Letters to WB

Questions and Comments from Our Readers

Dear WB:

Trying to find the origin of the phrase "cup of joe." Have looked everywhere and no one seems to know ... much speculation but no definites. Can you help?

Regina LeMasurier

Josephus Daniels (1862–1948) was appointed Secretary of the U.S. Navy by President Woodrow Wilson in 1913. Among his numerous reforms of the Navy was the abolition of the officers’ wine mess. From that time on, the strongest drink aboard navy ships was coffee and over the years, a cup of coffee became known as "a cup of Joe."

S. D. Liddiard
Origins Guy

***

Dear WB:

I checked out your site for the first time and was immediately aggravated by your feature subtitled "In Defence of Non-Literary Writing" (Winter 2000–2001). Granted all writers have something in common — they write. There are good writers and there are bad writers of all kinds. But I do not accept the postulate that would lead to considering a technical manual equivalent to a Shakespeare sonnet or a Michael Ondaatje novel. There is a difference, one is literature — the other is not.

The pseudo-egalitarism of those who suggest there is no difference, or no way to tell the difference between literary writing and non-literary writing are misguided. It is dead easy. And on top of this some literature is better than other literature, though it may take some time to tell. The fashionable pose that everything must be the same to be fair is death to the imagination and to civilization. Literary writing, like life, is not fair. It is not an egalitarian enterprise. It’s also damn hard work most of the time, fun some of the time and pays diddly-squat. I’d suggest there is never going to be a big rush to get into the sanctified literary writing field from other forms of writing that usually pay a whole lot better. Literary writers are often quite envious of the earnings of the non-literary writers — but the thing is, every writer can make those choices. The glory factor is quite over-rated by the author of the piece, and some of the prejudice seems to be paranoia. But lets get back to choices again. They go beyond Glory or Paycheque. The intention of a literary writer is to make the best work of art that he can — good enough to provide the reader with a tranformative experience; one in which the reader is changed, or brought to consider life’s big questions (i.e., what is good, what is evil?) or the reader will see the world differently as a result of reading the work. This is the intention of the best of literary writing — remember that I also suggest there is good and bad literary writing; and there is, often because the writers fail to make good on their intentions; or have become so cynical they have stopped trying.

This is much longer than I intended. Just wanted to say that literary writing IS better than non-literary writing and it’s easy to tell the difference.

Victor Jerrett Enns, literary writer, non-literary writer, and magazine editor

I appreciate your comments on my article; however, at no point did I suggest that a technical manual is equivalent to a Shakespearean sonnet, nor does the thesis of my article logically extend to this conclusion. I argued that there is a hierarchy of writers and writing that is sustained by those inside and outside of the writing trade. Statements such as yours that "literary writing IS better than non-literary writing" support my thesis. I did not infer that the alternative to this hierarchy is indiscriminate egalitarianism. There is certainly a difference between literary and non-literary writing, and, as you say, it is easy to distinguish between the two. My contention is that literary and non-literary writers apply their skills to different ends and fulfill different needs. As such, excellence in literary and non-literary pursuits must be measured separately — not in relationship to each other. I agree that there are good and bad writers of all kinds. Let them be judged in accordance with their ability to meet and exceed their objectives, and not against the existing continuum topped by supposed "real" Writers.

Lorie Boucher
Contributing Editor
Writer’s Block

***

Dear WB:

I logged onto your Web site this morning and got a real treat.

As a writer with almost 20 years in the computer science and engineering fields, I was intrigued by Lorie Boucher’s article on the snobbery of the literary toward technical writers.

There is also a reverse snobbery. Technical writers who aspire to literary fame but don’t take their professional efforts as seriously are referred to as "artistes."

I suspect that most of the literary snobbery comes not from those who produce novels, short stories, and poems, but from those who aspire to be writers but never seem to get published.