MoJo Podcast: Roy Blount Jr.’s Southern Fried Language

The Alphabet Juice author and Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me panelist talks about humor in the Obama years, the problem with Twitter, and why you can’t say “fanger” on air.

Photo by Valerie Shaff for <a href="http://www.royblountjr.com/">RoyBlountJr.com</a>

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Listen to the podcast.

Roy Blount Jr. is a Southern humorist and frequent panelist on NPR’s weekly news quiz show, Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me. His 21st book, Alphabet Juice, examines the energies, gists, roots, and pips of sonicky words from A to Z. Mother Jones spoke with Blount about Obama’s word choices, the best phrases to come out of the recession, and the pros and cons of keeping a Southern accent. Listen to the interview as a podcast, or read a condensed version of the transcript below.

For more free Mother Jones podcasts, subscribe here, or in our iTunes store.

Mother Jones: You grew up in Georgia and you have this wonderful Southern accent, which is somewhat rare on public radio these days. Did anyone ever ask you to get rid of your accent, and if so what happened?

Roy Blount Jr. Lots of people have expressed consternation that I haven’t gotten rid of it, but I just never saw any reason to lose the flavor that I grew up with. I enjoy saying some things with a Southern accent. But I’ve modulated it some over the years. I used to say “fangers.” And I’ve found that if you say, “I believe you’ve put your fanger on the problem here,” nobody believes you. So you have to say “finger.” But I think “ohn” sounds better than “on.” You want to say, “Right on”? I don’t think so. Certainly people have said a lot of deeply unfortunate and stupid things in Southern accents, but that doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with the accent itself.

MJ: Speaking of accents and language, you’ve written 21 books, and your most recent, Alphabet Juice is a…glossographia?

RB: Yeah, my ancestor Thomas Blount wrote a book called Blount’s Glossographia back in the 17th century, and his book was the first English dictionary that got into etymology at all. My book tells anecdotes and wanders around and dwells upon the sounds of words and rises upon the considerable amount of scholarship that has been done since the 17th century.

I always wanted to do a wordbook, but I never really had a theme. Then I read that linguisticians decreed that the relationship between words and their meaning is arbitrary and that got my back up and gave me a sort of thread to keep running through all these definitions. But mainly I just wanted an excuse to write about words. I’m going to do a sequel. Maybe I’ll call it Alphabetter Juice.

MJ: Do you miss the linguistic oddities of Bush’s speech?

RB: No! I don’t. I didn’t like them when I first heard them and I don’t want to hear any more of them. I like linguistic eccentricity that has a point to it and that explores the possibilities of speech, but Bushisms were ways of not saying anything, or ways of saying something that he didn’t really mean to say, and it was embarrassing to listen to. Obama is certainly a lot more interesting to listen to. I mean, Obama’s the most thoughtful-sounding president I can remember. He seems to be saying what he wants to say, and that is a great relief. Even though he’s gotten a lot more solemn since he’s gotten elected, and I can’t blame him. He always sounds like he’s thinking about what he’s saying while he’s saying it, and that’s a rare thing in politicians. We had him on Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me one time, back before he had declared for the presidency when he was a little more willing to be loose, and he mentioned that his first day in the Senate he found that every senator had a little desk, and that all the senators over the centuries had carved their names into their desks. And I said, “Are you supposed to do that?” And he said, “Well, as the only African American member of the Senate I thought I might spraypaint my name.” Tag it, as it were. So, I think he’s got a great sense of humor, but mainly he has a great thinking presence, which is uncommon. It’s hard to imagine being able to do, think over answers and deliver them on television. If I were president I would constantly be spluttering.

MJ: Is it harder to be a humorist under a thoughtful, articulate president?

RB: Well, I’ve never thought it was necessary to make fun of people—you can find fun in people without necessarily mocking them. Yes, it was a lot easier to make fun of Bush, but it was sort of like shooting fish in a barrel and it didn’t really feel all that good because it was so easy to do. I would much rather live under a thoughtful president. Even if it makes it harder to be funny about politics, it makes it more interesting to be funny about politics.

MJ: You’re a regular panelist on NPR’s Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me, and one of the things I really love about the show is how much fun you all sound like you’re having. Are you having fun, or do you just fake it really well?

RB: They make us sound like that. Every time we sound like we’re not having fun they have this guy there who goes along and pings our ear. You know how you flip an ear with your finger like that?

No, we have a great time. Everybody gets along and likes each other. There’s constant pressure to think of something to say, which is sort of like playing basketball. Sometimes you can sort of pass off to another person, say something that’s not very funny but maybe someone else will pick up from it. You know, get an assist, as in basketball. We used to do it from all different locations, scattered all over the country. We were all on telephone lines. And we were able to do it then, actually. It was interesting how the timing developed. I’m on this antiquated phone system up here in Massachusetts and they put in special phone lines so I could do it from my house and in my underwear, but because the phone system was so antiquated here I was on a delay. So I was hearing things about two seconds after they were said, which meant I had to start talking before I knew what I was going to say in order to get anything in edgewise. It worked, but it’s more fun to get together in person and have an audience.

MJ: Is there one word or phrase out of this recession that you particularly like?

RB: Ooh. Madoff’s pun is appropriate. “Stimulus package” has a charge to it, sounds like the kind of thing you’d be encouraged to order for yourself online. “A new marvelous stimulus package has been developed for men over 45.” “Bailout” sounds a little spicy to me, also a little desperate, but that’s all we have at the moment.

MJ: One last question. Do you Twitter?

RB: No, I do not Twitter. I don’t want to Twitter, and I don’t see any point in Twittering. The last thing I want to do is tell people what I’m doing at the moment because I’m probably not doing what I’m supposed to be doing. I’m probably wandering around staring off into space thinking about something to do or to say.

It’s not a good sound, is it? Twitter. If it were worth doing, there would be a better word for it. Let’s just leave it at that.

Laura McClure is the multimedia editor of Mother Jones.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate