19

This context comes from a part of Stephen King's book "The Shining" in which Wendy, Jack's wife, speaks to him about Danny, their son. She thinks Danny isn't eating enough lately and spending too much time trying to teach himself how to read (which she thinks is to please them). The following text is Jack's answer to this claim.

"They taper off" he said vaguely. "I think I read that in Spock. He'll be using two forks again by the time he's seven."

Wikipedia says:

Spock was the first pediatrician to study psychoanalysis to try to understand children's needs and family dynamics

The phrase "I read that in Spock" is weird to me. I wouldn't say I read that in King or Dostoevsky. I would say "I read that in one of the King's books or Dostoevsky's". Initially I thought it might be a magazine named after him, in which case the sentence would make perfect sense. Also, there are no books of his titled with his name only. Is this a mistake, informal speech, or some kind of linguistic invention of King's, for which he's known, after all?

wjandrea
  • 377
  • 3
  • 11
Static Bounce
  • 2,860
  • 10
  • 22
  • 31
    You might not say it, but many people would! It's quite normal to use the name of an author, particularly a very well-known one, to mean 'the works of' that author. – Kate Bunting Jan 08 '23 at 15:18
  • 11
    *I* wouldn't say I read that in King, but I have no problem saying I read something *in Shakespeare, Dickens, Dostoevsky,* or *Spock. I think the first 3 are "licensed" by the fact that we're accustomed to treating the works of great literary figures as "reference texts". Unquestionably that's why I'm happy to use the construction with Spock, Masters and Johnson, Stephen Pinker, Dawkins,...* (those are all cases where the writer is primarily engaged in trying to *teach* the readers something). – FumbleFingers Jan 08 '23 at 15:41
  • 6
    It's an example of *metonymy* - specifically in this case, using author's name to mean the works of that author. Which only seems to work well with "teaching" texts (in the case of important literary figures, they're effectively "teaching" the reader characteristics of great literature). – FumbleFingers Jan 08 '23 at 15:48
  • 12
    This is especially true of textbooks. They're often referred to by author than by title since the titles are often un-memorable. If I talk about "Grey and Meyer", other electrical engineers generally know exactly what book I mean. – The Photon Jan 08 '23 at 18:43
  • 2
    @ThePhoton, indeed. Think of all the textbooks titled "Algebra". – Peter Jan 09 '23 at 07:14
  • 5
    @Kate Bunting I agree. Especially since Dr. Spock is only known for one book, "Baby and Child Care", which is still in print. – Wastrel Jan 09 '23 at 12:46
  • 3
    What seems to matter here is that the phrase "I read that in Spock" is weird to you, but not to native readers.

    You might not say "I read that in King or Dostoevsky" but many native speakers do, frequently.

    You might say "I read that in one of King's books or Dostoevsky's" and many natives would, too… and that's a wholly subsidiary point.

    It is not a mistake, nor informal speech, nor some linguistic invention of King's. It's simply standard English usage and if there's a problem here, it's simply that your tutor hasn't explained this clearly.

     – Robbie Goodwin Jan 09 '23 at 23:48
  • 4
    The answers don't get it quite right. @ThePhoton is in the right direction. It works for 'Spock' (and 'Grey and Meyer'), because there is ONLY ONE book in question. When character says 'He read it in Spock', he means: 'The common sense book of baby and child care', ThePhoton's example is 'Analysis and Design of Analog Integrated Circuits'. It really needs an opus to be used this way. 'Reading Shakespeare' is not '"in" Shakespeare', and the quote doesn't mean 'in Spock's work', it's just that one book. – mcalex Jan 10 '23 at 03:06
  • It's *absolutely normal and common* to say "I read that in Dostoyevsky". – Fattie Jan 11 '23 at 16:14
  • @mcalex You make a good point BUT it is completely wrong, so to speak :) :) It's absolutely normal to say "I read that in Hoftsaeder" (meaning, "in one of that guy's canon of famous books.") You're right that typically it means "in that one extremely famous monograph and we all know which one we're talking about ..." – Fattie Jan 11 '23 at 16:16
  • 1
    OP, what everyone is failing to mention is that it's specifically a commonplace parenting joke, to make a reference to Spock. It's a bit out of date now but there are 100s of examples of this in sitcoms. "I've dropped the baby! They don't mention that in Spock hah hah hah!" "Teenagers scream this much? I didn't read that in Spock hah hah hah!" "Why are you adding rum to the baby formula? It's in a hidden chapter of Spock hah hah hah". You see? Just like it is/was common to make jokes about "Freudian slips" for example. – Fattie Jan 11 '23 at 16:30

4 Answers4

47

Such expressions are very common. For example, one might say "I've read Shakesepeare extensively." The person means that he or she has read Shakespeare's works, not the author himself. This is an example of metonymy.

MarcInManhattan
  • 15,405
  • 1
  • 24
  • 51
  • 9
    @Lambie I think that I made it clear that it was neither "a mistake" nor "some kind of linguistic invention of King's", and then I addressed what it actually was. And this answer has been accepted, so I assume that it satisfies OP. – MarcInManhattan Jan 09 '23 at 01:01
  • 3
    I'm sorry but to say that "I read x in [name of author]" is not ,metonymy. It is not a figure of speech. It is a reference to the work of an author. And "I've read Shakespeare extensively." is a very different phrase from the one the OP is asking about. So many upvotes are perplexing.... – Lambie Jan 09 '23 at 13:55
  • 2
    @Lambie According to one dictionary "read in" is a literal phrase that means to "read in the works of an author". The figurative use is expressed by the idiom "to read between the lines" or the literal act of inferring. See https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/read+in. That being said there's a difference between "read in the works of Spock" and "read in Spock". Spock is clearly NOT a piece of writing per the definition. It is, however, the name of the author that labels the piece. As such to refer to something by a part is, indeed, metonymy. Since you're a thinker, you'd be interested in... – J D Jan 09 '23 at 18:01
  • the notion in cognitive semantics of conceptual metaphor which is a linguistic claim as to the origin of 'read in'(1) meaning to read "in a physical space, extension" and 'read in'(2) to read "in a piece of writing such as a book, journal, etc". Treating a collection of ideas as items in a container is the best way the brain has figure out how to take something that does have physical extension (printed medium) and relate it to something that does not (the concepts the printed medium bears or constructs). – J D Jan 09 '23 at 18:05
  • 4
    I agree with this answer and disagree with Lambie to soem extent. I think this is an example of metonymy, the name of the author being substituted for the author's works. Whether it is or not, it is indeed a very common and quite natural. It is most often used of non-fiction works, but in literary criticism at least it is used of fiction: "The theme of the 'man alone' is important in Forrester, and the same theme appears in Westlake." – David Siegel Jan 09 '23 at 18:34
  • @DavidSiege Metonymy (/mɪˈtɒnɪmi, -nəmi, mɛ-/) is a figure of speech in which a concept is referred to by the name of something closely associated with that thing or concept.[4] [Wikipedia] I don't think that Spock is metonymy. A name is not a concept. – Lambie Jan 09 '23 at 22:49
  • 6
    @Lambie you've got it reversed. The name of the author is "the name of something closely associated with" and the "thing or concept" is the the works of that author. – mbrig Jan 10 '23 at 00:01
  • 2
    @Lambie A classic metonymy is found in Shakespeare "Lend me your ears" Antony does not want the Romans' physical ears, he wants what they represent, their function, that is the people's hearing, or more exactly, their attention. Similarly "I read it in Spock" does not mean that the speaker went inside Dr Spock, but rather in what he stand for here, his works. In any case, whether one calls this usage "Metonymy " or not, it is a common and well established usage, not something invented by King, and is quite natural. – David Siegel Jan 10 '23 at 00:50
  • @DavidSiegel I do not think that proper names can be metonymies. "Lend me your ears" for "give me your attention" is really synecdoche and not metonymy, in my opinion. By the way, I know what metonymy means. – Lambie Jan 10 '23 at 15:30
  • @Lambie Whatever technical term one applies to this use of "Spock" the answer here is the same, such use is common and natural. What the proper term for such use is, perhaps belongs on ELU or in academia. I never intended to suggest that you don't know what "metonymy " means, at most I was explaining to others who might not, but mostly i was arguing just what the definition includes. But that is really a side issue here. I was recalling "Lend me your ears" as an example given in Thurber's "Here lies Miss Groby", my first introduction to the concept. Perhaps he was wrong. – David Siegel Jan 10 '23 at 16:41
  • @DavidSiegel You apparently did not read my answer. I already said what you have just said. – Lambie Jan 10 '23 at 16:50
  • I did indeed read your answer @lambie I was responding here largely to your comments above. I note that in your answer you limited this usage to "the work of famous intellectuals" or seemed to so limit it. I agree that Dr Spock fits that category, but I have seen the name of the author used to refer to the author's work in circumstances where the author is by no means a famous intellectual. We do, however, seem to be in clear agreement about the original question: such use is natural. – David Siegel Jan 10 '23 at 17:00
19

The grammar is fine, as others have answered. I’ll add that it’s especially common to cite works by author’s last name in academic papers, and the character Jack Torrance is a (fired) prep-school teacher who likely told his students to cite their sources this way in their essays. You might already know this, but there’s a reference to Postwar U.S. pop culture that might be obscure today.

This “Spock” is Benjamin Spock, a famous pediatrician and author at the time The Shining was written. He was usually called “Dr. Spock” and in 1977, was more famous than the character from Star Trek, a show that had been canceled back in the ’60s and not yet revived as a movie, even if it weren’t clear from context who they meant. As late as 1994, Patrick Stewart, the lead actor of TNG, did a joke on Saturday Night Live about how he knew a lot more about the original series than everyone thought, like how there were two doctors on the Enterprise, Doctor McCoy and Doctor Spock. Dr. Benjamin Spock’s best-known book, Baby and Child Care, was written in 1946 and sold more than fifty million copies

The background here was that he usually told parents to let their kids do whatever they want, and they’ll turn out fine. Thirty years later, when The Shining was written, its influence had already peaked and there was a backlash to it, and to the permissive culture he exemplified. Jack Torrance, the character who says this, is also the kind of person who’d start out trying to follow Dr. Spock’s advice, but by this point we already know that he doesn’t stick to his good intentions. We’ve seen him lose his temper and break his son’s arm, and make a whole string of mistakes that ruin everything for his family. So what he’s saying is not really reassuring at all.

Davislor
  • 8,459
  • 11
  • 42
  • 2
    For me that 2nd para is it. The OP knows Dr. Spock was a pediatrician, but doesn't know his book was that famous. – Owen Reynolds Jan 09 '23 at 05:29
  • 1
    Start Trek was canceled in 1968 or 9 but it was in syndication continually in most US markets until the 1990s (when TNG came out) and its characters remained extremely well known in pop culture. Having been born after ST was canceled I was still much more aware of Mr. Spock than Dr. Spock as a child. – The Photon Jan 09 '23 at 16:25
  • 1
    I've thought for decades that Dr. Spock is what caused Baby Boomers to become the Me Generation. – RonJohn Jan 09 '23 at 19:21
7

Stephen King sentence:

"I think I read that in Spock. He'll be using two forks again by the time he's seven."

That means: in Spock's work.

When referring to the work of famous intellectuals or in academic papers, we often just use: in Spock, in [last name of the person]. Usually, this is about authors who write non-fiction and not about playwrights or novelists or poets.

Spock wrote a "ton" of books.

See for yourselves: Books by Dr. Benjamin Spock

Lambie
  • 44,522
  • 4
  • 33
  • 88
  • 2
    In this case I don't think it refers to Spock's entire body of work, just the one book he's most famous for. – Mark Ransom Jan 10 '23 at 21:55
  • @MarkRansom If you can provide better wording, please feel free to do so. But in + author's name does not refer to a particular book even if Spock was famous for his. It means in his work, whatever that may be. – Lambie Jan 10 '23 at 22:30
  • 2
    I wasn't disagreeing with you or arguing with your wording, just pointing out that this is a special case that might differ from the way you'd use "Shakesepeare" for example. – Mark Ransom Jan 10 '23 at 22:44
  • I don't think the distinction between an author like Spock who is known for just one book, and an author like Shakespeare who is known for many works, makes any difference here. A sentence like "The question is 'to be or not to be' - I read that in Shakespeare" makes perfect sense to me. @MarkRansom – Dawood ibn Kareem Jan 11 '23 at 00:19
  • @DawoodibnKareem It does not matter how much an author has written. One book could be enough for the expression. – Lambie Jan 11 '23 at 00:32
  • @DawoodibnKareem yes, both would make perfect sense but the meaning is slightly different. In the case of Shakespeare you have read it in some unspecified work of Shakespeare, and perhaps you are not even sure which. In the case of Spock, there is a specific book which is meant and the listener is expected to understand this. – Especially Lime Jan 11 '23 at 13:15
1

"I think I read that in Spock. He'll be using two forks again by the time he's seven."

In this particular case it is an elliptical reference to a particular book known to both the speaker and person listening to them: "The Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care" by Dr. Benjamin Spock or, potentially at least, another work by the same author about child care.

Amongst parents in the time when it was at the height of its popularity, "to (have) read something in Spock" meant to have read it their copy of his child care book. In my personal experience, the book achieved such popularity that "to read something in Spock" became a set phrase that meant to (have) read it in said child care book. This meaning was then commonly understood even you didn't know the exact book title, had never read it yourself, and/or weren't even a parent.

traktor
  • 706
  • 5
  • 10