On Blogging

'Too much talk leads to sin. Be sensible and keep your mouth shut.' - Proverbs 10:19
'Whoso keepeth his mouth and his tongue keepeth his soul from troubles.' - Proverbs 21:23

The ancient Hebrews were not the only civilisation to consider silence as they did gold. Indeed, we all know how chatter can leave us feeling tired, shallow, and distracted from what's important. Why then do we blog, adding to the ceaseless chatter found online?

My aim in beginning this virtual notice board is to practise my hand at writing. Of course, better men and better writers have commonly written down their thoughts to remain unpublished. Because I hope to one day publish a work of value, it seems to me prudent to practise two things: 1) writing not only what interests and satisfies my own itch to write, but to give expression to what others might be interested in, as well; pushing my considerations outside of my self and towards the interests of others; and 2) to practise writing which I know could potentially be read by . . . anyone. Employers, friends, not-so-friends. In other words, to exercise writing with care.

So much for my explanation (there is that difference between 'explaining' and 'explaining away' which is not always so easy to tell) but there you have it.

Among American readers, the observant who know how to spell will have noticed by now that I have misspelt two words four times: 'civilization' once, and 'practice' thrice. My personal, though not my native spelling, follows Queen's English. You might think I'm pretentious or silly for doing so; that is understandable. But I hope I am neither.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines Queen's English as: 'the English language as regarded as under the guardianship of the Queen; hence, standard or correct English'.

Americans, republicans, and hyper-rationalists will at once disregard the notion of language as under the protection of its monarch. I am American, republican with caveats, and a Romantic Realist; I think Queen's English is a good standard to follow. But above all, I have regard for Standard English for historical and integral reasons.

It is true of course that the English language did not always have a protective guardian. For example, texts from the 17th century (not so far removed from English today to make them unintelligible) are replete with various spellings, yet presumably readers generally could make their way through them. And yet, not quite so smoothly as with standardised spelling.

In approximately three weeks, we will be celebrating the 259th anniversary of Dr Johnson's Dictionary. A masterpiece completed in nine years, this dictionary codified the English language as it had organically developed over a thousand years. This year will also involve the 208th annual lament of Webster's Dictionary. In stark contrast to Dr Johnson's book that served a unifying purpose working within the language itself, Mr Webster's book served, in part, a political and schismatic purpose intentionally driving a wedge in communication between the English living in the United Kingdom and the English living in the United States. Webster's codification was like plastic surgery, artificially altering the natural body. You might say that sometimes plastic surgery makes someone look better than they did naturally. True enough. But the opposite is also true. Is anyone prepared to defend the look of Websterised words, and the sound of Websterised pronunciation, as more beautiful and sublime than the original Received? I doubt it. No, Webster's rebellion was one of the first major acts of using language as a tool for power and control rather than for communication and expression.

To ignore Webster's innovation is not un-American. While there were certainly elements of radicalism within the American revolution, on the whole it was a considerably English sort of event. The English in the United Kingdom (officially not the 'United Kindom' until nineteen years later) had raised a Glorious Revolution 101 years before the US Constitution came into effect. To wave Webster's dictionary away as an annoying and distracting plot is as American as waving away flies attempting to settle on the brim of one's glass of sweet summer iced tea.

You can read more about Queen's English and the perennial threats it endures by Dr Bernard Lamb in the Independent here.

Some might possess an uncomfortable notion that insisting on Queen's English might somehow be ethnocentric. Thankfully, reality may allay such fears. Queen's English is used beautifully from Sussex to Sweden to Sri Lanka. Perhaps someday it will be rediscovered in Savannah.

I should also note that I defend Queen's English as a newcomer, like King Josiah rediscovering the old Law. Though I am not proficient in it, though I have much to learn, yet I love Her and seek to know Her more. Therefore, I welcome any and all corrections to my spelling.

And now for this blog's title. Hilaire Belloc was an Anglo-French man of letters who lived from 1870-1953. You can read his Wikipedia article here. I'm interested in writing on faith, politics, poetry, and much else just as he did, borrowing liberally from many of his thoughts. Perhaps we can come to know Mr Belloc better together as we go along.

By the by, now that you're introduced to Hilaire, do you think the title of this blog is hilarious?

Until next time,

PJS