Skip to main content

Note on style

When I was younger I would read writing style books because I didn't have opinions about style. But I was reading a friend's book and I remembered one style element from when I was editing writers work as a supervisor in a child welfare program.

My friend wrote that a church was "very modest". I feel that "very" is distracting, maybe even histrionic. Modest will do all the work you need. What is the difference between a modest church and a very modest church?

So I would just cross out every "very" in my workers writing because it seemed hysterical. Mind you I don't mind hysteria, I was called emotionally reactive myself, though I had decided to let my emotions out, model emotional awareness, not panic that they need a lid put on them.

The other thing about hysteria is the horrible history of men using the medical setting to try to put a lid on women. T. S. Eliot putting his wife in an institution because she was difficult. Actually I don't know much about that case, so I shouldn't speak, maybe she was very unbearable.

I looked for images of very. Turns out a few people agree with me. Instead of very modest, you can also change the word, to perhaps run down, or primitive or brick and mortar.

Here is what the computer thesaurus says:

humble
moderate
prudent
quiet
simple
unassuming

bashful
blushing
chaste
coy
demure
diffident
discreet
lowly
meek
nice
proper
reserved
resigned
reticent
retiring
seemly
self-conscious
self-effacing
sheepish
silent
temperate
timid
unassertive
unassured
unboastful
unobtrusive
unpresuming
unpretending
unpretentious
withdrawing

Because of my friend's condescending colonial viewpoint inherent in missionary work in Africa, I would say the synonym she wanted was "lowly".

Now don't go crazy, I think it's cool to be generous and to experience other parts of the world. I'm just not going to ignore the way religion is used to help colonize other countries.

But knowing how kind and loving she is, she probably meant "humble".

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Character list of Inherent Vice the novel

Fay "Shasta" Hepworth played by Katherine Waterston in the 2014 movie Larry "Doc" Sportello: Our hero, gumsandal.  Shasta Fay Hepworth: Former beautiful love interest. Mickey Wolfmann: Real estate tycoon, Shasta's sugar daddy, paying for apartment in Hancock Park. Mrs. Sloane Wolfmann: wife. Has her own side piece Mr. Riggs Warbling Deputy DA Penny Kimball: lawyer from district attorney office, who fooled around with Doc for a time. Works next to Rhus Frothingham (female book, male in movie).  Aunt Reet: Aunt in real estate. "Bigfoot" Christian Bjornsen: Hollywood detective and actor. Married to Chastity. Spoiler: His partner Vincent Indelicato is wacked by Adrian Prussia, but Puck did the actual job. Mrs. Chastity Bjornsen: Gets on the phone on page 260 of the paperback to defend Bigfoot's day off from work. Calls Doc Mr. Moral Turpitude, accuses him of running up Bigfoot's mental health bills.  Denis: friend who he goes and gets a pizza with...

Democracy or democrazy?

Admittedly the choice between corrupt democrats and corrupt republicans isn't the political choice I want. I'd rather vote my way towards fairness, elimination of poverty, anti-trust laws that fight the consolidation of corporations (you read about grocery stores lately?), education, infrastructure. What you do get is a vote for democrats that vote to end rail strikes ( source ) because they can't carve out of the profits a sick leave, versus reality denying, Russian bought, obstructionists who might lower taxes, and want smaller government. The Ron Swanson's of the world who hate government and work in government. I've been running into people who believe the corrupt choices aren't worth even making. Reasons not to pay attention.I've thought that a few times in my life, but I don't think that now.  There are real choices about health care for women, and even just an attitude towards democracy. It's hard to fight past the rhetoric, and understand eve...

Manet and Degas

  Brilliant video explaining the exhibit. Go to the Met and see the exhibit! It's really quite special.  In the last gallery the painting this sketch is based off of, of the execution of a Mexican president. The painting has been cut into sections, and the surviving Degas has reassembled them. NY Times review