In the NYT, Neal Gabler investigates the “weird science of naming new products.”
The link that lead me to this article said something like “professional namers use computer algorthms to make evaluations that poets do instinctively,” and how true:
This article made my brain hurt.
I actually skipped over what I’m sure for many readers were the most novel bits, about fricatives and other linguistic/semantic technical stuff. I don’t want it in my head.
Likewise, I never bothered learning about the difference between one kind of sonnet and another, and all that other “poetics” blather.
As regular readers have noticed, I can barely spell.
I’m the equivalent of a musician who can’t read music. (Like, you know, this guy.)
I just know things, from a lifetime of reading (starting at age 3) and paying attention.
If I tried to learn all this crap now out of some warped sense of duty or peer pressure, I’d lose any talent I have.
All these rules are for people who don’t have talent.
Learning them makes them feel smarter, but generally, it’s just busywork for mediocrities.
Anyhow, I still love Monty Python in spite of everything, but this sketch always bothered me.
This fellow makes perfect sense to me.
If he were real, he might even be able to get a job at one of these boutique naming houses…
( * )
(More * )
(Oh, and I wonder if that biography of Ted Kennedy Gabler’s “working on” will include this anecdote.)
