I’m so glad that you happened upon my post because of an actual usage example! Nearly all theorists acknowledge that lexical language change occurs as a group activity, but it’s contested as to how those changes occur en masse.

I wonder if it has to do with internalization. That is, I wonder if I heard someone use “eke through” in that sense and then subconsciously kept it in the back of my mind until I heard it again and my own usage came from that. All that time, it’s possible that other people underwent the same change. But even then, I’ve not heard anyone else use it in that sense before now. So perhaps progress is slow, but sure.

Thanks so much for sharing this–

Carissa

“But for every 12.6 oz of baby food that is removed and destroyed, apparently there is 22oz of bath products that eeks through.”

In addition to correcting the spelling, my wife, who learned English in the Philippines and is an editing whiz, said she thought the use of “ekes through” was “strange.” I agreed, until I read your marvelous posting.

The idea goes along with the third definition, that the shampoo got through customs, but just barely.

Personally, I never would have used ‘eke’ in this context, because I’m so caught up in eking out a living here in Hawaii that I’d have a hard time using the word any other way.

I so love people who love language and admire those who approach it the way you do.

David (retired journalist)

I also think that Hallberg expects us to go and watch all those videos. I haven’t, but I know of them (thanks to Jonathan Clark, who was relating how he felt watching DFW). I think they’re supposed to be the launching point to Hallberg’s attempt to create a throughline (appropriating/writing new definitions for Stanislavski’s acting terms–bear with me) for five otherwise unrelated authors’ works–that throughline is that they all deal with loneliness. As I mentioned in my original post, I have NO idea how he didn’t mention the scene in IJ wherein Hal talks about loneliness in no uncertain terms, unless of course, he didn’t read it or (possibly more likely?), Hallberg DID read it and just forgot. The book is long.

Anyway, I’m getting side-tracked. The point is that Hallberg is complaining that the characters and books feel too literary and need to be rougher in order to really communicate with more people on a grand scale. And I disagree for two reasons:

1/He’s couching his argument in the supposedly universal scope of technology, which is not universal because it costs money. We’re currently experiencing a deficit in this country, meaning that not everyone can afford that technology. However, everyone CAN afford a library card.

2/He’s saying that the books in question don’t actually bridge the gap between reader and author or author and readers and readers and anyone else because they’re too mired in self. But–wait for it–so are we. We are entrenched in our smartphones and social media for the big payoff: when can we talk about me? So, if that’s what literature is doing, isn’t that the same as reaching out? I’m writing about me, so therefore, I’m writing about you.

On the flip side, I’m not even sure that’s what this article is about. Actually, for all its de rigueur lit/cultural crit touchstones and references to historical texts as supporting evidence, I’m not able to parse a thesis statement that requires support. Perhaps the point was to read this, be confused and, consequently, hope we’re not alone. Hope there are other confused readers with whom we can connect?

For what it’s worth, I think we generally underestimate the power of fiction (and poetry) to make us feel connected to someone/something. If anecdotal evidence is of any use here, I frequently feel depressed when using Facebook (and Twitter, to a lesser degree). Shaping my relationships based on likes and pithy responses to memes and daily experienced marginalia often feels pretty empty. Conversely, reading a text that creates a feeling of identification or understanding gives me a powerful sense of connection to other people. It’s a reminder that I’m human and so are all those other walking/talking beings I see everyday.

So why write novels (or poems, essays, etc.)? Because someone, somewhere, who is forgetting what it means to feel and be connected just bought your book/read it online/downloaded a PDF/borrowed it from the library/heard you shout its words in the street and knew they weren’t alone.

I’m not sure I could do it because so many of my books are dark and I’d feel at sea just looking at them.

Also, I think you should tell Emily that your system does make sense, but it also makes sense that she makes fun of you for it.

DO YOU LOVE ME FOR MY BABYFACE OR MY MIND, RANDOLPH?