Recently the idea of producing audiobooks of Jack Vance’s writings has been brought up on at least one message board. Such products would extend the gift of Vance’s imagination also to the sight-impaired (to which group Vance himself, of course, now belongs). Only the callous would deny them this privilege.
Yet a project of this nature needs to be planned very carefully, lest mistakes be made that ruin its noble purpose. Who should read Vance’s texts on these recordings? How should they be read? Should there be music to accompany the prose? If so, which music? These are all questions that need to be pondered soberly, and answered, before work can begin.
I would like to focus first on the question of whether the way the English language is commonly spoken today is optimal for conveying the true beauty of Vance’s prose. Vance’s texts are timeless, and should be performed in an appropriately timeless style, as well.
As for the vowels, any serious student soon finds himself agreeing with Saussure, who argued convincingly in 1878 that Proto-Indo-European (the ancestor of modern English) had only one: “e.” Why, then, do most speakers today pretend to recognize several, ostensibly different vowel sounds? They do so because originally the “e” was colored by laryngeal, guttural, consonants following it. These laryngeals were eventually dropped, but the coloration remained. Clearly, we here have two choices: We either accept the unsatisfactory, incomplete, modern solution---or we drop the artificial distinction between different vowels, all of which are really “e” in their pure form, and reintroduce the missing laryngeals. Fortunately, in 1927 Kurylowicz discovered the surviving Hittite “ĥ,” believed to be a short snorting sound, and this is what I propose we should use for the lost laryngeal.
While, as we have seen, the lessons of history strongly dictate the direction we must take with respect to the vowels, in order to avoid repeating the egregious errors of our forefathers, with the non-laryngeal consonants there is considerably more freedom. Here “Science” really interfaces with “Art,” allowing us some choice on purely æsthetic grounds. What should a pleasing “k” be other than a sharp clicking of the teeth as the mouth closes? Once heard in operation, all other variants pale before its simplicity and immediateness. Likewise, efficiency suggests that “b,” “d,” “t,” and the like all be replaced by a single forceful burst of expelled air. The others are similarly chondrocyted.
The false, improperly grounded variation artificially introduced by the spurious distinction between “different” vowels and fricatives has induced an unfortunate shift of attention away from the dimension in which the true drama of speech plays out: Tonality. It was a sad day, indeed, when it was decided to drop tonality from spoken English. Variation in pitch is what lends color and liveliness to speech. A good speaker holds his audience’s attention by sudden, unpredictable shifts from a piercing falsetto to thundering bass notes---occasionally, perhaps, replacing an entire word by an artful shriek or grunt that matches and augments the meaning of the narrative.
It is based on these considerations that I have developed “Treesong,” a generally superior way of performing spoken English that is also specifically tailored to the unique demands of the prose of Jack Vance. In its broader implications it can also, of course, be applied to other languages of the same family. (In fact French, when spoken “Treesong”-style, sounds very similar to “Treesong” English. But as control of French has essentially been officially handed over to the Muslim terrorists, and the language is now apparently considered a dialect of Arabic, I see little hope of rationality and good taste prevailing in this case.)
If experience has taught me one thing, sadly, it is that complaints will inevitably be raised against “Treesong,” simply because it is
I who have discovered it---even though anyone who had applied themselves diligently to the problem could have arrived at it themselves! I readily admit that before I started thinking seriously about these issues, I had no formal experience of working with speech. (Apart from grueling sessions with a “speech therapist” as an adolescent, which attempt at indoctrination only nurtured in me already then an intuitive yet deep contempt of the dreary uniformity of “orthodox”---meaning favored by the masses---speech modes.) And I do not claim that my observations about the unfortunate road historically taken by spoken English amount to anything more than truths that should be obvious to any intelligent man or woman. So grave, yet readily apparent, are the mistakes of current thinking (and speaking!) on this matter that anyone who applies even a smidjin of rationality will quickly become a more compelling speaker than the vast majority of others.
Still, having started already two weeks ago I shall naturally always remain slightly ahead. As at this point there is only one person who fully masters the intricacies of “Treesong”---although we expect it will rapidly be taken up by others as the news of its benefits spreads---the choice of performer for the audiobooks is straightforward. Add to this that Jack himself, when informed of “Treesong,” said “I don’t care,” thus lending his approval to the project in no uncertain terms.
To the usual “trolls” and Internet malcontents I have only this to say: Linguistics is not, nor was it ever, a democracy! The decision is final, although constructive comments, presented in a cooperative spirit, on how we can further refine minor details of “Treesong,” will of course receive proper consideration. There is, however, no time for egocentric me-me-me-ing as we move along to the recording stage, and all selfish attempts at derailing the process will be dealt with sternly and appropriately.
I find I shall have to leave exposition of the problem of Vance-appropriate music for another time. But I have acquired an ocarina and the first experiments are very promising.
