On Calling by Name

My, it's been a while since I posted any thoughts.  Other things have gained priority.

Over the decades, Americans have taken to calling others by their first names, even people in positions of authority.  The common perception of this phenomena is that we’ve grown more casual with our manner of address.  While this is certainly true, I suspect the shift also indicates something more about our perspective of people and society. 

Surnames identify families, so calling a person by a surname associates that individual with his or her family group and may even imply that the person’s value (or lack thereof) lies in his or her family.  Similarly, the respectful titles Miss, Mrs, Mr, and Dr have their uses expressing formal distance, as well as marital or educational status, but the titles are otherwise even more generic than surnames.

America, being largely a meritocracy, places more value and emphasis on the individual.  Though we still value the family, we are personally less defined by our familial connections (whatever those might be like), and more defined by our characters and our work, which all get wrapped up in our sense of self, and that sense of self generally includes our given names or nicknames.  Thus, the phenomena of calling individuals by their given names seems only natural.  As my mom has said, "I feel I am closer to someone when we call each other by our first names.  It all seems more honest, plain, and genuine."

It's well known, I believe, that language changes to reflect culture, and cultural perspectives are affected by language.  Now, one could find pros and cons in both familial and personal forms of address—and in a culture that values collective or individual contributions and identities—but rather than explore the topic further, I submit this as food for thought.  What do you value, and how do your words unconsciously express that?  What should you value, and how might changing your words reflect and encourage that perspective? 

On Writers' Avoidance

Procrastination, in many cases, is really a form of Avoidance.  I’m practicing a form of avoidance right now, actually, by writing about my trouble with it instead of facing what I’m avoiding: writing my book.

It’s quite ridiculous, really.  I get everything prepared.  I open my computer, get my document to the place I left off, make my tea, sit down to write… and all the while, my eyes look everywhere except at the words on my screen.  I devise reasons I should check my email and daily comics (to get it out of the way so it won’t be on my mind and distracting me later), play with the cats (to wear them out so they stop coming up to get my attention), wash the dishes (it has to be done sometime), and any other number of tasks.  I can’t type when I eat a meal, so I read a book or watch YouTube videos instead, and get so caught up and relaxed I forget about writing for a time.  

In between these distractions, I open the document, resolving to write… and it’s as though some magician has cast an “ignore me” spell; my eyes slide away.  I can’t bear to look at the text long enough to read a word.

A little bit of psychoanalysis suggests I’m afraid of something.  But what?  Afraid I’ll read what I’ve written and hate it?  Afraid of not expressing the story well?  Afraid I’ll get interrupted and lose my momentum?  Afraid of failing?  Afraid of succeeding?  Am I just uncertain about how to proceed?

I tell myself to just write--editing can come later.  But I’ve revised some of the characters’ personalities in my mind, such that their behavior needs to change, and I have a few scenes that need to be re-written to avoid being trite or preachy or simply long-winded.  The way I do that will affect future scenes and the amount of exposition needed.  But when I just edit, I make no substantial progress.  (Except I feel more confident about the beginning now.  ...Kinda.)

If I have all these ideas, what is stopping me from acting on them?  Is this “spirit of restraint” writer’s block in my own mind, or a divine stop sign?  I hardly think it’s demonic--nor external pressures.  Prayer, well, maybe I’m not “praying the right way.”  I feel no direction or restraint when I pray.  I’m more productive with a pencil and paper, but then I can’t bring myself to type the scenes up where they belong in the document because I am avoiding the sight of it.  This has gone on for months with very brief progress on only a couple occasions.

Has anyone else experienced this?  What worked for you?

On Orthography and Pet Peeves

        Centuries-long debates have attempted to rate the relative evil of misspelling a word.  Are all misspellings inherently heinous, or do they matter only if they confuse the reader?  What does a misspelling imply—or not—about the writer's intelligence and reliability?  Participants on every side of the debate have relatively sound reasons for supporting their conclusions--whether they promote traditional orthography, standardized spelling reforms, or free-form spelling.  Permit me to drop my two cents atop this dragon's horde of pennies.

        From a historical perspective, orthography has always been—to varying extents and depending on one's point of view—arbitrary.  Alphabets, syllabaries, and logograms are, after all, man-made constructions, invented to represent sounds or ideas, which change over time.  In the English language—and I would venture to say in most (if not all) other languages, as well—spelling once varied widely according to regional accent or personal preference until some fellow thought to publish and popularize a dictionary.  Even once dictionaries became accepted authorities on spelling, orthography has often morphed (though sometimes belatedly or not at all—consider the Great Vowel Shift) to keep pace with changing pronunciations and vocabulary, or—on rarer occasions—to emphasize a new nation's distinctiveness, as with England's former colonies in what is now the U.S..
        Considering how language and accepted spellings change, some people feel it makes little sense to propagandize prescriptive orthography nor to lament "creative" spelling, provided readers can still sound words out and get the meaning.  Furthermore, with PC thoughts of diversity and tolerance, it hardly seems right to penalize people who have learning disabilities for their bad spelling.
        Opponents point out that, although learning spelling may be difficult for the learning disabled, it's not impossible for most to improve with regular effort.  (See this article about teaching spelling to dyslexics.)  They could always borrow or hire an editor when needed, so there's no reason to let everyone get sloppy with spelling just because some in the population struggle with it!  Standardized spelling makes it so readers don't have to take time to puzzle out a writer's meaning.
         Ah, but standards can change, can't they?  What's wrong with easing people's way by making irregular verbs regular or removing unarticulated letters?  "Mass confusion," proponents of traditional spelling would argue.  "Old texts would become almost unintelligible."  Like Chaucer, you mean?  But we still make students read his original words, and they manage (if sometimes only with the help of SparkNotes).  Reforms could be introduced gradually, and books could be reprinted with "modernized" spellings.  ...Yet there are so many logistical problems with that!
        Though spelling is, to an extent, arbitrary, both reformers and traditional orthographers agree that spelling is an arbitration codified in dictionaries and in years of usage.  Just as a law only applies to the people who live under that body of laws, codified by lawmakers, they contend that a spelling only truly applies if it is codified in a dictionary.  (Though, to confound matters, not all English dictionaries include the same new forms, and some note multiple correct spellings for a word.  The majority of the content, however, agrees.)
        If we think of spelling as a codified law, we'll also remember that a law can be amended, so why not do so when a majority of orthographic "lawmakers" agree?  This does happen in a way, but the process, some complain, is too slow or needs to be reversed.  Currently, dictionaries revise their spellings to reflect popular usage, but revisionists feel dictionaries should dictate popular usage, instead.   Laws are also useless unless followed and enforced.  Is that the case with spelling?
        Although police may not arrest a business owner for posting a sign reading "Wellcome" or "You're Video Store," couldn't one view customer criticism or reduced patronage as a form of enforcement?  Educators, certain employers, and peers may enforce spelling through grades, performance reviews, hiring choices, praise, and mockery.  Indeed, most of us do tend to use spelling (fairly or not, and intentionally or not) as one way to judge the writer's intelligence and reliability.  What do you think when you read this: "I want to the carpanter and asked hi to billed me a woden closet with a big mirror and speachieal drawers to put my showas." (From Ghotit.com. It took me a while to figure out the last word!)

        It looks and feels delightful to read a well-written document or story, but even with mundane words, correct spelling helps readers comprehend the meaning, as illustrated above.  This is especially true in the case of homophones and between nigh-unintelligible spoken dialects.  One must note, however, that poor spelling often goes hand-in-hand with poor grammar, which further damages clear, quick communication.  There is, therefore, undisputed value in perpetuating a standard orthography and grammar. 
       Even so, reformers argue that our oral language has changed since some of these spellings were first established, so we have words like "knight," which is no longer said as "kah-knee-kt" or "ka-ni-git."  Consider also the words February, Wednesday, colonel, through, phlegm, knock, queue, and others in which sounds have been dropped or changed over the years.  Is retaining such spellings entirely necessary?  Learning to read and spell such words becomes an extra challenge to those not verbally inclined.

        So the arguments fly.  Myself, I see no harm in a few reforms, starting with standardizing abbreviations like "tho," "thru," and "info."  (Think there's any chance we could popularize "brev" to replace "abbreviation"?  It'd need to be in common use before the spelling could officially change, but consider the irony of the long version!)

        I can overlook the occasional typo, but consistent spelling errors drive me batty.  Among the various, vexing vagrancies that some villains venture to commit with our written language, and with homophones in particular, these are a few of my pet peeves.  (I wonder how many of you read that expecting "these are a few of my favorite things...?"  My thoughts digress.)

• Yea—1) even more so; indeed ("Yea, verily.") 2) a somewhat archaic "yes" ("I can't say yea or nay.")
• Yay—1) exclamation of joy; "Hooray!" ("Yay!") 2) an indicated amount ("It's yay high.")
• Yeah—yes; ja; sure; absoballylutly  ("Want some chocolate?"  "YEAH!")      (Extra Note: "Yea" and "yay" are homophones that rhyme with "way."  "Yeah," however, is a unique diphthong that doesn't seem to rhyme with anything.  Its final "a" sound resembles the "a" in "at.")

• Supposed to (not suppose to) and used to (not use to)    ("I used to try to eat things that I was not supposed to, like my sister's arm.")

• Could've, would've, should've, etc. (not could of, etc.)—the abbreviated word is "have."   ("I should've moved to Texas for the winter!") 

• A lot (not alot)—as in a bunch, a great amount.  ("A lot of people write badly!")

• Cannot (not can not)    ("I cannot believe you forgot that!")

• Then—an adverb of time ("First brush your teeth, and then you may kiss me.")
• Than—a comparison ("He has more wit than wisdom.")

• You're—a contraction of "you are" ("You're from the lunar colony?")
• Your—a possessive form of "you" ("I find your lack of faith disturbing.")

• There—a pronoun for a place; an exclamation of satisfaction ("Sit there in the sun... There, isn't that warmer?")  Note how the locations "here" and "there" have similar spellings?
• Their—a possessive form of "they" ("Their pfeffernuse tastes great with chai.")
• They're—a contraction of "they are" ("They're great bagpipers.")

• Two—the number 2 ("Two cats strolled along the fencetop.")
• To—toward, for the purpose of, etc.  ("She went to great lengths to humor those cats.")
• Too—also; excessively so ("I, too, want a cat so long as it's not too destructive.")

• Write—to inscribe words or music on a surface     ("I hope to write a novel.")
• Right—1) dexter rather than sinister ("Turn right!") 2) correct  ("You were right to write that.")
• Rite—a ceremony or customary practice

• Any kind of misused or unnecessary preposition: ("We are considering on doing that." "Where are you at?")

• The following are other commonly-remarked upon errors that I (unrealistically?) expect people to know by the time they reach high school: site/sight, fill/feel, aspect/respect, weather/whether, which/witch/wich, who/whom, angle/angel, wear/ware/where/were, break/brake, foreward/forward, due/do, dessert/desert, decent/descent, counsel/council, aisle/isle, its/it's, throne/thrown, close/clothes, breath/breathe, advice/advise, accept/except, affect/effect, choose/chose, lose/loose, coarse/course, conscious/conscience, diary/dairy, device/devise, different than/from/to, dual/duel, hoped/hopped, hole/whole, see/sea, role/roll, sit/set, through/threw, wreak/wreck/rack/wrack...

The list could go on, but I think you get my meaning.  
This "rant" comes across as a bit myopic even to me; certainly, from a larger perspective, spelling has little bearing on the important things in life, which we may sum up as as "love God" and "love your neighbors."  Even so, clear written communication, as well as the respectability attached to polished format and content, are incredibly useful tools, especially when interacting with our neighbors. 


What do you think about spelling?  What are your pet peeves?  Write a note below.



See other articles on this topic:
brunerbiz.com "I Judge You When You Use Poor Grammar"
Wikipedia.org "English Orthography"
Spellingcity.com "Importance of Spelling"
Huffingtonpost.co.uk "Best-Funniest Spelling-Grammar Mistakes"
Not about spelling, but funny: Instruct.westvalley.edu "Writing Sample" 

On Trust

During my childhood, Mom hung a certain cross-stitched Bible verse in the restroom, positioned opposite the pot at an adult’s standing eye-level.  Word-oriented as I am, it would take a great mental abstraction—or a book in my hand—for me not read it, sometimes more than once, each time I visited.  The repetition resulted naturally in memorization.  I still recall it today, though with occasional confusion on the wording—it being the King James Version and my own Bibles using NIV or ESV translations.  Still, the central message of the words remain, and over the years, the verse continues to come to mind and guide me at opportune moments, different parts striking me more at different times.

Proverbs 3:5-6 (KJV)

⁵ Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

⁶ In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

“Trust in the Lord.”

I.e. He is trustworthy.  Okay, cool.  But what can I trust Him with?  Health, wealth, and happiness?   If He didn’t spare His own Son poverty and torture and death, why should I expect complete safety?  He’ll do anything to turn the hearts of people back to Him.  I can, however, expect Him to be with me in all circumstances, provide what I need (though not necessarily what I want), provide internal peace in all circumstances, and protect my immortal soul.

“...with all thine heart.”

All, always?  Yes.  I can’t trust halfheartedly, or only when it’s easy or makes sense to trust.

“...and lean not to thine own understanding.”

Do I think that I know better than God or His Word?  Who am I to say that He’s unfair or to think it’s okay for me to do what I want even when it’s against His commands?  If I commit to leaning on His understanding and perspective, I have to seek it by studying His ways and staying in a close relationship with Him.

“In all thy ways acknowledge him,”

This means acknowledging God’s sovereignty over me and the world, privately and publicly.  Not only must my mind admit He’s my Lord, but I also have to put that acknowledgement into practice by obeying Him or else my acknowledgement will be proved a lie.

“...and He shall direct thy paths.”

How?  How do I know He’s leading me or if my own desires are asserting themselves and I assume or claim they’re His?  I must evaluate my lifestyle and actions in light of scripture and the prodding of the Holy Spirit.  

Scripture won’t have exact answers to the right career or possessions or relationships or financial decisions that are appropriate for each person, but it does have criteria: Is my choice motivated by love for God or my neighbor, or by fear or greed?  Are my actions Christ-centered or self-centered?  Am I making the best use of the talents and spiritual gifts God has given me?  What route would best enable me to serve God faithfully (without burning out or succumbing to temptations)?  Do I feel a direction or spirit of restraint from the Holy Spirit?—and if I’m not heeding it, what’s hindering me?  Am I you relying on God to sustain me or putting faith in the false security of wealth, strength, and status?  Have I prayed about the decision—and really listened and watched for a response?

This passage—“Trust in the Lord…”—is not a formula for temporal blessings but for a life of faith that promises blessings that last: a purpose, freedom from fear, and a relationship with the Almighty.

On Self-Hate

Self-hate is a deadly habit.  And like all habits, it’s hard to break.  I know--I’ve been trying since at least junior high.

From what I’ve observed, self-hatred assaults introverts more than extroverts.  We’re the ones who “live inside our heads” more, and yes, familiarity breeds contempt.  We know humanity as a whole is in a bad way, but we’re the specimen we observe the most.  

But it’s more than that.

There’s a certain frame of mind, an expectation of perfection.  We know the ideal self we want to be and hate when we don’t measure up to our standards.  We find our self-worth in our accomplishments and the praise of others.  We’re extra sensitive to criticism and embarrassment, less able to cope with the fact that we’re fallible and that our products don’t always match the picture in our minds.

But it’s not just the “incident of the week” that causes grief.  I’ve had a lot of years to collect memories that still mortify me to this day, even incidents from elementary school that most people would look back on with a chuckle and a shake of their heads, saying, “I was just a crazy kid, then.  Oh, well.”  My response is to call myself names and look for the nearest surface on which to bang my head.

Recollections of errors and humiliations from yesterday, last month, or ten years ago invariably come to mind multiple times a day, triggered by innocuous sights and keywords.  Sometimes I wasn’t even at fault, but someone said or did something hurtful, and it stuck with me like a burr on a sock that pokes my ankle when I step just wrong.  This translates into a lot of self-directed anger--sometimes quickly snuffed by reason or productive activity, but sometimes lowering me for much longer and encouraging a retreat into unproductive escapism to get away from myself.

Funny thing is, we critical types often defend this tendency to be overly critical.  We think (that is, hope) that it spurs us to improve, become better people.  But it doesn’t always.  Sometimes we get so sick of trying and failing to do right that we give up--for a time or forever--and hate ourselves even more for it.

I’ve had several people tell me over the years, as if it would remedy everything, that all I needed was a thicker skin.  First off, that’s another insult to a sensitive mind--one more way in which I can castigate myself for being deficient.  Second, that gives a person no constructive way to go about getting a thicker skin.  

I can imagine how it’d work, based on the metaphor: A callus is built when a patch of skin gets roughed up over and over.  So it sounds like people are telling me I should suffer more so I suffer less with each insult.  Really?  The amount of insults I give myself, you’d think I’d be as thick-skinned as a dragon by now, and just about as friendly.  Thankfully, I don’t think I’m the unfriendly, but though the wisdom of age has thickened my skin more than it was, I still can't be called "thick-skinned."  A similar metaphor is “Let it go, like water off a duck’s back.”  That one’s a little more constructive, but how can I grow a metaphorical feather barrier?  Water is a bit adhesive to skin, you know--and unlike negativity, water evaporates with relative speed. 

I have found four techniques that help to decrease my self-hate:

1. Keep a wide perspective of the problem.  What’s the whole situation, exactly?  What may have motivated the other person (or yourself) to say what was said?  Who’s affected, and how much will this problem really affect people’s lives a year or ten years from now? (Avoid the slippery slope fallacy!)  If needed, can you fix it or make restitution?  Can you learn from it?  If nothing can be or needs to be done, clear your mind, take a breath, and think about something else.
2. Stop looking inward so much.  Escapism into fiction or puzzles may help a little.  Taking care of pets can help a little more.  But better yet, turn your gaze on other people. Socialize, volunteer, or do things that help other people.  Consider their needs, their problems, instead of fixating on your own.  Helping others, aside from just being the neighborly thing to do, will also help you feel better about yourself.  
3. Surround yourself with people who support and affirm you.  Demand hugs when needed instead of self-medicating with chocolate, which produces calorie guilt.
4. Most importantly, give yourself grace. Forgive yourself; stop judging yourself for what you’ve done or failed to do, and start looking at who you are--or to put it another way, whose you are.  Define your worth by God’s love for you.  When you forget to do that, when the baggage of your past clings and makes it hard to walk forward, then stop, ask God to take your baggage, and re-center your life on your relationship with Him.