How Soon is Soon?

In January, a friend told me that she would soon receive a promotion.  In March, my bank emailed an announcement to its customers that soon it would have a new program for its business accounts.  Last week, my boss reminded us that tax season would be over soon.

According to Webster’s dictionary, “soon” means “almost immediately, shortly, rapidly, in a short while.”  To my mind, soon is within a week or two at most.

So, my friend, whose promotion will effective on June 1, received her promotion eventually, nearly five months after she was told about it.  My bank still has not issued any information about the new program so their “soon” is actually defined as “when they feel like it.”  The only statement remotely close to being accurate is the one made by my boss because the official end of tax season is April 16 – even though my colleagues and I will be doing payroll tax returns until the end of April. 

One of the things my editor cautions me about repeatedly is that I must understand the meaning of words when I use them.  Language is the key to communication in all its forms and if we do not properly convey our intended meaning, we confuse those for whom the communication is intended.  Wars have started for lack of good communication.

Perhaps we use “soon” when we are reluctant to be held to a specific time frame but “soon” has some expectation of immediacy built into it.  If you tell me at the end of February that my account will be credited soon, I expect to see that credit before the end of March.

I suppose “soon” is like many over-worked words in our language.  We use it because it is convenient and the meaning is somewhat nebulous. 

I will soon end this entry with the hope that “soon” will soon be replaced with other, more precise words and that companies or people live up to "soon" whenever they use it.

Now is a good word.  I will end this column now.

Tennyson & the Governor of Illinois

“One equal temper of heroic hearts, made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield," said Rod Blagojevich, the impeached governor of Illinois, quoting Tennyson’s poem, Ulysses.

I wonder if the governor has actually read the entire poem and if he understands its meaning. Tennyson wrote Ulysses, in part, as a tribute for a dear friend who had passed away. In the poem, Ulysses is old, reflecting on his life and its approaching end. Tennyson’s words have great meaning when repeated by an old warhorse like Ted Kennedy. They make no sense at all when spoken by a 52-year old - unless he is eulogizing his own career. I assume Blagojevich hoped to give the impression of a fighter, someone who goes down swinging.

The entire Blagojevich situation is unfortunate but this writer is particularly rankled that the governor so glibly uses words to which he has no connection. He conveys, yet again, that he does not think about what he is saying. As much as his expletives offend, so does his use of Tennyson.

"We are not now that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are.”

That much is true, Mr. Blagojevich. You are what you are.

Properly vetted

A writer friend of mine insists that the restrictions placed on membership by professional genre fiction writing organizations and conventions are there because it assures the writers applying for membership have been properly vetted.

The term means that a writer’s work has been confirmed as accurate, that agents have screened it and editors have honed it. Of course, my friend is ignoring the obvious – no writer is properly vetted anymore. The big publishers refuse to pay for it and the small ones never could afford it. James Frey and Margaret Selzer are just two recent examples of writers published by major publishing houses who were exposed as frauds. Sadly, this lack of real vetting applies to journalism as well.

How does all this happen? We readers allow it. We settle for less than the best. We do not demand excellence. We accept what we are told without question because it comes from our newspaper, television, the Internet or an email from a friend. How many false stories circulate because no one stops to check the facts? Thank goodness for www.snopes.com.

In All the President’s Men, a book about the scandal that forced Nixon from the White House, the reporters dug out the facts, they followed the trail and they told us what was happening. They did not partner with the government; they exposed it. Why can we trust what they revealed? They had to obtain confirmations of their facts from at least two separate sources and those sources could not be other reporters. Their editor would not allow the story to go to press without that substantiation.

As citizens, it is our responsibility to question everything we are told. We should not assume that our representatives in government will act honorably – especially since there is so much proof that they will not. Greed and graft has been part of government since time began. This country is no exception. Mark Twain said it best. “Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.”

All writers should produce work that is properly vetted. All editors should require confirmation, checking sources and validating the facts. I’d like to see the population demand that higher standard.

We will be better for it – as readers and as citizens.

The Sandwich Generation

When I wrote the first post for this blog, I said I would deal with issues of communication and how it impacts us.

For the last few posts, I looked at changes in the publishing industry that created levels of discrimination within the writing world. Today, I return to my central theme – communication – and what all this says about who we are as writers and as people.

This is a hypothesis for sociologists to explore but I suggest that the flood of DIY and subsidy published books is a demonstration of our need to tell our stories. Sure, some people publish with the idea of becoming rich and famous, but many others just want to share their human experience. They think writing a book will get people to listen to them.

Long ago we shared our lives around the campfire, passing our wisdom and feelings from one generation to the next. That evolved into cave painting and then into writing. Letters maintained the link between families and friends and established our history.

We no longer gather around burning logs (or the dinner table) and very few of us use paper and pen to maintain contact with friends and family. If we communicate at all, it is in short, quick bursts of text boiled down to the fewest possible words and letters. DIY publishing and blogging have replaced the campfire.

I advocate all the things that we consider part of good writing: sound premise, good structure, and correct grammar. I also believe that the marketplace will deter or dissuade those writers who produce a product that is not worth buying. Once their story is told, they will not exert the effort to market it or to write another.

Peg Herring, a writer friend of mine, suggested that we are in the “sandwich generation” in more ways than one. Not only are we the caretakers of two generations, we are caught between the old publishing paradigm and the emerging new one.

As I considered her words, it occurred to me that no matter how poorly written a book or blog may be, someone made the effort to write it. Someone took the time to put words into sentences in an attempt to convey a message. When writers discriminate against other writers and try to silence their voices, if we block the road for those coming after us, we put out the campfire.

Communication is so important that the founding fathers of the United States put that freedom first on the list in the Bill of Rights. I hope that my fellow writers do all they can to nurture other writers and teach them how to do it well. It is up to us to keep the campfire burning.

Discrimination - Part One

Discrimination is an integral part of our lives. To be labeled discriminating when selecting a car or a coat is a good thing.

There is, however, a dark side to the act of discrimination. We go there when we make choices or decisions that have nothing whatever to do with individual merit. We go there when we are afraid.

At a mystery conference a few years ago, I listened to a best-selling thriller writer deliver the opening speech. In it, she bemoaned the loss of readers in general and then condemned independent and subsidy-published writers for flooding the market with books that readers chose over hers.

Several rebuttals come to mind immediately.

First, librarians tell me that reading is up. It is the manner of reading that is changing. People are reading with their ears rather than with their eyes. Audio books, in all formats, are flying off the shelves, so to speak.

Second, books are expensive and they take up a lot of space. I stopped buying books some time ago. I patronize my library. Now, with the focus on environmental responsibility, libraries make even more sense. This writer should be careful not to confuse readers with buyers. Sales may be down but her readership may be up.

Finally, that thriller writer may have declining sales because readers no longer want to read what she writes. People’s tastes change. She should examine her product and decide if it needs to be altered or replaced with a new one. She would not be the first writer to do that. We all love Spenser but we like Jesse Stone, too.

Writing is a craft; publishing is a business and that business is rapidly morphing into something entirely different. If this thriller writer owns an iPod, she is part of the change that happened in the music business. Similar changes can be seen in book publishing. She probably feels the revolution in the music business was good. She benefits from it. Obviously she, and others like her, feel those same changes in the publishing industry are not good. They are afraid.

In their fear, they lash out. They announce that the writers who have embraced the change are lower class and unworthy. They close doors to marketing opportunities. They prevent us from participating in conferences and professional organizations.

In other words, they discriminate.