After so many hours spent wondering if Lost was written by teleplay geniuses, the likes of Aaron Sorkin et al, or sloppy sci-fi nerds on meth, I still can't quite wrap my head around the liberal arts orgasm that was six long years of this television thriller. I had hope; I really did. I kept on episode after episode of unsatisfying endings that continually brought more questions than answers, thinking to myself, "Surely these guys have a plan. The writing is so good in certain parts. They have to know what they're doing. This is going to be brilliant when it comes together!"
But it didn't.
Complete with polar bears, a malevolent smoke cloud, religion vs. science, logic vs. the supernatural, a grab bag of philosophical theories, Christ figures, Bible story parallels, heroes, antiheroes, heroines, and enough characters to fill Times Square, I personally assumed that any team of writers with the hubris to go this far outside the generally accepted guidelines for crafting a solid story (on national television no less) had to be worth the brain power to figure out what it all meant.
But they weren't what I had hoped for.
In the end, the show turned out to have vomited every literary tool from the profound fantasy world with conflicting laws of God, Man, and Nature to trite tension-building devices the likes of what may be seen in a MacGruber skit on SNL. A large part of writing, like many arts, is restraint. Just because one has a comprehensive toolbox (which the Lost writers obviously do) doesn't mean one has to use every tool in the box to create a quality story. After all, it doesn't take a jackhammer to build intricate cabinetry.
I appreciated their effort to get as far away as possible from the hackneyed, "lost on a island without contact to the rest of the world," story (aka: Lord of the Flies, Cast Away, Gilligan's Island, etc), but now that it's over, I have to say that I'm not sure they succeeded with this strategy. They kept it interesting and exciting, but much in the same way that one could keep his or her life exciting by constantly changing settings, partners, groups of friends, worldviews, and values (not to mention time and space) every few months so as to avoid building something deeper, lasting, and more meaningful.
I thought this was the conclusion the characters would come to--that life in the real world wasn't that much better or worse than life on the island, so why go through so much trouble and risk trying to get back there. But this is what Lost lacked.
For all its metaphor and spiritual philosophy and existential quests for life's meaning, only two were able to come to a place of enlightenment and find peace in their lives. When Rose and Bernard finally said: Look, you guys are way too restless for us. We're staying here and we're going to except that some day we will die--whether it be from an island exploding, Others killing us, black smoke tossing us into a tree, or in a car wreck back in the real world--and enjoy the fact that we're on a beautiful island with everything we need in life; I wanted to scream, "Finally!"
Every week some character would get a big idea and hike everyone to the other side of the island and they would fight with each other along the way and then get there only to realize that why they went in the first place didn't turn out to be the answer to anything. Then someone gets a different crazy idea from that journey and talks everyone into going on a different hike to another far-off place on the island (how big was this friggin island anyway?) to find some other potential clue for either, A) getting off the island, or B) figuring out the grand meaning of the island and why they were there. I'm still not sure which of these was supposed to be the big-picture conflict the characters were to overcome or that either actually occurred.
So, like many Lost fans, I spent the evening and next day after the finale racking my brain to put it all together--searching for some nugget of logic to satisfy my need to reconcile watching so much story for so little payoff--and came to much of the same conclusion as Bernard and Rose. This story was not about fate, or meaning, or relationships, or time travel. It was about trite drama and tension-building. The island was not the super-glue of life holding the universe together with its pure white life-force radiating from a cave beyond the bamboo fields. It was about keeping the story as vague and intense as possible to keep us on the hook week after week. If the dark smoke was trying to put out the "light of life," and everyone was there to stop this from happening, shouldn't we have learned this prior to two episodes before the end of the series? And since the light was put out briefly at the end with only the repercussion of some mild earthquakes, can we really believe the light was that important after all? Was it important the way pushing the button in the hatch was important--until it wasn't. If putting out the light was, as Charles Whitmore, Ben, and Jacob all implied, going to destroy the universe and everyone in it, wouldn't it have been more important for everyone to stay on the island and prevent it from being put-out rather than hastily fleeing the island only to go back to their flawed lives that would soon end if the light went out anyway?
Being brought to the island did not turn out to be about anything except the idea that Jacob had brought some of the people on the plane--because after all there was an entire other half of the plane that became Anna Lucia's crowd, who apparently weren't candidates because they weren't sitting in the front (was Jacob involved in the seating arrangement?)--as possible choices to protect the light when he died. After six seasons of leading us to dead-ends and implying false synchronizations between character's lives in a parallel universe, and false tension about what will end the world, it turns out in the final scene the moral of the story was: everyone dies? Maybe?
If this is what we walk away from Lost with, I have to say that the only characters who seemed to have arrived at this answer before dying were Bernard and Rose (very minor characters). I suppose John Locke went through some change, but never really codified a new perspective before dying and having his body hijacked by a smoke monster. Jack seemed to have gone through a change from logical naivety to confused supernatural believer, and then back to some middle-ground hybrid of the two; again, never finding anything like the enlightenment Bernard and Rose found. He still needed to fix everything; still needing to be the hero. Sawyer seemed to have come close to enlightenment during 1970s Darma era. He seemed content and satisfied with his life and community. Jack and Kate came close in the real world while raising Aaron. Hurly seemed to exist in somewhat of a transcendent realm all the way through with no real change. But--and this is for all those arguing that Lost was a character-driven story--the plot twists continually got in the way of the character's finding what they were looking for. I let this ride thinking that the real story was about the island and getting back there and figuring it out and keeping it around so the world would not explode. But they went back and immediately started looking for ways to leave again!
I wish I could give the writers more credit than I do, but alas, I cannot. Sloppy writing is sloppy writing, even if it's thoroughly entertaining until it falls apart at the end. The end is what matters. Making crazy things happen and torturing characters is easy. Resolving the conflict in a way that is neither overly sappy, nor gratuitously tragic is what makes writing great. This is usually done by not raising viewers' expectations to the heavens so that no realistic ending will ever live up to the rise in plot. Subtlety was definitely not in the Lost writers' tool box. Nor was managing a hundred characters (though spending entire episodes on the back-stories of minor characters does kill a lot of time). Had it ended differently I could have given the writers this: that people do often run around from crazy idea to crazy idea, ignoring interesting and beautiful people in their lives and not appreciating what's around them. But since, in the end only Rose and Bernard seemed to get this, it is hard to justify all that intense drama over essentially trying not to die (and in the process killing half the characters). Had the writers been writing with the end in mind, this wouldn't have happened. They had two conflicting conflicts (if you will) that could not be simultaneously resolved. Either everyone was supposed to get off the island, or everyone was supposed to figure out why they had been brought to the island and fulfill their purpose for being there. Because they were trying to do both, there really was no chance that the ending would bring closure.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
The Politics of Now
Always optimistic and painfully distracted, Americans have lost a vision of a sustainable and forward-thinking socioeconomic future. Why? There are several reasons that ultimately boil down to lack of education, impatience with long-term plans, America's notoriously myopic worldview, and perhaps worst of all, an adolescent interpretation of the word, "freedom."
Lack of Education
To some this may seem like a radical statement. After all the United States has some of the most educated people in the world living here. In fact, this is the place to come for a cutting-edge education in a variety of academic areas. But these powerhouses make up only a small fraction of the U.S. population. Furthermore, many times these intellectual giants set aside any altruistic ambitions they had for studying their field of choice in lieu of pursuing the kind of wealth that is offered by multinational corporations. This isn't always a bad thing, but as we have seen in the recent years, when the people working for the corporations are smarter than the elected officials attempting to regulate them, the temptation to set ethics on the back burner becomes very appealing. After all, who's going to stop them?
In a democracy, the answer should be, "the people." Unfortunately this would require a certain degree of critical thinking and intelligent subversiveness toward the American idealism we are taught growing up. People who possess this ability to sift through the BS and focus on the harsh reality behind the hype, often went to college, where professors have the power to tell the truth and back it up. Unfortunately, so did many of the people providing the irrational hype--they went to college specifically to learn how to very effectively create the kind of hype that keeps people buying their products, working for their companies, and voting for their politics. In an educated society, entertainers like Sarah Palin and Glen Beck would not exist. People would be outraged that one of their fellow citizens would have the audacity to say such ignorant things into a microphone for all the world to hear. They would say, "What is that opinion based on?" or "Do a study and prove it," and these entertainers posing as politicians and members of the media would go back to theater where they belong. But America as a whole does not have the gumption or the information to ask these questions. Nor do they seem to disagree with the misinformation being conveyed. When people like this are welcomed into a culture with open-arms and paid handsomely for irresponsibly interjecting nonsense into the our political discourse, what is an intelligent American to think except that they live in a frighteningly uneducated country.
Impatience With Long-Term Plans
Progress takes time, patience, and discipline. Three things of which Americans are not big fans. We want to hit a button and have immediate gratification. Whether it's surfing channels, surfing the web, or multitasking for a job, we want things to happen, right now! Creating a sustainable, healthy, and educated society doesn't work this way. It's a chess game, not a hundred-yard sprint. It's relocating hundred year-old trees, not searching websites. It requires strategy that is often complex and it takes years--even decades--to see the results. But the results are lasting. As any chess player faced with a small-minded opponent who's in a hurry will tell you, it's not difficult to settle in and frustrate this individual with a slow, solid game plan. In politics, professionals gauge their success with statistical indicators and studies. They collect data, and if what they intended to happen is happening (however slowly) they argue to stay the course. However, this does little good when they are arguing against people who not only don't understand the studies, but make full-throated arguments against the idea that facts reflect reality. Some even go so far as to suggest that what is happening in the world is a result of some supernatural happenings--that their praying is doing more good than educated people making well thought-out plans and following through on them. What's more is that even if the plan sounds good, many don't have the discipline to let the plan take effect. Some will hear a plan, listen to some entertainer (with no credentials to be speaking on the topic) bash the plan as unrealistic, or expensive, or out of sync with some arbitrary set of principles they believe Americans still value, and the next thing we know, the architect of the plan is being voted out of office and the plan is being scrapped for the tired, old, dysfunctional mantras of less taxes, less government regulations, and enforcing religious social dogmas. Which brings me to my next point:
America's Adolescent Interpretation of the Word, "Freedom"
Most Americans love this word. We toss it out like t-shirts at a pep rally. We say it in the same way a teenager tells her mother, "You're not the boss of me!" But it's a very vague noun. Freedom from what? Freedom for what? Does it mean we should scrap all rules and legislation from federal to municipal and live like anarchists? That's what pure social freedom would look like. Does it mean individuals should be able to profit from any product or service that the public demands? That's what total economic freedom would mean. Yet nearly all elected officials from the president (almost all our presidents in fact) to the mayor of the smallest town in your state implement policies that fall closer to living in a society where government dictates social behavior more than personal choice does, and free market demands control the economy more than government regulation does. By and large, when American citizens are tossing out the word, "freedom," they mean social freedom. They mean, "I should be able to say what I want, go where I want, and live how I want." Yet they vote for politicians who do not agree; who don't trust their electorate to make wise choices when left to their own devices (and for good reason based on some of the social problems our country has). When business people talk about freedom, they are arguing for economic freedom. They make more money when they are able to ignore studies about how their industry is negatively impacting the world. So, the less the government says, "Run your business in a safe, just, and ethical manner, or pay the price," the more they profit by pushing the envelope in these areas. However, this wonderfully vague word, "freedom," makes it very convenient for business people--and politicians supporting profit over the aforementioned moral values we claim to uphold in the U.S.-- to lump economic freedom in with social freedom, creating a culture of people who just want government to go away, period.
The majority of Americans--average Americans working 9-5 jobs and making in the area of $25,000-$65,000 a year per household--do not benefit when the government, "goes away," with regard to economic issues. When government, "goes away," average people can be required by their employers to work more for less wages in unhealthy environments and endure a total disregard for issues regarding race, gender, sexuality, and those social freedoms Americans get so up in arms over in the political conversation. The government, when the people use the system for what benefits them and don't vote based on wishful thinking, is the average person's first line of defense against the tyranny of the private businesses for whom they work. We elect government officials; we are employed by businesses. We have control over our government; our ability to survive rests in the hands of the people for whom we work. So do we really want to lump economic freedom in with social freedom? Are most people going to start the next Walmart or Microsoft? No. This happens for less than one percent of the population. And even if one does come up with the next great idea, should they be allowed to do whatever they want to keep the bottom-line growing?
Thus, it is very childish for average Americans to get on their soapbox about the word "freedom." Are school kids free? They're Americans. Should they be able to do whatever they want? Should child molesters? Should pimps? Prostitution is an industry. One of the oldest. There will always be a public demand for anonymous sex and illegal drugs. Should government stay out of those industries too? It's irrational and irresponsible to use the word, "freedom" so cavalierly. It is especially so when one votes based on listening to candidates who throw this word around like they're William Wallace in Braveheart; like they're going to unshackle their constituents from the very government they are a part of. Ironically, the politicians who use this word most frequently are talking about economic freedom, but leaving it open to be interpreted by uneducated Americans as talking about social freedom. Most likely these politicians are going to free their business friends from having to behave responsibly. In a country where businesses are free to make the rules, social freedoms need not even enter the discussion. It's not hard to control a population's social behaviors when you pay their bills. Employees must dress as the business says, speak as the business says, and behave in a manner that is to the business' liking. As long as a person is at work, they are not free. As long as we vote for politicians that give businesses the power to hire or fire us at their choosing, we are turning over social freedoms to private business owners. When we vote for politicians who believe in social justice, responsible (even when not profitable) business practices, and long-term plans for average Americans, we remain in control of our lives.
America's Myopic Worldview
Americans are notoriously bad at knowing what is happening outside of our borders. Last I checked, something like 10% of Americans even own a passport. Thus, we think we have it better than the rest of the world, but have absolutely nothing to compare our country to. Not only that, we don't read about other countries' cultures, religions, or customs. This tiny worldview leads to fear of the unknown and over-reaction to how the rest of the world's choices are affecting us, and visa versa. Again, in a democracy this is terrifying, both to many Americans and especially to those living in the rest of the world. When we are afraid of people who have done nothing to us, and would do nothing to us, we elect leaders who share these fears and perpetuate these fears to get elected. We become a very dangerous super-power. Imagine what a paranoid Bill Gates with nuclear weapons and a narcissistic personality would be like. Pretty scary right? He could do whatever he wanted to anyone he wanted. We have enormous power and control in the states and yet so many act like victims and vote like victims. The result is war and profiling and deportation and police brutality and hate crimes and legal torture. When powerful people get frightened over nothing, it tends to set the people around them on edge.
Midterm Elections
So as primaries begin across the U.S. in the coming weeks and campaigns start kicking into gear for November, think about what you're being told. Ask, "What is that based on?" when politicians and pundits make assertions. Ask, "Freedom for whom? Freedom from what?" when these same people start dropping freedom-bombs into their diatribes. Take a long-view of the plans politicians are offering. Will it benefit people seven generations from now? Maybe it will cost money to get started, but will it save your children and grandchildren money? And take a breath America. Overhauls like health care will take longer than six months for the benefits to become apparent, but your children will thank you for your patience. The same is true of all the regulations being hashed out right now. Is this really the time to put some dogmatic politician in office who will just fight to undo the strategies that are mostly working and mostly on the right track? Do you remember what Bush was like? Do you want to be smarter than your elected officials, or do you want educated people with well thought-out strategies to make your country a better place to live? Think. Vote. Be rational. Obama IS getting things done, but if he loses a democratic majority in congress, it's goodbye progress, and hello trouble.
Lack of Education
To some this may seem like a radical statement. After all the United States has some of the most educated people in the world living here. In fact, this is the place to come for a cutting-edge education in a variety of academic areas. But these powerhouses make up only a small fraction of the U.S. population. Furthermore, many times these intellectual giants set aside any altruistic ambitions they had for studying their field of choice in lieu of pursuing the kind of wealth that is offered by multinational corporations. This isn't always a bad thing, but as we have seen in the recent years, when the people working for the corporations are smarter than the elected officials attempting to regulate them, the temptation to set ethics on the back burner becomes very appealing. After all, who's going to stop them?
In a democracy, the answer should be, "the people." Unfortunately this would require a certain degree of critical thinking and intelligent subversiveness toward the American idealism we are taught growing up. People who possess this ability to sift through the BS and focus on the harsh reality behind the hype, often went to college, where professors have the power to tell the truth and back it up. Unfortunately, so did many of the people providing the irrational hype--they went to college specifically to learn how to very effectively create the kind of hype that keeps people buying their products, working for their companies, and voting for their politics. In an educated society, entertainers like Sarah Palin and Glen Beck would not exist. People would be outraged that one of their fellow citizens would have the audacity to say such ignorant things into a microphone for all the world to hear. They would say, "What is that opinion based on?" or "Do a study and prove it," and these entertainers posing as politicians and members of the media would go back to theater where they belong. But America as a whole does not have the gumption or the information to ask these questions. Nor do they seem to disagree with the misinformation being conveyed. When people like this are welcomed into a culture with open-arms and paid handsomely for irresponsibly interjecting nonsense into the our political discourse, what is an intelligent American to think except that they live in a frighteningly uneducated country.
Impatience With Long-Term Plans
Progress takes time, patience, and discipline. Three things of which Americans are not big fans. We want to hit a button and have immediate gratification. Whether it's surfing channels, surfing the web, or multitasking for a job, we want things to happen, right now! Creating a sustainable, healthy, and educated society doesn't work this way. It's a chess game, not a hundred-yard sprint. It's relocating hundred year-old trees, not searching websites. It requires strategy that is often complex and it takes years--even decades--to see the results. But the results are lasting. As any chess player faced with a small-minded opponent who's in a hurry will tell you, it's not difficult to settle in and frustrate this individual with a slow, solid game plan. In politics, professionals gauge their success with statistical indicators and studies. They collect data, and if what they intended to happen is happening (however slowly) they argue to stay the course. However, this does little good when they are arguing against people who not only don't understand the studies, but make full-throated arguments against the idea that facts reflect reality. Some even go so far as to suggest that what is happening in the world is a result of some supernatural happenings--that their praying is doing more good than educated people making well thought-out plans and following through on them. What's more is that even if the plan sounds good, many don't have the discipline to let the plan take effect. Some will hear a plan, listen to some entertainer (with no credentials to be speaking on the topic) bash the plan as unrealistic, or expensive, or out of sync with some arbitrary set of principles they believe Americans still value, and the next thing we know, the architect of the plan is being voted out of office and the plan is being scrapped for the tired, old, dysfunctional mantras of less taxes, less government regulations, and enforcing religious social dogmas. Which brings me to my next point:
America's Adolescent Interpretation of the Word, "Freedom"
Most Americans love this word. We toss it out like t-shirts at a pep rally. We say it in the same way a teenager tells her mother, "You're not the boss of me!" But it's a very vague noun. Freedom from what? Freedom for what? Does it mean we should scrap all rules and legislation from federal to municipal and live like anarchists? That's what pure social freedom would look like. Does it mean individuals should be able to profit from any product or service that the public demands? That's what total economic freedom would mean. Yet nearly all elected officials from the president (almost all our presidents in fact) to the mayor of the smallest town in your state implement policies that fall closer to living in a society where government dictates social behavior more than personal choice does, and free market demands control the economy more than government regulation does. By and large, when American citizens are tossing out the word, "freedom," they mean social freedom. They mean, "I should be able to say what I want, go where I want, and live how I want." Yet they vote for politicians who do not agree; who don't trust their electorate to make wise choices when left to their own devices (and for good reason based on some of the social problems our country has). When business people talk about freedom, they are arguing for economic freedom. They make more money when they are able to ignore studies about how their industry is negatively impacting the world. So, the less the government says, "Run your business in a safe, just, and ethical manner, or pay the price," the more they profit by pushing the envelope in these areas. However, this wonderfully vague word, "freedom," makes it very convenient for business people--and politicians supporting profit over the aforementioned moral values we claim to uphold in the U.S.-- to lump economic freedom in with social freedom, creating a culture of people who just want government to go away, period.
The majority of Americans--average Americans working 9-5 jobs and making in the area of $25,000-$65,000 a year per household--do not benefit when the government, "goes away," with regard to economic issues. When government, "goes away," average people can be required by their employers to work more for less wages in unhealthy environments and endure a total disregard for issues regarding race, gender, sexuality, and those social freedoms Americans get so up in arms over in the political conversation. The government, when the people use the system for what benefits them and don't vote based on wishful thinking, is the average person's first line of defense against the tyranny of the private businesses for whom they work. We elect government officials; we are employed by businesses. We have control over our government; our ability to survive rests in the hands of the people for whom we work. So do we really want to lump economic freedom in with social freedom? Are most people going to start the next Walmart or Microsoft? No. This happens for less than one percent of the population. And even if one does come up with the next great idea, should they be allowed to do whatever they want to keep the bottom-line growing?
Thus, it is very childish for average Americans to get on their soapbox about the word "freedom." Are school kids free? They're Americans. Should they be able to do whatever they want? Should child molesters? Should pimps? Prostitution is an industry. One of the oldest. There will always be a public demand for anonymous sex and illegal drugs. Should government stay out of those industries too? It's irrational and irresponsible to use the word, "freedom" so cavalierly. It is especially so when one votes based on listening to candidates who throw this word around like they're William Wallace in Braveheart; like they're going to unshackle their constituents from the very government they are a part of. Ironically, the politicians who use this word most frequently are talking about economic freedom, but leaving it open to be interpreted by uneducated Americans as talking about social freedom. Most likely these politicians are going to free their business friends from having to behave responsibly. In a country where businesses are free to make the rules, social freedoms need not even enter the discussion. It's not hard to control a population's social behaviors when you pay their bills. Employees must dress as the business says, speak as the business says, and behave in a manner that is to the business' liking. As long as a person is at work, they are not free. As long as we vote for politicians that give businesses the power to hire or fire us at their choosing, we are turning over social freedoms to private business owners. When we vote for politicians who believe in social justice, responsible (even when not profitable) business practices, and long-term plans for average Americans, we remain in control of our lives.
America's Myopic Worldview
Americans are notoriously bad at knowing what is happening outside of our borders. Last I checked, something like 10% of Americans even own a passport. Thus, we think we have it better than the rest of the world, but have absolutely nothing to compare our country to. Not only that, we don't read about other countries' cultures, religions, or customs. This tiny worldview leads to fear of the unknown and over-reaction to how the rest of the world's choices are affecting us, and visa versa. Again, in a democracy this is terrifying, both to many Americans and especially to those living in the rest of the world. When we are afraid of people who have done nothing to us, and would do nothing to us, we elect leaders who share these fears and perpetuate these fears to get elected. We become a very dangerous super-power. Imagine what a paranoid Bill Gates with nuclear weapons and a narcissistic personality would be like. Pretty scary right? He could do whatever he wanted to anyone he wanted. We have enormous power and control in the states and yet so many act like victims and vote like victims. The result is war and profiling and deportation and police brutality and hate crimes and legal torture. When powerful people get frightened over nothing, it tends to set the people around them on edge.
Midterm Elections
So as primaries begin across the U.S. in the coming weeks and campaigns start kicking into gear for November, think about what you're being told. Ask, "What is that based on?" when politicians and pundits make assertions. Ask, "Freedom for whom? Freedom from what?" when these same people start dropping freedom-bombs into their diatribes. Take a long-view of the plans politicians are offering. Will it benefit people seven generations from now? Maybe it will cost money to get started, but will it save your children and grandchildren money? And take a breath America. Overhauls like health care will take longer than six months for the benefits to become apparent, but your children will thank you for your patience. The same is true of all the regulations being hashed out right now. Is this really the time to put some dogmatic politician in office who will just fight to undo the strategies that are mostly working and mostly on the right track? Do you remember what Bush was like? Do you want to be smarter than your elected officials, or do you want educated people with well thought-out strategies to make your country a better place to live? Think. Vote. Be rational. Obama IS getting things done, but if he loses a democratic majority in congress, it's goodbye progress, and hello trouble.
Friday, February 12, 2010
The Gap (Or Why My Day-To-Day Disturbs Me)
I just finished writing a fairly scathing email to my fellow classmates and professor over a conversation we're having online debating whether a general audience understands mrems (I would explain mrems but until I research them myself, I don't know what they are either). My email was provoked by an assignment that we as technical editing students have to do for class. The assignment is asking us to solve equations related to physics, calculus, and chemistry. I have never taken physics or calculus and I took one entry-level chemistry class at age sixteen. My beef is that my professor and classmates are seriously going back and forth about what the best way to express these equations would be for the general public (my teacher arguing that most people know what mrems are). I not-so-gently explained (as I do sometimes when frustrated with either extreme idiocy or extreme intelligence that, through detachment from commonsense, lends itself to idiocy) that only 27% of Americans have a bachelors degree and 6.9% have a graduate degree and that a large chunk of these degrees are in business fields, liberal arts, and social sciences. As an English major I argued that because I have never seen equations like the three pages worth that I'm supposed to solve for homework (through magically learning three specialized areas of math and science in a week) that there is a good chance most average people have not either. As technical writers and editors our job is to break down technical information into a digestible format for average people. To do this, it seems to me that we need to be a little more in touch with what average people understand.
The bigger picture of my frustration comes from working all day with severely mentally ill people living in public housing. Every other day I hear the worst story I've ever heard in my life: voices, hallucinations, sexual abuse, physical abuse, animal abuse, drug and alcohol abuse, suicide, jail, psychiatric hospitals, grandparents raping their grandchildren, self-mutilation (sometimes of genitals)--you name it. I help these people attempt to "tune out" their ailments for an hour a week and focus on cleaning, organizing, cooking for themselves, eating something besides fast food everyday, etc. Then I get on my bike for a brief reprieve from the madness and ride to the university where I squabble over comma usage, and whether a verb is placed too far away from its subject and the evil of all evils: dangling modifiers! NO!
I understand that both realms are important. For instance, I sat down for my morning coffee the other day and started reading a newsletter that came in the mail from our state senator and had to get my editing pencil it was so bad. It made me think less of him and his competence as a senator, and was distracting from the substance of his ideas. So, I get that a well crafted document is a significant aspect of the professional world; it's just that: A) It seems rather trite in comparison to what I hear about during the earlier part of my day, and B) At some point, good enough is good enough. Most people are too busy to give a goddamn about proper grammar; they just want to access the information they need quickly and move on.
I only share this story because I think it points to the gap between what some Americans are very worried about versus the much larger chunk of people who are just trying to get through the week (and how one does very little to help the other). I consider a job well done as a writer if no one notices errors in a quick read over my material and walks away with the information they needed. In the context of say, a 1500 page technical book, which I may write or edit at some point in the not-so-distant future, an occasional typo or misplaced comma isn't going to kill anyone. Me setting off a vulnerable client at work might. The difficult part for me is that the people in my classes have no idea that people like those I work with exist in the world--no clue. And the people I work with have zero interest in the things my classmates and profs will spend thirty minutes of a class period arguing over. I don't know that this is a problem, or can be remedied, or is just life, but it definitely disturbs me on a weekly basis. How we get one privileged group of people to reach out to a struggling group of fellow citizens instead of splitting hairs over obscure information is beyond me. If you have ideas, you're a better person than me.
The bigger picture of my frustration comes from working all day with severely mentally ill people living in public housing. Every other day I hear the worst story I've ever heard in my life: voices, hallucinations, sexual abuse, physical abuse, animal abuse, drug and alcohol abuse, suicide, jail, psychiatric hospitals, grandparents raping their grandchildren, self-mutilation (sometimes of genitals)--you name it. I help these people attempt to "tune out" their ailments for an hour a week and focus on cleaning, organizing, cooking for themselves, eating something besides fast food everyday, etc. Then I get on my bike for a brief reprieve from the madness and ride to the university where I squabble over comma usage, and whether a verb is placed too far away from its subject and the evil of all evils: dangling modifiers! NO!
I understand that both realms are important. For instance, I sat down for my morning coffee the other day and started reading a newsletter that came in the mail from our state senator and had to get my editing pencil it was so bad. It made me think less of him and his competence as a senator, and was distracting from the substance of his ideas. So, I get that a well crafted document is a significant aspect of the professional world; it's just that: A) It seems rather trite in comparison to what I hear about during the earlier part of my day, and B) At some point, good enough is good enough. Most people are too busy to give a goddamn about proper grammar; they just want to access the information they need quickly and move on.
I only share this story because I think it points to the gap between what some Americans are very worried about versus the much larger chunk of people who are just trying to get through the week (and how one does very little to help the other). I consider a job well done as a writer if no one notices errors in a quick read over my material and walks away with the information they needed. In the context of say, a 1500 page technical book, which I may write or edit at some point in the not-so-distant future, an occasional typo or misplaced comma isn't going to kill anyone. Me setting off a vulnerable client at work might. The difficult part for me is that the people in my classes have no idea that people like those I work with exist in the world--no clue. And the people I work with have zero interest in the things my classmates and profs will spend thirty minutes of a class period arguing over. I don't know that this is a problem, or can be remedied, or is just life, but it definitely disturbs me on a weekly basis. How we get one privileged group of people to reach out to a struggling group of fellow citizens instead of splitting hairs over obscure information is beyond me. If you have ideas, you're a better person than me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
