Sunday, February 1, 2009
The Prince of Hyperbole
Someone (me) once wrote that H. L. Mencken believed that "Nothing succeeds like excess." Identify a passage in "Deep in the Coca-Cola Belt" that supports this statement. Does Mencken's penchant for hyperbole aand exaggeration detract from or enhance his standing as a "factual" journalist in your eyes? Respond by noon Thursday, Feb. 5.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
Mencken's use of hyperbole serves to show the reader how strongly the fundamentalists felt in regards to their religion and the thought of someone like Scopes tampering with it. Right off the bat, you can tell Mencken is going to exaggerate greatly: "If Darrow ventured to put him [the Unitarian clergyman] on the stand the whole audience, led by the jury, would leap out of the courthouse windows and take to the hills...The night he [Darrow] arrived there was a violent storm, the town water turned brown, and horned cattle in the lowlands were afloat for hours." Rather than detract from his journalistic integrity, I found that Mencken's use of hyperbole was both humorous and interesting, and further, piqued my interest in the Scopes case. Mencken's coverage of the fundamentalists' meeting was of particular interest to me. As I stated previously, it was not only humorous--"He sat down and the female aurochs in gingham got up. She began quietly, but was soon leaping and roaring, and it was hard to follow her"--but showed how strongly the fundamentalists felt about their religion and how serious the case against Scopes would be as a result.
I must first admit that there have been very few journalists who have made me laugh the way Menchken did. His hyperbolic assessments of the fundamentalists greatly enhanced the story, at least in my eyes. It made the story more interesting and readable. It made the story flow flawlessly, making it hard for me to put the story down or even break eye contact when needed.
With this said, I do believe that it made the story very subjective. It was very clear to me what side Mencken was on, even though he never outwardly stated his opinion. This can be seen throughout the entire piece, as he continously found new ways of mocking the fundamentals, in both actions and appearance, and never quite making a personal statement about Scopes or his lawyer Darrow. As much as I loved the story, I do feel like it was slightly more subjective than it should have been. I might enjoyed it this much because of my similar views on the case and those who live in the "Bible Belt."
Anyway, getting back to what this post is really supposed to be about, Menchken's use of hyperbole helps the readers understand the strong beliefs of the fundamentalists. For instance, in the first paragraph's description of Darrow, "The whispher that he is an atheist has been stilled by the bucolic make-up and by the public report that he has the gift of prophecy and can reconcile Genesis and evolution." The absurdity in the writing helps the reader understand how absurd the fundamentalists thought the possibility of that was.
I guess to wrap this all up, Menchken's hyperbole allowed me to realize that how I feel, or even he feels, about the fundamentalists is how they felt about the situation as well. It is showing the absurdities from another perspective.
I really like Melissa's ending thought. To understand the fundamentalists' perception and outrage explains why Mencken used hyperbolic writing to expose their ridiculous reactions and behaviors. DUH! That makes sense!
Now the question is whether or not his writing is credible. Like Tiffany was saying, Mencken's mockery, hyperbole, exaggeration kept me interested. But is what he said factual? I guess so? Ahh. I'm not sure. Professor Good, last semester you said as writing becomes more imaginative and creative, the more truthful it becomes. I think this is the same case. While I'd like to say no, this isn't factual writing because its not objective, I think it is factual. This piece is from Mencken's perspective, and what he's saying is that the fundamentalists are friggin' nuts because they are all so close-minded. He's exploiting the truth through hyperbole and exaggeration.
After reading Mencken's piece, I must say that It has left me mixed with two different emotions. The first one was like all previous people stated above me, humorous. Though I haven't read anything else on this particular writer, I have to say with this piece, he uses his words in a very sarcastic way, some what similar to the writer Sarah Vowell but not exactly. I couldn't help but to utter the words "Oh wow," and "are you serious," after reading some of the things he had to say about the fundamentalist in his piece.
The other emotion I felt was confusion, I feel this way after reading this piece because I felt the writer was really biased and that the story sought only to make me feel the exact same way he felt about the subject he was writing about. Now, I always thought we as journalist were supposed to be objective and simply report the truth in a way that keeps our opinions out and if we want to write about what we think, then maybe we should write for opinion columns! I believe that Menken could have reviled the actions and reactions to the case and characters involved in a way that would not have made him come across as so subjective. I believe some stories, in particular court cases need to either be balanced or unbiased. Because of all his tactics used in writing this story I would unfortunately have to say that Mencken's strong use of hyperbole and exaggeration detract from his standing as being a "factual" journalist in my eyes.
The entirety of Mencken's piece is riddled with hyperbole and exaggeration.
One of the passages that sticks out to me though is on page 430. "A comic scene? Somehow, no. The poor half-wits were too horribly in earnest. It was like peeking through a knothole at the writhings of a people in pain...Her head jerked back, the veins of her neck swelled, and her fists went to her throat as if she were fighting for breath." To see someone willingly participate in something that is going to harm them or give them pain is absurd. That's the point that Mencken was trying to get across in describing this scene the way he does. He begs the reader to ask the question, why would you do that to yourself?
As Melissa and Allie both point out, Mencken uses the exaggerated writing to point out the ridiculous actions of the fundamentalists. I only see this way of writing as enhancing the story. Not only does it keep the reader interested, but as Allie said, it's Mencken's own perspective. Other people may have experienced it differently, but we get his perspective and nobody else would've reported it that way so it makes it a more honest account of what happened.
The section of Mencken's "Deep in the Coca-Coal belt" that stood out to me the most came at the end of the first paragraph. Mencken writes, "All the local sorcerers predict that a bolt from heaven will fetch him in the end. The night he arrived there was a violent storm, the town water turned brown, and horned cattle in the lowlands were afloat for hours." By making this statement, Mencken is able to set the scene for the reader, and show how devoted these people are to the Bible and its principles. I feel that this use of hyperbole, as well as use later in the passage, helped enhance what Mencken was trying to portray. These fanatic townspeople were clearly intended to be shown as God fearing, and by using this exaggeration Mencken was able to show how these people viewed Scopes basically as the devil.
I have to say, I had to read the first few paragraphs a number of times before I understood Mencken's humor. Given, there were a few words I had to look up, I thought the beginning read a lot slower than the rest of the story. I was a bit mortified, actually. I thought I was embaressingly illiterate. The reason I found it difficult to follow, is because he was defining his own feelings on the situation, by nothing but hyperbole/exaggeration. It was a lot to take in, especially if I wasn't sure where the story was going. Once we ended up at the scene in the woods, I quickly followed along and realized that the beginning was set up in the way to prepare us for a story that was clearly going to be one-sided. Which leads me to the second part of the question.. His use of his chosen words clearly wants the readers to agree with the absurdity of the events he was witnessing, but I don't have any doubt that the event did happen in the way that it did. I do not think his "voice" was detracting from the the truth behind the story, so much so as trying to persuade the reader to agree with his opinions on the situation.
I need to agree with Tiffany and Melissa. Mencken exaggerates greatly describing the feelings of fundamentalists and at the same time by using "nasty" comments showing how ridiculous their behavior is.
"She began with mild enough jerks of the head, but in a moment she was bounding all over the place, exactly like a chicken with its head cut off."
Mencken many times letting us know his point of view and showing his outsiders position in this absurd situation ("It was like peeping through a knothole(...)","I describe the thing as a strict behaviorist.")
I believe that usung hyperbole and humor Mencken letting us know his standing regarding the subject without saying anything openly. Is it detracting him from being "factual"? I don't think so. I believe though that it make him more readable.
"I describe the thing as a strict behaviorist. The lady's subjective sensations I leave to infidel pathologists. Whatever they were they were obviously contagious, for soon another damsel joined her, and then another and then a fourth. The last one had an extraordinary bad attack. She began with mild enough jerks of the head, but in a moment she was bounding all over the place, exactly like a chicken with its head cut off. Every time her head came up a stream of yells and barkings would issue out of it. Once she collided with a dark, undersized brother, hitherto silent and stolid. Contact with her set him off as if he had been kicked by a mule. He leaped into the air, threw back his head and began to gargle as if with a mouthful of BB shot. Then he loosened one tremendous stentorian sentence in the tongues and collapsed."
This was my favorite part of his piece and I think it perfectly illustrates his penchant for hyperbole. This paragraph is ridiculous! But I know exactly what he is talking about. Overall, I don't think that his exaggeration detracts from how factual his writing is. Honestly, I think it makes a subject that I probably wouldn't read about, pretty enjoyable. Mencken is kind of just having fun with how preposterous he perceives the situation to be.
Mencken's use of hyperbole doesn't necessarily detract from his standing as a factual journalist, but I do think he uses the device in excess. In "Deep in 'the Coca-Cola belt'" Mencken uses exaggerations of both the fundamentalists and the situation itself to show precisely how "blown-up" the whole affair is. Perhaps one of his most humorous and hyperbolic passages was the opening one. Here he immediately makes clear his view, but also goes on to depict superstitious events: bolts from heaven, infants with four-inch-long hair, etc. His style and use of language are a slap in the face to what he sees as ludicrous actions by the fundamentalists. His words are equivalently as intense as the the behavior of the fundamentalists, and from today's standpoint, just as intense as the culture war surrounding the issue of evolution.
Did he report the facts? Yes, but in a highly hyperbolic way. The hyperbole serves its purpose, but its excess becomes distracting from actually seeing the facts, because the reader can become prone to feeling amused by how Mencken is reacting, rather than seeing the deeper factual aspects of the story.
The one passage that stood out to me the most was on page 430. This is a line that I wish I thought of: “Words spouted from his lips like bullets from a machine gun—appeals to God to pull the penitent back out of hell, defiances of the powers and principalities of the air, a vast impassioned jargon of apocalyptic texts.” The awesomeness of this line cannot be understated. After I read that I just went “Wow!” That line captured the shear beauty of what happened, but traditional journalism would probably shun this for concern of “objectivity.”
I think Mencken’s penchant for hyperbole and exaggeration enhance his standing as a factual journalist. This whole idea of being objective is becoming more and more pointless to me. There is no way anyone can be objective. Ironically enough, only God could be. Mencken paints the scene and shows truth better through these exaggerations. There are some things that you cannot explain without the use of exaggeration. Not everything is dull and clear cut. If the exaggeration helps and doesn’t detour the reader, then I think it is a good thing. At least it makes it more entertaining for the reader. Maybe news isn’t supposed to do that, but if hard news can be entertaining at the same time then why not? Nobody likes to read a dull, monotone news piece. This was once instance where hyperbole was vital.
Page 430 marks the beginning of a very important and vivid scene in Mencken's piece, "Deep in the Coca-Cola Belt." He warns us by saying "what followed quickly reached such heights of barbaric grotesquerie that it was hard to believe it was real." He then goes on to provide details of how real it really was. He states: "words spouted from his lips like bullets from a machine gun." This is a very clear image that truly sets the tone of the scene. It is powerful and uncontrollable. The description of the tongues is also powerful and makes the reader feel as if they are right there witnessing the act- "blub-blub-blub, gurgle-gurgle-gurgle." He uses the word "shrill" to describe the climax which makes the readers' ears ring even thought they are not actually there.
Mencken goes on to justify this act as completely normal. He asks in the next paragraph "a comic scene?" and replies with "somehow, no." It seems like a ritual that the crowd is accustomed to. The words "squirming" and "jabbering mass" also had to the mood of the scene.
Although Mencken uses exaggerations and hyperboles, I do not feel that it takes away from the fact reporting side of the story. The details are all there, but are just very descriptive. His style conveys a mood that he clearly wants the reader to feel. Mencken does so accurately and effectively.
I agree with most of the above comments that suggests that the hyperbole and exaggeration in Mencken’s piece describe the behavior of the fundamentalists in an amusing way but probably to get readers to react or at least think about why this behavior is occurring and how people are allowing this ridiculous behavior to continue. When the question of truth comes into play, I think Mencken’s descriptions are obviously derived from the truth he received through his own eyes, but as said before, there is plenty of exaggeration.
One part of “the Coca-Cola belt” that stood to me was this section:
“I describe the thing as a strict behaviorist. The lady's subjective sensations I leave to infidel pathologists. Whatever they were they were obviously contagious, for soon another damsel joined her, and then another and then a fourth. The last one had an extraordinary bad attack. She began with mild enough jerks of the head, but in a moment she was bounding all over the place, exactly like a chicken with its head cut off. Every time her head came up a stream of yells and barkings would issue out of it. Once she collided with a dark, undersized brother, hitherto silent and stolid. Contact with her set him off as if he had been kicked by a mule. He leaped into the air, threw back his head and began to gargle as if with a mouthful of BB shot. Then he loosened one tremendous stentorian sentence in the tongues and collapsed.”
I like how Pierece, who chose the same section, put it when he commented that Mencken’s exaggerations don’t detract from how factual his writing is. That’s exactly what I was trying (operative word) to get at in the first part of my comment. If anything, I think the hyperbole and exaggeration do so much more for the piece, in terms of interest and understanding. Yeah, it was humorous but it made a serious point.
It is uncommon for journalists to use exaggeration in reporting, especially to give the seemingly objective story subjective undertones. It is even more rare that a piece of literary journalism like this is available for the greater public to view, yet this is the place where hyperbole is an option and in Mencken's case, serves to enhance the story and move it not only at a fast pace that keeps the reader's interest, but at the same time enhances the message and purpose.
Mencken's hyperbole are so bizarre and extreme that they often come off as humorous, piquing interest and when thinking about what he's really trying to say, make his points much clearer. In the very beginning his statement "...they have found only blazing ratifications and reinforcements of Genesis. Darwin is the devil with seven tails and nine horns. Scopes, though he is disguised by flannel pantaloons and a Beta Theta Pi haircut, is the harlot of Babylon" gives the reader a clue that the "Coca Cola belt" inhabitants are quite radical in their religious views and how they treat the whole case.
A couple people mentioned phrases from this area of the piece, "She began with mild enough jerks of the head, but in a moment she was bounding all over the place, exactly like a chicken with its head cut off. Every time her head came up a stream of yells and barking would issue out of it" and "beside me on the bench sat the young mother and her baby. She suckled it through the whole orgy..." depict the atmosphere and happenings in a way that straight, unobtrusive speech never could. I think the use of hyperbole so frequently helps the reader envision and better yet understand the event taking place. The ridiculousness of the statements mirror the ridiculousness of the Scopes case itself. I'm sure if one were to read this piece and a "traditional" article on the case side-by-side, one would find the Mencken piece not only more enjoyable to read, but more effective in portraying everything the reader would like to and should know.
One passage illustrating Mencken’s excess is on page 428—“The whisper that he is an atheist has been stilled…A woman back in the mountains gave birth to a child with hair four inches long, curiously bobbed in scallops.” The dry humor (and complete fictionalization) in that passage, while seeming to have no place in journalism, really drew me in—but if someone were to miss this, or any of his humor, the rest of the article, and Mencken’s credibility would be questioned. Another passage is in the rapid fire paragraph on page 430 that starts with “What followed quickly reached….” And ends with “He fell headlong across the pyramid of supplicants.”. You speed through it, feeling the intensity of the barbarically grotesque (as he calls it) scene. However, as quickly as he starts an avalanche of words and scene that seem too ridiculous to be true, he stops it, with a comically terse, “A comic scene? Somehow, no.”
Mencken, without ever stating his opinion outright, makes it perfectly clear how he feels toward religious fundamentalists and the scenes before him. He expresses his disbelief over human behavior, much in the way any observer on either side would, and I think that’s why we like him so much. I think the reason why we trust Mencken’s story as factual is because he is unafraid to use his rhetoric in the way he wants. Rather than putting on a voice that he thinks we want him to use as a reporter, he unabashedly gives us what he sees, in a style that is all his own. He doesn’t make up events or characters, he simply enhances them and piques our interest by using that hyperbole we all seem to love.
I think that I agree with Professor Good's original statement. I don't think that his style detracts from his "factual" standing. His style is one that draws from hyperbole, among other figures of speech,but there is still that element of truth. The exaggerations that he uses are also frequently caricatures of this truth. For example, in one line Mencken says, "All the local sorcerers predict that a bolt from heaven will fetch him in the end." This is an exaggeration of the fundamentalist belief, but contains in it an element of truth. Mencken's sarcastic, cynical style would not work so well as it does if it were not grounded on some level of truth. Also, if these hyperboles are true to how Mencken views the world, in my opinion it is more factual than most journalism. Just not as focused and unbiased as it is traditionally accepted to be.
I have to agree with my classmates and say that it was a difficult piece to get into at first. That said, as soon as he started talking about the religion of the mountaineers I found myself drawn in by the piece. "The sacrament of baptism by total immersion is over too quickly for them, and what follows offers nothing they can get their teeth into." The hyperbole that Mencken uses in his writing does make it difficult to get into but then, if the reader stays with it, it becomes a very effective communicator of a point. Of course it's funny to boot. The thing that it does though is give us a very good understanding of his perspective without him ever having to overtly state it to the reader. Even though it digresses deeply the point of it is that this people think Scopes is the embodiment of Satan and it allows us as readers to understand the perspective.
Before we go on to analyze whether Mencken's use of hyperbole helped or detracted from the text, we have to admit to ourselves that, not being present during the events described, we are uncertain whether Mencken was exaggerating them at all.
Although we are unable to call him out on hyperbolizing the actual events, we might be able to do so with his use of superlative language and metaphors. For instance, when speaking about one of the Holy Rollers, Mencken stated :
"Her prayers flattened out into a mere delirious caterwauling, like that of a tomcat at a petting party."
However, if we were there and disagreed with this analysis, it wouldn't apply anyway, because the language one uses to describe an event is based on one's subjective ingestion and interpretation of the event. This is especially true with metaphors, such as the one about the tomcat at the petting party. The girl was not literally a tomcat, that is just the closest approximation Mencken had to it. You or I might have interpreted the situation differently and come up with a different metaphor, but, since neither are objectively true, neither is more true then the other.
I believe that, if you write in the type of proto-gonzo style that Mencken uses, you cannot be faulted for using supposedly superlative or subjective language, only on the facts themselves.
I think that Mencken's use of hyperbole and exaggeration serve to enhance the story in several ways. In what was and still is today a critical and linchpin issue for many people, evolution and religion, Mencken's devices seem to illustrate the true importance and imperative of what is going on at the time of this trial. You get to see the wide chasm that separates the "fundamentalists" and the "libeals." Furthermore, his descriptions of scenes such as "blub-blub-blub, gurgle-gurgle-gurgle. His voice to a higher register. The climax was a shrill, inarticulate squawk, like that of a man throttled.He fell headlong into a pyramid of supplicants." give a intense and vivid account of not just the actions themselves but of the sheer insanity of the actions compared with what the court case in bringing into play. I think if you hold a very narrow , sterile, and 2D version of the word "factual", then Mencken may not fit that criteria, yet I think that his hyperbolic style serves to highlight things people should be noticing when reading this, not just the facts but the flavor and passion and sweat of the events, those which separate a color by numbers from a piece of artwork.
"Divine inspiration is as common as the bookworm. I have done my best to show you what the great heritage of Mankind comes to in regions where the Bible is the beginning and end of wisdom, and the mountebank Bryan, parading the streets in his seersucker coat, is pointed out to sucklings as the greatest man since Abraham."
Now, that's one helluva statement you will rarely find in your typical news story and, for me, the grand ending of this piece certainly succeeds in being a fantastic closer. For me, I'm always a fan of exaggeration and observations through eyes that tend to see things magnified and extremified (maybe a new word here?), but only sparingly. When an entire story is laced with funny references and nutty descriptions, it's kinda like eating nothing but fine desserts; after a while, you start to feel a bit queasy. With "Deep in the Coca-Cola Belt," insanity is balanced with professionalism in a superb manner, satirizing the whole proceedings without having to put on a clown suit.
Post a Comment