Introduction

I want to thank Doug Hawley for accepting the open invitation to Saragun Springs. I would go to a lengthy introduction, but through his words, I feel, Doug does a great job introducing himself. There is a fine line between being a wise curmudgeon and a pain in the ass, and I find that Doug keeps (mostly) on the correct side of that divide. Of course you would not be reading this if I thought otherwise. We welcome you to his world beginning today and on through Friday.

Leila

Mr. Writer

Fran Leibowitz wrote an honest book in 1981 which told it as it is. Homosexuals are well over represented in the arts, not that there is anything wrong with that. They earned it with talent. That isn’t the point I want to make, but it does illustrate her honesty. Another thing she said (I may be paraphrasing, it’s been a long time) is that there is only one “ize” and that is fertilize. That’s a little overboard, but I hate to see “weaponize”. Does it mean “use as a weapon”, then say so. There are a couple of worse ones: “incentivize’ and “medicalize”. It is to ralph.

It really hurts when I see some variation on “Baseball is where (could be when) there are nine players on a field”, particularly by someone who is supposed to be a writer, or even literate. Ask anyone “Is baseball a location or a time?” Even many politicians know the right answer.

A couple of words are being changed for no good reason. Past tense of cast has been cast, but now I’m seeing casted. Google backs the old man on that one. “mike” has been the short form of microphone for years, now “mic”. Because the object is pronounced mike-ro-phone, I object. The pro audio industry backs me up according to Google.

As a certified fogey, I object to the verbing of nouns, and the nouning of verbs. I may be given a task, but I will never be tasked with. No one may approach me with a “big ask”. I might be amenable to a request. I could go on, but I’m sure you’ve seen enough.

A rogue’s gallery of clichés (being introduced by a cliché) which have become intolerable:

“Walk it back” for lied or mistaken

“Optics” for appearance

“Receipts” for proof or evidence

“At the end of the day” I welcome Morpheus, I don’t come to a conclusion

When I was an actuary, one of my jobs was to write insurance policies. The job was mostly assembling boiler plate, but our government overlords were concerned about readability for the poorly educated. In order to pass that hurdle one had to get a high Flesch score. Despite the name, it wasn’t the least bit sexy. Short sentences got high scores, sentences with clauses got low scores. Something like “Then” “he” “left” would get a winning number. I don’t know if Flesch affected books, but I think it is the reason newspapers started to break up sentences into choppy parts to prove readability. In order to reach the lowest level we get writing that keeps stopping at the wrong place. Clauses are evil; starting a sentence with a conjunction is divine according to the rule makers. I still believe that a period is a red light, not a green light, and will write for an educated reader.

Some people, perhaps someone from Literally Stories may disagree, but I hold out for “issue” meaning something debatable, not a sore back or a grammar error Using “issue” for mistake, error, or problem looks like weak tea to me. Call it what it is: Broken arm, not an arm issue.

As the president of the Society To Preserve Affect And Effect, I’d like to destroy the ubiquity of “impact”. An asteroid hits the earth, sure that’s an impact. I get sick from the flu, that’s the effect of a virus. Someone steals my license plate that affects me. “Impactful” is the evil child of impact.

“Community” and “actually” are two words which are frequently unnecessary, and in the case of “community” misleading. I live in Lake Grove which is a community. Scientists, Polish people, the disabled, and so many more that are labeled community show no characteristics of “community”. “Scientist” is a profession, “Polish” is a national group, and the “disabled” share a status. There is no difference between “scientists” and “scientific community” that I know. Community has become a pointless writing twitch and actually has been redundant for a long time, but still used. Compare “He went to school” and “Actually he went to school”. They say the same thing.

Periodically I see the advice: “Develop a brand.” I believe brands are for cereals and live stock. A writer with a brand is predictable and not that creative. It may sell books, but it stifles creativity.

Brevity is good. I don’t know if Stephen King included that in his book on writing, but if he did he’s not following his advice. I like to write with the economy of Hemingway. No metaphors, similes, or description of the furniture unless relevant.

As an uneducated writer, I ignore these two writing rules. Eschew adverbs, and show, don’t tell. It may happen, but I doubt that a reader who comes to “she drank thirstily from the faucet” concludes that he is reading a poorly written story, even if a lit professor objects. “Show don’t tell” works in graphic novels, but many people still read the Bible with all of its “tell not show”, and telling is an efficient way to provide information.

I know I’m fighting a losing battle, but it allows me to keep my curmudgeon badge.

.