I admit I'm a Virgo, a star sign associated with a pedantic attention to detail, so you won't be surprised when I admit to a ridiculous obsession with one of the oft neglected details of written communication - and that's punctuation.
As the frequent creator and/or editor of pieces of professional writing, indeed, I've been known to angst for hours over an incorrectly placed comma or, horror of horrors, an apostrophe.
Punctuation, it seems, wasn't established as a proper system until the 1400s and has its roots back in the 3rd century BC when some bloke from Byzantium came up with a system of dots and dashes, basically to help people reading verses know when to breathe.
It's kind of ingenious when you think about what just a bunch of tiny marks can achieve.
But I've come to find that the way we use puncutation in itself contains a secret discourse that I have attempted to decode in recent weeks. What I mean is that the kinds of punctuation marks you either favour or forget in themselves may say something about your intentions as a communicator.
Today I'll begin this subject by considering first the full stop, and second, the exclamation mark.
1. THE FULL STOP
First. The Full Stop. (Not to be confused with the Half Stop which is, I understand, a position in a Baseball line-up). Now I have no idea what bloody genius discovered that by simply stalling the nib of his pen to create something that looked like the carcass of a dead tea-fly, a rabble of words spilling forward in a kind on goggle of excitement might be contained and quickly settled. All I know is that it seems to work brilliantly.
But let's consider the unlikely scenario in which. The. Full stop is. Overused. It's easy to see. That the flow of language. All. But. Stalls. And you come across as. A bit of an experimental, literary. Wanker with absolutely no conscience when it comes to your readers' general impatience. With. Time wasting. They just. Want you to. Get on with. It.
Conversely, the under-use of fullstops too may have dire consequences as pieces of writing that contain absolutely no clues as to when would be a good time to stop reading can leave the reader in a kind of limbo and wondering when in God's name this paragraph is going to end or this sentence is it now or now or now without a full stop or two there can be no cue to the reader as to a good time to take a toilet break or have a nice cup of tea or perhaps a quick shag so the appropriate use of full stops certainly has its practicalities. And, by the time you choose to put your reader out of his misery, as biology would have it, he will most likely be on the floor with blue-tinged lips and gasping like a half-dead halibut.
2. THE EXCLAMATION MARK
The Exclamation Mark is one of a handful of punctuation marks that I believe should be approached with extreme caution.
Known variously as a 'shriek', or a 'bang' this little mark has its origins in the Latin word for admiration - io - in the sense that it referred to a 'sense of wonderment'. That resulting mark was known as the 'sign or note of admiration' until the 17th century and made its first appearance in the Luther Bible in 1797. (Not much admiration, but one assumes plenty of shrieking and banging happening in religious writing. I'm sure Jesus would agree).
Of all the punctuation marks at your disposal, the exclamation mark it seems is one of the most overused in common writing and inevitably sends a shudder up my spine!
There is a sense of melodrama to this mark that can imbue even the most mundane sentence with a hyperbole you may not always intend! It is not, as some foolishly assume, a mark that amplifies importance! Instead, it you may unintentionally subvert your meaning! You may find otherwise harmless phrases convey to the reader an unintentional urgency or significance!
It all gets horribly worse when the writer, in a florid state of emotion opts for not one but a collection of exclamation marks!! Remember, an exclamation mark is a bang!!!! It's a shout!!! Imagine one shout or bang becoming several!!!!!!! You'd think you were being attacked by either gun-wielding brigands or Neanderthal villagers bearing burning torches!!!!!!!! Your reader may be forgiven for questioning your mental state!!! Or if you've gone completely insane!!!!!!!!!!!!
The best way to illustrate it is with an otherwise inoffensive statement that you may find in an office memo or, perhaps a police statement (depending on your character).
Exhibit 1: No Exclamation Mark
"Look at what's happening."
Without an exclamation mark, this phrase sits their somewhat sedately as you position yourself as a focused, reasonable observer.
Exhibit 2: One Exclamation Mark
"Look at what's happening!"
The senses are stirred! One begins to wonder, "Where? What should I be looking at!"
Exhibit 3: Exclamation Mark Overload
"Look at what's happening!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Aside the statement looking like it's been hijacked by a revolution of organised sperm, it's easy to see how the writer or speaker has been transformed into a hyperventillating maniac!!!!! There is no calm observation here, but panic!!!!!!! There's an urge to adopt the crash position, take cover under your desk, suck your thumb and scream for mummy!!!!!!!!
Now breathe, breathe, breathe. You'll be fine I promise once you realise that in the world of exclamation marks, less really is more.
As F. Scott Fitzgerald once advised:
Cut out all those exclamation marks. An exclamation mark is like laughing at your own jokes.
He meant, it's like an orgy of self-admiration that may not always work in your favour.
To be continued....
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Monday, August 9, 2010
Communication More or Less
One of the great questions of any communication activity, whether it involves bodily contact or not, is that of frequency, or more simply, how often.
"Never often enough", my husband might complain, but of course, we're suggesting quite different things.
When I talk about "communication activity" I am indeed referring to any action that requires a reaction - that is that process of 'Send & Receive' (did you notice my the new banner for my blog?) the very foundation of all communication.
The problem these days is that access to quick, easy and often cheap forms of media, and in particular online or E-Communication, has meant that there is by and large way to much sending than is appropriate.
To put things in perspective - and in a bow to my continually unsatisfied husband! - the way I see it the process of sending a communication in whatever form, whether it be physical or virtual, spoken or written, is very much like the actions of a lover.
Like any lover sending signals a desire to establish a communion, a relationship, an understanding, possibly a marriage, a long term commitment that will mean you and your receiver are wed together in a holy bond based on a history of sharing.
But let's face it. These days there is little that is virtuous or restrained about senders, those plighting their troth, those desperate to hitch their respective cabooses to the receiver they so desire.
Indeed there is something akin to communication sluttery, senders so keen to attract your attention that they prostitute themselves to their chosen media.
As a result, these senders exist in a world of excited activity where there is no such thing as too much. And so, they engage in acts of communication so intensely, so frequently that the object of their affections can only tire.
No one likes a stalker,that person who's been given no formal commitment from his receivers of his messages of love yet continues to pester them with promises! pledges! prizes!
No one likes to have their mailboxes, real or virtual, or their facebook or MSN pages, bulging with rubbish.
Just because I've given you my number or made the foolish mistake in befriending you on Facebook or Twitter or MSN, I really don't need to hear from you even five times a day. In my view, once or twice is adequate.
Of course, in the way of all these diatribes, there is always an exception. And here it is.
By and large, all will be forgiven, your sluttery, your prostitution, your pathetic need for the love of that great ocean of possible receivers if and only if you genuinely have something interesting, informative, entertaining or enlightening to impart.
Generally, however, the frequency of communication can tell your receivers much about the degree of thought you may have put into your communication.
Whether you're posting something on Facebook or texting a friend or emailing your marketing material or even telephoning someone you like, never forget that less is always more.
That is, unless you're my husband :)
"Never often enough", my husband might complain, but of course, we're suggesting quite different things.
When I talk about "communication activity" I am indeed referring to any action that requires a reaction - that is that process of 'Send & Receive' (did you notice my the new banner for my blog?) the very foundation of all communication.
The problem these days is that access to quick, easy and often cheap forms of media, and in particular online or E-Communication, has meant that there is by and large way to much sending than is appropriate.
To put things in perspective - and in a bow to my continually unsatisfied husband! - the way I see it the process of sending a communication in whatever form, whether it be physical or virtual, spoken or written, is very much like the actions of a lover.
Like any lover sending signals a desire to establish a communion, a relationship, an understanding, possibly a marriage, a long term commitment that will mean you and your receiver are wed together in a holy bond based on a history of sharing.
But let's face it. These days there is little that is virtuous or restrained about senders, those plighting their troth, those desperate to hitch their respective cabooses to the receiver they so desire.
Indeed there is something akin to communication sluttery, senders so keen to attract your attention that they prostitute themselves to their chosen media.
As a result, these senders exist in a world of excited activity where there is no such thing as too much. And so, they engage in acts of communication so intensely, so frequently that the object of their affections can only tire.
No one likes a stalker,that person who's been given no formal commitment from his receivers of his messages of love yet continues to pester them with promises! pledges! prizes!
No one likes to have their mailboxes, real or virtual, or their facebook or MSN pages, bulging with rubbish.
Just because I've given you my number or made the foolish mistake in befriending you on Facebook or Twitter or MSN, I really don't need to hear from you even five times a day. In my view, once or twice is adequate.
Of course, in the way of all these diatribes, there is always an exception. And here it is.
By and large, all will be forgiven, your sluttery, your prostitution, your pathetic need for the love of that great ocean of possible receivers if and only if you genuinely have something interesting, informative, entertaining or enlightening to impart.
Generally, however, the frequency of communication can tell your receivers much about the degree of thought you may have put into your communication.
Whether you're posting something on Facebook or texting a friend or emailing your marketing material or even telephoning someone you like, never forget that less is always more.
That is, unless you're my husband :)
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Sharemanship: The Rules
Lately I've been taking stock of the whole notion of "Sharing". Social networking relies on it, reality television would not exist without it, and YouTube wouldn't be nearly half as entertaining.
But while new forms of media have enabled us to share just about anything at a whim, it raises questions as to the whole dynamic of the concept of 'sharing'.
Learning to share is one of the steps in the development of children, a basis to the formation of relationships and both their social and cognitive evolution. As children, we all had to learn how to share our toys without gouging out the eyes of anyone who dared touch our most prized Barney or Barbie.
The emergence of civilisation itself has relied on our acceptance that we must share in order to survive in both a physical and metaphysical sense. From basic resources such as food and fire, land and shelter to things more complex - goals, ideas, principles, passions - human beings have had to learn to share in order to create and maintain mutually beneficial relationships.
In the process, sharing enables us to seek out which birds are of the same feather until we form tribes, clans, social groups, organisations, and so find our sense of place in the world.
But these days, the concept of sharing has become that much more complicated as new forms of media have challenged us to question how, what and why we share.
Social media, in particular, has made the demand for sharing both immediate and ad hoc without always allowing us the time or opportunity to filter our thought processes. After all, the keyboard is just at our fingertips!
The result is that many people are pushed to make poor decisions as to just what they ought to share - by whatever means - Facebook, Twitter, MSN or daily texting.
Should it be that idea or this opinion or that personal fact?
Many of us struggle to know what we should be sharing and what kind of 'due diligence' should be completed before pressing the Share, Send or Submit buttons we have such easy access to.
To help you, here are some points I would ask you to consider.
Nothing is worth sharing unless it seeks to entertain, inform, enlighten or challenge.
There is simply no value in sharing poison or vitriol. There is no value in venting your spleen and sharing your bad day unless you seek genuiune advice as to how to deal with a vexatious situation.
Tone is everything. Always re-read your post to see if it may be construed in a negative light. Do you want to be seen as some hyper-ventillating fruitcake? Or perhaps you come across as a preening narcissist? Or perhaps you may be perceied as an ill-informed ning nong? Whatever the reality, perception is everything.
Be aware of how many "Friends" or "Followers" you may have "befriended" and their connection to you. This can be helpful in determining just what level of intimacy you wish to share.
Finally, always keep in mind that social media sites remain in the public domain. This will enable you to apply the appropriate checks and balances to ensure you are promoting the right image for you.
In my next blog, I'll talk more specifically about why such check-ups can be important to both your personal and public life.
Until then, happy sharing!
But while new forms of media have enabled us to share just about anything at a whim, it raises questions as to the whole dynamic of the concept of 'sharing'.
Learning to share is one of the steps in the development of children, a basis to the formation of relationships and both their social and cognitive evolution. As children, we all had to learn how to share our toys without gouging out the eyes of anyone who dared touch our most prized Barney or Barbie.
The emergence of civilisation itself has relied on our acceptance that we must share in order to survive in both a physical and metaphysical sense. From basic resources such as food and fire, land and shelter to things more complex - goals, ideas, principles, passions - human beings have had to learn to share in order to create and maintain mutually beneficial relationships.
In the process, sharing enables us to seek out which birds are of the same feather until we form tribes, clans, social groups, organisations, and so find our sense of place in the world.
But these days, the concept of sharing has become that much more complicated as new forms of media have challenged us to question how, what and why we share.
Social media, in particular, has made the demand for sharing both immediate and ad hoc without always allowing us the time or opportunity to filter our thought processes. After all, the keyboard is just at our fingertips!
The result is that many people are pushed to make poor decisions as to just what they ought to share - by whatever means - Facebook, Twitter, MSN or daily texting.
Should it be that idea or this opinion or that personal fact?
Many of us struggle to know what we should be sharing and what kind of 'due diligence' should be completed before pressing the Share, Send or Submit buttons we have such easy access to.
To help you, here are some points I would ask you to consider.
Nothing is worth sharing unless it seeks to entertain, inform, enlighten or challenge.
There is simply no value in sharing poison or vitriol. There is no value in venting your spleen and sharing your bad day unless you seek genuiune advice as to how to deal with a vexatious situation.
Tone is everything. Always re-read your post to see if it may be construed in a negative light. Do you want to be seen as some hyper-ventillating fruitcake? Or perhaps you come across as a preening narcissist? Or perhaps you may be perceied as an ill-informed ning nong? Whatever the reality, perception is everything.
Be aware of how many "Friends" or "Followers" you may have "befriended" and their connection to you. This can be helpful in determining just what level of intimacy you wish to share.
Finally, always keep in mind that social media sites remain in the public domain. This will enable you to apply the appropriate checks and balances to ensure you are promoting the right image for you.
In my next blog, I'll talk more specifically about why such check-ups can be important to both your personal and public life.
Until then, happy sharing!
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
A Friend or Four Hundred
Those of you who have stuck by me and continue to read my itinerant bloggings in this space will remember that recently, I pondered the Brave New World of virtual friendships.
This topic has stuck heavily on my mind and has moved me to contemplate the nature of modern friendships. Has the immediacy, flexibility and accessibility of technology-based communication corrupted our understanding of that most noble of relationships, "the true friend"?
The word "friend" it seems has been commandeered by sites like Facebook and MSN, to such an extent that many people seem to have forgotten the true meaning of the word.
First up let me make if plain that I am probably a little unusual in that I place a greater than usual emphasis on the word. Having been brought up in a boarding school environment, my earlier years were shaped to a major degree by people outside my immediate family. These variously included a nun with a gold tooth, school mates, teachers and if you count it, one crippled dog called 'Bingo'.
Later, when my family moved to Australia, the absence of immediate relatives meant our home was always full of "other people" - my very sociable parents vast collection of neighbours, work mates, fellow Sri Lankans and the occasional international visitor.
These were the people I relied on for my sense of connection to the rest of humanity and so, as a result, the notion of a "friend" was almost narcotic. They were people, in short, who mattered deeply to us.
I have therefore evolved into the kind of human being who places great store on those gestures that reflect genuine caring for another: remembering a birthday; offers of help in times of personal crisis; time spent (often endless time) offering advice, however flawed, to problems that sometimes seem insurmountable. I'm a frequent entertainer and, over the years, have held countless dinner parties and parties, many of them the sole highlight in the social calendars of various individuals. I place a huge emphasis on gifts and will take a great deal of time thinking about each person's likes and dislikes and hunting often for weeks for the "right" present.
But these gestures often surprise my many Australian-born friends. One even suggested, albeit obliquely that I am "over the top."
I would disagree. I would say that I am not "over the top" but that I do not take the concept of 'friendship' for granted. I view it as a flower that must be tendered lest it wither and die.
I argue that "friendship" is the foundation of every single relationship, whether with lover, sister or friend, with mother or child, with teacher, or mentor or any human being with who you interact in any meaningful way.
And friendship requires work and commitment.
Friendship should be a dialogue, not a soliloquy. It should be about presence not absence. It should be about remembering, not forgetting. It should be about the things that bring us together, not keep us apart. It should be about doing a little more - being 'over the top' - than doing a little less.
In my next blog, I will discuss how this notion of friendship should be applied to the online world. In the meantime, I ask you to think a little about what being a "friend" means to you.
And when you next "accept" a friend invitation on Facebook, perhaps pause a little and remind yourself of what this relationship should mean to you.
This topic has stuck heavily on my mind and has moved me to contemplate the nature of modern friendships. Has the immediacy, flexibility and accessibility of technology-based communication corrupted our understanding of that most noble of relationships, "the true friend"?
The word "friend" it seems has been commandeered by sites like Facebook and MSN, to such an extent that many people seem to have forgotten the true meaning of the word.
First up let me make if plain that I am probably a little unusual in that I place a greater than usual emphasis on the word. Having been brought up in a boarding school environment, my earlier years were shaped to a major degree by people outside my immediate family. These variously included a nun with a gold tooth, school mates, teachers and if you count it, one crippled dog called 'Bingo'.
Later, when my family moved to Australia, the absence of immediate relatives meant our home was always full of "other people" - my very sociable parents vast collection of neighbours, work mates, fellow Sri Lankans and the occasional international visitor.
These were the people I relied on for my sense of connection to the rest of humanity and so, as a result, the notion of a "friend" was almost narcotic. They were people, in short, who mattered deeply to us.
I have therefore evolved into the kind of human being who places great store on those gestures that reflect genuine caring for another: remembering a birthday; offers of help in times of personal crisis; time spent (often endless time) offering advice, however flawed, to problems that sometimes seem insurmountable. I'm a frequent entertainer and, over the years, have held countless dinner parties and parties, many of them the sole highlight in the social calendars of various individuals. I place a huge emphasis on gifts and will take a great deal of time thinking about each person's likes and dislikes and hunting often for weeks for the "right" present.
But these gestures often surprise my many Australian-born friends. One even suggested, albeit obliquely that I am "over the top."
I would disagree. I would say that I am not "over the top" but that I do not take the concept of 'friendship' for granted. I view it as a flower that must be tendered lest it wither and die.
I argue that "friendship" is the foundation of every single relationship, whether with lover, sister or friend, with mother or child, with teacher, or mentor or any human being with who you interact in any meaningful way.
And friendship requires work and commitment.
Friendship should be a dialogue, not a soliloquy. It should be about presence not absence. It should be about remembering, not forgetting. It should be about the things that bring us together, not keep us apart. It should be about doing a little more - being 'over the top' - than doing a little less.
In my next blog, I will discuss how this notion of friendship should be applied to the online world. In the meantime, I ask you to think a little about what being a "friend" means to you.
And when you next "accept" a friend invitation on Facebook, perhaps pause a little and remind yourself of what this relationship should mean to you.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
A Little More Conversation
My sisters and I often moan about it - the slow death of conversation.
I don't know if it's television, mobile phones, industrial deafness, congenital dullness or people with a genuine disinterest in others but it seems the average person today has no idea as to how to start a conversation or keep one going.
The other day I sat on one side of a long-table at a local function and was amazed at how the lady sitting two feet from me was looking at me yet could not rouse herself sufficiently to even say hello.
As usual, I took the bull by the horns. I said: "Hi, my name's Bronwyn. How do you know Linda?" (the function organiser). There was the slight uplift of eyebrows as if to say: "Me? You want to talk to me?"
Actually, I didn't because the truth is, after around 40 years of trying to show an interest in people, there are occasionally moments when the very idea of it is, frankly, wearying.
What is it with people these days? Even when we find the time to sit down with people we know, there is often complete disinterest in conversation.
The average person is content to sit their like the cold leftovers of a long-forgotten dinner and, I don't know, I suppose just wallow in a moment of exuding their own dullness.
Personally, I can't see the point. Human relationships are about interaction, and interactions begin with a genuine interest in others.
You'd be surprised at what you can learn if you just take the time to engage with another human being.
A simple question about why they might be sitting where they are, might lead to an association and possibly a common interest or experience that may find your time at that table you're sitting is passed much more pleasantly.
Conversation is, in fact, at the heart of every relationship - whether with your lover, a work colleague or a friend. As Wikipaedia observes, Conversation is indispensable for the successful accomplishment of almost all activities between people, especially the coordination of work, the formation of friendships and for learning.
It is therefore, I believe, an essential skill that we should all aim to become more proficient at.
Feel uncomfortable conversing? Then you need to learn how and the best way to do so is to start practicing!
Most conversations commence with a question or an observation. Try to avoid complaining, whinging or gossiping about other people. Focus on ideas, things that are happening around you, perhaps a news item you may have seen on TV or read about. Introduce a subject and see where it takes you. If it leads to a dead-end, try another tack.
With each new conversation, your skills will improve and before you know it, you'll find people gravitate toward you because you'll be genuinely interesting. Good luck!
I don't know if it's television, mobile phones, industrial deafness, congenital dullness or people with a genuine disinterest in others but it seems the average person today has no idea as to how to start a conversation or keep one going.
The other day I sat on one side of a long-table at a local function and was amazed at how the lady sitting two feet from me was looking at me yet could not rouse herself sufficiently to even say hello.
As usual, I took the bull by the horns. I said: "Hi, my name's Bronwyn. How do you know Linda?" (the function organiser). There was the slight uplift of eyebrows as if to say: "Me? You want to talk to me?"
Actually, I didn't because the truth is, after around 40 years of trying to show an interest in people, there are occasionally moments when the very idea of it is, frankly, wearying.
What is it with people these days? Even when we find the time to sit down with people we know, there is often complete disinterest in conversation.
The average person is content to sit their like the cold leftovers of a long-forgotten dinner and, I don't know, I suppose just wallow in a moment of exuding their own dullness.
Personally, I can't see the point. Human relationships are about interaction, and interactions begin with a genuine interest in others.
You'd be surprised at what you can learn if you just take the time to engage with another human being.
A simple question about why they might be sitting where they are, might lead to an association and possibly a common interest or experience that may find your time at that table you're sitting is passed much more pleasantly.
Conversation is, in fact, at the heart of every relationship - whether with your lover, a work colleague or a friend. As Wikipaedia observes, Conversation is indispensable for the successful accomplishment of almost all activities between people, especially the coordination of work, the formation of friendships and for learning.
It is therefore, I believe, an essential skill that we should all aim to become more proficient at.
Feel uncomfortable conversing? Then you need to learn how and the best way to do so is to start practicing!
Most conversations commence with a question or an observation. Try to avoid complaining, whinging or gossiping about other people. Focus on ideas, things that are happening around you, perhaps a news item you may have seen on TV or read about. Introduce a subject and see where it takes you. If it leads to a dead-end, try another tack.
With each new conversation, your skills will improve and before you know it, you'll find people gravitate toward you because you'll be genuinely interesting. Good luck!
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Who wants to know?
Proclamations of love. Daily intimacies. Daily diaries overflowing with mundanities. Often hastily scribed, sometimes bubbling with excitement, and perhaps an overuse of punctuation.
Don't you love social networking sites? All of a sudden, once-lonely Leona has a million 'friends' or 'followers' and boy, is she embracing the share-fest.
The voyeur in me loves it - and sure, it's heartening to know that I am not alone in my imperfect, angst-ridden life.
But the communicator in me can't help but cringe.
The fact is that all communication should be about 'targeting' or niching messages specific to an audience, something that is lost to the average Facebook user. Not every message is interesting, relevant or suitable for every person and is dependent on a range of demographics - age, education, culture and so on.
Despite privacy options that enable us to distill our friends into lists, unfortunately most people don't realise that the more "friends" you accumulate, the more care needs to be taken in exactly what is said or shared.
Okay, I know it takes the fun out of it. It's the spontaneous, visceral 'posts' I enjoy - the friend in the thrall of jubilation, the one needing advice and counsel, the one having a bad day, the one (usually me) not afraid to post a heartfelt expletive.
But the cruel reality is that the more obscure the degrees of connection to your world of Facebook friends, the more caution we all need to take in who, what, where and when we choose to post our feeling, thought or insight of the moment.
Spontaneous communications are wonderful between intimate friends, but as the degrees of separation get into their double digits, it is wisest to practice some self-censorship.
Start with your motivations.
Remember that your commentary on sites like Facebook and Twitter are a window to your world. Do you want to impress, inspire, titillate, shock, amuse, inform, entertain, excite?
From the great 'why', the 'what' will follow and please, don't forget the most important consideration in my view, 'who'. Who wants to know?
Don't you love social networking sites? All of a sudden, once-lonely Leona has a million 'friends' or 'followers' and boy, is she embracing the share-fest.
The voyeur in me loves it - and sure, it's heartening to know that I am not alone in my imperfect, angst-ridden life.
But the communicator in me can't help but cringe.
The fact is that all communication should be about 'targeting' or niching messages specific to an audience, something that is lost to the average Facebook user. Not every message is interesting, relevant or suitable for every person and is dependent on a range of demographics - age, education, culture and so on.
Despite privacy options that enable us to distill our friends into lists, unfortunately most people don't realise that the more "friends" you accumulate, the more care needs to be taken in exactly what is said or shared.
Okay, I know it takes the fun out of it. It's the spontaneous, visceral 'posts' I enjoy - the friend in the thrall of jubilation, the one needing advice and counsel, the one having a bad day, the one (usually me) not afraid to post a heartfelt expletive.
But the cruel reality is that the more obscure the degrees of connection to your world of Facebook friends, the more caution we all need to take in who, what, where and when we choose to post our feeling, thought or insight of the moment.
Spontaneous communications are wonderful between intimate friends, but as the degrees of separation get into their double digits, it is wisest to practice some self-censorship.
Start with your motivations.
Remember that your commentary on sites like Facebook and Twitter are a window to your world. Do you want to impress, inspire, titillate, shock, amuse, inform, entertain, excite?
From the great 'why', the 'what' will follow and please, don't forget the most important consideration in my view, 'who'. Who wants to know?
Thursday, April 15, 2010
We're virtually friends!
I know I'm not the first person to contemplate this subject, and I certainly won't be the last, but lately I've been thinking about the impact of the strange world of web-based communication, particularly through social networking sites.
It seems that these days the degrees of separation between humanoids is infinitesmal as sites such as Facebook and Twitter bring together virtual strangers in interactions that, from my observations, can be transformed in a timeframe that is mindboggling from 'Hello, what bar of soap are you?' to a level of sometimes cloying intimacy.
In a matter of hours or minutes in fact, if you tallied up the real-time allocations to each discrete communication activity, a person who is just a series of on-line conversations can be elevated to 'close friend' and before you know it, you're intimately acquainted (or you believe you are) with someone who it is highly likely, you will never encounter in the flesh. The funny thing is, you probably don't even really know if you want to!
It's no wonder then that this new mode of communicating and connecting with people raises many questions about the etiquette that should be followed and the kinds of boundaries that may be wise in part to ensure that these virtual relationships are authentic.
From my observations, most humans have barely mastered the art of face-to-face communication and now, the average Joe and Janine are required to understand the dynamics of a a still evolving mode or interaction.
The paradox, however, is that while online forums are arguably one of the most accessible forms of communication for busy people, time-strapped, money conscious and hindered by draining routines that make more meaningful face-to-face interactions well nigh impossible, they are also the most complex and, to a degree, difficult.
That's because, to state the bleeding obvious, raw words delivered in the written form on screen are scribed often quickly and less conscientiously than other communication tasks. At the same time, they are not finessed by the usual modifiers that are the luxury of the spoken word - tone, expression, volume, pitch, pace and so on - that can convey emotion, and therefore intent.
Words onscreen then are just what they are. Words. And like any collection of words, they are open to interpretation based on, for example, the receiver's experiences, education, expectations, circumstances, current state of mind and even sobriety.
All of this needs to be considered when exchanging any kind of virtual communication - whether it is an email or a comment on your Facebook page.
The first rule therefore should be to always check and recheck what you've written to ensure it may not be read in a way you might not have intended.
Remember my motto: Fingertips that slip, can sink friendships.
More on this topic in later blogs.
It seems that these days the degrees of separation between humanoids is infinitesmal as sites such as Facebook and Twitter bring together virtual strangers in interactions that, from my observations, can be transformed in a timeframe that is mindboggling from 'Hello, what bar of soap are you?' to a level of sometimes cloying intimacy.
In a matter of hours or minutes in fact, if you tallied up the real-time allocations to each discrete communication activity, a person who is just a series of on-line conversations can be elevated to 'close friend' and before you know it, you're intimately acquainted (or you believe you are) with someone who it is highly likely, you will never encounter in the flesh. The funny thing is, you probably don't even really know if you want to!
It's no wonder then that this new mode of communicating and connecting with people raises many questions about the etiquette that should be followed and the kinds of boundaries that may be wise in part to ensure that these virtual relationships are authentic.
From my observations, most humans have barely mastered the art of face-to-face communication and now, the average Joe and Janine are required to understand the dynamics of a a still evolving mode or interaction.
The paradox, however, is that while online forums are arguably one of the most accessible forms of communication for busy people, time-strapped, money conscious and hindered by draining routines that make more meaningful face-to-face interactions well nigh impossible, they are also the most complex and, to a degree, difficult.
That's because, to state the bleeding obvious, raw words delivered in the written form on screen are scribed often quickly and less conscientiously than other communication tasks. At the same time, they are not finessed by the usual modifiers that are the luxury of the spoken word - tone, expression, volume, pitch, pace and so on - that can convey emotion, and therefore intent.
Words onscreen then are just what they are. Words. And like any collection of words, they are open to interpretation based on, for example, the receiver's experiences, education, expectations, circumstances, current state of mind and even sobriety.
All of this needs to be considered when exchanging any kind of virtual communication - whether it is an email or a comment on your Facebook page.
The first rule therefore should be to always check and recheck what you've written to ensure it may not be read in a way you might not have intended.
Remember my motto: Fingertips that slip, can sink friendships.
More on this topic in later blogs.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Diligence Schmiligence
If you're a lawyer or any kind of businessman, you'll understand the term 'due diligence' - it's a process of care a reasonable person must complete before entering into any agreement or transaction with another party, usually in a financial arrangement.
Now due diligence is a pretty fine thing, applied properly and in my thinking, it's a process we can all apply to one of the most frequent transactions we make - and that's in our daily communication.
Like a financial transaction, communication in its true form involves an exchange: one party gives a piece of information to another party and in processing it, there's due diligence required on both sides to ensure the transaction is effected to the mutual benefit of all parties.
It seems fairly straightforward to me but I'm often amazed at how frequently communication is despatched without enough of the due diligence required.
In my world of public relations in fact, there are often 'whoopsies' that can sometimes necessitate damage control and usually are the result of over-worked and exhausted practitioners juggling too many balls,
That, of course, is no excuse!
Every one of us can benefit from taking some extra time to ensure we conduct good due diligence on both our private and public communications.
SOME DUE DILIGENCE TIPS
For written communication
- Check the accuracy of your facts including names and titles
- Check dates if relevant (it's a common mistake to have the right date but the wrong day of the week, for example)
- Check the appropriateness of your language (especially, approach the use of humour with care)
- Check your spelling - and no, do not rely on a spell checker. In Commonwealth countries, the Oxford English is preferred while Microsoft relies on the Webster.
- Check your punctuation and grammar.
- Check the overall presentation of your document. Sloppy layouts can deter your reader.
- Avoid typo-ventillation!
For spoken communication
- If it's an important meeting, practice what you'll say. It is amazing how much this process helps you clarify thinking.
- Make notes if you must.
- Check your facts.
- Moderate your tone throughout the interchange.
- Be aware of your language. Avoid using qualifers like "absolutely" or "definitely" as they often give an impression of insincerity or uncertainty.
- Be aware of eye contact, posture, proximity and so on.
Due diligence is especially important in our time of increasingly globalisation. Companies seeking to diversify into global markets should be aware of the importance of due diligence in terms of cross-cultural communication.
We can learn from the mistakes of big brands. Here are some I've found. Enjoy!
Coca-Cola
When Coca-Cola moved into China, the famous brand was rendered in Chinese characters. Regrettably, these translated to "bite the wax tadpole" in one dialect, which sounds very sexy don't you think? In another dialect it meant "female horse stuffed with wax". Coke then researched 40,000 Chinese characters and found a close phonetic equivalent, Ko-Kou-Ko-Le which could be loosely translated as "happiness in the mouth" - aah, much better!
Pepsi Cola
Coke's nemesis, Pepsi also decided to launch in China and discovered too late that its catch 'Pepsi give you zest for life' slogan translated to 'Pepsi brings your ancestors back from the grave'. Yoiks! Now that's one way to cure a soft-drink addiction!
Zube Throat Sweets
This successful British throat lozenge was launched into the North African Arab Market - alas, 'Zube' is a slang term for a large horse's penis, apparently.
Nestle Baby Milk
In Central Africa, the local people are used to labelling that depicts the food that is inside the tin because many people cannot read English. When Nestle imported its tins of baby food into the region, the graphic on the label included a smiling baby.
Vauxhull
Vauxhall launched its small car the Nova model into Spain - but 'no va' in the lingo means 'won't go'. The care was later renamed the Caribe.
Triumph
Over to Germany, where a British car maker launghed its Triump Acclaim model. The brand 'Triumph Acclaim' in German translates to 'Sieg Heil'. One assumes it ran on gas.
Sunmaid Californian Raisins
The British are known to be a bit bawdy at times but Sunmaid Raisins might have done their homework a little better. On the back of the packaging of this product, Sunmaid suggested: "Why not try tossing over your favourite breakfast cereal?" In the UK, 'tossing' is a slang word for masturbation. Perhaps a good meal for Onan the Barbarian
Coors
Coors ads did not run well in the Spanish market when their otherwise successful slogan 'Turn it Loose' translated into the Spanish 'Get Diarrhoea'... the beer must've been crap.
Starbucks
Starbucks executives must have got themselves into a right froth when thousands of posters were printed in Germany encouraging their Teutonic customers to 'Enjoy your morning Latte'. In German, 'Latte' is slang for an erection. Oops.
Coca-Cola
When Coca-Cola moved into China, the famous brand was rendered in Chinese characters. Regrettably, these translated to "bite the wax tadpole" in one dialect, which sounds very sexy don't you think? In another dialect it meant "female horse stuffed with wax". Coke then researched 40,000 Chinese characters and found a close phonetic equivalent, Ko-Kou-Ko-Le which could be loosely translated as "happiness in the mouth" - aah, much better!
Pepsi Cola
Coke's nemesis, Pepsi also decided to launch in China and discovered too late that its catch 'Pepsi give you zest for life' slogan translated to 'Pepsi brings your ancestors back from the grave'. Yoiks! Now that's one way to cure a soft-drink addiction!
Zube Throat Sweets
This successful British throat lozenge was launched into the North African Arab Market - alas, 'Zube' is a slang term for a large horse's penis, apparently.
Nestle Baby Milk
In Central Africa, the local people are used to labelling that depicts the food that is inside the tin because many people cannot read English. When Nestle imported its tins of baby food into the region, the graphic on the label included a smiling baby.
Vauxhull
Vauxhall launched its small car the Nova model into Spain - but 'no va' in the lingo means 'won't go'. The care was later renamed the Caribe.
Triumph
Over to Germany, where a British car maker launghed its Triump Acclaim model. The brand 'Triumph Acclaim' in German translates to 'Sieg Heil'. One assumes it ran on gas.
Sunmaid Californian Raisins
The British are known to be a bit bawdy at times but Sunmaid Raisins might have done their homework a little better. On the back of the packaging of this product, Sunmaid suggested: "Why not try tossing over your favourite breakfast cereal?" In the UK, 'tossing' is a slang word for masturbation. Perhaps a good meal for Onan the Barbarian
Coors
Coors ads did not run well in the Spanish market when their otherwise successful slogan 'Turn it Loose' translated into the Spanish 'Get Diarrhoea'... the beer must've been crap.
Starbucks
Starbucks executives must have got themselves into a right froth when thousands of posters were printed in Germany encouraging their Teutonic customers to 'Enjoy your morning Latte'. In German, 'Latte' is slang for an erection. Oops.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
WARNING: Contains Explicit Language!
"Nobody heard of fucking Howling Dogs. I was fucking living in a fucking packing crate in the alley behind Romanos Pizza. I've been punk, funk, grunge, and R&B. I've been with the Funky Butts, the Pitts, Beggar Boys, and Howling Dogs. I was with Howling Dogs the longest. It was a fucking depressing experience. I couldn't stand fucking singing all those fucking songs about fucking hearts fucking breaking and fucking goldfish fucking going to heaven. And then I had to fucking look like some western dude. I mean, how can you have any self-respect when you have to go on stage in a cowboy hat?" I was pretty good at cussing, but I didn't think I could keep up with Sally. On my best day, I couldn't squeeze all those "f" words into a sentence. "Boy, you can really curse," I said. "You can't be a fucking musician without fucking cursing."
Janet Evanovich in Stephanie Plum
The Fucking F-Word is everywhere. It's hard to ignore with popular culture fucking bulging at the fucking seams with expletives, mainly beginning with the Letter F. My sister Fiona and I are both aspiring writers and recently, we were talking about these words, swear words that fucking crop up when you least fucking expect them and can totally fuck up your view of whatever piece of writing you're fucking reading at the time.
Being the good Catholic girl that I am, dropping fucking words into my fucking writing is fucking liberating. It's like committing a fucking sin and even as I write this blog, I'm checking over my shoulder for a fucking nun to come out and biff me across the fucking ears.
Back in my younger days, 'fuck' really used to be a bad word but I have to confess, it was sometimes heard within the four walls of my home partly because of my dad who had a stint as a truck driver. As a Ceylonese immigrant wanting to speak like the fucking natives, you had to fuck around with the word a bit just to show you fucking belonged.
When I was much smaller and still living in what was still Ceylon, Dad didn't use use any fucking bad words. I used to hear him say "bloody shit" on the phone when he was 'blackguarding' someone (a commonly used Ceylonese word), but the most we'd dare to say was 'fiddlesticks' or 'balderdash', thanks in part to the diet of Enid Blyton books that played a big role in our education. Hey, we even called our folks Mummy and Daddy so WTF - Enid had a lot to fucking answer for.
Nowadays though, the F-word seems to be fucking inescapable and, as both a writer and communicator, I can't help thinking "What the Fuck?" is our language completely fucked? If you have children, just have a look if you can at your child's Facebook or MSN site. It's not just the F-Words these fucking kids are using. There's also the C-word and it's no big fucking deal to them.
Once upon a time, the careful placement of an F-word could add considered colour to a sentence. It was the fucking rarity of the useage of the word that was the source of its power.
You may have heard the "F-word" originated in ye olde England when apparently folks needed a permit to have children with said permit allowing Fornication Under Consent of the King. Sadly though, it's a load of fucking crap.
In fact, the roots of the word "fuck" are derived from its Anglo Saxon heritage. The German 'ficken' and the Dutch 'fokken' both mean 'to breed' while the Proto-Germanic 'fokan' means to copulate. The fucking Dutch do not consider 'fokken' crude, but the fucking Germans and Scandinavians do.
But why would a writer or any communicator choose to use these fucking words considering there are so many other words in our language?
Certainly, at least once upon a fucking time, the type and frequency of epithets (ie. swear words) indicated a certain level of education and breeding. Characters didn't fucking swear willy nilly.
The Queen in Alice in Wonderland did not shout "Off with his fucking head"...Juliet did not cry: "Romeo, Romeo where the fuck are you?"...Hannibal Lecter did not say: "A fucking census taker once tried to test me. I ate his liver with some fava beans and a fucking nice chianti."
Being the good Catholic girl that I am, dropping fucking words into my fucking writing is fucking liberating. It's like committing a fucking sin and even as I write this blog, I'm checking over my shoulder for a fucking nun to come out and biff me across the fucking ears.
Back in my younger days, 'fuck' really used to be a bad word but I have to confess, it was sometimes heard within the four walls of my home partly because of my dad who had a stint as a truck driver. As a Ceylonese immigrant wanting to speak like the fucking natives, you had to fuck around with the word a bit just to show you fucking belonged.
When I was much smaller and still living in what was still Ceylon, Dad didn't use use any fucking bad words. I used to hear him say "bloody shit" on the phone when he was 'blackguarding' someone (a commonly used Ceylonese word), but the most we'd dare to say was 'fiddlesticks' or 'balderdash', thanks in part to the diet of Enid Blyton books that played a big role in our education. Hey, we even called our folks Mummy and Daddy so WTF - Enid had a lot to fucking answer for.
Nowadays though, the F-word seems to be fucking inescapable and, as both a writer and communicator, I can't help thinking "What the Fuck?" is our language completely fucked? If you have children, just have a look if you can at your child's Facebook or MSN site. It's not just the F-Words these fucking kids are using. There's also the C-word and it's no big fucking deal to them.
Once upon a time, the careful placement of an F-word could add considered colour to a sentence. It was the fucking rarity of the useage of the word that was the source of its power.
You may have heard the "F-word" originated in ye olde England when apparently folks needed a permit to have children with said permit allowing Fornication Under Consent of the King. Sadly though, it's a load of fucking crap.
In fact, the roots of the word "fuck" are derived from its Anglo Saxon heritage. The German 'ficken' and the Dutch 'fokken' both mean 'to breed' while the Proto-Germanic 'fokan' means to copulate. The fucking Dutch do not consider 'fokken' crude, but the fucking Germans and Scandinavians do.
But why would a writer or any communicator choose to use these fucking words considering there are so many other words in our language?
Certainly, at least once upon a fucking time, the type and frequency of epithets (ie. swear words) indicated a certain level of education and breeding. Characters didn't fucking swear willy nilly.
The Queen in Alice in Wonderland did not shout "Off with his fucking head"...Juliet did not cry: "Romeo, Romeo where the fuck are you?"...Hannibal Lecter did not say: "A fucking census taker once tried to test me. I ate his liver with some fava beans and a fucking nice chianti."
And as Calamity Jane, Doris Day certainly did not say: "What fucking excitment? Why I got more fucking arrows in the back of that coach than a porcupine's got fucking stickers." No siree.
How times have fucking changed. These days, even if the use of swear words is true to the fucking character, its overuse can be truly nauseating and even distressing. Frankly, my brain tends to flat-line after the first 20 or so F-words because those fucking words can hammer the joy out or your reading or viewing experience, for fuck's sake. Why do characters need to swear so much?
My advice to anyone who writes anything - whether toilet graffiti or Academy Award winning dialogue, is therefore to use the F-Word with caution. Less is more and the best example is the opening to the cinematic hit, "Four Weddings and a Funeral". After an opening where Hugh Grant's character, late for a wedding mutters: "Fuck, Fuck, fuck, fuck. Fuck! Fuck, fuckity fuck fuck... fuck-a-doodle-doo", the rest of the movie was fairly tame with barely an F-Word showing its foul-mouthed fucking head. There were enough swear words to raise a smile without overdoing it.
Remember that, unlike a James Bond martini, you want your audience stirred, not fucking shaken.
If you're still seeking guidance, let me leave you with this vignette from Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. I hope you'll find it instructive as Kirk and Spock converse aboard a bus:
KIRK: Excuse me! ...Excuse me! Would you mind stopping that noise? (a punk turns up his ghetto blaster sound)
KIRK: Excuse me! Would you mind stopping that damn noise? (Spock gives the punk a nerve pinch, stopping the noise and gains a round of applause from the bus)
SPOCK: Admiral, may I ask you a question?
KIRK: Spock, don't call me Admiral. ...You used to call me Jim. Don't you remember? Jim. ...What's your question?
SPOCK: Your use of language has altered since our arrival. It is currently laced with, ...shall I say ...more colourful metaphors. 'Double dumb ass on you' ...and so forth.
KIRK: You mean profanity. That's simply the way they talk here. Nobody pays any attention to you if you don't swear every other word. You'll find it in all the literature of the period.
SPOCK: For example?
KIRK: Oh, the collective works of Jacqueline Susann. The novels of Harold Robbins.
SPOCK: Ah! ...'The giants'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)