"Will the world be content merely to brand our institution as among the most insidious enemies of humankind? Will our fellowmen condemn us thus and let the matter rest? Or will the heirs of those whom we have dismembered in our own peculiar Holoc…
"Will the world be content merely to brand our institution as among the most insidious enemies of humankind? Will our fellowmen condemn us thus and let the matter rest? Or will the heirs of those whom we have dismembered in our own peculiar Holocaust clamor for another Nuremberg?
"I don’t mind telling you that this matter has haunted me; it has haunted me particularly over the past five years. It has haunted me because I know that if I am tried I will be found guilty, very guilty, without extenuating circumstance...."
As heir to a long line of English teachers, I'd suggest that Mr. Budhoo's letter, whatever its factual nature would have benefitted from a great deal less self-immolation and verbiage and a great deal more specificity. I say that not as a comment on the actual nature of what he's trying to describe but rather to suggest that if he wanted to get his point across to a sufficiently wide audience, he went about that in far too verbose and convoluted way.
Budhoo's letter was an international sensation, but it was blacked out of the U S. news media. His use of college-level English from the 1980s challenges today's younger generation.
You can't have read much of his 100-page letter that has quite a bit of specificity.
p.s. My father was an English teacher; I grew up in a house full of books.
Perhaps you are aware of Strunk and White's Elements of Style (the Little Book, as it is known), which has been one my guides to clear English prose. Applying its dicta to the letter in question would be enlightening.
I'm ignoring nothing. But in the midst of enough horror going on in the world to make angels weep, one with a point to make about any one situation should eschew a mountain of verbiage and come straight to that point or he will lose the audience he hopes to convince. For example, Mr. Budhoo's entire first paragraph is little but inchoate guilt and rage. That is simply sound and fury with little to engage the reader in the actual situation he wants to convey. If he wants to convince people, he should leave the emotional outpouring to a minimum and get to the point.
I identified my "problem" of choice a year ago, in this reply to HCR:
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/january-15-2023/comment/11967315
"Will the world be content merely to brand our institution as among the most insidious enemies of humankind? Will our fellowmen condemn us thus and let the matter rest? Or will the heirs of those whom we have dismembered in our own peculiar Holocaust clamor for another Nuremberg?
"I don’t mind telling you that this matter has haunted me; it has haunted me particularly over the past five years. It has haunted me because I know that if I am tried I will be found guilty, very guilty, without extenuating circumstance...."
As heir to a long line of English teachers, I'd suggest that Mr. Budhoo's letter, whatever its factual nature would have benefitted from a great deal less self-immolation and verbiage and a great deal more specificity. I say that not as a comment on the actual nature of what he's trying to describe but rather to suggest that if he wanted to get his point across to a sufficiently wide audience, he went about that in far too verbose and convoluted way.
Budhoo's letter was an international sensation, but it was blacked out of the U S. news media. His use of college-level English from the 1980s challenges today's younger generation.
You can't have read much of his 100-page letter that has quite a bit of specificity.
p.s. My father was an English teacher; I grew up in a house full of books.
Perhaps you are aware of Strunk and White's Elements of Style (the Little Book, as it is known), which has been one my guides to clear English prose. Applying its dicta to the letter in question would be enlightening.
You have moral depravity to ignore Budhoo's confession to crimes against humanity while quibbling over the style of his English.
I'm ignoring nothing. But in the midst of enough horror going on in the world to make angels weep, one with a point to make about any one situation should eschew a mountain of verbiage and come straight to that point or he will lose the audience he hopes to convince. For example, Mr. Budhoo's entire first paragraph is little but inchoate guilt and rage. That is simply sound and fury with little to engage the reader in the actual situation he wants to convey. If he wants to convince people, he should leave the emotional outpouring to a minimum and get to the point.
You are entitled yo your opinion.
I am, as you are. Discussions about such things are always enlightening as long as they do not descend into insult.