Category Archives: Stuff That Defies Categorizing

Five-Dollar Vocables in Fiction


I have a decent vocabulary that includes a few five-dollar vocables I might casually drop if I should ever find myself at a Mensa meeting. Words like terpsichorean, which refers to dancing, and even better, boustrophedonic, which describes the plowed  furrows left by a turning ox (or tractor).

 

But generally in my writing I eschew such terms because as a reader, I find they pluck me out of the story and plop me back into the reality I intended to escape.

I’ll make an exception, though, for the novel my book club recently read: Eleanor Oliphant Is Completely Fine, by Gail Honeyman. Set in Scotland, the story is about a socially backward woman who devours books she selects at random, and even though she’s not intending to sound erudite, her speech often has a textbook quality. So when Eleanor sent me to the dictionary a number of times, I wasn’t annoyed because I understood this to be an important character trait.

Some of the words:

  • friable: easily crumbled
  • rhotic: an adverb describing dialect in which the “r” sound is hard (e.g., American Midewestern, as opposed to Scottish)
  • badinage: humorous or witty conversation
  • rebarbative: unattractive and objectionable

Your thoughts? Leave a comment.

Quotable

You must do the thing you think you cannot do.

–Eleanor Roosevelt

Banished Words–No, Not That List

It’s that time again. On New Year’s Day, Lake Superior State University released its 43rd annual List of Words Banished From the Queen’s English for Mis-use, Over-use  and General Uselessness.   (You can see my post on last year’s list and the history of the list here.)

So, on to some of the 2018 words and the selection committee’s comments:

  • Tons–Refers to an exaggerated quantity, as in tons of sunshine or tons of work. “Lots” would surely suffice.
  • Impactful–A frivolous word groping for something “effective” or “influential”
  • Unpack–Misused word for analyze, consider, assess. Concepts or positions are not packed so they do not need to be unpacked.
  • Gig economy–Gigs are for musicians and stand-up comedians. Now expanded to imply a sense of freedom and a lifestyle that rejects tradition in a changing economic culture. Runs a risk of sharecropping.
  • Drill down–Instead of expanding on a statement, we “drill down on it.”

I have to agree with all the terms selected with the exception of “gig economy.” I think it perfectly fits the Uber drivers, retail workers, and others who string together a bunch of jobs to make a living without a safety net.

What are your thoughts? Leave a comment.

Quotable

It is often forgotten that (dictionaries) are artificial repositories, put together well after the languages they define. The roots of language are irrational and of a magical nature.

–Jorge Luis Borges

 

 

 

 

Bannned Words From the Thought Police


It’s too early for the 2018 Banished Words List. New Year’s Day is when Lake Superior State University in Michigan releases its list of really annoying words.

But that light-hearted romp has been eclipsed by another list, one that bears the imprimatur of the  White House, which we can now think of as the Thought Police. According to The Washington Post, Trump has ordered the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to eschew (my word, not Donald’s) the following words in any official documents submitted for next year’s budget:

  • vulnerable
  • entitlement
  • diversity
  • transgender
  • fetus
  • evidence-based
  • science-based

Reaction has been swift. Mother Jones   has offered replacement terms, such as snowflake for vulnerable, deviant for transgender, and atheist for science-based.

I found an enlightening response from the blog Quartz which sought to put the terms in context by citing some statements from previous CDC budget documents. You can really see how scary the word vulnerable is, for example, in this from the CDC: “The United States remains deeply committed to safeguarding the American public from terrorists, just as we are committed to providing refuge to some of the world’s most vulnerable people.”

And from Donald’s favorite platform, Kavian Shroff tweeted: “Keep this [the banned words’ list] in mind the next time the Administration uses “free speech” as an excuse to defend Nazis.”

I can’t wait for the cartoonists’ take on this subject.

Quotable

Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.

–George Orwell, 1984

NovelWords Cafe Gets a Facelift

My apology for the repeated posts you’re receiving. Can’t figure out how to change/add features to the blog without publishing it. I’ve known for a while that NovelWords Cafe needed overhauling, mainly because the blog hasn’t kept pace with my publishing career. The need came home to me recently when I went to a public library’s web site and, among all the featured buttons, like “Library Policies, Library Calendar, Library Events, etc.” there was no button for the libraries catalog. I had to scroll down to the bottom of the page where I found a humble URL with a link to the catalog.

So even though I’ve had links to information about my novel, Compromise With Sin, there’s been no place to click and actually buy the novel. So I’m fixing that. I have links to Amazon and to a brick-and-mortar store. (If you ask your favorite bookstore to order my novel and they do, I’d be glad to put that link on my blog.)

Writing Cinquains

Did you know that Ray Bradbury began each writing day by writing a poem? I recently met a poet who, among other things, writes cinquains. I’d forgotten about this poetic form. I used to write them occasionally.

Such a simple form that gets to the essence of word choice. Each of the five lines has a specified number of syllables: 2, 4, 6, 8, 2.

“In the Scheme of Things”
Thinking
“First world problem”
Smacks me like a dope slap.
It’s a costly tooth extraction.
So what?

Quotable

You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.

–Ray Bradbury

A Year of Scrivener

For several years I watched other writers worship at the Scrivener altar before I joined the congregation. Several things happened to move me in that direction. I was starting my new novel, and some messianic folks in Austin Novel in Progress testified as to their Scrivener experiences at a tent meeting. (OK, I made up the tent meeting part.)

Before I go further, what is Scrivener? It’s a comprehensive management software program for writers of just about anything: books, screenplays, academic journal articles, etc.

Scrivener, the product of a company called LIterature and Latte, puts everything at my fingertips and allows me to move scenes around with ease. When I’m at a place where I can’t recall a character’s age or hair color, I just click on the character sketch I created and there it is. In that character sketch, I sometimes include a picture to refer to. For example, I have a character who resembles Liam Neeson, but I can’t conjure pictures in my mind, so the visual reference is very useful.

I could go on and on about the powerful features of Scrivener. After using it for the past year, I must say it’s been well worth the steep learning curve. Like any religion, Scrivener has its own language: corkboard, inspector, compiler, etc. My advice to anyone who decides to join is to consult the tutorial videos on YouTube. I found them much easier to follow than Scrivener’s own tutorials. For starters, I recommend “Scrivener: A Quick Review of How It Works and Some of Its Coolest Features,” by Karen Prince.

Basic cost of the software is $45. Academics and students get s break. You can download a free trial at Literature and Latte. 

Your thoughts? Leave a comment.

Gift Ideas

Writers and readers on your gift list? See my post from a year ago, “Unplugged Gifts for Writers and Readers.”

Quotable

A dogfight on a Denver street is more important than a war in Europe.

–Frederick Gilmer Bonfils

Happily Losing Yourself in Words

When Lolly Walter recommended a site called Online Etymology Dictionary, I consulted it a few times, mainly to make sure a word I wanted to use in my historical novel meant what I thought it did. That’s how I figured out that a scarf was not a woman’s accessory in Victorian times, something confirmed by my friend Elaine Jabenis who, among other things, authored books on fashion. (While a scarf might seem trivial to you, it figures prominently in my story, so I’ve had to do some scrambling.)

Not until I decided to browse the site did I discover its riches. I can get happily lost there, reading about how words came about and reading such pieces as Into the Words: an editing diary.  Here the site’s creator talks about working on dictionary entries, and I realize that letters have personality.

For example, he refers to RE as quicksand. “Any dictionary-writer would shudder at the mere mention of it. Crossing it risks sanity. The Romans concocted it, but the English got addicted to it in the 19th century and affixed it to literally everrything. . . .”

And “W is the insane asylum of the dictionary. Weird, wary, worrisome. . . . By the time you sort out wrack, wreck, rack, wreak, you’re probably ready for a padded cell yourself.”

It takes a little sleuthing to get a peek at the wizard behind the curtain. His name is Douglas Harper, a historian, author, journalist, and lecturer. You can read some of his writings and learn something about what makes him tick at a site called The Sciolist. (That’s an archaic noun meaning “someone who pretends to be knowledgeable and well informed.”)

What do you think? Leave a comment.

Quotable

Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing.

–Benjamin Franklin

Define “Women’s Work”

The idea that time and culture influence the meaning of words came home to me on a recent visit to Pecos National Historical Park in northern New Mexico. What remains there are ruins of a pueblo first constructed around 1100 A.D., and a church built sometime after the arrival of a Spanish Franciscan friar in 1621.

This church, big enough to hold all 2,000 residents of the pueblo, comprised some twelve million adobe bricks, no doubt made on site. Each brick weighed forty pounds. The builders? Women. It’s said that the friar attempted to enlist men to do the work, but they ran away rather than do “women’s work.”

In addition to being brick masons (masonettes?), the women covered the structure with adobe plaster. The exterior required re-plastering six times a year to shield the masonry from water that could seep into cracks, then freeze and expand, and weaken the building.

I’m reminded of a talk I heard the anthropologist Margaret Mead give one time. In studying varied cultures, she observed that each defined tasks by gender, so that in one society weaving was women’s work while in another it was men’s. Regardless of who did what, she said that universally men’s work was considered to be more important than women’s.

Remnants today?

Leave a comment.

Quotable

No two persons ever read the same book.

–Edmund Wilson

Christina Baker Kline at Texas Book Festival

Had a chance to attend a presentation by Christina Baker Kline at last weekend’s Texas Book Festival. Kline is best known for writing Orphan Train: A Novel and A Piece of Time. It has been suggested to me that I ask her to endorse my novel, Compromise With Sin, which is similar to Orphan Train in that both deal with actual early 20th-century events. Sending her a book is on my long to-do list.

In a slide-show presentation, Kline presented behind-the-scenes glimpses into the writing of A Piece of Time, a story about Andrew Wyeth and Christina Olson, his longtime muse and the figure in the famous painting “Christina’s World.” To give an idea of how iconic the painting is, Kline showed parodies of the painting, ranging from Princess Leia to Wiley Coyote.

In doing extensive research, Kline serendipitously met a seasoned docent at one of the Wyeth museums. Kline was in a tour group being led by someone else when the docent, who was observing the group, pulled the writer aside. “I see you’re taking notes,” she said. Kline explained she was writing a novel. “I can tell you everything you want to know.” That’s what I hope will happen to me on our upcoming trip to Santa Fe, the locale for about one-third of the novel I’m currently working on.

Tim and I also attended a session at the book festival called “Sea Change: Wading in the Waters of a New Climate.” Its significance for the purposes of this blog has to do with an apt metaphor Cambridge University Professor of Physics Peter Wadhams used. Wadhams, the author of A Farewell to Ice: A Report From the Arctic, was asked if our planet is at a tipping point. In answering the question, he explained what a tipping point is: “You can poke a lion with a stick and it wakes up and goes back to sleep, but if you poke it too many times, it wakes up and eats you.”

Quotable

It is what you read when you don’t have to that determines what you will be when you can’t help it.

–Oscar Wilde

Falling Star: Kirkus Revised American Heart Review

Being awarded a star by Kirkus Reviews is a big deal for writers. Have I mentioned that Kirkus gave Compromise With Sin a star? Forgive me while I milk that as long as possible.

After the elation of getting a star, I don’t know how I’d feel if Kirkus revoked it. That’s what happened to Laura Moriarty. Kirkus Reviews made news last week by revising a review and snatching back the star that had been awarded to her young adult novel, American Heart.

The reason? Many readers of the novel had posted on Twitter and Goodreads saying that the futuristic story about  a white girl overcoming her own prejudice to help a Muslim girl escape from a detention camp promoted an “offensive white savior narrative.” Kirkus reacted to the uproar by re-assigning the novel to the reviewer, a Muslim woman who specializes in YA fiction. She revised her original review, adding that the story is told through the filter of a white protagonist about a Muslim character, and revoked the star.

(Does anyone else notice the peculiar language here, as though “white” must mean “non-Muslim” and “Muslim” must mean a race other than “white?”)

Moriarty noted that the takeaway for writers is not to even try to write about people different from you. “Kirkus just really, really pushed things farther in that direction.”

Oh, please. As a writer, I see that I have a responsibility to be fair in depicting cultures other than my own, but I can’t be afraid to go there. I probably will offend some people at some time.

As for American Heart, could you ask for better publicity?

Here’s the NPR account of what happened. 

Leave a comment.

Quotable

When a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.

–Samuel Johnson

The Mortality Fallacy


No, this isn’t a spooky Halloween post. So why the tombstone? It’s because I want to rant about one of the most common errors people who should know better make when it comes to life expectancy.

How many times have you heard that a hundred years ago most people died–pick a number–before they were 45, 50, 60?  Yet maybe you had grandparents who lived into their 70s, and if you visit an old cemetery and look at the dates on tombstones, you’ll find lots of people who lived very long lives.

OK, I’m not disputing that Americans in the 21st century can expect to live longer than their counterparts in the 20th century. But there’s a popular fallacy about life expectancy. It has to do with looking at “average” life expectancy, something that was seriously skewed by high infant mortality rates in the past.

The best way to look at life expectancy is to take the view of actuarial tables, which look at it this way: in a given year, someone who’s 20 years old can expect to live another X years while someone who’s 40 years old can expect to live another Y years, etc.

So here’s what it looked like in 1900:

A baby born in 1900 could expect to live another 48 years. Does that mean most people died before age 50? No. This number reflects the high probability of the child dying in infancy or early childhood.

A child aged 10 in 1900 could expect to live another 50 years.

Someone aged 30 in 1900 could expect to live another 35 years.

(Statistics are from the National Bureau of Economic Research.)

Leave a comment.

Quotable

Those who do not want to imitate anything produce nothing.

–Salvador Dali