If you’ve never noticed it, you will now. It’s everywhere.
The word ‘Mens,’ absent an apostrophe, indicating a restroom for the male persuasion.
It looks ridiculous. Right?
‘Men’ is already plural. Stick an S on the end without an apostrophe is like putting a hat on a hat.
The equivalent ‘Ladies’ is fine, since ‘Lady’ isn’t already plural. ‘Womens’ would be just as wrong as ‘Mens,’ but I can’t ever remember seeing ‘Womens.’
But ‘Mens’ is honestly everywhere.
I would like to propose replacing the dictionary definition of the word “joy” with this image.
For the last month, Elysha and I have been designing a summer camp for young writers called Writers Abroad. The Hartford Courant recently ran a piece about it. As of this week, we’re pleased to announce that more than half of the spots have been filled and we’ve received inquires that may fill most of the remaining spots soon.
Fortunately, we’ve managed to do this without any actual advertising.
Even more surprising, we’ve also started to hear from teachers, college professors, newspaper reporters and other professional writers who have heard about Writers Abroad and are offering to volunteer to teach at our camp.
We are thrilled.
I hesitated to write about the program here until I was certain that we could enroll enough students to move forward with the program. Now that this has become a reality, I’m writing about the program here in case you may know a student who is interested in filling one of our remaining spots. We are open to students ages 12-16, and the only requirement for enrollment is an interest in writing. Details on the program can be found below.
One more surprise: After hearing about the program, I’ve heard from at least a dozen adults who have asked if I would consider teaching a writing workshop for them. A couple actually asked if it would be possible to enroll in Writer’s Abroad.
The answer to that question was no.
Elysha and I already teach a storytelling workshops as a part of Speak Up, but the idea of teaching a writer’s workshop is intriguing. I’ve tried to join writer’s workshops in the area before but have always been greeted with a certain amount of disdain and distrust. I’ve been asked (in not-so-friendly-tones) questions like, “Why are you here if you already have books in stores?” and “How did you find an agent?” and “Who did you know in publishing?”
I’ve always come home feeling disappointed.
Instead of attempting to find a workshop that was willing to accept me, I gathered a group of writers and friends who serve the same purpose. We don’t meet as a group, but I send them my work and receive critical feedback from each one.
But teaching a writer’s workshop for adults? Though it had never occurred to me, it’s something that I might be interested in doing.
If you might be interested in enrolling in a writer’s workshop, please let me know. I’ll gauge interest level and determine if this is something I’d like to plan and execute at some point in the future.
____________________________________________
Writers Abroad
The Program
The goals of Writers Abroad are three-fold:
1. Provide students with authentic writing instruction, from conception to final revision, from professional writers and teachers via a model that guarantees the three most important components to any writer’s success: time, audience and choice.
2. Provide students with a variety of writing experiences in a wide range of genres, allowing them the opportunity to experiment with their voice in a number of formats.
3. Provide students with an understanding of the writing process and the business of writing from the perspective of a professional writer.
Writing Abroad is a four week writing camp running from July 7 to August 1. Classes will be held on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday from 9:00 AM until 1:00 PM.
Classes will be based in a conference room in the West Hartford Town Hall, but as much as possible, we will be using Blue Back Square and West Hartford Center as our classroom as well. We will take advantage of the library, the bookstore, coffee shops, restaurants, the movie theater and outdoor spaces in order to inspire and inform our writing. We will take advantage of the unique characteristics of each space in order to broaden our views of writing and begin to examine the world through the critical eye of a writer. It will also give students the ability to be outdoors while working on their craft, which we believe is essential given the time of year.
Students will write individually directed pieces based upon their interests and needs, including fiction, nonfiction, college essays, poems, songs and more. Idea generation will also be explored in depth, providing students with the chance to develop an extensive list of future writing ideas. They will receive individualized and small group instruction in regards to their own pieces and have many opportunities to workshop their writing with peers.
Students will also explore a variety of writing genres, using the unique environment of West Hartford Center and Blue Back Square as the impetus for much of this exploration.
Some examples include:
We will spend a morning reading food and restaurant reviews, and then we will eat lunch together and write our own reviews.
We will spend a morning reading film reviews, and then we’ll see a movie together and write our own film reviews.
We'll discuss screenwriting and visit with a screenwriter.
We'll learn about writing skits and plays and meet with a playwright.
We'll spend a morning learning about songwriting and meet with a songwriter.
We'll write personal narratives for the stage.
We'll tour the bookstore on more than one occasion, with different goals for each visit. We’ll identify popular and trending genres, discuss the marketing decisions involved in choosing cover art, examine the structure of picture books and much more.
We’ll spend time discussing the nuts and bolts of the publishing industry. We’ll examine the path that a book takes from the formation of an idea in the writer’s head to landing on an actual bookshelf. We’ll discuss the ways that writers and publishers earn income on books sold and discuss the growing world of self-publishing. We’ll also discuss the challenges and benefits of a career in writing and the best ways to prepare yourself for that career.
Most of all, we’ll be writing. Talking about writing. Critiquing writing. Revising writing. Presenting writing. Then writing some more. Students will choose topics for writing. We will suggest topics for writing. Fellow students will inspire topics for writing.
We will be capping the number of students in the camp at 12 in order to allow a great deal of personal attention but also the opportunity for collaboration and peer feedback.
This small number will also allow for us to accept students with a range of writing abilities, though the desire to write is a must. Prospective students must have a passion for the craft, because the expectation is that we will be writing a lot. While our goal is to inspire students to write, they should arrive with some personal desire as well.
We are accepting students ages 12-16.
The cost of the camp is $1,200.
The Instructors:
Matthew Dicks is a published author, first with Doubleday Broadway and currently with St. Martin's Press. He has three novels in bookstores now and a fourth due out at the end of this year. His most recent book, Memoirs of an Imaginary Friend, has been translated into more than 25 languages worldwide and is an international bestseller. He has published work in The Hartford Courant, The Huffington Post, Education Leadership, The Christian Science Monitor and more.
He is the co-writer of The Clowns, a rock opera that was produced for The Playhouse on Park in 2013 and is currently being considered for a New York theater festival, as well as The Tweets, which will be produced in July at a local summer camp.
Matthew has been teaching for the last 15 years and is a former West Hartford Teacher of the Year and finalist for Connecticut Teacher of the Year. In addition to teaching, he has conducted writing workshops for middle school, high school and adult students via colleges, museums and bookstores. He also tutors middle and high school students in writing and a variety of other subjects.
Matthew is also a professional storyteller and public speaker. He’s a 10-time Moth StorySLAM champion who tells stories for organizations like The Moth, The Story Collider, Celebrity Death Match, The Mouth and many more.
_____________________________________
Elysha Dicks has been a teacher for 13 years. She began her career at Solomon Schechter Day School in West Hartford, Connecticut and later moved onto Henry A. Wolcott School, also in West Hartford. She has taught third and fifth grades and has also worked at a district reading tutor.
Elysha has a Master’s degree in educational technology and is the founder of Green Ink, an in-school design studio where students utilized Photoshop and other software applications in order to design and produce print and digital work for teachers and administrators in the school.
Elysha spent six years co-directing Tributes: productions based upon the lives of historical figures who made positive contributions toward ridding the world of hatred and discrimination. The program stressed teamwork and challenged the students to take the lessons of the past to rise above bigotry and injustice in their own lives.
Together, Matthew and Elysha are the founders and producers of Speak Up, a Hartford-based storytelling organization that works to bring storytelling to the Hartford region in junction with Real Art Ways. Speak Up produces storytelling shows six times a year and conducts ongoing workshops on the art of storytelling.
_____________________________________
Matthew will be teaching classes on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. He will be joined on Fridays (and other days as well) by Elysha Dicks for a more concentrated, intensive day of individual and peer conferencing.
If you are interested in registering for the camp or have any questions, please email us at matthewdicks@gmail.com.
Here is my friend's Out of Office reply:
I am out of the office until 3/24/14. I shall happily reply to your message upon my return.
Shall happily reply upon my return?
This is not the man I know.
The man I know has never happily replied to anything in his entire life. He has rarely done anything happily ever.
There are brief moments of happiness when he is drinking, but even that doesn’t last long. It eventually gets ugly, especially if the Patriots are losing.
If Out of Office replies were required to reflect a person’s true nature, his would read something like this:
Why are you contacting me? Solve your own damn problem. Besides, I’m out of the office until I feel like it. Call back if you have something to say that I will care about. When in doubt, I don’t care.
Since launching my war against the word “nonplussed” last week, the campaign has been proceeding surprisingly well. In addition to my own use of the word “nonplussed” at least half a dozen times last week, I’ve received reports from several recruits who have also been aggressively using this ridiculous word in an effort to confuse people and ultimately turn them against it as well. At least two recruits have even utilized “plussed” in a sentence, which is a word that doesn’t actually exist except NOW IT DOES!
And good news! I’m pleased to report that recent negotiations have led to an agreement with forces hoping to align themselves with the anti-nonplussed movement. In return for their support, I have pledged to launch a new offensive against the words “flammable” and “inflammable.”
“Flammable” and “inflammable,” in case you didn’t know, mean exactly the same thing. Conveniently, I despise the stupidity of these two words as well.
My plan of attack is simple:
Utilize the words “flammable” and “inflammable” in the same conversation interchangeably. If possible, use the two words in the same sentence. Act as nonchalantly as possible while doing so.
For example:
The problem with wearing a long beard is that human hair is highly flammable, so until we find a way to make whiskers less inflammable, men with beards should avoid roasting highly inflammable marshmallows over a campfire.
The goal of this offensive is to draw awareness to the stupidity of these two words and their single definition in hopes that one of them (“inflammable” would be my choice) is eliminated from the English lexicon altogether.
Finding legitimate uses for these two words in everyday life is admittedly challenging, but when found, I think the execution of this plan will be great fun.
Who is with me?
It’s such a stupid word. It’s definition is “not surprised,” but we all know that it’s supposed to mean the opposite.
So stupid.
In protest of this stupid word, I will be taking the following actions:
Who is with me?
One unintended consequence of this plan will be to annoy the hell out of my wife, but sometimes you must take a stand against the forces of definitional evil even at your own peril.
I’ll show this word what happens you you’re supposed to mean one thing and you choose to mean the opposite.
When I want to teach my students the meaning of hubris, I will simply ask them to read this:
My friend, Tony, was included in a recent email that I signed with the valediction:
Warmly,
Matt
Tony’s response:
I must say the “Warmly, Matt” doesn't seem like you.
He’s right.
Joan Acocella of The New Yorker recently wrote a piece on the various valedictions and said that she never uses “Warmly” because it sounds too fussy.
“Best” seems to be fairly popular these days, if a valediction is used at all.
I see “Cheers” a lot, too, but it always makes me laugh.
I use “Warmly” in honor of my former professor and poet, Hugh Ogden, who I have written about before and who tragically passed away in 2007. Hugh wrote letters to me about my poetry and signed them using “Warmly” and I adored it because warmly captured his spirit perfectly.
When he died, I decided to begin using “Warmly” in remembrance of him. And it’s worked. Every time I type or write that word at the end of a letter or email, I think of him.
I explained this to Tony. His response:
Nice gesture on the warmly but it isn't the you I know. Perhaps the you that you aspire to be.
Aspiring to be as beloved and brilliant as Hugh Ogden would be foolish, but I like the sentiment.
Obviously the Methodist Church sucks for doing this.
But in addition to ending their bigotry and buffet-style application of Biblical law, I would also suggest removing the word defrock from the church’s lexicon as well.
I understand that defrock means to “deprive a holy person of ecclesiastical status,” but since a frock is an item of clothing and the prefix de- is used to add the meaning “opposite. reduce or remove,” the word also engenders the image of stripping a priest or minister of his or her clothing.
At least it does for me.
I don’t think that any church should allow the mental image of a forcefully stripped, naked priest to stand.
Why not just say that you fired the guy because the leaders of the church are apparently a bunch of stupid bigots who only read the passages of the Bible that most conveniently support their bigotry and ignore those passages that prevent them from eating bacon cheeseburgers, watching football on Sunday or wearing cotton blends?
I honestly think a statement like this would sound better than defrocking.
But perhaps it’s only a writer and wordsmith like me who would deconstruct the word defrock and end up with the image of a forcefully stripped naked priest.
I’m going on the record as vehemently opposing the needless shortening of words.
This weekend I heard someone shorten champagne to champers. On the radio, no less.
Not only does this sound stupid, but it’s impossible to spell champers without confusing people.
Champers also has the same number of syllables as champagne, thereby nullifying any purpose of the reduction and making me think that champers is probably a word used most often by douchebags.
Just say it aloud a few times:
“On New Year’s Eve, I think I’ll have a little champers.”
I feel stupider each time that I say it.
Even the dog thinks I’m an idiot.
Other acts of word shortening stupidity include cray, cray-cray, hundo, tradge, whatevs, gorg, hilar, redonk, nevs, brill, bestie, and perhaps the worst of them all, totes.
No. Jelly is the worst. No, totes. No, jelly.
There’s also the shortening of the phrase "the usual" minus the "ual," but I can’t begin to imagine how to spell that.
There are more. Many more. I’m sure you know lots of them. Hopefully you hate them as much as me. I’ll refrain from listing any more in fear of offending too many champers-drinking readers.
Then again, perhaps I am a hard-lined word completeist.
(I made that word up and am undecided about the final e. Thoughts?)
Maybe I need to be a little more flexible about the language. I understand that the English language is a living, breathing entity constantly undergoing change, but this does not mean that every change is good and needs to be accepted. For a short and terrifying moment in American history, tubular was a word that people were using to express the greatness of something, but except in small pockets of stupidity, that died quickly.
Perhaps this trend in needless word shortening will die a similar death.
Still, I am admittedly a hardliner. I’m not even comfortable using the word photo. I much prefer photograph, though I acknowledge that this is an extreme position to take.
But in general, the needless shortening of words needs to stop. You sound like an idiot. You sound ridiculous.
No redonk.
OK?
O.K.?
Okay?
I choose “okay” every time, because it’s the only logical and acceptable choice. It’s the only one that represents an actual word.
As an abbreviation, O.K. is not the shortened version of any two modern-day words. It’s origin is uncertain at best and probably the result of an error made long ago. The two letters, along with the two marks of punctuation, mean nothing.
I don’t use abbreviations that don’t represent actual words because I am not a crazy person.
On the other hand, the unpunctuated version of OK does stand for something:
Oklahoma.
Using it in place of anything but our 46th state makes no sense.
So I choose “okay” when attempting to express that assent or agreement. It’s the only sane choice.
I can’t stand it when the final step in a series of instructions is something like “Enjoy” or “Have fun!”
It belittles the rest of the list.
It undermines the importance of the previous instructions.
It implies that the reader of the list is incapable of the most basic form of deductive reasoning.
It wastes time, energy and precious natural resources.
It represents a level of cheeriness and exultation of spirit that I simply cannot abide by.
It must be stopped.
Here is my proposal:
Every time you see a sign that advises you to “Enjoy!” or “Have fun!” or something similar, cross out that final step in an act of protest. Draw a line through this nonsense in hopes that it will send a clear message to future list makers and direction writers.
This kind of thing will no longer be tolerated.
This is my plan. Are you with me?
Sometimes the less correct word choice is the better word choice. Case in point:
AP Style tip: Velcro is a trademark for nylon material that can be pressed together for easy fastening. Use generic term: fabric fastener.
Would a reader even know what a fabric fastener is? Couldn’t it also be a zipper, a button, a shoelace or thread?
My wife’s favorite first line from literature comes Pride and Prejudice:
“It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife.”
Many people like this first line. While I have always appreciated the line, it has never felt right to me.
It’s sexist. Isn’t it?
From a female standpoint, isn’t it little more than a subtle suggestion that a single woman should seek a man with money?
And from a male perspective, the implication is clear:
Wealthy bachelorhood is an unfortunate and unacceptable state of being.
Neither of these interpretations sit well with me. It’s a cleverly constructed and memorable sentence, but it’s implications are not good.
Moreover, can you imagine how feminists might have reacted to this book if the sentence been written in the reverse?
“It is a truth universally acknowledged that a single woman in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a husband.”
Is this sentence any less true or less false than the first?
I don’t think so.
I think both sentences express a truth universally acknowledged that is neither true nor universally acknowledged.
A reader noted my tendency to use the words bigot and bigotry in lieu of homophobia or homophobic when describing an idiot who is prejudiced against or hates homosexuals. Observant reader. This is actually a purposeful choice.
A phobia is “an extreme or irrational fear or aversion to something.” When attached to another word or word segment, the fear or aversion is made clear.
Hydrophobia is the fear of water.
Claustrophobia is the fear of enclosed spaces.
Arachnophobia is the fear of spiders.
I have always rejected the use of the word homophobic to indicate an individual who hates homosexuality because it’s inaccurate and in some ways lets those individuals off the hook for their hatred. It implies that their feelings about homosexuals are based more in fear than stupidity and cruelty, and it’s easier to understand or even forgive fear.
I can’t accept this. There is no understanding (and certainly no forgiveness) of a person who hates another based upon their sexual preference.
Also note that none of the other words used to describe hatred make use of the word phobia.
A person who is prejudiced against or hates someone of a different race is a racist. Not a racaphobe.
A person who is prejudiced against or hates a person of the opposite sex is a sexist. Not a sexophobe.
A person who is prejudiced against or hates a Jewish person is an anti-Semite. Not a Jewophobe.
Therefore, a person who is prejudiced against or hates homosexuals should not be a homophobe. And since the word homoist does not exist, I opt for the more universal bigot instead.
It’s a mean word. I like that.
In truth, there is no real word for a person who hates homosexuals, and I think that says a lot about the struggle that homosexuals have faced in attempting to gain political and cultural acceptance over time.
Even Webster’s fails miserably in its definition. The definition of homophobia is “irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.”
Note that fear and aversion are listed first in the definition, ahead of discrimination (which still does not imply hatred or even dislike), and the word hatred or even a suggestion to hatred does not appear at all in the definition.
Compare this to the definition of racism:
a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
One definition describes a person who is possibly afraid of or dislikes homosexuals or treats them unfairly.
The other describes Hitler and the basis of the Nazi party.
Can you see why the word homophobic just doesn’t cut it for me?
Me: You need to start cleaning up your toys by yourself.
Clara: But Dad, at school, we all work together to clean up our mess. Things always go better when you work together.
Me: Yes, Clara, but this isn’t my mess. You made it.
Clara: But Dad. At school we help clean up even if we didn’t make the mess. That’s what good friends do.
I’m doomed.
One of my closest friends argues that I have a tendency to spread myself too thin. He thinks that I would realize greater success in my professional life if I focused on only one thing instead of attempting to do so many different things at the same time.
Some would call this a hedgehog and fox debate, an idea first introduced by the ancient Greek poet Archilochus, who said that the fox knows many things about a little, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.
A different friend sent me this quote, which aptly summarizes my position on the fox and hedgehog debate:
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." – science fiction writer Robert Heinlein
Yeah. That.
Oh, and in terms of Heinlein’s list, I can:
I still can’t butcher a hog (nor do I want to), design a building (shouldn’t we leave this to experts?) or set a bone (though I’ve temporarily splinted more than one).
I’ve died twice already, but I don’t think I’ve done it gallantly either time.
As I was driving my four year-old daughter to preschool, she revealed that her two favorite insects are butterflies and tarantulas.
I know.
She explained that she loves butterflies because they are beautiful, and she loves tarantulas because “they’re the only bug that makes a good pet, too.”
We don’t own a tarantula, nor will we ever own a tarantula, but she has seen so many of them at the museums and zoos that she’s grown accustomed to their creepiness and thinks of them more like a dog or a cat than the terrifying subject of a 1955 monster movie.
The girl thinks refuses to eat chicken and hamburger because she says it’s disgusting, but she loves tarantulas.
As a teacher, my inclination was to use this as a teachable moment to introduce the word dichotomy to her. I tried to explain how her affection for butterflies and tarantulas represented represented a dichotomy in terms of her insect choices.
One is light, winged and colorful. The other is large, dark and hairy.
She was quiet for a moment and then said, “Dad, can we just listen to some music now?”
After 15 years of teaching, I’ve learned that not every teachable moment is a teachable moment.
I don’t hate this new umbrella design. I just don’t think it solves an existing problem. I just don’t think people are suffering from an inability to text in the rain while holding an umbrella.
But my real complaint is the ad copy, which purports that the umbrella has “a unique handle that’s fun to hold” and that “makes squeezing your umbrella grip something you’ll have a blast doing” and “it’s unique design makes it a great conversation starter.”
No. I’m sorry. It can’t be any of those things.
When you can’t be honest in your advertising, how could I ever trust your product?
