Abercrombie & Fitch-- Clever Strategy and Work Conditions

When I first heard about the comments attributed to Abercrombie CEO Michael Jeffries, I thought it was an Internet prank. You just never hear that kind of raw, politically incorrect, straightforward honesty from businessmen-- philosophers, writers, artists, yes-- money-hungry businessmen, no. This is professional suicide, but if done right, it can be as successful as Abercrombie & Fitch.  Part of me wants to laugh, the other part of me-- my inner fat kid-- wants to throw a tantrum along with everyone else who opposes their marketing strategy. Nothing good ever come out of such unbridled emotions, however, so let us analyze this carefully and rationally.

Abercrombie & Fitch chooses to not offer plus sized clothing, and that is fine because such is the beauty of freedom of choice.  A&F isn't running on the platform of "making every woman feel beautiful." There are plenty of other businesses who are already happy to profit from that demographic. A&F is currently running on a platform of being "exclusionary" and making the customers feel like they are in an elite category. Whether or not we wish to buy into this marketing scheme is our choice as consumers. If enough people are offended, enough not to shop there, then the business will run its course. If not, then I suppose his plan is an effective one.

What surprised me initially was not that they are exclusionary, but rather, that they are so candid about it. Marketing is usually about the pretense that you cater to everyone equally-- most people like the idea that they are all equal and beautiful, so that strategy usually works. According Michael Jeffries, though, that strategy would make A&F "vanilla" and "boring," like everyone else. "Those companies that are in trouble are trying to target everybody: young, old, fat, skinny," explains the CEO. "But then you become totally vanilla. You don’t alienate anybody, but you don’t excite anybody, either.” The fact that we're talking about Abercrombie & Fitch and not Gap would prove that right.  Plain clothes just by themselves are just plain clothes; but start telling people that they are only for the cool, thin, and beautiful, and soon you'll have even the overweight forcing themselves into the clothes; tell the employees that they are models, and they'll do your work practically for free in exchange of the title and the image it affords. (George Carlin on overinflated job titles: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5s3n26yRAU)

Isn't that at the very core of our cultural obsession with euphemisms? Many aspects of society already work that way, but few ever take the time to analyze. It isn't until somebody tells them like it is, straight to their face, that they start paying attention. Most people can't read between the lines, or take the time to understand human nature and the social contract. They buy into euphemisms and political correctness without taking the time to understand that there is a different reality beneath the mask. Most of those who move the strings of business and politics are too clever to ever make any admissions such as Michael Jeffries, who blurted out what others only think.


My Findings

Abercrombie and Fitch never caught my attention before this controversy. I had seen their larger-than-life-sized ads of well-defined abs in the front of their stores, but it didn't strike any particular interest. One sees that everywhere, all the time, so it didn't even cross my mind to assume that such modeling was part of their regular advertising campaign. What I did see is that their clothes are plain, and assumed they are as overpriced as all plain third-world sweatshop clothes with a label. The last time I saw an A&F label was on my mother's boss's shirt, on what I thought was a lazy day for him. I recall thinking, "This is a man who will waste precious business time fighting on the phone over a $2 discount, yet he doesn't mind spending more than triple the amount he could have paid for the exact same shirt, minus the label, at Fallas Paredes." Labels don't impress me, so that was the end of any attention ever given to this company.

It wasn't until I heard about this controversy that I took the time to explore the company a bit further. As someone who takes interest in labor issues and the foibles of corporate America, one of the things I always look for when researching a company is their work culture. As I was researching A&F I explored its work culture, and it sounds like an awful place in which to work. Sales associates and cashiers are called "models," which leads many to stick to the horrors just for the title (I suppose it's like every company, with its euphemistic titles of pseduoimportance).  Horrors such as standing for five hours or more, with a plastic, painful permasmile, inviting people in. If you're having a bad hair for example, they send you to the back room. Ouch! I imagine it's quite demoralizing--  wouldn't even be worth it as a high paid runway model or actress, even less for retail cashier work at minimum wage. I also read that they instruct employees to live the Abercrombie & Fitch lifestyle AT work and OUT, which is a major cult alert red flag (reminds me of this parody of cult leaders: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3wTtmrFQxI).  It is no wonder they got sued in 2009 by a girl who was sent to the back for having a prosthetic arm. Google "working at Abercrombie & Fitch," and read all the stories and personal accounts for yourself!

Slave Morality, Stones of Law, Political Correctness and Euphemisms

One of the most amusing things people do on the Internet is block a person right after they send a message. These types of people would crumble if the debate was taking place in person, because though they have much to spill out through email, they have not the capacity to withstand rebuttal. Perhaps they fear that their argument could not survive such scrutiny.

Following the distribution of my last blog, Prudish Shocks & Internet Chastity, one of the respondents wrote to me: 

It's just a matter of respecting people online. It's an agreement that YOU make when you sign up for a FB account. If YOU choose to not follow the rules then YOU are subject to the repercussions. It's not other people being prudish its you not having enough concern and respect for everyone else to respect the rules that are put in place for EVERYONE. That says a lot about who you are. You have no respect for not only yourself but for others and if you can't be an adult and respect everyone in a public setting then you sincerely need to leave a public medium. What you want to post on YOUR OWN facebook is your business but what you say in a public group, page, or forum is subject to the rules. So before you attempt to call people prudish consider what you exactly brought to the whole issue. Consider where YOU went wrong.

I couldn't reply to this because I got blocked, so I logged on from my cat's Facebook account and replied as follows: 

Hhhm. Are you sure that's what it was, cherie? Since when are you gatekeeper and protector of the sanctity of man-made rules on Facebook? Lol. No, my sweet. It wasn't that. For some reason known only to you, the comment stung you at a personal level. Then you used the stones of law to aid your wound-- you sought refuge under the tent of regulation to protect your ego. I would apologize, but I will not accept blame for an innocent blunder. If we were to hold our thoughts on account that someone, somewhere, will get offended, we might as well give up critical thought and speech.

She then creates another profile JUST to be able to reply to my original Facebook page, which she had blocked, to tell me this: 

Under Safety #6 and #7. I have no more to say. I don't have to keep trying to prove a point. The user agreement proves it for me. As of now you are harassing me. I will ask you to stop now. If you don't then whatever happens to your Facebook account or whatever legal repercussions happen then they are your own fault. If you're an adult like you're claiming to be then you'll know to knock it off.

LOL! First of all, this does not address my reply-- it only reinforces what I said originally, that she is using the stones of law and seeks refuge under the tent of regulation to protect her ego. It is a very common type of morality amongst people of inferior ability and understanding. As Nietzsche said, "I laughed many a time over weaklings who thought themselves good because they have lame paws."  The problem is that anything a person says online that borders on topics of human nature can be interpreted sexually. Where does one draw the line of censorship? Should we truly limit all of our comments to baby talk, cat photos, and Neandarthal grunts of approval? The fact that she replies and blocks shows that she wishes to have the last word without listening to the other side, typical of those who assume the position of thought-police.

The truth is, Facebook receives MILLIONS of such similar reports on a daily basis, most which get discarded or ignored. I have a friend who works there, and who has told me all about the madness and lunacy of many of those reports. You just can't police what people do or say in a place as wide and diverse as Facebook, which is one of the most visited websites in the world. That's why they have such buttons as "Delete" or "Block." In this case, we were not friends, but rather coincidentally met on a page we both liked. You can't soil your pants and cry every time you find a comment on a random page that offends your delicate sensibilities. That shows mental immaturity, a provincial nature, and limited exposure to the diversity of the world-- an unjustifiable trait even in the smallest provinces of the south, considering how the Internet has exposed us to the different habits, customs and characteristics observable in the homo sapiens species worldwide.

"People Who Complain About Annoying FB Status Updates Are More Annoying"

We are obsessed with replacing impolite terms with commonly agreed polite terms, as if a euphemism could really make the difference between our utopian rhetoric and our straightforward reality. Euphemisms and "proper" language are without a doubt aesthetically delightful, and the keystone of a pleasant and civilized society. Such grandiosity of language certainly helps narrow the gap between the loftiness of our ideals and the relative deficiencies of the state of nature. Furthermore, I admit that as a lover of fanciful poetry and beauty myself, I often prefer reading Wordsworthian literature than listening to the latest Papa Roach album. However, there is also something extremely appealing about the bluntness in the songs by Papa Roach, the callous reflections in Notes From Underground by Fyodor Dostoevsky, and the amusingly straightforward definitions in Devil's Dictionary by Ambrose Bierce. Can we allow a happy medium of both idealistic romanticism and fatalistic realism to co-exist in our speech as much as it exists in our reality?

It would be a more unpleasant world without euphemisms, but I do also believe that the mania of political correctness with which society is currently afflicted has made many otherwise agreeable people become hypersensitive and reactive to the words and opinions of others, and has henceforth created a society that has difficulty in honestly discussing issues and opinions because one never knows who might get offended and become one's enemy. What may be an innocent comment, a silly joke, or an honest opinion to the speaker, may be the tragic shoe that fits your next adversary. Better to learn the scripts of the world, the great stage, and act them well in society! Maybe the phonies had it right all along.

Prudish shocks and Internet chastity

There is a page on Facebook called "For The Love Of Black Cats (Black Cat Appreciation Page)," and just as the name implies, it is devoted to the appreciation and promotion of cats. I have always been a cat lover, so I happily join the Internet trend of cat worshiping. I enjoy looking at photos of cats as much as anyone, and the fact that I own and adore a black cat of my own compelled me to like this page without thinking twice.

It's a nice page, and I enjoy most of their posts. Last night, they posted this photo, on which I thought it would be punny to make a comment about pussy and cat-loving men:

All the women, mesmerized by the image, seemed to have agreed in hypnotic unison that the guy is "so hot"and that they'd be lucky to have him. I agree that this posed photograph evokes feelings of tenderness for the helpless feline in the hands of a protector. However, as I don't know this person and his daily attitudes toward animals, I made a general comment regarding something that actually is very common. My comment was, "True. But a lot of the times they just do it because they want pussy. :P" followed by the video right below. You would think that a smiley with the tongue sticking out would somehow show that my comment was playful and half in jest. The audience, however, did not interpret it as such.

People really got offended, something I was not anticipating. However, it is not uncommon for my simplicity and emotional directness to contrast with the artificiality of fakes. A lady about my mother's age replied, "Why do you have to make a really sweet thing into something disgusting Lady Jane? Couldn't just once people on fb just leave their morbid opinions to themselves!!!" I'm sorry, but I fail to see what is disgusting and morbid about human nature, our mating habits, and the tactics humans commonly employ in the art of seduction. People do employ such tactics, and worse ones, when seducing another. Reminds of that time when Bill Maher said we are a nation of six-year-olds who can't take it when another mentions anything about "pee-pee parts."

I didn't say it was wrong for a man to pose with cats because he knows it's going to get the attention of women. We are sexual beings, and as such we all do all kinds of things for that purpose. We are seducers and the seduced, all of us women and men. We are all victims and agents in the system that human nature so cleverly devised for pleasure as well as the continuation of the species. I don't see a point in making moral judgements over a universal human need. As for my comment, it was a playful pun on the photo and nothing more. I have a healthy and enlightened outlook toward sex, which is why I am not shocked by human nature, nor do I stutter when discussing these topics. It seems to me that the true sinners are those who try to convince the easily confused that morality is primarily based on sexuality.

Somebody else wrote to the aforementioned lady to not fret, but that I have already been reported. "Next time just report," she advised. "People will think twice when FB suspends them for a few days or permanently shuts their accounts down." My Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/athena237) is new and not much of a big deal to me, so I chuckled by the threat. I felt the way the hyenas from The Lion King must have felt when baby Simba did his baby growl, and they tell him in jest, "Ohhhhh! Do it again, do it again!" However, it does lead me to examine a bigger issue, which I see a lot in others' conversations on Facebook-- why do people always threaten to report? They sound like spoiled children in kindergarten threatening to tell the teacher and get the opponent grounded.

Seriously? Adults behind computer screens need to grow the fuck up. If I don’t like what someone has posted, I don’t report them-- I just hide their comment from my view, or unlike them, or reply! It depends on the situation. I make my point, and once it's made, I drop it and move on. I cannot stand walking on eggshells, but after this I feel like I'm going to have to think twice before posting anything on that page. That's why I unliked it. However, if for some reason I am ever compelled to comment there again, I will limit it to thought-terminating cliches, baby talk, and pictures of kittens on clouds. Nothing that has any hints of that mirror of which many humans are so afraid to look into, lest it reveals the innermost recesses of human nature from which they have been running away for so long, or covering it with euphemisms and sugarcoating.

It was hilarious when another person commented that I must hate all cats and men. What? Where in my comment can anyone make such a conclusion? It simply does not follow! Non sequitir at its finest. Of course I love cats and men, but trying to prove that to an idiot would make me feel like the bigger idiot, so I simply laughed and concluded my portion of the discussion with this quote from William Makepeace Thackeray's Vanity Fair:

"The moral world has no particular objection to vice, but an insuperable repugnance to hearing vice called by its proper name. A polite public will no more bear to read an authentic description of vice than a truly-refined English or American female will permit the word 'breeches' to be pronounced in her chaste hearing. And yet, madam, both are walking the world before our faces every day without much shocking us. If you were to blush every time they went by, what complexions you would have!"

Vegetarianism

I visited my parents yesterday, and enjoyed a great meal of beef, fried rice, and lentils which I brought from home. As we were thus engaged, enjoying the feast, we had a stimulating conversation-- one of those conversations that leaves one thinking for days, examining oneself and one's supposed beliefs.

We discussed our paradoxical nature-- we love animals and wouldn't dream of staining our hands with their blood, yet we have no problem eating these same animals if killed, sanitized and packaged by someone else behind the scenes. Very characteristic of a culture obsessed with appearances, euphemisms and political correctness. A most natural thing, I suppose, since social thought always lags behind social realities. There is always a major gap between ideals and reality; therein lies one of the roots of inner conflicts, as well as conflicts with others who imprison themselves in their dogma, then expect everyone else to join them. The goal ought to be to understand this nature, rather than blindly suppress it then see it manifest itself in aggressive ways through other ways.

We then asked ourselves if we'd be willing to become vegetarians; we all agreed that it would be difficult, probably impossible given our appetites and customs. Breaking out of cultural programming is difficult even for those of us who see through our own bullshit!

I do not rule out the possibility that I may someday become a vegetarian, but I hope I don't become the preachy, holier- than-thou type! There's enough of that in religion and the general culture.

Such are the paradoxical ways of Nature. Nature, though beautiful, has a cruel side to her-- just like Keats' belle dame sans merci.

18th Annual L.A. Times Festival Of Books-- From A Volunteer's Viewpoint

As the 18th annual Los Angeles Times Festival of Books came to its close yesterday afternoon, I was finally able to sit in the shade and enjoy the fingertips of cool breeze caress my face. As a volunteer, it was a busy but fun-filled weekend, and my only lament is that the weekend flew by so fast. As my mind floated away in my reveries, I reflected on the fact that everything in life is eventually reduced to nothing but photos, stories, and a faint memory in one's mind. Long live photography, art, and literature!

This is my second year working as a volunteer, which is an experience for which I am very grateful. Last year I worked only one shift, but this year I signed up to work all day on both days. It was a bit tiring, but I wanted the sweet exhaustion and the opportunity to delve deeper into the particulars that make this event a success. I have been attending the festival since its days at UCLA, but it's a different type of fun from a volunteer's point of view. It is for this reason that I persuaded my husband to join me as a volunteer at least for one day, an experience which he also enjoyed very much. I recommend this to everyone, if you have a chance!

DAY 1

I had originally signed up to be a speaker escort all day. On  Saturday morning, however, I was approached by Larry Deckel, who is the Director and Volunteer Coordinator, and asked if I'd like to be a Bookworm (which is a supervisory/ leadership position). Though it is something that I would like to do, and though I was flattered, I had to turn it down because I just didn't feel ready for it. Bookworms attend two special trainings prior to the event, and even though Larry assured me I'd get enough on-the-job training to execute my duties, I didn't want to commit to something I wasn't certain of. Besides, my hubby was with me that day, and I had promised I would remain with him in order to guide him through his first time volunteering at a campus he doesn't know well. By the way, Larry is an amazing person to work for! The epitome of what a good leader ought to be.

For our first shift we worked at Signing Area 4, where Janet Fitch was one of the signing authors at the time. I thought it was an interesting coincidence because last year I got to escort Janet among other authors. However, the area got so crowded that I didn't even get to see her. I wasn't an escort, so my job there was mainly to work with the public, regulate lines and write people's names on a Post-In to make it easier on the author. Sadly, many people only get authors' signatures in order to be able to sell those books on eBay or Amazon, so I didn't even have to write everyone's name. Despite the fact that it was very hot and sunny out in the field, the time went by surprisingly fast and before I knew it, it was the end of our shift. We took our lunch and headed out to the Speaker Escort area for our next assignment.

Lunch time!

Conversation panels are by far my favorite assignment as they are truly the meetings of great minds and movers of the imagination. Aside from taking front row seats reserved just for us, escorts get to join the rest of the literati in the room and enjoy the event like any other guest.

I really enjoyed the conversation "Memoir: Close To Home," moderated by Samantha Dunn with authors Megan O'Rourke, Emily Rapp, and Rebecca Solnit. What stands out the most is when Emily said there is a tendency in our culture to psychologize writers, and when Megan mentioned a writer can mean one thing but others will totally miss the point. Isn't that simply the truth?! As a blogger myself, I know that from firsthand experience What's a writer to do? Not care and continue doing one's thing. After all, as Rebecca Solnit quoted an author: "The world is not made of molecules, it is made of stories." The self is the greatest work of art! Keep on telling those stories!

I really liked listening to Emily Rapp because she grew from being a blogger to a published writer. She talks about neuroticism and channeling energy creatively through writing. She seems like such an energetic and fun person to get to know. Rebecca Solnit was also amazing, and I am grateful for the opportunity my husband and I had to talk to her alone as we were walking her back to the Author Room. She told me to add her on Facebook, but unfortunately she has so many friend requests already that my request didn't go through.

The next conversation whose speakers I had to escort was "Publishing: Fresh Blood," which was an interesting conversation about the world of publishing. It was moderated by Johnny Temple, featuring Betsy Master, Miwa Messer, Michelle Metering, and Chad Post. It was interesting to listen to an agent, an editor and a publisher talk about the "real world" and the politics of getting one's work published. I am not surprised to find that a big majority of it consists of personality (what I think is Machiavelian skill), politics, and marketability. Commercial potential is a huge thing agents, editors and publishers look at. With that being said, if it is fame an author wants, simply know the culture and cater to it. For example, we live in a culture of short attention spans, so it doesn't shock me at all to hear about the great success of a book which consists of 530 pages and only one sentence. It is simply typical of the culture. Every era gets the fairy tales it deserves.

DAY 2

I worked at the Graffiti Wall "What's On Your Plate" for half of the day, which was a lot of fun. Work tools consist of a bucket of bright-colored Sharpies, and the job is simply to have fun with it. How cool is that? :) One is to call out of passers-by and invite them to write what's on their plate-- literally. It could be what they had for breakfast, what they ate the day prior, or their favorite food.  The idea was to write the name of a food item-- ANY food item-- but some folks let their imaginations run wild and wrote their names, phrases, quotes, and random messages. Observe:

I noticed this AFTER the fact.

Me, inviting guests over to share what's on their plate!

Bacon! Of course.

My contribution to the wall is circled in magenta.

Very close to us was a long line of food trucks, one of them which caught my attention: The Boba Truck! I love boba drinks, so I simply had to take a quick break and try them out. I got a pomegranate black tea with boba, and it was simply deliciously refreshing-- perfect way to cool down under the hot sun.

 

My last assignment consisted of escorting a group of authors to their conversation panel. The panel was called "Politics of Poetry," featuring Carol Muske-Dukes, Lewis MacAdams and Sholeh Wolpe, and moderated by Douglas Kearney. As every conversation at the Festival of Books, it was intellectually stimulating and fun to listen to. The authors discussed the role of poetry in politics; as they were thus engaged, I kept thinking about Percy Bysse Shelley's famous quote, "Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world." Just then, Carol Muske-Dukes brought up that very same quote I was just thinking about, which made me smile. I wanted to speak out, "I was just thinking about that!!" Haha. They agreed that all language is political because it contains the whole history of a culture.

They were all fascinating, but my favorite person to listen to was Sholeh Wolpe, who was born in Iran and has lived in many different places through the world. She talked about the fact that she has an accent in all languages, and about the feeling of being in perpetual exile. The feeling of not belonging, which is common to all poets. However, it is in not belonging that the poet found where she belonged. Such is the life of a writer, Carol Muske-Dukes agreed, for writers are not fettered to anything and belong everywhere. Ah, isn't that the truth! Carol also mentioned that a writer's imagination cannot be censored, and that a good writer should be able to take any persona and write from any viewpoint-- like a good lawyer, as I would say, or as somebody who isn't afraid of any ideas, even those that oppose one's own. I have always mentioned in my blogs that it is not good to be too emotionally attached to opinions, and this reinforces that. 

Going back to Sholeh, she brought up something that I have always thought about regarding the Muslim world. A woman has to be a good girl so that she may someday go to heaven and serve good men. The men have a major incentive to be good-- they believe they will be served by 72 virgins in eternal heaven. But what about women? What do we get? What's in it for us in the Muslim world?

After my shift ended, I went back to the Volunteer Center, changed back into my clothes, and said goodbye to a few people before heading out to enjoy what was left of the fair. I was disappointed that this year, the $5.00 Or Less Bookstore didn't have a section devoted to the classics. I guess that as the agent, publisher and editor agreed on Saturday afternoon, from the business viewpoint it all boils down to marketability. As a sales person, you have to give the people what the people want. Hence, why this year's selection consisted mainly of self-help, cooking, and picture books. There were a few classics "thrown in there," as the bookseller explained.... "thrown in there!?" Like useless old rags! OH, my how my heart bleeds by the thought.

The Los Angeles Times Festival of Book was overall a mirthful event for me, and it was an honor to be part of it as a volunteer. I look forward to next year!

  


 

Easter Challenges

A couple of days ago, I decided to share this meme on Facebook in honor of the upcoming Easter holiday.

The Easter story is the story of nature-- it is the celebration of earth's return to life from winter's doldrums. Different cultures have used different stories to explain the seasonal changes, and have used different characters to personify this. The Greeks, for example, used the story of Persephone and Hades to explain these seasonal changes; in the spring, they celebrated the return of Persephone to earth in the spring Today, a great majority has a different metaphor-- Jesus. That's fine, it is everyone's prerogative to believe what they will; it's only comical when Christian believers point their fingers at atheists and pagans as if they were wrong for dabbling with different metaphors when we are simply exposing the pre-Christian roots of today's beloved and supposedly "Christian" holidays.

It's amazing how much controversy such information generates. Christians in particular become quite defensive, offended and they imply that such things are disrespectful. Yet, they can post their religious propaganda without any regard for anyone who disagrees. That's fine and that is the way it's supposed to be, but such freedoms ought to belong to both sides. Why are they such pansies when they are exposed to different views? I have defended Christian's rights to practice their religion in other blogs-- but ultimately, I defend my right to be atheist and expose pagan roots.

I do not go on anyone's page trying to change anyone's mind. That's what I consider respect. I post what I post on MY page. People can take what fits and ignore what doesn't. If others are so insecure in their reasoning that they feel threatened by anything that differs from their view, they can delete the person or hide their posts from the news feed. As for me, I am not afraid of ideas, and I do not consider it disrespectful when others post things on THEIR pages that do not satisfy my reason. It doesn't bother me to see the religious posts of others, nor do I bother challenging their views any more than I would bother challenging a great-grandfather who is already set in his ways.

In the end, "there are no facts, only interpretation," as Nietzsche said in Human, All Too Human. Don't believe me? Just look at how many different versions of the Bible there are, how many different interpretations, how many sects there are within Christianity alone. What irks me about some Christians is how they simply refuse to accept the diversity of opinion and fallibity inherent in homo sapiens. It's comical watching from a distance how emotional people get over this. 'Tis true that "Life is a tragedy to those who feel, but a comedy to those who think."

My policy is not to change anyone's mind, but simply to expose information that in my imperfect human condition, I think is worth sharing. The objective is not to get people to take my word for it, the way churches (Circe) and cults do, but rather to inspire an awakening from passive acceptance of the Sparknotes version of the Bible, to ACTIVE learning. You need to do your own homework on your own life path; nobody can do that for you.

I was asked if I think the Bible has any meaning. I think it has about as much meaning as one's favorite novels. That's saying a lot. Art is the mirror of one's innermost being.believe in god. I was also asked if I believe in gods. My response was that I believe the gods, like all characters from literature, are products of the fascinating human imagination. I am atheist and a First Amendment fetishist. That means that regardless of my beliefs, I support everyone else's right to manifest their personality through whatever metaphors they choose to paint their existence. That same freedom applies to me as well.

I often wonder if believers are aware of the fact that human beings have invented a million religions since mankind first appeared on earth. Those who believe in their god, what makes them think theirs is the right one? If I tell you that I believe in Zeus just because his existence is supported by Ovid's "Metamorphosis," would that make me any more insane than somebody who claims that Yahweh exists just because it says so in the Bible? It begs the question, a most typical fallacy in religious argument.

Nevertheless, you will always hear me talk about different gods from different religions—you’ll hear me say stuff like, “Oh, Mother of God!”, or “By Jove!” or “Oh, my goddess!”—but that is only because I am a lover of literature and fantasy. The world of arts and fiction fascinates me because it is a reflection of the kaleidoscope of human experience and emotion; where the gods of all religions are personifications of human traits and desires.

With that being said, I must add that I think Jesus is one of the coolest characters in fiction. One of my favorite quotes by him, which happens to be very relevant to this discussion is: "Do not cast pearls before swine" (Matthew 7:6). The funny thing is that all humans are so convinced of their correctness that ALL sides can use this quote to describe their situation. What does that tell you of our inherent human fallibility? And THIS, mes amis, is why I don't usually lecture or attempt conversions. I only practice intellectual liberties ams expose information from the other side. 

Book Review: Things That Makes Us [Sic] by Martha Brockenbrough

Things That Make Us (Sic): The Society for the Promotion of Good Grammar Takes on Madison Avenue, Hollywood, the White House, and the World by Martha Brockenbrough
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

I always enjoyed Martha Brockenbrough's work on MSN Encarta, but I enjoyed Things That Make Us [Sic] even more. This book not only because it reinforces everything one already knows about the English language, but also because it reminds us of lessons one may have forgotten since grammar school. Martha Brockenbrough, founder of the Society for the Promotion of Good Grammar, covers many topics, including punctuation, irregular syntax in meme culture, jargon, cliches, parts of speech, pop star and spam grammar, tenses, grammar nazis, and many more fun topics. Martha does a great job at capturing and retaining her audience's attention by sprinkling the entire book with cultural references, puns, witticisms, and sexual innuendo. It works! It had me laughing the whole time, and I even learned many things I must have slept through in English class.

Unlike other grammar books, which tend to be condescendingly preachy, Things That Make Us [Sic] has a healthy a mix of prescriptivist and descriptivist grammar. Martha Brockenbrough is one of the humblest authors I have ever known. In the beginning of the book, she tells us that the goal of The Society For The Promotion of Good Grammar is to promote "clean, correct, well-punctuated English"-- NOT for perfect grammar, for various reasons: "First, it would make a terrible acronym. Second, I am far too prone to errors despite my best intentions, and I'd lose my membership quickly. Third, perfect grammar is impossible to achieve in an ever-shifting sea of rules. And finally, there are cases when 'good' is either good enough, or better than perfect " (54). Try saying that to an English teacher-- though I wouldn't. There are some battles that will never won.

Martha prescribes how to best abide by the rules of grammar as currently followed in the English language, but is open-minded enough to accept that language is alive and in a perennial state of evolution. Martha is humble and would never admit this, but that open-mindedness is the mark of a true literati. As I wrote in another blog titled Grammar Nazism, Pseudointellectualism, and Latent Control Issues, only pseudointellectuals from the Internet seem to be the most prone to closed-minded hypercorrectness: " I believe good grammar is important. On the other hand, grammar nazism strikes me as nothing more than a diversion from the main point by people who have nothing substantial to say, and therefore try to compensate by making a show of the superficial. Like good little sheep, pseudointellectuals following rules to the letter, no pun intended. " Even Martha, the queen of grammar, warns against extreme traditionalism in grammar, and encourages readers to accept the inevitable evolution of letters which has been happening since forever, and will continue to happen forevermore.

I really enjoy the way Martha debunks many of the myths currently upheld by the staunchest grammar nazis, such as the famous rule of not ending a sentence with a preposition. "If the preposition were an animal, it would be a black cat, tarred senseless with superstition " (157). Winston Churchill, who once said that this rule is something up with which he will not put, illustrates the point and would wholeheartedly agree. The verdict is that this rule is merely a myth going back to our obsession with Latin, and that a sentence can most definitely end with a preposition, "as long as the sentence flows naturally. It's preferable, in fact, to primly tangled syntax. Imagine if Bonnie Raitt had called her song 'Something About Which To Talk'" (157). Fancy that!

Martha explains that "One reason English spelling is so tough-- a word that does not rhyme with cough-- is that our mother tongue tangled with many fathers.... French and Latin words have jumbled themselves with the original Anglo-Saxon ones, and why promiscuous English has so many interesting children. Let's face it: English is a bit of a trollop, and spelling has never been her strong suit. Even our greatest writer, Shakespeare, spelled his own name a half dozen different ways. English appears to feel bad about her slatternly ways, though. She has an inferiority complex to Latin and Greek, and many spelling exceptions heed the Latin rules" (60-61). Who can forget a lesson like that? Hilarious! Martha is a superb writer who not only is a master of grammar and clarity, but is also a highly intelligent comedian and superior strategist in the art of writing. She truly knows what jokes and references with which to capture the audience's attention at key moments of the reading.

The ultimate conclusion that I got from the book is this: no matter how annoying the pseudointellectual grammar nazis may be, and no matter how closely one follows the evolution of language throughout history, it is best to follow the grammar rules of the day. That is where the prescriptivist part of the book comes in. Martha explains that this is because "there are persnickety people out there who are not yet ready to learn that Santa, Country Sunshine, and the solemn words of Sister Sheila are not literal truths. The point of writing and speaking is to be understood, and if people get hung up on your allegedly bad grammar, you'll fail in that critical mission" (222). A mission that Martha Brockenbrough most successfully accomplishes in Things That Make Us [Sic].

View all my reviews