I have no major theme or connective tissue for today, just a little things I've been thinking of and would like to share with you. Please do not attempt to take them as a whole; they certainly do not come to more than the sum of their parts. I'll try to visually separate everything on the page for you.
--------------------
I like rules. Maybe more than a so-called creative person should or is expected to, I enjoy being told what to do. I gleefully tell potential employers that I take direction well, and I really mean it. My friend P calls this my desire to "outsource my thinking," and she's spot-on--I appreciate it when someone will bother to form a plan or opinion where I have none--saves me the trouble, and provides the illusion of an ordered universe. Obvious, this won't work well with things that matter a lot to me (ie., my writing, my clothes, what I'm going to eat), but I am really appreciative of advice (or imperitives) on such low-stakes issues as where to put the butter dish, when to send thank-you notes, and where I may wear my hat.
Yep, I'm an etiquette junky. When I was a tiny, I somehow picked up the Emily Post Book of Etiquette a great aunt had given my mother for high-school graduation (in a much much different edition than pictured here). And I've been a lifelong devote to her newspaper columns, and now the family (there's dozens of'em) have a website. Lately, when I've been feeling blue or harried or as if the world just weren't up to the white glove test, I've been turning to the Post family's Etiquette Daily blog, and it's been making me feel better. I thought I'd share my story, and the link, in case it might make you feel better, too.
--------------------
Kerry Clare wrote this amazing post I think you should read, called Escape the Ego. Don't be alarmed by the fact that it seems to be about a book called Eat Pray Love--I'm not sure what that is either, but I'm wary enough of the title that I'm not going to Google you a link (sorry!). Anyway, the post isn't really about that book--it's about why we read, and write, and what happens when we do. And it contains this beautiful paragraph:
"...I read, I think, to break it down and enable me to see the world in miniature, as manageable. Which, however conversely, is to be able to look at the big picture and regard it all at once, perhaps for the very first time. Fiction is a study in the hypothetical, a test-run for the actual. An experiment. What if the world was this? And we can watch the wheels turn and this bit of sample life run its course to discover. And I don't mean that literature is smaller than life, no. Literature is life, but it's just life you can hold in your hand, stick in your backpack, and I'm reassured by that, because the world is messy and sprawling, but if you take it down to the level of story, I am capable of some kind of grasp. Of beginning to understand what this world is, how to be in it."
To which I say, yes. Also, wow.
--------------------
Paul Quarrington has died, another hard blow in a rough week for CanLit. I hadn't, in truth, read much of Quarrington's work, but I was a big fan of his live performances--a great reader, a great speaker, a surprising good singer (I saw his band, The Pork Belly Futures play in Winnipeg because I was all alone and it was either that or stare at my hotel-room wall--and they were brilliant!!) He had a wonderful big warm presence, and an off-the-cuff joy in performing. I actually went to so many Quarrington events, and just ran into him randomly at so many litsy things, that he started smiling and saying hi to me, even though he had no idea who I was. I was in the process of working up the nerve to introduce myself, and now I am not going to get to do it. Which is sad. But I will be reading the books.
------------------
And so ends another miscellaneous week. Hope this finds you well!
RR
Showing posts with label etiquette. Show all posts
Showing posts with label etiquette. Show all posts
Friday, January 22, 2010
Friday, December 12, 2008
Language, Open and Shut
Writing is the only art form that mainly strives to be not itself. Any serious writer dwells in the beauty of language, the elegance of phrasing, sound and rhythm, but over the long-term, the longer-than-a-sentence term, good writing strives to make you stop seeing it, stop seeing the words on the page and start seeing the images and characters those words create. As a writer, I want readers to feel my stories as people and events, not in ink on paper.
To achieve this, of course, the writer is reliant on language, the very thing she wants to make you not see. To achieve an image that transcends ink and paper, you need language like a stone polished so brilliant that we see only the reflection of the world, and not the stone's surface at all. The rightest word must be the most precise and specific, penetrating and resilient, in order to engage the reader in creating the image in his or her mind. If you just say "tree" the reader might see a budding maple from outside the window of her third-grade classroom, or she might see dying yellowed pinetree on the shoulder of an Alaska highway, but more than likely, the reader will just see the Times New Roman letters t-r-e-e, and nothing more.
A writer seeks to corner an image, an emotion, a sensation--to make it stay put for a minute so a reader can get a sort of fleeting, slantwise glimpse of what the writer sees in *her* head when she thinks about trunks and branches and leaves. You can never do it completely, and some writers are ok with more gaps in the fence than others. The task allottment might differ from writer to writer, or text to text, but the project of creating meaning in a story, novel or poem is always a joint one between writer and reader.
In conversation--well, in good conversation--statements are like story-writing. When I describe my day, date or dinner to you, I'm trying to give you enough information that you can recreate it in your own head. Same as a story. But dialogue is a much more delicate dynamic than text, and we not ever *just* offering information--in conversation we ask for information in return. And there is a very different linguistic necessity in asking questions, or even opening topics, than there is in making statements/telling stories.
I've had considerable sensitivity training, in the formal sense (there are many life experiences that qualify as sensitivity training, I know) and one of the things I've been taught is to open language as wide as possible, to leave space in a question for *every possible answer*.
You'd think that'd be easy--by the very fact of asking a question, we admit we don't know the answer. But quite often, the words we use to ask can imply that we believe we know the range of the answer. When I point at a woman's wedding band, and say, "How long have you and your husband been married?" that's (say it together, grad school kids) heteronormative. When I suggest that an acquaintance buy a certain item, I suggest I know she can afford it. When I make an idle joke about a colleague being "off her meds," I imply that I know she's never taken mood-stabilizers.
And, as we've so often established her at Rose-coloured, what do I know?
Most people are tough enough to weather such slights, and generous enough to forgive them. But it's alienating, absolutely, to misapprised (literally, mis-seen) again and again. And if one is going through a particularly vulnerable time, maybe you aren't that tough. Around this time of year, there's a lot of seemingly inoccuous queries about family that could be truly upsetting if your family is dead/abusive/too distant to afford plane fare. Never even mind that we aren't all celebrating the same holidays--even as a Jew who enjoys Christmas, I don't find it so unreasonable that *everybody* stick to saying "Season's Greeting" to those whose denomination is unknown.
That my version of "open" language comes from sensitivity training leaves me open to a little bit of mockery, sometimes, and other times is just confusing. I am so well programmed (I actually eventually taught the class) that I really fear hurting someone by asking loaded questions like, "How was your Mother's Day?" "Why don't you buy a new one?" "Are you going to talk that over with a friend?"
So I'm a little over-delicate--I don't ask a lot of questions if I can't make them very neutral. Because I am actually passionately curious (read: nosy); I want to know everything about your life you feel like telling me. But there's the thing, I want to know *anything*--and if I slant the question so that it sounds like I already know, or expect to know, why would you speak at all?
When I tell a story, on the page or in conversation, I want to give you the gift of what I know, more or less elaborately done up with paper and bow. When I ask a question, I want to give you clean a clean and empty box, with the flaps folded back, to make it easier for you to give me anything at all.
Can I put this lightly?
RR
To achieve this, of course, the writer is reliant on language, the very thing she wants to make you not see. To achieve an image that transcends ink and paper, you need language like a stone polished so brilliant that we see only the reflection of the world, and not the stone's surface at all. The rightest word must be the most precise and specific, penetrating and resilient, in order to engage the reader in creating the image in his or her mind. If you just say "tree" the reader might see a budding maple from outside the window of her third-grade classroom, or she might see dying yellowed pinetree on the shoulder of an Alaska highway, but more than likely, the reader will just see the Times New Roman letters t-r-e-e, and nothing more.
A writer seeks to corner an image, an emotion, a sensation--to make it stay put for a minute so a reader can get a sort of fleeting, slantwise glimpse of what the writer sees in *her* head when she thinks about trunks and branches and leaves. You can never do it completely, and some writers are ok with more gaps in the fence than others. The task allottment might differ from writer to writer, or text to text, but the project of creating meaning in a story, novel or poem is always a joint one between writer and reader.
In conversation--well, in good conversation--statements are like story-writing. When I describe my day, date or dinner to you, I'm trying to give you enough information that you can recreate it in your own head. Same as a story. But dialogue is a much more delicate dynamic than text, and we not ever *just* offering information--in conversation we ask for information in return. And there is a very different linguistic necessity in asking questions, or even opening topics, than there is in making statements/telling stories.
I've had considerable sensitivity training, in the formal sense (there are many life experiences that qualify as sensitivity training, I know) and one of the things I've been taught is to open language as wide as possible, to leave space in a question for *every possible answer*.
You'd think that'd be easy--by the very fact of asking a question, we admit we don't know the answer. But quite often, the words we use to ask can imply that we believe we know the range of the answer. When I point at a woman's wedding band, and say, "How long have you and your husband been married?" that's (say it together, grad school kids) heteronormative. When I suggest that an acquaintance buy a certain item, I suggest I know she can afford it. When I make an idle joke about a colleague being "off her meds," I imply that I know she's never taken mood-stabilizers.
And, as we've so often established her at Rose-coloured, what do I know?
Most people are tough enough to weather such slights, and generous enough to forgive them. But it's alienating, absolutely, to misapprised (literally, mis-seen) again and again. And if one is going through a particularly vulnerable time, maybe you aren't that tough. Around this time of year, there's a lot of seemingly inoccuous queries about family that could be truly upsetting if your family is dead/abusive/too distant to afford plane fare. Never even mind that we aren't all celebrating the same holidays--even as a Jew who enjoys Christmas, I don't find it so unreasonable that *everybody* stick to saying "Season's Greeting" to those whose denomination is unknown.
That my version of "open" language comes from sensitivity training leaves me open to a little bit of mockery, sometimes, and other times is just confusing. I am so well programmed (I actually eventually taught the class) that I really fear hurting someone by asking loaded questions like, "How was your Mother's Day?" "Why don't you buy a new one?" "Are you going to talk that over with a friend?"
So I'm a little over-delicate--I don't ask a lot of questions if I can't make them very neutral. Because I am actually passionately curious (read: nosy); I want to know everything about your life you feel like telling me. But there's the thing, I want to know *anything*--and if I slant the question so that it sounds like I already know, or expect to know, why would you speak at all?
When I tell a story, on the page or in conversation, I want to give you the gift of what I know, more or less elaborately done up with paper and bow. When I ask a question, I want to give you clean a clean and empty box, with the flaps folded back, to make it easier for you to give me anything at all.
Can I put this lightly?
RR
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Clod
I have an intense devotion to etiquette, brought on by a lot of underaged reading of Amy Vanderbilt and Emily Post. I have thoughts, which I try not to share, on how one should conduct oneself regarding coasters, hairpins, floral arrangements and divorce. The reason I do not share these things is that they are antiquated and unhelpful, and most people only find my rule-following annoying and compulsive, not, as it is meant to be, respectful and friendly.
And then when there is a rule that I could usefully follow, such as RSVP, I drop the ball. I have been corrupted by modernizing forces, aka Facebook--where RSVP is not the French acronym for the polite imperitive, respondez-vous, s'il vous plait but a vaguer suggestion, "respond if you want it to show up on your wall, if you want someone to save you a seat or a sandwich, or if you feel like it. No committment required; feel free to ignore if unavailable/uninterested."
Such is the social climate of Facebook--that's the way it works, and it is respectful to follow the rules of Rome when there. But Facebook is not the Governor General's awards, and despite the fact that I felt very sad about not being about to go, it never occurred to me to call and tell anyone this, despite the swirly-script RSVP clearly printed on the invitation. So I now also feel very sad about making the nice GG people call me to find out that I will not, in fact, be there tomorrow.
I have learned a lot from this experience, and will be rereading my Post and Vanderbilt shortly. Until then, if you are going the GGs, or any of the attendent amazing events, have an extra good time on my behalf.
Stared at the grown-up feet while they danced and swayed
RR
And then when there is a rule that I could usefully follow, such as RSVP, I drop the ball. I have been corrupted by modernizing forces, aka Facebook--where RSVP is not the French acronym for the polite imperitive, respondez-vous, s'il vous plait but a vaguer suggestion, "respond if you want it to show up on your wall, if you want someone to save you a seat or a sandwich, or if you feel like it. No committment required; feel free to ignore if unavailable/uninterested."
Such is the social climate of Facebook--that's the way it works, and it is respectful to follow the rules of Rome when there. But Facebook is not the Governor General's awards, and despite the fact that I felt very sad about not being about to go, it never occurred to me to call and tell anyone this, despite the swirly-script RSVP clearly printed on the invitation. So I now also feel very sad about making the nice GG people call me to find out that I will not, in fact, be there tomorrow.
I have learned a lot from this experience, and will be rereading my Post and Vanderbilt shortly. Until then, if you are going the GGs, or any of the attendent amazing events, have an extra good time on my behalf.
Stared at the grown-up feet while they danced and swayed
RR
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Compassion
I have extremely weak eyes. Aside from being some godawful prescription that renders me unable to go to the beach with people whose hands I feel uncomfortable asking to hold, my eyes also water at almost anything. Pepper, bright reflections, laughter: all render me teary. Wind is the worst--it totally reproduces the effects of tragedy on me. In addition to streaming tears, wind actually turns my eyes red; even the edges of my nose. If I have to walk very far on a windy day, I look like my heart is broken.
Which never used to matter, until I became a pedestrian in chill and populous cities. Now long walks are one of my principal means of locomotion, and I can't stay home because it's gusty. Thus, I find myself the recipient of many compassionate stares as I stroll through Toronto, bouncing to my iPod, carrying my groceries, looking like I'm about to throw myself on the casket. People offer tight-lipped smiles, encouraging nods, nervous stares. Bus drivers look horrified, possibly worried I will look to them as authority figures to solve whatever problem I am having (many, it seems, do).
I can't explain, because no one ever asks. Not once in all my watery years in Toronto has anyone asked the question I see itching behind their own eyes: "Are you ok?" Compassionate people, Torontonians, but even compassion has its limits.
A little boy under a table with cake is his hair
RR
Which never used to matter, until I became a pedestrian in chill and populous cities. Now long walks are one of my principal means of locomotion, and I can't stay home because it's gusty. Thus, I find myself the recipient of many compassionate stares as I stroll through Toronto, bouncing to my iPod, carrying my groceries, looking like I'm about to throw myself on the casket. People offer tight-lipped smiles, encouraging nods, nervous stares. Bus drivers look horrified, possibly worried I will look to them as authority figures to solve whatever problem I am having (many, it seems, do).
I can't explain, because no one ever asks. Not once in all my watery years in Toronto has anyone asked the question I see itching behind their own eyes: "Are you ok?" Compassionate people, Torontonians, but even compassion has its limits.
A little boy under a table with cake is his hair
RR
Monday, March 31, 2008
The Writers Trust Dinner
...is where I went tonight and now I need to stay up an extra twenty minutes past my bedtime (already long past) to tell you about it.
I was Very Worked Up about this event, as you may know. If you did not know anything about it, the Writer's Trust sponsors and organizes a large number of awards and other programs for writers. For instance, the Journey Prize, for which I am short-listed. Their big gala is tomorrow, when the winners will be announced, but since nominees, employees and board members had not yet met in most cases, and because many people had travelled from quite far to be there, they gave a dinner party beforehand to bring us all together.
What a wonderful idea, despite the fact that it combines all my love/hates--strangers, famous people, eating standing up. But I had my annual hair-straightening indulgence this afternoon, and wore make-up and my party tights (argyle!), so I felt semi-ok after a few minutes wandering around introducing myself to people I didn't know. The people from the Trust were really friendly, and tried to introduce everyone to everyone, plus there was a speech where all present were given little intros. It was quite interesting to put faces to some of those names; people look very different when they are moving and talking than in a little window on the back of a book.
I have also learned a little bit of wisdom about writer-parties, which I will share, in case you need it: writers are perceptive and observant. They notice body language and respond to it, so if you reveal in your posture or gaze that you are feeling uncomfortable, some writer will likely arrive at your side and try to set you at ease. On the other hand, writers know other writers to be weird, so if you pretend you are having a grand time staring at this bit of the wall where it goes behind the bookshelf, writers will think that's plausible and leave you to enjoy yourself uninterrupted. So I looked uncomfortable because I was uncomfortable, and numerous people were very kind, and then I wasn't uncomfortable anymore and I just looked like myself.
And I only lost one bit of food to the floor. If you are reading this, dear host, there is a baby carrot under the chaise lounge and I'm really sorry about that. Otherwise, it was a wonderful wonderful night.
Good night!
Set out for / a great adventure
RR
I was Very Worked Up about this event, as you may know. If you did not know anything about it, the Writer's Trust sponsors and organizes a large number of awards and other programs for writers. For instance, the Journey Prize, for which I am short-listed. Their big gala is tomorrow, when the winners will be announced, but since nominees, employees and board members had not yet met in most cases, and because many people had travelled from quite far to be there, they gave a dinner party beforehand to bring us all together.
What a wonderful idea, despite the fact that it combines all my love/hates--strangers, famous people, eating standing up. But I had my annual hair-straightening indulgence this afternoon, and wore make-up and my party tights (argyle!), so I felt semi-ok after a few minutes wandering around introducing myself to people I didn't know. The people from the Trust were really friendly, and tried to introduce everyone to everyone, plus there was a speech where all present were given little intros. It was quite interesting to put faces to some of those names; people look very different when they are moving and talking than in a little window on the back of a book.
I have also learned a little bit of wisdom about writer-parties, which I will share, in case you need it: writers are perceptive and observant. They notice body language and respond to it, so if you reveal in your posture or gaze that you are feeling uncomfortable, some writer will likely arrive at your side and try to set you at ease. On the other hand, writers know other writers to be weird, so if you pretend you are having a grand time staring at this bit of the wall where it goes behind the bookshelf, writers will think that's plausible and leave you to enjoy yourself uninterrupted. So I looked uncomfortable because I was uncomfortable, and numerous people were very kind, and then I wasn't uncomfortable anymore and I just looked like myself.
And I only lost one bit of food to the floor. If you are reading this, dear host, there is a baby carrot under the chaise lounge and I'm really sorry about that. Otherwise, it was a wonderful wonderful night.
Good night!
Set out for / a great adventure
RR
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Department of Bad Days
In a land far far away, Wren is posting again, and there is much rejoicing. And she informs us that someone said that today is the most depressing day of the year, which seems about right to me, the afternoon, anyway. Even before I read that insight, I was working on a list of the 10 worst things people have ever said to me. These are social context, not yelling on the street or anything--the people who said this stuff allegedly like me. In fact, some were actually flirting. Tomorrow, I'll go back to 1000 Things of Positive Goodness, I swear. Because tomorrow is not the most depressing day of the year.
"Is that a lisp I detect?"
"What do you mean you haven't read *Harry Potter*? I thought you *loved* books?"
"It's good to see a woman who isn't self-conscious about how much she eats."
"Where are you from? I mean originally? I mean your family...what *are* you?"
"You're a proofreader? I found a typo just the other day..."
"If you've never seen that tv show, I'll just give you a little backstory."
"Oh, I don't drink either. Just some wine on special occasions, or beer if it's really hot, or like before dinner..."
"Hey, you're a writer? That's so cool, I've been looking for someone to tell about my idea for a novel."
"You always wear something interesting."
"You know what's wrong with the publishing industry? Too many Jews."
Humanity sorta makes you want to weep sometimes, doesn't it?
Oh shoplifter / why did you take her?
RR
"Is that a lisp I detect?"
"What do you mean you haven't read *Harry Potter*? I thought you *loved* books?"
"It's good to see a woman who isn't self-conscious about how much she eats."
"Where are you from? I mean originally? I mean your family...what *are* you?"
"You're a proofreader? I found a typo just the other day..."
"If you've never seen that tv show, I'll just give you a little backstory."
"Oh, I don't drink either. Just some wine on special occasions, or beer if it's really hot, or like before dinner..."
"Hey, you're a writer? That's so cool, I've been looking for someone to tell about my idea for a novel."
"You always wear something interesting."
"You know what's wrong with the publishing industry? Too many Jews."
Humanity sorta makes you want to weep sometimes, doesn't it?
Oh shoplifter / why did you take her?
RR
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
What would you do?
If you had been involved in a conversation that didn't go that well, and later you looked up the word "meretricious" (attractive in a showy way; plausible but not genuine) and you realized you had misinterpreted it as "meritorious" (deserving reward or praise)? Would you go back to the person and explain your error? Or just let that person think it's your values and not your vocabulary that's wanting?
I ain't that lonely yet
RR
I ain't that lonely yet
RR
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
