Michelle Obama's thesis, "Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community," is indeed very poorly written. On just the first three pages we find at least one dangling modifier and some confused subject-verb constructions. A brilliant genius she is not.

However, consider that it was 1985. She was only 21 years old. She had just come from a public high school in the south side of Chicago. Even worse, her major is Sociology -- not exactly the field that attracts the sharpest minds. So what do you expect, Mr. Hitchens? It is almost a relief that she got the thing printed at all.

Besides, when is the last time you saw a well-written college thesis that actually made sense, in any subject?

It is much more shocking is that she graduated cum laude, which tells me that hers may have been one of the better-written theses. The horror.

Dear Muzzy

MIchelle Obama went to Princeton. Where Einstein worked. I can only assume that you mean to suggest that Ms Obama was an affirmative action student who didn't belong in the same state as Princeton. If she couldn't write a proper English sentence after four years at what may be the most exclusive university in the country - sorry Harvard - perhaps you are right.

Is "two of West Africa's most repellently failed dictators" good grammar? You can say "one of the most insidiously clever schemes I've come across", but I'm not sure that "repellently" can modify "failed" in the same way. "He's insidiously clever" -- "He's repellently failed".

To express this exact concept using correct grammar, I think you have to say "two of the West African dictators the manner of whose failure was the most repellent". But I think "most repellent failed dictators" would get the job done.

Excuse me, but, "brilliant genius" is actually redundant. You used the phrase in the first paragraph of your post! Guess we all make mistakes, don't we?

Give me a break--the thesis was written over 20 years ago. I hope no one goes back to read what I wrote in my thesis in 1983. It was also caught up in the tenor of the era--identity politics and the plight of the oppressed. We've come a long way since that time--and I, like the country at large, have changed my viewpoints and my recommendations for solutions. Does anyone on this board hold the same political/philsophical beliefs which they held in the 60s and 70s? I hope all of us have matured and learned from the country's experiences--successes and failures--over the last four decades. I wouldn't hold Ms. Obama to embody the complete ethos of her college thesis.

JonFrum wrote: "... who didn't belong in the same state as Princeton"

She didn't belong in New Jersey? That's a bit harsh.

J, and that's exactly why Hitchens' essay is so dishonest. Ooh, Michelle Obama wrote something poorly about the oppressed 20 years ago; she must be a frothing radical in 2008! He knows better, yet he slings the shit anyway. To me, that's the disease that is Hitchens--and 90% of the American media.

Mujokan,

"Repellently failed" isn't wrong.

Your example, "most repellent failed dictators" uses "repellent" as an adjective to describe the dictators themselves. Hitchens uses it as an adverb to describe the manner of their failure.

I agree Muzzy, give her a break, I am pretty sure nobody would be proud of everything they wrote in college. That said, it is fair to use it as part of establishing a pattern, unfortunately Hitchens doesn't do that in this article, he lets it stand by itself, and that fails to prove the point, he needs more evidence to make a claim as outrageous as his.

To be critical of Mrs. Obama's thesis content is harsh, after all she was only 21 years old. To be critical of poor writting skills from a Princeton student is fair.

What the hell is everyone talking about? Not that I can't understand what you are writing, it is mainly the fact that you have taken the time to read this post and instead of discussing the merit (or precisely the lack of merit) to Hitchens' argument, you instead engage in a meaningless sidebar about grammar. Or the ones that try to answer it give a defense of immaturity and everybody else was doing it. Or she may not believe it now 20 years later. And to tell you the truth, that whole leap to affirmative action was completely out of left field. Please, god (no offense Hitchens) but will someone actually engage the thesis of this crap. Hitchens' argument is that it is Michelle Obama who has been guiding Barack's candidancy in much the same way as Hillary did for Bill in 1992 (very good piece in NYT's today discussing just that) and we need to ask the hard questions of Michelle Obama that people were asking of Hillary 16 years ago. He uses her thesis merely as support for his argument, not as evidence of her intelligence (which if you have ever heard her speak or watch her interact with people, you would not question it for a moment). Come on, we have a quote from Michelle about being proud of America for the very first time in a long time and he uses her college thesis? Why? Hitchens knows he does not have an argument since Michelle and Barack are being vetted intensely and she comes out looking very well. So, why not hint at some unknown incident or thought in Michelle's history. It worked when people thought Obama had attended a radical madrassa while living in Indonesia. In other words, Hitchens is trying to pick a fight just for the sake of picking a fight. Now, just in answer to SaraTaylor4's post concerning "brilliant genius". It is not redundant purely in the fact that brilliant is an adjective modifying genius, a noun. And as there can be many kinds of geniuses including brilliant which can mean sharp in this context. For I have known some geniuses to be indeed brilliant in their endeavors and presentations and others to be be quite dull and plodding.

TheSavage:

Yes, I realize that, as you can see from my post. But normally you use "repellently" to modify adjectives like "ugly". Here, the intention is to use "repellently" to modify the manner of the dictators failure; but in terms of the logic of the sentence, it actually ends up modifying the fact that they have failed, which doesn't make sense. This is because "failed" is in the form of the past participle, indicating a completed action. To modify the actual manner of failure, rather than the fact of having failed, you have to use a more complicated form, such as my first alternative suggestion. That's cumbersome, so I suggested a phrase with a slightly different sense but much the same function.

pigbodine: This particular thread started out with criticism of Michelle's grammar, and so it's gone off on a tangent as to who's the grammar god. There are loads of other threads that are more on-topic.

I would not have any trouble with a grammar thread if it actually connected to the piece. Rather than figure out the merit of his argument, there is a deconstruction going on of one phrase, which Mujokan got right in his/her post (repellently modifies failed since that is precisely what adverbs are suppose to do). After 11 or so posts, what exactly does this one ill-conceived phrasing have to do with Hitchens' ill-conceived argument. Is it that Hitchens can't right a sentence so he shouldn't criticize others for their grammar? Hitchens, while a repellent failure, is not a half-bad writer of half-bad screeds. Or perhaps that the phrasing is so cocked up that no one can discuss the piece beyond this one glaring turd that Hitchens took on the page. Again, no. It is a horrible construct of a phrase but not anything you can't get past. Grammar is an important part of being understood. Common rules allow for us to understand each other. But, as in Michelle Obama's thesis, grammar is not the end all or be all of her argument. And yes, while sociology is not rocket science, her thesis contains some apt points concerning an era of political upheaval that while recent, was almost a generation removed from Michelle's college years. This history the thesis is explored and explained with an academic jargon and usage to the point it has no real connection with more accessible writings. And the fact that she had such a stellar career in college and beyond, tells me that she has moved beyond the complex rhetoric of her thesis and brought an understanding to her life and words that now rings quite clearly through all the minutae we, as a society, has been subjected to for far too long. So, I am questioning the importance this thread, I just wish it actually had any relevance to Hitchens' piece other than a random aside he throws out there.

I just put that in because the OP was criticizing Michelle for her grammar, and that phrase of Hitchens' bugged me when I read his article. So I mentioned in in the spirit of "those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". I also initiated a more serious thread at about the same time. Lots of bandwidth on teh internets.