What’s in a Title? Who cares?

When a writer grouses about poor writing as I do, when he lectures and writes about clear and concise writing, his life can be a misery. Just ask me. Readers of such self-appointed experts love to pick them apart when they (me) make mistakes. And such know-it-alls (me) deserve what they get. I have been guilty of dangling participles, unintentional neologisms, lack of parallel construction, malapropisms… it’s too painful to go on. Good writing like most endeavors is a struggle that demands constant attention and diligence. As an example, I originally wrote “a struggle that requires constant attention and diligence.” But “demands” was stronger and works better with “struggle.” This example conveys commitment. But if the writer is not on guard, redrafting can result in a smug pat on one’s back. In any event one must learn to accept and profit from criticism. If any of you know of any self-help books on this subject, please let me know. Years ago I wrote in a column “It’s me,” in response to the question, “Who is there?” A loyal reader expressed his shock that I did not write, “It is I.” Fowler’s Modern English Usage bailed me out. See A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (2nd Edition, Oxford University Press, 1983) at page 355: “The use of me in colloquialisms such as It’s me, and “It wasn’t me” is perhaps the only successful attack made by me on I.” A writer of judicial opinions, articles, and columns must be able to handle criticism with equanimity, to be specific, with constructive criticism. Yes, it’s subjective, but when a reader takes me to task for a title, I need a sedative. In response to my last column “How to Drive James Joyce Nuts” (D.J. July 2021), I received more comments than usual. Most were favorable. What a relief. This may be pretentious, but I don’t count responses that ask, “Who’s James Joyce?” But one reader voiced a mild criticism, or, to make it sound better, an observation. To give the appearance of objectivity, let’s call it a critical observation. Or from another point of view, a damned nit-picking who-the-(expletive deleted)-gives-a-damn observation. He felt I did not adequately tie the title of the column to the column itself because I centered the discussion on Joyce’s “Ulysses.” I like to think the critique was as significant as a microscopic bit of space debris on the Hubble telescope. With my luck, some highly credentialed astronomer will have read this column and emailed me with a detailed explanation why it does make a difference. It may be a stretch, but I would argue that the title implied a whimsical way of getting back at Joyce for putting us through all that trouble reading “Finnegans Wake” or “Ulysses” in which he was showing off how knowledgeable he was… and we were not. That’s how I felt reading judicial opinions in law school. I had trouble reading some of, if not all of Felix Frankfurter’s opinions. Like Joyce, he certainly was an intellectual pachyderm, pachyderm in the sense of a large intellect. Pachyderms have thick hides, meaning insensitive to criticism. But I have read in zoological journals that elephants are sensitive animals. Was Frankfurter sensitive to criticism? Clarification, was Frankfurter like an elephant? Now, I and the reader or two that may have stuck it out this far may be wondering if “pachyderm” is the correct word to use for someone impervious to criticism. How do we describe Frankfurter’s sensitivity to criticism? Who knows? He is reputed to have heaped piles of (elephant imagery again comes into focus) criticism on his colleagues when they disagreed with him. Could Frankfurter handle what he dished out? Cole Porter’s song, “I’ve Got You Under My Skin,” comes to mind. I heard one version with the line, “I’ve got you under the hide of me.” This calls to mind another show tune, “Spring Can Really Hang You Up the Most,” lyrics by Fran Landesman. Like spring, language can really hang you up the most. But I must admit titles can be misleading, including my own. The title of an article “They are Terrifying Judges” is ambiguous. Are the judges terrifying the lawyers, or the lawyers terrifying the judges? These days it is hard to tell. Journalists may write a factually correct article, but an editor writes the headline that distorts what really happened. Let’s pursue this and related topics in next month’s column, or not. Depends upon whether or not I can come up with a good title. Arthur Gilbert is a presiding justice of the 2nd District Court of Appeal, Division Six. His previous columns are available on gilbertsubmits.blogspot.com.