February's Feature Book: Little Women

            If you have been paying attention to popular culture or been to the theaters lately, you probably know about the newest version of Little Women. Discussions with my brother about this new version got me thinking a lot about both the book and the author’s intentions. My questions soon led to my rereading the book. I last read it in elementary school, though I never reached the ending, and have seen four of the movie adaptions. It seemed like the perfect time to renew my acquaintance with the March family. Little Women has been loved by many both in book form and its subsequent movie adaptions. I believe one reason everyone loves the March sisters is how relatable they are. One can usually find a reason to sympathize with at least one of the four girls.

            I thought I was simply reading a book, but it turns out I was in for a few revelations. Three aspects especially surprised me. Only, keep in mind with my following remarks that I have not seen the new movie and know nothing about its contents. The characters were one aspect that surprised me. Movies can be more limited than books and can’t tell a story in the same way. I was taken aback when I realized that the movies completely cut out several characters. My biggest shock was that Aunt March does not have a sole reign! In the book, she is joined by Aunt Carroll. Even more shocking are the additional Uncle Carroll and Cousin Flo. Amy's European tour completely changes with Aunt March's absence. There is also Esther, a maid at Plumfield who makes more than a small impression on Amy. My memory might be fuzzy, but I do not recall Fred Vaughn from any movies. I think it would be worth mentioning that Amy had a marriage proposal before Laurie.

            On top of these unexpected revelations, I was also astounded by how different some of the known characters are in the book. Jo March may not be conventional, but she knows her limits. She might shock people, but she never goes so far as to scandalize. I feel like many movie adaptions give Jo a decidedly feminist ideology, but I saw no hint of that in the book. Granted, Jo gets upset with conventions. It strikes me more as her being annoyed with anything that goes against her blunt mannerisms than some type of ideal though. The only reason I can fathom for that feminist tone in the movies is others projecting Louisa May Alcott's feminist thoughts onto Jo March.

Amy also threw me through a loop. She is the one that many people love to hate. I didn't get that impression with the book. Yes, she could be a selfish and petty when she was a child. But she grew up to be a very sweet woman and to be a good sister to Jo. Jo even says that she thought Laurie and Amy should marry because they’re a perfect match. There was no animosity, hurt, or regret between Jo and Amy over Laurie. I was also happy to see more than a brief mention of Mr. March. Movies seem to relegate Mr. March to the background, but he is much more active in the book. He appears over and again to teach the girls, give them spiritual advice, and spend time with their growing families.

            Another aspect that surprised me was the events in the book. Of course, I know that movies always cut out scenes. I just never realized how altered Little Women has become. These events that I wasn’t familiar with added so much depth to the characters and their stories. It gave me a better understanding of them and how they approached the difficulties of life. For instance, Amy participates in a fair and has a falling out with the hostess and her daughter. How Amy and the March family handle it gives the first real insight into how much Amy has changed. The reader gets a glimpse into how much depth her character has developed over the years. Another scene I was not familiar with was Jo and Beth going to the seaside. Being able to see how Beth was handling her failing health and lingering worries made me not only love her more but also admire Jo with her reaction.

            The final aspect that I was not expecting but truly enjoyed was the moral tone. Every chapter had a lesson. Summed together, they become a book about the two important parts of life: love and faith. The family stays together and loves each other through everything. They guide each other through life with the basis of faith and choosing the higher road. The March sisters try hard to emulate Christian in Pilgrim’s Progress and each benefit from it. I feel like the book might stress striving for perfection a little too much, but I know that for the period it was a common outlook in religion. Besides, the main point is that the March family learned what was important in life. They were rich because they had each other, their faith, and the godly love that they shared with everyone.

            Overall, I found the book so delightful that I’ve already begun to read Little Men with the intention of continuing through Jo’s Boys. I want to follow the March family through the entire trilogy. I love how sweet Meg's daughter Daisy is because she reminds me of Beth. Demi, Meg’s son, appears to be a mixture of the March sisters because he is both impressively smart and a little mischievous. The books have changed my opinion of the March sisters and made me appreciate their role in popular culture even more.

            Every generation seems to have been affected in some way by the March sisters. They’ve left an impression on me about growing up and how much family influences a person. I’ve also concluded that I love the book the best. The movie adaptions are good, but it is hard to top the original. No matter one's opinion, everyone will likely agree that Little Women will continue to influence many generations to follow. Just the same, I wouldn’t mind hearing your opinion. Which sister is your favorite? Or the real trick question: Which movie adaption is the best?

Using "Who" and "Whom"

            Every day brings new examples of English's fluidity. Sometimes the change comes swiftly. Other changes take many years and face much resistance. One change that has been slowly coming is the usage of who and whom. One side declares that whom is dead and that only who should be used. The other side stubbornly insists that whom is still relevant enough to be used in modern English. The question is which side is in the right. Which word should one use in their writing and speech?

            Before we can make a certain decision about these two words, we need to do some research. It is important to understand how to use the words and what their purpose has been in the past. Both who and whom are pronouns but serve slightly different purposes. Who completes several different jobs, but as a pronoun it acts as the subject. As a slight variation, whom is an objective pronoun meaning that who becomes whom when it acts as an object in a sentence. For example, you can say “I asked my friend who gave him the gift.” In this case, who is the subject of the clause "who gave him the gift." However, you can also say "To whom did you give the gift?" Whom is the object in the phrase “to whom.”

            Both who and whom have existed in English since before the 12^th century according to Merriam-Webster[1]. They have also seen relatively little change in their meaning. The spelling has gone through a transformation as the language moved into Middle and then Modern English[2]. If anything, these two pronouns have proven a great tenacity. As was the case for many words, grammarians of the 18^th century had much to say about their usage. The grammarians of the following century declared that whom was dying out. Unlike with other words, English-speakers largely ignored these grammarians and continued to use both words as they always have.

            That brings us back to our original question. Which word is the correct one to use? The experts of today see it in two ways. One side says that whom is a valid word but is tricky to use. Thanks to the aforementioned grammarians, many English speakers are out of practice concerning the correct way to use it. Therefore, people either avoid the word at all costs or use it everywhere. If one can learn to use the two words in the right context, there is no problem with them.

            However, other experts say that it shouldn't matter. Because people don't understand how to use it, the word should be allowed to die. They believe that who can easily replace its counterpart and clear up the confusion once and for all. Besides, these experts say that whom is pretentious and gives the wrong tone in most forms of writing and speech today.

            Who should we listen to? I honestly believe that it is a matter of personal choice. If you like having separate words, you should use them. Only be careful that you are using them correctly. You'll be doing yourself no favors if you continually use whom in the wrong context. You should also consider tone. Sometimes, whom might be correct but causes a sentence to sound clunky because it doesn't match the tone of the surrounding text. If you're of the party that wishes whom would disappear, using who is perfectly fine. That is part of the beauty of the English language. It is fluid and gives much leeway towards a person’s style and personality.

---

[1] Merriam-Webster, s.v. “whom,” accessed February 9, 2020, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/whom.

[2] Ibid.

Descriptions in Fiction

            Over the last six months, I have learned much from fiction writing. This novel-writing attempt looks like it might be successful. I now have just over 10,000 words. Previously, I talked about what I was learning as I sketched a cast of characters. I am now several scenes into my story and am realizing that there is much to learn about other types of descriptions.

            Describing action is one type that can be difficult. I can think about a scene and see it unfold in my head. It is another matter to put what I am picturing down on paper. I want to describe the action so that the reader can see what I am seeing and be able to enjoy the story. I can say that a character is speaking. But how is he talking? What is his facial expression? His body language? It can completely change the meaning of his words based on what he's doing. For me, the difficulty is capturing every detail I see in my mind. However, I am learning that details are especially important with one of my supporting characters. If I only put down her words without anything else, she doesn't come across as the kindest person. I need her facial expressions, her tone of voice, and her hand gestures to show that she means no harm by her words. She is simply passionate and extroverted.

            Another form of description that I have been wrestling with is the characters' environment. I might be able to see exactly where the characters are and what is going on around them, but the readers can't unless I tell them. I tend to focus on the dialogue when I am writing and forget about the surroundings. The setting is imperative because it affects the characters and what they are doing. For instance, in my opening scene, the main character is annoyed with the crowds around him and what he considers childish behavior. That is only going to make so much sense unless I make it clear that the opening scene occurs at a masquerade ball.

            The main question I have struggled with as I write these descriptions is what counts as enough. Too much description will bog down my story and bore readers. Not enough will make the story vague and confuse readers. How do I find an equilibrium in description writing? As usual, I turn to published authors to discover an answer. Some books like Thomas Hardy's are so filled with descriptions that it can feel like a chore to read the book. The descriptions do make a very detailed and vivid picture but require effort on the reader's part. On the other hand, I've read some books that are so sparse on descriptions that I constantly find myself thinking, "Wait! What? Where did that come from? Has that always been there?"

            Based on the books I have read and studied, I think that going with descriptions through the eyes of the characters is the best way. Allow the reader to see whatever the character sees but not that much more. By doing so, I feel like I’m including what is critical to the character's story without adding in a lot of trivial details that mean nothing to what the character is doing. I imagine at some point I will reach a part where I’ll need to describe something that doesn’t seem important at first, but I’ll make those decisions when I get to them. Time will tell how my descriptions will fare, but I’m hoping I have found a good amount that makes the story come alive for more people than just me.

            In addition to thinking about things through the character's eyes, I have also picked up a few other tricks to help. First, pictures are a lifesaver. Even if I can imagine what a scene or character looks like, a picture can be beneficial. I can study that picture and pick out which details are important enough to include. Going by mental images might not allow the same amount of accurate details. Accuracy is another point. A picture that I can save helps me stay consistent as I return to certain scenes.

            Another thing I find works well is talking. Describing something out loud helps me figure out what works and where I might have holes in my descriptions. Talking it out forces me to fully explain what I can easily gloss over in my head. As I talk, I sometimes compare it with examples from reality to consider what might make it more believable and clearer to the reader. I suppose one could describe scenes to another person who can ask questions, but I have yet to get that brave.

            As your writing descriptions for your fictional story, I hope some of my discoveries will help you out. If you have any tips for writing excellent descriptions, please mention them in the comments. I’m always ready to try out new ideas. Whether this novel experiment works out or not, I have learned a great deal about writing because of it. Writing is a completely different thing from editing. If I didn’t believe that before, I certainly do now. I’m developing a healthy appreciation for the patience, talent, and effort that authors put into their stories.

Business Jargon: Can You Talk the Talk?

            Jargon has become increasingly easier to find in both speech and text. Essentially, jargon is the technical terms and buzzwords associated with a particular topic or field. Jargon can be frustrating to an outsider because it makes it difficult to understand what others mean. The problems and emptiness of jargon gave it a negative connotation long ago. That has not stopped people from using it. What is a person to do as jargon persists?

            Jargon is especially a problem in the world of business. Different fields have their language and appear to take pride in using it. They have no problem dropping their buzzwords and peculiar phrasing because it is assumed that everyone else understands. It isn’t just technical terms that serve as roadblocks. Common words such as “empower,” “innovate,” or “diversity” are used so often in written materials that they’ve lost their meaning. This has created many issues and wasted too much time.

            The way to survive business jargon is twofold. First, don't accept it as a reasonable answer. Speak up if something does not make sense. Ask for an explanation. It is better to get an answer right away than to waste time trying to figure out what it means. It is not going to make you look bad or taint your reputation. It is honestly the responsible approach because you're taking the initiative to keep clear communication and use your time efficiently. Those are two things that businesses love.

Sometimes asking for an explanation is not possible such as when one is dealing with written materials. In that situation, it is best to begin researching. Sadly, business jargon has initiated the creation of many jargon dictionaries. If you often come across jargon, it might be a good idea to invest in such a dictionary. A simple internet or book search can also provide the meaning of the troubling word or phrase.

            The second part of dealing with business jargon is to not use it. Don't be part of the problem by keeping these words alive. As jargon continues to be used, it loses its meaning and becomes nothing more than a trite expression. At that point, it becomes an excuse. Rather than taking the time to write something meaningful that readers can understand, the writer inserts jargon. This is far from right. If something is important enough to be said, it should be important enough to say in common sense terms. It might require more effort on the part of the writer, but it is worth it because of the benefits to readers and businesses. Work will get done and communication won't be a confusing jumble of words.

            Jargon and buzzwords are persistent problems in the business world and other industries. The best way to handle it is by asking questions and researching meanings. It is also important that you don't use jargon yourself because it only makes the problem worse. Writers need to think about what they want to write and write it in common sense terms that explain their full meaning. If writers will take the time to use plain English, readers will be able to do more with the information that they’re reading.