A Loving Message to the Master

N.B.:  I put this on my Facebook page, too...but just in case GG doesn't DO Facebook....here goes. :-)

A message for Glenn Gould, wherever you are in the hereafter:

Dear Mr. Gould...

...Sir...

...a consummate artist like yourself...

...is there a REASON you don't observe the very clearly written REPEAT sign in the first movement of the Pathetique Sonata?

...did you talk it over with Herr Beethoven beforehand?...

...or are you perhaps talking it over with him now...

...and giggling because stumbling piano players such as I can't figure out WHAT JUST HAPPENED?

Any illumination on this, kind sir, would be appreciated.

Yours,

Janny

Writing "Stupid"

What do you think of when you see the title above?

Do you think of being "freed" to write badly?

Do you think about writing "dreck" as a first draft and being fine with it?

Well, while all those things could be the meaning of the title...

...that's not what I mean with it this time around. 

What I'm referring to is the capacity to write people in your books who do stupid things.

Having them make, in fact, decisions that you don't even agree with.

And letting them completely screw up...because they're human.

For those of you sitting there scratching your heads and wondering, "What's the big deal about that?" I can tell you that, for some of us, being courageous enough to write people who are irrational, who blunder because they're scared or timid or acting under a mistaken impression...and who make really bad decisions as a result...is hard.

The old "unreliable narrator," as my critique partner is fond of calling it, is tough to write. And I know that because I have frequently lacked the courage and/or ability to do it before.

One of the criticisms I've gotten, over the years, is that some of my characters were "too perfect." Not so much because they were too pretty, or too successful, or too untroubled--but because they were so ding-danged rational.

Not that they'd never get mad or upset or crazed; they would. 

But they'd get over it really fast...and usually by talking themselves out of it.

Using calm, reasoned, oh-so-adult maturity, and sensibility, and never flying off the handle to the point where they'd said something truly awful that they couldn't take back.

Well, there was a good reason for that.

It was because I didn't want people to dislike my characters.

And then, lo and behold, along comes Debbie Macomber....

...who has written characters who are, at times, so completely frustrating to me that I'm yelling at them as I'm reading the page. 

"No!" I'm saying, as the hero and heroine are fighting over something and sounding like children. "No! Come on, you two! Grow up! You know better!"

...or characters who want something so desperately that they go completely over the edge after it, alienating everyone around them, and messing up their relationships and lives.

To which I'm muttering, "Oh, come on, girl. Open your eyes. You're just being ridiculous."

...but the woman sells like gazillions. And is loved by gazillions.

Why?

Because she writes real people.

Real people who are snotty at times.

Who are immature. Who are vindictive. Who are stubborn. Who give up on something way too soon, or who push so hard for something that they trample on everyone in their lives. Who let themselves be led down primrose paths, or who "chicken out" before they even get to the path in the first place. Who can be myopic, and oversensitive, and miss the obvious when it's standing right in front of them, painted in 10-foot-high red letters.

In other words, they act like we all do at times.

And somehow, they end up in a happy-ever-after ending anyway.

Because they do figure out that they're wrong...before they can't redeem themselves, or the situation, or the relationship, or...

But writing people who do that takes a couple of things.

Talent, of course, first.

But even more, I think, than talent...it takes guts.

And patience. 

Because if you put your character in a mess of her own making, it's going to take time for her to clean up that mess, make amends, apologize, patch things back up, and get back to True North.

Time that you as an author have to give her.

Have to walk her through.

And, the whole time, have faith that your character will still be "likable" in the end, even if he or she's been a complete ass for several (or several dozen) pages.

Even if he or she's been...stupid.

In my latest book, I'm about to do that with my heroine.

I'm about to write her doing something I know is a bad idea.

She's even going to be told it's a bad idea.

But she's gonna do it anyway.

It scares me half out of my skin to be venturing into writing someone about to do this...

...because there's a very, very thin line between real...

...and TSTL.

And I don't want to cross it.

So, cover me, Goose. I'm goin' in.

Thoughts?

Janny

Art Imitating Life, Imitating Art, Imitating Life...

Every once in a while, you have one of those moments.

I used to call them, "Someone's following me around with a clipboard again." 

They happen when something around you, media-wise, world-wise, or other-wise (heh heh), reflects something you've thought, or done, so exactly that you wonder if someone's on your figurative heels,  taking notes.

I had one of those some time ago, in a way that will get your attention.

It happened when I heard of the death of Keith Emerson, of Emerson, Lake & Palmer.

For those of you who don't know who this guy was, trust me...he used to be the one lots of pianists wanted to be when we grew up. 😀 When it came to keyboards, the man could do anything...and frequently did. 

I never met the guy....but I felt a connection to him, nevertheless.

Because he was a direct inspiration for my first novel, FROM THE ASHES.

That book came about because I heard a story, decades ago, about how Emerson had lost a home he had--a castle, I want to say--to a fire, while he was out on tour. 

Now, can you imagine how desolate that must have felt?

To come "home" from the road...to discover you don't actually have a "home" anymore?

As I thought about it, my writer's "what-if" brain took over. And I thought, "What if the same thing happened to your musical life? What if, in effect, your musical career went up in flames in some way, and you had no "home" anymore? What would that do to you?"

Enter James Michael Goodwin, who in the first scene of FROM THE ASHES, has just finished his debut with the Boston Symphony, in which he's played his first Piano Concerto...but which also, no one else realizes, is his farewell to the stage. Because his hands have begun to succumb to arthritis and other debilitating conditions....and he's already losing his ability to play. When he also hits a composing "dry spell," he looks at his life and comes to believe his best days are already behind him. Thus, at the age of 31, he returns from his orchestral triumph, sits down, and puts a gun to his head.

In the book, of course, he's saved from death. (Or it'd be a very short book, indeed.) 

But fast-forward to 2016...and the real-life guy who inspired that scenario. 

As it turns out, that guy's hands are beginning to "go" on him, through a degenerative nerve disease. That guy actually is depressed and worried about upcoming performances...because he knows there's a day coming when he won't be able to play anymore like he used to--or maybe at all.

And thus, Keith Emerson, in the throes of that despair... sits down and puts a gun to his head.

Unfortunately, he's not in a novel. And he's not spared from death.

The "echo" quality of that sent a ripple through my mind, and my heart, that still hasn't ebbed.

Especially in the irony of how the man died...and why...

...when I had written, in effect, that very thing into a book inspired by him.

Sometimes, what we think is just "making stuff up"...has an uncanny way of ending up being a truth. An insight. A perception.

I just wish in this case it hadn't also been what almost feels like...prophetic.

RIP, Keith.

It was an honor. And...an inspiration.

And I won't ever take "inspiration" lightly... again.

Thoughts?
Janny

Happy Musical Monday, Beethoven Edition :-)

Your treat for Musical Monday: one master, played by another.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXRpSu5oRjM

Leonard Bernstein is reputed to have said about Glenn Gould, "The kid is crazy, but he can play." And "the kid" was, in fact, a little "cray-cray."  But, yeah, he sure COULD play. 

Far as I'm concerned, this is THE definitive recording of this piece. Period.

And if I'm ever stranded on a desert island, I hope I have it along. 

Enjoy!

Janny

Happy Musical Monday!

 

There's very little better than this to start a week...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3nxOF8wnMk

Thoughts?

Janny

If This Doesn't Do Something Wonderful To You, Check Yourself For A Pulse.

 Ashkenazy plays Chopin...

I put this on Facebook, but it's worth repeating here.

The wonder of this is it's 48 YEARS OLD. And I'm just seeing it now. 

All I've got to say is...wow.

Thoughts?

Janny

What's On YOUR Bucket List?

OK, I'll admit it...this came about because some texting I was doing with my BFF/"sister" yesterday. But it's not been far from my thoughts for a while.  Because when you lose someone far too early in his life, as I lost Patrick, you inevitably think of all the things you'll never get to do together...and all the things he'll never do here on earth, from his own "bucket list." 

Which makes one want to sit back, breathe, and consider.

So...what's on YOUR bucket list?

Have you done some of the things that were already on it?
If so, how did they feel?
And what's left?

I often say I can "die happy" because I saw Samuel Ramey sing Figaro at Lyric Opera. Had I had a formal "bucket list," that would certainly have been on it. And seventeen rows back, main floor, is an experience of this man and his singing that I will never forget. 

But there are other things I've always "kidded around" that were on the list, too. Except that I'm kinda not kidding about them.

Vienna is there. Learning to tap dance is there. Taking cello lessons is there. And more might be coming...who knows? 

So...share. What's on YOUR list? What have you already done? Is there anything on the list that you think you really, really want to do, but in your heart of hearts don't really believe is possible? Or, conversely speaking...is there anything on the list that, right now, you're making concrete plans to ACCOMPLISH?

Let 'er rip in the comments below!
Janny

And Yet Again, the CWC Reserves the Right to Change Her Mind...

Remember the post I wrote some time ago about having my ladder against the wrong building?

(Okay, if you don't remember it, GO READ IT. Hah!)

Well...I went and contradicted that, not too very long ago. 

By not only writing sweet romance again...but writing TWO of them. A first book, and its sequel.

And they're gosh-darned sweet.

And they're funny.

And I can't wait until they're published, and out there, and people are raving about them.

Have I given up romantic suspense, you ask?

Not at all. 

Because the NEXT book I've sent to my agent is...just that.

Romantic suspense.

With an absolutely delicious sociopath in it.

Uh, yeah.

And I'm working on another romantic suspense now, resurrecting an old book I WAS writing on for awhile, then set aside, then...

This is the way the writer's life goes sometimes.

But if you're creative, sometimes your creativity's going to come out in different forms.

I do plan to write more sweet romance, too.

As soon as I can rid myself of a few more villains...

Yes, writing is going apace now. Which is good news.

So stay tuned! 

Thoughts? 

Janny

Are You Writing Romance...Or Anatomy Lessons?

Okay, I'm a prude. I'll admit it. :-) 

Now that that's out of the way... (LOL)

Why, pray tell, do so many romance writers feel obligated to mention (in some cases in particular or humorous detail) how their hero reacts, anatomically speaking, to an attractive female?

You know what I'm talking about without my having to use the "e" word.  

To their credit, many of them don't use that word, either. That is to their credit, because that word isn't romantic. Period. It can be erotic. Romantic? Nope.

But, with very few exceptions--even among so-called "sweet" romance writers--it seems that a romance writing female can't resist mentioning how "uncomfortable" her hero gets around her heroine.

Or how he has to "shift positions" in his chair.

Or how, in one phraseology I just read, "...her smile raised more than his spirits."

To which I say, "Really? Was that necessary?"

Because guess what? It's not.

Worse than that, though...in my mind, it works against the portrayal of your hero as...heroic.

Why?

Because at that point, the hero slips a little off his pedestal and becomes just another Neanderthal guy who thinks with his hormones.

Most authors do at least differentiate between complete-stranger females and females the man has some acquaintance with, and they do seem to want to attach an emotional component to this reaction.

But that attempt fails. Because a biological or anatomical reaction is not an emotion.

Erotic attraction? Yep.

Chemistry? Yep.

But is it specific chemistry between that hero and that heroine?

Often, not at all. Because it happens way before there's a meaningful emotional connection.

It's kinda like reducing hero/heroine attraction to the old pop tune, "Nothing But Mammals."

There's nothing romantic about that song--and there's nothing romantic about hearing that the hero is turned on by the heroine. 

No, not even if you portray it humorously, or as something he "can't help" and considers an annoyance. 

Not even if you claim you're attaching an emotion to it. 

Because conveying emotion doesn't happen by focusing below a guy's belt. 

 

If revulsion is what you're going for, then, that works admirably.

But I doubt you want me to be revolted by your hero.

I think you want me to fall in love with him.

And I do want to. Honest.

So why distract me from the important stuff by focusing on the adolescent?

I'm an adult woman. I know what, anatomically speaking, is going to happen to him if he allows his thoughts to stray in a certain direction.

But I'm interested in those thoughts and emotions...not in the chemical reaction that results.

And there is absolutely nothing about that reaction that's going to convince me he's falling in love.

At. All.

If a man's feeling the right things in an organ considerably higher in his body, the rest of it is a given.

But I want to hear about that higher organ.

Not the lower one.

And especially not as one of the first reactions he has to the woman who's supposed to turn into his soulmate.

Any man can and often will react that way to any woman.

Sometimes for some very sinister reasons.

Our heroes need to be focused on higher things than that.

And so should our prose.

Thoughts?

Janny

Crikey! It's Been a Long Time!

...just to let you know...

I AM going to be blogging again regularly. 
Stay tuned!

Janny

The Virtue of "Alone"

In the last several months, I've made some substantial changes in my life, my new reality, whatever you'd like to call it.

(I know what I'd like to call it: OVER. As in, take me back to where I had my PM at hand!) 

That aside, of course, we go on with life. 
With one day after another. 
One step after another. 
Some of these days are so sad it's a wonder I can stand up. 
Some of these days are so happy I "forget" about my new reality for a while...and discover that I still have some "fun" left in me. 

I've bought a house, and I may buy an even better one soon, if I can. 
I've bought a piano, with which I am absolutely thrilled. 
I've written a new book, with which I am beyond thrilled. (The story of how that came about, for those of you who care, will probably be posted here shortly.) 

But today, I want to share something that's been gnawing at me. 
Something that is all too common in this world of grieving--but something I feel needs a bit of adjustment. 

In the grief group I go to, there are several extroverts who seemingly cannot imagine why anyone would voluntarily want to be alone. 

And this is ironic, considering that in this same group, everyone's "grieving style" is accepted, you're told to do things when you want to do them and refuse to do things you don't want to do, to take care of yourself, etc. 
All except for the dreaded state of "being alone." 

We went through an account of our holidays, and there were a lot of people at family houses, at their relatives, even at friends'...but our leader praised them in terms of "at least you weren't alone." 

Even some of the people in the group repeated that phrase, to the point where I almost stood up and made trouble. (I may still do so.) 

Because, if I may be so humble as to ask, what in hell is so terrible about "being alone"? 

One woman mentioned that she "stayed busy" because if she wasn't busy, she'd "think too much"...and our leader countered by saying that it's OK to think now and then--in fact, it's necessary to "think too much" at times. If you are too busy for busy's sake, then you don't give yourself time to grieve, to process, to remember, to sort things out. 

But it also seems to me that that "thinking" is best done...you guessed it...alone. And that, unfortunately, seems to be a cognitive disconnect even in our leadership. 

I'm here to tell you, however, that alone is not a crime. 
In fact, it's an interesting revelation to me that, while I think I'd like to fall in love again (because, let's face it, being in love is fun)... 
And while I might be willing to step out on that "dating" limb again... 
One thing that holds me back is the "what-if" of forming another married relationship. 
Which would mean not being alone anymore. 

Now, I can hear the leaders applauding in the background, and many of my fellow grief group members cheering. But I'm not setting forth "not being alone" as being a place I'm desperately trying to get to. In fact, it's a place I'm desperate to avoid right now. 

Because, quite frankly, right now, alone is a nice place to be. 

I actually like living alone. So sue me. (Not really. I'm not that rich, at least not yet!) 

But I know there's a lot of undue fretting about "living alone" that, in my case at least, is needless. 
I am not only alone but retired, which means that I set my schedule. 
Period. 
I decide when I want to go to church every week. And how many times I want to go. 
I decide when, and what, I want to eat and drink. 
I decide if, and when, I want to have TV on...when I want to play my piano...when I want to spend time at the computer...when it's time to just sit and watch a Hallmark movie and pet my cat... 

And I don't have to check with anyone about any of this. 

I do my laundry when I want. 
I clean when I want. 
I go to bed and get up when I want. 
I start a fire in my fireplace every blinkin' night, and no one bats an eyelash.

In short, I like living alone. 
Because for the first time in a very long time, I don't have to accommodate anyone else. 
I don't have to shuttle a kid to school or sports. 
I don't have to plan meals around a strange work schedule. 
I don't have to remind someone of something they need to do. Everything that needs doing around here, I do it. 

Is that sometimes a pain? Yeah, it can be. :-) 

When I really want something from the store, for example, I can no longer just say, "Hey, PM, on your way home from work could you stop at the Jewel and get ______?" 

When it snows half a foot, as it has three times already this winter, I'm the one who has to get out there and shovel it away, or I don't go anywhere. 

I don't have companionship in the car on long drives, or even short ones. 

And there are times, yes, when it feels lonely. When it feels like there's no one out there who will give a damn if I keel over tomorrow. 

But the root of the loneliness, and the gnawing "hole" inside, isn't filled with anyone but PM. No matter who else they are, no matter how much they care...it's him I'm lonely for. 
Not for "people" in general. 

For me?  Loneliness, per se, is not nearly the problem that so many people seem to think it is, or want to make it into. 

I'm not at all of the mindset that says, "If you're feeling sad, get out and be with people. It'll help."

Sometimes, it does. 
Sometimes, however, it most definitely does not. 

Even sometimes doing my normal day-to-day routine brings moments--or hours--of sadness. 
I've cried behind the wheel of my car so much I suspect it thinks that's what people are supposed to do when they drive. 

But would being with people cure that? 
It most definitely does, and would, not. 

In fact, sometimes it's "being out in the world" too much that causes that sadness. 

So for those of us out here who enjoy being, and living, alone...
Give us a little slack, extroverts. We're not using aloneness as a way to pull in on ourselves and become hermits. Some of us are just plain happy that way. 

We've figured out how to be alone and be at peace with it. 
And sometimes that peace is the last thing we want to surrender...for anyone. 

Am I lonely? Yes. For PM. That's a loneliness that won't be cured until I see him again. 

In the meantime, however, for the great majority of the time...I am content alone. 
I even relish the freedom it gives me. 

I am not "wallowing." 
I am not pining away for an endless social calendar. 
And I am here to tell you... 
There are plenty of things worse than "being alone." 

Far worse. 

Don't feel pity for me because I'm "alone." I'm fine living this way, and I will be until or unless something major happens to change things. 

But, trust me... It'll have to be earthshakingly major for me to give up this present freedom.

Thoughts? 

Janny

Word Wrestling, Part II: or, Why the World Needs Better Editors

Actual screen shot from HGTV a couple of weeks ago....

Now, I know when it comes to some of these networks, there's New York and there's Los Angeles and then there's "all the rest"...but from a network talking about real estate, specific locations, and relocations?

Yeah. Ohhhhkay.

Unfortunately...there are PLENTY MORE I can show you. 

More to come...
Janny

There's a Reason.

There's always a reason. For everything.

And there's a reason you haven't heard anything from me for over a month.
In fact, on the evening of the very day of the last post here--before this--my husband hunkered down for the night worker's normal daytime sleep...and never woke back up.

On March 31, at about 6:30 in the evening, I went to rouse him for dinner and found him...unresponsive.

It was the day I joined the New Widows Club.
This is not a club that any of my fellow widows were in any hurry to invite me to join.
We have been coping ever since.
What we have NOT been doing, however, is blogging.

Those of you who are occasionally interested in this, that is the reason it's been absent.
It remains to be seen if I will blog about anything, at any time, in the future.

Stay tuned if you like, read past posts if you've a mind to. 
But I can't promise there's any more coming.

Thanks.
Janny

Word Wrestle #10: Well, All Righty, Then!

Seriously rethinking this whole weekly Word Wrestle thing, since NO one seems to be reading it. Or at least if they're reading it, they're saying NOTHING.

So maybe I can post Wrestling when it occurs to me...and not every week.

I could go for that. :-)

Now go out and live real life, people! Have fun!

Janny

Word Wrestle #9. You Shouldn't Of. No. Really, You Shouldn't Of.

Occasionally, when I write a book review, people pick on it. 
I know, right? Like, what's with THAT?

Seriously, however...I got picked on for taking an author to task for using the construction, "I should of," "I would of," and such.

I don't believe I even was the only one to ream this person out for that construction, but one particularly persnickety reader blasted me for that, among other things she thought were "obnoxious" about my review.

(Note: when someone starts out their comment by saying, "What an obnoxious review," you're probably not going to get much credit from them.  Just sayin'.)

Her contention? "This is how people talk. So you should write it that way."
My response? "It may sound like how people talk. But it's still not how a literate writer should write it."

In truth, when we say, "I should've done ____," we often do make the words sound like "should of." It's sloppy. But, then, a lot of people's conversation is sloppy.
The point is, however, that many things that sound a certain way in speech don't get written that way in prose, and this is one of those that should NOT. 
It's wrong.
It's wrong, no matter if it's in dialogue or not.

What the speaker is saying is "I should have," in a contraction form.
That contraction is never formed with the word of.
If that's how you're forming it because you're too lazy to get it right, you ought to be called out on it. 
You form that speech pattern with an apostrophe and the "ve" at the end.
For should've.
For would've.
For could've.

And no, this isn't  being needlessly pedantic. 
And no, it's not even being needlessly precise.
It's simply trying to write the English language the way the language is normally read.
If you put in "should of," you're putting a preposition in as part of a verb, a preposition that needs an object. A noun. Not a verb.

So if you say, "I should of come," not only does it sound like you're an idiot...it'll stop an intelligent reader every time. They'll stumble over it. 

(Note I said an intelligent reader. Since half the population writes this and doesn't seem to know it's wrong in the first place, you may not get a reaction from them at all. But that's not whom I write for, and I trust it's not whom you're writing for, either.)

Bottom line? It doesn't matter whether it "sounds" like that in speech or not.
In WRITING, it still has to be written to reflect what the person is actually saying.
Which is, "I would have," "I should have," "I could have," and so on.

Frankly? If you're going to mess around with that contraction, then do it with a recognized slang form of the words: woulda, shoulda, and coulda.

Everyone knows those.
Everyone recognizes them.
And slang, boys and girls, is vastly better than illiteracy.
And an author--any author--has gotta know better.  (heh heh)

Just use an apostrophe and a "ve"...and no one gets hurt.
Is that so much to ask?

Janny

Word Wrestle #8: NOT Gonna Make You Smile

Having just discovered this, yet again, being misused in fiction...let's talk about being ORNERY.

Yeah. I know. This space for laughing. 

All personality-themed barbs aside, however, let's truly talk about "ornery." What is IS...and what it AIN'T.
And what it ISN'T...is anything funny.

Several years ago, I first encountered an author I otherwise like very much using the word "ornery" repeatedly when she should have used words like "spunky" or "sassy" or the like. She had characters teasing each other and giving each other "ornery grins."

Well, if she saw someone truly giving an ornery GRIN, she saw someone with a split personality. Because, boys and girls, that's NOT what "ornery" means.
It doesn't mean "smart-aleck."
It doesn't mean "sassy."
It doesn't mean "daring" or "joking" or "teasing."

It means, in a word, NASTY.
The definition lists synonyms like "grouchy or grumpy," "cantankerous," and even "bad- or ill-tempered," "waspish," and "irascible."
The KINDEST term for it in any dictionary I can find is a secondary definition as "stubborn."

Now, in the context that this author used it, she did not mean ANY of the things above, with the possible exception of "stubborn." However, since nothing else in the instances she mentioned had anything to do with someone being stubborn...I can only assume she had acquired some regional misapplication of the word that resulted in using the word wrong-- one that no one had ever bothered to query, so much as correct.

Not even her editors.

And that made ME ornery to see, frankly.

All of which points back to something the CWC says with annoying and even ornery regularity:
Whatever word you choose to use...make SURE you're using it right.
Even if you think you know already, LOOK IT UP.
Even if you're "sure" you know what it means, because everyone in your extended family says it that way, LOOK IT UP.
And, for heaven's sake, if you're only approximately sure what it means, or you're not really sure at all...PLEASE. LOOK. IT. UP.

There's no excuse for using a wrong word like this, over and over, in clear conveyance that you don't know what you're talking about.
There's even less reason for an editor to let it pass by.

You're never, ever, EVER going to give someone an "ornery grin." Unless you have elastic capabilities to both your face and your temperament that, frankly, would be a little scary in real life.

And misusing "ornery" around this friendly editor...will NOT make her smile.
Which will result in a red mark on your manuscript, and not make YOU smile, either.
Use lots of words in your writing. Use all kinds of them. There are something like 600,000 words in the English language, and more are being added every day. So don't be shy. Dig right in and use 'em.

Just please, please, please, please-I-BEG-you... USE THEM RIGHT.
(And they wonder why I drink.)

Don't be ornery about it...but do be picky. If you're going to call yourself an author, picky is one of the first, last, and consistent things you ought to be anyway.
And lazy, quite frankly, is not.
Learn the difference.

Thoughts?
Janny

The Cats Are Dancing!

FINALLY!

No, this isn't a case of actual felines tripping the light fantastic...it's much better.
It's the Northwestern Wildcats finally breaking into the NCAA Tournament, for the first time in 78 YEARS.
And yeah, it's kind of a big deal. 

GO CATS!

Word Wrestle #7: Stop Begging, Already!

OK, you may be wondering what "begging" has to do with a good old-fashioned Wrestle.
You won't wonder long, though, if you find it as irritating as I do to hear the phrase "begs the question" used the WRONG way.
ALL THE TIME.
By people who ought to know better.

Think about it. You can't go for more than a few days--or hours, depending on how much writing you read and commenting you listen to--without hearing some journalist, when presenting a query, say, "Of course, this begs the question..."
And then they proceed to ASK said question.
If this doesn't set your teeth on edge, you're either unfamiliar with one of the basic definitions of rhetoric and logic...or you think that "begging the question" is the same as "presenting" or "bringing up" a question.

Guess what?
IT'S NOT.
Not only is it not the same thing...it doesn't even come close to MEANING the same thing.

Basic logic lesson time.
"Begging the question," according to wiser minds among us, is defined as:
  
Any form of argument where the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises.  Many people use the phrase “begging the question” incorrectly when they use it to mean, “prompts one to ask the question."  That is NOT the correct usage. Begging the question is a form of circular reasoning.
(H/T to Logically Fallacious for this concise definition. Without swear words or anything. Better than I could do.)

Note that this "begging the question" aspect is a) considered an errant form of argument, and b) weak thinking on display. What it attempts to do is use a conclusion in order to argue its own premise. In other words, in shorthand, it's:
Claim X assumes X is true.
Therefore, claim X is true.

The example on Logically Fallacious is, "Paranormal activity is real because I have experienced what could only be called paranormal activity."

In order to say that anything "could only be called paranormal activity," one first has to acknowledge that paranormal activity is, in fact, a real thing. But that doesn't PROVE that it is...because in order to label your experience as such, you have to already accept as true that the thing exists and can be identified as such.

Are your eyes crossing yet?

Suffice to say that "begging the question" is a phenomenon that leaves a question, in fact, still unanswered--not something that presents or prompts a question.

So the next time you hear someone say, "This begs the question, 'How were you able to see that purple cow, anyway?'"....
Well, you probably know the response to that.
Most of us have always said we'd rather SEE than BE one.

Old rhymes aside, if you're brave enough, you'll also point out that the purple cow question isn't begging anything. Nor does the cow do any begging. 
And then, if your audience is truly paying attention...you can BEG them to stop misusing this phrase. 
And tell them why they're misusing it.

You will strike a needed blow for logic and clear expression.
And the purple cow will thank you.

Milk it!
Janny

Word Wrestle #6: What Time Was That Again?

Okay...This is actually starting to get a bit scary.

What's with people writing stories nowadays in which the tenses are all mixed up--not only in the same paragraph, but sometimes in the same SENTENCE? I've just finished skimming a potential editing project in which the author actually used past, present, and future in one sentence. And, no, they weren't talking about time travel. This was supposedly normal narrative.

When I first encountered this, I thought it was a couple of clients with bad habits and/or bad instruction. However, it's become so rampant now that I can no longer assume that. The only thing I CAN assume, therefore...is that NO ONE is teaching verb tenses in school anymore. I don't mean sketching around them, touching on them briefly, and then going on to "more interesting" things in the language. I mean NOT TEACHING THEM AT ALL.

If this is the case, WHY and HOW did this happen?

Please don't get me wrong. Slang is one thing. Informal, casual speech is one thing. But when I see a narrative sentence that says something like, "She and her brother had never ventured out of the safe area in their lives, so they don't know what they experience when they will..." and so on? This makes a reader's head hurt. Which strikes me, oh, I don't know, as something YOU DON'T WANT TO DO?

It's not DIFFICULT to learn verb tenses. In English. No. Really. It's not. In fact, it used to be common sense. It used to be that you couldn't get out of school without nailing these things. But now, it's basic error I see in manuscript after manuscript from people who think they're writing books, even people who claim those books HAVE BEEN EDITED ALREADY.

By whom? The legendary 100 monkeys with computers, allegedly writing Shakespeare?

This isn't a matter of pedantry. It's not a matter of being "picky." It's a matter of communicating clearly what you mean. And it should worry people who call themselves writers, above all. Because in this age of people taking every single word you say or write, pouncing on it, and giving it their OWN spin to paint you in negative terms...why would you be content writing anything that a) makes you look stupid, or b) is completely unintelligible?

I suppose the upside is that if everyone is equally stupid, they won't do you any lasting damage. But I'm not in a position where I'd recommend anyone take that chance.

The up side, I suppose, is that editors will be getting more work than ever. The down side, however, is that that work should be aimed at higher levels than needing to correct what should have been basic, fourth-grade grammar. 

I'm an editor. Not an elementary school teacher. I'm willing to do my job...but, apparently, there are a swackload of others who are not willing or able to do THEIRS.

And so it continues.
Pardon me while I go take a painkiller now. Or, maybe, six.

Thoughts?
Janny