language
I've always been a people watcher. At most parties I go to, I end up being a wall flower. And with all the travelling I've done, I've had ample opportunity to watch people in airports. One of the most interesting things is watching people communicate. As a male, I've never really been able to interpret (or even recognize) most body langauge. But I am a keen observer of both tone of voice, and the words people use.
A lot of folks seem to overlook the importance of the actual words in any given conversation. Folks get so hung up on tone of voice, or body language, that they miss the point of what is being said. I try very hard to listen to what people say. The words people choose speak volumes as to what they are thinking, whether intentionally or not. See, words have a certain cultural context to them that we often take for granted.
As an example, compare the words murder and kill. Both words can be used more or less interchangeably. But if you say that you know someone who was murdered, the general reaction is much stronger - and more sympathetic - than if you announce that you know someone who'd been killed. Likewise, if you kill someone, you may or may not be morally responsible (depending on your ethical composition, no doubt). But if you murder someone, you are clearly to blame. Some of this can be attributed to the dictionary differences between these example words, but not all of it.
As another example, consider sex (or any of its slang replacements) and making love. Although most folks this day and age will agree that making love is a bit corny, it does convey a certain romance which sex does not. Making love has a cultural history of being a passionate, romantic engagement by two willing partners. But if you say that two people are screwing or doing it, it diminishes some of the passion - it becomes a furtive act, possibly clandestine, and very probably frowned upon. In a similar vein, examine affair and cheating. Again, both words mean the same. But history has made affair an almost forgivable thing - usually due to the romance of the two lovers. But cheating leaves no doubt as to the violation that is going on - at least one person is very clearly breaking an agreement with another person, whether that agreement be explicit or not.
But there is a lot more to language use than merely historical tradition. The power of vocabulary cannot possibly be over-stated. The more words you have to describe a thing, the more things you can describe. A rich vocabulary is the key to a rich world. Without a sufficiently broad vocabulary, one cannot accurately capture and relate the vast nuance of the world. As an example, I am presently in a bad mood. The reason for this mood is extremely complex, so it's a little too simple to say I'm in a bad mood - I'm sullen, or melancholy. These words describe my mood far more aptly then just bad.
As I stated above, I listen to people a lot. I hear a lot of people destroy the English language on a regular basis (and I'm not just talking about people who want to ax you a question, want to know pacifically what you're talking about, or claim that something is funner). If these people had more of a vocabulary, they could express themselves so much more succinctly. Instead, I overhear the word cool about ten thousand times a day. I hear people who cannot use a synonym for go, or okay. I hear people blurt out um every other word.
Language is just one part of communication. I wonder if the ways we communicate these days are affecting our use of language?
communication
I'm an email junkie. I've had no less then two email accounts in the last six years. I reply to almost every single piece of mail as soon as I receive it. I have single-line email conversations with friends at work across town. I write diatribes and confessions to friends in other states.
I'm also addicted to ICQ. My contact list is comprised of about 25 people, most of whom I chat with daily. I discuss technology with co-workers in Cleveland and Indiana. I plan gaming strategies with friends in Maine. I offer technical support to a buddy in St. Louis. I've even chatted with a co-worker while he was in Yokohama, Japan! Rarely does a night go by without me being in instant contact with many people.
I've grown quite accostumed to this instant communication available to me. I find myself frustrated if I'm not able to bounce an idea of a friend while sitting in my cubicle at the office. I grow restless if none of my friends are online to coordinate a quick match of TRIBES. I feel disonnected if I'm unable to check my email for more than a few hours. Yes, I am an instant-gratification junkie.
But how many others are, too? How many people spend hours on the telephone? How many spend hours in front of a television, flipping mindlessly through channels in search of some stimulating program? How many people go to the movies with their families, instead of playing a board game or taking a walk? I think modern culture propogates the "quick fix" as a commodity more than another other.
Our culture today encourages us to waste our lives watching the drama of other people's lives unfold on a small box in front of us. Hell, our culture encourages us to get ever larger boxes to watch said drama unfold, as if this will somehow increase our pleasure. Whether that drama be a soap opera, or a sporting event, or Jerry Springer, we are encouraged to become passive observers because it's the quick fix. If you're bored, it's so easy to find an engaging episode of Springer, or Judge Judy, and laugh at someone else's misery - staged or otherwise.
And when that becomes boring, you're empowered to seek alternate stimulus with nothing more than the pressing of your thumb. The remote-control, the greatest of the "quick fix" solutions, has been a lifesaver to bored people the world over. No longer do people have to labor to the television and turn a knob. I lump into this category, also, the cordless phone (and perhaps even the cellular phone, but that's a whole seperate diatribe). The cordless phone allows us to stay firmly planted in front of our television, remote control in hand, and still be connected to those loved ones who insist on calling during our favorite program.
This culture of quick fixes has become so pervasive that it is tearing apart some of the most fundamental institutions in civilized life. I've seen two marriages fall apart because one or both members of the couple failed to recognize the life-commitment present in their vows. As couples hit a stumbling block in their relationship, popular culture tells them that a fix is just around the corner! Yes, you too can avoid all marital strife and compromise for the low low price of 19.95, thank you very much, pay at the window! How many people recognize what it means to commit yourself for the rest of your life to another human being? This means that when your spouse does some boneheaded thing again and again that you take steps to resolve it. Very very few of the problems present in most marriages are unsolvable. A solution may not be around the corner, but that doesn't mean one should nullify their vows. Of course, I also believe that the things you work hardest for are the ones you value the most; and it's safe to say that judging by our current 50% divorce rate that not many people share that opinion. Or those who do aren't getting married as often.
While driving through Indiana last week, I heard a radio commercial for some place called the Zallman Institute. This place is a plastic surgery clinic, and their radio spot absolutely appalled me. It's one thing for beauty magazines at the check-out counter to declare "Lose Wieght Now! Our 30-day program will have him looking at you like never before!" because this at least involves a modicum of effort, and a 30 day waiting period. But this plasic surgery place sends the message that if you throw enough money at us, we'll have you looking beautiful! How disgusting. And what's more disgusting is that people buy into this quick beauty fix. Lose weight, enhance your breasts, increase your sex appeal become a better person. Absurd.
I know a woman who desperately desires larger breasts. She'll tell anyone who asks how much she wants to increase her chest size. She has no definable reason for this urge, other than it will get her more attention. What I don't understand is that she gets plenty of attention now, because she's a nice looking woman with naturally full breasts (and she's not at all shy about flaunting them, either). She's clearly a victim of this media blitz to create artificial value for artificial beauty. Larger breasts will not make anyone a better person. It won't make the man of your dreams more attracted to you. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that the exact opposite of the desired (or promised) effect will come true - you'll suffer from more abuse and leering stares, and attract just the kind of people you don't want. Unless of course you happen to be attracted to selfish, shallow guys who are more interested in looking at your breasts than talking to you about your goals and aspirations.
So many people are focused on the quick fix. I admit that I'm guilty of it, too. I've been single for well over a year now, and lament to my friends how I'd like to find a girlfriend. But I keep hoping one will fall into my lap. Popular culture has conditioned me, too, through movies and television.
The quick fix is, by and large, a complete myth. If it's worth having, it's worth working for, folks.
toilets
I heard a story on National Public Radio this morning about Japan's fascination with high-tech toilets. The toilets, ranging upwards of $4,000, have seat warmers, automatically lower the seat after use by an insensitive male, provide a bidet function, and a whole lot more. The top-of-the-line model has a control panel on the side sporting nineteen knobs, buttons, and dials.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I could never persuade myself to purchase one of these techno-toilets. I'd never use it. I've grown accustomed to the painfully cold porcelain on my backside in the dead of winter. The only high-tech component in my entire bathroom is my Palm III - so I can play MahJongg - and that's not even a permanent fixture!
I realized recently just how much I like the privacy of a bathroom. Regardless of where you are, you can always count on the quiet solitude of someone's bathroom. You can read the funny anecdotes and little prayers embroidered on towels that adorn the walls. You can admire the dried flower arrangements sitting in a pretty vase on the sink. You can relax in the austere pastel environment.
But not a public bathroom! Oh no, the cold functionalism of the modern public restroom epitomizes everything I loathe about society today. In an effort to save every last penny, public restroom construction contains the absolute minimum of personal comforts. Now, I'm speaking from the purely male perspective here; I suspect that females get a marginally better toilet experience.
Guys are forced to stand shoulder to shoulder in a small pool of what may well be water and stare at a blank wall. If we're lucky, there is a small privacy divider between the urinals, although many public restrooms opt not to provide even this modicum of decency. Stalls are seperated from one another by an extremely thin wall. The walls themselves are a good six to twelve inches above the ground, and generally rise no higher than about six feet. Sure, it's nice to be able to glance down and see a pair of feet to indicate an occupied stall. But as a tall guy, I don't like to look at the crowd milling about the sink basins as I stand up.
Nor do I particularly like standing next to a guy as I stare at a blank wall. Invariably, someone will eventually feel the need to make some small quip about the weather, or a sporting event, or some news piece. The last thing I want to do, while I'm staring at a blank wall holding myself, is to discuss much of anything with a complete stranger, who is also holding himself and staring at a blank wall. I also do not like to hear the sounds of people's intestinal distress. When I choose to use a restroom, the last thing I want is to hear some poor sap suffering from diarrhea.
The toilets that I experienced in England were, on the whole, far superior. Stalls were actually seperate rooms, with the dividing wall running all the way from floor to ceiling. The occasional trough was present in place of urinals, but these were generally broad enough to support a few guys standing sufficiently spaced apart. Some such troughs wrapped around corners, allowing guys to turn their backs to one another. When urinals were in place, the privacy divider generally ran from ceiling to floor, providing a little urinal alcove.
Who designs public restrooms? Do they ever use them? Do they enjoy standing in a pool of what may well be water, holding themselves and staring at a blank wall? Do they like hearing the sounds of a man sitting in a small, semi-private cubical suffering from intestinal distress? Do they enjoy washing their hands at a sink coated in grime and soiled paper towels with only the slightest dribbling of water from the faucet?
Speaking of which, why are people so lazy in public restrooms? Why can't people not make a mess? I'm always very conscientious about my behavior in these dens of bacteria and foul odor. If the paper towel that I toss into the waste bin falls short, I pick it up and stuff it inside. If I splash water on the sink, I'll use a paper towel and dab it up. But so often one is greeted by the sight of an overflowing toilet or sink which has been either abandoned by its last user, or stuffed with towels and toilet paper in an attempt to stop it. "It's not my problem," must be the re-occuring thought going through the minds of all these mouth-breathers who commit this heinous act of toilet abuse.
Public restrooms allow - nay, encourage - the worst behaviour in all of us. We don't have to clean it up. No one we know has to clean it up. It's our one chance to really do something marginally destructive to screw up some poor sod's day. Someone does have to clean that mes up. But since we'll never know him, we all feel perfectly justified in walking away from the overflowing urinal. We'll just step blithely over the murky pool of fluid on the floor, and be on our way. If we destroy a toilet with the effort of our bowels, we'll just walk away - flushing is the next guy's problem.
No courtesy whatsoever. Public restrooms epitomize everything I loathe about modern culture.
culture
I went to Cedar Point this weekend. Although I had a good time with my friend, I was more than just a little disturbed.
Earlier this year, I sat in an Indian restaurant in New Castle, England. Upon learning that we were U.S. citizens, our waiter immediately engaged us in conversation. He shared with us his incredible passion for the World Wrestling Federation, and his favorite wrestler, Stone Cold Steve Austin. Having some familiarity in the matter, we made small talk with him, discussing the current good guys and bad guys, who was aligned with who, and the like. Our waiter learned almost everything he knew about current American culture from watching WWF and Jerry Springer. It disturbs me immensely that these are two popular export items for the U.S.
I have some minor concerns with the fact that American youth rarely bother to distinguish fact from fiction. It bothers me greatly that so many people are so keen on the WWF. As I walked about Cedar Point, I saw more Stone Cold Steve Austin and Goldberg tee-shirts than I care to count. And then there were the guys who chose not to endorse a specific wrestler, but showed their support of wrestling in general by wearing a WWF NWO shirt.
Our English waiter made it very clear to us that he thought the whole thing was ludicrous - he knew that the fights were staged, and that the enitre thing was just a money making entertainment business. He was a little unsure about the veracity of the Springer show, though. He would like to believe that the bulk of the guests on that show are paid actors, flaunting their broken home lives in order to allow folks in lower social stations to have someone to mock. But he can't be sure. To be honest, neither can I.
Over the Memorial Day weekend, I saw an A&E Biography special on Brett "The Hitman" Hart, of the WWF. This was a fascinating show. I was absolutely glued to the television, as I got to catch a glimpse into the life of a wrestler. Moreover, this guy had a lot of personal integrity and genuine concern about his function as a role-model to children. The marketing animal that is the WWF wanted to play up Hart's Canadian heritage. He played along, for awhile. The documentary showed people outside the stadiums, waiting for the wrestling match to start, burning Canadian flags and generally being extremely hostile towards Canada. When asked why, not one person could provide a valid reason. The only response was some half-hearted slander towards Canada, and Brett Hart specifically. I was literally dumbfounded as I watch the future of America curse our neighbors to the north for no reason other then they didn't like one guy.
I am absolutely appalled at the current state of wrestling. I remember, as a kid, staying up late to watch Hulk Hogan wrestle Jake "The Snake" Roberts on our local NBC station. They only showed the WWF on Fridays at midnight. Now cable shows the events what seems like every night. Bars and restaurants make a special engagement of showing a Pay Per View Battle Royale. People are spending millions of dollars on merchandising. Jesse Ventura is getting involved again. The craze is literally sweeping the nation.
I'm not so stuffy as to think that this is necessarily a bad thing. But it certainly is walking a fine line, in my mind. Here are grown men, slanderizing one another and resolving all their disputes by banging chairs over one another's head. The crowds are screaming in frenzied ecstasy at the mindless violence of it all. And then the theatrics of it have guys like The Undertaker simulating human sacrifice.
The WWF spokespeople no doubt contend that this is all just entertainment. Nonetheless, it disturbs me that our children are looking to these guys as examples. And so are other nations.
tolerance
I sat in the right hand lane of the road, about three hundred feet from the access lane to the freeway on-ramp. Traffic was backed up pretty badly, and it looked like I may have been sitting three hundred feet away from the on-ramp for a few minutes. Fine. No big deal. I was on my way home from work, and not in any particular rush to get anywhere. And then someone behind me pulled onto the berm and zipped up to the on-ramp. Then another, and another. There was soon a steady stream of cars violating established traffic policy by driving on the berm. "What's so important?" I asked myself, as I watched these people bypassing the line, and acheiving my ultimate destination ahead of me. What was the rush? What was so pressing that these people couldn't wait in line another 3 minutes?
I have the same reaction towards all this recent hubbub about road rage. I know people who get violently upset when another motorist cuts in front of them. I know people who get upset sitting in traffic. I know people who scream obscenities at little old ladies driving in the slow lane on the freeway. And I just don't get it. What purpose does it serve to get upset over these things? How will screaming at someone who can a) not hear you, and b) not care about what you're saying make any difference in your life? And more often then not, the people who do the screaming are likely to turn around and commit the same offence within 24 hours.
I was having a conversation about movies that had been made from books with a co-worker of mine last week. Of course, Frank Herbert's Dune came up. My co-worker is a fanatical fan of all the Dune books, and so claims that the film is utter drivel. He has not one nice thing to say about the film adaptation at all. Never having read the book, I will (and do) contend that it's a good introduction to the world of Arakis, and the various Houses. I truly enjoy the movie. One day I'll read the book. But my co-worker gets visibly worked up in his distress at the inaccuracies and chanegs between film and book.
He feels the same about Heinlein's Starship Troopers. Again, I've never read the novel. But I enjoyed the movie. It was a fun action romp a la Aliens. I didn't go to Starship Troopers looking for amazing character development, or an intricate plot; I went for a fun sci-fi action flick. But once again my purist co-worker will spit on the film, and generally present the attitude that anyone who likes the film is a moron.
I recognize that no movie will ever compare to the quality of the source upon which it is based. I've been disappointed with several book-to-movie transitions. But I know going in that there is going to be some content that will be modified for the general public's consumption. For example, from what I know of the original Dune story the Weirding Way was purely voice - there was no technical weirding module as in the movie. And with Starship Troopers, there was appearently a good bit more to the armor they were wearing. In both of the cases above, what was done for the movie worked fine to introduce the casual observer to the themes at hand. I probably would have been turned off by overt mysticism had the weirding modules been excluded from the film. And I would have felt bogged down in technical detail had the armor been laboriously explained.
What I don't understand is why people are so adamant about their point of view. What makes their opinion any more valid than mine? I heartily disagree with my purist co-worker, but I acknowledge his opinion as valid. I recogize that his opinion is his, and I make no effort to change it. He's perfectly entitled to be disappointed/let down/angry at the disparities. But to degrade the effort of the work that went into it defeats his purpose, I think. It also turns people off to other things which he may be a fan of. If he disparages movie X to me, then I'm inclined to avoid talking to him about movie Y which is in the same genre.
Tolerance is the key. Just because I like it doesn't mean I'm an idiot. It doesn't mean the film sucks. It doesn't mean that the person who cut you off in traffic doesn't know how to drive. It doesn't mean that the slow driving little old lady ought to have license revoked. Tolerance. There may well be factors involved of which you don't have a clue. Mechanical issues with an automobile, or a sincere difference in interpretation of the text for a movie.
Zealotry in any form is to be avoided.
