I’ve always known that there’s more going on inside me than finds its way into the world, but this is probably true of everyone. Who doesn’t regret that he isn’t more fully understood?
I’m one of the few - if there are any more - people moderately literate who take the detective story seriously … Some day somebody’s going to make ‘literature’ of it.
(quoted in ‘Raymond Chandler - A Life' by Tom Williams)
All those men were there inside,
when she came in totally naked.
They had been drinking: they began to spit.
Newly come from the river, she knew nothing.
She was a mermaid who had lost her way.
The insults flowed down her gleaming flesh.
Obscenities drowned her golden breasts.
Not knowing tears, she did not weep tears.
Not knowing clothes, she did not have clothes.
They blackened her with burnt corks and cigarette stubs,
and rolled around laughing on the tavern floor.
She did not speak because she had no speech.
Her eyes were the colour of distant love,
her twin arms were made of white topaz.
Her lips moved, silent, in a coral light,
and suddenly she went out by that door.
Entering the river she was cleaned,
shining like a white stone in the rain,
and without looking back she swam again
swam towards emptiness, swam towards death.
A book can be as dangerous as a sword in the right hands.
Someday an opportunity will come. Think about Harry Potter. His life is terrible, but then a letter arrives, he gets on a train, and everything is different for him afterward. Better. Magical.”
“That’s just a story.”
“So are we- we’re stories too.
I posted this back on July 26th, 2011. I see this mistake used on national television every day in news debates and reports as well as in articles written by supposedly well educated journalists. This one error is probably my biggest nerdy pet peeve. So … I thought I would throw this back out there … (thanks for letting me rant)
The lack of distinction between the two phrases, that begs the question and that raises the question, is mind numbing. I say mind numbing because it has become so pervasive over the last decade it makes me realize that the general “educated” population lacks an ability to 1) understand the distinction and 2) to reason or think properly.
The phrase, “That begs the question,” is one that indicates a fallacy in reasoning. The fallacy of petitio principii, or “begging the question”, is committed “when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof”, or more generally denotes when an assumption is used, “in some form of the very proposition to be proved, as a premise from which to deduce it”. Thus, insofar as petitio principii refers to arguing for a conclusion that has already been assumed in the premise, this fallacy consists of “begging” the listener to accept the “question” (proposition) before the labor of logic is undertaken. The fallacy may be committed in various ways. (definition via Wikipedia w/ cited references)
The phrase, “That raises the question,” is a phrase that should be used when something(s) lead(s) to a needed conclusion (a literal question). For example, she never says hello to me any more which raises the question, does she still like me?
These two phrases have entirely different meanings and usages. Yet, I see writers, journalists, newscaster, editors, and every day people use them improperly. I can only surmise that this is done out of pure ignorance or just plain laziness. Logic and reason stand to lose the most if this misconception continues.
[He now steps off his soapbox and walks away]
If you don’t like the world you live in, create a new one, put it on paper, sell it widely, and perhaps the world will finally understand what it needs to do to improve itself.
I wish to live a life that causes my soul to dance inside my body.