Wednesday, February 24, 2010

The Evolution Of Language

-
One of the many podcasts I listen to is Fresh Air, for its insightful spins on current events and the arts. Today’s podcast ended with Geoff Nunberg's commentary on linguistic pet peeves, mostly stemming from a relaxation grammatical rules and definitions.

Nunberg's piece states, "…Kingsley Amis held that it was incorrect to use 'pristine' to mean pure rather than 'original,' and that you shouldn't say, 'I was oblivious to the noise,' since 'oblivious' can only mean 'forgetful.' And in a usage book he published a few years ago, Bill Bryson contended that it was wrong to use 'expectorate' as a synonym for spit, since it really means to cough up phlegm from the chest. The word did originally mean that, but it's been used to mean spit since Dickens' day. And Bryson knows perfectly well that it would be unreasonable to insist on the original meaning..."

Essentially, he's saying that, through common usage, words are being used to mean things which they originally didn't mean, but because the misuses are so common, they're accepted as correct parts of language. I must confess, there are two such misuses which drive me batty, to the point that my friends and family, having been subjected to these particular rants much too often, change the subject whenever I bring them up.

The first of these involves people asking if a particular fruit or vegetable is, "organic." The word organic means a thing is carbon based and was alive at some point. Thus, asking, "Is that apple organic?" is the same as asking if the apple is real or made of plastic. What such people are trying to ask is whether or not the apple was grown using the chemical free organic method. However, since that's a mouth full, they've shortened the question, and have bestowed a second meaning onto what once was a scientifically precise term.

The second peeve of mine is much more baffling to me. The word, "decadent," originally referred to something or someone which was physically or morally decayed and rotten. Somehow, we've begun to use the term to refer to rich delicious foods and other luxuries. The only thing I can figure is that deep down we believe such luxuries are sinful, and thus we're being somehow evil, or decadent, by partaking in such things. If so, this is disturbing on more levels than I'm qualified to identify or address.

When someone asks if an apple is organic, unless it is plastic, I'm always tempted to say yes. When someone offers me a decadent dessert, I'm always tempted to ask for something fresh instead. I'd be a jerk for doing either though, because common usage has expanded the meanings of both words. In fact, common usage is constantly changing grammatical rules and patterns.

Very few, if any, of us know how to correctly alternate between "who" and "whom." Even writers who know how to use "whom" correctly, can no longer write dialogue using the word without having their characters come across as phony, or overly highbrow, simply because it has been all but expunged from our vocabulary.

As a whole, we’ve pretty well accepted the notion that punctuation is, for some reason, unnecessary within emails, text messages, and tweets. We don’t even need to be able to spell, when using these types of communication, since most phrases are abbreviated. A “bff” is a best friend forever. When a texter has to use the bathroom, they type “brb” to let fellow texters know they’ll be right back.

With these forms of communication becoming ever more common place, I’m forced to wonder how our language will evolve in the future. Will such things as commas, apostrophes, and capital letters at the beginning of sentences fall by the same wayside as “thee,” “thou,” and “whom?” Someday, will there be a best selling novel in which the protagonist’s bff will brb? Personally, I hope not, but we’ll see.

Friday, February 19, 2010

The Accountibility Of An Athlete

-
A few weeks ago, I wrote about Greg Oden's apology over nude pictures he sent to his girlfriend. I maintained that, while what he did was kinky, he hadn't really done anything which required him to apologize to the public. A few hours ago, Tiger Woods delivered a 14 minute apology to the public (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs8nseNP4s0).

HE did do something wrong by cheating on his wife. However, while he owes an apology to his wife and family, probably a series of groveling apologies actually, I'm not completely convinced he owed one to the public. I think he was brave for doing it, and I applaud him for doing so. Yet, we need to over come this idea that sports figures OWE us a certain standard of moral behavior.

When we buy a ticket to a sporting event, we have a right to expect the athletes involved to play the game in question to the best of their ability in order to entertain us. That's it, that's what our ticket gets us. It doesn't give us a license to police their bedrooms.

Before you say, "Well, the old time athletes held themselves to a higher standard," think again. Babe Ruth ran naked through a train chasing a naked lover. Reporters who were on the train never mentioned it, because it had nothing to do with the game.

Some claim athletes are held to a higher standard because they endorse products. Are people really buying energy drinks and shoes based on the sexual/moral habits of the athlete in the commercial? It's more likely, not necessarily more reasonable, that people buy certain shoes and energy drinks with the hope of mimicking the athletic prowess of the particular athlete.

Let me stop a minute to qualify what I'm saying. If an athlete's caught breaking criminal laws such as participating in animal fights, brandishing guns in the locker room, dealing drugs, etc... such players need to be held criminally liable and possibly be banned from their sport. If a player is caught taking performance enhancing drugs or making book on sports such players should be banned from their sport. I simply don't see why athletes need to be held publicly accountable for personal choices.

End Note - I just want to make a quick comment regarding the way some people have labeled Tiger's apology as "insincere," simply because he read a written statement. Of course, he pre-wrote his statement, of course he did. This was an incredibly emotional issue for him to address, and he didn't want to be up there fumbling through his thoughts like some drooling idiot. Having written his statement before hand isn't a sign of insincerity, it's a sign that he's smart.

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Autumn Afternoon

-
I wrote this poem 2 or 3 years ago, was reading it again today, and felt like posting it.

Autumn Afternoon

My window frames a melancholy portrait of nature’s slumber,
Reminiscent more of Hollywood’s Halloween than of an impending Thanksgiving.
Stark gray clouds bleakly decorate the early afternoon sky,
Which hangs ominously above skeletons of dark and sleeping trees.
Their lonely naked perches extend sharply in every possible direction,
Stabbing and jabbing at the frigid air embracing them.
Leaves, once rich reds and golds, now shades of auburn,
Dart furiously within wintry wind, as if late for their final resting place.
Thickly stuffed coats are pulled up over hunkering earlobes,
Protecting pedestrians from the heavens’ promise of liquid bombardment.
Warm in my window, I soak in the drama and reflect.
Does the squirrel, foraging for deposits of acorns and filberts,
Know the sun will one day re-warm the earth beneath him?
Or, does he simply accept what comes,
Free of giddy expectation and bitter disappointment?


Friday, February 12, 2010

Plagiarism Vs. Inspiration

-
Helen Hegemann’s novel, “Axolotl Roadkill,” is up for a major German literary award. Just to be published at age 17 is incredible, and having that work nominated for ANY kind of award is a phenomenal feat. Yeah, except that, according to the New York Times, much of the book was plagiarized.

The article, by Nicholas Kulish, explains, "Deef Pirmasens, the blogger who discovered the passages taken from 'Strobo,' said that he could understand a few words or phrases seeping into the work through inspiration, but that he quickly noticed that there were too many for it to be a coincidence. 'To take an entire page from an author, as Helene Hegemann admitted to doing, with only slight changes and without asking the author, I consider that illegitimate,' Mr. Pirmasens said." When confronted with the facts, Ms. Hegemann reportedly claimed that, “There’s no such thing as originality.” She’s right, and she’s wrong.

George Polti claims there are only 36 basic literary plots, and that every piece of fiction ever written follows one of them. The 36 being:
1. Supplication (in which the Supplicant must beg something from Power in authority)
2. Deliverance
3. Crime Pursued by Vengeance
4. Vengeance taken for kindred upon kindred
5. Pursuit
6. Disaster
7. Falling Prey to Cruelty of Misfortune
8. Revolt
9. Daring Enterprise
10. Abduction
11. The Enigma (temptation or a riddle)
12. Obtaining
13. Enmity of Kinsmen
14. Rivalry of Kinsmen
15. Murderous Adultery
16. Madness
17. Fatal Imprudence
18. Involuntary Crimes of Love (example: discovery that one has married one’s mother, sister, etc.)
19. Slaying of a Kinsman Unrecognized
20. Self-Sacrificing for an Ideal
21. Self-Sacrifice for Kindred
22. All Sacrificed for Passion
23. Necessity of Sacrificing Loved Ones
24. Rivalry of Superior and Inferior
25. Adultery
26. Crimes of Love
27. Discovery of the Dishonor of a Loved One
28. Obstacles to Love
29. An Enemy Loved
30. Ambition
31. Conflict with a God
32. Mistaken Jealousy
33. Erroneous Judgment
34. Remorse
35. Recovery of a Lost One
36. Loss of Loved Ones.
Accepting this as fact, one could argue that originality doesn’t exist.

However, within those 36 frames, a huge variety of pictures can be painted. Characters can be created, each with their own history, beliefs, motivations, strengths, and frailties. Dialogue can range from the mundane to eloquent tapestries inspiring thought. Action can be written to take readers anywhere and expose them to anything. Anyone, with a word processor, can take passages from books A, B, & C, change the names, and call it a book. The job of a writer is to fashion original prose into a compelling arrangement of characters, dialogue, and actions in order to tell an original story within the framework of a certain plot type.

That being said, there’s a difference between plagiarism and inspiration. Writers learn from other writers. We learn flow, style, structure, pace, and voice from each other. I’ve learned such things from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Robert B. Parker, and other mystery writers. While I’ve applied what I’ve learned from them to my work, the stories and characters have always been spawned from my own imagination.

This is not to say, writers don’t quote one another. Yet, when doing so we make it clear it’s what we’re doing. For example:

-

“Look,” I said. “I know how goofy it sounds.”

“Do you?” she shot back. “Do you really?”

“Of course I do. I’ve been running around like a junior g-man all damn day while telling myself how crazy it all is.”

“Then why are you doing this?”

“Because, nobody else will,” I said. “I’m all they’ve got. Besides, I know you’ve read Dickens, he explained it better than I can.”

She paused for a moment to search her brain for the relevant literary passage. Comprehension washed over Jasmine’s face as she finally clicked to my meaning. “I agree in principle,” she said. “Mankind is your business. The common welfare is your business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, are, all, your business. I get it, but Dickens was talking about day to day compassion and charity. That doesn’t that obligate you to risk your neck to help any poor slob who gets himself in a fix?”

-

My character, Jasmine, is quoting Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol,” but the reader knows that’s what’s happening, and isn’t attributing the phrase to my skill set. In the piece you’re reading now, I’ve quoted a specific newspaper article and a literary theorist, but made it clear where the quotes came from.

Perhaps the over all idea behind the book was her own, but to convey her story with other people’s prose, without crediting those other people, is theft. Thus, she needs to share her award and royalties with everyone who contributed to the book, whether their contribution was voluntary or not.

Saturday, February 6, 2010

Never Quite Done

-
One time honored writing truism states, “a book is never ‘done’.” To paraphrase Maureen Johnson, author of Suite Scarlet, if there were no deadlines, writers would never send work to publishers because they’d never stop polishing it.

She’s right. Just today, I learned there was a real bill called “The Defense of Marriage Act.” Grrr, I'd fire my research staff if I weren't its sole member. Thus, I had to go back through my first book and change the name of the proposed legislation to “The Marriage Clarification Act.” It sounds like a small detail, I know, but since the proposed legislation is a possible motive for the murder, I had to make sure it didn’t share a title with something that’s already been passed into law. I guess it’s a small, very small, blessing I’m not published yet.