The Future of The English Language

When the threat of nuclear war was imminent the BBC broadcasted "Threads". A dark prophesy of the horrors of nuclear winter. After 13 years society has eroded to the brink of being no society at all. No society, no law, no language. In "Threads" the languages of the world has retarded it's way back to simple words and moans? Is this happening already?

In non English speaking countries in Asia business men have developed their own version of English called Globish. The term was coined by Madhukar Gogate, who later published the first English-Globish dictionary. Globish is a simplification of the English language meant for those who doesn't speak English as their first language. Globish simplifies both the orthography and pronunciation of English making it easier to read for many.

For example:

dha warld waunts pis aend prausperiti... (The world wants peace and prosperity.)

hee iz faain: (He is fine)

du yu no vear dha laaybrari iz? (Do you know where the library is?)


Is this a development of the English language or a step backwards? According to Wikipedia a language is:
"Language may refer either to the specifically human capacity for acquiring and using complex systems ofcommunication, or to a specific instance of such a system of complex communication". But when a language devolves is that the direction to go? Will we all eventually speak the same language based on a simplified English? Or will everyone speak English as we now know it?

The Swansong of Dirty Harry

Last week we saw "Gran Torino" in class. Taking double shifts as director and main character, Clint Eastwood guides us through the everyday of any average pensioner. At first the film seems like a late sequel to "Dirty Harry". With Harry Callahan as a retired industrial worker in a neighborhood ravaged by crime.

We join the action right after Walt (Eastwood) has buried his wife. The disgust on Walt's face is so apparent, when his granddaughter enters the chapel showing a piercing in her bellybutton. It doesn't take long to see that Walt is a bitter old man. He worked on a Ford plant for decades, his friends are dead or just as bitter as him. One day this changes. A Hmong family moves in next door. Their family values compared to the conservative mindset of Walt, leads to an inevitable culture clash.

The son in the Hmong family, Tao, is reluctantly recruited into a local street gang. For his initiation he is steal Walt's titular 1972 Ford Gran Torino, but the plan is foiled by Walt. As punishment the Family sends Tao over to work for Walt. Reluctant at first, Walt accepts. Their relationship evolves over a few weeks and Walt becomes attached to the Hmong family. The street gang doesn't take kindly to Tao's new way of working and making a living. After the gang tries to murder Tao, they set out for revenge.

You can compare "Gran Torino" the British film "Harry Brown". They both follow the same basic plot line; old bitter man, cleaning up the neighborhood (with guns). "Gran Torino" veers off this path and leads to Walt's redemption. "Harry Brown" on the other hand follows through leading to violence, torture and every other far-right violent fantasies.

Atlas Shrugged

The title of Ayn Rand's famous novel is taken from the legend of Atlas, the primordial Titan of Greek mythology, who carried the weight of the world on his shoulders. In the novel Ayn Rand asks what would have happened if Atlas shrugged?

Sometime in 2008 I began reading "1984" by George Orwell. It took me about a week to finish it. Not long after I picked up "Animal Farm" and read in two days. I suddenly found myself interested in modern classical literature that have stood the test of time. These include "Fahrenheit 451" by Ray Bradbury, Slaughterhouse 5" by Kurt Vonnegut, several H.P. Lovecraft short stories and many more.

Sometime before Christmas I began reading "Atlas Shrugged". "Atlas Shrugged" is the magnum opus of famed author and philosopher Ayn Rand. The novel sparked both praise and criticism when it was released, in 1957, and continues to do so. The novel is often seen as the bible of the "hardcore-capitalist" reflecting Rand's ideals of a minimal state and a free market. Rand puts her philosophy to good use in her plot set in a pseudo-collectivist United States ca. somewhere in the future after 1957.

The plot takes place in "dystopian" version of the United States in a huge recession. The financial crisis has brought America to it's knees and the government has nationalized several of the nation's leading companies. Taggart Transcontinental is one of the few railroads still running, on fumes, and oil-prices are at an all time high. Dagny is seemingly the only on in her company who realizes that the empire is crumbling and sets out to save it. We follow Dagny in her struggles against the state, sexism, her own brother, the "looters" and everyone else, seriously EVERYONE! Her only ally is Henry "Hank" Rearden owner of Rearden Steel, who is otherwise totally unlikeable, and later a mysterious "jack-of-all-trades, master of all" John Galt, who is kind of a douche.

After a number of nationalizations and ratification of new laws making it impossible for large companies to operate in the states, their executives disappear one by one. They have basically gone on strike and it doesn't take long until the country notices how important skilled business men are to keeping the economy floating.

The plot is interesting, but it is too bad doesn't really kick off until part two of the novel, in other words the first 339 pages meanders through pointless plot-points, a train ride and numerous flashbacks. Rand's language is also polarizing. It is written in poetic way and feels very staged. There is no spontaneous conversations, but carefully rehearsed scenes. As a result the characters doesn't feel real. The reader has no emotional contact with Dagny or Hank. You will often ask yourself why they are the ones you're supposed to root for. On the other side the antagonists or "looters" are even more unlikeable so you won't sympathize with them either.

And that is a problem. Rand tries with "Atlas Shrugged" to teach her philosophy to the reader, and at the same time answering to criticism, asking herself critical questions. She does this with discussions between characters, but the characters are so far left- or right-winged that there is no room for a middle ground. In Rand's America you're either a good guy or a commie.


Being the 7th longest novel written in English with it's 565,223 words on 1170 pages the novel feels like a waist of potential. Rand has a story to tell and a philosophy to preach, but it's a shame she can't deliver.