Lucifer's Dictionary of the American Language
Mark Farias
Issue date: 11/1/06 Section: Entertainment
- Page 1 of 1
The book "Lucifer's Dictionary of the American Language," written by Burton H.
Wolfe, is an obvious recreation and modernization of the Ambrose Bierce book called "The Devils Dictionary" but less articulate, less eloquent, less cynical, and less concise.
Some of the terms are far beyond extended and seems like filler. For example: "Anchor" Wolfe goes off on a rambling session about the media and how news people are tools who appeal to the masses and mask the truth.
It isn't hard to define the media while mocking it in the process.
Although this book is witty and sometimes insightful, it's nowhere as interesting as it's hyped up to be.
Wolfe has a constant pretentious air to him, which doesn't seem to be part of the style, making the book difficult to read, mainly because it begins to resemble the lectures of an inarticulate vulgar stoner and it reads on a personal level, consequently makes it not professional enough to drive a point, all the while taking away from the potential influence of the messages presented.
Bierce's "D.D." was and still is far more successful because of his wording and structure, along with his tone, he had the ability to add validity to his definitions, even though every interpretation of the chosen words were chalk full of cynicism and satire.
Elizabeth Pomada, co-auther of "Painted Ladies" calls this book "more relevant, more clever and more important" than Bierce's "D.D." but I fail to see how and why.
Is it merely because he defines "Mad Cow Disease" (weakly I must add) as revenge against humans for having slaughtered and robbed them of their milk? Or is it because he refers to "Bush" as "Dubya"?
I'd expect an honored journalist, publisher and freelance writer to come up with wittier definitions for these modern terms, It isn't hard to write things related to word play, and this book is worth reading, just as food for thought, but not worth quoting,
For example, Wolfe's definition for a "Cat" is:
"Cat: [domesticated] - the non-human animal most closely resembling a politician, favoring those who feed it well."
"CAT, n. A soft, indestructible automaton provided by nature to be kicked when things go wrong in the domestic circle."
So you see, there are just some things you can't recreate and there are some things you can't beat an author at who was born in 1842.
And as for his definition of "Critic" both Wolfe and Bierce share the same definition of it being people whose opinions don't matter.
Sadly, critics are just people who know what they like, and if their observations matter that little, it's a true testament to how pathetic the person being criticized is.
Kudos to this book but it won't get a gold star.
Wolfe, is an obvious recreation and modernization of the Ambrose Bierce book called "The Devils Dictionary" but less articulate, less eloquent, less cynical, and less concise.
Some of the terms are far beyond extended and seems like filler. For example: "Anchor" Wolfe goes off on a rambling session about the media and how news people are tools who appeal to the masses and mask the truth.
It isn't hard to define the media while mocking it in the process.
Although this book is witty and sometimes insightful, it's nowhere as interesting as it's hyped up to be.
Wolfe has a constant pretentious air to him, which doesn't seem to be part of the style, making the book difficult to read, mainly because it begins to resemble the lectures of an inarticulate vulgar stoner and it reads on a personal level, consequently makes it not professional enough to drive a point, all the while taking away from the potential influence of the messages presented.
Bierce's "D.D." was and still is far more successful because of his wording and structure, along with his tone, he had the ability to add validity to his definitions, even though every interpretation of the chosen words were chalk full of cynicism and satire.
Elizabeth Pomada, co-auther of "Painted Ladies" calls this book "more relevant, more clever and more important" than Bierce's "D.D." but I fail to see how and why.
Is it merely because he defines "Mad Cow Disease" (weakly I must add) as revenge against humans for having slaughtered and robbed them of their milk? Or is it because he refers to "Bush" as "Dubya"?
I'd expect an honored journalist, publisher and freelance writer to come up with wittier definitions for these modern terms, It isn't hard to write things related to word play, and this book is worth reading, just as food for thought, but not worth quoting,
For example, Wolfe's definition for a "Cat" is:
"Cat: [domesticated] - the non-human animal most closely resembling a politician, favoring those who feed it well."
"CAT, n. A soft, indestructible automaton provided by nature to be kicked when things go wrong in the domestic circle."
So you see, there are just some things you can't recreate and there are some things you can't beat an author at who was born in 1842.
And as for his definition of "Critic" both Wolfe and Bierce share the same definition of it being people whose opinions don't matter.
Sadly, critics are just people who know what they like, and if their observations matter that little, it's a true testament to how pathetic the person being criticized is.
Kudos to this book but it won't get a gold star.
Be the first to comment on this story