In my previous column, at the end of a better written rhetorical question – “Why aren’t Ferrer Lerín’s devils in the RAE?” – was a rather cheeky reflection on the criteria put in place by the RAE for recruiting writers. I suggested I do it now, “I’m thinking more about escaping than in the realms of those they have to look after”.
I believe you are interested in eradicating this conjecture in the echoes of your stored magazine article by the ever-vocal writer Arturo Pérez-Revertein who reported the little cause the RAE has in its power for “academic writers”.
If I don’t understand the details, about 46 academics out of the number who form part of the RAE, only because they are actually properly called “writers”, in the most common sense of the word. I include poets, playwrights and top storytellers. No periodicals, commentators or commentators because the writing is so clear. Some occasional literature.
I look at the list and, without wanting to do anything, I think about what, better or worse writing, Only three or four can be distinguished, as Pérez-Reverte argues, by being “creators, workers and language specialists”. Most are not right – not a bad thing – what is meant by “stylists” in the strictest sense of the term. They are proper writers and writers, just writing, who use the language in a fluent and well-standardized way, so they are not “specialized” or particularly “worked”. The same Pérez-Reverte is a novelist of tools and dictionaries whose writing does not begin as a particularly creative effort when it comes to language.
Reading on the platform, I suspect there is a tendency to confuse the Academia de la Lengua with the Academia de Bellas Letras, something that no longer exists. She invites him on a falsely conservative and restless mentality. So I suppose the RAE standard is and must be “more descriptive than standard” for many people! El Language dictionary don’t prescribe the words we need to implement until we know and document the language we use, the vocabulary like “consumed”, yes. Neither taste nor authority has anything here that is true.
Reading Pérez-Reverte’s tribune, I suspect that he tends to confuse the Academia de la Lengua with the Academia de Bellas Litras, which is not the case.
What does it mean to speak of “vulgarity” in the linguistic field? Since romanticism, an important vector of literature, he has not stopped trying to widen the differences between literary and written language. If it is an impossible task to inventory more than to find one who has moved and returned without Caesar, forgetting it will do much, as with the old trapos. areas of “purity and shine” mostly owned by the mayor of trasnochados.
Yes “tertullianos, youtubers or influencers illiterates’ actually have more linguistic influence than the Cervantes Prize, as Pérez-Reverte complains, the problem is – and quite a serious one, to be sure – the institution’s literature, not the RAE’s. This quiz You should think about incorporating your chairs into some of them youtubersif its characteristics and influences are revealed sufficiently widely and permanently. And from now on, we continue to be so sure that “writers do not just preserve language: they work and project the future”, that they are “those who explore their limits without breaking their coherence”.
I checked the list of academic writers again and concluded that many of them include this award. I think, besides, that with honorable exceptions, Traditionally, in both Spain and France, the Academy has stood firmly against the most linguistically adventurous and prolific writers – so don’t mention the vanguard here –.
¡Vengan valleyinclanes! For the RAE, yes, as Pérez-Reverte says, it rejects elitism and is flexible and goes along with what he thinks is ‘wrong’. If the academic criterion is actually implemented “colloquially”, we are on the right track.
Leave a Reply