I love making fun of this stuff

The best photo I took during my family road trip to the University of Alabama this spring break was inside a workout facility. No, I'm not a creeper who takes pictures of sweaty people. I took a picture of a directory, with arrows pointing all over the place, telling students where they could find the nearest bathroom or climbing wall.

Of course, I focused in on one word: womens.

According to the English language, though, that's not a word. Yet, Alabama must think it is. The same directory was placed elsewhere in the facility, with the same glaring mistake.

But since many of the gym's employees gave me strange looks as I snapped a picture during the tour (they must have thought I was a camera-happy, overly eager incoming freshman), I doubt they even realized its misspelling. In all fairness, most people probably have to pee so badly that the word "womens" could be replaced with womans, womans', womens', women or wemen, and the message would still be received, and no one would think about it twice (I don't know about the last one, though).

Still, how hard is it to realize that the word "women" is already plural, so adding an "s" to it is redundant, not to mention, wrong? I suppose I wouldn't have as big a deal with this if it wasn't used by a university in multiple places. And I think the whole my-sister-may-go-to-a-college-that-can't-grammar-check thing probably adds to my frustration.

By the way, what's up with that European town that wants to eliminate all the apostrophes from its road signs? That just encourages laziness.

Alright, I'm officially getting off my high horse now. I need to go to the ladieses room.

Quit playing games with my heart, language

When I was eating lunch with my friends this afternoon, I told them to tell me what to write about for this blog. The only thing related to language/grammar/editing that I had encountered was a grammatically incorrect Bible passage on a stained-glass window in St. John’s chapel (If I remember correctly, it said Jesus would save all that needed saving, not all who did).

If I hadn’t run into my friends, that would be my blog post. One sentence about how the dudes who translated the Bible into English weren’t exactly grammar freaks. I’ll put in another sentence about how I would never have noticed that if it wasn’t for editing class (brownie points?). And I’ll slab in another about how hilarious it is to imagine the translator consulting the AP Style Book.

Enough about that. Let’s resume talking about how I forced my friends to do my thinking for me. Of course, they didn’t bite. They were too focused on cheating at the Daily Illini crossword puzzle. But one of my friends, Kaitlin, decided to take a crossword break to take a bite out of a Girl Scout cookie.

But before she did, she had to explain to me the horror of the cookie! It wasn’t a Samoa; it was a Caramel deLite! Ahhhhhhh!

What’s the big deal, I asked. That’s what I always called them. And what the heck is a Tagalong? How would you have any way of knowing there’s peanut butter inside it? Naturally, the correct name is a Peanut Butter Pattie. DUH.

I guess that was the wrong thing to say.

Just like it seems to be the wrong thing for Willis Holdings to rename the Sears Tower the Willis Tower.

It seems as if Kaitlin’s reaction to the Girl Scout cookie’s name change and most of Chicago’s reaction to the Sears Tower name change provide proof that proper nouns elicit more emotional responses than any other part of language.

Why is that? What's so important about a name that makes us so attached to it?

Perhaps it's the same reason children name stuffed animals or middle-aged men name their new cars. We want ownership over the object. By naming it, we solidify that feeling. We invest in it. We become it. (OK, maybe that's a little much)

Although Kaitlin did not name the Girl Scout cookies, and Mayor Daley did not take a poll deciding what the name of the then-world's tallest building would be (he'd just have dead people vote in it anyway), we still feel attached to it. But we don't realize how much we identify the place or thing by its name until it changes. Kind of like how you don't realize what you have until it's gone.

Often, with the names of proper nouns, we rely on its name as one of its defining characteristics. Although Tagalong is a ridiculous name that could just as easily describe an annoying little sibling, to Kaitlin, and I'm sure many other people, it's part of what makes the cookie unique. Otherwise, it's just a cookie.

Marketers realize this, of course, which is why they'd prefer to keep the names. But money talks, so the Sears Tower is gone just like Marshall Field's and Komisky Park.

Dang you, language! If it wasn't for you, I wouldn't care less.

So, I don't want to sound mean or anything, but you know those free newspapers you find in hotel lobbies? They stink. I understand that they're free and all, but since there are ads in the paper, The Broad Ripple Gazette has to be getting some kind of money. I suggest they put in hiring copy editors, since some of the writing is atrocious. Actually, most of the writing is pretty terrible. I doubt copy editors will be able to salvage much of the writing, but they can catch several easy mistakes that would make the newspaper easier to tolerate.

For example, all the reported stories in Indianapolis' Broad Ripple Gazette begin with stating the date. "On Saturday, February 21, an  open house was held..." "On Friday, March 6, from 5 pm to 10 pm the Robert Kennington American Legion Post #34..." you get the picture. 

If they spent $10 on an Associated Press Style Book, they'd prevent a ton of mistakes (the proper way of writing p.m. and a.m. would be one of them).

It sounds like I'm being a smart ***/a**/a _ _/[posterior], but I'm actually quite serious. I understand that the Ripple is probably not trying to win the Pulitzer or anything, but if they want to be a down-home newspaper, trying to use proper grammar might be nice. 

Alright, enough Broad bashing. 

I now turn my attention to the AP Stylebook. It's actually quite interesting. I don't read it nearly as much as I should, but I appreciate it more than just about any other book I own. I don't think it should be limited to journalism, since it's essentially a way of making information as clean, clear and under control as possible. Why shouldn't it be used everywhere? 

Also, since journalists are arguably the most widely read writers in the world (day-to-day), isn't that reason enough to use their style of language? Since it's what we are most familiar with, we arguably understand that style of writing the best. And if it's the most common style we know, why shouldn't everyone be familiar with its dictionary, the AP Stylebook?

It'd never hurt for high school kids to buy a stylebook, since it's less intimidating than slabbing a dictionary in front of them. In fact, it's more likely to help stick various grammar or other terms in their brains than anything else.

And it's easy to use AND accessible. Which is why the Broad Ripple Gazette has no excuse. 

To publish, or not to publish...

Tricky, tricky. Deciding whether or not to publish potentially distasteful photographs in a newspaper ain’t easy. But here are my thoughts why these photos should be published or not:

1a; 2a; 3a; 4a – Publish them all. If I had to limit it to three pictures, it’d be 1a, 3a, and 4a. If only two could published, I’d have 3a and 4a, and if I could only publish one photo, I’d have 3a published.

However, the photos work best in a series. By itself, 1a is a plain photo. But its significance is what makes the photo essential. R. Budd Dwyer literally sets the stage for what is about to happen with the way he holds out his hand to the audience. Intentionally or not, he’s acknowledging that he's on display, and that we're always watching. This creates an eerie nature to the scene, not only because he’s about to kill himself in front of the media, but because he’s a politician at a press conference -- a scene we all thought we were familiar with. In short, without 1a, the irony and oddity of the situation would be lost.

And without 4a, there would be no point in publishing any of the photos. People may say that 4a should not be published at all, since it is graphic in how you can see the Dwyer shoot himself dead. But there is nothing gruesome about the photo other than the context of the situation. And even then, the context isn’t too revolting, since the man was only harming himself.

1 – Publish

Oddly enough, it was tougher to decide whether or not to publish this photo of a little boy grieving the loss of his dog’s life than the photo of the suicidal politician guy.

One of the reasons for that is because of the subject’s age. In this photo, the distraught emotions of a small child is about to go on display. Since that is the case, it is important to understand the effects on the boy if he sees his photo in the paper. Would it prompt him to get sadder? I doubt it. The photo does not depict a mangled-looking dead dog, and it merely shows the boy crying by him. The only reluctance I have to publishing this photo is what the little boy’s reaction would be.

2 – Do NOT publish

You can see the face of the dead boy, so this is a definite no-no in my mind. Case closed.

3 – Do NOT publish

Hmmm… This is a murdered adult whose face you cannot see… But he is still a murder victim. I don’t think any photo that shows the mangled body of a murder victim should be published without the family's consent.

4 – Publish

If the boy died, I would not publish the photo. But since he’s OK, I think it’s OK to print it. However, he appears to be on private property. Since that is the case, permission from he or his parents to publish the photos must be given.

Although this gives me the heebie-jeebies, it’s still a great picture. And it’s difficult to see how it could offend anyone.

5 – Do NOT Publish (but I really want to)

This gave me the hardest time. Part of me desperately wants to publish the picture, so readers can see the faces of all the sexist pigs THAT (they’re not human) molested the woman. It's one of the most disgusting photographs I’ve ever seen… which is why I want it published. Not because I enjoy seeing others suffer, but because I want to know what’s out there. That’s the whole point of news, isn’t it?

Also, since there is absolutely no way of identifying the woman (Since I doubt any of those pigs actually knew her name, and since she certainly won’t be willingly giving it out), there’s no way anyone other than the victim could get offended… right?

Even if that is right, it doesn’t matter. In a sexual assault case, no photo should go public without the consent of the victim. Although it’s a great photo, seeing her body splashed over the covers of newspapers could be another punch in the stomach for the victim.