5 Interesting Links for 05-12-2017

Origins (Fashion)

National Geographic points to some of the traditional patterns that are reflected in modern fashion across many cultures.

Privilege (Feminism)

This article cuts to the heart of feminism’s bias to expose its often unrecognized, and therefore unaddressed, racial and economic underpinnings. The attention surrounding “A Handmaid’s Tale” acts as though that situation isn’t live and well in modern society, with the only difference being the race of the women involved. The lack of attention paid to women who are forced into economic or social decisions around childbirth, whether to have or not to have children, should be a priority.

Exploration (Saturn)

The final stage of the Cassini mission is underway, with some interesting discoveries already made and more still to come before the vessel is destroyed.

Evaluation (Teaching)

An interesting look at the flaws in the commonly used method for evaluating college level teachers that includes methodology for the reviews as well as the results.

Contractions (Writing)

I don’t necessarily agree with all the points on contractions (though I agree with most and am horrified by some of the options listed), but the underlying message of erring on the side of comprehension rings very true.

Becoming Home, Foster's Way Book 1

This entry was posted in Culture, Education, Interesting Links, Psychology, Space, Writing. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to 5 Interesting Links for 05-12-2017

  1. Erin says:

    Can’t say I agree with the dislike for ‘s in her example sentences. If you don’t know whether the sentence is present or past tense (is or was), you’re not paying attention to context. And I absolutely use couldn’t’ve, shouldn’t’ve, and wouldn’t’ve.

    • Margaret McGaffey Fisk says:

      I did not agree with her as flat statements, but as something to use with awareness, I think her points have validity. I don’t have it in front of me anymore, but I was reading something this weekend where I ran into an ‘s which could be either is or possessive. It had to do with the word following being verb or noun based on context but the context was stripped.

      Now I’m curious to find a wouldn’t’ve or the like in your writing. To me, that’s hard to parse and, I assume, would trip me up in reading. But then, I don’t remember coming across it, so maybe I have and it didn’t. Sometimes things stand out out of context when within they are perfectly normal.

      • Erin says:

        I tried to respond to this this morning in my WordPress app, and it kept telling me it was encountering an error. I’m going to assume it’s an error with the app. 😛

        Yeah, a couple of her examples were where the word following could be either noun or verb, but I don’t read a word at a time; I read a phrase, clause, or sentence (depending on length), and have since at least middle school. I don’t believe I know very many people who read one word at a time, and it’s possible I’m introducing confusion that will lose me readers. So be it.

        • Erin says:

          P.S. Every time I submit a comment on your blog, I get a warning that this is a non-secure form, and do I want to submit anyway?

          • Margaret McGaffey Fisk says:

            Umm, well, it is a non-secure form as my site isn’t https because I take no financial data, but then your tool should be warning you every time you submit any comment. What are you using? I’m pretty sure my comments form is part of JetPack (though that might only be the subscription portion) and I know they’d be interested in the information.

          • Margaret McGaffey Fisk says:

            Did some research and the answer is JetPack has changed their comment form to submit as https, making the site a mixed security site. Add to that, apparently a recent update to Safari (assuming that’s what you’re using) turned on the “flag any form” security option according to the information I found :). I reported it to JetPack asking why they feel this is necessary and pointing out the potential confusion for those leaving comments. It should go without saying that you don’t put your credit card number into a blog comment :).

        • Margaret McGaffey Fisk says:

          Well, it may be because of dyslexia, but I do read one word at a time. The other possibility is that you unconsciously avoid those kinds of confusions. You’re not exactly in the early stages of your writing education :).

  2. sprinkink says:

    I also don’t agree with her 100%. I agree with Erin. And I particularly disagree with her when it comes to dialogue. If the dialogue is too formal for the character, it sounds stilted and wrong. So, “Jilian’s going, Susan’s going, and Jerry’s not going.” might be found in something I wrote, if I ever thought it were important to write a list like that. (To hide a clue in a mystery, maybe?).

    I also think if you’re writing in first person, it can sound way too formal and stilted, losing the character’s unique voice, if the character would use those contractions.

    As for “would of”, etc. That’s a pet peeve, but I like to challenge myself to see if I can come up with a reason to use it. And I did. If a character wrote a letter, I’d leave in any spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors that character would have used. 🙂

    • sprinkink says:

      BTW-sprinkink is Linda Sprinkle.

    • Margaret McGaffey Fisk says:

      Well, would of belongs in dialogue because it’s a common misunderstanding of would have, and possibly in close third or first person thoughts. I break “rules” by doing a very close third so I use contractions in the narrative. Sometimes I don’t, sometimes I do. It depends on which works.

      Honestly, I’ve yet to run into something I 100% agree with, because there are always edge cases. I share ones that I think are worth thinking about, but what decision you make, as long as it’s a conscious one, just has to work within your story.

      P.S. Hi, Linda :).

      • Erin says:

        I’m debating whether writing “would of” makes sense in dialogue or thoughts. The point is that it sounds the same, which is why people get it wrong when they write it, but how many are actually thinking of the spelling when they speak?

        • sprinkink says:

          People aren’t thinking of the spelling when they speak. But when a reader reads “would of”, it could be a clue that the speaker isn’t well educated. It shows how that speaker would write it. It’s subtle and I’ve never used it that way. It was just a thought I had. 🙂

          • Margaret McGaffey Fisk says:

            I’m not sure which way I lean with that question. It’s gets rather complicated because you’re counting on the reader to know it should be would have not would of and then take the step to see the speaker as less educated, or just less grammar picky since I’ve seen it/heard it (there’s a slight difference) across education levels.

            I’d probably use it more for cadence than for anything else.

Share Your Thoughts

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.