to the more specific language skills, such as recognizing words and parsing them into a tree, that have been tied to each area. Now we can switch from the naked eye to a microscope and peer into models of neural networks. From there we can crank the microscope one more turn to the level of genes, which is an opportunity to review studies of dyslexia and other inherited language disorders. All the research fell into place along a single global-to-local continuum. I had my ordering.

The ways to order material are as plentiful as the ways to tell a story. On another occasion I had to review research on English, French, Hebrew, German, Chinese, Dutch, Hungarian, and Arapesh, a lan.guage spoken in New Guinea. English was the natural starting point, but in what order should I bring up the others? I suppose I could have reviewed them in terms of how familiar they are to me or to American readers, or the order in which the studies were done, or even alphabet.ically. But instead I marched backwards in time to older and older (and more and more inclusive) language families: first the languages begot.ten by Germanic tribes who lived about 2,000 years ago, including Dutch and German; then to other Indo-European tribes, such as the Italic people who split from their Germanic brethren about 3,500 years ago, which brings in French; then to the Uralic tribes, which probably coexisted with the Indo-Europeans about 7,000 years ago and left us with Hungarian; and so on, back through history and outward in lan.guage families.

There are many other ordering schemes: leading the reader on a trek across a geographical territory; narrating the travails of a hero who must overcome obstacles on his way to achieving a goal; mimicking a debate in which the two sides present their positions, rebut each other, sum up their cases, and await a verdict; and, sometimes, recounting the history of discovery that culminated in our current understanding. Appreciating the treelike nature of a text can also help you under.stand one of the few devices available in nontechnical prose to visually mark the structure of discourse: the paragraph break. Many writing guides provide detailed instructions on how to build a paragraph. But the instructions are misguided, because there is no such thing as a para.graph. That is, there is no item in an outline, no branch of a tree, no unit of discourse that consistently corresponds to a block of text delimited by a blank line or an indentation. What does exist is the paragraph break: a visual bookmark that allows the reader to pause, take a breather, assimilate what he has read, and then find his place again on the page. Paragraph breaks generally coincide with the divisions between branches in the discourse tree, that is, cohesive chunks of text. But the same little notch must be used for divisions between branches of every size, whether it’s the end of a minor digression, the end of a major sum.mation, or anything in between. Sometimes a writer should cleave an intimidating block of print with a paragraph break just to give the read.er’s eyes a place to alight and rest. Academic writers often neglect to do this and trowel out massive slabs of visually monotonous text. Newspa.per journalists, mindful of their readers’ attention spans, sometimes go to the other extreme and dice their text into nanoparagraphs consisting of a sentence or two apiece. Inexperienced writers tend to be closer to academics than to journalists and use too few paragraph breaks rather than too many. It’s always good to show mercy to your readers and peri.odically let them rest their weary eyes. Just be sure not to derail them in the middle of a train of thought. Carve the notch above a sentence that does not elaborate or follow from the one that came before. For all the cognitive benefits of hierarchical organization, not all texts have to be organized into a tree. A skilled writer can interleave multiple story lines, or deliberately manipulate suspense and surprise, or engage the reader with a chain of associations, each topic shunting the reader to the next. But no writer can leave the macroscopic organi.zation of a text to chance.

Whether or not a text is organized to fit into a hierarchical outline, the tree metaphor goes only so far. No sentence is an island; nor is a para.graph, a section, or a chapter. All of them contain links to other chunks of text. A sentence may elaborate, qualify, or generalize the one that came before. A theme or topic may run through a long stretch of writ.ing. People, places, and ideas may make repeat appearances, and the reader must keep track of them as they come and go. These connec.tions, which drape themselves from the limbs of one tree to the limbs of another, violate the neatly nested, branch-within-branch geometry of a tree.2 I’ll call them arcs of coherence. Like the mass of cables drooping behind a desk, the conceptual con.nections from one sentence to another have a tendency to get gnarled up in a big, snaggly tangle. That’s because the links connected to any idea in our web of knowledge run upwards, downwards, and sideways to other ideas, often spanning long distances. Inside the writer’s brain, the links between ideas are kept straight by the neural code that makes memory and reasoning possible. But out there on the page, the connec.tions have to be signaled by the lexical and syntactic resources of the English language. The challenge to the writer is to use those resources so that the reader can graft the information in a series of sentences into his web of knowledge without getting tangled up in either. Coherence begins with the writer and reader being clear about the topic. The topic corresponds to the small territory within the vast web of knowledge into which the incoming sentences should be merged. It may seem obvious that a writer should begin by laying her topic on the table for the reader to see, but not all writers do. A writer might think that it’s unsubtle to announce the topic in so many words, as in “This paper is about hamsters.” Or she herself may discover her topic only after she has finished laying her ideas on paper, and forget to go back and revise the opening to let the reader in on her discovery.

A classic experiment by the psychologists John Bransford and Mar.cia Johnson shows why it’s essential to let the reader in on the topic early.3 They asked participants to read and remember the following passage: The procedure is actually quite simple. First you arrange things into different groups depending on their makeup. Of course, one pile may be sufficient depending on how much there is to do. If you have to go somewhere else due to lack of facilities that is the next step, otherwise you are pretty well set. It is important not to overdo any particular endeavor. That is, it is better to do too few things at once than too many. In the short run this may not seem important, but complications from doing too many can easily arise. A mistake can be expensive as well. The manipulation of the appropriate mechanisms should be self-explanatory, and we need not dwell on it here. At first the whole procedure will seem com.plicated. Soon, however, it will become just another facet of life. It is difficult to foresee any end to the necessity for this task in the immediate future, but then one never can tell. Needless to say, the passage made little sense to them, as I expect it made little sense to you, and they could remember few of the sentences. Another group of people got the same passage but with a new tidbit slipped into the instructions: “The paragraph you will hear will be about washing clothes.” The level of recall doubled. A third group was given the topic after reading the story; it didn’t help them at all. The moral for a writer is obvious: a reader must know the topic of a text in order to understand it. As newspaper editors say: Don’t bury the lede (lede being journalist jargon for “lead,” which might otherwise be misread as the heavy metal). Now, you might object that the experimenters stacked the deck by writing a passage about a concrete physical activity in vague and abstract language. But they also ran a study in which almost every sentence referred to a concrete object or action:

A newspaper is better than a magazine. A seashore is a better place than the street. At first it is better to run than to walk. You may have to try several times. It takes some skill but it’s easy to learn. Even young children can enjoy it. Once successful, complications are minimal. Birds seldom get too close. Rain, however, soaks in very fast. Too many people doing the same thing can also cause problems. One needs lots of room. If there are no complications, it can be very peaceful. A rock will serve as an anchor. If things break loose from it, however, you will not get a second chance.

Make sense? How about with this clue: “The sentences are about mak.ing and flying a kite.” Stating the topic is necessary because even the most explicit language can touch on only a few high points of a story. The reader has to fill in the background—to read between the lines, to connect the dots—and if he doesn’t know which background is appli.cable, he will be mystified. Together with the topic of a text, the reader usually needs to know its point. He needs to know what the author is trying to accomplish as she explores the topic. Human behavior in general is understandable only once you know the actor’s goals. When you see someone waving her arms, the first thing you want to know is whether she is trying to attract attention, shoo away flies, or exercise her deltoids. That is also true of writing. The reader needs to know whether a writer is rabbiting on about a topic in order to explain it, convey interesting new facts about it, advance an argument about it, or use it as an example of an important generalization. In other words, a writer has to have both something to talk about (the topic) and something to say (the point).

Writers often resist telegraphing their point at the outset. Sometimes they feel it would spoil the suspense. Sometimes they are victims of professional narcissism and write as if the reader were interested in every blind alley, fool’s errand, and wild-goose chase they engaged in while exploring the topic. Most often, they themselves don’t know the point of their essay until they have written a first draft, and never go back to reshape the essay so that the point is clear at the beginning. An old cartoon captioned “The PhD thesis” shows a little boy firing an arrow into the air, seeing where it lands, walking over to it, and paint.ing a target around that spot. It’s not how science should work, but it’s sometimes how writing must work. Some genres, such as the scholarly journal article, force an author to lay out her point in a summary, an abstract, or a synopsis. Others, such as magazines and newspapers, help the reader with a tag line (an explanation beneath the cutesy title) or a pull quote (an illustrative sentence displayed in a box). Some style guides, such as Joseph Wil.liams’s excellent Style: Toward Clarity and Grace, provide a formula. Williams advises writers to structure every section as an “issue” (the topic) followed by a “discussion,” and to state the point of the text at the end of the issue. The exact place in which the point of a text is displayed is less important than the imperative to divulge it somewhere not too far from the beginning. There are, to be sure, stand-up comedians, shaggy-dog raconteurs, consummate essayists, and authors of mystery novels who can build up curiosity and suspense and then resolve it all with a sudden revelation. But everyone else should strive to inform, not dumbfound, and that means that writers should make it clear to their readers what they are trying to accomplish.

As a reader works his way through a text, the next challenge is to keep track of the ideas that run through it and to discern the logical relationship between one idea and the next. Let’s work through a sim.ple text in which the author makes it easy. My model of coherent discourse is the original version of the text that I doctored for the opening of the chapter. It comes from a weekly feature in a local tabloid, The Cape Codder, called “Ask the Bird Folks.” The Bird Folks actually consist of one bird folk, Mike O’Connor, who owns the Bird Watcher’s General Store in Orleans, Massachusetts. Soon after opening the store O’Connor found himself fielding so many questions from curious customers that he tried his hand at writing a column. In this one, he responded to a reader worried about a heron which showed up at a bog near her house and was unable to feed because the bog had frozen over.4 After reassuring her that herons can survive a few days without eating, he provides the backstory to this pathetic scene:

Great Blue Herons live and breed just about anywhere in the northern United States and most of Canada. When the cold weather arrives, the herons head south. A few come to Cape Cod where the winters usually aren’t too bad. Most of these herons are either inexperienced young birds or lost adult males too stubborn to ask for directions south. Spending the winter here has its advantages, and I’m not talking about the free off-season parking in Provincetown. Herons are able to avoid the dangers of migra.tion, plus they can be one of the earliest to arrive on the breeding grounds. However, there is a risk with staying this far north. Yes, our winters are often mild and pleasant. Then there is this winter, the winter that never ends. Snow, ice and cold are not kind to birds and I’d bet many herons won’t be booking a visit to Cape Cod next year. Herons have one thing in their favor: they are excellent hunters and are total opportunists. When the fish are frozen out, they’ll eat other things, including crustaceans, mice, voles and small

birds. One hungry heron was seen chowing down a litter of feral kittens. I know, I know, I too was upset to read about the herons eating small birds. Herons also have one odd behavior that is not in their favor. In the winter they seem to choose and defend a favorite fishing hole. When these areas become frozen solid, some herons don’t seem to catch on and often will stand over a frozen stream for days waiting for the fish to return. Boy, talk about stubborn. The primary lifeline between an incoming sentence and a reader’s web of knowledge is the topic. The word “topic” in linguistics actually has two meanings.5 In this chapter we have been looking at the topic of a discourse or text, namely the subject matter of a series of connected sentences. In chapter 4 we looked at the topic of a sentence, namely what that sentence is about. In most English sentences, the topic is the grammatical subject, though it can also be introduced in a separate phrase, like As for fruit, I prefer blueberries, or Speaking of ducks, have you heard the one about the man who walked into a bar with a duck on his head? In that chapter we saw that in a coherent passage the topic of the discourse is aligned with the topic of the sentence. Now let’s see how O’Connor uses this principle over an extended discussion. The topic of the column is obviously “herons in winter”; that’s what the reader asked about. The point of the column is to explain why a heron might stand over a frozen bog. The topic of the first sentence, namely the subject, is also the topic of the column: “Great Blue Herons live and breed . . .” Imagine that it had begun with something like my doctored version, “Canada is a place where herons live and breed.” It would knock the reader off balance, because he has no reason at this moment to be thinking about Canada. As the passage proceeds, O’Connor keeps the herons in subject position. Here is a list of the subjects in order, with the ones referring to herons in the left column, the ones referring to something else in the right column, and horizontal lines separating the paragraphs:

Great Blue Herons live the herons head
A few come Most of these herons are

Spending the winter here has Herons are able to avoid there is a risk our winters are there is this winter Snow, ice and cold are not kind Herons have one thing they are excellent hunters they’ll eat One hungry heron was seen I too was upset

Herons also have they seem to choose some herons don’t seem to catch on [You] talk about Putting aside the interjections at the ends of the last two paragraphs, in which the author addresses the reader directly for humorous effect (I know, I know, I too was upset and Talk about stubborn), the subjects (and hence the sentence topics) are remarkably consistent. In the first, third, and fourth paragraphs, every subject but one consists of herons. The consistent string of sentence topics, all related to the column topic, forms a satisfying arc of coherence over the passage. Better still, the herons are not just any old subjects. They are actors who do things. They migrate, they avoid danger, they hunt, they eat, they stand. That is a hallmark of classic style, or for that matter any good style. It’s always easier for a reader to follow a narrative if he can keep his eyes on a protagonist who is moving the plot forward, rather than on a succession of passively affected entities or zombified actions.

It’s worth looking at a couple of tricks that allow O’Connor to keep this unblinking focus on his protagonists. He strategically slips in a passive sentence: One hungry heron was seen, as opposed to Birdwatch.ers saw one hungry heron. Though the heron is merely being observed by an unidentified birdwatcher at this point in the passage, the passive voice keeps it in the reader’s spotlight of attention. And O’Connor fre.quently moves temporal modifiers to the front of the sentence: When the cold weather arrives; When the fish are frozen out; In the winter; When these areas become frozen solid. This preposing avoids the monotony of a long string of similar sentences, even though herons are the grammatical subjects of every one. Those temporal modifiers all have something to do with cold weather, and that is also a deliberate choice. The new information in each sen.tence is about how the herons react to cold weather. So in each of these sentences, some aspect of cold weather (mentioned in the modifier at the beginning) sets the stage for an announcement of what herons do about it (mentioned in the main clause that follows). Given always pre.cedes new. In the second paragraph, cold weather takes its turn on the stage as a topic in its own right. The transition is orderly. The switch of topic is announced in the penultimate sentence of the first paragraph (Spend.ing the winter here has its advantages), and it is maintained consistently in the second, where two of the sentences have cold things as their subjects, and the other two have them in complements to There is, which are like subjects. We have a second arc of coherence spanning the text, which links all the manifestations of cold weather. The arc linking the sentences about herons and the arc linking the sen.tences about cold weather are two instances of what Williams calls topic strings: they keep the reader focused on a single topic as he proceeds from sentence to sentence. Let’s turn now to another arc of coherence, which connects the different appearances of an entity on the reader’s mental stage as they come and go over the course of a passage. The noun system of English provides a writer with ways to distin.guish entities the reader is being introduced to for the first time from the entities he already knows about. This is the major distinction between the indefinite article, a, and the definite article, the.6 When a character makes his first appearance on stage, he is introduced with a. When we are subsequently told about him, we already know who he is, and he is mentioned with the:

An Englishman, a Frenchman, and a Jew are sitting in a doctor’s waiting room and each is told he has twenty-four hours to live. They are asked how they plan to spend their final day. The Englishman says, “I’m going to my club to smoke my pipe, sip some sherry, and chat with the blokes.” The Frenchman says, “I’m going to call my mistress for a sumptuous dinner, a bottle of the finest wine, and a night of passionate lovemaking.” The Jew says, “I’m going to see another doctor.” A (or an) and the are not the only way that the English language dis.tinguishes indefinite from definite nouns. Indefinite plurals and mass nouns can be introduced with the article some (Some mud was on the floor; Some marbles were on the floor), and they can also appear without an article at all (Mud was on the floor; Marbles were on the floor). Defi.niteness can be marked by other th.words such as this, that, these, and those, or with a genitive noun, as in Claire’s knee or Jerry’s kids. The distinction between a first appearance on stage and subsequent appearances can also be marked by the use of names or indefinite nouns on the one hand and pronouns on the other. Pronouns such as he, she, they, and it do more than save keystrokes. They tell the reader, “You’ve already met this guy; no need to stop and think about a new kid in town.”

Stanley Goldfarb died and his relatives and the congregation gathered for an evening of prayers and mourning. When the time came for the mourners to come up and eulogize him, no one stirred. After several minutes, the rabbi was getting anxious. “Someone must have something nice to say about him,” he implored. More silence. Finally a voice piped up from the back of the room: “His brother was worse.” Helping a reader keep track of the entities that make repeated appearances in a text is a tricky business. Repeating a name or an indefinite noun can confuse readers by making them think that some.one new has walked onto the stage.7 (Imagine Stanley Goldfarb died and Stanley Goldfarb’s relatives gathered for an evening of mourning.) On the other hand, if new characters walk into the scene in the interim, or enough time has passed that the first entrance is a distant memory, a pronoun or definite noun can leave them wondering who the he or the man is. Bloopers make the danger plain:8 Guilt, vengeance, and bitterness can be emotionally destructive to you and your children. You must get rid of them. After Governor Baldwin watched the lion perform, he was taken to Main Street and fed 25 pounds of raw meat in front of the Cross Keys Theater. The driver had a narrow escape, as a broken board penetrated his cabin and just missed his head. This had to be removed before he could be released. My mother wants to have the dog’s tail operated on again, and if it doesn’t heal this time, she’ll have to be put away. Now let’s go back to the herons and see how O’Connor refers to them. He introduces them with an indefinite noun phrase: Great Blue Herons live. Now that they are on stage, he switches to a definite noun phrase: the herons head. At this point he wants to refer to a subset of those herons, so he introduces just these ones with the indefinite arti.cle: A few come to Cape Cod. He refers to that subset a second time, and so it’s time to switch back to the definite: Most of these herons. Then he makes a rare slip: he tells us that herons—indefinite—can avoid the dangers of migration. Since these are herons he introduced us to a few sentences ago, the ones who stop in Cape Cod rather than continuing farther south, I say it should be The herons or These herons.

After the interlude of the paragraph whose topic is winter, which introduces yet another subset of herons (the hypothetical ones who aren’t booking a return trip), we need a reset, and so it’s indefinite Her.ons again; on next mention they can safely be identified with the pro.noun they. The kitten-eating heron is different from the rest, and he’s introduced with indefinite One hungry heron, followed by a reference back to the little-bird-eating herons; we’ve already met them, so they’re the herons, their identity further pinpointed by a reduced relative clause [that were] eating small birds. Pay attention as well to what O’Connor does not do as he repeatedly refers to the herons. Other than shifting from Great Blue Herons to her.ons, he doesn’t strain for new ways of referring to the birds. The herons are herons; they don’t turn into Ardea herodias, long-legged waders, azure airborne avians, or sapphire sentinels of the skies. Many style experts warn against the compulsion to name things with different words when they are mentioned multiple times. Henry Fowler, author of Modern English Usage (next to Strunk and White, the most influ.ential style manual of the twentieth century), sarcastically stigmatized the practice as “elegant variation.” Theodore Bernstein called it mono.logophobia, the fear of using the same word twice, and synonymomania, the “compulsion to call a spade successively a garden implement and an earth.turning tool.” Newspaper editors sometimes warn their writers that if they obey the opposing guideline “Don’t use a word twice on one page” they are likely to slip into journalese, peppering their prose with words that journalists use but that people never say, such as the nouns blaze, eatery, moniker, vehicle, slaying, and white stuff (snow), and the verbs pen, quaff, slate, laud, boast (have), and sport (wear).

In fairness to journalists and other synonymomaniacs, there are times when a writer really does need to avoid repeating words in close succession. Take the second sentence in the preceding paragraph, in which I switched from herons to birds. The alternative would have been “Other than shifting from Great Blue Herons to herons, he doesn’t strain for new ways of referring to the herons.” That third “herons” is clunky, even confusing, for the same reason that repeating the name Stanley Goldfarb in the funeral joke would have been confusing. Or consider the sentence from the Wikipedia entry on Oedipus: The baby, he says, was given to him by another shepherd from the Laius household, who had been told to get rid of the child. The entry uses “the child” because a second mention of “the baby” would not have worked. When a noun is repeated in quick succession, readers may assume that the second mention refers to a different individual and fruitlessly scan the stage for him. They do this because the natural way to refer to an indi.vidual a second time is with a pronoun, the word that signals, “You know who this guy is.” But sometimes a pronoun doesn’t work—in the Oedipus sentence, get rid of him would have left it unclear who him was referring to—and in that case a generic definite noun phrase like the child or the birds can serve as an honorary pronoun. So which guideline should a writer follow, “Avoid elegant variation” or “Don’t use a word twice on one page”? Traditional style guides don’t resolve the contradiction, but psycholinguistics can help.9 Wording should not be varied capriciously, because in general people assume that if someone uses two different words they’re referring to two differ.ent things. And as we shall soon see, wording should never be varied when a writer is comparing or contrasting two things. But wording should be varied when an entity is referred to multiple times in quick succession and repeating the name would sound monotonous or would misleadingly suggest that a new actor had entered the scene. When wording is varied, only certain variations will be easy for the reader to track. The second label is acting as a pseudo-pronoun, so it should be pronounish in two ways. First, it should be more generic than the original noun, applying to a larger class of entities; that’s why the first of these two sequences (which were used in an experiment on understanding stories) is easier to understand than the second:

A bus came roaring around a corner. The vehicle nearly flattened a pedestrian. A vehicle came roaring around a corner. The bus nearly flattened a pedestrian. Also, the second label should easily call to mind the first one, so that readers don’t have to rack their brains figuring out who or what the writer is talking about. A bus is a typical example of a vehicle, so the backward association from vehicle to bus is effortless. But if the first sentence had been A tank came roaring around the corner, which refers to an atypical example of a vehicle, a reader would have had a harder time making the connection. One of the reasons that O’Connor avoided referring to the herons as birds is that a heron is not a typical example of a bird, so readers would not have readily thought “heron” when they saw the word bird. It would be another thing if the column had been about sparrows. In chapter 2 I promised to explain what zombie nouns like antici.pation and cancellation (as opposed to anticipate and cancel) are doing in the English language. The main answer is that they serve the same role as the pronouns, definite articles, and generic synonyms we have just examined: they allow a writer to refer to something a second time (in this case a situation or an event rather than a person or a thing) without tedium or confusing repetition. Suppose we begin a passage with The governor canceled the convention today. At this point it’s more coherent to continue it with The cancellation was unexpected than with It was unexpected that the governor would cancel the convention or The fact that the governor canceled the convention was unexpected. So zombie nouns do have their place in the language. The problem with them is that knowledge-cursed writers use them on first mention because they, the writers, have already been thinking about the event, so it’s old hat to them and is conveniently summarized by a noun. They forget that their readers are encountering the event for the first time and need to see it enacted with their own eyes.

In addition to a consistent thread of sentence topics and an orderly way of referring to repeated appearances, there is a third arc of coherence spanning sentences, and that is the logical relationship between one proposition and another. Let’s go back to some examples from the chapter opening. What’s so confusing about this sequence? It’s an advantage for herons to avoid the dangers of migration. Her.ons head south when the cold weather arrives. And what’s so funny about these? The patient has been depressed ever since she began seeing me in 2008. Miss Charlene Mason sang, “I Will Not Pass This Way Again,” giving obvious pleasure to the congregation. In the doctored passage about herons, the second sentence is a non sequitur: we can’t understand why the author is telling us that the birds migrate south just after saying that herons should avoid the dangers of migration. In the original passage, the two statements appeared in the opposite order, and the author connected them with the sentence noting that a few herons come to Cape Cod, where the winters are not too cold. That sentence lays out two arcs of logical coherence: Cape Cod is an example of southward migration, and the fact that its winters are not too cold is an explanation of why some herons end up there. Readers might still expect herons to choose a warmer destination than Cape Cod—it may not be as cold as some places, but it’s a lot colder than others—so in his next sentence O’Connor acknowledges this violated expectation and supplies two explanations for the anomaly. One is that some herons (the young and inexperienced ones) may arrive on Cape Cod by accident. The other is that wintering at a relatively northern latitude has advantages that make up for the disadvantage of its coldness. O’Connor then elabo.rates on this explanation (that there are compensating advantages) with two specific advantages: it’s safer not to travel far, and the local herons have first dibs on the breeding grounds come spring.

Now let’s turn to the bloopers. The psychiatrist who wrote the first blooper presumably intended his second clause to convey a temporal sequence between two events: the patient saw the doctor, and since that time she has been depressed. We interpret it as a cause.and.effect sequence: she saw the doctor, and that made her depressed. In the second blooper, the problem does not lie in the relationship between clauses— it’s cause-and-effect in both interpretations—but in exactly what causes what. In the intended reading, the pleasure is caused by the singing; in the unintended one, it’s caused by the not-passing-this-way-again. Examples, explanations, violated expectations, elaborations, se.quences, causes, and effects are arcs of coherence that pinpoint how one statement follows from another. They are not so much components of language as components of reason, identifying the ways in which one idea can lead to another in our train of thought. You might think there are hundreds or even thousands of ways in which one thought can lead to another, but in fact the number is far smaller. David Hume, in his 1748 book, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, wrote, “There appear to be only three principles of connections among ideas, namely Resemblance, Contiguity in time or place, and Cause or Effect.”10 The linguist Andrew Kehler argues that Hume basically got it right, though he and other linguists have subdivided Hume’s Big Three into about a dozen more specific kinds of connection.11 And more to the point for the language of coherence, they have shown how the connec.tions among ideas are expressed as connections among sentences. The key linguistic couplers are connective words like because, so, and but. Let’s take a look at the logic of the coherence relations and how they’re typically expressed. In a resemblance relation, a statement makes a claim that overlaps in content with the one that came before it. The most obvious two are similarity and contrast:

Coherence Relation Example Typical Connectives
Similarity Herons live in the and, similarly, likewise,
northern United States. too
Herons live in most of
Canada.
Contrast Herons have one thing but, in contrast, on the
in their favor: they are other hand, alternatively
opportunistic hunters.
Herons have one thing
not in their favor: they
defend a fishing hole
even when it is frozen.

Similarity and contrast link two propositions that are similar in most ways but different in at least one way. They call the reader’s atten.tion either to the similarities or to the difference. These relations may be conveyed without even using a connective word: all the writer has to do is write the statements using parallel syntax and vary only the words that indicate the difference. Unfortunately, many writers blow the opportunity and capriciously vary their wording as they compare two things, a pernicious kind of synonymomania which flummoxes the reader because he doesn’t know whether the writer is directing his attention to the difference between the contrasting things or to some difference between the synonyms. Imagine that O’Connor had written Herons are opportunistic hunters, but great blues defend a fishing hole even when it’s frozen. The reader would wonder whether it’s only great blue herons that defend frozen fishing holes, or all herons. It’s always surprising to me to see how often scientists thoughtlessly use synonyms in comparisons, because the cardinal principle of exper.imental design is the Rule of One Variable. If you want to see the effects of a putative causal variable, manipulate that variable alone while holding everything else constant. (If you want to see whether a drug lowers blood pressure, don’t enroll your participants in an exercise program at the same time, because if their blood pressure does go down, you’ll never know whether it was the drug or the exercise.)

Parallel syntax is just the Rule of One Variable applied to writing: if you want readers to appreciate some variable, manipulate the expres.sion of that variable alone while keeping the rest of the language unchanged. On the left below are two examples—the first expressing similarity, the second expressing contrast—in which scientists do in their prose what they would never do in the lab. On the right are the more rigorously controlled alternatives: In the ten nations with the largest In the ten nations with the largest online populations, non-domestic online populations, non-domestic news sites represent less than 8% of news sites represent less than 8% of the 50 most visited news sites, while in the 50 most visited news sites; in France, 98% of all visits to news France, the figure is just 2%. sources are directed to domestic sites. Children’s knowledge of how to use Children’s knowledge of how to use a tools could be a result of experience, tool could be a result of their but also object affordances defined by experience with the tool; alternatively, shape and manipulability may provide it could be a result of their perceiving cues such that humans do not require the tool’s affordances from shape and much time experimenting with an manipulability cues. object in order to discover how it functions. The first sentence, which says that most Internet users go to news sites in their own country, subverts its attempt to express a resemblance rela.tion in three ways. It inverts the syntax (news sites represent versus visits to news sources), it flips the measurement scale (from the percentage of visits to non-domestic sites to the percentage of visits to domestic sites), and it uses a connective that is perversely ambiguous. If while is used in a temporal sense (“at the same time”), it implies similarity; if it is used in a logical sense (“although”), it suggests contrast. Rereading the passage a few times reveals that the authors meant similarity. The second example also trips over its message. It upends the syntax from one proposition to the other (Children know how to use tools from experience and Object affordances provide cues [to children about tools]), and it uses the connective also in a confusing way. Also implies similarity or elaboration (another resemblance relation, which we’ll get to soon), and the author uses it here to mean that there are at least two hypotheses for how children know how to use tools (rather than the single hypothesis that they know from experience). But he is actu.ally trying to contrast the two hypotheses, so also pulls the reader in the wrong direction (the author presumably chose it because there is “also” another hypothesis on the table for scientists to consider). The author seems to realize the problem as he proceeds, so he tacks on such that to signal that he is contrasting the two hypotheses after all. But it would have been better to rewrite the sentence to convey the contrast from the start, using an unambiguous connective such as alternatively. (Affordance, by the way, is a psychologist’s term for the aspect of an object’s appearance that suggests what you can do to it, such as its lift-ability or its squeezability.)

Similarity and contrast are not the only resemblance relations. In elaboration, a single event is first described in a generic way and then in specific detail. Then there are four relations that fall into two neat pairs, depending on which event the author wishes to mention first. There’s exemplification (a generalization, followed by one or more examples) and generalization (one or more examples, followed by a generalization). And there’s the opposite, exception, which can be intro.duced either generalization first or exception first. Coherence Relation Example Typical Connectives
Elaboration Herons have one thing : (colon), that is, in other
in their favor: they are words, which is to say,
total opportunists. also, furthermore, in
addition, notice that,
which
Exemplification Herons are total for example, for
opportunists. When the instance, such as,
fish are frozen out, including
they’ll eat other things,
including crustaceans,
mice, voles, and small
birds.

Coherence Relation Example Typical Connectives
Generalization When the fish are frozen in general, more
out, herons will eat generally
other things, including
crustaceans, mice, voles,
and small birds. They
are total opportunists.
Exception: Cape Cod winters are however, on the other
generalization first often mild and pleasant. hand, then there is
Then there is this winter,
the winter that never
ends.
Exception: exception This winter seems like it nonetheless,
first will never end. nevertheless, still
Nonetheless, Cape Cod
winters are often mild
and pleasant.

The second of Hume’s family of relations is contiguity: a before.and-after sequence, usually with some connection between the two events. Here, too, the English language gives us the means to mention the events in either order while holding the meaning constant. Coherence Relation Example Typical Connectives
Sequence: before-and- The cold weather arrives and, before, then
after and then the herons
head south.
Sequence: after-and- The herons head south after, once, while, when
before when the cold weather
arrives.

The language gives writers a second way of controlling the order in which two events are mentioned. Not only can they choose between before and after, but they can also choose whether to prepose a tempo.ral modifier or leave it in its place: After the cold weather arrives, the

herons head south versus The herons head south after the cold weather arrives. But here the language may be a bit too clever for its own users. Though English cleanly distinguishes the order in which two things happened in the world from the order in which they are mentioned in a text, English speakers tend to be more concrete, and naturally assume that the order in which events are mentioned is the order in which they took place (as in the old wisecrack They got married and had a baby, but not in that order). All things being equal, it’s good for a writer to work with the ongoing newsreel in readers’ minds and describe events in chronological order: She showered before she ate is easier to understand than She ate after she showered. For the same reason, After she showered, she ate is easier than Before she ate, she showered.12 Of course, things are not always equal. If the spotlight of attention has been lingering on a later event, and now the writer must introduce an earlier one, the imperative to mention given before new trumps the imperative to mention early before late. For example, if you had been staring at the wet footprints leading to the breakfast table and were seeking an explanation, it would be more help.ful to hear Before Rita ate, she showered than After Rita showered, she ate. And this brings us to Hume’s third category of connections, cause and effect. Here again the English language is mathematically elegant and provides the writer with a neat group of symmetries. She can state the cause first or the effect first, and the causal force can either make something happen or prevent it from happening. Coherence Relation Example Typical Connectives
Result (cause-effect) Young herons are and, as a result,
inexperienced, so some therefore, so
of them migrate to Cape
Cod.
Explanation (effect- Some herons migrate to because, since, owing to
cause) Cape Cod, because they
are young and
inexperienced.

Coherence Relation Example Typical Connectives
Violated expectation Herons have a tough but, while, however,
(preventer-effect) time when the ponds nonetheless, yet
freeze over. However,
they will hunt and eat
many other things.
Failed prevention (effect- Herons will hunt and despite, even though
preventer) eat many things in
winter, even though the
ponds are frozen over.

One other major coherence relation doesn’t easily fit into Hume’s trichotomy, attribution: so-and-so believes such-and-such. Attribu.tion is typically indicated by connectives like according to and stated that. It’s important to get it right. In many written passages it’s unclear whether the author is arguing for a position or is explaining a position that someone else is arguing for. This is one of the many problems in Bob Dole’s sentence about intervening in Serbia (page 112). There are a few other coherence relations, such as anticipations of a reaction by the reader (yes; I know, I know). There are also gray areas and various ways to lump and split the relations, which give linguists plenty of things to argue about.13 But these dozen or so cover most of the terri.tory. A coherent text is one in which the reader always knows which coherence relation holds between one sentence and the next. In fact, coherence extends beyond individual sentences and also applies to entire branches in the discourse tree (in other words, to items in an essay out.line). Several propositions may be interconnected by a set of coherence relations, and the resulting chunk is in turn connected to others. For example, the heron chowing down feral kittens was similar to the herons eating crustaceans, mice, and small birds. The entire set of these meals is now united as a single block of text which serves as an exemplification of herons eating things other than fish. And their ability to eat nonfishy meals is, in turn, an elaboration of their being opportunistic hunters. Coherence relations among sets of sentences need not be perfectly treelike. They also drape across long stretches of text. The odd behavior of defending a frozen fishing hole connects all the way back to the reader’s question at the beginning of the column. It is an explanation, a cause of the effect she was asking about.

As a writer bangs out sentences, she needs to ensure that her readers can reconstruct the coherence relations she has in mind. The obvious way to do this is to use the appropriate connectives. The “typical” con.nectives in the charts, however, are only typical, and writers can leave them out when the connection is obvious to the reader. It’s an impor.tant choice. Too many connectives can make it seem as if an author is belaboring the obvious or patronizing the reader, and it can give prose a pedantic feel. Just imagine the sequence Herons live in the northern United States; similarly, herons live in most of Canada. Or Herons have one thing in their favor. . . . In contrast, herons have one thing not in their favor. Too few connectives, on the other hand, can leave the reader puzzled as to how one statement follows from the last. Even more challenging, the optimal number of connectives depends on the expertise of the reader.14 Readers who are familiar with the subject matter will already know a lot about what is similar to what else, what causes what else, and what tends to accompany what else, and they don’t need to have these connections spelled out in so many words. They may even get confused if the writer spells out the obvious ones: they figure that she must have a good reason to do so and therefore that she must really be making some other claim, one that isn’t so obvious, which they then waste time trying to discern. In the case of where herons live, most readers know that the northern United States is contiguous to Canada and that the two have similar ecosystems, so they don’t need a similarly. If the author had mentioned less familiar birds and territories—say, that crested honey buzzards live in Yakutsk and Shenyang—the reader might appreciate being told whether the territories are similar, which would imply that the species is adapted to a specific ecosystem, or dissimilar, implying that it is widespread and flexible. Figuring out the right level of explicitness for coherence relations is a major reason that a writer needs to think hard about the state of knowledge of her readers and show a few of them a draft to see whether she got it right. It’s an aspect of the art of writing which depends on intuition, experience, and guesswork, but there is also an overarching guideline. Humans are cursed with attributing too much of their own knowledge to others (chapter 3), which means that overall there is a greater danger of prose being confusing because it has too few connec.tives than pedantic because it has too many. When in doubt, connect.

If you do indicate a connection, though, do it just once. Prose becomes stuffy when an insecure writer hammers the reader over the head with redundant indicators of a connection, as if unsure that one would be enough. Perhaps the reason so many people are Perhaps the reason so many people are in the dark is because they want it that in the dark is that they want it that way. [explanation] way. There are many biological influences There are many biological influences of psychological traits such as of psychological traits such as cognitive ability, conscientiousness, cognitive ability, conscientiousness, impulsivity, risk aversion, and the like. impulsivity, and risk aversion. [exemplification] We separately measured brainwide We separately measured brainwide synchronization in local versus long-synchronization in local and long-range channel pairs. [contrast] range channel pairs. The first redundancy, the reason is because, is widely disliked, because the word reason already implies that we are dealing with an explana.tion, and we don’t need a because to remind us. (Some purists also frown on the reason why, but it has been used by good writers for cen.turies and should be no more exceptionable than the place where or the time when.) Gratuitous redundancy makes prose difficult not just because readers have to duplicate the effort of figuring something out, but because they naturally assume that when a writer says two things she means two things, and fruitlessly search for the nonexistent second point.

Coherence connectives are the unsung heroes of lucid prose. They aren’t terribly frequent—most of them occur just a handful of times every 100,000 words—but they are the cement of reasoning and one of the most difficult yet most important tools of writing to master. A recent analysis of underperforming high school students showed that many of them, even those who read well, were stymied by the challenge of writing a coherent passage.15 One student, asked to write an essay on Alexander the Great, managed to come up with “I think Alexander the Great was one of the best military leaders,” then turned to her mother and said, “Well, I got a sentence down. What now?” A failure to com.mand coherence connectives turned out to be among the skills that most sharply differentiated the struggling students from their success.ful peers. When these students were asked to read Of Mice and Men and complete a sentence beginning with “Although George,” many were stumped. A few wrote, “Although George and Lenny were friends.” The teachers introduced a program that explicitly trained the students to construct coherent arguments, with a focus on the connections between successive ideas. It was a radical shift from the kind of assign.ment that dominates high school writing instruction today, in which students are asked to write memoirs and personal reflections. The stu.dents showed dramatic improvements in their test scores in several subjects, and many more of them graduated from high school and applied to college. It’s no coincidence that we use the word “coherent” to refer both to concrete passages of text and to abstract lines of reasoning, because the logical relations that govern them—implication, generalization, coun.terexample, denial, causation—are the same. Though the claim that good prose leads to good thinking is not always true (brilliant thinkers can be clumsy writers, and slick writers can be glib thinkers), it may be true when it comes to the mastery of coherence. If you try to repair an incoherent text and find that no placement of therefores and moreovers and howevers will hold it together, that is a sign that the underlying argument may be incoherent, too.

Coherence depends on more than mechanical decisions such as keep. ing the topic in subject position and choosing appropriate connectives. It depends as well on impressions that build up in a reader over the course of reading many paragraphs and that depend on the author’s grasp of the text as a whole. Let me explain what I mean by sharing my reaction to another pas. sage, this one much loftier in tone and ambition than “Ask the Bird Folks.” It is the opening of John Keegan’s 1993 magnum opus, A His. tory of Warfare: War is not the continuation of policy by other means. The world would be a simpler place to understand if this dictum of Clause.witz’s were true. Clausewitz, a Prussian veteran of the Napoleonic wars who used his years of retirement to compose what was destined to become the most famous book on war—called On War—ever written, actually wrote that war is the continuation “of political intercourse” (des politischen Verkehrs) “with the inter.mixing of other means” (mit Einmischung anderer Mittel). The original German expresses a more subtle and complex idea than the English words in which it is so frequently quoted. In either form, however, Clausewitz’s thought is incomplete. It implies the existence of states, of state interests and of rational calculation about how they may be achieved. Yet war antedates the state, diplomacy and strategy by many millennia. Warfare is almost as old as man himself, and reaches into the most secret places of the human heart, places where self dissolves rational purpose, where pride reigns, where emotion is paramount, where instinct is king. “Man is a political animal,” said Aristotle. Clausewitz, a child of Aristotle, went no further than to say that a political animal is a warmaking animal. Neither dared confront the thought that man is a thinking animal in whom the intellect directs the urge to hunt and the ability to kill.16

Keegan is among the most esteemed military historians who ever lived, and A History of Warfare was a critically acclaimed best.seller. Several reviews singled out the quality of his writing for praise. Certainly the mechanics here are sound, and at first glance, so is the coherence. The topics are war and Clausewitz, and we have a number of connectives, like however and yet. Nonetheless, I found this para.graph barely coherent. The problems begin in the first sentence. Why is a book on warfare starting out by telling us what war is not? I recognized the dictum from Clausewitz, but it was hardly uppermost in my mind as I began a book on war, if for no other reason than that I always found it obscure—an impres.sion confirmed by Keegan’s equivocating explanation in the third and fourth sentences. If Clausewitz’s dictum is so subtle, complex, and misun.derstood, how is the reader being enlightened by being told it is false? And if even the people who are familiar with the dictum don’t know what it means, how could the world be “simpler” if it were true? For that matter, is the dictum false? Keegan now tells us that it’s merely “incomplete.” Should he have begun, “War is not just the continuation of policy by other means”? OK, I tell myself, I’ll wait for the rest of the explanation. Soon we are told that war reaches into a place where emotion is paramount, where instinct is king. But two sentences later we’re told that the instinct to hunt and kill is directed by the intellect. These can’t both be true: kings don’t take orders, so instinct cannot be a king and be directed by the intellect. Let’s go with the last thing we were told and assume it’s the intellect that’s in charge. So what part of this thought did Clausewitz and Aristotle (and what’s he suddenly doing in this conversation?) fail to confront: the fact that man is a thinking animal, or the fact that what he thinks about is how to hunt and kill? The confusing opening of A History of Warfare provides us with an opportunity to look at three other contributors to coherence, which are conspicuous here by their absence: clear and plausible negation, a sense of proportion, and thematic consistency.

The first problem is Keegan’s maladroit use of negation. Logically speaking, a sentence with a naysaying word like not, no, neither, nor, or never is just the mirror image of an affirmative sentence. Saying that the integer 4 is not odd is logically the same as saying that it is even. If something is not alive, then it’s dead, and vice versa. But psychologi.cally speaking, a negative statement and an affirmative statement are fundamentally different.17 More than three centuries ago, Baruch Spinoza pointed out that the human mind cannot suspend disbelief in the truth or falsity of a state.ment and leave it hanging in logical limbo awaiting a “true” or “false” tag to be hung on it.18 To hear or read a statement is to believe it, at least for a moment. For us to conclude that something is not the case, we must take the extra cognitive step of pinning the mental tag “false” on a proposition. Any statement that is untagged is treated as if it is true. As a result, when we have a lot on our minds, we can get confused about where the “false” tag belongs, or can forget it entirely. In that case what is merely mentioned can become true. Richard Nixon did not allay suspicions about his character when he declared, “I am not a crook,” nor did Bill Clinton put rumors to rest when he said, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” Experiments have shown that when jurors are told to disregard the witness’s remarks, they never do, any more than you can follow the instruction “For the next minute, try not to think about a white bear.”19 The cognitive difference between believing that a proposition is true (which requires no work beyond understanding it) and believing that it is false (which requires adding and remembering a mental tag) has enormous implications for a writer. The most obvious is that a negative statement such as The king is not dead is harder on the reader than an affirmative one like The king is alive.20 Every negation requires mental homework, and when a sentence contains many of them the reader can be overwhelmed. Even worse, a sentence can have more negations than you think it does. Not all negation words begin with n; many have the concept of negation tucked inside them, such as few, little, least, seldom, though, rarely, instead, doubt, deny, refute, avoid, and ignore.21 The use of multiple negations in a sentence (like the ones on the left below) is arduous at best and bewildering at worst:

According to the latest annual report According to the latest annual report on violence, Sub-Saharan Africa for on violence, Sub-Saharan Africa for the first time is not the world’s least the first time is not the world’s most peaceful region. violent region. The experimenters found, though, that The experimenters predicted that the the infants did not respond as infants would look longer at the ball if predicted to the appearance of the it had been swapped with another ball, but instead did not look object than if it had been there all significantly longer than they did along. In fact, the infants looked at the when the objects were not swapped. balls the same amount of time in each case. The three-judge panel issued a ruling The three-judge panel issued a ruling lifting the stay on a district judge’s that allows same-sex marriages to take injunction to not enforce the ban on place. There had been a ban on such same-sex marriages. marriages, and a district judge had issued an injunction not to enforce it, but a stay had been placed on that injunction. Today the panel lifted the stay. As the Duchess in Alice in Wonderland explained, “The moral of that is—‘Be what you would seem to be’—or, if you’d like it put more simply—‘Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise.’” It’s not just readers who are confused by negations. Writers them.selves can lose track and put too many of them into a word or sentence, making it mean the opposite of what they intended. The linguist Mark Liberman calls them misnegations, and points out that “they’re easy to fail to miss”:22 After a couple of days in Surry County, I found myself no less closer

to unraveling the riddle. No head injury is too trivial to ignore. It is difficult to underestimate Paul Fussell’s influence. Patty looked for an extension cord from one of the many still unpacked boxes. You’ll have to unpeel those shrimp yourself. Can you help me unloosen this lid? The difficulty posed by negations has long been noted in style manuals. Dave Barry’s “Ask Mr. Language Person” satirized their typical advisory: writing tip for professionals: To make your writing more appealing to the reader, avoid “writing negatively.” Use positive expressions instead. wrong: “Do not use this appliance in the bathtub.” right: “Go ahead and use this appliance in the bathtub.” The satire makes a serious point. Like most advice on style that is couched as a commandment rather than an explanation, the flat direc.tive to avoid negations is almost useless. As Mr. Language Person implies, sometimes a writer really does need to express a negation. How long could you go in a day without using the words no and not? The sarcas.tic question “What part of ‘no’ don’t you understand?” reminds us that negation is perfectly easy for people to handle in everyday speech. Why should it be so hard in writing? The answer is that negation is easy to understand when the propo.sition being negated is plausible or tempting.23 Compare the negations The sentences in the left-hand column all deny a proposition that it would be reasonable for readers to entertain. A whale looks like a big fish; Obama has been the subject of rumors about his religion; Nabokov was denied the Nobel Prize in Literature that many critics thought he deserved. Experiments have shown that statements like the ones in the left column, which deny a plausible belief, are easier to understand than statements in the right column, which deny an implausible belief. The first reaction to reading a sentence on the right is, “Who would ever have thought it was?” (Or she was? Or he did?) Negative sentences are easy when the reader already has an affirmative in mind or can create one on short notice; all he has to do is pin a “false” tag onto it. But concocting a statement that you have trouble believing in the first place (such as “A herring is a mammal”), and then negating it, requires two bouts of cognitive heavy lifting rather than one. in these two columns:
A whale is not a fish. A herring is not a mammal.
Barack Obama is not a Muslim. Hillary Clinton is not a Muslim.
Vladimir Nabokov never won a Nobel Vladimir Nabokov never won an
Prize. Oscar.

And now we see why the opening to A History of Warfare is so puz.zling. Keegan began by denying a proposition that was not particularly compelling to the reader in the first place (and which became no more compelling upon further explanation). The same is true for the two baffling sentences I used on page 140, the ones about moderate drink.ers and Serbian intervention. In all these cases, the reader is apt to think, “Who ever thought it was?” When an author has to negate something that a reader doesn’t already believe, she has to set it up as a plausible belief on his mental stage before she knocks it down. Or, to put it more positively, when a writer wants to negate an unfamiliar proposition, she should unveil the negation in two stages: 1. You might think . . .

But no.

That’s what I did in repairing the sentences on page 141. The other feature of negation that Keegan mishandled is making the negation unambiguous, which requires nailing down two things: its scope and its focus.24 The scope of a logical operator such as not, all, or some consists of the exact proposition it pertains to. When the Boston–New York train arrives at smaller stations along the route, the conductor announces, “All doors will not open.” I momentarily panic, thinking that we’re trapped. Of course what he means is that not all doors will open. In the intended reading, the negation operator not has scope over the universally quantified proposition “All doors will open.” The conductor means, “It is not the case that [all doors will open].” In the unintended reading, the universal quantifier all has scope over the negated proposition “Doors will not open.” Claustrophobic passengers hear it as “For all doors, it is the case that [the door will not open].”

The conductor is not making a grammatical error. It’s common in colloquial English for a logical word like all, not, or only to cling to the left of the verb even when its scope encompasses a different phrase.25 In the train announcement, the not has no logical business being next to open; its logical scope is All doors will open, so it really belongs out.side the clause, before All. But English is more flexible than what a logician would have designed, and the context generally makes it clear what the speaker means. (No one on the train but me seemed in any way alarmed.) Similarly, a logician might say that the song “I Only Have Eyes for You” should be retitled “I Have Eyes for Only You,” because the singer has more than just eyes, and he uses those eyes for more than ogling someone; it’s just that when he does ogle someone with those eyes, it’s you he ogles. Likewise, the logician would argue, You only live once should be rewritten as You live only once, with only next to the thing it quantifies, once. This logician would be unbearably pedantic, but there is a grain of good taste in the pedantry. Writing is often clearer and more elegant when a writer pushes an only or a not next to the thing that it quanti.fies. In 1962 John F. Kennedy declared, “We choose to go to the moon not because it is easy but because it is hard.”26 That sounds a lot classier than “We don’t choose to go to the moon because it is easy but because it is hard.” Not only is it classier; it’s clearer. Whenever a sentence has a not and a because, and the not remains stuck to the auxiliary verb, readers may be left in the dark about the scope of the negation and hence about what the sentence means. Suppose that Kennedy had said, “We don’t choose to go to the moon because it is easy.” Listeners would not have known whether Kennedy was choosing to scuttle the moon program (because it was too easy) or whether he was choosing to go ahead with the moon program (but for some reason other than how easy it was). Pushing the not next to the phrase it negates eliminates the scope ambiguity. Here’s a rule: Never write a sentence of the form “X not Y because Z,” such as Dave is not evil because he did what he was told. It should be either Dave is not evil, because he did what he was told, where the comma keeps the because outside the scope of the not, or Dave is evil not because he did what he was told (but for some other reason), where the because occurs next to the not, indicating that it is within its scope.

When a negative element has wide scope (that is, when it applies to the whole clause), it is not literally ambiguous, but it can be madden.ingly vague. The vagueness lies in the focus of the negation—which phrase the writer had in mind as falsifying the whole sentence. Take the sentence I didn’t see a man in a gray flannel suit. It could mean: I didn’t see him; Amy did. I didn’t see him; you just thought I did. I didn’t see him; I was looking away. I didn’t see him; I saw a different man. I didn’t see a man in a gray suit; it was a woman. I didn’t see a man in a gray flannel suit; it was brown. I didn’t see a man in a gray flannel suit; it was polyester. I didn’t see a man in a gray flannel suit; he was wearing a kilt. In conversation, we can stress the phrase we wish to deny, and in writ.ing we can use italics to do the same thing. More often, the context makes it clear which affirmative statement was plausible in the first place, and hence which one the writer is going to the trouble of deny.ing. But if the subject matter is unfamiliar and has many parts, and if the writer doesn’t set the reader up by focusing on one of those parts as a fact worth taking seriously, the reader may not know what he should

no longer be thinking. That is the problem with Keegan’s puzzling speculation about the multipart thought that Clausewitz and Aris. totle dared not confront, that man is a thinking animal in whom the intellect directs the urge to hunt and the ability to kill: were they spooked by the possibility that man thinks, that he’s an animal, or that he thinks about hunting and killing? Now let’s give Keegan a chance to explain the thought. He does so in the book’s second paragraph, which I’ll use to illustrate, by its absence, another principle of coherence—a sense of proportion: This is not an idea any easier for modern man to confront than it was for a Prussian officer, born the grandson of a clergyman and raised in the spirit of the eighteenth-century Enlightenment. For all the effect that Freud, Jung and Adler have had on our outlook, our moral values remain those of the great monotheistic religions, which condemn the killing of fellow souls in all but the most con.strained circumstances. Anthropology tells us and archaeology implies that our uncivilised ancestors could be red in tooth and claw; psychoanalysis seeks to persuade us that the savage in all of us lurks not far below the skin. We prefer, none the less, to recognise human nature as we find it displayed in the everyday behaviour of the civilised majority in modern life—imperfect, no doubt, but certainly cooperative and frequently benevolent. Culture to us seems the great determinant of how human beings conduct them.selves; in the relentless academic debate between “nature and nur.ture,” it is the “nurture” school which commands greater support from the bystanders. We are cultural animals and it is the rich.ness of our culture which allows us to accept our undoubted potentiality for violence but to believe nevertheless that its expres.sion is a cultural aberration. History lessons remind us that the states in which we live, their institutions, even their laws, have come to us through conflict, often of the most bloodthirsty sort. Our daily diet of news brings us reports of the shedding of blood, often in regions quite close to our homelands, in circumstances that deny our conception of cultural normality altogether. We succeed, all the same, in consigning the lessons both of history and of reportage to a special and separate category of “otherness” which invalidate our expectations of how our own world will be tomorrow and the day after not at all. Our institutions and our laws, we tell ourselves, have set the human potentiality for vio.lence about with such restraints that violence in everyday life will be punished as criminal by our laws, while its use by our institu.tions of state will take the particular form of “civilised warfare.”27

I think I see what Keegan is getting at—humans have innate impulses toward violence, yet today we try to deny it—but the momentum of his presentation pushes in the other direction. Most of this passage says the opposite: that we couldn’t help but be aware of humanity’s dark side. Keegan loads us up with reminders of the dark side, including Freud, Jung, Adler, anthropology, archaeology, psychoanalysis, the sav.age in all of us, our undoubted potentiality for violence, history lessons about conflict, bloodthirsty violence, our daily diet of news, reports of the shedding of blood, the human potentiality for violence, and vio.lence in everyday life. The reader starts to think, Who is this “we” who fail to appreciate them? The problem here is a lack of balance, of proportionality. An impor.tant principle in composition is that the amount of verbiage one devotes to a point should not be too far out of line with how central it is to the argument. If a writer believes that 90 percent of the evidence and argu.ment supports a position, then something like 90 percent of the discus.sion should be devoted to the reasons for believing it. If a reader is spending only 10 percent of his time on why it’s a good idea, and fully 90 percent on why he might reasonably think it’s a bad idea—while the writer insists all along that it really is a good idea—then the reader’s mounting impressions will be at cross-purposes with the author’s intent. The author then must furiously try to minimize what she has been saying, which only arouses the reader’s suspicions. Keegan tries to dig himself out from under his own heap of counterevidence by repeatedly issuing pronouncements about what an unidentified “we” stubbornly and defensively believe—which only prompts the reader to think, “Speak for yourself!” The reader gets the feeling that he’s being bullied rather than persuaded.

Of course, responsible writers have to deal with counterarguments and counterevidence. But if there are enough of them to merit an extended discussion, they deserve a section of their own, whose stated point is to examine the contrary position. A fair-minded examination of the counterevidence can then occupy as much space as it needs, because its bulk will reflect its importance within that section. This divide-and-conquer strategy is better than repeatedly allowing coun.terexamples to intrude into the main line of an argument while brow.beating readers into looking away. After a page-long digression on pacifism, Christianity, and the Roman Empire, Keegan returns to what is wrong with Clausewitz’s dictum and with the modern understanding of war it captures. The passage will help us appreciate a third principle of text-wide coherence: [Clausewitz’s dictum] certainly distinguished sharply between the lawful bearer of arms and the rebel, the freebooter and the brigand. It presupposed a high level of military discipline and an awesome degree of obedience by subordinates to their lawful superiors. . . . It assumed that wars had a beginning and an end. What it made no allowance for at all was war without beginning or end, the endemic warfare of non-state, even pre-state peoples, in which there was no distinction between lawful and unlawful bearers of arms, since all males were warriors; a form of warfare which had prevailed during long periods of human history and which, at the margins, still encroached on the life of civilised states and was, indeed, turned to their use through the common practice of recruiting its practitioners as “irregular” light cavalry and infantrymen. . . . During the eighteenth century the expansion of such forces—Cossacks, “hunters,” Highlanders, “borderers,” Hussars—had been one of the most noted contemporary military developments. Over their habits of loot, pillage, rape, murder, kid.nap, extortion and systematic vandalism their civilised employers chose to draw a veil.28

This is all quite fascinating, but over the next six pages the paragraphs jump around between descriptions of the Cossacks’ way of war and still more exegesis of Clausewitz. Like the “we” of the second para.graph, who supposedly see plenty of violence while denying its impor.tance, the hapless “Clausewitz” character in this narrative shows plenty of awareness of the Cossacks’ cruel and cowardly ways, but, according to Keegan, he still failed to come to grips with them. Once again the bulk of the verbiage pushes in one direction while the content of the author’s argument pushes in the other. Keegan concludes the section: It is at the cultural level that Clausewitz’s answer to his ques.tion, What is war?, is defective. . . . Clausewitz was a man of his times, a child of the Enlightenment, a contemporary of the Ger.man Romantics, an intellectual, a practical reformer. . . . Had his mind been furnished with just one extra intellectual dimension . . . he might have been able to perceive that war embraces much more than politics: that it is always an expression of culture, often a determinant of cultural forms, in some societies the culture itself.29 Now, wait a minute! Didn’t Keegan tell us in the second paragraph that the problem with Clausewitz and his heirs is that they all put too much stock in culture? Didn’t he say that it’s our culture which allows us to believe that violence is an aberration, and that the primitive war.fare we choose to ignore is a manifestation of nature, biology, and instinct? Then how can Clausewitz’s problem be that he didn’t put enough stock in culture? For that matter, how can Clausewitz be a prod.uct both of the Enlightenment and of the German Romantic movement, which arose in reaction to the Enlightenment? And while we’re at it, how can his being the grandson of a clergyman, and our moral values being those of the monotheistic religions, be reconciled with all of us being children of the Enlightenment, which opposed the monotheistic religions?

To be fair to Keegan, after reading his book I don’t think he is quite as confused as the first few pages suggest. If you put aside the slaphappy allusions to grand intellectual movements, you can see that he does have a point, namely that the disciplined warfare of modern states is a departure from the opportunistic rapacity of traditional tribes, that traditional warfare has always been more common, and that it has never gone away. Keegan’s problem is that he flouts another principle of coherence in writing, the last one we will visit in this chapter. Joseph Williams refers to the principle as consistent thematic strings, thematic consistency for short.30 A writer, after laying out her topic, will introduce a large number of concepts which explain, enrich, or comment on that topic. These concepts will center on a number of themes which make repeated appearances in the discussion. To keep the text coherent, the writer must allow the reader to keep track of these themes by referring to each in a consistent way or by explaining their connection. We looked at a version of this principle when we saw that to help the reader keep track of a single entity across multiple men.tions, a writer should not flip-flop between unnecessary synonyms. Now we can generalize the principle to sets of related concepts, that is, to themes. The writer should refer to each theme in a consistent way, one that allows the reader to know which is which. Here, then, is the problem. Keegan’s topic is the history of warfare— that part is clear enough. His themes are the primitive form of warfare and the modern form of warfare. But he discusses the two themes by traipsing among a set of concepts that are only loosely related to the theme and to one another, each in a way that caught Keegan’s eye but that is obscure to the whipsawed reader. With the benefit of hind.sight, we can see that the concepts fall into two loose clusters, each corresponding to one of Keegan’s themes:

Clausewitz, modern warfare, states, Primitive warfare, tribes, clans,
political calculations, strategy, irregulars, freebooters, brigands,
diplomacy, military discipline, Cossacks, looting and pillaging, instinct,
“we,” the intellect, Aristotle, the nature, Freud, the emphasis on instinct
pacifist aspect of monotheistic in psychoanalysis, anthropological
religions, the criminal justice evidence for violence, archaeological
system, civilized constraints on evidence for violence, conflict in history,
warfare, the intellectualizing aspect crime in the news, the ways in which
of the Enlightenment, the ways in culture encourages violence
which culture constrains violence

We can also reconstruct why each term might have reminded him of some other term. But it’s better when the common threads are made explicit, because in the vast private web of a writer’s imagination, any.thing can be similar to anything else. Jamaica is like Cuba; both are Caribbean island nations. Cuba is like China; both are led by regimes that call themselves communist. But a discussion of “countries like Jamaica and China” which fails to identify their commonality—being similar in some way to Cuba—is bound to be incoherent. How might an author have presented these themes in a more coherent way? In The Remnants of War, the political scientist John Mueller covers the same territory as Keegan and picks up where Keegan left off. He argues that modern war is becoming obsolete, leaving primitive, undisci.plined warfare as the major kind of war remaining in the world today. But Mueller’s exposition of the two themes is a model of coherence: Broadly speaking, there seem to be two methods for developing combat forces—for successfully cajoling or coercing collections of men into engaging in the violent, profane, sacrificial, uncertain, masochistic, and essentially absurd enterprise known as war. The two methods lead to two kinds of warfare, and the distinction can be an important one. Intuitively, it might seem that the easiest (and cheapest) method for recruiting combatants would be to . . . enlist those who revel in violence and routinely seek it out or who regularly employ it to enrich themselves, or both. We have in civilian life a name for such people—criminals. . . . Violent conflicts in which people like that dominate can be called criminal warfare, a form in which combatants are induced to wreak violence primarily for the fun and material profit they derive from the experience.

Criminal armies seem to arise from a couple of processes. Some.times criminals—robbers, brigands, freebooters, highwaymen, hooligans, thugs, bandits, pirates, gangsters, outlaws—organize or join together in gangs or bands or mafias. When such organiza.tions become big enough, they can look and act a lot like full-blown armies. Or criminal armies can be formed when a ruler needs combat.ants to prosecute a war and concludes that the employment or impressment of criminals and thugs is the most sensible and direct method for accomplishing this. In this case, criminals and thugs essentially act as mercenaries. It happens, however, that criminals and thugs tend to be unde.sirable warriors. . . . To begin with, they are often difficult to con.trol. They can be troublemakers: unruly, disobedient, and mutinous, often committing unauthorized crimes while on (or off) duty that can be detrimental or even destructive of the military enterprise. . . . Most importantly, criminals can be disinclined to stand and fight when things become dangerous, and they often simply de.sert when whim and opportunity coincide. Ordinary crime, after all, preys on the weak—on little old ladies rather than on husky athletes—and criminals often make willing and able executioners of defenseless people. However, if the cops show up they are given to flight. The motto for the criminal, after all, is not a variation of “Semper fi,” “All for one and one for all,” “Duty, honor, country,” “Banzai,” or “Remember Pearl Harbor,” but “Take the money and run.”. . . These problems with the employment of criminals as combat.ants have historically led to efforts to recruit ordinary men as combatants—people who, unlike criminals and thugs, commit violence at no other time in their lives. . . .

The result has been the development of disciplined warfare in which men primarily inflict violence not for fun and profit but because their training and indoctrination have instilled in them a need to follow orders; to observe a carefully contrived and tenden.tious code of honor; to seek glory and reputation in combat; to love, honor, or fear their officers; to believe in a cause; to fear the shame, humiliation, or costs of surrender; or, in particular, to be loyal to, and to deserve the loyalty of, their fellow combatants.31 There’s no mistaking what the themes of Mueller’s discussion are; he tells us in so many words. One of them he calls criminal warfare, and he then explores it in five consecutive paragraphs. He starts by reminding us what a criminal is, and explaining how criminal warfare works. The next two paragraphs elaborate on each of the ways in which criminal armies may form, and the two after that explain the two prob.lems that criminal armies pose for their leaders, one problem per para.graph. These problems naturally lead Mueller to his second theme, disciplined warfare, and he explains that theme in the two consecutive paragraphs. The discussion of each theme coheres not just because it is localized in a string of consecutive paragraphs but because it refers to the theme using a set of transparently related terms. In one thematic string we have terms like criminals, criminal warfare, crime, fun, profit, gangs, mafias, thugs, mercenaries, troublemakers, preys on the weak, execu.tioners, violence, desertion, flight, whim, opportunity, and run. In the other we have ordinary men, training, indoctrination, honor, glory, rep.utation, shame, loyalty, code, and believe in a cause. We don’t have to puzzle over what the words in each cluster have to do with one another, as we did for Keegan’s Clausewitz, culture, states, policy, Enlightenment, political animal, criminal justice, monotheistic religions, Aristotle, and so on. The threads that connect them are obvious. The thematic coherence in Mueller’s exposition is a happy conse.quence of his use of classic style, particularly the imperative to show rather than tell. As soon as we see the thugs preying on little old ladies and fleeing when the cops show up, we appreciate how an army com.posed of such men would operate. We also see how the leader of a mod.ern state would seek a more reliable way to deploy muscle to advance its interests, namely by developing a well-trained modern army. We can even understand how, for these modern states, war can become the continuation of policy by other means.

In all of my previous examples of bad writing I picked on easy marks: deadline-pressured journalists, stuffy academics, corporate hacks, the occasional inexperienced student. How could a seasoned author like John Keegan, a man who shows frequent flashes of writerly flair, serve as a model of incoherent writing, comparing badly with a guy who sells birdseed on Cape Cod? Part of the answer is that male readers will put up with a lot in a book called A History of Warfare. But most of the problem comes from the very expertise that made Keegan so qualified to write his books. Immersed as he was in the study of war, he became a victim of professional narcissism, and was apt to confuse the History of Warfare with the History of a Man in My Field Who Gets Quoted a Lot about Warfare. And after a lifetime of scholarship he was so laden with erudition that his ideas came avalanching down faster than he could organize them. There is a big difference between a coherent passage of writing and a flaunting of one’s erudition, a running journal of one’s thoughts, or a published version of one’s notes. A coherent text is a designed object: an ordered tree of sections within sections, crisscrossed by arcs that track topics, points, actors, and themes, and held together by connec.tors that tie one proposition to the next. Like other designed objects, it comes about not by accident but by drafting a blueprint, attending to details, and maintaining a sense of harmony and balance.

Chapter 6 tellinG riGht from WronG

how to make sense of the Rules of CoRReCt gRammaR, woRd ChoiCe, and punCtuation M any people have strong opinions on the quality of language today. They write books and articles deploring it, fire off letters to the editor, and call in to radio talk shows with their criticisms and complaints. I have found that few of these objec.tions single out clarity or grace or coherence. Their concern is correct usage—rules of proper English such as these: • The word less may not be used for countable items, as in the sign over the supermarket express lane which restricts customers to Ten Items or Less; the sign should read Ten Items or Fewer.

• A modifier may not contain a dangling participle, such as Lying in bed, everything seemed so different, where the implicit subject of the participle lying (I) is different from the subject of the main clause (everything).

• The verb aggravate does not mean “annoy”; it means “make worse.”

The purists who call out these errors see them as symptomatic of a decline in the quality of communication and reasoning in our culture today. As one columnist put it, “I’m concerned about a country that’s not quite sure what it’s saying and doesn’t seem to care.”

It’s not hard to see how these worries arose. There is a kind of writer who makes issues of usage impossible to ignore. These writers are in.curious about the logic and history of the English language and the ways in which it has been used by its exemplary stylists. They have a tin ear for its nuances of meaning and emphasis. Too lazy to crack open a dictio.nary, they are led by gut feeling and intuition rather than attention to careful scholarship. For these writers, language is not a vehicle for clarity and grace but a way to signal their membership in a social clique. Who are these writers? You might think I’m referring to Twittering teenagers or Facebooking freshmen. But the writers I have in mind are the purists—also known as sticklers, pedants, peevers, snobs, snoots, nit.pickers, traditionalists, language police, usage nannies, grammar Nazis, and the Gotcha! Gang. In their zeal to purify usage and safeguard the language, they have made it difficult to think clearly about felicity in expression and have muddied the task of explaining the art of writing. The goal of this chapter is to allow you to reason your way to avoid.ing the major errors of grammar, word choice, and punctuation. In announcing this goal shortly after making fun of the language police, I might seem to be contradicting myself. If this is your reaction, you are a victim of the confusion sown by the sticklers. The idea that there are exactly two approaches to usage—all the traditional rules must be fol.lowed, or else anything goes—is the sticklers’ founding myth. The first step in mastering usage is to understand why the myth is wrong. The myth goes like this: Once upon a time, people cared about using language properly. They consulted dictionaries to look up correct information about word meanings and grammatical constructions. The makers of these dictionaries were Prescriptivists: they prescribed correct usage. Prescriptivists uphold standards of excellence and a respect for the best of our civilization, and are a bulwark against relativ. ism, vulgar populism, and the dumbing down of literate culture. In the 1960s an opposing school emerged, inspired by academic linguistics and theories of progressive education. The ringleaders of this school are Descriptivists: they describe how language actu.ally is used rather than prescribing how it ought to be used. Descriptivists believe that the rules of correct usage are nothing more than the secret handshake of the ruling class, designed to keep the masses in their place. Language is an organic product of human creativity, say the Descriptivists, and people should be allowed to write however they please.

The Descriptivists are hypocrites: they adhere to standards of correct usage in their own writing but discourage the teaching and dissemination of those standards to others, thereby denying the possibility of social advancement to the less privileged. The Descriptivists had their way with the publication of Web.ster’s Third New International Dictionary in 1961, which accepted such errors as ain’t and irregardless. This created a backlash that led to Prescriptivist dictionaries such as The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Ever since then, Prescriptiv.ists and Descriptivists have been doing battle over whether writ.ers should care about correctness. What’s wrong with this fairy tale? Pretty much everything. Let’s begin with the very idea of objective correctness in language. What does it mean to say that it is incorrect to end a sentence with a preposition, or to use decimate to mean “destroy most of” rather than “destroy a tenth of”? After all, these are not logical truths that one could prove like theorems, nor are they scientific discoveries one could make in the lab. And they are certainly not the stipulations of some governing body, like the rules of Major League Baseball. Many people assume that there is such a governing body, namely the makers of dic.tionaries, but as chair of the Usage Panel of the famously prescriptive American Heritage Dictionary (AHD), I am here to tell you that this assumption is false. When I asked the editor of the dictionary how he and his colleagues decide what goes into it, he replied, “We pay atten.tion to the way people use language.” That’s right: when it comes to correct English, there’s no one in charge; the lunatics are running the asylum. The editors of a dictionary read a lot, keeping their eyes open for new words and senses that are used by many writers in many contexts, and the editors add or change the definitions accordingly. Purists are often offended when they learn that this is how dictionaries are written. In his famous 1962 smack-down of Webster’s Third, the literary critic Dwight Macdonald declared that even if nine-tenths of English speakers were to use a word incor.rectly (say, nauseous meaning “nauseated” rather than “nauseating”), the remaining tenth would be correct (he did not say by what criterion or on whose authority), and the dictionaries should back them up.1 But no lexicographer could carry out Macdonald’s mandate. A dictionary that instructed its users to write in a way that guaranteed they would be misunderstood would be as useless as the Hungarian–English phrasebook in the Monty Python sketch which translated “Can you direct me to the train station?” as Please fondle my buttocks.

At the same time, there is something that is objectively true about usage. We can all agree that George W. Bush spoke incorrectly when he asked, “Is our children learning?”—and when he used inebriating to mean “exhilarating,” referred to the citizens of Greece as “Grecians,” and lamented policies that “vulcanize” (rather than Balkanize) society. Even Bush, in a self-deprecating speech, agreed that these were errors.2 So how can we reconcile the conviction that certain usages are wrong with the absence of any authority that ever decided what was right? The key is to recognize that the rules of usage are tacit conven.tions. A convention is an agreement among the members of a commu.nity to abide by a single way of doing things. There need not be any inherent advantage to which choice is made, but there is an advantage to everyone making the same choice. Familiar examples include stan.dardized weights and measures, electrical voltages and cables, computer file formats, and paper currency. The conventions of written prose represent a similar standardiza.tion. Countless idioms, word senses, and grammatical constructions have been coined and circulated by the universe of English speakers. Linguists capture their regularities in “descriptive rules”—that is, rules that describe how people speak and understand. Here are a few of them:

• The subject of a tensed verb must be in nominative case, such as I, he, she, and they.

• The first-person singular form of the verb be is am.

• The verb vulcanize means “to strengthen a material such as rubber by combining it with sulfur and then applying heat and pressure.”

Many of these rules have become entrenched in a vast community of English speakers, who respect the rules without ever having to think about them. That’s why we laugh at Cookie Monster, LOLcats, and George W. Bush. A subset of these conventions are less widespread and natural, but they have become accepted by a smaller virtual community of literate speakers for use in public forums such as government, journalism, literature, business, and academia. These conventions are “prescrip.tive rules”—rules that prescribe how one ought to speak and write in these forums. Unlike the descriptive rules, many of the prescriptive rules have to be stated explicitly, because they are not second nature to most writers: the rules may not apply in the spoken vernacular, or they may be difficult to implement in complicated sentences which tax the writer’s memory (chapter 4). Examples include the rules that govern punctuation, complex forms of agreement, and fine semantic distinc.tions between uncommon words like militate and mitigate and credible and credulous. What this means is that there is no such thing as a “language war” between Prescriptivists and Descriptivists. The alleged controversy is as bogus as other catchy dichotomies such as nature versus nurture and America: Love It or Leave It. It is true that descriptive and prescriptive rules are different kinds of things and that descriptive and prescriptive grammarians are engaged in different kinds of activities. But it’s not true that if one kind of grammarian is right then the other kind of grammarian is wrong.

Once again I can write from authority. I am, among other things, a descriptive linguist: a card-carrying member of the Linguistic Society of America who has written many articles and books on how people use their mother tongue, including words and constructions that are frowned upon by the purists. But the book you are holding is avowedly prescriptivist: it consists of several hundred pages in which I am bossing you around. While I am fascinated by the linguistic exuberance of the vox populi, I’d be the first to argue that having prescriptive rules is desirable, indeed indispensable, in many arenas of writing. They can lubricate comprehension, reduce misunderstanding, provide a stable platform for the development of style and grace, and signal that a writer has exercised care in crafting a passage. Once you understand that prescriptive rules are the conventions of a specialized form of the language, most of the iptivist controversies evaporate. One of them surrounds the linguist’s defense of nonstan.dard forms like ain’t, brang, and can’t get no (the so-called double neg.ative) against the common accusation that they are products of laziness or illogic (an accusation that easily mixes with racism or class preju.dice). History tells us that the reason that standard English prefers the alternatives isn’t, brought, and can’t get any is not that the two versions were ever weighed on their merits and the standard forms discovered to be superior. No, they are just frozen historical accidents: the “cor.rect” forms are those that happened to be used in the dialect spoken in the region around London when written English first became stan.dardized several centuries ago. If history had unfolded differently, today’s correct forms could have been incorrect, and vice versa. The London dialect became the standard of education, government, and business, and it was also the dialect of better-educated and more afflu.ent speakers throughout the Anglosphere. Double negatives, ain’t, and other nonstandard forms soon became stigmatized by their associa.tion with the less prestigious dialects of English used by its poorer and less educated speakers. But the claim that there is nothing inherently wrong with ain’t (which is true) should not be confused with the claim that ain’t is one of the conventions of standard written English (which is obviously false). This distinction is lost on the purists, who worry that if we point out that people who say ain’t or He be working or ax a question are not lazy or careless, then we have no grounds for advising students and writers to avoid them in their prose. So here is an analogy. In the United Kingdom, everyone drives on the left, and there is nothing inherently wrong with that convention; it is in no way sinister, gauche, or socialist. Nonetheless, we have an excellent reason to encourage a person in the United States to drive on the right. There is a joke about a commuter who’s on his way to work when he gets a call on his mobile phone from his wife. “Be careful, honey,” she says. “They just said on the radio that there’s a maniac driving on the wrong side of the freeway.” “One maniac?” he replies; “There are thousands of them!”

And not even the supposedly descriptivist dictionaries leave their users in doubt as to what the standard forms are. The endlessly repeated claim that Webster’s Third treated ain’t as correct English is a myth.3 It originated in a press release from the publisher’s marketing depart.ment which announced “Ain’t gets official recognition at last.” The dic.tionary, quite reasonably, contained an entry in which people could learn about the word, including, of course, the fact that many speakers disapprove of it. Journalists misinterpreted the press release as saying that the dictionary listed ain’t without comment. Another firestorm can be extinguished by recalling that the conventions of usage are tacit. The rules of standard English are not legislated by a tribunal of lexicographers but emerge as an implicit con.sensus within a virtual community of writers, readers, and editors. That consensus can change over the years in a process as unplanned and uncontrollable as the vagaries of fashion. No official ever decided that respectable men and women were permitted to doff their hats and gloves in the 1960s or to get pierced and tattooed in the 1990s. Nor could any authority with powers short of Mao Zedong have stopped them. In a similar manner, centuries of respectable writers have grad.ually shifted the collective consensus of what is right and wrong while shrugging off now-forgotten edicts by self-appointed guardians of the language. The nineteenth-century prescriptivist Richard White had no luck banning standpoint and washtub, nor did his contemporary Wil.liam Cullen Bryant succeed in outlawing commence, compete, lengthy, and leniency. And we all know how successful Strunk and White were in forbidding to personalize, to contact, and six people. Lexicographers have always understood this. In resigning themselves to the role of chronicling ever-changing usage, they are acknowledging the wisdom of Thomas Carlyle’s famous reply to Margaret Fuller’s statement “I accept the universe”: “Gad! She’d better.”

Although lexicographers have neither the desire nor the power to prevent linguistic conventions from changing, this does not mean, as purists fear, that they cannot state the conventions in force at a given time. That is the rationale behind the American Heritage Dictionary’s Usage Panel: two hundred authors, journalists, editors, scholars, and other public figures whose writing shows that they choose their words with care. Every year they fill out questionnaires on pronunciation, meaning, and usage, and the dictionary reports the results in usage notes attached to entries for problematic words. The Usage Panel is intended to be a sample of the virtual community for whom careful writers write. When it comes to best practices in usage, there is no higher authority. The powerlessness of dictionaries to enforce the prescriptivists’ dream of preventing linguistic change does not mean that the dictio.naries are doomed to preside over a race to the bottom. Macdonald titled his 1962 review of Webster’s Third “The String Untuned,” an allu.sion to the calamitous violation of the natural order that Ulysses fore.saw in Shakespeare’s Troilus and Cressida: “The bounded waters should lift their bosoms higher than the shores and make a sop of all this solid globe. Strength should be lord of imbecility and the rude son should strike his father dead.” As an example of the cataclysm that would result from Webster’s untuning of the string, Macdonald wor.ried that the dictionaries of 1988 would list without comment the sole.cisms mischievious, inviduous, and nuclear pronounced as “nucular.” Here we are more than a quarter-century after the prophesied date and more than a half-century after the prediction, and we can check to see what happened. A peek at the entries for these words in any dictionary will show that Macdonald was wrong about the inevitable degenera.tion of a language that is not policed by lexicographers. And though I can’t prove it, I suspect that even if the dictionaries had approved mis.chievious, inviduous, and “nucular,” the bounded waters would not have lifted their bosoms higher than the shores, nor would rude sons have struck their fathers dead.

And now we come to the most bogus controversy of all. The fact that many prescriptive rules are worth keeping does not mean that every pet peeve, bit of grammatical folklore, or dimly remembered les.son from Miss Thistlebottom’s classroom is worth keeping. As we shall see, many prescriptive rules originated for screwball reasons, impede clear and graceful prose, and have been flouted by the best writers for centuries. Phony rules, which proliferate like urban legends and are just as hard to eradicate, are responsible for vast amounts of ham-fisted copyediting and smarty-pants one-upmanship. Yet when language scholars try to debunk the spurious rules, the dichotomizing mindset imagines that they are trying to abolish all standards of good writing. It is as if anyone who proposed repealing a stupid law, like the one forbid.ding interracial marriage, must be a black-cloaked, bomb-clutching anarchist. Experts on usage (not to be confused with the purists, who are often ignoramuses) call these phony rules fetishes, folklore, hobgoblins, superstitions, shibboleths, or (my favorite) bubbe meises, Yiddish for “grandmothers’ tales.” (Each word has two syllables; the u is pro.nounced like the vowel sound in “book,” the ei like that of “mice.”) Linguistic bubbe meises arise from a number of sources. Some of them originated in the first English writing guides published in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and have been handed down in an oral tradition ever since.4 In those days Latin was considered the ideal language for the expression of thought. Guides to English gram.mar were written as pedagogical steppingstones to mastery of Latin grammar, and they tried to shoehorn English constructions into the categories designed for Latin. Many perfectly good English construc.tions were stigmatized because they had no counterparts in the lan.guage of Lucretius and Cicero.

Other hobgoblins were the brainchildren of self-proclaimed experts who cooked up idiosyncratic theories of how language ought to behave, usually with a puritanical undercurrent in which people’s natural inclinations must be a form of dissoluteness. According to one of these theories, Greek and Latin forms must never be combined, so automo.bile should have been either autokinetikon or ipsomobile, and bigamy, electrocution, homosexual, and sociology were abominations (the words, that is). According to another theory, words may never be derived by back-formation, that is, by extracting a piece of a complex word and using it on its own, as in the recent verbs commentate, coronate, incent, and surveil, and the slightly older ones intuit and enthuse. Unfortu.nately, this theory would also retroactively outlaw choreograph, diag.nose, resurrect, edit, sculpt, sleepwalk, and hundreds of other verbs that have become completely unexceptionable. Many purists maintain that the only correct sense of a word is the original one. That’s why they insist, for example, that transpire can only mean “become known,” not “take place” (since it initially meant “release vapor,” from the Latin spirare, “breathe”), and that decimate can only mean “killing one in ten” (since it originally described the execution of every tenth soldier in a mutinous Roman legion). The misconception is so common that it has been given a name: the etymological fallacy. It can be debunked with a glance at any page of a historical reference book, such as the Oxford English Dictionary, which will show that very few words retain their original senses. Deprecate used to mean “ward off by prayer,” meticulous once meant “timid,” and silly went from “blessed” to “pious” to “innocent” to “pitiable” to “feeble” to today’s “foolish.” And as Kory Stamper, an editor at Merriam-Webster, has pointed out, if you insist that decimate be used only with its original meaning, “kill one in ten,” shouldn’t you also insist that December be used with its original meaning, “the tenth month in the calendar”? The last refuge of the stickler is the claim that proper usages are more logical than the alternatives. As we shall see, the claim gets it backwards. Many of the commonest usage errors are the result of writ.ers thinking logically when they should be mindlessly conforming to convention. Writers who spell lose as loose (which would make it follow the pattern in choose), who punctuate the possessive of it as it’s (just as we punctuate the possessive of Pat as Pat’s), or who use enormity to mean “the quality of being enormous” (just as we use hilarity to mean the quality of being hilarious) are not being illogical. They are being too logical, while betraying their lack of familiarity with the conven.tions of the printed page. This may be grounds for suspicion by the reader and a prod to self-improvement for the writer, but it is not a failure of consistency or logic.

And this brings us to the reasons to obey some prescriptive rules (the ones accepted by good writers, as opposed to the phony ones that good writers have always ignored). One is to provide grounds for con.fidence that the writer has a history of reading edited English and has given it his full attention. Another is to enforce grammatical consist.ency: to implement rules, such as agreement, that everyone respects but that may be hard to keep track of when the sentence gets compli.cated (see chapter 4). The use of consistent grammar reassures a reader that the writer has exercised care in constructing his prose, which in turn increases her confidence that he has exercised care in the research and thinking behind the prose. It is also an act of courtesy, because consistent trees are easier to parse and harder to misunderstand. Still another reason to care about usage is to ratify a certain attitude to language. Careful writers and discerning readers delight in the pro.fusion of words in the English lexicon, no two of which are exact syn.onyms. Many words convey subtle shades of meaning, provide glimpses into the history of the language, conform to elegant principles of assem.bly, or enliven prose with distinctive imagery, sound, and rhythm. Careful writers pick up the nuances of words by focusing on their makeup and their contexts over the course of tens of thousands of hours of reading. Their readers’ reward consists of partaking in—and, if they themselves write, helping to preserve—this rich patrimony.

When a not-so-careful writer tries to gussy up his prose with an upmarket word that he mistakenly thinks is a synonym of a common one, like simplistic for simple or fulsome for full, his readers are likely to conclude the worst: that he has paid little attention to what he has read, is affecting an air of sophistication on the cheap, and is polluting a common resource. To be sure, the language, to say nothing of all this solid globe, will survive such lapses. Many preferred senses stand their ground over long stretches of time despite constant battering by careless writers. There is no lexicographical version of Gresham’s Law in which the bad meaning of a word always drives out the good one. The preferred sense of disinterested as “impartial,” for example, has coexisted for centuries with its frowned-upon sense as “bored.” This should not be all that surprising, because many words embrace happily coexisting senses, such as literate, which means both “able to read” and “familiar with literature,” and religious, which means both “pertaining to religion” and “obsessively thorough.” The senses are usually sorted out by the context, so both survive. A language has plenty of room for multiple meanings, including the ones that good writers hope to preserve. Still, writers will do themselves a favor, and increase the amount of pleasure in the world, if they use a word in the senses that are accepted by literate readers. This raises the question of how a careful writer can distinguish a legitimate rule of usage from a grandmother’s tale. The answer is unbelievably simple: look it up. Consult a modern usage guide or a dictionary with usage notes, such as Merriam.Webster Unabridged, American Heritage Dictionary, Encarta World English Dictionary, or Random House Dictionary (the one behind www.dictionary.com). Many people, particularly sticklers, are under the impression that every bubbe meise ever loosed on the world by a self-proclaimed purist will be backed up by the major dictionaries and manuals. In fact, these reference works, with their careful attention to history, literature, and actual usage, are the most adamant debunkers of grammatical non.sense. (This is less true of style sheets drawn up by newspapers and professional societies, and of manuals written by amateurs such as

critics and journalists, which tend to mindlessly reproduce the folklore of previous guides.)5 Take the quintessential bogus rule, the prohibition of split infinitives, according to which Captain Kirk should not have said to boldly go where no man has gone before, but rather to go boldly or boldly to go. Here’s what you will find if you look up “split infinitive” in the major guides: American Heritage Dictionary: “The only rationale for condemning the construction is based on a false analogy with Latin. . . . In gen.eral, the Usage Panel accepts the split infinitive.” Merriam.Webster Unabridged online dictionary: “Even though there has never been a rational basis for objecting to the split infinitive, the subject has become a fixture of folk belief about grammar. . . . Modern commentators . . . usually say it’s all right to split an infinitive in the interest of clarity. Since clarity is the usual reason for splitting, this advice means merely that you can split them whenever you need to.” Encarta World English Dictionary: “There is no grammatical basis for rejecting split infinitives.” Random House Dictionary: “Nothing in the history of the infinitive in English . . . supports the so-called rule, and in many sentences . . . the only natural place for the modifying adverb is between to and the verb.” Theodore Bernstein, The Careful Writer: “There is nothing wrong with splitting an infinitive . . . except that eighteenth- and nineteenth-century grammarians, for one reason or another, frowned on it.” Joseph Williams, Style: Toward Clarity and Grace: “The split infini.tive is now so common among the very best writers that when we make an effort to avoid splitting it, we invite notice, whether we intend to or not.” Roy Copperud, American Usage and Style: The Consensus: “Many writers believe they will not go to heaven if they split the infinitive. . . . 

After the folly of [the Latin-based] system of grammar was noted, English was analyzed on its own terms, and the rule against splitting infinitives went out the window. . . . The consensus of seven critics is that infinitives may be split when splitting makes the sentence read more smoothly and does not cause awkwardness.” So split if you need to (as I did in the first line on the preceding page); the experts have your back. What follows is a judicious guide to a hundred of the most common issues of grammar, diction (word choice), and punctuation. These are the ones that repeatedly turn up in style guides, pet-peeve lists, newspaper language columns, irate letters to the editor, and inventories of common errors in student papers. I will use the following criteria to distinguish the legitimate concerns of a careful writer from the folklore and super.stitions: Does the prescriptive rule merely extend the logic of an intuitive grammatical phenomenon to more complicated cases, like enforcing agreement in a sentence with a bushy tree? Do careful writers who inad.vertently flout the rule agree, when the breach is pointed out, that some.thing has gone wrong? Has the rule been respected by the best writers in the past? Is it respected by careful writers in the present? Is there a con.sensus among discerning writers that it conveys an interesting semantic distinction? And are violations of the rule obvious products of mishear.ing, careless reading, or a chintzy attempt to sound highfalutin? A rule should be blown off, in contrast, if the answer to any of the following questions is yes. Is the rule based on some crackpot theory, such as that English should emulate Latin, or that the original meaning of a word is the only correct one? Is it instantly refuted by the facts of English, such as the decree that nouns may not be converted into verbs? Did it originate with the pet peeve of a self-anointed maven? Was it routinely flouted by the great writers of the past? Is it rejected by the careful writers of the present? Is it based on a misdiagnosis of a legiti.mate problem, such as declaring that a construction which is some.times ambiguous is always ungrammatical? Do attempts to fix a sentence so that it obeys the rule only make it clumsier and less clear?

Finally, does the putative rule confuse grammar with formality? Every writer commands a range of styles that are appropriate to differ.ent times and places. A formal style that is appropriate for the inscrip.tion on a genocide memorial will differ from a casual style that is appropriate for an email to a close friend. Using an informal style when a formal style is called for results in prose that seems breezy, chatty, casual, flippant. Using a formal style when an informal style is called for results in prose that seems stuffy, pompous, affected, haughty. Both kinds of mismatch are errors. Many prescriptive guides are oblivious to this distinction, and mistake informal style for incorrect grammar. My advice will often shock purists and occasionally puzzle readers who have always been under the impression that this word meaning or that grammatical usage is an error. But the advice is thoroughly con.ventional. It combines data from the ballots given to the Usage Panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, the usage notes of several dictio.naries and style guides, the erudite historical analyses in Merriam.Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage, the meta-analysis in Roy Copperud’s American Usage and Style: The Consensus, and the view from modern linguistics represented in The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language and the blog Language Log.6 When the experts disagree, or when the examples are all over the map, I will offer my own best judgment. I divide the hundred usage issues into points of grammar, the expression of quantity and quality, word choice, and punctuation. GrAmmAr adjectives and adverbs. Every now and again a language grump com.plains that the distinction between adverbs and adjectives is disap.pearing from English. In fact, the distinction is alive and well, but it is governed by two subtleties that go beyond the vague memory that adverbs are words that modify verbs and end in –ly.7 The first subtlety is a fact about adverbs: many of them (the ones called flat adverbs) are identical to their related adjectives. You can drive fast (adverb) or drive a fast car (adjective); hit the ball hard or hit a hard ball. The list of flat adverbs differs across dialects: real pretty (as opposed to really pretty) and The house was shaken up bad (as opposed to badly) are common in nonstandard dialects of English and have made inroads into casual and folksy speech in the standard dialect. This crossover is what gave rise to the vague impression that adverbs are endangered. But the historical trend is in the opposite direction: adverbs and adjectives are more often distinguished today than they were in the past. Standard English used to have many flat adverbs that have since been separated from their adjectival twins, such as mon.strous fine (Jonathan Swift), violent hot (Daniel Defoe), and exceeding good memory (Benjamin Franklin). When today’s purists reflect on the ones that remain, like those in Drive safe, Go slow, She sure fooled me, He spelled my name wrong, and The moon is shining bright, they may hallucinate a grammatical error and promulgate prissy alternatives such as She surely fooled me and the one in this Bizarro cartoon:

The second subtlety is a fact about adjectives: they don’t just modify nouns, but can appear as complements to verbs, as in This seems excel.lent, We found it boring, and I feel tired. They can also show up as an adjunct to a verb phrase or clause, as in She died young and They showed up drunk. Recall from chapter 4 that grammatical categories like adjec.tive are not the same thing as grammatical functions like modifier and complement. People who confuse the two may think that the adjectives in these sentences “modify the verb” and hence ought to be replaced by adverbs. The result is a hypercorrection like I feel terribly (which really should be I feel terrible). The related expression I feel badly may have started out in previous generations as a hypercorrected version of I feel bad. Badly has now become an adjective in its own right, meaning “sor.rowful” or “regretful.” Thankfully, James Brown was never tempted to hypercorrect “I Got You (I Feel Good)” to “I Got You (I Feel Well).” A failure to appreciate the multiple functions of adjectives also gave rise to the false accusation that Apple made a grammatical error in its slogan Think Different. The company was right not to revise it to Think Differ.ently: the verb think can take an adjectival complement which refers to the nature of the thoughts being entertained. That is why Texans think big (not largely) and why in the musical Funny Face the advertising slogan that set off a lavish production number was Think Pink, not Think Pinkly.8 To be sure, surveys of typical errors in student papers show that inexperienced writers really do mix up adjectives and adverbs. The phrase The kids he careless fathered is just careless, and in The doctor’s wife acts irresponsible and selfish the writer stretched the ability of act to take an adjectival complement (as in act calm) further than most readers are willing to go.9 ain’t. No one needs to be reminded that ain’t is frowned upon. The prohibition has been drilled into children for so long that they have made it into a jump-rope rhyme: Don’t say ain’t or your mother will faint. Your father will fall in a bucket of paint.

Your sister will cry; your brother will die. Your dog will call the FBI. I like this poetic warning of what will happen if you violate a pre.scriptive rule better than Dwight Macdonald’s prophecy that the bounded waters will lift their bosoms higher than the shores and make a sop of all this solid globe. But both warnings are overstatements. Despite the taint of ain’t from its origin in regional and lower-class English, and more than a century of vilification by schoolteachers, today the word is going strong. It’s not that ain’t is used as a standard contraction for negated forms of be, have, and do; no writer is that oblivious. But it does have some widely established places. One is in the lyrics of popular songs, where it is a crisp and euphonious substitute for the strident and bisyllabic isn’t, hasn’t, and doesn’t, as in “It Ain’t Necessarily So,” “Ain’t She Sweet,” and “It Don’t Mean a Thing (If It Ain’t Got That Swing).” Another is in expressions that are meant to capture homespun truths, like If it ain’t broke don’t fix it, That ain’t chopped liver, and It ain’t over till it’s over. This use of ain’t may be found even in relatively formal settings to emphasize that some fact is so obvious as to be beyond further debate—as if to say, “Anyone with a lick of sense can see that.” Hilary Putnam, perhaps the most influential analytic philosopher of the second half of the twentieth century, pub.lished a famous article called “The Meaning of Meaning” in a learned academic volume. At one point he summed up his argument with “Cut the pie any way you like, ‘meanings’ just ain’t in the head!” As far as I know, his mother did not lose consciousness. and, because, but, or, so, also. Many children are taught that it is ungrammatical to begin a sentence with a conjunction (what I have been calling a coordinator). Because they sometimes write in fragments. And are shaky about when to use periods. And when to capitalize. Teachers need a simple way to teach them how to break sentences, so they tell them that sentences beginning with and and other conjunc.tions are ungrammatical.

Whatever the pedagogical merits may be of feeding children misin.formation, it is inappropriate for adults. There is nothing wrong with beginning a sentence with a coordinator. As we saw in chapter 5, and, but, and so are among the commonest coherence markers, and they may be used to begin a sentence whenever the clauses being connected are too long or complicated to fit comfortably into a single megasentence. I’ve begun about a hundred sentences with and or but in the book so far, such as “And we all know how successful Strunk and White were in forbidding to personalize, to contact, and six people,” which capped off a series of sentences about purists who failed to change the language. The coordinator because can also happily sit at the beginning of a sentence. Most commonly it ends up there when it introduces an expla.nation that has been preposed in front of a main clause, as in Because you’re mine, I walk the line. But it can also kick off a single clause when the clause serves as the answer to a why.question. The question can be explicit, as in Why can’t I have a pony? Because I said so. It can also be implicit in a series of related assertions that calls for a single explana.tion, which the author then provides, as in Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s reflection on the twentieth-century’s genocidal tyrants: Macbeth’s self-justifications were feeble—and his conscience devoured him. Yes, even Iago was a little lamb too. The imagina.tion and the spiritual strength of Shakespeare’s evildoers stopped short at a dozen corpses. Because they had no ideology. between you and I. This commonly heard phrase is often held out as an excruciating grammatical blunder. I spelled out the reason in chapter 4 when discussing the example Give Al Gore and I a chance to bring America back. Rigorous tree-thinking demands that a complicated phrase behave in the same way as a simpler phrase in the same posi.tion. The object of a preposition like between must be in the accusative case: we say between us or between them, not between we or between they. Therefore, according to this way of thinking, the pronouns in a coordination must also be accusative: between you and me. The phrase between you and I appears to be a hypercorrection, which arose when speakers who were corrected for Me and Amanda are going to the mall took away the crude moral that you should always say X and I, never me and X or X and me.

But the conviction that between you and I is an error needs a second look, together with the explanation that the phrase is a hypercorrec.tion. When enough careful writers and speakers fail to do something that a theory of syntax says they should, it could mean that it’s the theory that’s wrong, not the writers. A coordination phrase is a strange entity, and the logic of trees that applies elsewhere in English syntax does not apply to it. Most phrases have a head: a single word inside the phrase that determines its prop.erties. The phrase the bridge to the islands has the head bridge, which is a singular noun, so we call the phrase a noun phrase, interpret it as refer.ring to a kind of bridge, and treat the phrase as singular—that’s why everyone agrees that one should say The bridge to the islands is crowded, not are crowded. Not so for a coordination, which is headless: it cannot be equated with any of its components. In the coordination the bridge and the causeway, the first noun phrase, the bridge, is singular, and the second noun phrase, the causeway, is also singular, but the coordina.tion as a whole is plural: The bridge and the causeway are crowded, not is crowded. Perhaps the same is true of case: the case that applies to a whole coordination phrase is not necessarily the same as the case that applies to its parts. When we strive to apply tree-thinking as we write, we may furrow our brows and consciously force the parts to harmonize with the whole. But because coordination phrases are headless, the har.mony is not a requirement of our intuitive grammar, and few of us can consistently pull it off. Thus even an assiduous speaker might say Give Al Gore and I a chance or between you and I. The Cambridge Grammar suggests that in contemporary English many speakers have settled on a rule that allows a nominative pronoun like I or he after the coordina.tor and. And even more of them—the ones who say Me and Amanda are going to the mall—allow an accusative pronoun before and. It is a natural preference, because the accusative is the default case in English, occurring in a motley range of contexts (such as the bare exclamation Me!?), pretty much anywhere it is not preempted by the more selec.tive nominative or genitive.

You might think that the standard prescriptive recommendation, with its ironclad application of tree analysis, is more logical and ele.gant, and that we should all just try harder to implement it and thereby make our language more consistent. But when it comes to coordina.tion, this is an unrealizable dream. Not only does the grammatical number of a coordination systematically differ from the number of the nouns inside it, but sometimes the number and person of a coordina.tion cannot be determined from the tree at all. Which alternative in each of these pairs of sentences is correct?10 Either Elissa or the twins are sure to be there. Either Elissa or the twins is sure to be there.
Either the twins or Elissa is sure to be there. Either the twins or Elissa are sure to be there.
You mustn’t go unless either I or your father comes home with you. You mustn’t go unless either I or your father come home with you.
Either your father or I am going to have to come with you. Either your father or I is going to have to come with you.

No amount of tree-thinking will help you here. Even the style manuals throw up their hands and suggest that writers just look at the linear order of words in the string and make the verb agree with the noun phrase closest to it, like the versions in the left column. Coordination phrases simply don’t follow the logic of ordinary headed phrases. Writ.ers are well advised to avoid between you and I, since it makes many readers bristle, but it is not a heinous error. can versus may. This cartoon explains a traditional rule about two common modal auxiliaries:

At least Mrs. O’Malley didn’t give the standard grown-up’s answer to a child’s request with can: “You can, but the question is, may you?” A col.league of mine recalls that whenever she said, “Daddy, can I ask you a question?” the response was “You just did, but you may ask me another.” As the puzzlement of the young man in the cartoon suggests, the traditional distinction between the meaning of can (capability or pos.sibility) and the meaning of may (permissibility) is tenuous at best. Even many sticklers don’t have the courage of their convictions, such as the maven who insisted on the distinction in one entry in his usage guide but slipped up in another entry and ruled that a certain verb “can only be followed by for.”11 (Gotcha! He should have written may.) Con.versely, may is commonly and innocuously used for possibility rather than permission, as in It may rain this afternoon. In formal style we see a slight preference for using may for permis.sion. But as Mrs. O’Malley suggested, it is only when one is asking (or granting) permission that may is preferable, not when one is merely talking about it. The sentence Students can submit their papers anytime Friday might be said by one student to another, but Students may sub.mit their papers anytime Friday is more likely to be an announcement of the policy by the professor. Since most prose neither grants nor requests permission, the distinction is usually moot, and the two words may (or can) be used more or less interchangeably. dangling modifiers. Do you see a problem with the sentences that follow?

Checking into the hotel, it was nice to see a few of my old classmates in the lobby. Turning the corner, the view was quite different. Born and raised in city apartments, it was always a marvel to me. In order to contain the epidemic, the area was sealed off. Considering the hour, it is surprising that he arrived at all. Looking at the subject dispassionately, what evidence is there for this theory? In order to start the motor, it is essential that the retroflex cam con.necting rod be disengaged. To summarize, unemployment remains the state’s major economic and social problem. According to an old rule about “dangling modifiers,” these sen.tences are ungrammatical. (Sometimes the rule is stated as applying to “dangling participles,” namely the gerund form of a verb ending with –ing or the passive form typically ending in –ed or –en, but the exam.ples include infinitival modifiers as well.) The rule decrees that the implied subject of the modifier (the one doing the checking, turning, and so on) must be identical to the overt subject of the main clause (it, the view, and so on). Most copy editors would recast the main clause, supplying it with a subject (underlined) to which the modifier can be properly fastened: Checking into the hotel, I was pleased to see a few of my old class. mates in the lobby. Turning the corner, I saw that the view was quite different. Born and raised in city apartments, I always found it a marvel. In order to contain the epidemic, authorities sealed off the area. Considering the hour, we should be surprised that he arrived at all. Looking at the subject dispassionately, what evidence do we find for this theory?

In order to start the motor, one should ensure that the retroflex cam connecting rod is disengaged. To summarize, we see that unemployment remains the state’s major economic and social problem. Newspaper columns on usage are filled with apologies for “errors” like these, spotted by ombudsmen or managing editors who have trained themselves to flag them. Danglers are extremely common, not just in deadline-pressured journalism but in the works of distinguished authors. Considering how often these forms turn up in edited prose and how readily they are accepted even by careful readers, two conclu.sions are possible: either dangling modifiers are a particularly insidi.ous grammatical error for which writers must develop sensitive radar, or they are not grammatical errors at all. (Did you notice the dangler in the sentence before last?) The second conclusion is the right one: some dangling modifiers should be avoided, but they are not grammatical errors. The problem with dangling modifiers is that their subjects are inherently ambigu.ous and sometimes a sentence will inadvertently attract a reader to the wrong choice. Many style guides reproduce (or contrive) dangling modifiers with unintentionally comical interpretations, such as these ones from Richard Lederer’s Anguished English: Having killed a man and served four years in prison, I feel that Tom Joad is ripe to get into trouble. Plunging 1,000 feet into the gorge, we saw Yosemite Falls. As a baboon who grew up wild in the jungle, I realized that Wiki had special nutritional needs. Locked in a vault for 50 years, the owner of the jewels has decided to sell them. When a small boy, a girl is of little interest. It’s easy—and wrong—to diagnose the problem as a violation of a grammatical rule called subject control. Most verbs that take subjectless complements, such as try in Alice tried to calm down, are governed by an ironclad rule that forces the overt subject to be identical to the miss.ing subject. That is, we have to interpret Alice tried to calm down as “Alice tried to get Alice to calm down,” rather than “Alice tried to get someone to calm down” or “Alice tried to get everyone to calm down.” But with modifiers there is no such rule. The missing subject of a mod.ifier is identified with the protagonist whose point of view we are assuming as we read the sentence, which is often, but need not always be, the grammatical subject of the main clause. The problem is not one of ungrammaticality but of ambiguity, as in the examples we saw in chapter 4. The jewelry owner who was locked in a vault for fifty years is like the panel on sex with four professors and the recommendation of the candidate with no qualifications.

Some so-called danglers are perfectly acceptable. Many participles have turned into prepositions, such as according, allowing, barring, concerning, considering, excepting, excluding, failing, following, given, granted, including, owing, regarding, and respecting, and they don’t need subjects at all. Inserting we find or we see into the main clause to avoid a dangler can make the sentence stuffy and self-conscious. More generally, a modifier can dangle when its implied subject is the writer and the reader, as in To summarize and In order to start the motor in the examples above. And when the subject of the main clause is the dummy element it or there, the reader glides right over it, and it poses no danger of attracting a dangler. The decision of whether to recast a sentence to align its subject with the subject of a modifier is a matter of judgment, not grammar. A thoughtlessly placed dangler can confuse the reader or slow her down, and occasionally it can lure her into a ludicrous interpretation. Also, even if a dangler is in no danger of being misinterpreted, enough read.ers have trained themselves to spot danglers that a writer who leaves it incurs the risk of being judged as slovenly. So in formal styles it’s not a bad idea to keep an eye open for them and to correct the obtrusive ones.

fused participles (possessives with gerunds). Do you have a problem with the sentence She approved of Sheila taking the job? Do you insist that it should be She approved of Sheila’s taking the job, in which the gerund (taking) has a subject (Sheila’s) that is marked with genitive case? Perhaps you think that the first version, the one with the unmarked subject, is an increasingly common symptom of grammatical laziness. If so, you are a victim of the spurious rule about so-called fused parti.ciples. (The term was coined by Fowler to suggest that the participle taking has been illicitly fused with the noun Sheila into the mongrel Sheila.taking: the theory made little sense, but the term stuck.) In fact, gerunds with unmarked subjects were the historically earlier form, have long been used by the language’s best writers, and are perfectly idio.matic. Unfusing a participle can make a sentence clumsy or pretentious:12 Any alleged evils of capitalism are simply the result of people’s being free to choose. The police had no record of my car’s having been towed. I don’t like the delays caused by my computer’s being underpowered. The ladies will pardon my mouth’s being full. And often it cannot be done at all: I was annoyed by the people behind me in line’s being served first. You can’t visit them without Ethel’s pulling out pictures of her grand.children. What she objects to is men’s making more money than women for the same work. Imagine a child with an ear infection who cannot get penicillin’s los.ing his hearing. In these cases, dropping the ’s results in a perfectly acceptable sentence: I was annoyed by the people behind me in line being served first. A sub.stantial majority of the AHD Usage Panel accept the so-called fused participle, not just in these complicated sentences but in simple ones like I can understand him not wanting to go. For sentences that have been repeated verbatim in questionnaires over the decades, the rate of acceptance has increased over time.

How should a writer choose? Any semantic difference between the alternatives is elusive, and the choice mainly hinges on style: the genitive subject (I approve of Sheila’s taking the job) is appropriate in more formal writing, the unmarked subject (I approve of Sheila taking the job) in informal writing and speech. The nature of the grammatical subject mat.ters, too. The clumsy examples above show that long and complicated subjects are best left unmarked, whereas simpler ones like pronouns work well in the genitive, as in I appreciate your coming over to help. Some writers sense a subtle distinction in the focus of attention. When the focus is on the entire event, packaged into a conceptual whole, the geni.tive subject seems better: if the fact that Sheila is taking the job had been mentioned previously, and we were all discussing whether this was a good thing or a bad thing (not just for Sheila but for the company, her friends, and her family), I might say I approve of Sheila’s taking the job. But if the focus is on the subject and her possible courses of action, say, if I was a friend of Sheila’s and had been advising her whether to stay in school or accept the offer, I might say I approve of Sheila taking the job. if.then. Something is slightly off in these sentences, but what? If I didn’t have my seat belt on, I’d be dead. If he didn’t come to America, our team never would have won the championship. If only she would have listened to me, this would never have happened. Many conditional constructions (those with an if and a then) seem bewilderingly picky about which tenses, moods, and auxiliaries may go into them, particularly had and would. Fortunately, there is a for.mula for writing graceful conditionals, and it becomes clear once you recognize two distinctions. The first is that English has two kinds of conditional constructions:13 If you leave now, you will get there on time. [an open conditional]

If you left now, you would get there on time. [a remote conditional] The first is called an open conditional, from the expression “an open possibility.” It refers to a situation that the writer is uncertain about, and it invites the reader to draw inferences or make predictions about that situation. Here are a couple of other examples: If he is here, he’ll be in the kitchen. If it rains tomorrow, the picnic will be canceled. With these conditionals, anything goes: you can use pretty much any tense in the if and then clauses, depending only on when the relevant events take place or are discovered. The second kind is called a remote conditional, from the expression “a remote possibility.” It refers to a counterfactual, highly improbable, blue-sky, or make-believe world, one that the writer thinks is unlikely to be true but whose implications are worth exploring: If I were a rich man, I wouldn’t have to work hard. If pigs had wings, they would fly. Remote conditionals are the finicky ones, though their demands, as we shall see, are not as arbitrary as they at first seem. The formula is that the if.clause must have a past-tense verb, and the then.clause must con.tain would or a similar auxiliary such as could, should, or might. If we take a typical double-would conditional (left side) and put the if.clause into the past tense, it instantly sounds classier: If only she would have listened to me, If only she had listened to me, this this would never have happened. would never have happened.

The problem with the left-hand version is that would have does not belong in the if.clause, only in the then.clause. The job of the condi.tional would is to explain what ought to happen in the make-believe world; it does not set up that world, a task that is reserved for the if.clause and its past-tense verb. By the way, this is true for counterfac.tuals in general, not just for ones that are found in if.then construc.tions. Doesn’t the right-hand version in this pair sound better? I wish you would have told me about I wish you had told me about this this sooner. sooner. Now here’s the rationale behind the formula. When I said that the if.clause must be in the past tense, I did not mean that it refers to a past time. “Past tense” is a grammatical term referring to one of the forms an English verb can take, namely the verb plus –ed, or, in the case of irregular verbs, some variant such as make.made, sell.sold, or bring.brought. “Past time,” in contrast, is a semantic concept referring to an event that took place before the moment of speaking or writing. In English, a past-tense form is typically used to refer to past time, but it can also be used with a second meaning, factual remoteness. That’s the meaning it’s expressing in the if.clause. Consider the sentence If you left tomorrow, you’d save a lot of money. The verb left couldn’t possibly refer to an event in the past: the sentence says “tomorrow.” But the past-tense form is fine, because it refers to a hypothetical (factually remote) event. (By the way, with 99.98 percent of the common verbs in English, the same verb form, past tense, is used to convey both past time and factual remoteness. But one verb has a special form to express remoteness: be, which distinguishes If I was from If I were. We’ll deal with it in the discussion of the subjunctive.) What about the second half of the conditional, the then.clause, which calls for the auxiliaries would, could, should, or might? It turns out they are just like the verbs in the if.clause: they are in the past tense, with a factual-remoteness meaning. The d’s and the t at the ends of these auxiliaries are a giveaway: would is just the irregular past-tense form of will, could the past-tense form of can, should the past-tense form of shall, and might the past-tense form of may. We can see this in the contrast between open conditionals in the present tense and their remote conditionals in the past tense:

If you leave now, you can get there on time. If you left now, you could get there on time.
If you leave now, you will get there on time. If you left now, you would get there on time.
If you leave now, you may get there on time. If you left now, you might get there on time.
If you leave now, you shall get there on time. If you left now, you should get there on time.

So the rule for remote conditionals turns out to be simpler than it looks: the if.clause contains a verb which sets up a hypothetical world; the then.clause explores what will happen in that world, using a modal auxiliary. Both clauses use the past tense to express the meaning “fac.tual remoteness.” There is one more piece to the puzzle of how to write classy condi.tionals. Why do they so often contain the verb form had, as in If I hadn’t had my seat belt on, I’d be dead, which sounds better than If I didn’t have my seat belt on, I’d be dead? The key is that had turns up when the if.clause refers to an event whose time of occurrence really is the past. Recall that the if.clause in a remote conditional demands the past tense but has nothing to do with past time. Now when a writer really does want to refer to a past-time event in a remote conditional, he needs the past tense of a past-tense form. The past-of-the-past is called the pluperfect, and it is formed with the auxiliary had, as in I had already eaten. So whenever the time of the make-believe world of the if.clause is prior to the time of writing, the clause needs to be in the pluperfect: If you had left earlier, you would have been on time.

Though the rules are perfectly logical, the conditions are hard to keep track of. Together with forgetting to use had in a past-time if.clause, writers sometimes overcompensate by using too many of them, as in If that hadn’t have happened, he would not be the musician he is today—a hypercorrection sometimes called the plupluperfect. One instance of have is enough: it should be If that hadn’t happened. like, as, such as. Long ago, in the Mad Men era when cigarettes were advertised on radio and television, every brand had a slogan. “I’d walk a mile for a Camel.” “Lucky Strike means fine tobacco.” “Come to where the flavor is. Come to Marlboro Country.” And most infamously, “Winston tastes good, like a cigarette should.” The infamy did not come from the fact that the company was using a catchy jingle to get people addicted to carcinogens. It came from the fact that the jingle allegedly contained a grammatical error. Like is a preposition, said the accusers, and may take only a noun phrase object, as in crazy like a fox or like a bat out of hell. It is not a conjunction (what I have been calling a coordinator) and so may not be followed by a clause. The New Yorker sneered at the error, Ogden Nash wrote a poem about it, Walter Cronkite refused to say it on the air, and Strunk and White declared it illiterate. The slogan, they agreed, should have been “Winston tastes good, as a cigarette should.” The advertising agency and the tobacco company were delighted by the unpaid publicity and were only too happy to confess to the error in the coda, “What do you want, good grammar or good taste?” Like many usage controversies, the brouhaha over like a cigarette should is a product of grammatical ineptitude and historical igno.rance. To start with, the fact that like is a preposition, which typically takes a noun phrase complement, does not mean that it may not take a clausal complement as well. As we saw in chapter 4, many prepositions, such as after and before, take either one, so the question of whether like is a conjunction is a red herring. Even if it is a preposition, it could very well precede a clause. More important, the ad’s use of like with a clause was not a recent corruption. The combination has been in use for six hundred years throughout the English-speaking world, though with greater frequency in the nineteenth century and in the United States. It has been used in literary works by dozens of great writers (including Shakespeare, Dick.ens, Twain, Wells, and Faulkner) and has flown beneath the radar of the purists themselves, who have inadvertently used it in their own style guides. This does not show that purists are only human and some.times make errors; it shows that the alleged error is not an error. The

R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company was confessing to the wrong crime; its slogan was perfectly grammatical. Writers are free to use either like or as, mindful only that as is a bit more formal, and that the Winston-tastes-good controversy became such a bloody shirt in the grammar wars that readers may mistakenly think the writer has made an error. A related superstition, ruthlessly enforced by many copy editors, is that like may not be used to introduce examples, as in Many technical terms have become familiar to laypeople, like “cloning” and “DNA.” They would correct it to such as “cloning” and “DNA.” According to this guide.line, like may be used only for resemblance to an exemplar, as in I’ll find someone like you and Poems are made by fools like me. Few writers con.sistently follow this bogus rule, including the mavens who insist on it (one of whom, for example, wrote, “Avoid clipped forms like bike, prof, doc”). Such as is more formal than like, but both are legitimate. possessive antecedents. Ready for another example of pointless purist dudgeon? Then consider this question from a 2002 College Board exam, which asked students to identify the grammatical error, if there was one, in the following sentence: Toni Morrison’s genius enables her to create novels that arise from and express the injustices African Americans have endured. The official answer was that the sentence did not contain an error. A high school teacher complained that it did, because the possessive phrase Toni Morrison’s cannot serve as the antecedent of the pronoun her. The College Board caved in to his pressure and retroactively gave credit to all the students who had identified her as incorrect. On cue, pundits moaned about declining standards.14

But the rule against possessive (more accurately, genitive) anteced.ents is a figment of the purists’ misunderstanding. Far from being an established principle of grammar, the rule seems to have been conjured out of thin air by a usage maven in the 1960s and has been uncompre.hendingly copied by others ever since. Genitive antecedents have been considered unexceptionable throughout the history of English, and may be found in Shakespeare, the King James Bible (“And Joseph’s master took him, and put him into the prison”), Dickens, and Thack.eray, together with Strunk and White (“The writer’s colleagues . . . have greatly helped him in the preparation of his manuscript”) and one of the irate pundits himself (“It may be Bush’s utter lack of self-doubt that his detractors hate most about him”). Why would anyone think that this perfectly natural construction is ungrammatical? The rationale stated by one rule-giver was that “there is in fact no person named for the him to refer to.” Say what? Is there a neurologically intact reader anywhere who can’t figure out whom the pronoun refers to in Bob’s mother loved him or Stacy’s dog bit her? The other rationale is that Toni Morrison’s is an adjective, and pro.nouns must refer back to nouns. But Toni Morrison’s is not an adjective, like red or beautiful; it’s a noun phrase in genitive case. (How do we know? Because you can’t use genitives in clear adjectival contexts like That child seems Lisa’s or Hand me the red and John’s sweater.) The confusion comes from the vague impression that the phrase is a “mod.ifier.” But the impression not only confuses a grammatical category (adjective) with a grammatical function (modifier) but also gets the function wrong. Toni Morrison’s isn’t functioning as a modifier, which shades the meaning of genius, but as a determiner, which pins down its referent, in the same way that an article like the or this would do. (How do we know? Because a count noun cannot stand on its own—you can’t say Daughter cooked dinner—and a modifier doesn’t help; Beautiful daughter cooked dinner is still bad. But add either an article, as in A daughter cooked dinner, or a genitive, as in Jenny’s daughter cooked dinner, and the sentence is complete. This shows that genitives have the same function as articles, namely determiner.)

As with any pronoun, a writer can confuse his readers if he fails to make the antecedent clear, such as in Sophie’s mother thinks she’s fat, where we don’t know whether it’s Sophie or her mother who is thought to be fat. But that has nothing to do with the antecedent being in the genitive case; it’s just as much of a problem in Sophie and her mother think she’s fat. Though it’s only fair that the students who thought they spotted an error got credit for their answer (since they may have been misedu.cated by purists), the ire of language lovers ought to be directed at the stylistic clumsiness of the godawful sentence about Toni Morrison, not at a fictitious error in it. preposition at the end of a sentence. Winston Churchill did not, as legend has it, reply to an editor who had corrected his prose with “This is pedantry up with which I will not put.”15 Nor is that witticism (orig.inally from a 1942 Wall Street Journal article) a particularly good example of the construction that linguists call preposition stranding, as in Who did you talk to? or That’s the bridge I walked across. The par.ticle up is an intransitive preposition and does not require an object, so even the most pedantic of pedants would have no objection to a phrase like This is pedantry with which I will not put up. Though the attribution and the example are spurious, the mockery is appropriate. As with split infinitives, the prohibition against clause-final prepositions is considered a superstition even by the language mavens, and it persists only among know-it-alls who have never opened a dictionary or style manual to check. There is nothing, repeat nothing, wrong with Who are you looking at? or The better to see you with or We are such stuff as dreams are made on or It’s you she’s thinking of. The pseudo-rule was invented by John Dryden based on a silly analogy with Latin (where the equivalent to a preposition is attached to the noun and cannot be separated from it) in an effort to show that Ben Jonson was an inferior poet. As the linguist Mark Liberman remarked, “It’s a shame that Jonson had been dead for 35 years at the time, since he would otherwise have challenged Dryden to a duel, and saved subse.quent generations a lot of grief.”16

The alternative to stranding a preposition at the end of a clause is allowing it to accompany a wh.word to the front, a rule that the linguist J. R. (Haj) Ross dubbed pied-piping, because it reminded him of the way that the Pied Piper lured the rats out of the village of Hamelin. The standard question rule in English converts You are seeing what? into What are you seeing? and hence You are looking at what? into What are you looking at? The pied-piping rule allows the what to pull the at with it to the front of the sentence, yielding At what are you looking? The same rule creates relative clauses that begin with a preposition and a wh-word such as the better with which to see you or It’s you of whom she’s thinking. Sometimes it really is better to pied-pipe a preposition to the begin.ning of a clause than to strand it at the end. Most obviously, pied-piping sounds better in a formal style. Abraham Lincoln knew what he was doing at the graves of the fallen soldiers at Gettysburg when he vowed “increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full mea.sure of devotion,” rather than “increased devotion to that cause which they gave the last full measure of devotion for.” Pied-piping is also a good choice when a stranded preposition would get lost in a hubbub of little grammatical words, such as One of the beliefs which we can be highly confident in is that other people are conscious. The sentence is easier to parse when the role of the preposition is settled before we get to that busy crossroads: One of the beliefs in which we can be highly confident is that other people are conscious. A good piece of advice on when to pied-pipe and when to strand comes from Theodore Bernstein, who invokes the principle empha.sized in chapter 4: select the construction that allows you to end a sen.tence with a phrase that is heavy or informative or both. The problem with stranding a preposition is that it can end the sentence with a word that is too lightweight to serve as its focal point, making the sentence sound like “the last sputter of an engine going dead.” As an example

Bernstein cites He felt it offered the best opportunity to do fundamental research in chemistry, which was what he had taken his Doctor of Phi.losophy degree in. By the same principle, a preposition should be stranded at the end of a sentence when it contributes a crucial bit of information, as in music to read by, something to guard against, and that’s what this tool is for, or when it pins down the meaning of an idiom, as in It’s nothing to sneeze at, He doesn’t know what he’s talking about, or She’s a woman who can be counted on. predicative nominative. When you come home after a day at the office, do you call out to your spouse, “Hi, honey, it’s I”? If you do, you are the victim of a schoolmarm rule that insists that a pronoun serving as the complement of be must be in nominative case (I, he, she, we, they) rather than accusative case (me, him, her, us, them). According to this rule, Psalms (120:5), Isaiah (6:5), Jeremiah (4:31), and Ophelia should have cried out, “Woe is I,” and the cartoon possum Pogo should have reworded his famous declaration as “We have met the enemy, and he is we.” The rule is a product of the usual three confusions: English with Latin, informal style with incorrect grammar, and syntax with seman.tics. Though the referent of the noun phrase after be is the same as that of the subject (enemy = we), the case of the noun phrase is determined by its position after the verb, which can always be accusative. (The accusative case is the default in English, and it can be used anywhere except in the subject of a tensed verb; thus we have hit me, give me a hand, with me, Who, me?, What, me get a tattoo?, and Molly will be giving the first lecture, me the second.) Accusative predicates have been used for centuries by many respected writers (including Pepys, Steele, Hemingway, and Woolf), and the choice between It is he and It is him is strictly one of formal versus informal style. sequence of tenses and other perspective shifts. A common error in student writing is to shift the tense from a main clause to a subordinate one even when they refer to the same time period.17

She started panicking and got stressed She started panicking and got stressed out because she doesn’t have enough out because she didn’t have enough money. money. The new law requires the public school The new law requires the public school system to abandon any programs that system to abandon any programs that involved bilingual students. involve bilingual students. The incorrect versions on the left make the reader feel like she is being yanked back and forth along the time line between the moment at which the sentence was written (present) and the time of the situation being described (past). They belong to a family of “inappropriate shifts” in which the writer fails to stay put at a single vantage point but van.ishes from one and pops up at another. The reader can get vertigo when the writer flip-flops within a sentence between persons (first, second, and third), voices (active and passive), or types of discourse (a direct quotation of the speaker’s exact words, usually set off with quotation marks, versus an indirect report of the gist, usually set off with that): Love brings out the joy in people’s Love brings out the joy in people’s hearts and puts a glow in your eyes. hearts and puts a glow in their eyes. People express themselves more People express themselves more offensively when their comments are offensively when they deliver their delivered through the Internet rather comments through the Internet rather than personally. than personally. The instructor told us, “Please read the The instructor told us that we should next two stories before the next class” read the next two stories before the and that she might give us a quiz on next class and that she might give us a them. quiz on them. Sticking to a consistent vantage point is the first step in getting the tenses in a complex story to come out right, but there’s more to it than that. A writer also has to harmonize the tenses according to a scheme called sequence of tenses, tense agreement, or backshift. Most readers sense that there is something askew in the sentences on the left:

But at some point following the shootout and car chase, the younger brother fled on foot, according to State Police, who said Friday night they don’t believe he has access to a car. Mark Williams-Thomas, a former detective who amassed much of the evidence against Mr. Savile last year, said that he is continuing to help the police in coaxing people who might have been victimized years ago to come forward.18 Security officials said that only some of the gunmen are from the Muslim Brotherhood. But at some point following the shootout and car chase, the younger brother fled on foot, according to State Police, who said Friday night they didn’t believe he had access to a car. Mark Williams-Thomas, a former detective who amassed much of the evidence against Mr. Savile last year, said that he was continuing to help the police in coaxing people who might have been victimized years ago to come forward. Security officials said that only some of the gunmen were from the Muslim Brotherhood.

In indirect discourse in the past tense (a staple of news reporting), the tense of a verb often sounds better when it, too, is in the past tense, even though the event was in the present from the vantage point of the person speaking.19 This is clear enough in simple sentences. One would say I mentioned that I was thirsty, not I mentioned that I am thirsty, even though what I actually mentioned at the time was “I am thirsty.” Though backshifting usually occurs when someone said something in the past, it also occurs when a proposition was generally believed in the past, as in This meant that Amy was taking on too many responsibilities. At first glance, the conditions that govern sequences of tenses seem daunting. Bernstein’s The Careful Writer, an informal style manual, takes five pages to explain fourteen rules, exceptions, and exceptions to the exceptions. Surely not even the most careful writer has learned them one by one. It’s better to understand a few principles that govern time, tense, and discourse than to try to memorize a list of regulations that are tailored to the sequence-of-tense phenomenon itself. The first is to remember that past tense is not the same thing as past time. Recall from the discussion of if.then constructions that the past tense is used not just for events that took place in the past but for events that are remote possibilities (as in If you left tomorrow, you’d save a lot of money). We now see that the past tense has a third meaning in English: a backshifted event in a sequence of tenses. (Though the meaning of backshifting may seem to be just past time, there are subtle semantic differences between the two.)20

The second principle is that backshifting is not mandatory, which means that violating the sequence-of-tense rules and keeping the reported content in the present tense is not always an error. Grammar.ians distinguish the “attracted” or backshifted sequence, in which the tense of the embedded verb is metaphorically attracted to the tense of the verb of saying, from the “vivid,” “natural,” or “breakthrough” sequence, in which the embedded verb metaphorically breaks out of the story line of its clause and is located in the real time of the writer and reader. The vivid, nonbackshifted sequence feels more natural when the state being spoken about is not just true at the time that the speaker was speaking but true for all time, or at least indubitably true at the time that the writer is writing and the reader is reading. It would be odd to say The teacher told the class that water froze at 32 degrees Fahrenheit, which seems to suggest that perhaps it no longer does; one should violate the backshifting rule here and say The teacher told the class that water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit. This leaves plenty of leeway for judgment, depending on whether the writer wishes to emphasize the continuing truth of some idea that was bruited in the past. The backshifted Simone de Beauvoir noted that women faced dis.crimination is neutral as to whether such discrimination is a persistent feature of our society. Simone de Beauvoir noted that women face dis.crimination takes the more feminist position that it is. A third principle is that indirect discourse is not always introduced with an expression like he said that or she thought that; sometimes it is implicit in the context. Journalists get tired of repeating he said, and novelists sometimes skip it by using a technique called free indirect style, in which the narration of the author incorporates the interior monologue of a protagonist:

According to the Prime Minister, there was no cause for alarm. As long as the country kept its defense up and its alliances intact, all would be well. Renee was getting more and more anxious. What could have happened to him? Had he leapt from the tower of Fine Hall? Was his body being pulled out of Lake Carnegie? A writer can do the opposite, too, and interrupt his narration of an indirect discourse with an aside directed to the reader, which breaks out of the backshifted tense and into the present: Mayor Menino said the Turnpike Authority, which is responsible for the maintenance of the tunnel, had set up a committee to investigate the accident. The final key to using sequences of tenses should be familiar from our discussion of if and then. The past-tense forms of can, will, and may are could, would, and might, and these are the forms to use in back- shifting:
Amy can play the bassoon. Amy said that she could play the bassoon.
Paul will leave on Tuesday. Paul said that he would leave on Tuesday.
The Liberals may try to form a coalition government. Sonia said that the Liberals might try to form a coalition government.

And the past tense of a past tense (the pluperfect) uses the auxiliary had, so when the backshifted verb refers to a past time, had is sum.moned into action: He wrote it himself. He said that he had written it himself.

It’s not obligatory, though; writers often simplify things by using the simple past tense in both places (He said that he wrote it himself), which (for complicated reasons) is technically consistent with the semantics of backshifting. shall and will. According to another old rule, when speaking about an event in the future one must use shall in the first person (I shall, we shall) but will in the second and third person (you will, he will, she will, they will). But when expressing determination or permission, it’s the other way around. Thus Lillian Hellman, when she defied the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1952, properly declared I will not cut my conscience to fit this year’s fashions. Had her comrades been speaking on her behalf, they would have said She shall not cut her con.science to fit this year’s fashions. The rule is suspiciously complicated for something as basic to every.day expression as future time, and it turns out not to be a rule at all. The authors of Merriam.Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage, having sur.veyed the uses of the two forms over six hundred years, conclude, “The traditional rules about shall and will do not appear to have described real usage of these words precisely at any time, although there is no question that they do describe the usage of some people some of the time and that they are more applicable in England than elsewhere.” Even with some Englishmen some of the time, it can be hard to distinguish future time in the first person from determination in the first person because of the metaphysical peculiarity of future time: no one knows what the future will bring, but we can choose to try to affect it.21 When Churchill said, “We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, . . . we shall never surrender,” was he fiercely proclaiming the determination of the British people, or was he calmly prophesying a future that was certain because of the determination of the British people? With everyone else—the Scots, Irish, Americans, and Canadians (other than those with traditional English schooling)—the rule about shall and will never applied. In his manual Plain Words, Ernest Gowers wrote, “The story is a very old one of the drowning Scot who was mis.understood by English onlookers and left to his fate because he cried, ‘I will drown and nobody shall save me!’” Outside England (and for a growing number of speakers there as well), shall sounds prissy as an expression of future tense: no one says I shall pick up the toilet paper at Walmart this afternoon. And when shall is used at all, particularly in the first person, it tends to defy the rule and convey non-future senses such as permission (Shall we dance?) and determination (as in General Douglas MacArthur’s famous declaration “I shall return” and the civil rights anthem “We Shall Overcome”). As Copperud wrote, “Shall, then, seems well on the way to extinction, much like the hapless Scot.”

split infinitives. Most mythical usage rules are merely harmless. The prohibition of split infinitives (as in Are you sure you want to perma.nently delete all the items and subfolders in the “Deleted Items” folder?) and the even more sweeping prohibition of “split verbs” (as in I will always love you and I would never have guessed) is downright perni.cious. Good writers who have been brainwashed into unsplitting their infinitives can come out with monstrosities such as these: Hobbes concluded that the only way out of the mess is for everyone permanently to surrender to an authoritarian ruler. David Rockefeller, a member of the Harvard College Class
of 1936 and longtime University benefactor, has pledged $100 million to increase dramatically learning opportunities for Harvard undergraduates through international experiences
and participation in the arts.22 The split-verb superstition can even lead to a crisis of governance. During the 2009 presidential inauguration, Chief Justice John Roberts, a famous stickler for grammar, could not bring himself to have Barack Obama “solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States.” Abandoning his strict constructionism, Roberts unilaterally amended the Constitution and had Obama “solemnly swear that I will execute the office of president to the United States faithfully.” The garbled oath raised fears about whether the transfer of power had been legitimate, and so they repeated the oath verbatim, split verb and all, in a private meeting later that afternoon.

The very terms “split infinitive” and “split verb” are based on a thick-witted analogy to Latin, in which it is impossible to split a verb because it consists of a single word, such as amare, “to love.” But in English, the so-called infinitive to write consists of two words, not one: the subordi.nator to and the plain form of the verb write, which can also appear without to in constructions such as She helped him pack and You must be brave.23 Similarly, the allegedly unsplittable verb will execute is not a verb at all but two verbs, the auxiliary verb will and the main verb execute. There is not the slightest reason to interdict an adverb from the position before the main verb, and great writers in English have placed it there for centuries.24 Indeed, the spot in front of the main verb is often the most natural resting place for an adverb. Sometimes it is the only resting place, particularly when the modifier is a negation or quantifier such as not or more than. (Recall from chapter 5 that the placement of not affects its log.ical scope and thus the meaning of the sentence.) In each of the examples below, unsplitting the infinitive either changes the sense or leads to garble: The policy of the Army at that time was to not send women into combat roles.25 The policy of the Army at that time was not to send women into combat roles.
I’m moving to France to not get fat [caption of a New Yorker cartoon].26 I’m moving to France not to get fat.
Profits are expected to more than double next year. 27 Profits are expected more than to double next year.

More generally, the preverbal position is the only one in which the adverb unambiguously modifies the verb. In a sentence in which the author may have taken pains to unsplit an infinitive, such as The board voted immediately to approve the casino, the reader has to wonder whether it was the vote that was immediate, or the approval. With the infinitive

left unsplit—The board voted to immediately approve the casino—it can only be the approval. This does not mean that infinitives should always be split. When the adverbial modifier is long and heavy, or when it contains the most important information in a sentence, it should be moved to the end, just like any other heavy or newsworthy phrase: Flynn wanted to more definitively Flynn wanted to identify the source of identify the source of the rising IQ the rising IQ scores more definitively. scores. Scholars today are confronted with Scholars today are confronted with the problem of how to non-arbitrarily the problem of how to interpret the interpret the Qur’an. Qur’an non-arbitrarily. Indeed, it’s a good habit to at least consider moving an adverb to the end of the verb phrase. If the adverb conveys important information, it belongs there; if it doesn’t (such as really, just, actually, and other hedges), it might be a verbal fluffball that is best omitted altogether. And since there are benighted sticklers out there who will mistakenly accuse you of making an error when you split an infinitive, you might as well not ask for trouble if it makes no difference to the sentence anyway. Finally, in many cases a quantifier naturally floats leftward away from the verb, unsplitting the infinitive, as in the examples on the right: It seems monstrous to even suggest It seems monstrous even to suggest the possibility. the possibility. Is it better to never have been born? Is it better never to have been born? Statesmen are not called upon to only Statesmen are not called upon only to settle easy questions. settle easy questions.28 I find it hard to specify when to not I find it hard to specify when not to split an infinitive. split an infinitive. The unsplit versions sound more elegant to me, though I can’t be sure that my ears haven’t been contaminated by a habit of cravenly unsplit.ting infinitives to avoid spitballs from the Gotcha! Gang.

subjunctive mood and irrealis were. For several hundred years com.mentators on the English language have been predicting, lamenting, or celebrating the imminent extinction of the subjunctive mood. But here we are in the twenty-first century and it refuses to die, at least in writ.ing. To appreciate this, one has to get straight what the subjunctive is, because most people, including traditional grammarians, are confused about it. There is no distinctive subjunctive form in English; the construc.tion just uses the unmarked form of the verb, such as live, come, and be. This makes subjunctives hard to spot: they are noticeable only when the verb has a third-person singular subject (in which case it ordinarily takes the suffix –s, as in lives and comes) or when the verb is to be (which ordinarily shape-shifts to am, is, or are). Subjunctives can be sighted in a few clichés that have come down to us from a time in which the form was more common in English: So be it; Be that as it may; Far be it from me; If need be. Long live our noble queen. Heaven forbid. Suffice it to say. Come what may. But otherwise the subjunctive is found only in subordinate clauses, generally with mandative verbs and adjectives, which indicate that something is demanded or required:29 I insist that she be kept in the loop. It’s essential that he see a draft of the speech before it is given. We must cooperate in order that the system operate efficiently. Subjunctives also turn up with certain prepositions and subordinators that specify hypothetical situations:

Bridget was racked with anxiety lest her plagiarism become known. He dared not light a candle for fear that it be spotted by some prowl.ing savage. Dwight decided he would post every review on his Web site, whether it be good or bad. Some of the examples are a bit formal and can be replaced by the indicative, such as It’s essential that he sees a draft and whether it is good or bad. But many subjunctives can be found in everyday writing and speech, such as I would stress that people just be aware of the danger, showing that reports of the death of the subjunctive are greatly exag.gerated. Traditional grammarians get tripped up by the verb be because they have to squeeze two different forms, be and were (as in If I were free), into a single slot called “subjunctive.” Sometimes they call be the “pres.ent subjunctive” and were the “past subjunctive,” but in reality there’s no difference in tense between them. Rather, the two belong to differ.ent moods: whether he be rich or poor is subjunctive; If I were a rich man is irrealis (“not real”). The irrealis mood is found in many lan.guages, where it expresses situations that are not known to have hap.pened, including hypotheticals, imperatives, and questions. In English it exists only in the form were, where it conveys factual remoteness: an irrealis proposition is not just hypothetical (the speaker does not know whether it is true or false) but counterfactual (the speaker believes it’s false). Tevye the Milkman was emphatically not a rich man, nor were Tim Hardin, Bobby Darin, Johnny Cash, or Robert Plant (all of whom sang “If I Were a Carpenter”) in any doubt as to whether they were carpenters. Counterfactual, by the way, need not mean outlandish— one can say If she were half an inch taller, that dress would be perfect—it just means “known to be not the case.” So what’s the difference between the past-tense was, in those con.texts in which it has the meaning of factual remoteness, and the ir.realis were, which also has the meaning of factual remoteness? The obvious difference is the level of formality: irrealis I wish I were younger is fancier than past-tense I wish I was younger. Also, in careful writing, were conveys a somewhat stronger sense of remoteness than was does, implying that the scenario is contrary to fact: If he were in love with her, he’d propose accuses him of not being in love; If he was in love with her, he’d propose leaves the door open a crack, and the present-tense open conditional If he is in love with her, he’ll propose doesn’t commit the writer either way.

Some writers, dimly sensing that were is posher, hypercorrect them.selves and use it with open possibilities, such as He looked at me as if he suspected I were cheating on him and If he were surprised, he didn’t show it.30 In both cases, was is appropriate. than and as. Is anything wrong with the sentences on the left? Rose is smarter than him. Rose is smarter than he. George went to the same school George went to the same school as me. as I. Many students are taught that they are ungrammatical, because than and as are conjunctions (which precede clauses), not prepositions (which precede noun phrases). The material that follows them must be a clause, albeit an elliptical clause, from which the predicate has been amputated: the full versions are Rose is smarter than he is and George went to the same school as I did. Since the noun phrases coming after than and as are the subjects of the truncated clauses, they must be in nominative case: he and I. But if you squirm at the thought of using the “correct” versions on the right because they sound insufferably fussy, you have grammar and history on your side. Like the words before and like, which we exam.ined earlier, the words than and as are not conjunctions in the first place but prepositions that take a clause as a complement.31 The only question is whether they may also take a noun phrase as a complement. Several centuries of great writers—Milton, Shakespeare, Pope, Swift, Johnson, Austen, Thurber, Faulkner, Baldwin—have voted with their pens, and the answer is yes. The difference is just one of style: than I is more suited to formal writing, than me to writing that is closer to speech.

Though the pedants are mistaken in insisting that than and as may only be conjunctions, the tree-thinking that motivates their judgment is sound. First, if you do opt for a formal style, don’t go overboard and write things like It affected them more than I. The chopped-off material after than is it affected me, not it affected I, so even the snootiest of the snoots would call for me in this sentence. Second, the two elements being compared should be grammatically and semantically parallel, a requirement that’s easy to flub when the first is complex. The condition of the first house we visited was better than the second can pass unnoticed in speech but can be grating on the page, because it compares apples (the condition) with oranges (the house). A careful reader will be hap.pier with was better than that of the second; the cost of the additional empty words is outweighed by the pleasure of parallel syntax and semantics (a condition in each case). Finally, the casual version (than me, as her, and so on) can be ambiguous: Biff likes the professor more than me can mean that he likes the professor more than he likes me or that he likes the professor more than I do. In these cases, using a nom.inative subject is technically clear but a bit stuffy—Biff likes the profes.sor more than I—and the best solution is to saw off less of the sentence, leaving Biff likes the professor more than I do. The debate on the correct syntactic category of than also feeds the tempest over whether you can say different than the rest, where than, once again, is a preposition with a noun phrase object, or you must say different from the rest, using the uncontroversial preposition from. Though different than NP is disliked by a slim majority of the AHD Usage Panel, it has long been common in carefully written prose. H. L. Mencken reported that a futile attempt to ban it in the 1920s elicited the following comment from the editors of the New York Sun: “The excellent tribe of grammarians, the precisians who strive to be correct and correctors, have as much power to prohibit a single word or phrase as a gray squirrel has to put out Orion with a flicker of its tail.”32

that and which. Many spurious rules start out as helpful hints intended to rescue indecisive writers from paralysis when faced with a choice provided by the richness of English. These guides for the perplexed also make the lives of copy editors easier, so they may get incorporated into style sheets. Before you know it, a rule of thumb morphs into a rule of grammar, and a perfectly innocuous (albeit second-choice) con.struction is demonized as incorrect. Nowhere is this transition better documented than with the phony but ubiquitous rule on when to use which and when to use that.33 According to the traditional rule, the choice depends on which of two kinds of relative clause the word is introducing. A nonrestrictive relative clause is set off by commas, dashes, or parentheses, and expresses a comment from the peanut gallery, as in The pair of shoes, which cost five thousand dollars, was hideous. A restrictive relative clause is essen.tial to the meaning of the sentence, often because it pinpoints the refer.ent of the noun from among a set of alternatives. If we were narrating a documentary about Imelda Marcos’s vast shoe collection and wanted to single out one of the pairs by how much she paid for it and then say something about that pair alone, we would write The pair of shoes that cost five thousand dollars was hideous. The choice between that and which, according to the rule, is simple: nonrestrictive relative clauses take which; restrictive relative clauses take that. One part of the rule is correct: it’s odd to use that with a nonrestrictive relative clause, as in The pair of shoes, that cost a thousand dollars, was hideous. So odd, in fact, that few people write that way, rule or no rule. The other part of the rule is utterly incorrect. There is nothing wrong with using which to introduce a restrictive relative clause, as in The pair of shoes which cost five thousand dollars was hideous. Indeed, with some restrictive relatives, which is the only option, such as That which doesn’t kill you makes you stronger and The book in which I scribbled my notes is worthless. Even when which isn’t mandatory, great writers have been using it for centuries, as in the King James Bible’s “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s” and Franklin Roosevelt’s “a day which will live in infamy.” The linguist Geoffrey Pullum searched through a sample of classic novels by authors such as Dickens, Conrad, Melville, and Brontë and found that on average readers will bump into a restrictive relative clause with which by the time they are 3 percent of the way into it.34 Turning to edited prose in twenty-first-century English, he found that which was used in about a fifth of the restrictive relative clauses in American newspapers and in more than half of those in British newspapers. Even the grammar nannies can’t help them.selves. In The Elements of Style E. B. White recommended “which.hunting,” but in his classic essay “Death of a Pig” he wrote, “The premature expiration of a pig is, I soon discovered, a departure which the community marks solemnly on its calendar.”

The spurious rule against restrictive which sprang from a daydream by Henry Fowler in Modern English Usage in 1926: “If writers would agree to regard that as the defining relative pronoun, & which as the non-defining, there would be much gain both in lucidity & in ease. Some there are who follow this principle now; but it would be idle to pretend that it is the practice either of most or of the best writers.” The lexicographer Bergen Evans punctured the reverie with an observation that should be embossed on little cards and handed out to language pedants: “What is not the practice of most, or of the best, is not part of our common language.”35 So what’s a writer to do? The real decision is not whether to use that or which but whether to use a restrictive or a nonrestrictive relative clause. If a phrase which expresses a comment about a noun can be omitted without substantially changing the meaning, and if it would be pronounced after a slight pause and with its own intonation contour, then be sure to set it off with commas (or dashes or parentheses): The Cambridge restaurant, which had failed to clean its grease trap, was infested with roaches. Having done so, you don’t have to worry about whether to use that or which, because if you’re tempted to use that it means either that you are more than two hundred years old or that your ear for the English language is so mistuned that the choice of that and which is the least of your worries. If, on the other hand, a phrase provides information about a noun

that is crucial to the point of the sentence (as in Every Cambridge restaurant which failed to clean its grease trap was infested with roaches, where omitting the underlined phrase would radically alter the mean.ing), and if it is pronounced within the same intonation contour as the noun, then don’t set it off with punctuation. As for the choice you now face between which and that: if you hate making decisions, you gener.ally won’t go wrong if you use that. You’ll be a good boy or girl in the eyes of copy editors, and will have avoided a sibilant, which many read.ers find ugly. Some guidelines recommend a switch to which when the relative clause is separated from the noun it modifies, as in An applica.tion to renew a license which had previously been rejected must be resub.mitted within thirty days, where the underlined clause modifies the faraway noun application, not the next-door noun license. Otherwise you could tilt toward that depending on the degree of restrictiveness, that is, the degree to which the meaning of the sentence critically depends on the relative clause. When the modified noun is quantified with every, only, all, some, or few, the relative changes everything: Every iPad that has been dropped in the bathtub stops working is very different from Every iPad stops working, and with those noun phrases that tends to sound a bit better. Or you could trust your ear, or flip a coin. Level of style won’t help you here: unlike the alternatives set apart by other pseudo-rules in the oral tradition, neither which nor that is more formal than the other. verbing and other neologisms. Many language lovers recoil from neologisms in which a noun is repurposed as a verb:

Other denominal verbs which have shattered the worlds of anal.retentives include author, conference, contact, critique, demagogue, dialogue, funnel, gift, guilt, impact, input, journal, leverage, mentor, mes.sage, parent, premiere, and process (in the sense of “think over”). But the retentives are misdiagnosing their anomie if they blame it on the English rule that converts nouns into verbs without an identify.ing affix such as –ize, –ify, en–, or be–. (Come to think of it, they hate many of those, too, like incentivize, finalize, personalize, prioritize, and empower.) Probably a fifth of English verbs started out life as nouns or adjectives, and you can find them in pretty much any paragraph of English prose.36 A glance at the most emailed stories in today’s New York Times turns up arriviste verbs such as biopsy, channel, freebase, gear, headline, home, level, mask, moonlight, outfit, panic, post, ramp, scapegoat, screen, sequence, showroom, sight, skyrocket, stack up, and tan, together with verbs derived from nouns or adjectives by affixation such as cannibalize, dramatize, ensnarl, envision, finalize, generalize, jeopardize, maximize, and upend. The English language welcomes converts to the verb category and has done so for a thousand years. Many novel verbs that set purists’ teeth on edge become unexceptionable to their grown children. It’s hard to get worked up, for example, over the now-indispensable verbs contact, finalize, funnel, host, personalize, and prioritize. Even many of the denominal verbs that gained traction in the past couple of decades have earned a permanent place in the lexicon because they convey a meaning more transparently and succinctly than any alternative, including incentivize, leverage, mentor, monetize, guilt (as in She guilted me into buying a bridesmaid’s dress), and demagogue (as in Weiner tried to demagogue the mainly African.American crowd by playing the victim). What really gets on the nerves of Ms. Retentive and her ilk is not verbing per se but neologisms from certain walks of life. Many people are irritated by buzzwords from the cubicle farm, such as drill down, grow the company, new paradigm, proactive, and synergies. They also bristle at psychobabble from the encounter group and therapy couch,

such as conflicted, dysfunctional, empower, facilitate, quality time, recover, role model, survivor, journal as a verb, issues in the sense of “concerns,” process in the sense of “think over,” and share in the sense of “speak.” Recently converted verbs and other neologisms should be treated as matters of taste, not grammatical correctness. You don’t have to accept all of them, particularly instant clichés like no.brainer, game.changer, and think outside the box, or trendy terms which tart up a banal mean.ing with an aura of technical sophistication, like interface, synergy, paradigm, parameter, and metrics. But many neologisms earn a place in the language by making it easy to express concepts that would otherwise require tedious circumlocu.tions. The fifth edition of the American Heritage Dictionary, published in 2011, added ten thousand words and senses to the edition published a decade before. Many of them express invaluable new concepts, including adverse selection, chaos (in the sense of the theory of nonlin.ear dynamics), comorbid, drama queen, false memory, parallel universe, perfect storm, probability cloud, reverse.engineering, short.sell, sock puppet, and swiftboating. In a very real sense such neologisms make it easier to think. The philosopher James Flynn, who discovered that IQ scores rose by three points a decade throughout the twentieth century, attributes part of the rise to the trickling down of technical ideas from academia and technology into the everyday thinking of laypeople.37 The transfer was expedited by the dissemination of shorthand terms for abstract concepts such as causation, circular argument, control group, cost.benefit analysis, correlation, empirical, false positive, percent.age, placebo, post hoc, proportional, statistical, tradeoff, and variability. It is foolish, and fortunately impossible, to choke off the influx of new words and freeze English vocabulary in its current state, thereby preventing its speakers from acquiring the tools to share new ideas efficiently. Neologisms also replenish the lexical richness of a language, com.pensating for the unavoidable loss of words and erosion of senses. Much of the joy of writing comes from shopping from the hundreds of thousands of words that English makes available, and it’s good to remember that each of them was a neologism in its day. The new entries in AHD 5 are a showcase for the linguistic exuberance and recent cul.tural history of the Anglosphere:

Abrahamic, air rage, amuse-bouche, backward-compatible, brain freeze, butterfly effect, carbon footprint, camel toe, community policing, crowdsourcing, Disneyfication, dispensationalism, dream catcher, earbud, emo, encephalization, farklempt, fashionista, fast-twitch, Goldilocks zone, grayscale, Grinch, hall of mirrors, hat hair, heterochrony, infographics, interoperable, Islamofascism, jelly sandal, jiggy, judicial activism, ka-ching, kegger, kerfuffle, leet, liminal, lipstick lesbian, manboob, McMansion, metabolic syndrome, nanobot, neuroethics, nonperforming, off the grid, Onesie, overdiagnosis, parkour, patriline, phish, quantum entanglement, queer theory, quilling, race-bait, recursive, rope-a-dope, scattergram, semifreddo, sexting, tag-team, time-suck, tranche, ubuntu, unfunny, universal Turing machine, vacuum energy, velociraptor, vocal percussion, waterboard, webmistress, wetware, Xanax, xenoestrogen, x-ray fish, yadda yadda yadda, yellow dog, yutz, Zelig, zettabyte, zipline If I were allowed to take just one book to the proverbial desert island, it might be a dictionary. who and whom. When Groucho Marx was once asked a long and orotund question, he replied, “Whom knows?” A 1928 short story by George Ade contains the line “‘Whom are you?’ he said, for he had been to night school.” In 2000 the comic strip Mother Goose and Grimm showed an owl in a tree calling “Whom” and a raccoon on the ground replying “Show-off!” A cartoon entitled “Grammar Dalek” shows one of the robots shouting, “I think you mean Doctor Whom!” And an old Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoon contains the following dialogue between the Pottsylvanian spies Boris Badenov and Natasha Fatale: Natasha: Ve need a safecracker! Boris: Ve already got a safecracker! Natasha: Ve do? Whom? Boris: Meem, dat’s whom!

The popularity of whom humor tells us two things about the dis.tinction between who and whom.38 First, whom has long been perceived as formal verging on pompous. Second, the rules for its proper use are obscure to many speakers, tempting them to drop whom into their speech whenever they want to sound posh. As we saw in chapter 4, the distinction between who and whom ought to be straightforward. If you mentally rewind the transforma.tional rule that moves the wh.word to the front of a sentence, the dis.tinction between who and whom is identical to the distinction between he and him or between she and her, which no one finds difficult. The declarative sentence She tickled him can be turned into the question Who tickled him? in which the wh.word replaces the subject and appears in nominative case, who. Or it can be turned into the question Whom did she tickle? in which the wh.word replaces the object and hence appears in accusative case, whom. But the cognitive difficulty of mentally undoing the movement rule, combined with the historical disappearance of case-marking from English (except for the personal pronouns and the genitive ’s), has long made it hard for English speakers to keep track of the distinction. Shakespeare and his contemporaries frequently used who where the rules would call for whom and vice versa, and even after a century of nagging by prescriptive grammarians the who.whom distinction remains tenuous in speech and informal writing. Only the stuffiest prig would use whom to begin a short question or relative clause: Whom are you going to believe, me or your own eyes? It’s not what you know; it’s whom you know. Do you know whom you’re talking to? And when people do try to write with whom, they often get it wrong: In 1983, Auerbach named former Celtics player K.C. Jones coach of the Celtics, whom starting in 1984 coached the Celtics to four straight appearances in the NBA Finals.

Whomever installed the shutters originally did not consider proper build out, and the curtains were too close to your window and door frames. The exploration of syntactic trees in chapter 4 turned up an espe.cially common fumble of whom. When the deep-structure position of the wh.word is the subject of a clause (demanding who), but it occurs adjacent to a verb which takes the clause as its complement (whispering whom), writers lose sight of the tree and allow their eyes to be caught by the adjacent verb, resulting in The French actor plays a man whom she suspects __ is her husband (pages 101 and 102). These sequences have been so common for so long, and arouse so little reaction even in many careful writers, that some linguists have argued that they are no longer errors at all. In the dialect of these writers, they argue, the rules for whom call for it to be used when it links to the position following a verb, even if it is the subject of a clause.39 Like the subjunctive mood, the pronoun whom is widely thought to be circling the drain. Indeed, tabulations of its frequency in printed text confirm that it has been sinking for almost two centuries. The declining fortunes of whom may represent not a grammatical change in English but a cultural change in Anglophones, namely the informal.ization of writing, which makes it increasingly resemble speech. But it’s always risky to extrapolate a downward slope all the way to zero, and since the 1980s the curve seems to be leveling off.40 Though whom is pompous in short questions and relative clauses, it is a natural choice in certain other circumstances, even in informal speech and writing. We still use whom in double questions like Who’s dating whom?, in fixed expressions like To whom it may concern and With whom do you wish to speak?, and in sentences in which a writer has decided not to strand a preposition at the end of a clause but to pied-pipe it to the front. A scan of my email turns up hundreds of hits for whom (even after I discarded the ones with the boilerplate “The information in this email is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed”). Here are a few unmistakably informal sentences in which whom is so natu.ral as to be unnoticeable:

I realize it’s short notice, but are you around on Monday? Al Kim from Boulder (grad student friend of Jesse’s and someone with whom I’ve worked a lot as well) will be in town. Not sure if you remember me; I’m the fellow from Casasanto’s lab with whom you had a hair showdown while at Hunter. Hi Steven. We have some master’s degree applicants for whom I need to know whether they passed prosem with a B+ or better. Are those grades available? Reminder: I am the guy who sent you the Amy Winehouse CD. And the one for whom you wrote “kiss the cunt of a cow” at your book signing.41 The best advice to writers is to calibrate their use of whom to the complexity of the construction and the degree of formality they desire. In casual prose, whom can be reserved for the object of a preposition and other positions in which who would be conspicuously wrong; all other uses will sound pompous. In formal prose, a writer should men.tally move the wh.word back to its original position in the tree and choose who or whom accordingly. But even in formal prose, an author may want a voice that is lean and direct rather than ornate and flowery, and in that case who has a place in simple constructions. If William Safire, who wrote the New York Times’ “On Language” column and coined the term language maven in reference to himself, could write, “Let tomorrow’s people decide who they want to be president,” so can you.42

QuAntity, QuAlity, And deGree The rules of usage we just examined were centered on grammatical form, such as distinctions among grammatical categories and the marking of tense and mood. But other prescriptive rules—those that govern the expression of quality, quantity, and degree—are alleged to be closer to the truths of logic and mathematics than to the conventions of gram.mar. To flout these rules, the purists claim, is no mere peccadillo but an assault on reason itself.

Claims of this kind are always fishy. Though language certainly provides writers with the means to express fine logical distinctions, none of the distinctions is mechanically conveyed by a single word or construction. All words have multiple meanings which must be sorted out by the context, and each of those meanings is far subtler than the ones invoked by purists. Let’s examine some of the sophistry behind claims that issues of usage can be settled by logical or mathematical consistency. absolute and graded qualities (very unique). They say you can’t be a little bit married or a little bit pregnant, and purists believe that the same is true for certain other adjectives. One of the commonest insults to the sensibility of the purist is the expression very unique and other phrases in which an “absolute” or “incomparable” adjective is modified by an adverb of degree such as more, less, somewhat, quite, relatively, or almost. Uniqueness, the purists say, is like marriage and pregnancy: something is either unique (one of a kind) or not unique, so referring to degrees of uniqueness is meaningless. Nor can one sensibly modify absolute, certain, complete, equal, eternal, perfect, or the same. One may not write, for instance, that one statement is more certain than another, or that an inventory is now more complete, or that an apartment is rela.tively perfect. A glance at the facts of usage immediately sets off Klaxon horns. Great writers have been modifying absolute adjectives for centuries, including the framers of the American Constitution, who sought a more perfect union. Many of the examples pass unnoticed by careful writers and are approved by large majorities of the AHD Usage Panel, including nothing could be more certain, there could be no more perfect spot, and a more equal allocation of resources. Though the phrase very unique is universally despised, other modifications of unique are unobjectionable. Martin Luther King wrote, “I am in the rather unique position of being the son, the grandson, and the great grandson of preachers.” The New York Times science section recently had an article which said, “The creature is so unique in its style and appearance that the biologists who discovered it have given it not just its own species name . . . but have declared that it is an entirely new phylum.”

Even very unique might have a place. Last night while I was walking by a cabaret in Provincetown, I was handed a glossy postcard invit.ing passersby to the show. The card showed a well-toned man wear.ing a silver lamé dinner jacket with matching bow tie, pasties, codpiece, and nothing else, surrounded by a bevy of voluptuous big-haired showgirls of both genders, and at his feet an androgynous waif with a pencil mustache in a turquoise sequined sailor suit. The copy read: “The Atomic Bombshells. A Drag-tastic burlesque Extravaganza! Featuring Boyleseque superstar Jett Adore! Hosted by Seattle’s Pre.miere Fancy Lady Ben DeLaCreme.” The hostess who handed me the card promised that it would be a “very unique show.” Who would argue? Here is the flaw in the purists’ logic. Uniqueness is not like preg.nancy and marriage; it must be defined relative to some scale of mea.surement. I am told that all snowflakes are unique, and so they may be under a microscope, but frankly, they all look the same to me. Con.versely, each of the proverbial two peas in a pod is unique if you squint hard enough through a magnifying glass. Does this mean that nothing is unique, or does it mean that everything is unique? The answer is neither: the concept “unique” is meaningful only after you specify which qualities are of interest to you and which degree of resolution or grain size you’re applying. Occasionally we can state the quality explicitly and the scale is dis.crete, as in Hawaii is unique among states in being surrounded by water, or The number 30 may be factored into the unique set of primes 2, 3, and 5. Purists would like to reserve the word unique for those circumstances, in which adverbs of comparison are indeed incongruous. But often our eye is caught by many qualities, some of them continuous, and the item we are considering may either be close to others on the scale or be miles away. Calling something quite unique or very unique implies that the item differs from the others in an unusual number of qualities, that it differs from them to an unusual degree, or both. In other words, pick any scale or cutoff you want, and the item will still be unique. This “distinctive” sense has coexisted with the “having no like or equal” sense for as long as the word unique has been in common use. The other supposedly absolute adjectives also depend on the granularity of the comparison scale, and thus may be qualified by how coarse or fine a scale is being used in that comparison.

This doesn’t mean that you should go ahead and use very unique, even if you are handing out postcards for The Atomic Bombshells. As we saw in chapter 2, very is a soggy modifier in the best of circum.stances, and the combination with unique grates on enough readers that it’s wise to avoid it. (If you must qualify the word, really unique and truly unique, which convey degree of confidence rather than degree of distinctness, will meet with fewer objections.) But comparisons of supposedly absolute adjectives are not illogical, and often they are un.avoidable. singulars and plurals (none is versus none are). The neat dichotomy in English grammar between singular and plural leaves many situa.tions out in the cold. The problem is that there is a mismatch between the simplistic theory of number baked into our grammar and the true nature of number in all its mathematical and logical glory. Suppose I name a bunch of things and ask you to sort them into two piles, one pile for quantities equal to 1 and the other pile for quantities greater than 1. Here’s how our dialogue might go. Ready? “A cup.” Easy! 1.
“The potted plants.” Easy! More than 1.
“A cup and a spoon.” Still easy! 1 + 1 = 2, which is more than 1.

“A pair of gloves.” Well, that depends . . . I see two objects, but they count as one item on my sales receipt, and when I decide whether I can use the
express checkout lane.
“The dining room set.” Gee, that also depends. It’s one set, but four chairs and a table.
“The gravel under the flowerpot.” Hey, am I supposed to count every pebble, or can I consider it just a saucerful of gravel?
“Nothing.” Hmmm . . . Neither, I guess. What am I supposed to do now?
“The desk or the chair.” Huh?
“Each object in the room.” Wait—do you want me to stand back and consider all those things at once (that would be greater than 1) or zoom in and examine them one at a time (that would be 1 each time)?

These are the brainteasers that English writers must solve when they shoehorn expressions with none, every, and other quantifiers into the singular-plural dichotomy. Purists insist that none means “no one” and therefore must be sin.gular: None of them was home, not None of them were home. This is false; you can look it up. None has always been either singular or plural, depending on whether the writer is pondering the entire group at once or each member individually. The singular (None of the students was doing well) feels a bit more specific and emphatic than the plural (None of the students were doing well), and is often stylistically preferable for that reason. But when an additional quantifier forces us to carve out a subset of the group and say something about that subset, the plural is irresistible: Almost none of them are honest (not is); None but his closest friends believe his alibi (not believes). Any can also swing both ways: Are any of the children coming? Any of the tools is fine. And so it is with no, depending on the number of the noun it quantifies: No man is an island; No men are islands.

In contrast to these three terms, which specify pure not-ness and lack an inherent number, some quantifiers do single out one individual at a time. Neither means “not one of the two,” and it is singular: Neither book was any good, not Neither book were any good. The same is true of either, even when it picks one item from a pair: Either of the candidates is experienced enough to run the country, not are. Likewise, the one in anyone and everyone, the body in somebody and everybody, and the thing in nothing shout that they are referring to one thing at a time (even though the words rope in the entire universe of individuals), and that makes each of them singular: Anyone is welcome to try; Everyone eats at my house; Everybody is a star; Nothing is easy. When two singular nouns are coordinated with and, the phrase is usually plural, as if the language is acknowledging that one plus one equals two: A fool and his money are soon parted; Frankie and Johnny were lovers. But when the duo is mentally packaged as a single entity, it can be singular: One and one and one is three; Macaroni and cheese is a good dinner for kids. This is part of a larger phenomenon called notional agreement, in which the grammatical number of a noun phrase can depend on whether the writer conceives of its referent as singular or plural, rather than on whether it is grammatically marked as singular or plural. A writer can mentally package a conjoined phrase into a single unit (Bobbing and weaving is an effective tactic). Or he can do the opposite: peer into a singular collective noun and see the plu.rality of individual members composing it (as in The panel were in.formed of the new rules). This is far more common in British English; Americans do a double take when they read The government are listen.ing at last, The Guardian are giving you the chance to win books, and Microsoft are considering the offer. What happens with other words that join nouns together, like with, plus, and or? With is a preposition, so the phrase a man with his son is not a coordination at all but an ordinary phrase with the head a man, modified by with his son. It inherits the singular number of its head, so

we say A man with his son is coming up the walk. The word plus began as a preposition, and again we say All that food plus the weight of the backpack is a lot to carry. But plus is increasingly being used as a coor.dinator as well, and it’s natural to say The hotel room charge plus the surcharge add up to a lot of money. And then we have to figure out what to do with or (an issue we met on page 207). A disjunction of two singular nouns is singular: Either beer or wine is served. A disjunction of two plurals is plural: Either nuts or pretzels are served. With a disjunction of a singular and a plural, traditional grammar books say that number agreement goes with the noun closest to the verb: Either a burrito or nachos are served; Either nachos or a burrito is served. But that policy leaves many writers queasy (the Usage Panel divides up the middle on it), and it may be best to spare readers from stretching their grammatical intuitions and recast the sentence, such as They serve either nachos or a burrito. Certain nouns specify a measure and then indicate what they’re measuring using an of.phrase, such as a lot of peanuts, a pair of socks, and a majority of the voters. These Zelig-like nouns can be singular or plural depending on the number of the of.phrase: A lot of work was done; A lot of errors were made. (It’s possible that their trees differ, with a lot being the head of the phrase in the first version but a determiner of the head errors in the second.) When the of.phrase is absent, the writer mentally supplies it, and the phantom phrase determines the number: A lot [of people] were coming; A lot [of money] was spent. Other chameleonic quantifiers include couple, majority, more than one, pair, percentage, plenty, remainder, rest, and subset. And then there is the puzzling construction one of those who. Recently I endorsed a book by Douglas Hofstadter and Emmanuel Sander with a blurb that began, “I am one of those cognitive scientists who believes that analogy is a key to explaining human intelligence.” Hofstadter thanked me but sheepishly asked if I would mind correct.ing who believes to who believe. I even more sheepishly agreed, because Hofstadter (as his readers might expect) was engaging in impeccable tree-thinking. The relative clause beginning with who is attached to the plural cognitive scientists, not the singular one: there is a set of cog.nitive scientists (plural) who value analogy, and I belong to that set. So it must take the plural verb believe.

Though I couldn’t defend my original wording, it still sounded fine to my ears, so I did a bit of research on the construction. It turns out I am not alone. For more than a thousand years the siren song of singu.lar one has overridden the syntactic demand of the plural those, and writer after writer has gone with the singular. This includes the über.purist James Kilpatrick, who to his chagrin repeatedly found himself using it even after having been corrected by the UofAllPeople Club. (He wrote, for example, “In Washington, we encounter ‘to prioritize’ all the time; it is one of those things that makes Washington unbear.able.”) Often the technically correct version sounds off-kilter. More than 40 percent of the Usage Panel rejected The sports car turned out to be one of the most successful products that were ever manufactured in this country. Sometimes the dilemma can be sidestepped by artful rewording (in this example, deleting that were), but not always. In Tina is one of the few students who turns to the jittery guidance counselor, Emma, for help with her feelings, a switch to turn would require a par.allel switch of her feelings to their feelings, which makes it seem as if each girl sought counseling for all the girls’ feelings, not her own. The Cambridge Grammar suggests that the construction is a hybrid of two trees that mingle in the reader’s mind: one in which the relative clause is attached to the downstairs noun (cognitive scientists who believe), and it determines the meaning, and one in which it is attached to the upstairs noun (one . . . who believes), and it determines the num.ber agreement. Usage guides today suggest that either the singular or plural is acceptable in this construction, depending on whether one or those looms larger in the writer’s mind.43 duals and plurals (between/among and other distinctions between two and more than two). Many languages distinguish three quantities in their number system: singular (one), dual (two), and plural (many). Hebrew, for example, distinguishes yom, “day,” yomayim, “two days,” and yamim, “days.” English doesn’t have dual number marking, but it does recognize twoness in words like pair and couple, and, with vary.ing degrees of controversy, in other quantifying words.

between and among. Many students are taught that between must be used with just two items (since tween is related to two and twain) and among with more than two: between you and me but among the three of us. This is only half right. It’s certainly true that among may not be used with a twosome: among you and me is impossible. But it’s not true that between is reserved for two: no one would say I’ve got sand among my toes, I never snack among meals, or Let’s keep this among you, me, and the lamppost. Nonetheless some writers have dutifully followed this pseudo-rule to the bitter end and have concocted fussy expressions like sexual intercourse among two men and a woman, a book that falls among many stools, and The author alternates among mod slang, clichés, and quotes from literary giants. The real principle is that between is used for a relationship of an individual to any number of other individuals, as long as they are being considered two at a time, whereas among is used for a relationship of an individual to an amorphous mass or collectivity. Thistles grew between the roses suggests an orderly row in a formal gar.den, and Thistles grew among the roses more of an entwined profusion. each other and one another. A traditional rule of the same ilk assigns each other to twosomes and one another to groups larger than two. If you don’t trust your ear you will never get into trouble if you follow the rule, and that’s what a majority of the Usage Panel claims to do. But the common practice is to use them interchangeably—the teammates hugged each other, the teammates hugged one another—and the major dictionaries and usage guides say that’s fine. alternatives. There is a claim in Prescriptistan that alternative refers only to two possibilities, never more than two. It’s a bubbe meise; forget it. either and any. The twosome restriction is on firmer ground with either, at least when it is used as a noun or a determiner. The phrases Either of the three movies and Either boy of the three are decidedly odd, and either should be replaced with any. But when either is used in an either.or construction, threesomes are more acceptable, if not always

graceful: Either Tom, Dick, or Harry can do the job; Either lead, follow, or get out of the way. –er and –est; more and most. Adjectives can be inflected for degree, giving us comparatives (harder, better, faster, stronger) and superlatives (hardest, best, fastest, strongest). Tradition says that you should reserve the comparative for two things and use the superlative for more than two: you should refer to the faster of the two runners, rather than the fastest, but it’s all right to refer to the fastest of three runners. The same is true for polysyl.labic adjectives that shun –er and –est in favor of more and most: the more intelligent of the two; the most intelligent of the three. But it’s not a hard.and-fast rule: we say May the best team win, not the better team, and Put your best foot forward, not your better foot. Once again the traditional rule is stated too crudely. It’s not the sheer number of items that determines the choice but the manner in which they are being compared. A comparative adjective is appropriate when the two items are being directly contrasted, one against the other; a superlative can work when an item is superior not just to the alternative in view at the time but to a larger implicit compari.son group. If Usain Bolt and I happened to be competing for a spot on an Olympic Dream Team, it would be misleading to say that they picked the faster of the two men for the team; they picked the fastest man. things and stuff (count nouns, mass nouns and ten items or less). Finally, let’s turn to the pebbles and gravel, which represent the two ways that English speakers can conceptualize aggregates: as discrete things, which are expressed as plural count nouns, and as continuous substances, which are expressed as mass nouns. Some quantifiers are choosy as to which they apply to. We can talk about many pebbles but not much pebbles, much gravel but not many gravel. Some quantifiers are not choosy: We can talk about more pebbles or more gravel.44 Now, you might think that if more can be used with both count and mass nouns, so can less. But it doesn’t work that way: you may have less gravel, but most writers agree that you can only have fewer pebbles, not less pebbles. This is a reasonable distinction, but purists have extended it with a vengeance. The sign over supermarket express checkout lanes, Ten Items or Less, is a grammatical error, they say, and as a result of their carping whole-food and other upscale supermarkets have replaced the signs with Ten Items or Fewer. The director of the Bicycle Trans.portation Alliance has apologized for his organization’s popular T-shirt that reads One Less Car, conceding that it should read One Fewer Car. By this logic, liquor stores should refuse to sell beer to customers who are fewer than twenty-one years old, law-abiding motorists should drive at fewer than seventy miles an hour, and the poverty line should be defined by those who make fewer than eleven thousand five hundred dollars a year. And once you master this distinction, well, that’s one fewer thing for you to worry about.45

If this is all starting to sound weird to you, you’re not alone. The caption of this cartoon reminds us that while sloppy grammar can be a turnoff, so can the kind of pedantry that takes a grammatical distinc.tion too far:

What’s going on? As many linguists have pointed out, the purists have botched the less.fewer distinction. It is certainly true that less is clumsy when applied to the plurals of count nouns for discrete items: fewer pebbles really does sound better than less pebbles. But it’s not true that less is forbidden to apply to count nouns across the board. Less is perfectly natural with a singular count noun, as in one less car and one less thing to worry about. It’s also natural when the entity being quan.tified is a continuous extent and the count noun refers to units of mea.surement. After all, six inches, six months, six miles, and a bill for six dollars don’t actually correspond to six hunks of matter; the units, like the 1–11 scale on Nigel Tufnel’s favorite amplifier in This Is Spinal Tap, are arbitrary. In these cases less is natural and fewer is a hypercorrec.tion. And less is idiomatic in certain expressions in which a quantity is being compared to a standard, including He made no less than fifteen mistakes and Describe yourself in fifty words or less. Nor are these idi.oms recent corruptions: for much of the history of the English lan.guage, less could be used with both count and mass nouns, just as more is today.

Like many dubious rules of usage, the less.fewer distinction has a smidgen of validity as a pointer of style. In cases where less and fewer are both available to a writer, such as Less/fewer than twenty of the stu.dents voted, the word fewer is the better choice in classic style because it enhances vividness and concreteness. But that does not mean that less is a grammatical error. The same kind of judgment applies to the choice between over and more than. When the plural refers to countable objects, it’s a good idea to use more than. He owns more than a hundred pairs of boots is more classic-stylish than He owns over a hundred pairs of boots, because it encourages us to imagine the pairs individually rather than lumping them together as an amorphous collection. But when the plural defines a point on a scale of measurement, as in These rocks are over five million years old, it’s perverse to insist that it can only be more than five million years old, because no one is counting the years one by one. In neither of these cases, usage guides agree, is over a grammatical error. I can’t resist the temptation to sum up this review with a short story by the writer Lawrence Bush (reproduced with his kind permission), which alludes to many of the points of usage we have examined (see how many you can spot) while speaking to the claim that the tradi.tional rules reduce misunderstanding:46

I had only just arrived at the club when I bumped into Roger. After we had exchanged a few pleasantries, he lowered his voice and asked, “What do you think of Martha and I as a potential twosome?” “That,” I replied, “would be a mistake. Martha and me is more like it.” “You’re interested in Martha?” “I’m interested in clear communication.” “Fair enough,” he agreed. “May the best man win.” Then he sighed. “Here I thought we had a clear path to becoming a very unique couple.” “You couldn’t be a very unique couple, Roger.” “Oh? And why is that?” “Martha couldn’t be a little pregnant, could she?” “Say what? You think that Martha and me . . .” “Martha and I.” “Oh.” Roger blushed and set down his drink. “Gee, I didn’t know.” “Of course you didn’t,” I assured him. “Most people don’t.” “I feel very badly about this.” “You shouldn’t say that: I feel bad . . .” “Please, don’t,” Roger said. “If anyone’s at fault here, it’s me.” masculine and feminine (nonsexist language and singular they). In a 2013 press release President Barack Obama praised a Supreme Court decision striking down a discriminatory law with the sentence “No American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like.”47 In doing so he touched one of the hottest usage buttons of the past forty years: the use of the plural pronouns they, them, their, and themselves with a grammatically singular antecedent like no American. Why didn’t the president write because of what he looks like, or because of what he or she looks like? Many purists claim that singular they is a LOLcat-worthy grammat.ical howler which is tolerated only as a sop to the women’s movement.

According to this theory, the pronoun he is a perfectly serviceable gender-neutral pronoun; as grammar students used to be taught, “The masculine embraces the feminine, even in grammar.” But feminist sensibilities could not abide even the illusory sexism of using a masculine form to represent both genders, and so they engaged in a campaign of linguistic engineering that started with a mandate to use the clumsy he or she and slipped down a slope that ended in singular they. The computer scientist David Gelernter explains: “Unsatisfied with having rammed their 80-ton 16-wheeler into the nimble sports-car of English style, [feminist authori.ties] proceeded to shoot the legs out from under grammar—which col.lapsed in a heap after agreement between subject and pronoun was declared to be optional.”48 (He should have written “antecedent and pro.noun”—the issue has nothing to do with subjects.) The webcomic artist Ryan North addresses the same usage problem with a lighter touch and no hostility toward feminism. One of his cre.ations, T-Rex, is more skeptical than Gelernter about how nimble English really is, and confronts the language in the second person, ask.ing it to admit one of the gender-neutral pronouns that have been pro.posed over the years, such as hir, zhe, or thon:

But in a subsequent panel in this strip, the talking dinosaur equivo.cates, first worrying that “invented pronouns always sound strange,” and then reversing himself and wondering whether he should learn to like There comes a time when thon must look thonself in the mirror.

Let’s try to sort this out. To begin with, T-Rex is right and the pur.ists are wrong: English has no gender-neutral pronoun. At least in grammar, the masculine does not embrace the feminine. Experiments have shown that when people read the word he they are likely to assume that the writer intended to refer to a male.49 But the experiments hardly needed to be run, because it’s a brute fact of English grammar that he is a masculine and not a common-gender pronoun. If you don’t believe it, just read these sentences:50 Is it your brother or your sister who can hold his breath for four minutes? The average American needs the small routines of getting ready for work. As he shaves or pulls on his pantyhose, he is easing himself by small stages into the demands of the day. She and Louis had a game—who could find the ugliest photograph of himself. I support the liberty of every father or mother to educate his children as he desires. Do you still think that he is gender-neutral? It’s hard to disagree with T-Rex’s accusation that there is a bug in the English language. It would seem that a writer who wants to embrace both sexes in a quantified sentence must either make an error in number by writing No American should be under a cloud of suspicion because of what they look like or make an error in gender by writing No American should be under a cloud of suspicion because of what he looks like. And as the dinosaur explained, other solutions—it, one, he or she, s/he, his/her, novel pro.nouns like thon—have problems as well. One theoretical possibility is no longer an actual possibility: blow off concerns with gender inclusiveness, use masculine terms, and let the reader read between the lines and infer that women are included, too. No major publication today will allow this “sexist usage,” nor should they. Quite aside from the moral principle that half of humanity should not be excluded from generic statements about the species, we now know that the major objections to nonsexist language that were first voiced forty years ago have been refuted. Not only have the grace and expressiveness of the English language survived the substitution of gender-neutral terms for masculine ones (humanity for man, firefighter for fireman, chair for chairman, and so on), but the generation of read.ers that has grown up with the new norms has turned the traditional.ists’ startle reaction on its head. Today it is sexist usage that stops readers in their tracks and distracts them from the writer’s message.51 It’s hard, for example, not to cringe when reading this sentence from a famous 1967 article by a Nobel laureate: “In the good society a man should be free . . . of other men’s limitations on his beliefs and actions.”52

This brings us back to the solution of singular they. The first thing to realize about the usage is that it is not a recent contrivance forced on writers by militant 1970s feminists. Gelernter pines for “Shakespeare’s most perfect phrases” and Jane Austen’s “pure simple English,” but this turns out to be a pratfall of slapstick proportions, because both writers were exuberant users of—you guessed it—singular they. Shakespeare used it at least four times, and in a paper entitled “Everyone Loves Their Jane Austen,” the scholar Henry Churchyard counts eighty-seven instances in her works, of which thirty-seven were in her own voice rather than her characters’ (for example, “Every body began to have their vexation,” from Mansfield Park).53 Chaucer, the King James Bible, Swift, Byron, Thackeray, Wharton, Shaw, and Auden also used the form, as did Robert Burchfield, editor of the Supplement to the Oxford English Dictionary and the most recent edition of Fowler’s Modern English Usage. A second thing to understand about singular they is that even though it offers a handy solution to the need for a gender-free pronoun, that is not its only or even its primary appeal. Many writers use it even when the gender is unambiguously male or female. George Bernard Shaw, for example, wrote the lines “No man goes to battle to be killed.”“But they do get killed.” Since the dialogue was about men, Shaw had no need to pander to feminism, but he used singular they anyway, because the sup.posedly correct form with he would have turned the exchange into hash: “No man goes to battle to be killed.”“But he does get killed.” (The same is true for a sentence I used two paragraphs ago: No major publi.cation today will allow this “sexist usage,” nor should they. The alterna.tive nor should it would make it sound as if I had a particular publication in mind and raise the question “Nor should which?”) A contemporary example with an unambiguous female referent comes from a spoken interview with Sean Ono Lennon in which he specified the kind of person he was seeking as a romantic partner: “Any girl who is interested must simply be born female and between the ages of 18 and 45. They must have an IQ above 130 and they must be honest.”54 Once again he did not need they as a gender-neutral pronoun; he had already stipulated the congenital and current sex of his desired mate (nowadays perhaps you have to specify both). But since he was speaking not of an individual female but of the entire pool, they felt right to him. In each of these cases they takes part in a kind of notional agreement. No man and any girl are grammatically singular but psychologically plural: they pertain to classes with many individuals. The mismatch is similar to the one we saw in examples like None are coming and Are any of them coming?

Indeed, “singular they” is a misnomer. In these constructions, they is not being used as a singular pronoun being wrenched into agree.ment with a singular antecedent like each dinosaur, everyone, no Amer.ican, the average American, or any girl. Remember when we tried to sort descriptions of objects into piles for “one” and “more than one”? We discovered that the very idea of the numerosity of a quantified expression like nothing or each object is obscure. Does no American refer to one American or to many Americans? Whom knows? 0 ≠ 1, but then 0 >/ 1 either. This indeterminism forces us to realize that the word they in the sentences we have been considering does not have the usual semantics of a pronoun and an antecedent, as it does in The musicians are here and they expect to be fed. Rather, the pronoun they is function.ing as a bound variable: a symbol that keeps track of an individual across multiple descriptions of that individual. So-called singular they really means “x” in an expression like “For all x, if x is an American, then x should not be under a cloud of suspicion because of x’s appearance,” or “For all x, if Sean Ono Lennon considers marrying x, then x is born female & x has an IQ above 130 & x is honest.”55

So singular they has history and logic behind it. Experiments that measure readers’ comprehension times to the thousandth of a second have shown that singular they causes little or no delay, but generic he slows them down a lot. 56\ Even T-Rex, in a subsequent Dinosaur Comics strip, conceded that his purism was mistaken:

Assuming you aren’t willing to start a campaign for thon, does that mean you should go ahead and use singular they? It depends on the level of formality, the nature of the antecedent, and the available alter.natives. Obviously singular they is less acceptable in formal than in informal writing. It is also more conspicuous when the antecedent is an indefinite noun phrase like a man, whose singular aroma makes the apparent plurality of they stand out. It’s not as problematic with a uni.versally quantified antecedent like everyone, and barely noticeable with a negative quantifier like no or any. The judgments of the Usage Panel are sensitive to this difference. Only a minority accepts A person at that level should not have to keep track of the hours they put in—though the size of that minority has doubled in the past decade, from 20 percent to almost 40 percent, one of many signs that we are in the midst of a historical change that’s returning singular they to the acceptability it enjoyed before a purist crackdown in the nineteenth century. A slim majority of the panel accepts If anyone calls, tell them I can’t come to the phone and Everyone returned to their seats. The main danger in using these forms is that a more-grammatical-than-thou reader may falsely accuse you of mak.ing an error. If they do, tell them that Jane Austen and I think it’s fine.

For many decades usage manuals have recommended two escape hatches for the singular pronoun trap. The easiest is to express the quantified description as a plural, which makes they a grammatically honest pronoun. If you think that you can improve on Jane Austen’s prose, for example, you could change Every body began to have their vexation to They all began to have their vexations. This is the solution that experienced writers use most often, and you would be surprised how many generic or universal sentences can be recast with plural sub.jects without anyone noticing: Every writer should shorten their sentences is easily transformed into All writers should shorten their sentences or just Writers should shorten their sentences. The other escape hatch is to replace the pronoun with an indefinite or generic alternative and count on the reader’s common sense to fill in the referent: Every body began to have their vexation becomes Every body began to have a vexation, and Every dinosaur should look in his or her mirror becomes Every dinosaur should look in the mirror. Neither solution is perfect. Sometimes a writer really does need to focus on a single individual, which makes a plural inappropriate. In Americans must never live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like, the generic plural Americans can be interpreted to mean “the typical American” or “most Americans,” which under.mines Obama’s declaration that freedom from discrimination must apply to each and every one without exception. With Shaw’s dialogue, plural subjects in Men never go to battle to be killed. But many of them do get killed would have undercut the point of the exchange, in which the listener is asked to ponder the foolhardiness of an individual enlistee, and the replacements would also have sabotaged Shaw’s jux.taposition of the low probability that any given individual will be killed with the high probability that some of them will be killed. Nor can a pronoun always be replaced by an indefinite or generic noun:

During an emergency, every parent During an emergency, every parent must pick up their child. must pick up a child. The replacement makes it seem as if a parent could choose a child at random to pick up, rather than being responsible for picking up his or her own child. Because of these complexities, writers always have to consider the full inventory of devices that the English language makes available to convey generic information, each imperfect for a different reason: he, she, he or she, they, a plural antecedent, replacing the pronoun, and who knows, perhaps someday even using thon. For some purists, these complexities provide an excuse to dismiss all concerns with gender inclusiveness and stick with the flawed option of he. Gelernter complains, “Why should I worry about feminist ideol.ogy while I write? . . . Writing is a tricky business that requires one’s whole concentration.” But the reaction is disingenuous. Every sentence requires a writer to grapple with tradeoffs between clarity, concision, tone, cadence, accuracy, and other values. Why should the value of not excluding women be the only one whose weight is set to zero?

diCtion Even writers who are skeptical of traditional prescriptions on gram.mar tend to give more weight to prescriptions on word choice. Fewer superstitions have grown up around word meaning than around grammar, because lexicographers are pack rats who accumulate vast collections of examples and compose their definitions empirically rather than kibitzing in an armchair with half-baked theories about how English ought to work. As a result, the definitions in contempo.rary dictionaries are usually faithful to the consensus of literate read.ers. A writer who is unsure of the consensus for a word is well advised to look it up rather than embarrass himself and annoy his readers with a malaprop. (The word malaprop, short for malapropism, comes from Mrs. Malaprop, a character in Richard Sheridan’s 1775 play The Rivals, who misused words to comic effect, such as reprehend for apprehend and epitaph for epithet.)

Though less nonsense is disseminated about word meanings than about grammar, the nonsense factor is far from zero. With the backing of data from the AHD Usage Panel, historical analyses from several dictionaries, and a pinch of my own judgment, I will review a few fuss.budget decrees you can safely ignore before turning to living distinc.tions you’d be wise to respect. Word Only Sense Allowed by Purists Sense Commonly Used Comment
aggravate make worse (aggravate the crisis) annoy (aggravate the teacher) The “annoy” sense has been in use since the 17th century and is accepted by 83% of the Usage Panel.
anticipate deal with in advance (We anticipated the shortage by stocking up on toilet paper.) expect (We anticipated a pleasant sabbatical year.) The “expect” sense is accepted by 87% of the Usage Panel.
anxious worried (Flying makes me anxious.) eager (I’m anxious to leave.) The Usage Panel splits 50-50, but the “eager” sense has long been in use and is included
without comment in
most dictionaries.
comprise contain (The US comprises 50 states.) compose, make up (The US is comprised of 50 states.) The “compose” sense is often used and increasingly accepted, particularly in the passive.

264 The SenSe of STyle
Word Only Sense Allowed Sense Comment
by Purists Commonly Used

convince cause to believe (She convinced him that cause to act (She convinced him to have Convince supposedly contrasts with
vaccines are harmless.) his child vaccinated.) persuade, which means “cause to act,” but few writers care.
crescendo gradual increase (a long crescendo) climax, peak (reach a crescendo) The insistence on the “increase” sense is an etymological fallacy, based on the Italian
source and the
technical term in
music. The “climax”
sense is entrenched, and accepted by a slim majority of the Usage Panel.
critique noun (a critique) verb (to critique) The verb is widely disliked but venerable, and usefully different from criticize in
implying analysis rather than censure.
decimate destroy a tenth destroy most An etymological fallacy, based on the Roman punishment of mutinous legions.
due to adjective (The plane crash was due to a storm.) preposition (The plane crashed due to a storm.) Actually, both are prepositions, and both are fine.57

Word Only Sense Allowed Sense Comment
by Purists Commonly Used
Frankenstein the fictional scientist a monster If you insist on We’ve
created a
Frankenstein’s
monster! you probably
also popped
champagne on Jan. 1,
2001, wondering
where all the other
revelers were. (“You
see, there was no
Year 0, so the third
millennium really
begins in 2001 . . .”)
Give it up.
graduate transitive and usually intransitive (She The “correct” sense in
passive (She was graduated from the passive is
graduated from Harvard.) increasingly obscure,
Harvard.) though it persists in
the active Harvard
graduated more
lawyers this year. The
Usage Panel embraces
the intransitive,
though it hates the
flipped transitive She
graduated Harvard.
healthy possessing good healthful, conducive Healthy meaning
health (Mabel is to good health (Carrot “conducive to health”
healthy.) juice is a healthy has been more
drink.) common than
healthful for 500
years.

266 The SenSe of STyle
Word Only Sense Allowed by Purists Sense Commonly Used Comment
hopefully verb phrase adverb: in a hopeful manner (Hopefully, he invited her upstairs to see his etchings.) sentence adverb: it is to be hoped that (Hopefully, it will stop hailing.) Many adverbs, such as candidly, frankly, and mercifully, modify both verb phrases and sentences. Hopefully is just newer, and became a purist cause célèbre in the 1960s.
Irrational resistance
lingers, but dictionaries and
newspapers increasingly accept it.
intrigue noun: a plot (She got involved in another intrigue.) verb: to interest (This really intrigues me.) This innocent verb is a target of two quack theories: verbs from nouns are bad; loan words from French
are bad.
livid black and blue, the color of a bruise angry Look it up.
loan noun (a loan) verb (to loan) The verb goes back to 1200 ce, but after the 17th century was lost in England and preserved in the US; that was enough to taint it.
masterful domineering (a masterful personality) expert, masterly (a masterful performance) One of Fowler’s harebrained schemes to tidy up the language. A few purists slavishly copied his rule into their stylebooks, but writers ignore him.

Word Only Sense Allowed Sense Comment
by Purists Commonly Used
momentarily for a moment (It in a moment (I’ll be The “in a moment”
rained momentarily.) with you sense is more recent,
momentarily.) and less common in
Britain than in the
US, but completely
acceptable. The two
meanings can be
distinguished by the
context.
nauseous nauseating nauseated (The smell Despite furious
(a nauseous smell) made me nauseous.) opposition, the
“nauseated” sense has
taken over.
presently soon now The more transparent
“now” sense has been
in continuous use for
500 years, particularly
in speech, and the
word is rarely
ambiguous in context.
About half the Usage
Panel reject it, but for
no good reason.
quote verb (to quote) noun, a truncation of A matter of style: the
quotation (a quote) noun is acceptable in
speech and informal
writing, a bit less so in
formal writing.
raise nurture a farm animal rear a child, nurture a The childrearing
or grow a crop (raise a child (raise a child) sense dropped out of
lamb, raise corn) British English but
remained in
American, and is
accepted by a
resounding 93% of the
Usage Panel.

Word Only Sense Allowed by Purists Sense Commonly Used Comment
transpire become known (It transpired that he had been sleeping with his campaign manager.) happen (A lot has transpired since we last spoke.) The “become known” sense is fading; the “happen” sense has taken over, though it is perceived by many as pretentious.
while at the same time (While Rome burned, Nero fiddled.) whereas (While some rules make sense, others don’t.) The “whereas” sense has been standard since 1749 and is as common as the “same
time” sense. Usually it creates no ambiguity; if it does, rewrite the
sentence.
whose of a person (a man whose heart is in the right place) of an entity (an idea whose time has come; trees whose trunks were coated with ice) This handy pronoun can rescue many a phrase from awkwardness, e.g., trees the trunks of
which were coated
with ice. There’s no
good reason to avoid it with nonhuman
antecedents.

And now the moment I’ve been waiting for: I get to be a purist! Here is a list of words which I am prepared to try to dissuade you from using in their nonstandard senses. (I’ll use the linguist’s convention of mark.ing them with an asterisk.) Most of the nonstandard usages are mal.aprops traceable to a mishearing, a misunderstanding, or a kitschy attempt to sound sophisticated. A general rule for avoiding malaprops is to assume that the English language never tolerates two words with the same root and different affixes but the same meaning, like amused and bemused, fortunate and fortuitous, full and fulsome, simple and simplistic. If you know a word and then come across a similar one with a fancy prefix or suffix, resist the temptation to use it as a hoity-toity synonym. Your readers are likely to react as Inigo Montoya did in The Princess Bride to Vizzini’s repeated use of inconceivable to refer to events that just happened: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

Word Preferred Usage Problematic Usage Comment
adverse detrimental (adverse effects) averse, disinclined (*I’m not adverse to doing that.) It should be I’m not averse to doing that.
appraise ascertain the value (I appraised the jewels.) apprise, inform (*I appraised him of the situation.) It should be I apprised him of the situation.
as far as As far as the money is concerned, we should apply for new funding. *As far as the money, we should apply for new funding. The is concerned (or goes) is redundant and wordy, but without it readers wait for the
other shoe to drop. The error is
encouraged by the lure of the similar As
for, which needs no such continuation.

Word Preferred Usage beg the assumes what it question should be proving (When I asked the dealer why I should pay more for a German car, he said I would be getting “German quality,” but that just begs the question.) bemused bewildered cliché noun (Shakespeare used a lot of clichés.) credible believable (His sales pitch was not credible.) Problematic Usage Comment
raises the question (The store has cut its hours and laid off staff, which begs the question of whether it will soon be closing.) The “raise the question” sense is more transparent (particularly when the question is urgent, as if it were begging to be raised), and it is common enough that many dictionaries list it. But the “circular
reasoning” sense is standard in the
scholarly communities that
originated the expression and has no good substitute, so using beg to mean “raise” will irritate
such readers.
amused Dictionaries and the
Usage Panel are clear on this.
adjective (“To be or not to be” is so cliché.) Don’t be fooled by the French –é, which often creates
adjectives like passé and risqué; the adjective is clichéd, “being a cliché,” analogous to talented, “having talent.”
credulous, gullible (*He was too credible when the salesman –ible and –able mean “able,” in this case “able to be believed,
delivered his pitch.) able to be credited.”

Word Preferred Usage Problematic Usage Comment
criteria plural of criterion (These are important criteria.) singular of criterion (*This is an important criteria.) Nails on a chalkboard.
data plural count noun (This datum supports the theory, but many of the other data refute it.) mass noun (*This piece of data supports the theory, but much of the other data refutes it). I like to use data as a plural of datum, but I’m in a fussy minority even among scientists. Data is rarely used as a plural today, just as candelabra and
agenda long ago ceased to be plurals. But I still like it.
depreciate decrease in value (My Volvo has depreciated a lot since I bought it). deprecate, disparage (*She depreciated his efforts.) The “disparage” sense is not a malaprop, and it’s accepted in dictionaries, but
many writers like to reserve that sense for
deprecate.
dichotomy two mutually exclusive alternatives (the dichotomy between even and odd difference, discrepancy (*There is a dichotomy between what we see and what A tacky attempt to sound fancy-shmancy. The tom means “cut,” as in atomic
numbers) is really there.) (originally “unsplittable”), anatomy, and tomography (x-ray cross sections).

272 The SenSe of STyle
Word Preferred Usage Problematic Usage Comment
disinterested unbiased; without a uninterested (*Why The “uninterested”
vested interest (The are you so sense is older, and has
dispute should be disinterested when I a continuous and
resolved by a tell you about my respectable history.
disinterested judge.) day?) But since we have the
word uninterested and
lack an exact
synonym for
disinterested, readers
will appreciate your
maintaining the
distinction.
enervate sap, weaken (an energize (*an Literally “to remove
enervating commute) enervating double the nerves” (originally
espresso) “to remove the
sinews”).
enormity extreme evil enormousness The allegedly
incorrect usage is
both old and
common, but many
careful writers reserve
enormity for evil.
Some use enormity in
the hybrid sense
“deplorable
enormousness,”
writing of the
enormity of
population pressure
in India, the task
faced by teachers in
slums, or the stockpile
of nuclear weapons.

Word Preferred Usage Problematic Usage Comment
flaunt show off (She flaunted her abs.) flout (*She flaunted the rules.) A malaprop based on the similar sound and spelling, together with the shared meaning “brazenly.”
flounder flop around ineffectually (The indecisive chairman floundered.) founder, sink to the bottom (*The headstrong chairman floundered.) In practice flounder and founder are often interchangeable, being two ways of slowly failing. To keep them straight, remember that to flounder is
what flounders do; to
founder is related to
other bottom-words
like foundation and
fundamental.
fortuitous coincidental, unplanned (Running into my ex.husband at the party was purely fortuitous.) fortunate (*It was fortuitous that I worked overtime because I ended up needing the money.) Many writers, including a majority of the Usage Panel, approve the “fortunate” sense (particularly in the hybrid sense of good luck), and it is recognized in most dictionaries. But some
readers still bristle.
fulsome unctuous; excessively and insincerely complimentary (She didn’t believe his fulsome valentine for a second.) full, copious (*a fulsome sound; *The contrite mayor offered a fulsome apology.) The “copious” sense is historically respectable, but the Usage Panel hates it, and it could get you into trouble, because readers may assume you’re impugning something when you don’t mean to.

Word Preferred Usage
homogeneous with the suffix .eous,
pronounced “homo. genius”

hone sharpen (hone the knife, hone her writing skills) hot button an emotional, divisive controversy (She tried to stay away from the hot button of abortion.)

Problematic Usage with the suffix .ous, pronounced like “homogenized” home in on, converge upon (*I think we’re honing in on a solution.) hot topic (*The hot button in the robotics industry is to get people and robots to work together.) Comment homogenous is listed in dictionaries, but it’s a corruption which crept in after homogenized milk became popular. Similarly, heterogeneous is preferable to heterogenous. AHD accepts to hone in on, but it is a malaprop of to home, “return home” (what homing pigeons do). The overlap in meaning (“gradually converge on a precise point or edge”) conspires with the similar sounds to encourage the malaprop. Slang and vogue words give rise to malaprops, too (see also New Age, politically correct, urban legend). The button metaphor pertains to eliciting an instant, reflexive response, as in He tried to press my buttons.

Word Preferred Usage Problematic Usage Comment
hung suspended (hung the picture) suspended from the neck until dead (*hung the prisoner) Hung the prisoner is not incorrect, but the Usage Panel and other careful writers prefer hanged.
intern (verb) detain, imprison (The rebels were interned in the palace basement for three weeks.) inter, bury (*The good men do is oft interned with their bones.) It’s interred with their bones. The meanings overlap, but listen for the terr (earth, as in “terrestrial”) in inter, and for the internal
related to intern.
ironic uncannily incongruent; seemingly designed to violate expectations (It was ironic that I forgot my textbook on human memory.) inconvenient, unfortunate (*It was ironic that I forgot my textbook on organic chemistry.) You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
irregardless There isn’t one. regardless, irrespective Purists have been ranting about this misnegated portmanteau for decades, but it’s not
particularly common, and virtually all the Web hits are to claims
that “irregardless is not a word.” The
purists should declare victory and move on.

Word Preferred Usage literally in actual fact (I literally blushed.) luxuriant abundant, florid (luxuriant hair, a luxuriant imagination) meretricious tawdry; offensively insincere (a meretricious hotel lobby; a meretricious speech)

Problematic Usage figuratively (*I literally exploded.) luxurious (*a luxuriant car) meritorious (*a meretricious public servant, *a meretricious benefactor) Comment The “figuratively” sense is a common hyperbole, and it is rarely confusing in context. But it drives careful readers crazy. Like other intensifiers it is usually superfluous, whereas the “actual fact” sense is indispensable and has no equivalent. And since the figurative use can evoke ludicrous imagery (e.g., The press has literally emasculated the president), it screams, “I don’t think about what my words mean.” The “luxurious” sense is not incorrect (all dictionaries list it), but as a showy synonym for a perfectly good word it’s in bad taste. The word originally referred to prostitutes. My advice: Never try to compliment something by calling it meretricious. See also fulsome, opportunism, simplistic.

Word Preferred Usage Problematic Usage Comment
mitigate alleviate (Setting out traps will mitigate the ant problem.) militate, provide reasons for (*The profusion of ants mitigated toward setting out traps.) Some good writers have been caught using mitigate for militate, but it’s widely considered a malaprop.
New Age spiritualistic, holistic (He treated his lumbago with New Age remedies, like chanting and burning incense.) modern, futuristic (*This countertop is made from a New Age plastic.) Just because the expression contains the word new, that does not mean it can refer to any new thing.
noisome smelly noisy It’s from annoy, not from noise.
nonplussed stunned, bewildered (The market crash left the experts nonplussed.) bored, unimpressed (*His market pitch left the investors nonplussed.) From the Latin non plus, “no more.” It means “nothing more can be done.”
opportunism seizing or exploiting opportunities (His opportunism helped him get to the top, but it makes me sick.) creating or promoting opportunities (*The Republicans advocated economic opportunism and fiscal restraint.) The correct sense can be a compliment (“resourcefulness”) or an insult (“unscrupulousness”), more often the latter.
As with fulsome, if
you use it carelessly you may insult something you meant to praise.

Word Preferred Usage parameter a variable (Our prediction depends on certain parameters, like inflation and interest rates.) phenomena plural of phenomenon
(These are interesting
phenomena.)
politically dogmatically left- correct liberal (The theory
that little boys fight
because of the way
they have been
socialized is the
politically correct one.)
practicable easily put into
practice (Learning
French would be
practical, because he
often goes to France on
business, but because
of his busy schedule it
was not practicable.)

Problematic Usage a boundary condition, a limit (*We have to work within certain parameters, like our deadline and budget.) singular of phenomenon (*This is an interesting phenomena.) fashionable, trendy (*The Loft District is the new politically correct place to live.) practical (*Learning French would be practicable, because he often goes to France on business.) Comment The pseudo-technical “boundary” sense, a blend with perimeter, has become standard, and is accepted by most of the Usage Panel. But as with beg the question, the sloppy usage gets on the nerves of technically sophisticated readers who need the original sense. See criteria. See hot button, New Age, urban legend. The correct is sarcastic, lampooning the idea that only one kind of political opinion may be expressed. The –able means “able,” as in ability. See also credible, unexceptionable.

Word Preferred Usage Problematic Usage Comment
proscribe condemn, forbid (The policies proscribe amorous interactions between faculty and students.) prescribe, recommend, direct (*The policies proscribe careful citation of all sources.) A doctor writes a prescription, not a proscription, when he tells you what you should do.
protagonist actor, active character (Vito Corleone was the protagonist in The Godfather.) proponent (*Leo was a protagonist of nuclear power.) The “proponent” sense is definitely a malaprop.
refute prove to be false (She refuted the theory that the earth was flat.) allege to be false, try to refute (*She refuted the theory that the earth was round.) Refute is a factive or success verb, like know and remember, which presupposes the objective truth or falsity of the proposition. Many writers, including a slim majority of the Usage Panel, accept the non-factive “try to refute” sense, but the
distinction is worth
respecting.
reticent shy, restrained (My son is too reticent to reluctant (*When rain threatens, fans are The Usage Panel hates the “reluctant” sense.
ask a girl out.) reticent to buy tickets to the ballgame.)

280 The SenSe of STyle
Word Preferred Usage Problematic Usage Comment
shrunk, sprung, stunk, sunk past participle (Honey, I’ve shrunk the kids.) past tense (*Honey, I shrunk the kids.) Admittedly, Honey, I shrank the kids might not have worked as
the title of the Disney movie, and past-tense shrunk and similar
forms are venerable
and respectable. But it’s classier to
distinguish pasts from participles (sank–has sunk, sprang–has sprung, stank–has stunk) and to avail oneself of other lovely irregular forms like shone, slew, strode–has
stridden, and strove–
has striven.
simplistic Naïvely or overly simple (His proposal to end war by having children sing Kumbaya was simplistic.) simple, pleasingly simple (*We bought Danish furniture because we liked its simplistic look. ) Though not uncommon in art and design journalism, using simplistic for simple sets many readers’ teeth on edge, and can insult
something it means to praise. See also fulsome, opportunism.
staunch loyal, sturdy (a staunch supporter) stop a flow, stanch a flow (*staunch the bleeding) Dictionaries say that both spellings are fine with both meanings, but it’s classier to keep them distinct.

Word Preferred Usage Problematic Usage Comment
tortuous twisting (a tortuous torturous (*Watching Both come from the
road, tortuous Porky’s Part VII was a Latin word for “twist,”
reasoning) tortuous experience.) as in torque and
torsion, because
twisting limbs was a
common form of
torture.
unexceptionable not worthy of unexceptional, Unexceptional means
objection (No one ordinary (*They “not an exception.”
protested her getting protested her getting Unexceptionable
the prize, because she the prize, because she means “no one is able
was an was an to take exception to
unexceptionable unexceptionable it.”
choice.) actress.)
untenable indefensible, painful, unbearable The hybrid sense “so
unsustainable (Flat. (*an untenable unbearable as to be
Earthism is an tragedy; *untenable unsustainable” is
untenable theory; sadness) accepted by the Usage
Caring for quadruplets Panel, as in Isabel
while running IBM Wilkerson’s “when life
was an untenable became untenable.”
situation.)
urban legend an intriguing and someone who is See also hot button,
widely circulated but legendary in a city New Age, politically
false story (Alligators (*Fiorello LaGuardia correct. The legend
in the sewers is an became an urban pertains to the
urban legend.) legend.) original sense “a myth
passed down for
generations,” not the
journalistic sense “a
celebrity.”

Word Preferred Usage Problematic Usage Comment
verbal in linguistic form (Verbal memories fade more quickly than visual ones.) oral, spoken (*A verbal contract isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.) The “spoken” sense has been standard for centuries and is by no means incorrect (the famous Goldwynism wouldn’t work
without it), but sometimes it is
confusing.

The differences between two other families of similar-sounding words are so tortuous (and torturous) as to need a bit more expla.nation. The words affect and effect come in both noun and verb versions. Though it’s easy to confuse them, it’s worth mastering the distinction, because the common errors in the third column will make you look like an amateur. Word Correct Use and Spelling Incorrect Use and Spelling
an effect an influence: Strunk and White had a big effect on my writing style. *Strunk and White had a big affect on my writing style.
to effect to put into effect, to implement: I effected all the changes recommended by Strunk and White. *I affected all the changes recommended by Strunk and White.
to affect (first sense) to influence: Strunk and White affected my writing style. *Strunk and White effected my writing style.
to affect (second sense) to fake: He used big words to affect an air of sophistication. *He used big words to effect an air of sophistication.

But the most twisted family of look-alike and mean-alike words in the English lexicon is the one with lie and lay. Here are the gruesome details: Verb Meaning and Syntax Present Tense Past Tense Past Participle
to lie to recline (an intransitive irregular verb) He lies on the couch all day. He lay on the couch all day. He has lain on the couch all day.
to lay to set down, to cause to lie (a transitive regular verb) He lays a book upon the table. He laid a book upon the table. He has laid a book upon the table.
to lie to fib (an intransitive regular verb) He lies about what he does. He lied about what he did. He has lied about what he has done.

The imbroglio arises from the fact that we have two distinct verbs fighting over the form lay: it’s the past tense of lie, and it’s the plain form of lay, whose meaning—just to torment you further—is “cause to lie.” It’s no wonder that English speakers commonly say lay down or I’m going to lay on the couch, collapsing the transitive and intransitive versions of lie. Or are they collapsing the past and present tenses of lie? Both have same result: *to lay to recline (an intransitive *He lays on the *He laid on the *He has laid on regular verb) couch all day. couch all day. the couch all day. Don’t blame the usage on Bob Dylan’s “Lay, Lady, Lay” or Eric Clap.ton’s “Lay Down, Sally”; careful English writers have been using it since 1300, right up to William Safire’s “The dead hand of the present should not lay on the future” (no doubt triggering a flurry of mail for his UofAllPeople file). Intransitive lay is by no means incorrect, but to the ears of many, lie sounds better:

punCtuAtion The main job of punctuation is to eliminate the ambiguities and gar.den paths that would mislead a reader if print consisted only of vowels, consonants, and spaces.58 Punctuation restores some of the prosody (melody, pausing, and stress) that is missing from print, and it provides hints about the invisible syntactic tree that determines a sentence’s meaning. As the T-shirt observes, punctuation matters: Let’s eat, Grandma has a different meaning from Let’s eat Grandma. The problem for the writer is that punctuation indicates prosody in some places, syntax in others, and neither of them consistently any.where. After centuries of chaos, the rules of punctuation began to settle down only a bit more than a century ago, and even today the rules differ on the two sides of the Atlantic and from one publication to another. The rules, moreover, are subject to changes in fashion, includ.ing an ongoing trend to reduce all punctuation to the bare minimum. They fill scores of pages in reference manuals, and no one but a professional copy editor knows them all. Even the sticklers can’t agree on how to stickle. In 2003 the journalist Lynne Truss published the unlikely bestseller Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation (whose title comes from the punch line of a joke about a panda who shot up a restaurant because he had read a mispunctuated description of his dietary habits). In her book Truss decries the punc.tuation errors she spotted in ads, signs, and newspapers. In a 2004 New Yorker review, the critic Louis Menand decries the punctuation errors he spotted in Truss’s book. In a Guardian article on the response to Truss, the English scholar John Mullan decries the punctuation flaws he spotted in Menand’s review.59

Still, a few common errors are so uncontroversial—the run-on sen.tence, the comma splice, the grocer’s apostrophe, the comma between subject and predicate, the possessive it’s—that they have become tan.tamount to the confession “I am illiterate,” and no writer should be caught making them. As I mentioned, the problem with these errors is not that they betray an absence of logical thinking but that they betray a history of inattention to the printed page. In the hope that an ability to distinguish the logical and illogical features of punctua.tion may help a reader master both, I’ll say a few words about the design of the system, highlighting the major bugs that have been locked into it. commas and other connectors (colons, semicolons, and dashes). The first of the comma’s two major functions is to separate parenthetical comments about an event or a state—the time, place, manner, purpose, result, significance, writer’s opinion, and other by-the-way remarks— from the words that are necessary to pin down the event or state itself. We already met this function in the distinction between restrictive and nonrestrictive relative clauses. A restrictive relative clause, such as the one in Sticklers who don’t understand the conventions of punctuation shouldn’t criticize errors by others, is free of commas, and thereby sin.gles out a subset of sticklers, namely those who don’t understand the conventions of punctuation. The same phrase set off by commas, Sticklers, who don’t understand the conventions of punctuation, shouldn’t criticize errors by others, slips in a snide comment on the competence of a typical stickler, but that jibe is irrelevant to the advice conveyed by the sentence, which is offered to sticklers across the board.

The traditional terms “restrictive” and “nonrestrictive” are misno.mers, because the comma-less versions (called “integrated relative clauses” by the Cambridge Grammar) don’t always restrict the referents of the noun to some subset. What they do is specify information that is necessary to make the sentence true. In the sentence Barbara has two sons whom she can rely on and hence is not unduly worried, the under.lined relative clause does not pare down the set of Barbara’s sons from the full brood to just the two she can rely on; she may only have two. It indicates that because those two sons are sons on whom Barbara can rely, therefore she has no need to worry.60 And that is a key to understanding where to put commas in other constructions. Commas set off a phrase that is not an integral constit.uent of the sentence, and which as a result is not essential to under.standing its meaning. The sentence Susan visited her friend Teresa tells us that it’s important for us to know that Susan singled out Teresa as the person she intended to visit. In Susan visited her friend, Teresa, it’s only significant that Susan visited a friend (oh, and by the way, the friend’s name is Teresa). In the headline National Zoo Panda Gives Birth to 2nd, Stillborn Cub, the comma between the two modifiers indicates that the panda gave birth to a second cub and (here’s another fact) the cub was stillborn. Without the comma, the stillborn would be embedded beneath the 2nd in the tree, and the meaning would be that this is the second time she has given birth to a stillborn cub. Strings of modifiers without commas progressively narrow down the referent of a noun, like nested circles in a Venn diagram, whereas strings of mod.ifiers with commas just keep adding interesting facts about it, like overlapping circles. If the phrase had been 2nd, stillborn, male cub we would now know one more fact about the dead offspring, namely that it was male. If it had been 2nd stillborn male cub we would know that the previous stillborn cub was male, too.

This doesn’t sound all that hard. So why are there so many comma errors out there for the zero-tolerance squad to get incensed about? Why do comma errors account for more than a quarter of all language errors in student papers, occurring at a rate of about four errors per paper?61 The main reason is that a comma does not just signal a syntac.tic break (marking a phrase that is not integrated into a larger phrase) together with the corresponding semantic break (marking a meaning that is not essential to the meaning of the sentence). It also signals a prosodic break: a slight pause in pronunciation. Now, often these breaks line up: a supplementary phrase, the kind that calls for a comma, is typically preceded and followed by a pause. But often they do not line up, and that lays out a minefield for an inexperienced or inattentive writer. When a supplementary phrase is short a speaker naturally skates right over it to the next phrase in the sentence, and the current rules of punctuation give writers the option of going with the sound and leav.ing out the commas—as I did just now, omitting the comma after short. The rationale is that too many commas too close together can give a sentence a herky-jerky feel. Also, since a sentence may have many levels of branching while English provides only the puny comma to separate them all on the page, a writer may choose to keep the comma in reserve to demarcate the major branches in the tree, rather than dic.ing the sentence into many small pieces that the reader must then reas.semble. The reason I refrained from inserting a comma after When a supplementary phrase is short was that I wanted the comma between the end of that clause and the beginning of the next one to neatly cleave the sentence in two. The cleft would have been obscured if the first clause had also been riven by a comma. Here are some other sentences in which the comma may be omitted, at least in a “light” or “open” punc.tuation style, because the following phrase is short and clear enough not to require a pause before it: Man plans and God laughs. If you lived here you’d be home by now.

By the time I get to Phoenix she’ll be rising. Einstein he’s not. But it’s all right now; in fact it’s a gas! Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn.

That is the choice that Lynne Truss made in the dedication to Eats, Shoots & Leaves: To the memory of the striking Bolshevik printers of St Petersburg who, in 1905, demanded to be paid the same rate for punctuation marks as for letters, and thereby directly precipitated the first Russian Revolution. Menand poked fun at her, pointing out that the relative clause begin.ning with who was nonrestrictive (Truss meant to dedicate her book to all the striking printers, not to a subset who demanded payment for punctuation) and thus demanded a comma before it. Truss’s defenders pointed out that the alternative (To the striking Bolshevik printers of St Petersburg, who, in 1905, demanded . . .) would have been awkwardly thick with commas, forcing the reader to hopscotch through that part of the sentence a word or two at a time. One pointed out that Menand was universalizing the famously eccentric policy of his major outlet, The New Yorker, which sets off all supplementary phrases with com.mas, no matter how gratuitous in context or how juddering the pro.nunciation. Consider this sentence from a 2012 New Yorker article on electoral strategists for the Republican Party:62 Before [Lee] Atwater died, of brain cancer, in 1991, he expressed regret over the “naked cruelty” he had shown to [Michael] Dukakis in making “Willie Horton his running mate.” The commas around of brain cancer are there to make it clear that the cause of death is mentioned as a mere comment: it isn’t the case that Atwater died multiple times and that he expressed remorse only after his brain-cancer death, not after the other ones. This fussiness is too much even for some of The New Yorker’s own copy editors, one of whom kept a “comma-shaker” on her desk to remind her colleagues to sprinkle them more sparingly.63

Not only are commas partly regulated by prosody, but until recently that was their principal function. Writers used to place them wherever they thought a pause felt natural, regardless of the sentence’s syntax: It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in posses.sion of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife. A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Jane Austen and the framers of the American Constitution would get poor grades from composition teachers today, because commas are regulated less by prosody and more by syntax (this is the trend that The New Yorker has taken to an extreme). Austen’s sentence today would be stripped of both commas, and the Second Amendment would get to keep only the one after “free state.” Though the comma which demarcates a supplementary phrase may be omitted when the pronunciation zips right through it, the converse is no longer true: a comma may not separate the elements of an inte.grated phrase (such as a subject and its predicate), no matter how badly its narrator may want to take a breath at that juncture. With the rules for comma placement being such a mishmash of syntax and prosody, it’s no wonder that the complaints of composition instructors about comma placement in their students’ writing fall into the same two cat.egories as the complaints of people writing to Ann Landers about sex in their marriages: (1) too much, and (2) too little.64 In the “too much” category we have errors in which students place a comma in front of an integrated phrase, usually because they would pause at that point in pronouncing it:

[Between the subject and a predicate:] His brilliant mind and curios.ity, have left. [Between the verb and its complement:] He mentions, that not know.ing how to bring someone back can be a deadly problem. [Between a noun for an idea and a clause spelling out its content:] I believe the theory, that burning fossil fuels has caused global warming. [Between a noun and an integrated relative clause:] The ethnocentric view, that many Americans have, leads to much conflict in the world. [Between a subordinator and its clause:] There was a woman taking care of her husband because, an accident left him unable to work. [Within a coordination of two phrases:] This conclusion also applies to the United States, and the rest of the world. [Between a definite generic noun and the name identifying its refer.ent (neither comma is correct here):] I went to see the movie, “Midnight in Paris” with my friend, Jessie. And in the “too little” category, students forget to insert a comma to set off a supplementary word or phrase: [Surrounding a sentence adverb:] In many ways however life in a small town is much more pleasant. [Between a preposed adjunct and the main clause:] Using a scooping motion toss it in the air. [Before a result adjunct:] The molecule has one double bond between carbons generating a monounsaturated fat. [Before a contrast adjunct:] Their religion is all for equal rights yet they have no freedom. [Before a supplementary relative clause:] There are monounsaturated fatty acids which lack two hydrogen atoms.

[Before a direct quotation:] She said “I don’t want to go.” [Compare the complementary error with an indirect quotation: She said that, she didn’t want to go.] Sloppy writers also tend to forget that when a supplementary phrase is poked into the middle of a sentence, it needs to be set off with com.mas at both ends, like matching parentheses, not just at the beginning: Tsui’s poem “A Chinese Banquet,” on the other hand partly focuses on Asian culture. One of the women, Esra Naama stated her case. Philip Roth, author of “Portnoy’s Complaint” and many other books is a perennial contender for the Nobel Prize. My father, who gave new meaning to the expression “hard working” never took a vacation. The other comma mistake is so common that composition teachers have invented many terms of abuse for it: the comma splice, comma error, comma fault, and comma blunder. It consists in using a comma to join two complete sentences, each of which could stand on its own: There isn’t much variety, everything looks kind of the same. I am going to try and outline the logic again briefly here, please let me know if this is still unclear. Your lecture is scheduled for 5:00 pm on Tuesday, it is preceded by a meeting with our seminar hosts. There is no trail, visitors must hike up the creek bed. Unskilled writers are tempted to splice two sentences with a comma when the sentences are conceptually linked by one of the coherence relations discussed in chapter 5 and seem to want to snuggle up together in a single ensemble. But there are two reasons that comma splices drive careful readers crazy. (I won’t tolerate them in my students’ writ.ing, not even in email.) They always create a garden path, distracting and annoying the reader. And they are easy to avoid, requiring no greater skill than the ability to identify a sentence.

There are several legitimate ways to splice two sentences, depending on the coherence relation that connects them. When two sentences are conceptually pretty much independent, the first should end with a period and the next should begin with a capital, just like they teach you in third grade. When the two are conceptually linked but the writer feels no need to pinpoint the coherence relation that holds between them, they can be joined with a semicolon; the semicolon is the all-purpose way to elimi.nate a comma splice. When the coherence relation is elaboration or exem.plification (when one is tempted to say that is, in other words, which is to say, for example, here’s what I have in mind, or Voilà!), they may be linked with a colon: like this. When the second sentence intentionally interrupts the flow of the discussion, requiring the reader to wake up, think twice, or snap out of it, a writer can use a dash—dashes can enliven writing, as long as they are used sparingly. And when the writer pinpoints the coher.ence relation he has in mind with an explicit connective such as a coordi.nator (and, or, but, yet, so, nor) or a preposition (although, except, if, before, after, because, for), a comma is fine, because the phrase is a mere supple.ment (like the underlined clause, which I fastened to the preceding one with a comma). Just don’t confuse these connectives with sentence adverbs, such as however, nonetheless, consequently, or therefore, which are themselves supplements of the clause they precede. The clause with the adverb is a freestanding sentence; consequently, it cannot be joined to its predecessor with a comma. Here, then, are the possibilities (the asterisk indicates an illicit comma splice): *Your lecture is scheduled for 5 pm, it is preceded by a meeting. Your lecture is scheduled for 5 pm; it is preceded by a meeting. Your lecture is scheduled for 5 pm—it is preceded by a meeting. Your lecture is scheduled for 5 pm, but it is preceded by a meeting. Your lecture is scheduled for 5 pm; however, it is preceded by a meeting.

*Your lecture is scheduled for 5 pm, however, it is preceded by a meeting. The other bit of comma jargon that has spread beyond the world of copyediting is the serial comma or Oxford comma. It pertains to the second major function of the comma, which is to separate the items in a list. Everyone knows that when two items are joined with a conjunc.tion, they cannot have a comma joining them, too: Simon and Garfun.kel, not Simon, and Garfunkel. But when three or more items are joined, a comma must introduce every subsequent item except—and here comes the controversy—the last one: Crosby, Stills and Nash; Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young. The controversial question is whether you should also put a comma before the final item, resulting in Crosby, Stills, and Nash, or Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young. This is the serial comma. On one side we have most British publishers (other than Oxford University Press), most American newspapers, and the rock group that calls itself Crosby, Stills and Nash. They argue that an item in a list should be intro.duced either with and or with a comma, not redundantly with both. On the other side we have Oxford University Press, most American book publishers, and the many wise guys who have discovered that omitting a serial comma can result in ambiguity:65 Among those interviewed were Merle Haggard’s two ex-wives, Kris Kristofferson and Robert Duvall. This book is dedicated to my parents, Ayn Rand and God. Highlights of Peter Ustinov’s global tour include encounters with Nelson Mandela, an 800-year-old demigod and a dildo collector. The absence of a serial comma in a list of phrases can also create garden paths. He enjoyed his farm, conversations with his wife and his horse momentarily calls to mind the famous Mister Ed, and a reader who is unfamiliar with the popular music of the 1970s might well be tripped up by the sentence on the left, stumbling over the mythical duo Nash and Young and the run-on sequence Lake and Palmer and Seals and Crofts:

Without the serial comma: With the serial comma: My favorite performers of the 1970s My favorite performers of the 1970s are are Simon and Garfunkel, Crosby, Simon and Garfunkel, Crosby, Stills, Stills, Nash and Young, Emerson, Nash, and Young, Emerson, Lake, and Lake and Palmer and Seals and Crofts. Palmer, and Seals and Crofts. I say that unless a house style forbids it, you should use the serial comma. And if you’re enumerating lists of lists, then you can eliminate all ambiguity by availing yourself of one of the few punctuation tricks in English that explicitly signal tree structure, the use of a semicolon to demarcate lists of phrases containing commas: My favorite performers of the 1970s are Simon and Garfunkel; Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young; Emerson, Lake, and Palmer; and Seals and Crofts. apostrophes. The serial comma is not the only punctuation sin that will hurt you in life: The disenchanted girlfriend, I surmise, is referring to three common errors with apostrophes. If I were her companion, I would advise her to consider which quality she values more in a soulmate, logic or liter.acy, because each of the errors is thoroughly systematic, albeit contrary to accepted usage.

The first is the grocer’s apostrophe, as in Apple’s 99¢ Each. The error is by no means restricted to grocers; the British press had a field day when a protesting student was spotted with the sign Down with Fee’s. The rule is straightforward: the plural s may not be connected to a noun using an apostrophe, but must be jammed right up against it without punctuation—apples, fees. The error seduces grocers and students with three lures. One is that it is easy to confuse the plural s with the genitive ’s and the contraction ’s, both of which require an apostrophe: the apple’s color is impeccable, as is This apple’s sweet. Second, the grocers are, if anything, too con.scious of grammatical structure: they seem to want to signal the differ.ence between the phoneme s that is an intrinsic part of a word and the morpheme –s that is tacked on to mark the plural, as in the distinction between lens and pens (pen + –s), or species and genies. Marking a mor.pheme boundary is particularly tempting with words that end in vow.els, because the correct, unpunctuated plural makes the word look like something else entirely, as in radios (which looks like adios) and avo.cados (which looks like asbestos). Perhaps if the grocers had their way and plurals were consistently marked with apostrophes (radio’s, avoca.do’s, potato’s, and so on), no one would ever mistakenly refer to a kudo (the word is kudos, a singular Greek noun meaning “praise”), and Dan Quayle would have been spared the embarrassment of publicly miscor.recting a schoolchild’s potato to potatoe. Most seductively of all, the rule banning apostrophes in plurals is not as straightforward as I said it was. With some nouns, an apostrophe really is (or at least was) legit.imate. The apostrophe is mandatory with a letter of the alphabet (p’s and q’s) and common with words mentioned as words (There are too many however’s in this paragraph), unless they are clichés like dos and don’ts or no ifs, ands, or buts. Before the recent trend toward light punctuation, apostrophes were often used to pluralize years (the 1970’s), abbreviations (CPU’s), and symbols (@’s), and in some newspapers (such as the New York Times) they still are.66

The rules may not be logical, but if you want your literate lover not to leave you, don’t pluralize with an apostrophe. It’s also a good idea to know when to keep an apostrophe away from a pronoun. Dave Barry’s alter ego Mr. Language Person fielded the following question: Q: Like millions of Americans, I cannot grasp the extremely sub.tle difference between the words “your” and “you’re.” A: . . . The best way to tell them apart is to remember that “you’re” is a contraction, which is a type of word used during childbirth, as in: “Hang on, Marlene, here comes you’re baby!” Whereas “your” is, grammatically, a prosthetic infarction, which means a word that is used to score a debating point in an Internet chat room, as in: “Your a looser, you morron!”

The first part of Mr. Language Person’s answer is correct: an apostro.phe must be used to mark the contraction of an auxiliary with a pro.noun, as in you’re (you are), he’s (he is), and we’d (we would). And his first example (assuming you get the joke that you’re baby is mispunc.tuated) is also correct: an apostrophe is never used to mark the genitive (possessive) of a pronoun, no matter how logical it may seem to do so. Although we write the cat’s pajamas and Dylan’s dream, as soon as you replace the noun with a pronoun the apostrophe goes out the window: one must write its pajamas, not it’s pajamas; your baby, not you’re baby; their car, not they’re car; Those hats are hers, ours, and theirs, not Those hats are her’s, our’s, and their’s. Deep in the mists of time, someone decided that an apostrophe doesn’t belong in a possessive pronoun, and you’ll just have to live with it. The last of the great apostrophe errors is explained in this cartoon, in which the boy shows that an unconventional family does not neces.sarily lead to unconventional punctuation:

“I have two mommies. I know where the apostrophe goes.” The possessive of a singular is spelled ’s: He is his mother’s son. The possessive of a regular plural is spelled s’: He is his parents’ son, or, with a same-sex couple, He is his mothers’ son. As for names ending in s like Charles and Jones, go with grammatical logic and treat them as the singulars they are: Charles’s son, not Charles’ son. Some manuals stip.ulate an exception for Moses and Jesus, but grammarians should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, and the exception in fact applies to other ancient names ending in s (Achilles’ heel, Sophocles’ play).67 It also applies to modern names which already end with a ses sound, whose genitives contain the tongue-twister seses (Kansas’, Texas’). quotation marks. Another insult to punctuational punctiliousness is the use of quotation marks for emphasis, commonly seen in signs like We Sell “Ice”, Cell Phones May “Not” Be Used in This Area, and the disconcerting “Fresh” Seafood Platter and even more discon.certing Employees Must “Wash Hands”. The error is common enough to have inspired the cartoon on the following page.

Why do so many signmakers commit the error? What they are doing is what we all used to do in the Paleolithic days of word process.ing, when terminals and printers lacked italics and underlining (and what many of us still do when composing email in plain text format), which is to emphasize a word by bracketing it with symbols, like this or this or . But not like “this”. As Griffy explains in the car.toon, quotation marks already have a standard function: they signal that the author is not using words to convey their usual meaning but merely mentioning them as words. If you use quotation marks for emphasis, readers will think you’re unschooled or worse. No discussion of the illogic of punctuation would be complete with.out the infamous case of the ordering of a quotation mark with respect to a comma or period. The rule in American publications (the British are more sensible about this) is that when quoted material appears at the end of a phrase or sentence, the closing quotation mark goes out.side the comma or period, “like this,” rather than inside, “like this”. The practice is patently illogical: the quotation marks enclose a part of the phrase or sentence, and the comma or period signals the end of that entire phrase or sentence, so putting the comma or period inside the quotation marks is like Superman’s famous wardrobe malfunction of wearing his underwear outside his pants. But long ago some American printer decided that the page looks prettier without all that unsightly white space above and to the left of a naked period or comma, and we have been living with the consequences ever since. The American punctuation rule sticks in the craw of every computer scientist, logician, and linguist, because any ordering of typographical delimiters that fails to reflect the logical nesting of the content makes a shambles of their work. On top of its galling irrationality, the American rule prevents a writer from expressing certain thoughts. In his semi-serious 1984 essay “Punctuation and Human Freedom,” Geoffrey Pul.lum discusses the commonly misquoted first two lines of Shakespeare’s King Richard III: “Now is the winter of our discontent / Made glorious summer by this sun of York.”68 Many people misremember it as “Now is the winter of our discontent”, full stop. Now suppose one wanted to comment on the error by writing:

Shakespeare’s King Richard III contains the line “Now is the winter of our discontent”. This is a true sentence. But an American copy editor would change it to: Shakespeare’s King Richard III contains the line “Now is the winter of our discontent.” But this is a false sentence, or at least there’s no way for the writer to make it unambiguously true or false. Pullum called for a campaign of civil disobedience, and with the subsequent rise of the Internet his wish has come true. Many logic-conscious and computer-savvy writ.ers have taken advantage of the freedom from copy editors they enjoy on the Web and have explicitly disavowed the American system, most notably on Wikipedia, which has endorsed the alternative called Log.ical Punctuation.69 Punctuation nerds may have noticed that I myself recently defied the American rule in four places (underlined): The final insult to punctuational punctiliousness is the use of quotation marks for emphasis, commonly seen in signs like We Sell “Ice”, Cell Phones May “Not” Be Used in This Area, and the disconcerting “Fresh” Seafood Platter and even more disconcerting Employees Must “Wash Hands”. But not like “this”.

Many people misremember it as “Now is the winter of our discontent”, full stop. These acts of civil disobedience were necessary to make it clear where the punctuation marks went in the examples I was citing. You should do the same if you ever need to discuss quotations or punctuation, if you write for Wikipedia or another tech-friendly platform, or if you have a temperament that is both logical and rebellious. The movement may someday change typographical practice in the same way that the feminist movement in the 1970s replaced Miss and Mrs. with Ms. But until that day comes, if you write for an edited American publication, be prepared to live with the illogic of putting a period or comma inside quotation marks. I hope to have convinced you that dealing with matters of usage is not like playing chess, proving theorems, or solving textbook problems in physics, where the rules are clear and flouting them is an error. It is more like research, journalism, criticism, and other exercises of dis.cernment. In considering questions of usage, a writer must critically evaluate claims of correctness, discount the dubious ones, and make choices which inevitably trade off conflicting values. Anyone who reviews the history of prescriptive grammar can’t help but be struck by the misplaced emotion the topic evokes. At least since Henry Higgins decried “the cold-blooded murder of the English tongue,” the self-proclaimed defenders of high standards have been outdoing each other with tasteless invective.70 David Foster Wallace expressed “despair” at the “Evil” inherent in “voguish linguistic meth.ane.” David Gelernter refers to advocates of singular they as “language rapists,” while John Simon has likened the people who use words in ways he disapproves of to slave traders, child molesters, and the guards at Nazi death camps. The hyperbole often shades into misanthropy, as when Lynne Truss suggests that people who misuse apostrophes “deserve to be struck by lightning, hacked up on the spot and buried in an unmarked grave.” Robert Hartwell Fiske, after calling humongous a “hideous, ugly word,” adds, “Though it’s not fair to say that people who use the word are hideous and ugly as well, at some point we come to be—or at the least are known by—what we say, what we write.”

The irony, of course, is that all too often it is the targets of the vitu.peration who have history and usage on their side, and the vilifiers who are full of baloney. Geoffrey Pullum, whose Language Log analyzes claims about the use and misuse of language, has noted the tendency among faultfinders “to move straight to high dudgeon, skipping right over the stage where you check the reference books to make sure you have something to be in high dudgeon about. . . . People just don’t look in reference books when it comes to language; they seem to think their status as writers combined with their emotion of anger gives them all the standing they need.”71 Though correct usage is well worth pursuing, we have to keep it in perspective. Not even the most irksome errors are portents of the death of the language, to say nothing of civilization, as the webcomic XKCD reminds us:

Yes, writers today sometimes make unfortunate choices. But so did the writers of yesterday and the day before, while many of the kids today, the target of so much purist bile, write gorgeous prose, comment incisively on usage, and even develop their own forms of purism (such as the Typo Eradication Advancement League, which stealthily cor.rects grocers’ signs with correction fluid and felt markers).72

And for all the vitriol brought out by matters of correct usage, they are the smallest part of good writing. They pale in importance behind coherence, classic style, and overcoming the curse of knowledge, to say nothing of standards of intellectual conscientiousness. If you really want to improve the quality of your writing, or if you want to thunder about sins in the writing of others, the principles you should worry about the most are not the ones that govern fused participles and pos.sessive antecedents but the ones that govern critical thinking and fac.tual diligence. Here are a few which are commonly flouted—not least in purist rants—and which are worth bearing in mind every time you put pen to paper or fingers to keyboard. First, look things up. Humans are cursed with the deadly combina.tion of a highly fallible memory and an overconfidence in how much they know.73 Our social networks, traditional and electronic, multiply the errors, so that much of our conventional wisdom consists of friend-of-a-friend legends and factoids that are too good to be true. As Mark Twain said, “The trouble with the world is not that people know too little, but that they know so many things that aren’t so.” Actually, he didn’t say that—I looked it up.74 But whoever said it (probably Josh Billings) made an important point. We are blessed to live in an age in which no subject has gone unresearched by scholars, scientists, and journalists. The fruits of their research are available within seconds to anyone with a laptop or smartphone, and within minutes to anyone who can get to a library. Why not take advantage of these blessings and try to restrict the things you know (or at least the things you write) to things that are true? Second, be sure your arguments are sound. If you are making a factual claim, it should be verifiable in an edited source—one that has been vetted by disinterested gatekeepers such as editors, fact-checkers, or peer reviewers. If you’re making an argument, it should proceed from premises that reasonable people already agree upon to your newer or more contentious assertion using valid if.then steps. If you’re mak.ing a moral argument—a claim about what people ought to do—you should show how doing it would satisfy a principle or increase a good that reasonable people already accept.

Third, don’t confuse an anecdote or a personal experience with the state of the world. Just because something happened to you, or you read about it in the paper or on the Internet this morning, it doesn’t mean it is a trend. In a world of seven billion people, just about any.thing will happen to someone somewhere, and it’s the highly unusual events that will be selected for the news or passed along to friends. An event is a significant phenomenon only if it happens some appreciable number of times relative to the opportunities for it to occur, and it is a trend only if that proportion has been shown to change over time. Fourth, beware of false dichotomies. Though it’s fun to reduce a complex issue to a war between two slogans, two camps, or two schools of thought, it is rarely a path to understanding. Few good ideas can be insightfully captured in a single word ending with -ism, and most of our ideas are so crude that we can make more progress by analyzing and refining them than by pitting them against each other in a winner.take-all contest. Finally, arguments should be based on reasons, not people. Saying that someone you disagree with is motivated by money, fame, politics, or laziness, or slinging around insults like simplistic, naïve, or vulgar, does not prove that the things the person is saying are false. Nor is the point of disagreement or criticism to show that you are smarter or nobler than your target. Psychologists have shown that in any dispute both sides are convinced that they themselves are reasonable and upright and that their opposite numbers are mulish and dishonest.75 They can’t all be right, at least not all the time. Keep in mind a bit of wisdom from the linguist Ann Farmer: “It isn’t about being right. It’s about getting it right.” All of these principles lead us back to why we should care about style in the first place. There is no dichotomy between describing how people use language and prescribing how they might use it more effec.tively. We can share our advice on how to write well without treating the people in need of it with contempt. We can try to remedy shortcom.ings in writing without bemoaning the degeneration of the language. And we can remind ourselves of the reasons to strive for good style: to enhance the spread of ideas, to exemplify attention to detail, and to add to the beauty of the world.

Acknowledgments

I’m grateful to many people for improving my sense of style and The Sense of Style. For three decades Katya Rice taught me much of what I know about style by copyediting six of my books with precision, thoughtfulness, and taste. Before editing this one, Katya read it as an expert, spotting problems and offering wise advice. I have the good fortune of being married to my favorite writer. In addition to inspiring me with her own style, Rebecca Newberger Gold.stein encouraged this project, expertly commented on the manuscript, and thought up the title. Many academics have the lamentable habit of using “my mother” as shorthand for an unsophisticated reader. My mother, Roslyn Pinker, is a sophisticated reader, and I’ve benefited from her acute observations on usage, the many articles on language she’s sent me over the decades, and her incisive comments on the manuscript. Les Perelman was the director of Writing Across the Curriculum at MIT during the two decades I taught there, and offered me invaluable support and advice on the teaching of writing to university students. Jane Rosenzweig, director of the Writing Center of Harvard College, has been similarly encouraging, and both commented helpfully on the manuscript. Thanks go as well to Erin Driver-Linn and Samuel Moul.ton of the Harvard Initiative for Learning & Teaching.

The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language and The Ameri.can Heritage Dictionary, Fifth Edition, are two great accomplishments of twenty-first-century scholarship, and I have been blessed with advice and comments from their overseers: Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey Pullum, coauthors of the Cambridge Grammar, and Steven Kleinedler, executive editor of AHD. Thanks go as well to Joseph Pickett, former executive editor of AHD, who invited me to chair the Usage Panel and gave me an insider’s look at how a dictionary is made, and to the cur.rent editors Peter Chipman and Louise Robbins. As if this expertise weren’t enough, I have benefited from the com.ments of other wise and knowledgeable colleagues. Ernest Davis, James Donaldson, Edward Gibson, Jane Grimshaw, John R. Hayes, Oliver Kamm, Gary Marcus, and Jeffrey Watumull offered penetrating com.ments on the first draft. Paul Adams, Christopher Chabris, Philip Corbett, James Engell, Nicholas Epley, Peter C. Gordon, Michael Halls-worth, David Halpern, Joshua Hartshorne, Samuel Jay Keyser, Stephen Kosslyn, Andrea Lunsford, Liz Lutgendorff, John Maguire, Jean-Baptiste Michel, Debra Poole, Jesse Snedeker, and Daniel Wegner answered questions and directed me to relevant research. Various examples in the book were suggested by Ben Backus, Lila Gleitman, Katherine Hobbs, Yael Goldstein Love, Ilavenil Subbiah, and emailers too numerous to list. Special thanks go to Ilavenil for the many subtle variations and shadings of usage she has called to my attention over the years, and for designing the diagrams and trees in this book. My editors at Penguin, Wendy Wolf in the United States and Thomas Penn and Stefan McGrath in the United Kingdom, and my literary agent, John Brockman, supported this project at every stage, and Wendy provided detailed criticism and advice on the first draft. I’m grateful, too, for the love and support of the other members of my family: my father, Harry Pinker; my stepdaughters, Yael Goldstein Love and Danielle Blau; my niece and nephews; my in-laws, Martin and Kris; and my sister, Susan Pinker, and brother, Robert Pinker, to whom this book is dedicated.

Parts of chapter 6 have been adapted from my essay on usage in The American Heritage Dictionary, Fifth Edition, and from my article “False Fronts in the Language Wars,” published in Slate in 2012.

Glossary active voice. The standard form of a clause, in which the actor or cause (if there is one) is the grammatical subject: A rabbit bit him (as opposed to the passive voice: He was bitten by a rabbit). adjective. The grammatical category of words that typically refer to a prop.erty or state: big, round, green, afraid, gratuitous, hesitant. adjunct. A modifier which adds information about the time, place, manner, purpose, result, or other feature of the event or state: She opened the bottle with her teeth; He teased the starving wolves, which was foolish; Hank slept in the doghouse. adverb. The grammatical category of words that modify verbs, adjectives, prepositions, and other adverbs: tenderly, cleverly, hopefully, very, almost. affix. A prefix or suffix: enrich, restate, blacken, slipped, squirrels, cancellation, Dave’s. agreement. Alterations of the form of a word to match some other word or phrase. In English a present-tense verb must agree with the person and num.ber of the subject: I snicker; He snickers; They snicker. AHD. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.

anapest. A foot with a weak-weak-strong meter: Anna Lee should get a life; badda.bing!; to the door. antecedent. The noun phrase that specifies what a pronoun refers to: Biff for.got his hat; Before Jan left, she sharpened her pencils. article. A small category of words which mark the definiteness of a noun phrase, including the definite article the and the indefinite articles a, an, and some. The Cambridge Grammar subsumes articles in the larger category determinative, which also includes quantifiers and demonstratives like this and that. auxiliary. A special kind of verb which conveys information relevant to the truth of the clause, including tense, mood, and negation: She doesn’t love you; I am resting; Bob was criticized; The train has left the station; You should call; I will survive. backshift. Changing the tense of a verb (usually in indirect or reported speech) to match the tense of the verb of speaking or believing: Lisa said that she was tired (compare with Lisa said, “I am tired.”) Traditionally called sequence of tenses. Cambridge Grammar. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, a 2002 reference book written by the linguists Rodney Huddleston and Geof.frey Pullum in collaboration with thirteen other linguists. It uses modern linguistics to provide a systematic analysis of virtually every grammatical construction in English. The terminology and analyses in this book are based on the Cambridge Grammar. case. The marking of a noun to indicate its grammatical function, including nominative case (for subjects), genitive case (for determiners, including pos.sessives), and accusative case (for objects and everything else). In English, case is marked only on pronouns (nominative I, he, she, we, and they; accusa.tive me, him, her, us, and them; and genitive my, your, his, her, our, and their), except for genitive case, which can be marked with the suffixes ’s on singular noun phrases and s’ on plural ones. classic prose. A term introduced by the literary scholars Francis-Noël Thomas and Mark Turner in their 1994 book, Clear and Simple as the Truth, to refer to a prose style in which the writer appears to direct the reader’s attention to an objective, concrete truth about the world by engaging the reader in conversa.tion. It contrasts with practical, self-conscious, contemplative, oracular, and other styles.

clause. The phrase type that corresponds to a sentence, whether it stands alone or is embedded in a larger sentence: Ethan likes figs; I wonder whether Ethan likes figs; The boy who likes figs is here; The claim that Ethan likes figs is false. coherence connective. A word, phrase, or punctuation mark that signals the semantic relation between a clause or passage and one that preceded it: Anna eats a lot of broccoli, because she likes the taste. Moreover, she thinks it’s healthy. In contrast, Emile never touches the stuff. And neither does Anna’s son. complement. A phrase that is allowed or required to appear with a head, completing its meaning: smell the glove; scoot into the cave; I thought you were dead; a picture of Mabel; proud of his daughter. conjunction. The traditional term for the grammatical category of words that link two phrases, including coordinating conjunctions (and, or, nor, but, yet, so) and subordinating conjunctions (whether, if, to). Following the Cambridge Grammar, I use the terms coordinator and subordinator instead. coordinate. One of two or more phrases in a coordination. coordination. A phrase consisting of two or more phrases with the same function, usually linked by a coordinator: parsley, sage, rosemary, and thyme; She is poor but honest; To live and die in LA; Should I stay or should I go?; I came, I saw, I conquered. coordinator. The grammatical category of words that link two or more phrases with the same function, such as and, or, nor, but, yet, and so. definiteness. A semantic distinction marked by the determiner of a noun phrase, indicating whether the content of the head noun is sufficient to iden.tify the referent in context. If I say I bought the car (definite), I am assuming that you already know which car I’m talking about; if I say I bought a car (indefinite), I’m introducing it to you for the first time. denominal verb. A verb derived from a noun: He elbowed his way in; She demonized him.

determinative. The name used in the Cambridge Grammar for the grammat.ical category of words that can function as determiners, including articles and quantifiers. determiner. The part of a noun phrase that helps determine the referent of the head noun, answering the question “Which one?” or “How many?” The deter.miner function is carried out by articles (a, an, the, this, that, these, those), quantifiers (some, any, many, few, one, two, three), and genitives (my mother; Sara’s iPhone). Note that determiner is a grammatical function; determina.tive a grammatical category. diction. The choice of words. Not used here to refer to clarity of enunciation. direct object. The object of the verb (or, if the verb has two objects, the second of the two), usually indicating the entity that is directly moved or affected by the action: spank the monkey; If you give a muffin to a moose; If you give a moose a muffin; Cry me a river. discourse. A connected sequence of sentences, such as a conversation, a para.graph, a letter, a post, or an essay. ellipsis. Omission of an obligatory phrase that can be recovered from the context: Yes we can __! Abe flossed, and I did __ too; Where did you go? __To the lighthouse. factual remoteness. Whether a proposition refers to a remote possibility, namely a state of affairs that is untrue, highly hypothetical, or extremely improbable. The difference between If my grandmother is free, she’ll come over (an open possibility) and If my grandmother had wheels, she’d be a trolley (a remote possibility). foot. A sequence of syllables pronounced as a unit and with a specific rhythm: The sun / did not shine. / It was too / wet to play. genitive. The technical term for what is loosely called “possessive” case, namely the case of a noun which functions as a determiner, such as Ed’s head or my theory. Marked in English by the choice of certain pronouns (my, your, his, her, their, and so on) and, with all other noun phrases, the suffix ’s or s’: John’s guitar; The Troggs’ drummer. gerund. The form of the verb with the suffix –ing, often functioning like a noun: His drinking got out of hand.

government. A traditional grammatical term covering the ways in which the head of a phrase may determine the grammatical properties of other words in the phrase, including agreement, case-marking, and the selection of comple.ments. grammatical category. A class of words that are interchangeable in their syntactic positions and in the way they are inflected: noun, verb, adjective, adverb, preposition, determinative (including articles), coordinator, sub.ordinator, interjection. Also called a part of speech. grammatical function. The role that a phrase plays inside a larger phrase, including subject, object, predicate, determiner, head, complement, modifier, and adjunct. head. The word in a phrase that determines the meaning and properties of the whole phrase: the man who knew too much; give a moose a muffin; afraid of his own shadow; under the boardwalk. hypercorrection. The overextension of a poorly grasped prescriptive rule to examples in which it does not apply, as in I feel terribly; They planned a party for she and her husband; one fewer car; Whomever did this should be punished. iambic. A weak-strong meter: Michelle; away; To bed! indicative. A term from traditional grammar for the mood of ordinary state.ments of fact, in contrast to subjunctive, imperative, interrogative, and other moods. indirect object. The first of two consecutive objects of a verb, usually indicat.ing a recipient or beneficiary: If you give a moose a muffin; Cry me a river. infinitive. The plain, untensed form of the verb, sometimes (but not always) appearing with the subordinator to: I want to be alone; She helped him pack; You must go. inflection. The modification of the form of a word according to its role in the sentence, including the declension of nouns (duck, ducks, duck’s, ducks’) and the conjugation of verbs (quack, quacks, quacked, quacking). Not to .e con.fused with intonation or prosody. intonation. The melody or pitch contour of speech.

intransitive. A verb that does not allow a direct object: Martha fainted; The chipmunk darted under the car. irrealis. Literally “not real”: a form of the verb that indicates factual remote.ness. In English it is marked only on the verb be: If I were a rich man, as opposed to If I was sick, I’d have a fever. In traditional grammars, it tends to be conflated with the subjunctive. main clause. The clause that expresses the principal assertion of a sentence, and in which subordinate clauses may be embedded: She thinks [I’m crazy]; Peter repeated the gossip [that Melissa was pregnant] to Sherry. metadiscourse. Words that refer to the current discourse: To sum up; In this essay I will make the following seventeen points; But I digress. meter. The rhythm of a word or set of words, consisting of a pattern of weak and strong syllables. modal auxiliary. The auxiliaries will, would, can, could, may, might, shall, should, must, and ought. They convey necessity, possibility, obligation, future time, and other concepts related to modalities. modality. Aspects of meaning relevant to the factual status of a proposition, including whether it is being asserted as fact, suggested as a possibility, posed as a question, or laid out as a command, a request, or an obligation. These are the meanings expressed by the grammatical system for mood. modifier. An optional phrase that comments on or adds information to a head: a nice boy; See you in the morning; The house that everyone tiptoes past. mood. Distinctions among the grammatical forms of a verb or clause that convey the semantic distinctions of modality, including the distinctions between an indicative statement (He ate), a question (Did he eat?), an imper.ative (Eat!), a subjunctive (It’s important that he eat), and, for the verb be, an irrealis (If I were you). morpheme. The smallest meaningful pieces into which words can be cut: walk.s; in.divis.ibil.ity; crowd.sourc.ing. nominal. Something nouny: a noun, pronoun, proper name, or noun phrase. nominalization. A noun formed out of a verb or an adjective: a cancellation; a fail; an enactment; protectiveness; a fatality.

noun. The grammatical category of words that refer to things, people, and other nameable or conceivable entities: lily, joist, telephone, bargain, grace, prostitute, terror, Joshua, consciousness. noun phrase. A phrase headed by a noun: Jeff; the muskrat; the man who would be king; anything you want. object. A complement that follows a verb or preposition, usually indicating an entity that is essential to defining the action, state, or situation: spank the monkey; prove the theorem; into the cave; before the party. Includes direct, indirect, and oblique objects. oblique object. An object of a preposition: under the door. open conditional. An if.then statement referring to an open possibility, one that the speaker does not know to be true or false: If it rains, we’ll cancel the game. participle. A form of the verb without a tense, which generally needs to appear with an auxiliary or other verb. English has two: the past participle, used in the passive voice (It was eaten) and perfect tense (He has eaten), and the gerund-participle, used in the progressive present tense (He is running) and in gerunds (Getting there is half the fun). Most verbs have regular past-participle forms, formed by the suffix –ed (I have stopped; It was stopped), but about 165 have irregular forms (I have given it away; It was given to me; I have brought it; It was brought here). All gerund-participles in English are formed with –ing. part of speech. Traditional term for a grammatical category. passive voice. One of the two major voices in English. A construction in which the usual object appears as the subject, and the usual subject is an object of by or absent altogether: He was bitten by a rabbit (compare the active A rabbit bit him); We got screwed; Attacked by his own supporters, he had nowhere else to turn. past tense. A form of the verb used to indicate past time, factual remoteness, or backshift: She left yesterday; If you left tomorrow, you’d save money; She said she left. Most verbs have regular past-tense forms, formed by the suffix –ed (I stopped), but about 165 have irregular forms (I gave it away; She brought it). Also called the preterite. person. The grammatical distinction between the speaker (first person), the addressee (second person), and those not participating in the conversation (third person). Marked only on pronouns: first person I, me, we, us, my, our; second person you, your; third person he, him, she, her, they, their, it, its.

phoneme. A minimal unit of sound, consisting of a spoken vowel or consonant: p.e.n; g.r.oa.n. phrase. A group of words that behaves as a unit in a sentence and which typi.cally has some coherent meaning: in the dark; the man in the gray suit; dancing in the dark; afraid of the wolf. predicate. The grammatical function of a verb phrase, corresponding to a state, an event, or a relationship which is asserted to be true of the subject: The boys are back in town; Tex is tall; The baby ate a slug. The term is also sometimes used to refer to the verb that heads the predicate (e.g., ate), or, if the verb is be, the verb, noun, adjective, or preposition that heads its complement (e.g., tall). preposition. The grammatical category of words that typically express spa.tial or temporal relationships: in, on, at, near, by, for, under, before, after, up. pronoun. A small subcategory of nouns that includes personal pronouns (I, me, my, mine, you, your, yours, he, him, his, she, her, hers, we, us, our, ours, they, them, their, theirs) and interrogative and relative pronouns (who, whom, whose, what, which, where, why, when). prosody. The melody, timing, and rhythm of speech. quantifier. A word (usually a determinative) which specifies the amount or quantity of a head noun: all, some, no, none, any, every, each, many, most, few. relative clause. A clause that modifies a noun, often containing a gap which indicates the role the noun plays inside that phrase: five fat guys who rock; a clause that modifies a noun; women we love ; violet eyes to die for ; fruit for the crows to pluck . remote conditional. An if.then statement referring to a remote possibility, one that the speaker believes to be false, purely hypothetical, or highly improbable: If wishes were horses, beggars would ride; If pigs had wings, they could fly. semantics. The meaning of a word, phrase, or sentence. Does not refer to hairsplitting over exact definitions.

sequence of tenses. See backshift. subject. The grammatical function of the phrase that the predicate is saying something about. In active sentences with action verbs it corresponds to the actor or cause of the action: The boys are back in town; Tex is tall; The baby ate a slug; Debbie broke the violin. In passive sentences it usually corresponds to the affected entity: A slug was eaten. subjunctive. A mood, marked mainly in subordinate clauses, which uses the plain form of the verb, and indicates a hypothetical, demanded, or required situation: It is essential that I be kept in the loop; He bought insurance lest someone sue him. subordinate clause. A clause embedded in a larger phrase, as opposed to the main clause of the sentence: She thinks I’m crazy; Peter repeated the gossip that Melissa was pregnant to Sherry. subordinator. A grammatical category containing a small number of words that introduce a subordinate clause: She said that it will work; I wonder whether he knows about the party; For her to stay home is unusual. It corre.sponds roughly to the traditional category of subordinating conjunctions. supplement. A loosely attached adjunct or modifier, set off from the rest of the sentence by pauses in speech and by punctuation in writing: Fortunately, he got his job back; My point—and I do have one—is this; Let’s eat, Grandma; The shoes, which cost $5,000, were hideous. syntax. The component of grammar that governs the arrangement of words into phrases and sentences. tense. The marking of a verb to indicate the time of the state or event relative to the moment the sentence is uttered, including present tense (He mows the lawn every week) and past tense (He mowed the lawn last week). A tense may have several meanings in addition to its standard temporal one; see past tense. topic. A sentence topic is the phrase that indicates what the sentence is about; in English it is usually the subject, though it can also be expressed in adjuncts such as As for fish, I like scrod. A discourse topic is what a conversation or text is about; it may be mentioned repeatedly throughout the discourse, some.times in different words.

transitive. A verb that requires an object: Biff fixed the lamp. verb. The grammatical category of words which are inflected for tense and which often refer to an action or a state: He kicked the football; I thought I saw a pussycat; I am strong. verb phrase. A phrase headed by a verb which includes the verb together with its complements and adjuncts: He tried to kick the football but missed; I thought I saw a pussycat; I am strong. voice. The difference between an active sentence (Beavers build dams) and a passive sentence (Dams are built by beavers). word-formation. Also called morphology: the component of grammar that alters the forms of words (rip . ripped) or that creates new words from old ones (a demagogue . to demagogue; priority . prioritize; crowd + source . crowd.source). zombie noun. Helen Sword’s nickname for an unnecessary nominalization that hides the agent of the action. Her example: The proliferation of nominal.izations in a discursive formation may be an indication of a tendency toward pomposity and abstraction (instead of Writers who overload their sentences with nouns derived from verbs and adjectives tend to sound pompous and abstract).

Notes

proloGue

1. From the introduction to The Elements of Style (Strunk & White, 1999), p. xv.

2. Pullum, 2009, 2010; J. Freeman, “Clever horses: Unhelpful advice from ‘The Elements of Style,’” Boston Globe, April 12, 2009.

3. Williams, 1981; Pullum, 2013.

4. Eibach & Libby, 2009.

5. The examples are from Daniels, 1983.

6. Lloyd-Jones, 1976, cited in Daniels, 1983.

7. See Garvey, 2009, for a discussion of criticisms that have been leveled at Strunk & White for its insistence on plain style, and Lanham, 2007, for a critique of the one-dimensional approach to style which runs through what he calls The Books.

8. Herring, 2007; Connors & Lunsford, 1988; Lunsford & Lunsford, 2008; Lunsford, 2013; Thurlow, 2006.

9. Adams & Hunt, 2013; Cabinet Office Behavioural Insights Team, 2012; Sunstein, 2013.

10. Schriver, 2012. For more on plain language laws, see the Center for Plain Language (http://centerforplainlanguage.org) and the organizations called Plain (http://www.plainlanguage.gov) and Clarity (http://www .clarity-international.net).

K. Wiens, “I won’t hire people who use poor grammar. Here’s why,” Har.vard Business Review Blog Network, July 20, 2012, http://blogs.hbr.org/cs /2012/07/i_wont_hire_people_who_use_poo.html.

http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/online-dating-advice-exactly -what-to-say-in-a-first-message/. The quotation is from the writer Twist Phelan in “Apostrophe now: Bad grammar and the people who hate it,” BBC News Magazine, May 13, 2013.

ChApter 1: Good WritinG 1. From “A few maxims for the instruction of the over-educated,” first pub.lished anonymously in Saturday Review, Nov. 17, 1894.

Though commonly attributed to William Faulkner, the quotation comes from the English professor Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch in his 1916 lectures

On the art of writing. 3. R. Dawkins, Unweaving the rainbow: Science, delusion and the appetite for wonder (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1998), p. 1.

According to the Google ngram viewer: http://ngrams.googlelabs.com.

R. N. Goldstein, Betraying Spinoza: The renegade Jew who gave us moder.nity (New York: Nextbook/Schocken, 2006), pp. 124–125.

Kosslyn, Thompson, & Ganis, 2006; H. Miller, 2004–2005; Sadoski, 1998; Shepard, 1978.

M. Fox, “Maurice Sendak, author of splendid nightmares, dies at 83,” New York Times, May 8, 2012; “Pauline Phillips, flinty adviser to millions as Dear Abby, dies at 94,” New York Times, Jan. 17, 2013; “Helen Gurley Brown, who gave ‘Single Girl’ a life in full, dies at 90,” New York Times, Aug. 13, 2013. I have altered the punctuation to conform to the style of this book, and in the Phillips excerpt I have quoted two of the four “Dear Abby” letters in the original obituary and reordered them.

Poole et al., 2011.

McNamara, Crossley, & McCarthy, 2010; Poole et al., 2011.

Pinker, 2007, chap. 6.

M. Fox, “Mike McGrady, known for a literary hoax, dies at 78,” New York Times, May 14, 2012.

I. Wilkerson, The warmth of other suns: The epic story of America’s great migration (New York: Vintage, 2011), pp. 8–9, 14–15.

ChApter 2: A WindoW onto the World

1. Versions of this saying have been expressed by the writing scholar James C. Raymond, the psychologist Philip Gough, the literary scholar Betsy Draine, and the poet Mary Ruefle.

For a discussion of the ubiquity of concrete metaphors in language, see Pinker, 2007, chap. 5.

Grice, 1975; Pinker, 2007, chap. 8.

Thomas & Turner, 1994, p. 81.

Thomas & Turner, 1994, p. 77.

Both quotations are from p. 79.

B. Greene, “Welcome to the multiverse,” Newseek/The Daily Beast, May 21, 2012.

D. Dutton, “Language crimes: A lesson in how not to write, courtesy of the professoriate,” Wall Street Journal, Feb. 5, 1999, http://denisdutton.com /bad_writing.htm.

Thomas & Turner, 1994, p. 60.

Thomas & Turner, 1994, p. 40.

Most likely said by the Kansas newspaper editor William Allen White, http://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/08/29/substitute-damn/.

“Avoid clichés like the plague” is one of the many self-undermining rules of writing popularized by William Safire in his 1990 book Fumblerules. The genre goes back at least to 1970s campus xeroxlore; see http://alt -usage-english.org/humorousrules.html.

Keysar et al., 2000; Pinker, 2007, chap. 5.

From the historian Niall Ferguson.

From the linguist Geoffrey Pullum.

From the politician, lawyer, executive, and immortal Montreal Cana.diens goaltender Ken Dryden.

From the historian Anthony Pagden.

The Dickens simile is from David Copperfield.

Roger Brown, in an unpublished paper.

A. Bellow, “Skin in the game: A conservative chronicle,” World Affairs, Summer 2008.

H. Sword, “Zombie nouns,” New York Times, July 23, 2012.

G. Allport, “Epistle to thesis writers,” photocopy handed down by gener.ations of Harvard psychology graduate students, undated but presum.ably from the 1960s.

From the Pennsylvania Plain Language Consumer Contract Act, http:// www.pacode.com/secure/data/037/chapter307/s307.10.html.

G. K. Pullum, “The BBC enlightens us on passives,” Language Log, Feb. 22, 2011, http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2990.

ChApter 3: the Curse of KnoWledGe 1. Sword, 2012.

Named after Robert J. Hanlon, who contributed it to Arthur Bloch’s Murphy’s Law Book Two: More reasons why things go wrong! (Los Ange.les: Price/Stern/Sloan, 1980).

The term “curse of knowledge” was coined by Robin Hogarth and popu.larized by Camerer, Lowenstein, & Weber, 1989.

Piaget & Inhelder, 1956.

Fischhoff, 1975.

Ross, Greene, & House, 1977.

Keysar, 1994.

Wimmer & Perner, 1983.

Birch & Bloom, 2007.

Hayes & Bajzek, 2008; Nickerson, Baddeley, & Freeman, 1986.

Kelley & Jacoby, 1996.

Hinds, 1999.

Other researchers who have made this suggestion include John Hayes, Karen Schriver, and Pamela Hinds.

Cushing, 1994.

From the title of the 1943 style manual by Robert Graves and Alan Hodge, The reader over your shoulder: A handbook for writers of prose (New York: Random House; revised edition, 1979).

Epley, 2014.

Fischhoff, 1975; Hinds, 1999; Schriver, 2012.

Kelley & Jacoby, 1996.

Freedman, 2007, p. 22.

From p. 73 of the second edition (1972).

Attentive readers may notice that this definition of syllepsis is similar to the definition of zeugma I gave in connection with the Sendak obituary in chapter 1. The experts on rhetorical tropes don’t have a consistent explanation of how they differ.

G. A. Miller, 1956.

Pinker, 2013.

Duncker, 1945.

Sadoski, 1998; Sadoski, Goetz, & Fritz, 1993; Kosslyn, Thompson, & Ganis, 2006.

Schriver, 2012.

Epley, 2014.

ChApter 4: the Web, the tree, And the strinG 1. Florey, 2006.

Pinker, 1997.

Pinker, 1994, chap. 4.

Pinker, 1994, chap. 8.

I use the analyses in The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (Huddleston & Pullum, 2002) with a few simplifications, including those introduced in the companion A Student’s Introduction to English Gram.mar (Huddleston & Pullum, 2005).

The incident is described in Liberman & Pullum, 2006.

Huddleston & Pullum, 2002; Huddleston & Pullum, 2005.

Bock & Miller, 1991.

Chomsky, 1965; see Pinker, 1994, chaps. 4 and 7.

Pinker, 1994, chap. 7. For more recent reviews of the experimental study of sentence processing, see Wolf & Gibson, 2003; Gibson, 1998; Levy, 2008; Pickering & van Gompel, 2006.

From Liberman & Pullum, 2006.

Mostly from the column of Aug. 6, 2013.

I have simplified the tree on page 100; the Cambridge Grammar would call for two additional levels of embedding in the clause Did Henry kiss whom to represent the inversion of the subject and the auxil.iary.

The first example is from the New York Times “After Deadline” column; the second, from Bernstein, 1965.

Pinker, 1994; Wolf & Gibson, 2003.

Some of the examples come from Smith, 2001.

R. N. Goldstein, 36 Arguments for the existence of God: A work of fiction (New York: Pantheon, 2010), pp. 18–19.

From “Types of sentence branching,” Report writing at the World Bank, 2012, http://colelearning.net/rw_wb/module6/page7.html.

Here and elsewhere, I use the label Noun Phrase for the constituent the Cambridge Grammar calls “Nominal.”

Zwicky et al., 1971/1992. See also http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/langua gelog/archives/001086.html.

Pinker, 1994, chap. 4; Gibson, 1998.

Boston Globe, May 23, 1999.

Fodor, 2002a, 2002b; Rayner & Pollatsek, 1989; Van Orden, Johnston, & Hale, 1988.

R. Rosenbaum, “Sex week at Yale,” Atlantic Monthly, Jan./Feb. 2003; reprinted in Pinker, 2004.

The unattributed source for most of these emails is Lederer, 1987.

Spotted by Language Log, http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4401.

Bever, 1970.

Pinker, 1994, chap. 7; Fodor, 2002a; Gibson, 1998; Levy, 2008; Pickering & van Gompel, 2006; Wolf & Gibson, 2003.

Nunberg, 1990; Nunberg, Briscoe, & Huddleston, 2002.

Levy, 2008.

Pickering & Ferreira, 2008.

Cooper & Ross, 1975; Pinker & Birdsong, 1979.

The example is from Geoffrey Pullum.

Gordon & Lowder, 2012.

Huddleston & Pullum, 2002; Huddleston & Pullum, 2005.

ChApter 5: ArCs of CoherenCe 1. Mostly from Lederer, 1987.

Wolf & Gibson, 2006.

Bransford & Johnson, 1972.

M. O’Connor, “Surviving winter: Heron,” The Cape Codder, Feb. 28, 2003; reprinted in Pinker, 2004.

Huddleston & Pullum, 2002; Huddleston & Pullum, 2005.

Huddleston & Pullum, 2002; Huddleston & Pullum, 2005.

Gordon & Hendrick, 1998.

Mostly from Lederer, 1987.

Garrod & Sanford, 1977; Gordon & Hendrick, 1998.

Hume, 1748/1999.

Grosz, Joshi, & Weinstein, 1995; Hobbs, 1979; Kehler, 2002; Wolf & Gib.son, 2006. Hume’s connections between ideas, as he originally explained

them, are not identical to those distinguished by Kehler, but his trichot.omy is a useful way to organize the coherence relations. 12. Clark & Clark, 1968; G. A. Miller & Johnson-Laird, 1976.

Grosz, Joshi, & Weinstein, 1995; Hobbs, 1979; Kehler, 2002; Wolf & Gib.son, 2006.

Kamalski, Sanders, & Lentz, 2008.

P. Tyre, “The writing revolution,” The Atlantic, Oct. 2012, http://www .theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/10/the-writing-revolution /309090/.

Keegan, 1993, p. 3.

Clark & Chase, 1972; Gilbert, 1991; Horn, 2001; Huddleston & Pullum, 2002; Huddleston & Pullum, 2005; Miller & Johnson-Laird, 1976.

Gilbert, 1991; Goldstein, 2006; Spinoza, 1677/2000.

Gilbert, 1991; Wegner et al., 1987.

Clark & Chase, 1972; Gilbert, 1991; Miller & Johnson-Laird, 1976.

Huddleston & Pullum, 2002.

Liberman & Pullum, 2006; see also the many postings on “misnegation” in the blog Language Log, http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/.

Wason, 1965.

Huddleston & Pullum, 2002.

Huddleston & Pullum, 2002.

To be exact, he said, “We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard . . . ,” http://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/ricetalk.htm.

Keegan, 1993, pp. 3–4.

Keegan, 1993, p. 5.

Keegan, 1993, p. 12.

Williams, 1990.

Mueller, 2004, pp. 16–18.

ChApter 6: tellinG riGht from WronG 1. Macdonald, 1962.

G. W. Bush, “Remarks by the President at the Radio-Television Corre.spondents Association 57th Annual Dinner,” Washington Hilton Hotel, March 29, 2001.

Skinner, 2012.

Hitchings, 2011; Merriam.Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage, 1994.

Lindgren, 1990.

American Heritage Dictionary, 2011; Copperud, 1980; Huddleston & Pul.lum, 2002; Huddleston & Pullum, 2005; Liberman & Pullum, 2006; Merriam.Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage, 1994; Soukhanov, 1999. Online dictionaries: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (http://www.ahdictionary.com/); Dictionary.com (http://dic tionary.reference.com); Merriam.Webster Unabridged (http://unabridged .merriam-webster.com/); Merriam.Webster Online (http://www.merriam -webster.com/); Oxford English Dictionary (http://www.oed.com); Oxford Dictionary Online (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com). Language Log, http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll. Other sources consulted in this discussion include Bernstein, 1965; Fowler, 1965; Haussaman, 1993; Lunsford, 2006; Lunsford & Lunsford, 2008; Oxford English Dictionary, 1991; Siegal & Connolly, 1999; Williams, 1990.

M. Liberman, “Prescribing terribly,” Language Log, 2009, http://langua gelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1360; M. Liberman, 2007, “Amid this vague uncertainty, who walks safe?” Language Log, http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl /languagelog/archives/004231.html.

E. Bakovic, “Think this,” Language Log, 2006, http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl /languagelog/archives/003144.html.

The errors are taken from Lunsford, 2006, and Lunsford & Lunsford, 2008.

Haussaman, 1993; Huddleston & Pullum, 2002.

Merriam.Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage, 1994, p. 218.

Nunnally, 1991.

This analysis is based on Huddleston & Pullum, 2002.

G. K. Pullum, “Menand’s acumen deserts him,” in Liberman & Pullum, 2006, and Language Log, 2003, http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/langua gelog/archives/000027.html.

B. Zimmer, “A misattribution no longer to be put up with,” Language Log, 2004, http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001715.html.

M. Liberman, “Hot Dryden-on-Jonson action,” Language Log, 2007, http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004454.html.

These and other examples of errors in student papers are adapted from Lunsford, 2006, and Lunsford & Lunsford, 2008. For an explanation of tense and its relationship to time, see Pinker, 2007, chap. 4.

Called out as an error by the New York Times’ “After Deadline” column, May 14, 2013.

Huddleston & Pullum, 2002.

Huddleston & Pullum, 2002, pp. 152–154.

Pinker, 2007, chap. 4.

G. K. Pullum, “Irrational terror over adverb placement at Harvard,” Lan.guage Log, 2008, http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=100.

Huddleston & Pullum, 2002, pp. 1185–1187.

M. Liberman, “Heaping of catmummies considered harmful,” Language Log, 2008, http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=514.

G. K. Pullum, “Obligatorily split infinitives in real life,” Language Log, 2005, http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002180.html.

A. M. Zwicky, “Not to or to not,” Language Log, 2005, http://itre.cis .upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002139.html.

A. M. Zwicky, “Obligatorily split infinitives,” Language Log, 2004, http:// itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000901.html.

From Winston Churchill.

This analysis is based on Huddleston & Pullum, 2002, especially pp. 999– 1000.

Huddleston & Pullum, 2002, p. 87.

Huddleston & Pullum, 2002; Huddleston & Pullum, 2005.

Merriam.Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage, 1994, p. 343.

G. K. Pullum, “A rule which will live in infamy,” Chronicle of Higher Educa.tion, Dec. 7, 2012; M. Liberman, “A decline in which-hunting?” Language Log, 2013, http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=5479#more-5479.

G. K. Pullum, “More timewasting garbage, another copy-editing moron,” Language Log, 2004, http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives /000918.html; G. K. Pullum, “Which vs that? I have numbers!” Language Log, 2004, http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001464 .html.

Merriam.Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage, 1994, p. 895.

Pinker, 1999/2011.

Flynn, 2007; see also Pinker, 2011, chap. 9.

M. Liberman, “Whom humor,” Language Log, 2004, http://itre.cis.upenn .edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000779.html.

Merriam.Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage, 1994, p. 958; G. K. Pullum, “One rule to ring them all,” Chronicle of Higher Education, Nov. 30, 2012, http://chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/2012/11/30/one-rule-to-ring -them-all/; Huddleston & Pullum, 2002.

According to the Google ngram viewer: http://ngrams.googlelabs.com.

A fifteenth-century curse discussed in my book The stuff of thought, chap. 7.

Quoted in Merriam.Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage, 1994, p. 959.

Merriam.Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage, 1994, pp. 689–690; Hud.dleston & Pullum, 2002, p. 506; American Heritage Dictionary, 2011, Usage Note for one.

For an analysis of the language of stuff and things, see Pinker, 2007, chap. 4.

J. Freeman, “One less thing to worry about,” Boston Globe, May 24, 2009.

Originally published as “Ships in the night,” New York Times, April 5, 1994.

White House Office of the Press Secretary, “Statement by the President on the Supreme Court’s Ruling on Arizona v. the United States,” June 25, 2012.

D. Gelernter, “Feminism and the English language,” Weekly Standard, March 3, 2008; G. K. Pullum, “Lying feminist ideologues wreck English lan.guage, says Yale prof,” Language Log, 2008, http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl /languagelog/archives/005423.html.

Foertsch & Gernsbacher, 1997.

From G. K. Pullum, “Lying feminist ideologues wreck English language, says Yale prof,” Language Log, 2008, http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl /languagelog/archives/005423.html, and Merriam.Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage, 1994.

Foertsch & Gernsbacher, 1997.

From G. J. Stigler, “The intellectual and the market place,” Selected Papers No. 3, Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago, 1967.

H. Churchyard, “Everyone loves their Jane Austen,” http://www.crossmyt .com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html.

G. K. Pullum, “Singular they with known sex,” Language Log, 2006, http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002742.html.

Pinker, 1994, chap. 12.

Foertsch & Gernsbacher, 1997; Sanforth & Filik, 2007; M. Liberman, “Pre.scriptivist science,” Language Log, 2008, http://languagelog.ldc.upenn .edu/nll/?p=199.

Huddleston & Pullum, 2002, pp. 608–609.

Nunberg, 1990; Nunberg, Briscoe, & Huddleston, 2002.

Truss, 2003; L. Menand, “Bad comma,” New Yorker, June 28, 2004; Crystal, 2006; J. Mullan, “The war of the commas,” The Guardian, July 1, 2004, http://www.theguardian.com/books/2004/jul/02/referenceandlanguages .johnmullan.

Huddleston & Pullum, 2002; Huddleston & Pullum, 2005, p. 188.

Lunsford, 2006; Lunsford & Lunsford, 2008; B. Yagoda, “The most comma mistakes,” New York Times, May 21, 2012; B. Yagoda, “Fanfare for the comma man,” New York Times, April 9, 2012.

B. Yagoda, “Fanfare for the comma man,” New York Times, April 9, 2012.

M. Norris, “In defense of ‘nutty’ commas,” New Yorker, April 12, 2010.

Lunsford, 2006; Lunsford & Lunsford, 2008; B. Yagoda, “The most comma mistakes,” New York Times, May 21, 2012.

The examples that follow are from Wikipedia, “Serial comma.”

Siegal & Connolly, 1999.

At least according to the New York Times Manual of Style and Usage (Siegal & Connolly, 1999). Other manuals make an exception to this exception for classical names ending in –as or –us, and then make an exception to the exception to the exception for Jesus—but he would get by without the ’s by virtue of the sound of his name anyway.

Pullum, 1984.

B. Yagoda, “The rise of ‘logical punctuation,’” Slate, May 12, 2011.

D. F. Wallace, “Tense present: Democracy, English, and the wars over usage,” Harper’s, April 2001; D. Gelernter, “Feminism and the English language,” Weekly Standard, March 3, 2008; J. Simon, Paradigms lost (New York: Clarkson Potter, 1980), p. 97; J. Simon, “First foreword,” in Fiske, 2011, p. ix; Fiske, 2011, p. 213; Truss, 2003.

G. K. Pullum, “Lying feminist ideologues wreck English, says Yale prof,” Language Log, 2008, http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives /005423.html. See also M. Liberman, “At a loss for lexicons,” Language Log, 2004, http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000437.html.

Deck & Herson, 2010.

Kahneman, Slovic, & Tversky, 1982; Schacter, 2001.

K. A. McDonald, “Many of Mark Twain’s famed humorous sayings are found to have been misattributed to him,” Chronicle of Higher Education, Sept. 4, 1991, A8.

Haidt, 2012; Pinker, 2011, chap. 8.

References Adams, P., & Hunt, S. 2013. Encouraging consumers to claim redress: Evidence from a field trial. London: Financial Conduct Authority. American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (5th ed.). 2011. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Bernstein, T. M. 1965. The careful writer: A modern guide to English usage. New York: Atheneum. Bever, T. G. 1970. The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In J. R. Hayes (ed.), Cognition and the development of language. New York: Wiley. Birch, S. A. J., & Bloom, P. 2007. The curse of knowledge in reasoning about false beliefs. Psychological Science, 18, 382–386. Bock, K., & Miller, C. A. 1991. Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 45–93. Bransford, J. D., & Johnson, M. K. 1972. Contextual prerequisites for under.standing: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Ver.bal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 717–726. Cabinet Office Behavioural Insights Team. 2012. Applying behavioural insights to reduce fraud, error and debt. London: Cabinet Office Behavioural Insights Team. Camerer, C., Lowenstein, G., & Weber, M. 1989. The curse of knowledge in economic settings: An experimental analysis. Journal of Political Economy, 97, 1232–1254.

Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Clark, H. H., & Chase, W. G. 1972. On the process of comparing sentences against pictures. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 472–517. Clark, H. H., & Clark, E. V. 1968. Semantic distinctions and memory for com.plex sentences. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 129–138. Connors, R. J., & Lunsford, A. A. 1988. Frequency of formal errors in current college writing, or Ma and Pa Kettle do research. College Composition and Communication, 39, 395–409. Cooper, W. E., & Ross, J. R. 1975. World order. In R. E. Grossman, L. J. San, & T. J. Vance (eds.), Papers from the parasession on functionalism of the Chicago Linguistics Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Copperud, R. H. 1980. American usage and style: The consensus. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Crystal, D. 2006. The fight for English: How language pundits ate, shot, and left. New York: Oxford University Press. Cushing, S. 1994. Fatal words: Communication clashes and aircraft crashes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Daniels, H. A. 1983. Famous last words: The American language crisis recon.sidered. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Deck, J., & Herson, B. D. 2010. The great typo hunt: Two friends changing the world, one correction at a time. New York: Crown. Duncker, K. 1945. On problem solving. Psychological Monographs, 58. Eibach, R. P., & Libby, L. K. 2009. Ideology of the good old days: Exaggerated perceptions of moral decline and conservative politics. In J. T. Jost, A. Kay, & H. Thorisdottir (eds.), Social and psychological bases of ideology and sys.tem justification. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Epley, N. 2014. Mindwise: (Mis)understanding what others think, believe, feel, and want. New York: Random House. Fischhoff, B. 1975. Hindsight ≠ foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1, 288–299. Fiske, R. H. 2011. Robert Hartwell Fiske’s Dictionary of Unendurable English. New York: Scribner. Florey, K. B. 2006. Sister Bernadette’s barking dog: The quirky history and lost art of diagramming sentences. New York: Harcourt. Flynn, J. R. 2007. What is intelligence? New York: Cambridge University Press.

Fodor, J. D. 2002a. Prosodic disambiguation in silent reading. Paper pre.sented at the North East Linguistic Society. Fodor, J. D. 2002b. Psycholinguistics cannot escape prosody. https://gc.cuny .edu/CUNY_GC/media/CUNY-Graduate-Center/PDF/Programs/Linguis tics/Psycholinguistics-Cannot-Escape-Prosody.pdf. Foertsch, J., & Gernsbacher, M. A. 1997. In search of gender neutrality: Is singular they a cognitively efficient substitute for generic he? Psychological Science, 8, 106–111. Fowler, H. W. 1965. Fowler’s Modern English Usage (2nd ed.; E. Gowers, ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Freedman, A. 2007. The party of the first part: The curious world of legalese. New York: Henry Holt. Garrod, S., & Sanford, A. 1977. Interpreting anaphoric relations: The integra.tion of semantic information while reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 77–90. Garvey, M. 2009. Stylized: A slightly obsessive history of Strunk and White’s “The Elements of Style.” New York: Simon & Schuster. Gibson, E. 1998. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 1–76. Gilbert, D. T. 1991. How mental systems believe. American Psychologist, 46, 107–119. Goldstein, R. N. 2006. Betraying Spinoza: The renegade Jew who gave us modernity. New York: Nextbook/Schocken. Gordon, P. C., & Hendrick, R. 1998. The representation and processing of coreference in discourse. Cognitive Science, 22, 389–424. Gordon, P. C., & Lowder, M. W. 2012. Complex sentence processing: A review of theoretical perspectives on the comprehension of relative clauses. Lan.guage and Linguistics Compass, 6/7, 403–415. Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax & semantics (Vol. 3, Speech acts). New York: Academic Press. Grosz, B. J., Joshi, A. K., & Weinstein, S. 1995. Centering: A framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 21, 203–225. Haidt, J. 2012. The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York: Pantheon. Haussaman, B. 1993. Revising the rules: Traditional grammar and modern linguistics. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt.

Hayes, J. R., & Bajzek, D. 2008. Understanding and reducing the knowledge effect: Implications for writers. Written Communication, 25, 104–118. Herring, S. C. 2007. Questioning the generational divide: Technological exot.icism and adult construction of online youth identity. In D. Buckingham (ed.), Youth, identity, and digital media. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Hinds, P. J. 1999. The curse of expertise: The effects of expertise and debiasing methods on predictions of novel performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 5, 205–221. Hitchings, H. 2011. The language wars: A history of proper English. London: John Murray. Hobbs, J. R. 1979. Coherence and coreference. Cognitive Science, 3, 67–90. Horn, L. R. 2001. A natural history of negation. Stanford, Calif.: Center for the Study of Language and Information. Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. New York: Cambridge University Press. Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. 2005. A Student’s Introduction to English Grammar. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hume, D. 1748/1999. An enquiry concerning human understanding. New York: Oxford University Press. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. 1982. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. New York: Cambridge University Press. Kamalski, J., Sanders, T., & Lentz, L. 2008. Coherence marking, prior knowl.edge, and comprehension of informative and persuasive texts: Sorting things out. Discourse Processes, 45, 323–345. Keegan, J. 1993. A history of warfare. New York: Vintage. Kehler, A. 2002. Coherence, reference, and the theory of grammar. Stanford, Calif.: Center for the Study of Language and Information. Kelley, C. M., & Jacoby, L. L. 1996. Adult egocentrism: Subjective experience versus analytic bases for judgment. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 157–175. Keysar, B. 1994. The illusory transparency of intention: Linguistic perspective taking in text. Cognitive Psychology, 26, 165–208. Keysar, B., Shen, Y., Glucksberg, S., & Horton, W. S. 2000. Conventional language: How metaphorical is it? Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 576–593. Kosslyn, S. M., Thompson, W. L., & Ganis, G. 2006. The case for mental imag.ery. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lanham, R. 2007. Style: An anti.textbook. Philadelphia: Paul Dry. Lederer, R. 1987. Anguished English. Charleston, S.C.: Wyrick. Levy, R. 2008. Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106, 1126–1177. Liberman, M., & Pullum, G. K. 2006. Far from the madding gerund: And other dispatches from Language Log. Wilsonville, Ore.: William, James & Co. Lindgren, J. 1990. Fear of writing (review of Texas Law Review Manual of Style, 6th ed., and Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage). California Law Review, 78, 1677–1702. Lloyd-Jones, R. 1976. Is writing worse nowadays? University of Iowa Spectator, April. Lunsford, A. A. 2006. Error examples. Unpublished document, Program in Writing and Rhetoric, Stanford University. Lunsford, A. A. 2013. Our semi-literate youth? Not so fast. Unpublished man.uscript, Dept. of English, Stanford University. Lunsford, A. A., & Lunsford, K. J. 2008. “Mistakes are a fact of life”: A national comparative study. College Composition and Communication, 59, 781–806. Macdonald, D. 1962. The string untuned: A review of Webster’s New Interna. tional Dictionary (3rd ed.). New Yorker, March 10. McNamara, D. S., Crossley, S. A., & McCarthy, P. M. 2010. Linguistic features of writing quality. Written Communication, 27, 57–86. Merriam.Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage. 1994. Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster. Miller, G. A. 1956. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some lim.its on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–96. Miller, G. A., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. 1976. Language and perception. Cam.bridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Miller, H. 2004–2005. Image into word: Glimpses of mental images in writers writing. Journal of the Assembly for Expanded Perspectives on Learning, 10, 62–72. Mueller, J. 2004. The remnants of war. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Nickerson, R. S., Baddeley, A., & Freeman, B. 1986. Are people’s estimates of what other people know influenced by what they themselves know? Acta Psychologica, 64, 245–259. Nunberg, G. 1990. The linguistics of punctuation. Stanford, Calif.: Center for the Study of Language and Information.

Nunberg, G., Briscoe, T., & Huddleston, R. 2002. Punctuation. In R. Hud.dleston & G. K. Pullum, The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. New York: Cambridge University Press. Nunnally, T. 1991. The possessive with gerunds: What the handbooks say, and what they should say. American Speech, 66, 359–370. Oxford English Dictionary. 1991. The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. 1956. The child’s conception of space. London: Rout-ledge. Pickering, M. J., & Ferreira, V. S. 2008. Structural priming: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 427–459. Pickering, M. J., & van Gompel, R. P. G. 2006. Syntactic parsing. In M. Trax.ler & M. A. Gernsbacher (eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (2nd ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Pinker, S. 1994. The language instinct. New York: HarperCollins. Pinker, S. 1997. How the mind works. New York: Norton. Pinker, S. 1999. Words and rules: The ingredients of language. New York: HarperCollins. Pinker, S. (ed.). 2004. The best American science and nature writing 2004. Bos.ton: Houghton Mifflin. Pinker, S. 2007. The stuff of thought: Language as a window into human nature. New York: Viking. Pinker, S. 2011. The better angels of our nature: Why violence has declined. New York: Viking. Pinker, S. 2013. George A. Miller (1920–2012). American Psychologist, 68, 467–468. Pinker, S., & Birdsong, D. 1979. Speakers’ sensitivity to rules of frozen word order. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 497–508. Poole, D. A., Nelson, L. D., McIntyre, M. M., VanBergen, N. T., Scharphorn, J. R., & Kastely, S. M. 2011. The writing styles of admired psychologists. Unpublished manuscript, Dept. of Psychology, Central Michigan University. Pullum, G. K. 1984. Punctuation and human freedom. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 2, 419–425. Pullum, G. K. 2009. 50 years of stupid grammar advice. Chronicle of Higher Education, Dec. 22. Pullum, G. K. 2010. The land of the free and “The Elements of Style.” English Today, 26, 34–44.

Pullum, G. K. 2013. Elimination of the fittest. Chronicle of Higher Education, April 11. Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. 1989. The psychology of reading. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Ross, L., Greene, D., & House, P. 1977. The “false consensus effect”: An ego.centric bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 279–301. Sadoski, M. 1998. Mental imagery in reading: A sampler of some significant studies. Reading Online. www.readingonline.org/researchSadoski.html. Sadoski, M., Goetz, E. T., & Fritz, J. B. 1993. Impact of concreteness on com.prehensibility, interest, and memory for text: Implications for dual coding theory and text design. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 291–304. Sanforth, A. J., & Filik, R. 2007. “They” as a gender-unspecified singular pro.noun: Eye tracking reveals a processing cost. Quarterly Journal of Experi.mental Psychology, 60, 171–178. Schacter, D. L. 2001. The seven sins of memory: How the mind forgets and remembers. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Schriver, K. A. 2012. What we know about expertise in professional commu.nication. In V. Berninger (ed.), Past, present, and future contributions of cognitive writing research to cognitive psychology. New York: Psychology Press. Shepard, R. N. 1978. The mental image. American Psychologist, 33, 125–137. Siegal, A. M., & Connolly, W. G. 1999. The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage. New York: Three Rivers Press. Skinner, D. 2012. The story of ain’t: America, its language, and the most con.troversial dictionary ever published. New York: HarperCollins. Smith, K. 2001. Junk English. New York: Blast Books. Soukhanov, A. 1999. Encarta World English Dictionary. New York: St. Mar.tin’s Press. Spinoza, B. 1677/2000. Ethics (G. H. R. Parkinson, trans.). New York: Oxford University Press. Strunk, W., & White, E. B. 1999. The Elements of Style (4th ed.). New York: Longman. Sunstein, C. R. 2013. Simpler: The future of government. New York: Simon & Schuster. Sword, H. 2012. Stylish academic writing. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Uni.versity Press.

Thomas, F.-N., and Turner, M. 1994. Clear and simple as the truth: Writing classic prose. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Thurlow, C. 2006. From statistical panic to moral panic: The metadiscursive construction and popular exaggeration of new media language in the print media. Journal of Computer.Mediated Communication, 11. Truss, L. 2003. Eats, shoots & leaves: The zero tolerance approach to punctua.tion. London: Profile Books. Van Orden, G. C., Johnston, J. C., & Hale, B. L. 1988. Word identification in reading proceeds from spelling to sound to meaning. Journal of Experi.mental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 371–386. Wason, P. C. 1965. The contexts of plausible denial. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 4, 7–11. Wegner, D., Schneider, D. J., Carter, S. R. I., & White, T. L. 1987. Paradoxical effects of thought suppression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 5–13. Williams, J. M. 1981. The phenomenology of error. College Composition and Communication, 32, 152–168. Williams, J. M. 1990. Style: Toward clarity and grace. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wimmer, H., & Perner, J. 1983. Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and con.straining function of wrong beliefs in young children’s understanding of deception. Cognition, 13, 103–128. Wolf, F., & Gibson, E. 2003. Parsing: An overview. In L. Nadel (ed.), Encyclo.pedia of Cognitive Science. New York: Macmillan. Wolf, F., & Gibson, E. 2006. Coherence in natural language: Data structures and applications. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Zwicky, A. M., Salus, P. H., Binnick, R. I., & Vanek, A. L. (eds.). 1971/1992. Studies out in left field: Defamatory essays presented to James D. McCawley on the occasion of his 33rd or 34th birthday. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Index

Page numbers in boldface refer to glossary entries and main discussions; page numbers in italics refer to cartoons and other illustrations. a and an, 153–56, 310 abbreviations, 63–65, 70 absolute and graded qualities, 244–46 abstraction vs. abstract subject matter, 31–35, 48–49 in bad writing, 36, 48–49 as dehumanizing, 24–25 functional fixity, 70–72, 73–75 See also classic style or prose; concreteness; metadiscourse abstract nouns, 36, 48–50, 73, 87 See also nominalizations abstracts, 149 academic writing, 31, 57–58 capricious syntactic variation in, 126 cartoons about, 37, 51, 57, 58 examples of bad, 35–36, 66 in linguistics, 65–67 overly long paragraphs, 145 professional narcissism in, 38, 40–42, 149 See also curse of knowledge accusative case, 206–7, 222, 310 accusative pronouns, 97, 100, 310 between you and I, 205–7 I vs. me, 97–99, 206–7, 222, 234 who vs. whom, 99–102, 240–43 acronyms. See abbreviations active voice, 55–56, 223, 309 Ade, George, 240 adjectives, 84, 201–3, 309 comparatives and superlatives, 252 vs. genitives, 86–87, 219 in good writing, 14, 22 nouns formed from, 314 verbs formed from, 238 zombie adjectives, 50–51 See also specific words adjuncts, 309, 317

adverbs, 84, 201–3, 202, 309 in good writing, 16, 22 hedging with, 43–44 sentence adverbs, 266, 292–93 split infinitives and, 199, 228–30 See also specific words adverse, 269 affect and effect, 282 affixes, 309 after, 88, 164–65, 217 agents protagonists in good writing, 48–49, 152–53 unmentioned, passives for,

55–56, 132 aggravate, 187, 263 agreement, 309 tense agreement, 310 See also number; sequence of tenses; subject-verb agreement AHD (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language), 189, 198, 239, 240 Usage Panel, 189, 194, 199, 201, 212, 234, 244, 249, 250, 251, 260, 263, 264, 265, 267, 270, 273, 275, 278, 279, 281 See also specific problem words and usages ain’t, 192–93, 202–3 Alice in Wonderland (Carroll), 173 alleged, 44 Allen, Woody, 122 alliteration, 12, 21 Allport, Gordon, 52–53 a lot, 249 also, 162–63, 204–5 alternative, 251 ambiguity. See lexical ambiguity; syntactic ambiguity American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (AHD), 189, 198, 239, 240 Usage Panel, 189, 194, 201 See also specific problem words and usages American Usage and Style: The Consensus (Copperud), 199–200, 201, 228 among, 251 analogies, 32, 34, 37 anapest, 310 and, 161, 164, 165, 204–5 See also coordinations Anguished English (Lederer), 118n25, 210, 324 Annie Hall, 36 antecedents, 310 possessive antecedents, 218–20 anticipate, 263 anxious, 263 any, 247, 251, 259, 260 apologetic language, 38, 42–43 apostrophes, 294, 294–97, 297 appraise, 269 articles, 84, 86, 153–57, 310, 312 for disambiguation, 122–23 for initial vs. repeated appearances, 153–54, 155–56 See also a and an; the as, 217–18, 233–34 as far as, 269 “Ask the Bird Folks” heron text, 148–53, 155–57, 159–60 attribution (coherence relation), 166 Austen, Jane, 233, 258, 261, 289 auxiliaries, 95, 176, 213–17, 226–27, 310 can vs. may, 207–8, 208 in conditional constructions, 213–17 had, 216–17, 226 modal auxiliaries, 207, 216, 314 past-tense forms, 216–17, 226 shall and will, 227–28

awesome, 14 back-formation, 196 backshifting, 222–27, 310 See also sequence of tenses bad writing, hallmarks of, 36, 56 See also academic writing; apologetic language; bureaucratic language; capricious variation; clichés; coherence; convoluted syntax; curse of knowledge; embedding; hedging; metaconcepts; metadiscourse; mixed metaphors; postmodernism; professional narcissism; self-conscious style; structural parallelism; syntactic ambiguity; specific problem usages Bad Writing Contest, 35–36, 50 Barry, Dave, 174, 296 be irrealis were, 215, 231–33, 314, 317 predicative nominative, 222 subjunctive. See irrealis were because, 165, 168, 177, 204–5 before, 88, 164–65, 217 before-and-after relations, 160, 164–65 beg the question, 270 Bellow, A. (quoted), 48 bemused, 270 Bernstein, Theodore, 78, 156, 199, 221–22, 224 Betraying Spinoza (Goldstein), 15–18 between, 205–7, 251 Bible, 125, 219, 222, 235 Billings, Josh, 302 both . . . and, 96, 97 Bransford, John, 147–48 brevity, 1–2, 30, 104–6, 122–24 See also “omit needless words” rule Brown, Helen Gurley, obituary of, 20, 21–22 Brown, Roger (quoted), 48 Bryant, William Cullen, 194 bureaucratic language, 7, 41, 44, 50, 56, 62, 110 plain language laws, 9, 53 Bush, George W., 63, 190 Bush, Lawrence, 254–55 but, 161, 166, 204–5 Butler, Judith, 36 Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, The, 86, 201, 250, 310 can and may, 207–8, 208 capricious variation, 125–26, 156–57, 161–63 Careful Writer, The (Bernstein), 199, 224 See also Bernstein, Theodore Carlyle, Thomas, 194 Carroll, Lewis, 173 case, 97–102, 310 See also accusative case; accusative pronouns; genitive case; genitive pronouns; nominative case; nominative pronouns cause-and-effect coherence relations, 160, 165–66, 167 Caxton, William, 5 Charge of the Light Brigade, 62 Chomsky, Noam, 91 chronological order, 160, 164–65 chunking, 67–69, 74–75, 142 Churchill, Winston, 125, 220, 227 Churchyard, Henry, 258

clarity, 7, 9, 29, 37, 69–70, 106, 262 brevity-clarity tradeoffs, 122–24, 262 See also classic style or prose; coherence classic style or prose, 28–31, 37–38, 45–46, 74–75, 152, 302, 310–11 examples of, 23–24, 31–35, 74–75, 150–51, 183–85 hallmarks of, 28–29, 37–39,
41–43, 48–49, 53, 55–56,
152, 185–86, 254

vs. other styles, 29–31 See also good writing; writer- reader relationship; writing

clauses, 311 main clauses, 314 subordinate clauses, 317 See also embedding; punctuation; relative clauses; syntax Clausewitz, Carl von. See History of Warfare, A Clear and Simple as the Truth (Thomas and Turner), 28, 29, 30, 44, 310 See also classic style or prose clefting, 136–37 cliché, as an adjective, 270 clichés, 13, 14, 17, 25, 38, 42–43, 45–48, 231, 239, 295 Clinton, Bill, 98–99, 172 cognition chunking, 67–69, 74–75, 142 functional fixity, 70–72, 73–75 semantic memory (web of knowledge), 79–83, 103, 115, 131, 142, 146, 151 See also coherence; comprehension; imagery; memory; perspective; psycholinguistics; sentence processing; tree-awareness coherence, 139–86, 302 failures of coherence, 139–41, 159, 162, 170, 173, 178–79, 180–81 with negation, 172–77 phrase order and, 131 proportionality, 178–80 repeated appearances, 146, 153–58 themes and thematic consistency, 145–46, 182–86 topics and topic strings, 39–41, 131, 146–49, 151, 151–53, 182, 317 See also text structure and organization coherence connectives, 160, 169, 311 and or because beginning a sentence, 204–5 for cause-effect relations, 165–66 for contiguity relations, 164–65 punctuation and, 292–93 for resemblance relations, 161, 162–63, 168 coherence relations, 159–69, 324–25n11 attribution and anticipation, 166 cause and effect, 160, 165–66, 167 contiguity, 160, 164–65 resemblance relations, 160–64 Colbert, Stephen, 95 College Board exam question,

218–19, 220 colon, 21, 163, 292 commas, 285–94 comma splice, 285, 291–93 errors with, 121–22, 285, 287,

288–92 functions of, 120–21, 286, 289, 293 negation and, 177 quotation marks and, 298–300 serial or Oxford comma, 293–94 with supplementary phrases, 236, 285–86, 288, 289–91, 292 and syntax, 107–8, 121–22, 177,

235–36, 285, 287–89 comparative adjectives, 252 comparisons and contrasts (coherence relations), 157, 161–63, 166, 168 like and as, 217–18 than and as, 233–34

complements, 85, 93, 203, 217, 222, 233, 311 See also objects comprehension chunking and, 67–69, 74–75, 142 See also sentence processing comprise, 263 concreteness, 29, 53–54, 72–74 in good writing, 14, 16–17, 21, 25, 26, 34–35, 186 See also abstraction; classic style or prose; clichés; impersonal language conditionals, 213–17, 224–25, 315, 316 conjunctions, 84, 88, 94, 311 See also coordinations; coordinators; specific words connectives. See coherence connectives; specific words contact, 3–4, 194, 238 contemplative style, 29 contiguity coherence relations, 160, 164–65 contractions, 295, 296 contrast (coherence relation), 13, 161–63 control. See subject control conversation, 27–28, 44, 53 in classic style, 29, 38–39, 44, 53, 54, 311 convince, 264 convoluted syntax, 112–15 coordinates, 311 coordinating conjunctions. See coordinators coordinations, 94–97, 98–99, 106–8, 206–7, 248–49, 311 See also coordinators coordinators, 84, 88, 94, 96, 311 See also coordinations; specific words Copperud, Roy, 199–200, 201, 228 Corbett, Philip, 95 correct usage, 187, 189–91, 200–201, 193–94, 300–304 Prescriptivist-Descriptivist pseudo-controversy, 188–89, 191–92, 194–95, 303–4 and reference works, 23, 198–200, 262, 301, 302 See also prescriptive rules; purism; word choice; specific problem words and usages could, 216, 226 count nouns, 252–55 credible, 270 crescendo, 264 criteria, 271 critique, 264 Cronkite, Walter, 217 curse of knowledge, 59–63, 61, 139, 302 abstraction and, 67 chunking and, 69, 73, 74–75 coherence connectives and, 168 exorcising, 63–64 jargon, abbreviations, and technical terms, 63–67 respecting your audience,
69–70 zombie nouns and, 158–59

curse of knowledge (cont.) See also functional fixity; professional narcissism dangling modifiers or participles, 187, 208–11 Darwin, Charles, 27 dash, 21, 235, 236, 292 data, 271 datives, 136 Dawkins, Richard, 13–14, 16 Dear Abby obituary, 19–20, 21 “Death of a Pig” (White), 235 decimate, 189, 196, 264 deep structure, 91–93, 92, 100, 242 See also gaps and fillers; syntax; tree structure definiteness, 154, 311 for repeated appearances, 154–56 See also articles; determiners; specific words Defoe, Daniel, 202 degree. See quality and degree dehumanizing language, 24–25 demonstratives. See articles; that; these and those denominal verbs, 52, 237, 237–39, 311 depreciate, 271 Derrida, Jacques, 43 descriptive rules, 190–91 Descriptivist-Prescriptivist pseudo- controversy, 188–89, 191–92, 194–95, 303–4 determinatives, 84, 310, 312, 316 See also articles determiners, 84, 86–88, 311, 312 genitives as, 82, 86, 87–88, 154, 219–20, 310 See also articles; quantifiers; specific words diagramming sentences, 77–78, 82–83 dichotomy, 271 Dickens, Charles, 48, 218, 219, 236 diction, 262–63, 312 See also word choice; specific problem words

dictionaries, 23, 188–90, 193–95, 198–200, 239–40, 262–63 See also lexicography; specific dictionaries dictionary.com. See Random House Dictionary different than, 234 direct objects, 87, 312 discourse, 142, 312, 166 See also conversation discourse topic, 151, 317 disinterested, 272 Dole, Bob, 112–13, 166 double negatives, 173–74, 192 Dryden, John, 220–21 Dryden, Ken (quoted), 47 dual number, 250–52 due to, 264 Dutton, Denis, 35 each other, 251 Eats, Shoots & Leaves (Truss), 285,

288, 300 editors, 75–76 effect and affect, 282 egocentrism, 59–60 See also professional narcissism 800.pound gorilla, 47–48 either, 96, 207, 248, 249, 251–52 elaboration (coherence relation), 160, 163, 166, 292 elegant variation, 156–57, 161 See also repetition; variation, capricious

“Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard” (Gray), 14 Elements of Style, The (Strunk and White), 6, 8–9, 30 on acronyms, 65 on brevity, 1–2 on like as coordinator, 217 on neologisms of their time,

3–4, 194 possessive antecedents, 219 on syntax, 2, 127, 131 on which, 236

ellipsis, 233–34, 312 embedding, 81, 83, 107–15, 286 See also convoluted syntax; sentence processing; tree structure

Emerson, Ralph Waldo, 47 emphasis backshifting and, 225 fused participles and, 213 new-information-last rule, 130–37, 153, 221–22 quotation marks for, 297–98 Encarta World English Dictionary, 198, 199 enervate, 272 English word order, 83, 109, 130–32, 135–37 See also syntax; tree structure enormity, 272 Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, An (Hume), 160 “Epistle to Thesis Writers” (Allport), 52–53 etymological fallacy, 196, 264 euphemism, 17–18 Evans, Bergen, 236 every, 237, 247, 261 exception (coherence relation), 163, 164 exemplification (coherence relation), 159, 163, 166, 168, 292 like to introduce examples, 218 existentials, 17, 105, 136, 153 See also there expectations, violated (coherence relation), 159, 166 expertise chunking and, 69, 74–75 functional fixity and, 74–75 of readers, coherence connectives and, 69–70, 167–68 See also curse of knowledge explanation (coherence relation), 159–60, 164, 167, 168 because to begin a sentence, 205 extraposed clauses, 136 factual remoteness, 214–16, 312, 314 remote conditionals, 214–17, 224–25, 316 subjunctive and irrealis were, 231–33, 314, 317 false consensus, 60 false title, 123 Faulkner, William, 218, 233–34, 320n2 feet (meter), 310, 312 feminism. See nonsexist language Ferguson, Niall (quoted), 46 fewer vs. less, 252–54 Feynman, Richard, 67 first person and shall vs. will, 227–28 unnecessary avoidance of, 40, 52–54 See also I Fiske, Robert Hartwell, 300–301 flat adverbs, 201–2 flat-branching trees, 107–8, 114–15 flaunt, 273 Florey, Kitty Burns, 78–79 flounder, 273 Flynn, James, 239 formality in style, 6, 201, 213, 222,

232, 241, 242, 243, 260 fortuitous, 273 Fowler, Henry, 156, 212, 236, 266 Fox, Margalit, 18–23 Fox in Socks (Dr. Seuss), 111–12 Frankenstein, 265 Franklin, Benjamin, 65, 202 Freedman, Adam, 64 free indirect style, 225–26 Fuller, Margaret, 194 fulsome, 273 Fumblerules (Safire), 321n12 functional fixity, 70–72, 73–75 function words and disambiguation, 122–23 for negation, 172–73 See also articles; auxiliaries;

coordinators; determiners; prepositions; subordinators; specific words fused participles, 212–13 future tense, shall and will, 227–28 gaps and fillers, 89–93, 94, 97–98, 101, 114, 133–35 garden paths commas and, 291–92, 293–94 example sentences, 119–20, 293–94 function words and, 122–23 prevention of, 120–27 See also syntactic ambiguity Gelernter, David, 256, 258, 262, 300 gender, 28n, 61n, 255–61, 256, 260 generalization (coherence relation), 162, 164 genitive case, 88, 310, 312 genitives as determiners, 82, 86, 87–88, 154, 219–20, 310 possessive antecedents, 218–20 vs. possessive case, 88 See also possessives genitive pronouns, 86, 88, 97, 310, 312 gerunds and gerund-participles, 312, 315 dangling participles, 187, 208–11 fused participles, 212–13 Gettysburg Address, 221 “given, then new” rule, 130–37, 153, 221–22 Goldstein, Rebecca Newberger, 15–18, 106–9 good writing, 8–9, 11–12, 26, 302–4 consulting references, 23, 198–200, 262, 301, 302 examples analyzed, 13–14, 15–18, 19–23, 23–26, 31–35, 106–9, 125, 150–60, 183–86 feedback and revision, 75–76 See also classic style or prose; coherence; text structure and organization Gore, Al, 63 government (grammatical), 93–94, 313 government, language of, 24–25, 51–52, 52, 62 See also bureaucratic language; politicians Gower, Ernest, 227–28 graded qualities, 45, 244–46 graduate, 265 grammar, 2, 78–79, 79, 201 reasons for learning, 78–79, 83, 88–89, 137–38 usage issues, 201–43

See also grammatical categories; grammatical functions; inflection; syntax; specific words grammatical categories, 84, 86–87, 313 vs. grammatical functions, 84–85, 86–88, 203, 219 vs. semantic categories, 86, 87–88, 222 grammatical functions, 84–87, 313 vs. grammatical categories, 84–85, 86–88, 203, 219 vs. semantic categories, 86 Gray, Thomas, 14 Greek and Latin forms combined, 196 Greene, Brian, 31–35, 69 Gresham’s Law, 198 grocer’s apostrophe, 285, 295–96 had, 215, 216–17, 226–27 Haig, Alexander, 51, 52 Hall, Robert A., 112 Hanlon’s Razor, 58–59, 322n2 he, generic use of, 257–58 headlines, 110–11, 117, 121, 123 heads (of phrases), 82, 84–85, 206, 313 healthy, 265 “heaviest last” rule, 130–37, 154, 221–22 hedging, 38, 43–45 Hellman, Lillian, 227 heron text, 148–53, 155–57, 159–60 hindsight bias, 60 History of Warfare, A (Keegan), 171, 186 negation problems in, 171, 172, 175 passages quoted, 170, 178–79, 180–81 proportionality problems in, 178–80, 181 thematic inconsistency in, 180–83 Hofstadter, Douglas, 249 homogenous, 274 hone, 274 hopefully, 266 hot button, 274 however, 164, 166, 292–93 Huddleston, Rodney, 310 Hume, David, 160, 324–25n11 humongous, 300–301 hung, 275 hypercorrections, 98, 203, 206, 217, 233, 254, 313 between you and I, 205–7

I avoidance of, 53 between you and I, 205–7 vs. me, 97–99, 206–7, 222, 234 See also pronouns I Am America (And So Can You!) (Colbert), 95 iambic meter, 313 idioms. See clichés if.then statements. See conditionals illusory transparency, 60 imagery, 71–74, 79, 80 in the avoidance of clichés, 46–47, 48 in good writing, 14, 16–17, 21, 25, 32, 186 See also concreteness imperative, 54, 126, 232, 314 impersonal language, 24–25,
52–54 See also nonsexist language;

passive voice incredible, 14 indefiniteness, 154, 155, 156, 311 See also a and an; articles; definiteness; determiners; some

indicative mood, 232, 313 See also mood; subjunctive mood indirect discourse, 223, 224–27, 291 See also free indirect style indirect objects, 136, 313 infinitives, 313 split infinitives, 199–200, 228–30 inflection, 313 informal style, 6, 201, 242, 260 vs. ungrammaticality, 201, 213, 222, 241, 242–43, 260, 267 integrated relative clauses, 286, 290 See also relative clauses, restrictive vs. nonrestrictive intensifiers, 45, 276 See also quality and degree; superlatives; specific words intern (verb), 275 Internet memes, 89, 117–18, 121 interrogatives. See mood; questions; specific words intonation, 236–37, 313 See also meter; prosody intransitive verbs and prepositions, 124, 220, 265, 283, 314 intrigue, 266 IQ scores, 239 ironic, 275 ironic style, 30 irrealis verb forms, 231–33, 314, 317 See also factual remoteness; subjunctive mood irregardless, 275 irregularity. See past tense, irregular; plurals, irregular Jameson, Fredric, 35–36 jargon, 61, 63–67, 71–72 See also curse of knowledge Johnson, Marcia, 147–48 Jonson, Ben, 220–21 journalism and journalese elegant variation, 156 false titles, 123 headlines, 110–11, 117, 121, 123 hedging in, 44 indirect discourse in, 224–26 paragraphing, 145 professional narcissism in, 41 syntactic ambiguities in, 117, 118–19, 121, 123 tag lines and pull quotes, 149 Keegan, John, 171, 186 See also History of Warfare, A “keep related words together” rule, 127 Kehler, Andrew, 160, 324–25n11 Kellogg, Brainerd, 77 Kennedy, John F., 176–77, 325n26 Kilpatrick, James, 250 King, Martin Luther, Jr., 25, 125, 245 King John (Shakespeare), 47 Lakoff, Robin, 112 language change lexicography and, 189–90, 193, 194–95 seen as degeneration, 3–6, 194–95, 196, 301 semantic change, 196, 198 See also neologisms Language Log, 111, 201 Latin, 6, 130, 195–96, 199–200, 222, 220, 229, 277, 281 Latinate words and phrases, 22, 64 lay and lie, 283, 284 Leave Your Language Alone (Hall), 112 Lederer, Richard, 118n25, 210, 324 left-branching trees, 109–12 legalese, 44, 53, 64 legend, 281 Lennon, Sean Ono, 259 less, 187, 244, 252–54 lexical ambiguity, 116, 162–63 lexicography, 189–90, 193, 194–95

See also dictionaries; prescriptivism Liberman, Mark, 173–74, 220–21 lie and lay, 283, 284 like, 217–18 Lincoln, Abraham, 221 linguistics, 3, 6, 28n, 78, 111, 112, 131, 160, 188, 190–91, 192, 201, 220, 242, 253, 268, 298, 310 confusing terminology in, 65–67 See also psycholinguistics; syntax; tree-awareness linguists, 20, 55, 91, 111, 112, 166, 173, 220, 221, 235, 303 literally, 276, 301 little words. See function words livid, 266 Lloyd-Jones, Richard, 6 loan, 266 logic, as rationale for rules, 192, 196–97, 243–44 logical distinctions and and or, 207, 248–49 bound variables, 259–60 modality, 213–17, 314 negation, 172–78, 192, 247–48,
259, 310 quantifiers, 66, 86, 310, 312, 316 scope, 175–77, 229 some and all, 66, 259–60 Logical Punctuation, 299–300 LOLcats, 89 Lolita (Nabokov), 48 luxuriant, 276 MacArthur, Douglas, 228 McCartney, Paul, 131 Macdonald, Dwight, 190, 194–95, 204 McGrady, Mike, obituary of, 22–23 malaprops, 262–63, 268–69, 273, 274, 277, 279 See also word choice; specific

problem words many, 252 Marx, Groucho, 65, 240 masculine pronouns, generic uses of, 257–58 mass nouns, 153, 252–55 masterful, 266 may and can, 207–8, 226 me between you and I, 205–7 vs. I, 97–99, 206–7, 222, 234 meaning. See semantics “Meaning of Meaning, The,” (Putnam), 204 memory, 71, 79–80 abbreviations and, 64–65 chunking, 67–69, 74–75, 142 concreteness and, 72 as network of nodes, 79–80 sentence processing and, 78, 89, 103, 106, 107, 124 See also cognition, semantic

memory Menand, Louis, 285, 288 Mencken, H. L., 234 meretricious, 276 Merriam.Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage, 201, 227 Merriam.Webster Unabridged, 198, 199 metaconcepts, 36, 49–50, 73–74, 105 metadiscourse, 38, 314 introducing topics, 38–39, 146–47 signposting, 38–40, 143 metaphor, 29n2, 35, 46–48

mixed metaphors, 46–48 meter, 26, 310, 312, 313, 314 might, 216, 226 Miller, George, 67 mitigate, 277 mixed metaphors, 46–48 modal auxiliaries, 207–8, 213–17, 314 See also specific words modality, 314 See also imperative; indicative mood; irrealis verb forms; questions; subjunctive mood Modern English Usage (Fowler), 156, 212, 236, 266 modifiers, 82, 86, 314 adjectives vs., 86–87, 219 adjuncts, 309 dangling modifiers, 187, 208–11 determiners vs., 86–87, 219 noun piles, 109–11 preposing and postposing, 135, 136, 153 prepositional phrases as, 123–24 supplements, 317 See also adjectives; adjuncts; adverbs; relative clauses momentarily, 267 mood, 310, 314 indicative, 313 subjunctive, 231–33, 314, 317 more, 244, 252, 254 morphemes, 295, 314 morphology. See inflection; word-formation most, 252 much, 252 Mullan, John, 285 multiverse, 31–35 murder your darlings, 12 Nabokov, Vladimir, 48 Nash, Ogden, 217 nauseous, 190, 267 needless words, 1–2, 104–6, 122 See also “omit needless words” rule negation, 172–78, 192, 259, 310 neither, 96, 172, 247 neologisms, 3–4, 194, 196, 237–40 See also jargon New Age, 277 New Yorker, 217, 285, 288–89 cartoons, 61, 229 New York Times, 43, 238, 245, 296 “After Deadline” excerpts, 95–96 Margalit Fox’s obituaries, 18–23 See also Bernstein, Theodore; Corbett, Philip; Safire, William New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, The, 125–26 Nixon, Richard, 172 no, as quantifier, 247–48,
258–59, 260 noisome, 277 nominalizations, 50, 55, 314 zombie nouns, 50–51, 51, 52, 54, 105, 158–59, 318 nominals, 314, 324n19 nominative case, 310 predicative nominative, 222 nominative pronouns, 97–102, 205–7, 310 See also specific words none, 246–47 nonetheless, 164, 165 nonplussed, 277 non sequiturs, 139, 140, 159 See also coherence nonsexist language, 28n, 255–61, 256, 260

nonstandard usages, 188, 192–93, 202, 203–4, 274 See also specific problem usages North, Ryan, 256 notional agreement, 248, 259 not only . . . but also, 96–97 noun phrases, 82, 85, 315, 324n19 noun piles, 110–11 nouns, 82, 84, 87, 315 abstract, minimizing, 48–50 conjoined nouns and number, 248–49 distinguishing first appearance from subsequent ones, 153–56 verbs derived from, 52, 237, 237–39, 311 See also case; nominalizations; pronouns; subjects number, 246–54 coordinations and, 206, 207, 248–49 count nouns vs. mass nouns, 252–55 duals and plurals, 250–52 irregular plurals, 4 singulars and plurals, 246–50 singular they, 255–61, 260 See also subject-verb agreement Obama, Barack, 228–29, 255 objects, 82, 85, 315, 318 case marking, 310 direct objects, 312 indirect objects, 136, 313 oblique objects, 315 See also prepositional objects O’Connor, Mike (“Ask the Bird Folks”), 148–53, 155–57, 159–60 “omit needless words” rule, 1–2, 104–6, 122–24 See also brevity one another, 251 one of those who, 249–50 onomatopoeia. See phonesthetics open conditionals, 214, 216, 315 opportunism, 277 or, 96, 204–5, 207, 249 either . . . or, 96, 207, 249, 251–52 oracular style, 29 oral (vs. verbal), 282 oratorical style, 29 order of events, 160, 164–65 Orwell, George, 2, 24–25 outlines, 142–43 over (as quantifier), 254 Oxford comma, 293–94 Oxford English Dictionary, 196 Pagden, Anthony (quoted), 47 Pa-n.ini, 131 paragraphs, 26, 145 parallel constructions. See structural parallelism parameter, 278 parentheses, 235, 236, 291 parsing, 103 See also sentence processing participles, 187, 208–11, 212–13, 315 Parton, Dolly, 37 parts of speech. See grammatical categories; specific categories passive voice, 2–3, 50, 52–56, 315 appropriate uses of, 55–56, 132–35, 152 inappropriate voice shifts, 223 past participles, 315 past tense, 215, 224–25, 315 irregular, 215, 216, 226, 275, 280, 283, 284 vs. past time, 215, 216, 224–25, 226–27

past tense (cont.) in remote conditionals, 214–17, 224–25 in sequence of tenses (backshift), 223–27 See also pluperfect; tense people and persons, 4, 194 periods, 204, 292 quotation marks and, 298–300 person (grammatical), 207, 223, 315–16 persons, 4 perspective, 21, 26, 28–29, 48, 55–56 perspective shifts, 222–27 See also imagery phenomena, 278 Phillips, Pauline, obituary of,
19–20, 21 phonemes, 316 phonesthetics, 22, 26 phrases, 316 pied-piping, 221–22, 242–43 plain language, 7, 12, 22 plain language laws, 9, 53 plain style, 30 Plain Words (Gowers), 227–28 pluperfect, 216–17, 226–27 plurals grocer’s apostrophe, 285, 295–96 indefinite vs. definite, 154, 155–56 irregular, 4, 271, 278 plural possessives, 297 See also number; subject-verb agreement plus, 249 poetic language, 14, 25 point (of text), 148–49, 179–80 politically correct, 278 politicians, 25, 51–52, 52, 55 See also government, language of; specific individuals “Politics and the English Language” (Orwell), 2, 24–25 possessives, 88, 97, 310, 312 apostrophes and, 295, 296–97, 297, 310 with gerunds (fused participles), 212–13 possessive antecedents, 218–20 See also genitive case; genitive pronouns postmodernism, 30, 35, 37, 43 postmodern style, 30, 43 postposing, 135, 136 practicable, 278 practical style, 29–30, 31 predicate, 85, 316 predicative nominative, 222 preposing, 135, 136, 153, 164–65,
205, 290 prepositional objects, 82, 85, 88, 97, 136, 315 intransitive prepositions, 220 See also prepositions; specific words prepositional phrases, 82 as modifiers, 123–24 prepositions, 84, 88, 316 with clausal complements, 82, 88, 217–18, 233–34 at end of sentence, 220–22 government and, 93–94 participles as, 211 pied-piping, 221–22 See also prepositional objects;

specific words prescribe, 279 prescriptive rules, 2–3, 191–93 distinguishing legitimate from spurious, 200–201 logic as rationale for, 192, 196–97, 243–44

myth of objective correctness, 189–91, 193–94, 300 about punctuation, 284–85 spurious rules and their origins, 195–97, 235, 236 as tacit conventions, 190–91,

193–94 usefulness of, 192, 195, 197–98, 200 about word choices, 262 See also correct usage; word choice; specific problem words and usages prescriptivism, 188–89, 191–92, 194–95, 303–4 See also correct usage;
prescriptive rules presently, 267 Princess Bride, The, 269 professional narcissism, 38, 40–42, 149, 186 progressive participle and tense, 315 See also gerunds and gerund-participles pronouns, 84, 315–16, 316 apostrophes and, 296 avoidance of, 52–54 case of, 97–99, 205–7, 222 first and second person, avoidance of, 53–54 nonsexist language, 28n, 255–61, 256, 260 for repeated appearances, 154–55, 156 See also antecedents; specific pronouns and pronoun types prophetic style, 29 proportionality, 178–80 proscribe, 279 prose styles, 29–31 See also classic style or prose prosody, 120, 284, 287–89, 316 See also intonation; meter protagonist, 279 pseudo-clefts, 136–37 psycholinguistics, 2, 119, 120, 157 See also comprehension; embedding; garden paths; sentence processing; syntactic ambiguity Pullum, Geoffrey, 46, 55, 235–36, 299, 301, 310 punctuation, 120–22, 284–300 apostrophes, 294, 294–97, 297 cartoons about, 294, 297, 298 colon, 21, 163 dash, 21, 236, 292 for disambiguation, 120–22, 284 hyphen, 121 prosody and, 284, 287–89 quotation marks, 42–43, 297–300, 298 semicolon, 292, 294 to set off relative clauses, 236 See also commas

“Punctuation and Human Freedom” (Pullum), 299 See also Pullum, Geoffrey purism, 2–6, 5, 187–97, 300–301, 301 See also correct usage; prescriptivism Putnam, Hilary, 204 quality and degree absolute and graded qualities, 45, 244–46 comparatives and superlatives, 252 hedging and qualifiers, 43–45 literally, 276 quantifiers, 86, 310, 312, 316 agreement and, 249–50

quantifiers (cont.) to introduce coordinates, 96 relative clauses and, 237 split infinitives and, 230 See also specific words Quayle, Dan, 295 questions, 91–93, 221 because as answer to, 205 to introduce a topic, 39, 41 whom in, 241, 242 Quiller-Couch, Arthur, 12, 320n2 quotation marks, 42–43, 223, 297–300, 298 quotations, 223 See also indirect discourse quote, 267 rabbit illusion, 66–67 raise, 267 Random House Dictionary, 198, 199 Reader Over Your Shoulder, The (Graves and Hodge), 63n15 readers, 28 anticipating knowledge and intelligence of, 44, 62–63, 69–70, 75, 167–68 writer’s relationship with, 28, 29, 30, 36, 40, 69–70, 311 See also curse of knowledge; perspective; sentence processing

redundancy, 105, 167–68 See also elegant variation; repetition; synonyms, capricious Reed, Alonzo, 77 Reed-Kellogg sentence notation, 77–78 refute, 279 relative clauses, 93, 133–35, 221, 235–37, 316 commas to set off, 285–86, 288, 290, 291 restrictive vs. nonrestrictive, 235–36, 285–86, 288 relative pronouns for disambiguation, 122 that and which, 235–37 who and whom, 99–102, 240–43, 249–50 whose, 268 relativism, 30, 35

See also postmodernism Remnants of War, The (Mueller), 183–86 remote conditionals, 214–17, 224–25, 316 repetition phrase structures, 13, 14, 26, 96–97, 124–27, 161–62, 234 words, 14, 155, 156–58 See also structural parallelism

resemblance coherence relations, 160–64 result (coherence relation). See cause-and-effect coherence relations reticent, 279 revision, 75–76, 115, 147 rhythm. See meter right-branching trees, 108–9, 130–31 Rivals, The (Sheridan), 262–63 Roberts, John, 228–29 romantic movement, 125, 181 romantic style, 29 Roosevelt, Franklin, 235 Rosenbaum, Ron, 116 Ross, J. R. (Haj), 221 rules descriptive vs. prescriptive,
190–91

See also prescriptive rules;
specific rules

Russell, Bertrand, 125 Safire, William, 243, 283, 321n12 scare quotes, 42–43 scientists as good writers, 35 scope. See logical distinctions, scope Scott, Rick, 51 self-conscious style, 30, 31 See also hedging; metadiscourse; shudder quotes semantic categories, 86, 87–88, 222 semantic memory. See cognition, semantic memory semantics, 197–98, 316 lexical ambiguity, 116, 162–63 number and, 248 semantic change, 196, 198 See also logical distinctions; malaprops; word choice; specific problem words semicolon, 292, 294 Sendak, Maurice, obituary of, 18–19, 20–21 sentence adverbs, 292–93 hopefully, 266 sentence processing ambiguity and, 116 cognitive mechanics of, 82, 89, 93, 103–4, 108–9, 115–16, 124, 127, 131–32 frequent word strings and senses, 123–24, 128–29 gaps and fillers, 89–93, 94, 97–98, 101, 114, 133–35 syntactic ambiguity and, 118, 119, 120 See also garden paths; psycholinguistics; tree structure sequence of tenses, 222–27, 310 sequences (coherence relations), 160, 164–65 “Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band,” 131 serial comma, 293–94 Seuss, Dr., 111–12 sexist language. See nonsexist language Sex Week at Yale, 116–17, 127–28, 128, 129 Shakespeare, William, 194 “incorrect” usages in, 218, 219, 222, 241 King John example, 47 King Richard III example, 299 Macdonald on Troilus and Cressida, 194 metaphor in, 47, 48 singular they in, 258 Solzhenitsyn on Macbeth and Othello, 205 shall and will, 227–28 Shaw, George Bernard, 121–22, 258, 261 Sheridan, Richard, 262–63 shrunk, 280 shudder quotes, 42–43 signposting, 38–40, 143 similarity and contrast coherence relations, 157, 161–63, 166, 168 simile, 25, 32, 48 Simon, John, 300 simplistic, 280 since, 165 singulars and plurals,
246–50 See also plurals singular they, 255–61, 260 slang, 274

slang (cont.) See also informal style; nonstandard usages so, 165, 204–5 Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr, 205 some, 66, 153, 237, 259–60 sound, 22, 26 See also intonation; meter; phonesthetics; prosody speech, 8, 27 classic prose as conversation, 29, 38–39, 53, 311 reading your writing aloud, 115, 120 syntactic ambiguity and, 120 See also conversation; prosody; sound Spinal Tap, 48, 254 Spinoza, Baruch, 172 split infinitives, 199–200, 228–30 spoken language. See speech sprung, 280 Stamper, Kory, 196 staunch, 280 Stewart, Jon, 87 stranded prepositions, 220–22 “String Untuned, The” (Macdonald), 190, 194–95, 204 structural parallelism, 96–97, 124–27, 161–62, 234 examples in good writing, 13–14, 25–26, 124–25 See also repetition Strunk, William, 1–2, 3, 6, 8 See also Elements of Style, The stunk, 280 style guides, 1–4, 6, 7, 12 consulting, 198–200, 301 earliest English guides, 195–96 See also American Usage and Style: The Consensus; Careful Writer, The; Clear and Simple as the Truth; Elements of Style, The; Merriam.Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage; Modern English Usage; Reader Over Your Shoulder, The; Style: Toward Clarity and Grace styles of writing, 28–31, 37–38 See also classic style or prose Style: Toward Clarity and Grace (Williams), 149, 182, 199 Stylish Academic Writing (Sword), 58 subject control, 210–11 subjects, 82, 85, 317 before comma, 121, 289, 290 in comparative constructions,

233–34 of dangling modifiers, 207–11 of fused participles, 212–13 omission in stuffy prose, 48–49, 50–53, 152–53 in predicative nominatives, 222 as sentence topics, 151–53 with singular they, 256, 261 See also nominative case; nominative pronouns; subject-verb agreement subject-verb agreement, 89–93, 103, 247–50, 309 coordinations and, 206, 207, 248–49 subjunctive mood, 231–33, 314, 317 subordinate clauses, 317 subordinators (subordinating conjunctions), 84, 88, 311, 313, 317 See also specific words such as, 163, 217–18 summaries, 38, 39–40, 149 sunk, 280 superlatives, 14, 252 supplements, 285–87, 289, 292, 317

See also commas; parentheses; relative clauses, restrictive vs. nonrestrictive surface structure, 91–93, 92 Swift, Jonathan, 202 Sword, Helen, 50, 58, 318 syllepsis, 65, 322n21 synonyms absence of, in English, 197–98 capricious, 156–57, 161 generic, as quasi-pronouns,

157–58 incorrect, 198

syntactic ambiguity, 116–18 causes and prevention, 120–30 dangling modifiers and, 210–11 frequent word strings and senses, 123–24, 128–29 little words and, 122–23 negations, 175–76 prosody and, 120 punctuation and, 120–22, 284 structural parallelism and, 124–27 unwanted attachments, 127–30 See also garden paths; Sex Week at Yale syntax, 80–89, 317 case problems, 97–102 circumventing word order rigidity, 130–37 deep structure and movement, 91–93, 92, 100–102 and negation words, 175–77 tree metaphor for, 81–83, 102–3 understanding, 78–79, 88–89, 197 See also diagramming sentences; sentence processing; subject-verb agreement; tree-awareness; tree structure; specific syntactic elements technical terms, 62, 63–67, 123, 239 See also curse of knowledge;
jargon temporal sequences, 160, 164–65 Tenerife airport disaster, 62–63 ten items or less, 253 tense, 310, 317 past tense, 315 in remote conditionals, 214–17,

224–25 sequence of tenses, 222–27, 310 subjunctives and, 232 text structure and organization, 142–45 hierarchical organization, 142–43, 145–46 paragraph breaks, 145 topic switches, 153 See also coherence; discourse; themes; topic(s) than, 233–34 that, 86–87, 122, 154, 235–37 the, 122–23, 154–56 themes, 66, 146, 182–86 there, 105, 136, 153 the reason is because, 168 thesaurus, 23 these and those, 154, 156 they, singular, 255–61, 260 Think Different, 203 Thomas, Francis-Noël, 28, 29, 30,
44, 310 See also classic style or prose those and these, 154, 156 Three Mile Island, 62 Toles, Tom, 51 “topic, then comment” rule, 130–36 topic(s), 317 coherent handling of, 146–48, 149–53, 153–58

topic(s) (cont.) introducing, 38–39, 146–47 sentence vs. discourse topic, 151 tortuous, 281 transitions. See coherence transitive verbs, 318 See also accusative case; intransitive verbs and prepositions; objects

transpire, 196, 268 tree-awareness benefits for writers, 78–79, 88–89, 103, 137–38 grammatical errors avoided by, 103, 205–7, 234, 249–50 sentence processing and, 103–4, 108–9, 115–16, 124 tree structure center-embedded trees, 112–15 flat trees, 107–8, 114–15 left-branching trees, 109–12 right-branching trees, 108–9, 130–31 for syntax, 81–83, 102–3 for texts, 142–43, 145–46

Trillin, Calvin, 99 Troilus and Cressida (Shakespeare), 194 Truss, Lynne, 285, 288, 300 truth, 35, 37–38, 302 accuracy of writer’s ideas or statements, 9, 37, 44–45, 302 negation and, 172 Turner, Mark, 28, 29, 30, 44, 310 See also classic style or prose Twain, Mark, 45, 218, 302 2000 American presidential
election, 63 Typo Eradication Advancement League, 301 unexceptionable, 281 unique, 244–46 untenable, 281 Unweaving the Rainbow (Dawkins), 13–14 urban legend, 281 usage manuals. See dictionaries; style guides; specific authors and works U.S. Constitution, 228–29, 244, 289

U.S. presidential election (2000), 63

variation, capricious, 125–26, 156–57, 161–63 verbal, 282 verbing, 52, 237, 237–39, 311 verb phrases, 82, 84–85, 316, 318 verbs, 82, 84, 318 adjectives formed from, 50–51 avoiding light verbs, 105 denominal verbs, 52, 237, 237–39, 311 formed from adjectives, 238 intransitive verbs, 314 nouns formed from, 50–52, 53, 54, 105, 158 semantically related verbs to vary word order, 137 split infinitives, 199–200, 228–30 transitive verbs, 318 See also auxiliaries; infinitives; mood; nominalizations; objects; participles; subjects; subject-verb agreement; tense; voice; specific words very, 45, 244–46 violated expectation (coherence relation), 159, 166 virtually, 43 vision metaphor (classic prose), 29, 56

reader’s perspective, 26, 28–29, 48, 55–56 replacing signposts, 39–40 visual imagery. See concreteness; imagery; perspective voice, 223, 318 See also active voice; passive voice Wallace, David Foster, 300 Warmth of Other Suns, The (Wilkerson), 23–26 warning labels, 54, 62 was and were, 231–33 web of knowledge. See cognition, semantic memory Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, 189, 193 Macdonald’s critique of, 190, 194–95, 204 were, irrealis, 231–33, 314, 317 which, 122, 162, 235–37 while, 162, 164, 166, 268 White, E. B., 1–2, 4, 8, 235 See also Elements of Style, The White, Richard, 194 White, William Allen, 321n11 who and whom, 99–102, 240–43 in relative clauses, 285–86, 288 whose, 268 why-questions, 205 Wikipedia, 299, 300 Wilde, Oscar, 11 Wilkerson, Isabel, 23–26 will and shall, 227–28 Williams, Joseph, 149, 182, 199 “Winston tastes good, like a cigarette should,” 217–18 with, 248–49 word choice, 262 acceptable nonstandard senses, 263–68 freshness, 14, 22–23, 25–26, 48 problematic nonstandard senses, 269–84 See also concreteness; synonyms; specific words and phrases word-formation, 318 See also neologisms word order, 81, 83, 84, 109, 130–32, 135–37 See also English word order; sentence processing; syntax; tree structure World Wide Web, effect on language, 7-8 would, 226 in conditional constructions, 213–17 as hedge, 43 past tense of will, 216–17, 226

writer-reader relationship, 28, 29, 30, 36, 40, 69–70, 311 See also curse of knowledge writing goals of, 29, 30, 37–38 vs. spoken language, 8, 27–28 See also bad writing, hallmarks of; classic style or prose; good writing; writer-reader relationship yet, 166 you, 53–54 See also pronouns zeugma, 20–21, 322n21 zombie adjectives, 50–51, 51 zombie nouns, 50–51, 51, 52, 54, 105, 158–59, 318

Stashed changes

先说教训。

教训就是减肥太难了。不管你曾经减下过多少赘肉，一旦不再坚持，或者是方法不对，体重很快就会回升，前功尽弃。

这是你面临的两难选择：要么放弃，要么重来。放弃意味着对自信心和意志力的摧折，重来则意味着吃二茬苦，受二茬罪。

财迷断送了我的减肥大业。

2024年5月，我检查出二型糖尿病。在中山医院专家的指导下，我用了8个月到10个月的司美格鲁肽，减肥效果显著，减去了10公斤左右。

后来进入平台期，专家又给我开了替尔泊肽。它比司美格鲁肽的GLP-1受体多了一个受体GIP，可以说是双管齐下，克服食物瘾，提供更为舒适的饱腹感，从“不要吃”达到“不想吃”的境界，效果超乎想象。

然而，在进入2025年11月份之后，我想既然体重比较稳定，我何不省点钱，中断替尔泊肽，换回司美格鲁肽呢？

这主要是出于经济上的考量。由于替尔泊肽尚未纳入医保，医生处方后需要自费购买。5ml的费用一个月是2758元，7.5ml则需要3500元。当把医药费折算成iPhone之后，我觉得这笔投入有些亏。毕竟广大人民群众连司美格鲁肽都享受不到，我已经在用第二代的GLP-1药物了。

差不多在一个月之前，我切换成司美格鲁肽，从0.5ml后来又升级到1ml，这是我之前的常规用量。

刚切换的前2到3周，我没有看出异样。由于一些突如其来的变故，我体重反而减了。然而等一切逐渐恢复正常之后，体重就控不住了。

表现明显的就是食物瘾重燃，我对甜食尤为渴求。心神不宁之时，我总想着要用吃来缓解焦虑，这造成短短3周不到的时间，体重飙升了3公斤。这对于我来说，相当于半年的减肥成果化为乌有。

长肉很容易，再减掉可就难了。为了省一个月2000多块钱的人民币，我几乎自废武功，实在令人痛惜。

再说经验，减肥的经验就是不要相信自己的意志力。忍得了一时，你忍不了一世，意志力是稀缺资源，用到此处，别处就没有了。

“饿”不是一个道德问题，而纯粹是生理问题。它是大脑中GLP-1受体和GIP受体发出的信号。当人接收到饿的信号时，理论上可以用意志力去抵抗，但在实践中往往功败垂成。因为还有更重要的地方也需要用到意志力，难免顾此失彼，捉襟见肘。

减肥最好的办法就是用药物。GLP-1药物是本世纪最伟大的发明，只要条件允许，没有理由不用它。

至于进入医保的司美格鲁肽，还是未进入医保的替尔泊肽，则需要根据自己的收入、家底、减肥与健康的紧迫程度来具体分析。

我的建议是，一旦用药就不要轻易停，一旦停药，体重反弹，就应当重新用药，从头再来。用GLP-1药物配合饮食作息运动的调整，并且练出肌肉来巩固减肥的成果，这样才能达到长效减肥的目的。

减肥没有终点站，每时每刻都在路上。用你能负担得起的GLP-1药物，不要心疼钱，多少iPhone都换不来健康及其副产品：好形象、好心情。