On Being Famous and Death

I've actually had a couple of opportunities to become famous. But I shied away from them like they were the plague. It's much more important to me that I have my personal space and life and that's something that's lost when a person becomes famous.

Every couple of weeks there's another death announced of some famous person. Sometimes it's someone I don't know at all; other times I go "Awww, no." It doesn't matter that I never met the person or really knew them, I knew how their work had affected my life and that made them special to me. So, along with all their other fans, I grieved at their passing.

There's a dichotomy in all of us that most of us don't realize. We want to be well known so that when we die there are lots of people who will mourn us. We want to be loved by everyone and know we'll be missed. But the price of being well known is to lose our privacy since every movement, every word, every outfit is scrutinized and criticized and commented on. Including many that we don't do. Pictures are taken whether we want them to be or not. Rumours abound, whether true or false, and are taken to be truth anyway. Any problem we try to deal with is blown up and announced to the world.

So our need for privacy fights our need to be loved by everyone. Obviously, many people have a stronger need to be in the spotlight and become famous. Most of us want our privacy or lack the confidence to expose every aspect of our lives to the public and so we don't become famous. But just because we don't have most of the world ready to mourn us when we die doesn't mean we don't have people who will mourn us.

We are a weird species. We live in the moment yet we're driven by future events. Our primary drives are to reproduce, survive, and be remembered. Death preys on our minds no matter how young or old we are. Of course, it becomes more of a conscious awareness as we age but even when we are very young we are still preoccupied with our manner of death. How will I die? How many people will miss me? How will I be remembered? Will anyone remember me?

I know that when I die there will be a small group of people immediately affected - my spouse, child, in-laws, sister and her family, my friends. If word is spread either through an obituary or by word of mouth, there will be other people who will think "That name is familiar" and might remember me from when I worked with them. But the overall number will be less than a hundred, mostly because it's been a while since I worked and people forget co-workers after a couple of years.

Which is fine with me.

I know my husband thinks the world should mourn when I die. He thinks that they don't know just how special a person they will be losing. I think he has an overblown appreciation of me but that's okay, because he loves me. :)

One of the reasons we are drawn towards being famous is so that we can influence other people. I know I like to think that I have influenced some people over the years. that I've helped people to open their eyes and really see the world and how their actions, reactions, and thinking have been driven by other people and not their own choices. I know I have shown one person at least how to be more objective and not assume that another viewpoint is correct without checking out the facts himself. So I haven't influenced thousands of people but one person can influence another who can influence another who can influence another, etc. So, given enough time, I might have influenced hundreds of people without ever meeting them.

And in the end, isn't that the best memorial a person can have?

Pondering

First off, sorry about the long delay between posts. Life has been a bit hectic and a lot stressful. But for now things are peaceful. I know they won't stay that way but still, I'm taking advantage of it.

So I try very hard to distinguish between stupid acts and people really being stupid. Sometimes, simple ignorance is to blame. I can't blame a person for not knowing something although I can blame them for not seeking knowledge. But generally speaking, I can find a reason for a person doing or believing something without thinking they are inherently stupid.

But seriously, who believes dinosaurs still exist?

There was a picture of Stephen Spielberg posing with a "dead" dinosaur that was going around the Internet and people actually thought he had killed a dinosaur for one of his movies. Honestly folks? Please tell me this was a mass joke. *sigh*

I look at the pictures and posts people put online and shudder when I see simple spelling mistakes. I'm not even talking leet speak here but people trying to use plain English. I know I sometimes type too fast and mix up letters but that's why I proof-read before I post. I don't just rely on the spellchecker to notice mistakes. But some people don't even use the spellchecker.

I have to come to the conclusion that, yes, there are actually people that are stupid. Not just that they are uneducated or struggling with a language that is not their natural language but actually stupid. How else can one explain why these people do not want to make life better for themselves by getting an education?

I know many people find learning hard and the school systems badly need to be overhauled to help people learn and not simply memorize facts but there are groups and individuals who are willing to help people learn on their own so they can be better citizens. Not as many as needed but there is help out there.

So, all I can conclude when someone isn't willing to learn is that they really are stupid and feel sorry for them. Because no one will hire them or if they do hire them, they will be stuck in menial dead-end jobs. But, of course, it will never be their fault, right?

Good Actor vs Good Character Development

So the discussion raging around our place tonight concerned actors and whether or not they made the roles they are famous for or they were handed well developed characters that they made their own.

In other words, could any actor fill a particular role or are certain characters so well developed that any actor could play them?

Certain characters have been played by more than one actor and fans have their favourites. Some roles are so well developed that actors can be switched around and no one really sees a lot of difference except for the physical appearance. Comparing the written character to the one the actor brings to life we have to look at the physical description as well as the personality.

James Bond is one example. Fans are split on whether Sean Connery or Roger Moore played the best Bond with some fans holding out for some of the other actors. If you read the books, some of the actors match the physical description of Bond but the personality is just vague enough that each actor has been able to take the character and build as they see Bond. But the essence of Bond is his role as a secret agent and the stereotype associated with him - dashing, brave, inventive, a lover and a fighter, and asking for a martini, dry, shaken not stirred. Bond is a stereotype character and any actor can play him.

Captain Jack Sparrow is a character that is a bit stereotypical, the drunk pirate, but his personality is so lively and rich in detail that it is hard to see any one but Johnny Depp playing him. Yet that very richness of detail makes it possible for another actor to assume the role. Will they be as good at it as Depp is? Probably not just because he is a very talented actor and makes each role uniquely his in some way. Imitators can't seem to capture that easy flowing wit and movements that are so much a part of the character of Jack Sparrow. Johnny Depp was able to change his appearance to match the description of Jack so there's no discrepancy between the written character and the one portrayed by Depp. In this case the written character and the actor are perfectly matched and no other actor would be able to do as well in the role.

In the Harry Potter series, the role of Dumbledore was played by two actors because Richard Harris unfortunately died. Richard looked and sounded like Dumbledore as he was written. He was replaced by Michael Gambon who wasn't as tall and had gray hair and a shorter beard. Physically, Micheal did not match the character of Dumbledore and he received criticism because he didn't match the character. As an actor, he did an excellent job showing us Dumbledore's personality and spirit. Yet, because his physical appearance was so well defined and such an integral part of his character, he wasn't a good match for it. Richard Harris was and is considered the essential Dumbledore by fans. This is a character who can not be portrayed by any actor who can not match the physical description.

There was a series of TV movies done on the Richard Sharpe books written by Bernard Cornwall. His two main characters, Richard Sharpe and Patrick Harper, are well written and described in the books. Yet the actors don't match teh description. Sean Bean is taller and has lighter hair than Richard Sharpe while Daragh O'Malley is much shorter than Harper's seven foot height. Yet, having seen the actors in the roles, one can't imagine any other actors filling those roles. In this case the well written characters were taken by talented actors and made to fit them instead.

So what does this show? Judging by these examples (btw this is a bad thing to do, using a small sample base to form opinions), a well written character will be the standard by which any actor filling the role will be judged. Yet a talented actor can take any character and make it their own even if it is well written to begin with. Even if given a bad script and poorly written lines, a talented actor can still make the character he or she is playing stand out. Provided, of course, that the director lets them act and doesn't hold them to precisely what's written.

But then, most good actors learn to spot good scripts from bad ones so they can stay away from those roles once they get themselves established.

Colour Stereotypes

I often wonder when we developed the concept of stereotyping. While we seem to have always had a tendency to categorize people, places, and events, stereotyping has really exploded in the past century or so. All you have to do is look at history to see how things have changed.

Take colours for example. Although we have been trying to move away from stereotypes, certain colours are still thought of as gender specific choices. Pink is still a girl's colour and blue is still a boy's colour. Yet, there are more fashions utilizing blue as a colour of choice in female clothing than pink in male clothing.

Certain colour combinations make sense. I don't and never will like pink on a redhead. To me the colours clash. Yet I've seen some shades of pink that can work well with certain shades of red hair. So I will never tell a redhead not to wear pink. It simply isn't my choice.

There are few colours I don't like, mostly sickly looking colours or neons. I'm not a big fan of pink but I like little touches of it. My favourites tend to blues, greens, copper and golds. So my house decor tends more to those shades than any others. But if you look around, you'll find almost every colour represented someplace.

Colour preferences are very personal but I've known people who won't wear certain colours because they aren't "girl colours" or "boy colours". Kind of silly, in my opinion, but it's something they take seriously. So I try to remember that.

But, still, I wonder how the current stereotypes got set in place. Pink used to be a popular colour worn by men before it became known as a "dandy's choice" and eventually became acceptable for women only. Blue has always been popular for both sexes yet somehow it became a boy's colour.

I can understand certain shades becoming associated with the two genders as well as they are extensions of the colour chart from the base colour. Yet red has been considered a boy's colour more than a girl's despite how close to pink it is. Which simply shows once again that logic does not apply to the actions of humans.

Personally, I like the fact that we're moving away from at least one stereotype in life. Although, it still is a bit of a surprise to see men wearing pink it is also nice to see it happening more often. Especially since some of the shades being produced are so gorgeous. It almost makes me willing to wear pink shades. Almost.

Perspective

One of my favourite quotes is "Perspective is everything." Because it truly is.

We have to be aware of the fact that we see everything, and I do mean everything, through our values, our opinions, our expectations, and especially our experiences. One factor that few people consider is how our culture and language affect our values and our perceptions of what is important.

A person from a Third World country views the standard of life very differently from a First World country and for a good reason. To a person from a country where living on a few hundred dollars or less a month is considered to be living well the amount of money a person in the First World country is phenomenally wealthy. Whereas the person from the First World country is amazed at the absolute poverty the people in the Third World countries live in.

I heard of a family that saved for five years, yes years, to buy a bicycle. A bicycle. One that cost the equivalent of fifty dollars. To anyone in the First World countries a bicycle that costs a hundred dollars can be saved for in a couple of weeks to a few months maximum (thinking allowances saving here for this time period). To us that bicycle is a luxury item. To that family, it allowed the father to take three times the amount of goods to market in one-fifth the time so he was able to increase the standard of living for his family.

There is literally a world of difference in the thinking of people in the First World countries from people in even the Second World countries let alone the Third World countries. We can afford to concern ourselves with issues of ethics and religion and human rights. Even the poorest person makes more money and, in countries with universal health care, have access to better health care than the upper middle class of the Third World countries.  Their rich class is comparable to our rich class unfortunately. At least on the lower and middle levels.

So it's no surprise that conditions that we wouldn't stand for in the First World countries are accepted as part of the working conditions in Third World countries. But what we don't look at is the fact that people survive on less money in those countries better than our citizens survive in our countries. Yes, the quality is lower but the people actually living below the poverty lines are fewer in those countries. That's using a poverty line that takes into effect the health of the family unit as well as it's income. The poverty line for a First World country is a higher financial figure than for the Third World country.

Which goes to show just how messed up the economics of our planet are. Well, along with several other factors. But, try to imagine it, a family can afford to buy enough food to feed them for a year in the Third World country for less money than a family in the First World country spends in a month.

Perspective, people. Perspective.

Fads

There just seems to be something in our natures that makes us want to jump on the bandwagon when something starts to be popular. Luckily, most fads are short-lived but the more technological we become, the wider spread and longer lasting fads are becoming.

Yes, the Internet is at fault. *humourous sarcasm*

Seriously, though, the Internet is responsible for the spread of fads at the world-breaking speeds they now travel. Before it could take months or even years for a fad to travel around the world. Now, it's instantaneous. Or as close as we can get.

Some fads are obvious and people get involved just to be a part of something funny and light-hearted. Other fads take on a life of their own for no reason anyone can explain. They will be wildly popular and then when their fame breaks, everyone will deny being part of the fad, despite evidence to the contrary. Which doesn't make sense unless you consider how much some people need to be considered "cool", "hip", or whatever term currently means part of the popular group. And no, I don't know the current slang. :P

I can understand not wanting to be reminded of a fad that has lost it's appeal. What I don't understand is the backlash that usually goes against the fad when it falls. While something or someone is popular, I hear how much people "love" it/them. When the fad is falling out of favor, I hear how people "hate" it/them. If I liked a fad enough to be part of it, I'll admit I was. I had liked it after all and I see nothing wrong in liking something that is not popular.

But I appear to be a minority.

Of course, I also seem to be in the minority for liking fads. There are very few that I have liked and usually have involved songs. I'm not usually attracted to singers, although I appreciate a good looking man and a deep voice will make me melt. But I've never been prone to crushes on people. I don't know enough about them to really have any feelings for them. I look at the fact that their job is to entertain me and judge them on that. I will be sad when a celebrity I liked dies because that means I can no longer see them act or hear any new music from them. I'm also sorry that their families are not grieving for their loss but it's not my personal loss.

Mostly what I wonder at is why a fad becomes popular. Sometimes it's easy to figure out. A song or dance will be fun and upbeat and make people feel good to sing along or dance. But fads like copying someone's hair style or fashion sense don't make sense to me. My colouration won't let me wear the same clothes or colours as somebody else. I might not really like the hairstyle or it might be completely wrong for my face and hair. Yet, I see people copying the look no matter how good or bad it is on them.

Then again, they say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I've never been good at giving or receiving flattery.

Then there are the fads like the current one - selfies. I remember growing up and people being on vacation and getting someone to take their picture so they have a solid memento of their trip. They were called vacation pictures. Or family photos. Even if you ended up trying to hold the camera and catch yourself in the picture it was still considered to be normal pictures. Now they are called selfies and are hugely popular, especially if you can get a group together for it.

Um, wouldn't having a group in it make it a group picture and not a selfie? *shakes head* Silly me, of course it's a selfie of whoever took the picture. Unless, the person taking the picture isn't in the picture or is holding the phone for the person who owns it, right? No? Well, then, I guess I really don't understand selfies.

What I do know is, you won't catch me doing it. Aside from the fact that I don't like having my picture taken, if I want a picture of me then I'll be getting someone else to take it.

I guess I just fail at following fads. I think a good percentage of the reason is that I don't just follow mindlessly. I'm also not really a leader so I kind of stand to the side and make my own decisions. At least I can get a good chuckle from most fads. That's just my sense of humour again.

Now Appearing...

It's always fun to see a sign and deliberately take it as posted. For instance we passed a store advertising the following

      INFANT
TERRY SLEEPER
      2

Well, obviously any parent knows they are selling the terrycloth sleepers for infants at $2 each.

However..

Taking the sign as posted it can be taken several ways.

First, as a horror movie - It creeps, it crawls, it uses it's cuteness to disarm you. It's the Infant Terry Sleeper...2

Second, as a birth announcement - of an infant called Terry Sleeper the Second.

Third, as an announcement - that there are two infants called Terry Sleeper.

Fourth, a sales ad - Having trouble getting your infant Terry to sleep? Worry no more with these patented Terry Sleepers, guaranteed to get your little ones to sleep in no time. Now for only $2. Disclaimer, will not work on infants not named Terry.

Did I mention I have a weird sense of humour? Although the first one was my husband's contribution. :)

Signs are really fun when they use abbreviations.  Because whoever puts them together just doesn't bother reading them. Especially when using Assorted because they always use just the first three letters. That's right, anything assorted becomes an ass.

It gets really fun when the same abbreviation can mean more than one word. Most of us understand what is meant and automatically interpret correctly. But now, imagine English is not your first language and you're trying to interpret abbreviations. It's no wonder people who learn English as a second language have trouble with it.

This is one I saw the other day

Ret. Most common meanings are retired, returned, and retro(active), But I've also seen it used for retail and retainer. In this case it was for a retainer since it was listing a service and ended Ret. Req. meaning retainer required.

Req is another confusing one since it can mean required or requested. It helps that in either case it means something is needed and can usually be figured out from the rest of the sign or advertisement.

But I think the sign I'll remember for a while was this one:

Ass Breath Mints 1.99

I just walked away trying not to giggle.

Blog Hopping

So, like many people, I have a group of blogs I check on a regular basis. Some are checked daily and some are checked once a week. Because by now I know how often they tend to get updated.

But this can take a lot of time. Luckily, I have the time to spare since I'm retired. Although I keep thinking about starting a home-based business. Some days though I have other commitments so I don't have time to do a lot of blog reading.

I've also dropped blogs and picked up new ones over the years. Sometimes it's because the blogger has stopped updating regularly, sometimes it's because I've lost interest, and sometimes it's because the subject matter has become something I don't agree with or find disturbing. Granted, that's actually been a rare case.

Usually, I drop a blog because the blogger has stopped updating all together or else so sporadically that it's months between posts. One person actually switched to FaceBook so I was able to add her there and be advised when she did update her blog.

Some people use feeds to keep track of the blogs they follow but I've never bothered. I get enough email as it is not to include feeds from blogs. I tend to prefer having to actually check blogs as I can figure out which ones I like by how often I'm willing to check them out. Sometimes a new blog starts interestingly but then something turns me off it. It could be the writing style, it could be the posts themselves.

Writing style is definitely a huge factor in how well I like a blog. The most interesting subject in the world can be butchered by poor writing. That's one of the reasons I try to keep my blog's style light and breezy. It doesn't always work because there are some subjects I take very seriously and find difficult to write about in anything less than a serious manner.

Then there are the days when That Mood strikes. When I can't be serious and have to be smart-alecky, sarcastic, and engage in all manners of puns. Luckily or unluckily, it's been a while since That Mood has struck so I can keep to my usual weird, twisted sense of humour. I'm not sure if it's lucky or not when That Mood strikes because while I enjoy it, I'm not sure how funny other people find it.

One thing I do find is that it's hard to find a good humourous blog. Writing humour is vary hard and it has the potential to fall flat so easily. Comics make a good substitution and I have a long list of comics I check just as regularly as the blogs. In fact that's how I start, by checking comics first to get in a good mood if I'm not already there. Which, of course, adds time to my reading.

But then again, isn't that why people blog?

Hero Stereotypes

In literature, which translates to TV and movies as well, most heroes are stereotypes of some sort. The noble or gallant hero who searches out wrongs to right them, the romantic hero who searches for their true love, the tragic hero who succeeds despite every tragedy ever conceived of happening to him/her, the peasant hero who half the time is a noble hidden from enemies shortly after birth by being raised by a poor family, the reluctant hero who is dragged kicking and screaming into doing great deeds and often showing more courage than people who are supposed to be courageous. etc.

Heroes and villains are clearly defined in children's literature and not so clearly defined in adult literature. But you can still tell a hero from a villain because of the stereotypes. Once in a rare while, an author creates characters that you're not sure if they are the heroes or the villains because sometimes they are the one and sometimes the other.

But most stereotypes don't leave you with that problem. If a character is a hero at the start of the book then he/she will be a hero throughout the book. A villain might start out disguising their nastiness but they will rarely be depicted as a hero first and their villain natures will quickly be shown.

In some ways, it makes stories predictable. By the time I've met all the main characters in a story I know which roles they are playing and can figure out who will triumph in the end. It then becomes the journey which will hold me or not.

Stereotypical heroes can be predictable but, being human, I do have my favorites. A well-written character will be forgiven whatever stereotype they are based on and when I encounter an author who is able to keep me guessing on whether a character is a hero or a villain then I'm in seventh heaven.

Part of the stereotyping seems to be naming the hero. Certain names seem to be considered appropriate for certain roles. Take, for example, the reluctant hero. For some reason, a good third or more of the reluctant heroes I've read or seen in movies and TV shows are named Sam - Samuel, Samson, Sammem, Samwise, Samwell, Samantha, Trissam, etc. There just seems to be something about the name that says "reluctant hero".

Reluctant heroes also seem to be the ones who think they are more cowardly, less intelligent, weaker, and/or have some disability to overcome - being overweight, being lame, being nearsighted, illiterate, etc. Often they have a case of hero worship for another main character and compare themselves unfavorably to their hero. Sometimes their hero will encourage them to be braver or overcome their disability, if possible like illiteracy. Sometimes they will need to rescue their hero although not very often.  Most times they will stumble into something where they are the only ones who can make it out to warn their heroes or save people dear to the heroes.

In case you haven't figured it out yet, the reluctant hero is my favorite. Probably because this is usually an average person who manages to rise above their fears and show that they have as much or more courage than the people everyone looks up to. They are also usually the people supporting the main hero and offering the encouragement needed for the main hero to continue on his/her quest. Reluctant heroes can be the main characters but they are usually the sidekicks who become main characters.

Because, you know, that's how stereotypes work.

Oxymorons

Most people know what an oxymoron is supposed to be - a combination of words with opposite or very different meanings. Jokes get made about them all the time. But the real oxymorons seem to be accepted much more readily.

For example, I see headlines about famous people taking secrets to the grave. Yet the magazines are apparently telling what those secrets are. Which makes it an oxymoron. A secret taken to the grave is secret only if no one knows about it. That's the definition of a secret - something no one else knows.

Yet people will read and believe the articles. I can understand why the term secret is still used. No one wants to read about the knowledge or the information that so-and-so took to his/her grave. It doesn't sound scandalous.

If I had a secret to take to my grave, I would make certain no one knew it and there was nothing around that even hinted at it. Otherwise it would be the secret I kept in life. And that someone spilled once I was no longer living.

But no one wants to see "Someone who might be famous but probably isn't spills the secrets of a famous person who had trusted him/her with them" or "Secrets of so-and-so exposed". Well, actually, that second headline might get attention. But see the words "The secret so-and-so took to the grave" and you get people buying the magazine like crazy.

Because "private lives of the stars" is another oxymoron. Once people becomes famous they don't have a private life. Often, their family members don't either. For some strange reason, we seem to feel that a person gives up the right to privacy once he/she becomes famous. We think we have the right to root through their history and hold up every mistake to the light of day. Yet, let anyone try and do that back to one of us and privacy laws get quoted and lawsuits are threatened.

But this post is about oxymorons not double standards. Although the two can go hand in hand. Most double standards are or can be considered oxymorons. A lot of oxymorons are concepts that should be able to go together but for one reason or another don't so that rather than being truths they have become oxymorons. Probably the biggest oxymoron out there is common sense. Because it really isn't that common any more. Which is a shame because the world needs more of it. Maybe if we got it we'd be able to turn that other big oxymoron back into a truth instead. World peace.

Attitudes and Platitudes

The problem with having a normally cheerful, upbeat, slightly sarcastic, and often tongue-in-cheek attitude is that people don't tend to take negative comments seriously. On the Internet, whether in posts or through emails, I try and make sure people know when I'm not being serious. I use emoticons where they'll show up and otherwise put my mood in asterisks.

So when a friend posted "Sometimes, just sometimes things happen for a reason and it leads to something even better. Just breathe and think positively." my response was "I'm running out of positive thoughts. Care to share some?" Rather than realizing I was being serious, she thought I was being tongue-in-cheek and liked my post. If I had been cheeky, I would have added ":P" after so the emoticon would have shown up. But at the time I answered I was feeling down because of all the bad things that had been hitting one after another for the past couple of months. I really could not have come up with a positive thought if someone had paid me. Although that would have been a positive thought to think someone would pay me for my thoughts.

I wasn't looking for a platitude in response. I'm good at giving those so I don't need them back. *being sort of cheeky with that line but also serious* But I was looking for a touch of sympathy and maybe even some concern. I'm not a person who shouts my cares to the world but I watch my friends so I can see when they need a bit of cheering up or cheering on or just plain cheering for accomplishing something. So when I post something that should shout to them that I need some cheering up I expect them to be watching for it as well.

Foolish me. I should know by now that few people are like me and watch others for those subtle signs that tell of problems in their lives. Too many people are used to the current generation's tendency to tell all and expect people to come out and say they are having troubles. I'm not that way though.

I have no trouble with people telling their life stories online. Personally I think there's too much information sometimes and that certain things should stay private but that's my attitude and applies to my life. If I'm asked, I'll give advice but otherwise I'll keep it to myself. Except in the case of my daughter, of course, but even there she'll usually come looking for advice when she wants it. Generally speaking though, unless I know a person will consider my advice carefully, I give out platitudes with my advice. It's sort of my way of showing that I know the person doesn't really want to follow my advice but is asking to make me feel like my opinion is valued.

I don't expect anyone to follow my advice blindly. The only piece of advice I've ever given that I do expect to be followed is "Listen to the advice you get offered and consider it carefully. What works for one person might not be the best solution for yourself but at least give the person offering the advice the respect of considering their words seriously." After all, everyone is unique. But often what works for one person will work for another. It might need a bit of modification for the specific situation and personality but the overall theory works. However, you have to consider the advice given and not simply dismiss it.

I think the most important advice I can give anyone, and yes it is a platitude, is to know yourself and to realize that everyone sees things differently. Learn to see how your friends act and react so that you can understand them better and be wary of assuming that people act for the same reasons you do. Because I can assure you, they won't always have the same reasons or responses. I just need to watch anyone, friend or stranger, to realize that.

Quizzes. Memes. and Other Internet Fun

Back when the Internet was first developed no one had any idea of the outbreak of quizzes, memes, social media, and sheer knowledge that would flood it. Of course, there's also all the fake knowledge out there as well as porn. Put any combination of words in a search engine and you will get a hit.

Don't believe me? Try five random words and see what comes up.

Quizzes, memes, and games probably take up the most time of anyone surfing nowadays. Although there are some sites where you can lose hours just checking it out (*cough* Cheezburger *cough*). It can be fun to take some of the quizzes just to see what questions get asked and what results you get.

For instance, I took one for alignment as per Dungeons and Dragons. Now most people would say I'm Lawful Good but I came out as Neutral Good, something I happen to agree with for once. But the questions made no sense for me. What were the pictures they asked me to choose from? None of the crests were ones I'd really have so I picked the one most visually appealing (which was probably the point instead of the emblems on them). Some things they referenced went straight over my head because I didn't know anything about the options listed.

Which is a truth I find with most quizzes. Most of the time the questions seem to have no reverence to the subject but somehow my answers give clues to how much I am a person of Neutral Good alignment or a person whose clothing style would match Jack Sparrow or how Sven would be my best friend or whatever the quiz is for. Reminds me of the application questionnaires for employment only the quizzes don't ask the same questions over and over again and usually entertain me a lot more.

So quizzes are entertaining. They are meant to be entertaining, same as memes. Memes are meant to share humour by taking a picture and captioning it. Some of them are very funny. Some aren't. Which is the nature of humour after all. We all find different things funny. The popular ones get spread around the Internet so depending on where you surf you can see the same meme several dozen times.

Or, if your friends are varied and don't share the same friends with you, you can see it several dozen times on FaceBook. Social media is the dumping ground for anything people want to share. See a funny picture? Share on FB. Seen a funny meme? Share on FB. Seen a good joke? Share on FB.

I'm lucky that my friends list is still small so I don't get tons of whatever popular meme or picture is going around. I do have a couple of friends who constantly post links sharing pictures, memes, and jokes. Some are ones I want a copy of so I follow the link back to see if I can take a personal copy of the picture. But usually I look, maybe smile, and continue on.

The Internet can be a place of fun but it can also take up a huge chunk of my time. Luckily, I have friends who are willing to spend time scanning through all those sites to share links so I don't have to scan through all those sites looking for pictures to share. It's thanks to them that I can take quizzes, read memes, laugh at pictures, videos, and jokes, and know without any doubt that the Internet is better for having all this shared.

And in case anyone is wondering, that last paragraph was mostly written as tongue-in-cheek. The first line is completely serious.

Winter and the Seasons

I was born in the winter so one could assume that I would like it, right? Well, sort of.

When I was a kid I used to like winter. Sure it meant bundling up before going outside but the feeling of the crisp air on my face and in my lungs was great. Winter was the time for sledding, skating, snowball fights, making snow angels, and of course had Christmas and my birthday. Since my birthday was so close to Christmas the rest of the year had nothing to really anticipate.

As I got older, the snow started to become an inconvenience. It meant being miserable with wet snow and feeling cold. Especially feeling cold. Rain was worse than snow because you could at least brush off most of the snow but when it clumped on your clothes you had to either change or suffer wet clothes until they dried out.

Surprisingly, I didn't mind shoveling. Since I could pick up as much or little snow as I wanted, it was easy to make a game of shoveling and not wear myself out. But I find that nowadays I like the snow to come for Christmas then leave as soon as possible. Not a practical attitude when winter lasts from 5 to 8 months.

Oh yes, it does last that long. We can declare Spring to be here on a certain date but Nature has er own schedule and the area of the world I live in has a longer winter than we humans declare. We can get our first snowfall as early as October and our last snowfall as late as June. Granted neither of those snowfalls will stay. Usually the first snowfall that stays comes in either November or December and the last snowfall in April, sometimes May.

Winter comes with a beauty you have to open yourself to see. The way ice glistens on tree branches, the crisp whiteness of the snow before it gets disturbed and polluted, the sharp bite of the air. For people who don't live in areas where snow comes they can look at pictures of winter scenes and see the beauty of the snow and ice glistening in the sun. They don't experience the crisp air and the cold that slowly creeps in and makes having a mug of hot chocolate so enjoyable.

Do I like winter? Yes, there are still things I like about it although the cold affects me more each year. But I still like bundling up and curling myself around a mug of hot chocolate to warm up.

However, my favourite season is Fall. It's when the air is crisp enough to require a sweater and hints at winter's colder and often crueler air. It's when the leaves change from verdant greens to vibrant colours. It's when the holidays are concerned with giving thanks for good harvests, warm summers, and preparing us for the cold winter to come.

People say Spring is representative of the resurgence of Life. When it's the time we celebrate surviving the winter and look forward to the new year. To me, Fall is the celebration and affirmation of Life and all things worth living. It tells me that we've made it through a year and will make it through the next year. It's a promise that Life continues and prospers.

 Fall is the celebration of Life and promise that the cycle will continue. Winter is the toil and treasures that impact our lives. Spring is the affirmation that the promise of Fall has been carried through, and Summer is the time to rejoice and live Life to it's fullest. Each season has  something to enjoy and something to suffer through or tolerate. They represent Life in all it's aspects.

I like all the seasons but I still wish winter would not last as long as it does.

Accents and Languages

Ask anyone who has learned more than one language and they will tell you that English is probably the hardest language to learn, especially if it isn't your first language. Although many English speaking people will say French is hard because of the masculine/feminine structure, most people whose first language is something besides English or French agree that English is harder.

It's easy to see why. We have all sorts of rules which have contradictions - best example is the I before E rule. It goes "I before E except after C or when sounding like A as in neighbour and weigh." Which sounds like it would cover everything, right? Wrong. It's when the combination sounds like E that you have to know which way a word is spelled. For example niece, liege, and siege follow the I before E rule but leisure and seizure don't.

Then there's British English versus American English, which is more for how words are said rather than spelled unless it relates to OR. British words usually have an U in them like neighbour. American words don't have the U - neighbor.

Then there are all the words that sound alike but are spelled differently - to, too, two, sew, so, sow, toe, tow, read, red, etc - or are spelled the same but sound different - I can read the book, I have read the book.

Then, of, course, there are all the punctuation rules as well.

That's the writing side. Speaking it brings new problems. Because now we get into regional accents. Some places also have speech idioms, things like adding sounds (um, ah, er, etc) to words, local words or phrases, and different sentence structure and syntax (ex. no, it wasn't me).

Imagine, for example, learning to speak English in one area and moving to another where the people add sounds to words like ah. Since some words actually do end with an sh sound, it can confuse a non-native listener. I'm going to the park-ah. She was wearing a parka. To someone for whom English is a new language it can be confusing to know if both sentences refer to  parks or parkas.

So, it's no wonder English is confusing to people.

But you know, all those accents make for some interesting listening. Sure, there can be some embarrassment from mishearing or misunderstanding what someone says. But as long as everyone keeps a sense of humour then it can be a bonding experience. It is still up to the native speaker to be patient with the other person and make sure they can understand one another.

Which is another post.

Clean Language

Ask anyone who knows me and one thing they will all tell you is I never swear. The policy in my house is also no swearing unless there's a really good reason - like cutting yourself. But outside my house you can swear a blue streak as long as you want.

There's a few reasons why I have and follow this policy. Mostly it's because I feel that people who swear are being lazy thinkers. It's easy to throw in a few curse words into any sentence to make people aware that you don;t like something. It's challenging to express yourself without swearing.

Now I don't go ballistic on people who do swear in my house but they will get "The Look". It's remarkably effective. Probably because I treat people as adults who really should know better and expect them to behave as adults. So being given The Look is equivalent to being told to act their age.

I find it amusing how people will change on a subconscious level when they aren't being pressures. I took a course and it was all guys except for me. The teacher tried to enforce a no swearing rule but it was pointless. The guys were too used to swearing when they spoke. Yet, before the course was over, no one was swearing in class and when one did slip it was always followed by them turning quickly and apologizing to me.

What did I do to make this happen? Nothing. I simply ignored anyone who was swearing and if addressed answered with respect and absolutely no swearing. So, in this case, it was a change by example situation. I think it was the fact that i wasn't making a fuss over the swearing that impressed the guys and got them to change on their own. Or at least to stop swearing while they were around me.

I've listened to so-called comedians who tell jokes with so much swearing in them that people aren't laughing at the jokes. They're laughing at all the swearing. I don't find that funny. If the joke can't stand on it's own then it isn't a joke worth telling.

I guess the way I look at it is that swearing was supposed to be something rarely heard and then only in cases where attention had to be grabbed immediately. Someone was hurt or about to be hurt? Loud swearing got people there to help.

Some people can't seem to talk without every few words being some swear word or other. So I have to sort through what they just said to find what they just said. Swearing was meant to grab the attention and it works really well at distracting me from the other words around them.

Now, I do have a couple of sayings for when I need to get attention although I rarely use one nowadays. My daughter loves it though. It was something I learned from my grandmother. When she was mad enough to swear she would say "Horse feathers!"  My daughter still uses that and she loves the reactions she gets from people hearing it for the first time.

Myself, people know I'm upset if I say "Bloody hell" or "Sacre bleu". Sometimes I'll just use "Bloody" when describing something. The funny thing is that in Britain saying "Bloody hell" is considered swearing a blue streak. Good thing I don't live in Britain then. Lol.

What I find amusing about people swearing is the fact that they are using language originally derived from a legal term. Being so fond of words I often like to check on the origins of words in use. And today's favorite swear word - was a legal term for being found under carnal knowledge. When one of my moods hit me I like to point out to people how impossible it is for certain things to have carnal knowledge. Naturally, I get blank looks and have to explain.

At least I find it funny.

Beauty is in the Mind of the Beholder

The popular saying is, of course, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" but the truth is that it is actually in the mind. It is what we think is beautiful, graceful, dignified, etc. that defines what we classify as beautiful, graceful, dignified, etc. And it is as varied as the number of people that exist in the world.

Oh, we can agree on generic boundaries but ask a group of people as individuals to rank a series of pictures and you'd be surprised at the results. A percentage will rank the same pictures in the top group although the order will probably vary. But if you were to give 50 people 50 photos to sort through, the odds that the same number of photos and the same photos would end up in the same classifications are not 100%.

Take a look at any poll that lists percentages of respondents. It is rare to have a poll where the top person/object/ideal etc is over 90%. Most of the time the percentage will be under 80%. The difference will usually be in polls that rate political issues, news issues, social or religious beliefs, etc. Things that are not defined by an abstract concept.

Because beauty is an abstract concept. We are conditioned in part by society's acceptance of what is beautiful, pretty, attractive, ugly, etc. Don't believe me? Look at the history of fashion models and see how the size of the models has changed as society's beauty image has changed.

Art, poetry, and music are the areas where the definition of beauty is challenged the most by critics. Personally, I find abstract art to be ridiculous when considered as a serious art form. I'm not good at drawing but I can paint as well as or better than any abstract artist. At least, in my opinion. Because it is an opinion that sets up an  art form as serious art. That opinion is always expressed by a group of art critics. Professional art critics. (Hmm, how can I get a job as one because I can't believe they had training for that job.) (That was a sarcastic comment btw not to be taken seriously).

It all comes down to personal opinions for how popular any piece of art, music, and writing is. While I would never buy an abstract painting, i would buy landscapes and animal pictures. Same for music, there are certain genres I can't stand (grunge) while there are others that I can listen to forever. Same for certain authors. While there have been relatively few authors I can't stand, I will give most a few tries with different stories to see if I like their style.

Which leads to what made me pick today's topic. I take public transport and a few years ago a project was put forth to add signs with poetry written specifically for the buses. They could be any subject but had to fit on the signs. So most people who contributed to the project wrote free form poetry.

Now, I've written free form poetry but I always kept a beat with it. Blame it on my upbringing, I was taught that poetry was supposed to have rhythm if not rhyme. So even free form still had a beat. Otherwise all I was reading (or writing) was prose in non-standard form.

This is where the concept of beauty comes in. To me, a well-written poem has rhythm, might have rhyme, and has a beat that's easy to pick up and follow. The words might not be clear in imagery and meaning but the piece flows together. It is beautiful.

But the poems on the buses? Shudder. The sentences are of varying lengths so there's no beat, no rhythm. It's like listening to a person speaking quickly with a break between each sentence. I have the impression of being jerked from sentence to sentence. So I tend to no longer read the poems.

Which is probably doing someone a disservice. There might be a great piece of poetry on one of the buses that I will miss. Because it's like walking through a museum of Picasso paintings. I tune them out so I will most likely walk straight past a Rembrandt that's been slipped in.

Because to my mind, beauty has form.

Food

Let's face it, we can't survive without eating. However, many of us fall into picky eater habits. It can start when we're kids if we're already picky eaters but gets worse as we grow up unless we are encouraged to eat a wide variety of foods and experiment.

My family was pretty standard for meals. Then I got engaged/married and learned about a whole new world of foods. Part of that was helped along by working in an International style restaurant/deli/catering business. This was where I learned to love croissants.

So, while raising our family, we decided to try as many foods as we could afford. Finances have often been an issue and we've had to buy the standard foods but we do try to experiment when possible. Part of that now is researching recipes online. Back then, some was looking through cook books and a lot was free form experimentation.

Yesterday, we did a combination. We took ideas from recipes and did a free form experiment. Once major problem we have is the amount of food allergies and intolerances in the family. Not to mention food preferences and dislikes. The girls have the allergies and intolerances while the guys have specific dislikes. So making a meal we all like beyond the standards is difficult.

In this case, the meal was made specifically for the guys. It was done for variety as well as to show them that the girls are willing to put a lot of effort into something they won't have any benefit from. While it would be nice for the guys to reciprocate, they won't even think about it.

So, the meal was put together and set to baking. Now, one of the guys is actually a friend of the family living with us while he attends college. He says he likes all sorts of foods and spices but we've discovered he actually doesn't. No surprise really. Trying to get him to accept that he can tell people he doesn't like specific foods is all right is something we're working on. Trying to get him to think of us all before himself is a bigger challenge but one he needs to learn before he gets his own family.

Anyway, the meal was not one of our better successes. The food was deliberately cooked so that there would still be some crunch to the harder fruit and veg eatables. It was also an unusual (for us) combination of flavors. Mom and Daughter cut up the meat and vegetables and Daughter did up the spices. She tends to like food a bit spicier than the rest of us although she claimed it wasn't spicy.

Overall reaction - Dad ate two servings and declared it all right. Not the best ever done, a bit spicy, and the combination was weird but fair. Border said it was too spicy and wasn't cooked through. He also thought there were potatoes in it and there weren't any. It was just another example of how he doesn't know food as well as he thinks he does.

So, that recipe was a bust and we won't be trying it again. Today we'll do a standard meat and potatoes meal, got steaks thawing. Tomorrow we're planning on a baked center cut ham steak with pineapple slices. Just need to figure out the side dishes to go with it. Later this upcoming week we're planning on a Chinese meal.

I admit the Chinese food from the restaurant is better than our home version but our home version isn't that bad. Just need to find a better sauce for the beef broccoli and cook it a bit longer so the broccoli is softer. But I have to say that Daughter makes a fantastic egg roll filling, much better than the restaurant's egg roll.

There are some foods I haven't tried yet, mostly because I've heard that they are quite spicy. Something I will need to learn to change if I ever get my dream of being able to travel around the world. Although, at this point in my life, I doubt I'll get that dream. I am hoping that this summer I will get a chance to attend the multicultural fair and try some foods. That will probably be the closest I get to trying other foods.

I just wish I could afford to try more foods. There's a whole world of gastronomical pleasures out there and I want to try them. .

Semantics and Arrogance

One thing I end up doing a lot when I get into discussions is opening the link to the dictionary and copying the meaning(s) of a word or set of words for everyone to see. Mostly because I've found that people don't always know the real meaning of the words they are using.

It's all the fault of the English language, of course. It is continually evolving so over time the meanings of words change or are expanded. Take semantics for example, there are three recognized definitions (even though two of them have two parts each) for it and while similar in nature, there are distinct differences in the meanings.

Our understanding of the meanings of words and the differences in our understands cause opposition to ideas we would normally agree on or insult a person when no insult was intended or confuse a person so that they don't understand a discussion and, unless they ask for clarification, can make them look like they don't know what they are talking about.

Semantics, going with definition 3b, are also used to get society to accept something it would otherwise categorize as wrong. This is because the label used for an action is justified by the label into something acceptable.

For example. if you were to take something from some one else you would be accused of stealing, which is both illegal and immoral. Yet, if it could be argues that the object in question was vital for communal survival or that the owner had no legal right to said object then it would be an appropriation or reclamation of goods and therefore, by society's laws, legal and no one would discuss the moral issue of the action.

I was in a discussion last night which ended with us declaring that it was all semantics for our arguments. Take away the justifications and excuses for actions and you get a pretty stark picture. But all this applies only to humans. As far as we, as a species, are concerned, justification exists only for us. Animals do things because "it is their nature". Humans, though, can rise above their natures by justifying their actions as beneficial to society.

Boy, are we an arrogant species.

I'm not comfortable with black and white viewpoints. I like grey shades because I understand about justifying our actions. Even people who say they prefer people to speak the truth and be blunt really don't like being given the plain facts, especially when they reflect badly on themselves. But we are raised in the belief that we are a superior species and our arrogance in this belief applies to everything we do.

Especially when it comes to how we interact.

Call a spade a spade, or if you're being a sneaky person, a shovel. Because usually that quote refers to the spade shape seen on cards but since a spade is also a shovel, if a person is not used to the other meaning they will get the wrong imagery. And, like most people, they won't make sure they understand and will eventually make a comment showing they misunderstood and be upset because they will look like a fool.

This is why I always paraphrase whatever is said to me so that I can make sure I understand. Which is why I usually end up quoting definitions from the dictionary. Which is why I usually watch my vocabulary and try not to use outdated words or words that can be misinterpreted. But sometimes my sense of humor kicks in and I make jokes and puns.

As I said last night, a cat killing a bird is still murder most fowl.

Writing

So, expanding a bit from yesterday's post, writing is something I love to do. I love words and how I can use them to paint images in my reader's head. One of my hobbies is painting and, while I'm no artist, I like being able to bring colour to an object. Watching an artist creating a masterpiece is an experience I enjoy. Being able to do the same thing with words is an achievement I never get enough of.

As I stated yesterday, I try to keep my style light and easy. But I have trouble with short sentences. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. So I try to keep from having my sentences be too short and choppy. I also try to keep them from being overly long and complicated. Sometimes I succeed, sometimes I don't.

I like comparing writing to painting because there is so much similar in both creations. Take a good look at a painting. You shouldn't be able to see brushstrokes unless you're really close and analyzing it. But the length of a brushstroke will impart different motions and impressions. A long, gently flowing stroke is great for slow-running water or long grass blowing gently in the wind. Short, choppy strokes are used for rushing water, violent wind gusts, quick motion of any animal or human subjects, showing short hair or small items.

If you take a careful look at those last two sentences you'll see I used the same trick with punctuation. The first sentence flows while the second one gives short burst images. Words in general are my paint, punctuation, syntax, sentence structure, and vocabulary are my brushes, my highlights, my shadows, and my brushstrokes. Like any artist, I started learning the basics then moved on to more complicated and complex techniques.

When I first started painting, I would apply a base coat and leave it. The objects were nice but very flat-looking with their colours. Then I learned about adding highlights and shadowing. And adding more details like trims or jewels. I painted lead miniatures for several years and now I paint plaster houses for my Christmas village. The first miniatures I did were solid blocks of colour. The last ones I did had patterns painted on blank areas like cloaks and tunics. Faces looked wind-roughened or tanned or protected from extreme weather. Eyes had the whites showing behind the coloured irises. Shadows could be seen in the creases of clothing and between fingers. I even added a shield with a heraldic design on it to one miniature because it looked like it needed it. (I cheated and got someone to sketch the design because I can't draw but I painted it on the shield).

Writing has undergone the same metamorphoses. I look at the first stories I ever did (yes I still have some of  them) and my writing is childish. Very much like grades one and two with simple sentences. Except for the fact that I wrote them before I started school, you can tell that they were written by a child no older than 7. By the time I was in my teens, my vocabulary was equivalent to a college student. And my writing style was also comparable to a college student. Looking at one of my writing assignments, my high school English teacher told me I was either stupid or a professional writer and since he knew I was neither I had to stick to proper sentence structure while writing in his class. It was what they called a back-handed compliment.

Strangely enough, that compliment has been the only comment given about my writing that I ever took seriously. At that time I also gave serious thought to being a professional writer. Writing had always been something I did for fun. Yes, I had all these stories and ideas in my head wanting to get out but it was still just fun. Did I have it in me to be a professional writer?

Around the same time (okay, later that school year), we took a class trip to Montreal and Toronto to meet some Canadian authors. I got the chance to ask them how they wrote their books. Did they do one all at once, break it down into so much a day, or simply write when the mood took them? Most of them had a schedule. they knew when their creative times were and they scheduled their working hours around that. Because it took a lot of work to put out a book. I knew some of the steps involved but here was where I learned how much work goes into making a book ready for publication.

And you know something, it didn't sound like fun anymore. It sounded like a way to burn out my creativity by trying to force structure on it. Which was a warning that came through very clearly. Writing without structure did not make you a professional writer. Structure could strangle or kill creativity so you had to watch for the signs and learn when to take a break but you needed to plan your schedule with the breaks to meet your commitments. Most writers would start in another career and write on the sides until they could get themselves known and become popular enough to turn to writing full time.

Nowadays that isn't quite the same. With the Internet a well-written blog can make it's author Internationally known in a few days. And the response of readers can be known instantly. In some ways it's terrifying for a writer and in other ways it's exhilarating. But a tough skin is needed for anyone who posts their writing on the Internet. Not everyone will agree with your words. Not everyone will be polite in their disagreements. Not everyone will respect your views and will attack your opinions as if you had physically attacked them.

For myself, I'm writing again because it's fun. I don't expect to get a huge readership, or if by some strange happening I do then wow, so I write for my pleasure and hope whoever does read these posts enjoys it as well. It also gives me a way of thinking through subjects that come to my attention and puzzle out anything that confuses me. I'm just using a public means and seeing if anyone wants to come along for the ride. :)

Tricks of the Trade

In any profession, doesn't matter what it is, you'll find that there are specialized tools, tricks, and even languages related to that profession. Part of it is due to the needs of identifying techniques, procedures, and pieces necessary for the profession to work and part is due to our need to belong to an exclusive club.

Let's face it, from forming groups in school to joining organizations and clubs as adults, we want to belong to something exclusive. Something that not everyone can be part of. And we love it when we're talking about our work and we see a non-member either looking impressed or their eyes glaze over as our discussion goes past them. It gives us a feeling of being superior.

I guess it is something important to our psyche, our ego. We all need to feel needed. In our personal lives and in our professional lives. It's one of the reasons why some people can't retire. If they can't work then they've lost a reason to be needed.  This is especially true for single people, perhaps even more so for people who have lost their loved ones either through death or divorce.

One of the most important trick of any trade is the language associated with it. When language changes, either through changing technologies or just through natural evolution, the person who doesn't keep current with their profession's lingo is going to notice it and feel even less needed. Because it shows their knowledge is obsolete. Often, retired people will try and stay as current as they can in their old field so they feel they are still capable of being a viable member of that group. Some retirees are willing to let go and spend their retirement pursuing other interests. They learn the new lingo of their hobbies.

Now most professions are easy to get into and learn their lingo, you just have to study any text books or how-to books on the subject. That gets you a beginner's guide so that you can show some professionalism without claiming to be an expert. But some organizations and professions have stricter requirements for people getting into them. You can't just toss off a few terms and look like you know something. You have to really understand the terms.

Writers know this best and this is the one area that will give most of us the hardest time when we write about specific events or procedures. When we need more to our stories and characters than simply a profession casually mentioned. For example, John was a plumber and he was fixing the main line at the corner of West Main and 43rd Street when the accident occurred. This is a great line to introduce your character and the starting event but what if there was no main line at that intersection? What if there was no intersection of those two streets? A map of the city helps give a location but research has to be done to determine the underlying structure of a city. Most of that can be done online nowadays. But any plumber in that city reading the story and knowing one or more facts were wrong and that the terminology was wrong will give a bad review of the story and the writer.

So writers deal with their own lingo as well as the lingo they need for their stories. Which is why most stories don't deal with the nuts and bolts of professions. We brush over them, hoping that if our editor or proof readers don't catch any mistakes that any readers will forgive us minor flaws. A good writer will try and find out if their usage is right but we also won't spend a long time trying to find out if there really is a main line at West Main and 43rd and a plumber would be called to fix it. It's called artistic license.

The main tricks writers concentrate on are tone, voice, and style. How we write is just as important, if not more so, as what we write about. Anybody can have a great idea. In fact some of the best stories came about because someone the writer knew said "Wouldn't a story about (subject) be great?" and the writer's imagination took off.

I've read books that were well written but the subject was boring (to me anyway) and books where the subject was fascinating yet the writing was bad. I've slogged through some books because I wanted to see how the story developed but sometimes the writing is too ponderous that it doesn't matter how interested I was at the start. I'll either give it up or, more often, hop to the end to see what the final resolution was. If I'm lucky I'll be able to figure it out but sometimes I can't.

Personally, I try to keep my writing style light and easy. I use short, upbeat sentences as much as possible. But I like a well written complex sentence so I will throw those in some times. A lot depends on who I'm writing for. When I'm trying to get complicated thoughts out of my head I'm writing for myself. So my sentences will be longer, composed of compound or complex statements. My vocabulary will become more complex as I use the extensive amount of words I know to better express what I am thinking or feeling.

When I write for other people, I watch my vocabulary because I know that not everyone knows all the words I do. Also words have shifted in meanings over the years as our language evolves so I have to make sure I'm not using slang that's outdated or using words whose meanings have shifted and no longer mean what I had first learned them to mean. But that's just another trick of the trade.