Micah Thomas

Professor Gordon
CTW II
April 11, 2014
Analysis of Tense Wars
Tense Wars is a difficult article - my first thought was the degree of confusion it presents
for one not well versed in Standard Written English (SWE). While I agree with virtually all of
the issues the Wallace raises in regard to the authority of usage, and his ethos is doing so is
highly convincing, I still disagree with the overall effectiveness of the essay. Though he
establishes his credibility and garners the audiences trust in a number of subtle and intelligent
ways, even after reading the entire article, I felt particularly underwhelmed.
The essay is essentially a book report on A Dictionary of Modern American Usage by
Bryan A. Garner. What struck me most about Wallaces ethos is the way it virtually mirrors
Garner's. In doing so, Foster compounds his own credibility through Garners - though it is a
little unclear whether he is stemming off of Garner's ethos to form his own, or applying his
interpretation of Garner's persuasive tactics based off his own techniques, the end result is the
same. Both Garner and Wallace define themselves as lovers of language early on, or in Wallaces
words Snoots" (Wallace 41). Traditionally, the word carries a negative connotation, but by
introducing and undercutting it in the beginning of the text, Wallace manages to boost his own
credibility by proving that he can take a good hard look at himself and self evaluate, and
combine the result with a warm humor that puts the audience at ease.
This humor is present in many ways - from his liberal capitalization of self descriptions
like "We are the Few, the Proud, the Appalled and Everyone Else (Wallace 41) to his scathing
remarks of "so stupid it drools (Wallace 47) in regard to The American College Dictionary
propagates a lighthearted tone that is unlikely to alienate readers. However, he supplements this
humor with complex arguments and an unabashed viewpoint of the descriptivist methodology of
language. In my opinion, he almost fulfills his definition of the Democratic Spirit. He undeniably
maintains rigor" (Wallace 41) in his arguments, while simultaneously maintains a humility in
his brazen self deprecation. Where I feel he falls short however, is with the "sedulous respect for

!
!

convictions of others (Wallace 41-42). The others I am referring to are the descriptivist,
politically conservative snoots. While I agree with Wallace in disagreeing with their viewpoints,
I do not see Wallace as having a maintained respect for their stances. This undermines his
authority somewhat, even though he does not claim to follow the spirit himself.
In spite of this, my main problem with the text, holistically, is the audience. Wallaces
focus is the crisis between the different camps of language usage. He states in the article:

"Non-SWE dialects have their own highly developed and internally consistent grammars, and
that some of these dialects' usage norms actually make more linguistic/aesthetic sense, than do
their Standard counterparts. (Wallace 50).

He acknowledges the significance of these other discourse communities, even in the face of
SWE, but he admits that the audience of this paper - which is concerned with the problems
surrounded language usage for those who use dialects other than SWE - is composed of wholly
"the people who are least going to need it (Wallace 40). Though I understand that, in his own
words, "This Is How It Is (Wallace 54), it leaves me frustrated that his rhetoric falls upon ears
where it is least useful, and unlikely to exact any change regardless of how well constructed his
arguments are.

!
!
!
!
!

Works Cited

Wallace, David Foster. "Tense Present." Harper's Magazine 1 Apr. 2001: n. pag. Print.