Word Games in the World

The world is full of word games.  Even our lives in the world can be one big word game.  Though we may have the 1st Amendment and are technically free to speak, there are all kinds of societal rules governing what is appropriate and inappropriate for any given situation.

Political correctness, which is a societal judgment of which words are appropriate to use to describe people, professions, or things, has been a divisive issue.  Should we make an effort not to offend  people when we speak, or have these restrictions trampled our rights of free speech?  This is a question you have to answer for yourself.  For me personally, I have no problem with sexist, racist, and other terms used to demean people being frowned upon.  You're technically still free to say them, as you should be, but the shift has made some areas of civil discourse more, well, civilized.  Of course, from the way the political arena looks as of late, people are still bashing each other just as thoroughly as ever.  Politicians are adept at using word play, a type of word game, to spin the argument against their opponent and paint themselves in a more favorable light.  Gotta love rhetoric.  I discussed this once in a previous post, so I won't go into too much detail about that here.

I can think of a couple high profile examples of language controversy.  Less than a month ago, actress Gwyneth Paltrow stirred up controversy when she tweeted a picture of Kanye West, Jay-Z, and herself.  In her description, she used the "N" word.  I don't think I need to spell it out for all of you to know what I mean by that.  And as much as I enjoy controversy, I don't want to be accused of being racist.  I will, however, offer my take on the situation.  She was tweeting the name of the song that they were singing at the time.  Saying a word offensively is one thing.  However, since she was quoting the name of the song, why should anyone be angry?  The use of these offensive terms is generally accepted in music and novels.  After all, it can often be used as political commentary, and is also used as a form of empowerment.  As for novels, how can you write a historical piece focused on racism in America without using such a term?  It would certainly be difficult.  I think we sometimes need to look at the intended meaning behind the use of a typically offensive word before we get angry.


Then, even more recently, Michigan Representative Lisa Brown was silenced after saying the dreaded "V" word, which is the clinical term for a part of the female body, during an abortion debate.   Apparently using the name of a body part offended several people in the assembly, though I'm kind of stunned as to why.  Well, I'm actually not stunned.  It's a body part that can be used for sexual purposes, so I guess it's considered "offensive by association."  Now, I'm not going to go into her subsequent actions and whether they were appropriate or not (that is a whole new can of worms and would dominate the rest of this post).  You can read more HERE and decide for yourselves.  However, I will say this.  She said the actual name of a body part that half the people in this country have.  I can think of several slang terms she could have used that would have been far more inflammatory and would have justified action against her.  However, she used the clinical term of a body part that is inevitably involved in an abortion debate.  Maybe people need to get over it.  It's a word we had to say aloud in a high school anatomy class, for crying out loud.  These were full grown adults who were complaining.  Something seems off there.  And I know I didn't write out the "V" word either, which makes me seem hypocritical, but I think the absurdity of me not saying it helps me make my point.


Anyway, the point I'm trying to make in all this ranting is that language comes with all sorts of rules, both written and unwritten.  Language belongs to society and is constantly under construction.  It's political, it's tricky, and malleable.  Anyone who understands it well enough can use it to make any point they want.  It's all about the words you use.  The world is one large word game.


I want to say now that I never intended to offend anyone with the content of this long rant.  I was trying to make some serious points and offer my own opinions.  Think what you will of what I believe.  For any of you who I may have offended and still decided to stick with it this far, or for any of you who simply love word games, here's a little fun for you.  Follow the links to play some free, and fun, word games.  These sites have a ton to choose from.  Or just do your own search for "word games."  If you can't find anything to your liking from that long list of results, well, then I certainly can't help you.


http://www.wordgames.com/
http://www.eastoftheweb.com/games/
http://www.merriam-webster.com/game/index.htm

Have a good day everyone!

The Power of Words: The Rush Limbaugh Edition

Lately I’ve been angry about something, and it feels good to finally be getting it out there.  This has nothing to do with my writing, but it does deal with words and the power they hold.  I’m sure we’ve all heard by now how Rush Limbaugh spent three days on his radio show talking about Sandra Fluke and her testimony before Congress.  She made the point that the pill can potentially be expensive for someone in college, and that the pill is often used to treat a medical condition.  These things are true.  Are there cheap off brand versions available?  Yes, of course.  Then again, your doctor decides on your prescription, and some of the off brands don’t work for everyone.  If you’re one of these women, costs can add up.  That being said, should insurance companies be mandated to pay for these prescriptions in their entirety?  This is the question we should be focusing on.  Instead, this issue has turned into a mudslinging match of the worst kind.

Now, as a writer, I’m glad that we have freedom of speech.  It’s a wonderful thing, and every time I hear about people wanting to impose limitations on that freedom, I get very nervous.  If we lose that right, we may as well give up everything else as far as I’m concerned.  You can’t have real freedom if you can’t express yourself.  And when Rush Limbaugh made his comments about Sandra Fluke, calling her a “slut” and a “prostitute,” he was certainly exercising his right to free speech.  You’ll never catch me disputing that.  Does that make what he said right?  No.

Let me explain my position.  I never subscribed to the saying “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.”  That’s complete crap.  Bullies say horrible things precisely because they hurt.  The best we can do is not let the mean-spirited words of others get under our skin, which is much easier said than done.  I know this all too well.  The bullying I endured as a kid helped shape me into the person I am today.

So I can say this with confidence.  Words are powerful.  They can persuade, inspire, create, and destroy.  “The pen is mightier than the sword.”  This is a saying I can get behind, except, of course, someone’s actually making fun of me from the corner of a room while someone’s impaling me with a sword.  That is one instance where I may be inclined to change my position on this.

Rush used the words he did because he knew they were laced with powerful meaning.  He knew they would get a reaction.  I’m sure he said what he did to be funny, and many people did find it funny.  I won’t dispute that either.  However, his choice of words angered many, including me, because it suggested a belief that many no longer find acceptable:  if a woman is sexually active, it’s okay to call her a slut.  It’s not, in my humble opinion.  He even suggested that he’d pay to give girls aspirin to put between their knees.   Yes, sex is something that should be handled with careful consideration, but let’s not pretend that having sex immediately invalidates her right to be treated with dignity and respect.   Women shouldn’t be denigrated over their sexual choices, especially if men won’t be. 

A definite misstep was his calculation of how much sex Sandra must have been having to spend $3000 in three years of school.  First of all, she said it could cost that much, not that it did for her personally.  Second, we’re talking about the birth control pill. I never thought I’d have to take the time to say this, but you take one pill a day.  The cost is the same no matter how many times you have sex over that three year period.  While reading the comments sections of articles dealing with this issue, I was stunned by how many people didn’t seem to know this.  Third, he said that the taxpayers would be her pimps for paying her to have sex.  Tax dollars wouldn’t cover the cost of contraception.  Insurance companies would.  If anything, insurance premiums would go up, and I've even heard just as many people saying that they'd actually go down due to the decrease in unwanted pregnancies.  I don’t know how it would all work because I’m not an expert at these things, nor am I a fortune teller.  However, if we’re going to have the conversation, I’d at least like to get it right about what's actually at stake.

What Limbaugh did in using this language, besides hurting Fluke’s feelings, is distract us from the issue at hand.  There are a lot of valid questions to be asked, but they’re not really being asked or answered because of the controversy that sprung forth from this.  In an article entitled “Pills For Sluts?: Sixquestions for Rush Limbaugh about sex,promiscuity, and contraception,” William Saletan talks about some of the questions Limbaugh has raised, whether advertently or inadvertently, and should discuss.

1.What’s the problem with contraceptive insurance: socialism or promiscuity?

2. How much sex is too much? 

3. Is contraception a sex enabler?

4. What consequences should a woman face for having sex?

5. Is pregnancy prevention a legitimate medical need?

6. What responsibility should men bear?

These are good questions, and I recommend you read his article to hear what he has to say about them.  There is also, of course, the question that brought this about in the first place.  Does requiring religious institutions to provide insurance coverage that includes contraception infringe on religious liberty.

I’m all for having a good, honest debate about these issues, and I want to know people’s thoughts on these questions.  However, the way that Rush handled it in no way promoted civil discourse.  Of course, that wasn’t his intention.  He’s an entertainer, and as such, we have to expect this from him.  However, he also bears a responsibility in choosing his words.  People turn to him for information as well, so while he’ll undoubtedly put his spin on it according to his personal opinion, as he is free to do, responsibility also indicates he should at least be factual in the information he provides.  He’s doing more than entertaining, after all.

Now, do I believe he should be fired for what he said?  No.  His words may have been irresponsible, or merely poorly chosen, but he is free to say these things whether we like it or not.  That’s the beauty of America.  At the same time, he is representing his employer, so they are free to fire him if they want to.  Just as his advertisers are free to keep walking away if they want.  The advertisers who have walked away understand the power of his words as well as anyone, and they don’t want the beliefs reflected in those words to cast a bad light on them.  Rush and other people like him have to be prepared for this kind of reaction, because that’s the responsibility that comes along with his word choices.

Now, he’s since apologized for his words.  Is he sincere?  Or is he bowing to the pressure?  The fact that he went on a three day long rant before backing down suggests an answer, but who knows?  He may actually mean it.  As an entertainer, he pushes the envelope further because he needs to hold an audience.  Sincere or not, he still has to live with the consequences of what he said.

I only hope this mess settles down so we can answer the important questions that have been raised.  We need debate.  We need solutions.  As much fun as it’s been arguing over whether Rush went to far, let’s focus now on what actually matters.

Balancing Sex and Violence in Fiction

Right now, I am dealing with an issue that comes up frequently when it comes to my writing.  Sex and violence are an undeniable part of human existence, but I don’t want to use them gratuitously.   I use them a fair amount, don’t get me wrong, but only when I feel the narrative calls for them.  These are strong elements that, when used incorrectly, can really detract from the story you’re trying to tell.  But when used appropriately, the story can make a big impact.

I’ve learned that these two elements make for great character development, and they can often advance the plot in useful, engaging ways.  In the midst of a sexually charged moment, we can see how the characters feel about each other.  Are they open to the other person?  Are they defensive?  Can we see hints of impending changes in their relationship that might be important?  Their actions speak volumes about how they feel about the other person and how they feel about themselves.

Violence, which conveys much about the world the characters inhabit, can also be transformative.  When confronted with a violent scenario, we can see that character on the most fundamental level.  When things get tough, what kind of risks are they willing to take?  Do they turn and run, do they fight, or do they join in with the madness?  Can they be trusted?  Or perhaps violence is in the character’s past, and it forged them into the person they are in the present.

The language used must also be taken into consideration.  The words chosen during intimate moments greatly influence the overall feel of the scene and highlights the attitudes of the people involved.  Are the descriptions clinical, poetic, or verging on pornographic?  Any of these are acceptable as long as they are in line with the established characters and their situation.  The same goes with violence.  If a character is clinical in their analysis of a violent act, that can say a great many things about who they are.  They might be a sociopath, or a detective who is accustomed to approaching gruesome scenes in this way.

The trick is balancing the two, and making sure they always enhance the story.  If they don’t, then maybe it’s best that they aren’t there at all.  I can't pretend to be an expert at this yet, and I'm still learning, but I think this is an issue that most writers need to contend with, so I thought it was worth mentioning.