I'm not convinced Trump was lying when he said he didn't know "shylock" was an antisemitic slur. To know that, wouldn't you have had to have read "The Merchant of Venice"? And do you suppose Trump, who (we hear) has only read about 20% of the daily intelligence briefings he's given and reportedly "doesn't read," is familiar with the play? I suppose its conceivable he knows the term's implications without having read the play. (I know what a "categorical imperative" is without having read Kant.) But given the mind of the man we're talking about, I remain unconvinced.
No, you don’t have to have read The Merchant of Venice to know that “shylock” is an antisemitic slur. All you need is a documented lifetime of being an antisemite raised by and among other antisemites who, I’m sure, applied the term, and worse ones, on the regular to the Jewish—or Jewish-perceived—bankers they had to do business with.
But isn't it classic "gangster talk"? (I suggest this only as someone who's read lots of gangster novels and seen lots of gangster movies, not as a gangster myself.) And since Trump behaves as the head of a mob family, isn't it possible that he used the term as part of his usual gangsteresque patois? That's what he's claiming. Seems plausible to me.
Right. That's my point. The term is sometimes used as a general one for "loan shark." That's Trump's contention, and he adds that's how he was using it, not as a slur. Given that he's ignorant and poorly educated, probably has never read any Shakespeare play, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. This time.
Consider Trump's age. He's of a time period when he would have had to sit through a class or two covering Shakespeare, which was likely to have included The Merchant of Venice. He may not read now, he may not be able to read now, but 60 years ago, he could easily have soaked up the, sadly casual, antisemitism of the work. It just bubbled up in that mess of a mind.
I appreciate your efforts to monitor the comments and the new step you're taking to keep it respectful. When the discourse isn't, it's disheartening and dampers the inspiring, thoughtful, and smart parts. Like Emerson said, ". . . there's always time enough for courtesy."
Today, trying to find any celebratory feeling at all, I celebrate you. Thank you for the book, the posts, the photos. You are one of the bright lights I depend on. 🤗
I also think it's funny that in making sure I got the "to" and the "too" right in "not to put too fine a point on it" (it's easy to get it wrong), I decided to make an entirely different error!
A favorite movie moment of mine occurs in Blake Edwards's S.O.B., in which somebody, I forget who, accuses the drug-dispensing doctor played by Robert Preston of being a shylock.
Forgive the slight paraphrase, but Preston says, "A shylock is an unscrupulous lawyer. I, sir, am a quack."
Sure, noting for now that an awful lot of hairsplitting goes on in references to the term “antisemitism,” however you want to style it, with some people seeming to go well out of their way to refuse to understand that, Arabs as semites aside, “antisemitism” was coined to mean the hatred of Jews and not to mean anything else. (The movement from “anti-Semitism” to “antisemitism” is an attempt to solve that ostensible problem, though I find it more than a little dodgy.)
And that, I guess, is a preview of what I’ll write on the subject later!
This is not about shysters or shylocks, but rather, a point about the word "while", which you use in the course of today's post:.
There is a temporal while (while I typed this comment, the sun poured down), and a conjunctive while (meaning "although" or the closely related "whereas" olr possibly "if"), There are more whiles, but I won't bother you with them, not yet anyway. Have you a policy or a copyeditor's preference on the use of the word "while"? I spend a surprising amount of time editing people's writing to change "while" to "although" and wonder if this is a lost cause. Here in Canada as in the UK, a restive minority prefers "although" but it's a minority. That doesn't mean we're wrong.
I think that in my own writing I reach for "while" and "although" and "though" as the spirit moves me, and I'm not sure I'd attempt any tweaking in copyediting someone else's writing re those unless, in the moment, I saw some potential confusion or the tone sounded somehow off.
Semi-relatedly, I'm happy to use "since" to mean "because" even though I know that some people don't care for it.
Also, I think that I never use a standalone "meantime," though some people do. I like "in the meantime" or, of course, "meanwhile."
This all sounds fine to me. But I want to say "thanks" also for your remarks about "since" and "because." This may be another case where the dictionary helps. I say "may" because the OED definitions of "since" and "because", although spectacular in their way(s), can be reduced to say what you, B.D., said in your post.
I also just realized that, unless I'm missing something, the "while"s in question are Andrew Moxon's, not mine. Going back and looking at his text—"Because while I like doing this, I also think there’s value in it, and while I love the labor, it is significant"—I might or might not have written it just as he did, and as a copy editor I might well have breezed past it without a second thought. (But if I have missed something, do let me know!)
About the use of the word "while" in Moxon's prose: this will sound picky, but isn't Moxon using "while " in two different ways in one sentence? There's Moxon enjoying Xover a stretch of time, that is the temporal while on which we've already touched. Then there's Moxon "loving the labour" BUT objecting to it since it requires too much work. I'll call this the "concessive while", to give it a little philosophical oomph.
The dual use of the term doesn't matter much in this particular case, I admit. But think of statements of national policy, or statements in peace treaties where every word counts. One wouldn't want to be mistaken about the meaning of "while" when lives depended on that meaning.
I'm making the slippery slope argument. Iit's best to be precise where possible without damaging the flow or the literary force of one's writing--even to family members and friends. Why? Because if we're slippery-slidy about meaning in everyday writing, it's surely only a matter of time before the decision makers in London, Ottawa, and Washington begin to think they can maul/massacre the language to suit nefarious purposes.
I'll write a separate "reply" about will *versus* shall or perhaps will *with* shall. Thanks for suggesting a little dialogue about this intriguing pair.
I did notice the varying uses of “while” and was, actually, rather amused by it. It was, I guess I want to say, a little victory of sound—and it still, at least to me, made sense. But I do certainly see your point, including the point that the more crucial a piece of communication, the more utterly precise you need to be in your word choices. Let’s say that it’s a spectrum.
My ambivalence regarding DJT’s latest faux pas is positively Talmudic—on the one hand, props for a Shakespearean allusion; on the other hand, wouldn’t it be easier to just say “kikes”?
I’ll start by saying I’m biased—I’m both a paying subscriber and someone who has a lot of respect for you. That said, given how responsive you are in the comments (which, to be honest, ends up being half the value of your posts—seeing the rabbit holes your readers go down and your willingness to follow them), I think it’s totally unrealistic to let every free subscriber put you to work like that.
The truth is, there are many ways to disagree—but it only becomes valuable when it comes from a place of curiosity. Without that, disagreement easily slips into judgment, and judgment tends to spiral into unproductive comments or outright attacks. Your subscribers are likely your most curious readers. If they disagree, see things differently, or think you’ve missed the mark, they can say so—firmly, even—but with a baseline of respect. A small paywall helps ensure that the conversation stays thoughtful and constructive. That seems fair to me.
Thank you, George, for expressing that as eloquently as you did. I appreciate your taking the time, as I also appreciate your seeing me in front of you.
P.S. I really like the comments too, which sometimes I think end up containing things I wished I'd put into the essays themselves (and sometimes I do update things) and sometimes, maybe most of the time, I think of as cool additional information and back-and-forth that stand on their own!
Thank you for calling out The New York Times for their increasingly infuriating editorial decisions. Words matter. Referring to Fox News as “a conservative-leaning news outlet” (I cannot find the quote but swear I read it) is about as precise as the paper’s hubristic slogan. Come on.
I'm not convinced Trump was lying when he said he didn't know "shylock" was an antisemitic slur. To know that, wouldn't you have had to have read "The Merchant of Venice"? And do you suppose Trump, who (we hear) has only read about 20% of the daily intelligence briefings he's given and reportedly "doesn't read," is familiar with the play? I suppose its conceivable he knows the term's implications without having read the play. (I know what a "categorical imperative" is without having read Kant.) But given the mind of the man we're talking about, I remain unconvinced.
No, you don’t have to have read The Merchant of Venice to know that “shylock” is an antisemitic slur. All you need is a documented lifetime of being an antisemite raised by and among other antisemites who, I’m sure, applied the term, and worse ones, on the regular to the Jewish—or Jewish-perceived—bankers they had to do business with.
But isn't it classic "gangster talk"? (I suggest this only as someone who's read lots of gangster novels and seen lots of gangster movies, not as a gangster myself.) And since Trump behaves as the head of a mob family, isn't it possible that he used the term as part of his usual gangsteresque patois? That's what he's claiming. Seems plausible to me.
Do, then, give him the benefit of the doubt to your heart’s content.
Thank you. In this rare instance, I will.
Writers of gangster novels are often smarter than gangsters …
I don't recall hearing "shylock" in gangster movies. "Shyster", yes, and frequently; so I surmise you are conflating the two.
A quick internet search suggests that in “Get Shorty,” John Travolta refers to himself as “a shylock.” I imagine there are other examples.
In Get Shorty, John Travolta plays a loan shark. Which is to say a usurer. Which is to say a moneylender. Which is to say a shylock.
Right. That's my point. The term is sometimes used as a general one for "loan shark." That's Trump's contention, and he adds that's how he was using it, not as a slur. Given that he's ignorant and poorly educated, probably has never read any Shakespeare play, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. This time.
Consider Trump's age. He's of a time period when he would have had to sit through a class or two covering Shakespeare, which was likely to have included The Merchant of Venice. He may not read now, he may not be able to read now, but 60 years ago, he could easily have soaked up the, sadly casual, antisemitism of the work. It just bubbled up in that mess of a mind.
Donald Trump sings The Beatles to Fox “News” — Don’t Jew Me Down!
Apparently he missed the Classic Comics “Merchant of Venice” …
Fortunately for me, my trenchant prose is respected - nay, cherished - by police worldwide.
I appreciate your efforts to monitor the comments and the new step you're taking to keep it respectful. When the discourse isn't, it's disheartening and dampers the inspiring, thoughtful, and smart parts. Like Emerson said, ". . . there's always time enough for courtesy."
And manners still matter.
Today, trying to find any celebratory feeling at all, I celebrate you. Thank you for the book, the posts, the photos. You are one of the bright lights I depend on. 🤗
Thank you, Marcia. I am always—always—heartened to know that what I’m doing with my time resonates with others.
And hey, I love being celebrated!
I certainly understand your limiting comments to those who pay. Additionally, Trump's awfulness becomes more apparent by the day.
Question
You wrote: "not to put too fine point on it'" I always thought it was "too fine a point." Which is correct and, possibly, why?
Ah, this is what we call, in the biz, “sloppy typing.” Fixed!
I thought it was some esoteric rule that only a few editors knew.
I also think it's funny that in making sure I got the "to" and the "too" right in "not to put too fine a point on it" (it's easy to get it wrong), I decided to make an entirely different error!
Thank you for this post. The casual dismissal of antisemitic rhetoric is disturbing in the extreme.
A favorite movie moment of mine occurs in Blake Edwards's S.O.B., in which somebody, I forget who, accuses the drug-dispensing doctor played by Robert Preston of being a shylock.
Forgive the slight paraphrase, but Preston says, "A shylock is an unscrupulous lawyer. I, sir, am a quack."
Now, that’s choice.
Would you please also investigate the word semite, as it is my understanding that Arabs are also semites.
Sure, noting for now that an awful lot of hairsplitting goes on in references to the term “antisemitism,” however you want to style it, with some people seeming to go well out of their way to refuse to understand that, Arabs as semites aside, “antisemitism” was coined to mean the hatred of Jews and not to mean anything else. (The movement from “anti-Semitism” to “antisemitism” is an attempt to solve that ostensible problem, though I find it more than a little dodgy.)
And that, I guess, is a preview of what I’ll write on the subject later!
This is not about shysters or shylocks, but rather, a point about the word "while", which you use in the course of today's post:.
There is a temporal while (while I typed this comment, the sun poured down), and a conjunctive while (meaning "although" or the closely related "whereas" olr possibly "if"), There are more whiles, but I won't bother you with them, not yet anyway. Have you a policy or a copyeditor's preference on the use of the word "while"? I spend a surprising amount of time editing people's writing to change "while" to "although" and wonder if this is a lost cause. Here in Canada as in the UK, a restive minority prefers "although" but it's a minority. That doesn't mean we're wrong.
Best wishes,
Bill
I think that in my own writing I reach for "while" and "although" and "though" as the spirit moves me, and I'm not sure I'd attempt any tweaking in copyediting someone else's writing re those unless, in the moment, I saw some potential confusion or the tone sounded somehow off.
Semi-relatedly, I'm happy to use "since" to mean "because" even though I know that some people don't care for it.
Also, I think that I never use a standalone "meantime," though some people do. I like "in the meantime" or, of course, "meanwhile."
This all sounds fine to me. But I want to say "thanks" also for your remarks about "since" and "because." This may be another case where the dictionary helps. I say "may" because the OED definitions of "since" and "because", although spectacular in their way(s), can be reduced to say what you, B.D., said in your post.
We can talk about “will” and “shall” later, or perhaps never. 😉
I also just realized that, unless I'm missing something, the "while"s in question are Andrew Moxon's, not mine. Going back and looking at his text—"Because while I like doing this, I also think there’s value in it, and while I love the labor, it is significant"—I might or might not have written it just as he did, and as a copy editor I might well have breezed past it without a second thought. (But if I have missed something, do let me know!)
About the use of the word "while" in Moxon's prose: this will sound picky, but isn't Moxon using "while " in two different ways in one sentence? There's Moxon enjoying Xover a stretch of time, that is the temporal while on which we've already touched. Then there's Moxon "loving the labour" BUT objecting to it since it requires too much work. I'll call this the "concessive while", to give it a little philosophical oomph.
The dual use of the term doesn't matter much in this particular case, I admit. But think of statements of national policy, or statements in peace treaties where every word counts. One wouldn't want to be mistaken about the meaning of "while" when lives depended on that meaning.
I'm making the slippery slope argument. Iit's best to be precise where possible without damaging the flow or the literary force of one's writing--even to family members and friends. Why? Because if we're slippery-slidy about meaning in everyday writing, it's surely only a matter of time before the decision makers in London, Ottawa, and Washington begin to think they can maul/massacre the language to suit nefarious purposes.
I'll write a separate "reply" about will *versus* shall or perhaps will *with* shall. Thanks for suggesting a little dialogue about this intriguing pair.
best wishes,
Bill
I did notice the varying uses of “while” and was, actually, rather amused by it. It was, I guess I want to say, a little victory of sound—and it still, at least to me, made sense. But I do certainly see your point, including the point that the more crucial a piece of communication, the more utterly precise you need to be in your word choices. Let’s say that it’s a spectrum.
My ambivalence regarding DJT’s latest faux pas is positively Talmudic—on the one hand, props for a Shakespearean allusion; on the other hand, wouldn’t it be easier to just say “kikes”?
I’m sure he was, and often is, tempted.
I’ll start by saying I’m biased—I’m both a paying subscriber and someone who has a lot of respect for you. That said, given how responsive you are in the comments (which, to be honest, ends up being half the value of your posts—seeing the rabbit holes your readers go down and your willingness to follow them), I think it’s totally unrealistic to let every free subscriber put you to work like that.
The truth is, there are many ways to disagree—but it only becomes valuable when it comes from a place of curiosity. Without that, disagreement easily slips into judgment, and judgment tends to spiral into unproductive comments or outright attacks. Your subscribers are likely your most curious readers. If they disagree, see things differently, or think you’ve missed the mark, they can say so—firmly, even—but with a baseline of respect. A small paywall helps ensure that the conversation stays thoughtful and constructive. That seems fair to me.
Thank you, George, for expressing that as eloquently as you did. I appreciate your taking the time, as I also appreciate your seeing me in front of you.
(You do always know what to say, I find.)
(And how to say it.)
P.S. I really like the comments too, which sometimes I think end up containing things I wished I'd put into the essays themselves (and sometimes I do update things) and sometimes, maybe most of the time, I think of as cool additional information and back-and-forth that stand on their own!
I’m eager to about “shyster.” Hope you have time for it one of these days.
You don't have to be Jewish to know he's a momser.
Thank you for calling out The New York Times for their increasingly infuriating editorial decisions. Words matter. Referring to Fox News as “a conservative-leaning news outlet” (I cannot find the quote but swear I read it) is about as precise as the paper’s hubristic slogan. Come on.