A Different Street

As an inveterate observer of the human comedy, this is something I wonder very often. If I were teaching a writing class, I would assign exercises based on these events, both of which I saw:

1. A man is jogging along the shoulder of a rural section of an interstate freeway on a Saturday afternoon. He is around 30, with dark hair and beard. He is also naked and barefoot. A police car is driving along the shoulder slowly, following him.

How did this man get in this situation? What happens next?

2. A middle-aged man man waits in line in a suburban post office. When he gets to the window, he asks the clerk if he can speak with the postmaster. The clerk asks, somewhat suspiciously, “what this is regarding.” The man demurs politely. The clerk says challengingly, “So you’re refusing to tell me.” The man says calmly that it’s private. The clerk stomps away. A few moments later, the postmaster appears and asks the man what he wants. The man asks politely whether he can speak to the postmaster privately. The postmaster agrees, and the two disappear into the back of the post office.

What did the man want? What happens next?

Riff on these examples or add your own in the comments!

On John McIntyre’s blog this morning, an extremely enjoyable discussion on the unexamined (i.e., cowardly) acceptance and use of code words/euphemisms. Some of my favorites on his list:

harsh interrogation techniques = torture
enhanced interrogation techniques = torture
collateral damage = dead women and children
gadfly = crank
outspoken = rude, won’t shut up
loquacious = tiresome, won’t shut up
misspoke = (a) lied, (b) doesn’t know what he’s talking about, or (c) was drunk

Add your favorites in the comments over there!

And it has to do with buffaloes and grammar, two of my favorite things!

Courtesy of Hugh Elliott at Facebook, where his comment was “STOP SAYING BUFFALO!!”

Recently I read someone describe a receptionist’s eyeglasses as “aspirational,” which caught my eye because I hadn’t seen that word used that way before. Now, as is the way with such things, I’ve been seeing it a lot. Mostly it seems to suggest a certain transparent quality to someone’s aspirations, that in their drive to succeed/climb/improve they are trying, in self-help parlance, to “fake it til they make it.” I guess you’re aspirational until you make it, and then you’re an arriviste.

A letter to the editor in this morning’s paper, in its entirety:

While commendable to have canned goods, crank flashlights, and perhaps, as one reader suggested, a gun to shoot your marauding post-earthquake neighbors, give consideration to earthquake-retrofitting your house. It’s so much easier to retrieve those cans, flashlights, and ammo from a standing structure.

43 punchy words (counting the hyphenated words as one), in a medium that tends to rambling and blathering. Well done!

I’ve blogged before about my distaste for newspaper headlines that try too hard to be clever or funny. John McIntyre wrote yesterday about the 2007 headline Skywalkers in Korea Cross Han Solo, and unleashed an interesting discussion in the comments.

See also McIntyre’s followup post, which explicitly questions the premise of some commenters to the original post that the purpose of a headline is to attract the readers’ attention.

Can you tell, from the first three paragraphs of this Associated Press story, what it is supposed to be about?

Women faced their share of trouble at the Tower of London, including three queens who were beheaded there.

But treachery has long been considered a thing of the past at the notorious 11th century fortress. At least until now.

If charges made Monday are true, the Tower — a popular tourist attraction and home to Britain’s Crown Jewels — will add bullying to the list of foul deeds committed there. The victim: the first woman selected to join the all-male ranks of the Tower’s yeoman warders, popularly known as “Beefeaters.”

And, if you read the rest of the story: does the article get any better? Discuss.