Take a moment: grammar lessons

Marilyn Monroe may have contributed to the stereotype of the “dumb blonde,” but this bright woman had better writing skills than most today who consider themselves “smart”

Great writing can be rendered mediocre by a failure to utilize correct grammar and punctuation. As an editor, I see this time and again; poor grammar skills, though, are so common nowadays that one needn’t look farther than the email correspondences at work to experience the shock and horror.

Shock and horror… A little dramatic, maybe - but let’s remember: our language is often all we have with which to communicate. While the subtle energies of our conscious world may continue to guide us even as we embark on new technological social platforms, some of the basic modes of communication that we have evolved to rely on are simply lacking in modern times. Tone, pitch, scent, body language, facial expression, energy field - these are some of the many modes of expression we use, usually subconsciously, to express ourselves. When we text, instant message or email without them, our words must speak for themselves, something that might sound simple and obvious. They’re words! It is simple, when we use our words well.

Common misuse of language obscures meaning by rendering our writing difficult to follow. We end up failing to communicate what we intend as a result. We also force our reader to reread and reread in an attempt to demystify the complications in our prose, causing frustration over their extra expense of time and energy, and ultimately, a potential jadedness with us - the writers - and our cause.

Here are the most common mistakes I encounter, some which can be caught quickly, others which lead a reader down a perilous journey of confusion. And let’s be clear: I catch myself making these mistakes ALL the time. With the average education in grammar these days, we’re all guilty. The key is catching the mistakes before hitting “post,” “send” or “print.” Note: No doubt I’ve committed one of the crimes below in this very post. Catch me if you can.

1. Employing basic punctuation: the comma, colon, semicolon, dash, apostrophe. I find these punctuation marks under- and overused, and although it may seem like a small crime since they are not “words,” these little dots and dashes are actually hugely instrumental in conveying meaning. They are words, in their own way. Silent words. They speak the unspoken elements of our language - the pauses that pepper our speech.

A comma suggests a short pause, a gentle break, to avoid run-on or to split up informal list items.

A colon suggests a call to attention, leading us to a focal point: perhaps a formal list, a sweeping conclusion, or a heady insight.

A semicolon allows us to pause between two complete thoughts, but without the conclusive weight of a period. Its two component thoughts are connected; they are two parts of the same whole, despite being complete sentences on their own.

A dash functions like a stronger comma, or a softer colon - a longer pause than a comma would incite, but with an easier transition than what follows the colon.

An apostrophe is multipurposed: signifying ownership (Jerry’s laptop), creating a conjunction (wasn’t property), implying the omission of a letter (of the U.S. gov’t), or making a plural out of an abbreviation (or property of the European govt’s). An apostrophe does NOT make a plural of a full word. Laptops is the plural; not laptop’s.

2. It’s vs. Its: This is an extension of the general punctuation (apostrophe) issue, but it deserves special mention. It’s means “it is.” Its implies “belonging to it.” This is easy!

3. Affect vs. Effect: These words are so similar in spelling, in how they sound, and their meaning - it’s no wonder we swap them incorrectly all the time. They both can function as a verb and a noun, only further complicating their usage. The general rule of thumb to remember is that affect is usually the verb. This word can affect us. Effect is usually the noun. This word is an effect of language. But because they can double-duty, you can effect change (verb), and have an affect (noun). Using effect as a verb or affect as a noun requires a more specific definition of the words. The noun “affect” refers very specifically to an emotion or feeling - it’s really a psychological term. An affect is what happen to our reader when we traumatize him with our language. The effect in that situation is the miscommunication we experience. To use the verb functionality of “effect,” we must combine it with an object. Our grammar studies effect the good writing we desire to create.

4. Improper use of words: This one is a doozy. It applies to so many words I cannot list them all, but my general advice is to look up the definition and usage of a fancy word before using it. We tend to use words we have heard or read without fully understanding how they function, resulting in their abuse. For example: “An important criteria” sounds ok, right? We hear the word “criteria” so often that we have never considered to look it up: criteria is the plural! The sentence should read: “An important criterion.” Add dictionary.com to your bookmarks and consult it frequently.

5. Overuse of the passive tense, or passive voice. The rebel was caught by the king, the rose was plucked by the woman… The passive voice is immensely useful when used in moderation and at appropriate times. When overused, it clutters our language. While some discourage ALL use of the passive voice, I believe that it can and should be used when it enriches the language. Because it rarely adds to our language, it should not be used often. Judging its success is really up to the writer, but a general guideline is: use the passive voice when you want to place emphasis on the the thing to which the action is directed, not the director of the action. If you want to emphasize the rebel or the rose, use a passive tense; if you want the emphasis on the king or woman, use the active tense - the king caught the rebel; the woman plucked the rose.

6. Which vs. That: We can use “that” far more frequently than “which,” but “which” sneaks its way into places it doesn’t belong. The egg which hatched should be The egg that hatched. Knowing when to use “which” involves a basic trick: the clause following “which,” if removed from the sentence, should not prevent the sentence from making sense as a result of its removal. The egg, which hatched, produced an adorable chick makes sense without the “which” clause: The egg produced an adorable chick.

There are times when “which” and “that” both make technical sense in a sentence, but you must consider how each changes the meaning of that sentence. Using the above example: The egg, which hatched, produced an adorable chick suggests to us simply that the egg hatched. The egg that hatched produced an adorable chick implies there are other eggs - eggs that did not hatch. You’ll know not to use “that” if there is a comma involved. “Which” always follows a comma.

We also must use “which” in a qualifying statement, usually about a noun, involving a preposition, e.g. the egg, upon which we contemplate life’s beauty, inspires us.

Nothing To Lose But Our Illusions

an interview with David Edwards

David Edwards: It’s not enough to just sit there and have compassionate thoughts. Your compassionate thoughts need to be reflected in what you do. How can you aspire to compassion and yet work for an arms manufacturer? You need to help other people.

Derrick Jensen: What do you say to people who feel they are busy struggling to get by and don’t have time to help others?

Edwards: Once you start to see through the myth of status, possessions, and unlimited consumption as a path to happiness, you’ll find that you have all kinds of freedom and time. It’s like a deal you can make with the universe: I’ll give up greed for freedom. Then you can start putting your time to good use.

Jensen: And if someone says, “But the problems are so big, what can one person do?”

Edwards: Once you realize that helping others is also helping yourself, the size of the overall problems becomes irrelevant. You’re not a one-man or one-woman army out to save the whole world. You help simply because it does good and it feels good.

What Child Is This? by Irene Merring

When Irene approached me for her “What Child Is This?” project, I didn’t have to think before saying “yes.” As an artist, I let me intuition decide for me at times. The reality of the project: no time for us to create some new (and relevant) photography; impending deadline; completely new concept - a Christmas theme. As a designer, I tend to cringe with holiday themes - the cheese factor is always looming, and finding a unique and meaningful way to tie in a holiday to an existing brand is much more challenging than it looks.

Thankfully, the light bulb went off in someone’s head - Irene recalled some portraits of herself in a long, hooded silver gown. While we might typically imagine muffs, Santa hats, scarves and mittens for Christmastime apparel, I couldn’t help but notice that her hooded gown - aside from the silver - felt so appropriately Biblical. A long, hooded garb is the archetypal garment of the Middle Eastern nomad, perfectly suited for the three kings who visited the newborn Christ. And like those gift-bearing wise men, Irene is generously giving us this track for free. You can download it here.

Thrive: What on Earth Will It Take

Watch here.

This documentary has a lot going for it. Its sources are fantastic. Its research is deep. Its message profound.

It also has a few things going for it that will certainly prevent certain individuals from seriously entertaining it:

(1) A Science Fiction Bent. Yes, it talks about aliens. It “goes there.” But it does so with an open mind to all possibilities, rather than the fanaticism we see on, say, Ancient Aliens, which would be entirely inappropriate. Are we so self-centered as a species that we can’t accept an honest discussion about extraterrestrial life? Even the Vatican has released a statement condoning a belief in aliens (no doubt in attempt to update the Catholic Church’s image with a scientific inevitability - their war against science is a losing battle).

(2) Cheesy Production. Its production is certainly challenging at first. The effects and music are an obvious deliberate attempt to add drama. But I think the intentions are pure, and we can be forgiving. I work in a creative industry, and I know from personal experience how a visual concept, in all its metaphorical and symbolic glory, can fall flat once executed. To this film’s credit, though, a sci-fi model does work thematically, when we consider the actual points it makes. After getting over my initial embarrassment (it’s our own embarrassment at watching something bad that gets us, right?), I rather liked it. The visuals are entirely effective.

(3) Idealism. This is the real doozy: The overall message is perhaps too grand for some to conceptualize, because it deals with a basic facet of human nature we have yet to reconcile with: whether we are inherently good or bad.

In attempting to discover what is wrong with the world, this film proposes that, if we can conquer these issues, the world that we will find ourselves in afterward will appear utopian by comparison. This probably looks like bullshit to many. We are taught to reject idealism from an early age - pretty much once our beliefs in Santa and the Easter Bunny are squashed. Darwin tells us that this world is the survival of the fittest, and the extension of that is the conclusion that human nature is inherently not good enough to allow us to coexist peacefully. But we need to remember that, although Darwin proposed a fantastic new model of evolution, his model alone is still not enough to fully explain the origins of man, specifically how our brain has developed. The more bones we unearth from the ashes of the earth, and the deeper we probe our own minds, the more perplexing our developmental history truly is. We aren’t taught these mysteries in grade school. Rather than experiencing Darwin as the theory it is, factional and vulnerable to criticism, it tends to be shoved down our throats as final, prevailing proof that God doesn’t exist and we live in a straight and linear world, one that doesn’t surprise us. And yet, if we actually took the time to research our own world more thoroughly, we would find that this world surprises us again and again, because we know so little about it.

What we do know is this: humans have an immense capacity for positive and negative emotions. We are just as capable of violence as we are love and compassion. Or are we? Because it seems to me like love and compassion are much stronger in most people than their darker sides, and not because of fear for retaliation; it is a pure and natural desire for happiness that creates positive emotions and actions. Whatever love is, it’s VERY real. Philosophers have contemplated whether it evolved as a mechanism of defense in a cruel world - mothers protect children, fathers protect families, extended families or villages protect each other. But this does not explain the compassion we feel for people who are completely unrelated and perhaps continents away from us; nor does it explain our compassion for animals, particularly those who, instinctively, we should fear. (Marilynne Robinson’s Absence of Mind has a great section on this topic) While many cynics try to suggest that without laws and an armed government, the people would crumble into anarchy and chaos, I only have to look around at my friends, neighbors and family to admit: No. We would continue functioning without assaulting, cheating, stealing and generally being bad people, because we are, inherently, “good people,” people who find happiness in human relationships that depend on honesty and goodwill. Conditioning is powerful stuff, but that would imply that all people would be destitute without the conditioning. We see love, compassion and immense cooperation amongst remote populations of people all over the world, many who have had zero contact with the Western world until recently. If they can cooperate and thrive in such primitive conditions, why can’t we? Why are we so selfish despite our many comforts?

We encounter examples of human selfishness on a regular basis - we are taught to believe that, living in Darwin’s world, we can’t escape our primitive need for “survival,” which has become a loose concept applying to anything we think we need, since everything can be boiled down to the basic level reproduction; money, power and all material things are our vain attempts to impress our mates and build our empires. Apparently, we are told, ALL humankind has behaved this way for ALL history. But this is simply not true. Science prefers simple explanations - the simpler the better. But simpler isn’t always true. Let’s analyze human behavior on a smaller scale. If it is in our nature to form a hierarchy, it would occur in all facets of our lives, including our “private” lives. What we find in looking closely at our private lives is a nation-wide movement spreading to REJECT such a hierarchy. What we find are women and homosexuals and interracial couples fighting for their rights to be not just “equal,” but more specifically, equal to the “norm” prescribed by our society. We also find more evidence that the “bad” behavior we see in others is often a side effect of some sort of mental disease, rather than a healthy dose of natural violence and aggression. Given the toxic environment we live in today, I suspect such diseases are proliferating, and that’s not a comment on human nature; it’s a sign of how unhealthy our planet is. It is our society - made up of government, media and business - that prescribes the norm, and it is the people who are fed up of having to choose between being ostracized or forced into submission. It appears that we instinctively wish to be equal with our partners, as equal as possible with our children, and equal with other citizens; we mostly desire to live in a cooperative way that promotes unlimited growth and accepts us for the people we truly are, because we know our true natures are no threat to anyone else. Regardless of what we are taught and what our stance is on world peace, we intuitively know that if we were allowed to live as we are without restriction or judgment, we wouldn’t hurt others.

If that is what we innately desire, what is stopping us? First of all, we are mere citizens. We do not make the laws. We vote, but we vote for preselected candidates in an election we have nothing to do with. In essence, we have no direct control over how our country is run. However, in numbers alone, we should, in theory, have the capacity to topple anything we want. We don’t, because we aren’t able to spread the message and mobilize enough of us to action. Not because the end goal doesn’t appeal to the vast majority of us; but because most of us have been successfully conditioned to believe that it’s not possible. That it’s ideal. That we as individuals are powerless. And that, in fact, is a topic discussed in the film - how our education and media train us to judge and fear anything outside of our status quo. I believe this is an inherent quality in all people to some degree - fear of the unknown has helped us to survive, but this fear is so primitive, and so based on a specific context (life or death) that we can overcome it - we have had to, in order to develop into such dramatically different beings than our apparent origins. But if this nature of ours is encouraged, nurtured, allowed to proliferate during our development, the conditioning can be difficult to shake.

And that appears to be the case. Ideals are just that - ideals. Ideals are for fools.

Never mind that the major innovators of our history were ridiculed in their time, just as we ridicule new ideas today. Never mind that the major social movements in the past century were considered idealistic in their time, but eventually succeeded.

Never mind that we accept vast changes in power, empires and lifestyles as the course of history in textbooks we read in school. Just as WE are on the verge of experiencing ourselves. IF we would accept that history continues.

Time out for poetry

If you are new to this blog then you may be unaware of the poetry, which has moved here. I don’t know if I picked up a paint brush or pen first in this life. Both have served me well. (I do know that I used a computer at a very young age - young for my generation, and I’m still deciphering how healthy that is turning out.)

This poem came to me from a friend who has battled cancer four times. Four times. It felt very poignant to me because I think its message can ring true to you no matter what kind of struggles you have endured or are enduring.

“Wild Geese” by Mary Oliver
 

You do not have to be good.
You do not have to walk on your knees
for a hundred miles through the desert,
repenting.
You only have to let the soft animal of
your body love what it loves.
Tell me about despair, yours, and I will
tell you mine.
Meanwhile the world goes on.
Meanwhile the sun and the clear
pebbles of the rain
are moving across the landscapes,
over the prairies and the deep trees,
the mountains and the rivers.
Meanwhile the wild geese, high in the clean blue air,
are heading home again.
Whoever you are, no matter how lonely
the world offers itself to your
imagination,
calls to you like the wild geese, harsh
and exciting
over and over announcing your place
in the family of things.

© 1986 by Mary Oliver/Dream Work

Kundalina with Sat Jivan Jamila

Fall in New Mexico is glorious. It begins with an Indian summer, but not the lingering kind; it’s a gentle, even progression into cooler weather, when the scent of burning leaves fills the air.

During the warmer part of fall, just before the trees began to color, Brett Adamek shot me in the foothills of the Sandia Mountains during a Kundalini Yoga-inspired meditation. If you are unfamiliar with Kundalini, you can learn more about it here. It is one of the most interesting types of yoga I have tried.

Despite the prickly cactus and evening gnats, this was the perfect location for channeling and raising one’s kundalini energy. The setting sun of Albuquerque has the spiritual quality of a Raphael painting. Its penetrating rays spiraling down to earth are god’s fingers, if such a thing exists.