But then I saw this article and I am completely and utterly confused. It's about constructed languages within fiction (primarily SF and F). While I appreciate that the author (one Karen Sandstrom) has laid out the information very clearly, I find it baffling why this article fails to do anything remotely journalistic. It's not attempting to paint a picture of any sort, even a boringly historical one, nor is it attempting to make any sort of attempt to engage the material behind simply pointing out what most of us probably know already (yes, we know that Tolkien wrote his own bloody languages for his books). All of us who have read Lewis Carol's work are aware that he made up a lot of words, some of which are in common language. So instead of trying to give us an interesting article about the subject, Sandstrom has done what Wikipedia is incapable of doing: laid out the information in plain sight to be read like information tablets or little High School index cards.
I don't get it. I have looked and reread the entire thing four times over in the last ten minutes trying to understand what it is Sandstrom is trying to do. I thought maybe I had missed a moment where it declared that her article is nothing more than a quick response to some other article, perhaps in the same vein as a Letter to the Editor. But I see no such signs. The article is pointless.
Is there something I'm missing? Has journalism changed so drastically? Or is this just one lame article that happens to be on an interesting subject, but fails to do anything interesting with it?