On essays

The first word is hard. The document will stare back at you, white background and flashing cursor until eventually you hazard a common, generic word like "the". Delete. Try something else. It takes a while before the first word starts to feel like it will make more sense once you write a sentence.

The first sentence is always the hardest. You can sit in front of a computer all day and still be unhappy with that fateful first sentence. It's the one they read first (whoever "they" may be), the hook, the lead, the silver lining on a topical cloud you may not even want to cross paths with. Never fear, once done you probably won't have to fly past it again.

A paragraph is an achievement. The first is, again, the hardest. It's important, they tell us, to get the introductory paragraph right. You need to explain your argument, and outline the entire essay. They also tell us a paragraph can be three sentences long. Clearly they don't write introductions very often.

Each paragraph is a formula. Some people write because they don't like maths, but it's more about numbers than you'd think. The number of words to a sentence, the number of sentences to a paragraph, the number of paragraphs to an essay, the total number of words (including or excluding in-text references depending on them, and they like to change their minds about that). And the formula.

Start with a topic sentence, they tell us over and over as if we never learn. This should be what the paragraph will be about. Is it that simple? Maybe, but go one further and they'll be so surprised you could get a better judgement from them.

The body of the paragraph should elaborate on your topic sentence. That makes sense, follow on from what you last said and all will be well in the world of essayform. But don't elaborate too much or they may say: you went off topic!

The last sentence of a paragraph should sum up the topic sentence and body of the paragraph, they say. What they really mean is "sum up the paragraph, draw any conclusions relevant, relate back to the topic of the essay and lead into the next paragraph either with the last sentence or the first sentence of the next par." They don't say what they mean.

Their formula works. It works better if you use it to your own purpose. Customise it here and there with segues and clarification of the overarching topic. They don't tell you that, but they expect it and they like it. Note that the formula for sentences is also very similar to the formula for an essay.

They may tell you: the conclusion should sum up the entire essay, relating each topic back to the original question or argument and summarising it. They also want you to reach a final conclusion which supports your argument and leads to a greater revelation about the topic. Unlike maths, this formula can be manipulated into an artificial revelation. There is no right or wrong as long as you support your argument, follow the formula and come up with an acceptable revelation.

Writers block for essays is an obstacle you have to overcome during formal studies. You can't just wait for it to go away, you have to get around it and make the essay flow. How? It all depends. Sometimes reading other non-fiction for inspiration and "voice" can help. Writing on a topic that interests you first may also counter the block. Personally, I write about essays to get in the mood to write an essay. Maybe that works too.

...Maybe not.

culture

Have you ever heard that joke? The one about Australian culture? It goes something like this:

Q: What's the difference between an Australian and a tub of yoghurt?
A: The yoghurt has culture.

Not a very good joke, admittedly, but it raises a point I've been thinking about quite a bit recently. Part of it relates to the subjectiveness of definitions of culture (what is culture, after all?), but more is about the relationships individuals have with their society, specifically their country of residence (to avoid going off on tangents of multicultural families and individuals). And also how our culture might be represented in popular media forms.

I recently read an article in the Sydney Morning Herald about Australian actress Leah Vandenberg, who's cultural heritage is vast and very much representative of the Australia I'm glad to be a part of (the diverse one). Vandenberg talks about how difficult it has been to get work with her darker skin, brown hair and brown eyes. She uses the term "blondist", and while admittedly this is not quite as dominating as it once was, most local shows' casting doesn't reflect the Australian-ness I like to identify with. SBS is arguably the best at capturing what it is to be Australian, with shows like East West 101, but what about the other channels?

I was working on a film last weekend and one of the other actors there and I got talking about it. He wasn't your stereotypical surfie Australian bloke, and he said it was hard to get cast because of that. I find it disgusting, because I could see he was a good actor, very committed to capturing and expressing the atmosphere of the movie we were working on. And I think he had a good look for film and tv. So I have to ask: why white? Why is it usually the "token" characters who obviously have a less anglocentric background?

The bigger issue here is our culture. What is it to be Australian? What does it mean? If someone were to ask, "what is your culture like?", how would you (how could you) describe it?

I think it's the indefinable nature of "culture" that causes some of these issues. We all have our own definition of what it is, and perhaps we don't think about it enough. It seems all too often we talk about Australia's "lack of culture". I think we have culture, but whether or not everyone realises and accepts what that culture is might be another question.

This morning I read about the "white flight" occurring in NSW schools where white Australian's have been leaving public schools which are more multicultural than the private or specialised schools. Is this really happening? Why?

I don't often like to use the word racism, but that's what it sounds like. The issue may be more complicated than that, but somewhere in there that word is floating around. And I wonder, do Australians talk about a "lack of culture" because we can't agree on what it is to be Australian? Some might say it is multicultural, that you can't stereotype an Australian by appearance because we are becoming more and more diverse; others would say it is the white Australian which defines our culture. Without a common ground perhaps the opposing opinions create a non-culture that leaves us all a bit lost.

I understand why they say high school never ends

There have been a few moments in the past two years at University when I have felt like I was in high school again. Mostly it was when I would talk to people about assignments and we could complain about what we didn't like, or talk about what we had found out. And some of the people would inevitably regurgitate information from the lecturers, tutors or from books (once I actually guessed who someone's tutor was because they took a perspective from the tutor and said it almost verbatim). The issue there is more about critical thinking and awareness, and it is a topic for another day.

One of the things I did not like about high school, one of the things that really annoyed, frustrated and sometimes downright upset me, was the whispering. The talking behind peoples backs, being their friends only on the face-value of friendship, and disregarding the feelings of others when the situation called for it. I thought that was purely a phenomenon experienced by high school kids.

Ok, I know some workplaces can be similar, but you generally know what you've signed up for when you go to work. High school is supposed to, in theory, shape you and the friendships you make there seem more real than those aquaintanceships you might make in a workplace.

Once people have gone through high school and experienced so-called friends backstab, ditch, ignore and hurt them, it can be easy to think that everyone takes away a few lessons about how to treat people. And I guess therein lies a problem for me. I made the mistake of assuming that if I encouraged people to talk to me when they felt they had a problem, especially if I was a part of that problem), then they would feel comfortable being upfront with me about things. Or not, as the recent cases have proved to me.

I feel like I'm back in high school again in some ways, only the first time around the whispering and avoiding was something I was lucky enough to not often be personally involved in. Sometimes I was, as I think most people have been, but more often it was friends or classmates I saw treated as though they were something unpleasant on the bottom of someone's shoes.

Why people aren't upfront is a mystery to me. Maybe they don't want to hurt people. Maybe they don't want to create conflict (and instead opt for almost palpable tension). Or maybe they unwittingly make mountains out of molehills which, let's face it, we all did back in high school.

The Flaws in UGC

It's supposed to stand for User-Generated Content, but I'm beginning to wonder if that's the correct term for the websites making use of it.

UGC has long been used by companies involved in the production of new software to iron out any problems. The theory is that consumers will voluteer to be part of a beta test and identify problems before the final product is released. It sounds good, the producers have a cost effect way of figuring out problems, and consumers get to "test" out the product before buying it. In that sense it can create a symbiotic relationship which often works quite well.

I have no problem with that type of UGC. I do have a problem with sites that are now taking advantage of the concept.

There are websites which are finally making full use of the internet's capabilities. They can incorporate written text with picture, sound and video and allow users to comment on the information presented. Some may only work with one or two features, like written text and pictures, but generally these sites all allow user comments. It's smart because the sites can figure out what users are interested in and generate more content from that. And users feel like they are being heard.

My issue with these sites is that they can choose which comments to publish. Of course, you need to have that option as a site facillitator so that you are not exposed to defamation, contempt or a negative reputation. It's when this role is abused that things can get unfair.

Several sites I frequent have UGC features available, and I enjoy being able to use them. On some occasions I have noticed spelling mistakes in the written text and submitted a comment relating to the text and noting the mistakes. At first the entire comments were published and the mistakes changed. Once there was even a follow up comment thanking me for pointing out the mistake. But it has gradually changed. Sometimes the mistakes are left, sometimes the comments are not posted but the mistakes are changed, and most recently part of the comment was published, but the sentence noting the mistakes was not.

My qualm is that I am not being acknowledged for the help I am giving the site. This is not UGC. UGC is supposed to allow people to have a voice, not censoring that voice because it might make the site look like it's run by people (we all make mistakes, remember?). A thank you would be nice, but I know I won't get that because the only way I know my comments are being acknowledged is if the mistakes are changed.

Tech Troubles

Picture this: you go to a food court to have a quick coffee with your sister/friend before doing some Christmas shopping in the city. You plan on having a bit of a chat because the last week or so has been hectic and the two of you haven't caught up. Sure, there's the noise of other city-goers, lunches and straggly groups of teenagers enjoying the school holidays, but you expect that in the city anyway.

What you may not expect is to have a giant tv screen right in front of you. With sound. Playing daytime tv at home isn't something I enjoy doing, let alone having one sitting in front of me while I'm out and have a million other things going on around me. What happened to reading a newspaper, book, or talking to someone in person or even on the phone while you're having a break? Do people actually enjoy watching this stuff while they're eating?

And the worst part, the line-crosser, is that these tv's (more than one of them) were throughout the food court. You couldn't really escape them for long.

Is this what technology should be used for? I wonder.

Language update - the irony

Just days after my last post about our "dieing language", I stumbled across even more published mistakes. An Australian news website I occassionally visit had posted an article which used the word organization. While I don't have anything against legitimate reasons for spelling it with a "z" (zed), there is no legitimate reason I can concieve if the author is Australian and has grown up in Australia.

Who should I blame? The author? The editors? The education systum? At a loss on where to lie the blame, I simply published a comment noting the mistake. And no word. I have previously noticed mistakes on the site and made comments, resulting in prompt changes. However this time it might have been overlooked for some reason. And rather than continue to post annoying comments on the site about how the "z" does not belong in an Australian article (alliteration, always alive!), I thought I would post an update on my language lamentations.

Sure, everyone makes mistakes. In my last entry a friend noticed several mistakes which were unintended, and I made the appropriate changes. But to leave a mistake there? That just seems a bit slack.

It's like an ad I saw once which read something like: "Wanted, a legal secretary. Must be friendly, reliable, apathetic."

Sounds too good to be true, doesn't it? Then again, who cares?*

*If anyone knows whether businesses are looking for more "apathetic" workers, I believe that demonstrates my apatheticism completely.

The Dieing Language

Over the weekend I like to read newspapers. I perused three between Saturday and Sunday of the weekend just passed. And I was disappointed by the (mis)use of language I found.

People saying "a historic shift", when "an" is the correct word, changing tense halfway through, as in "the journalist was sitting at his desk when he used the wrong word, but it would be weeks before he realises the mistake" and simply using the wrong words or mispeling things. It may seem petty to you, but many people read newspapers and, as published writers, journalists have a responsibility to check their spelling and grammar. They should, in theory, set a good example for us all.

That is, of course, unless we want to forget the joys of good grammar and spelling. We could all start writing about how it is hard labor to write good and that it is a specialized skill these days. "U dont need good word skills to talk or right", we might say. And some will agree with that, but I do not.

Simple mistakes are ok, everyone makes them. I constantly have to go through everything I write to check for mistyped words, poor grammar or bad syntax. But I do actually check, and I think that's part of the problem.

The Australian Labor (note the lack of a "u") Party is apparently called so because it was, for a while, run by an American who wrote with American spelling (and rightly so for them). Someone, somewhere, saw "Labor" written by this American and thought "Oh, so that's how the party writes it to differentiate itself from the labour unions*.

Teachers I've had in the past, at school and university, have written globalisation with a "z", suggesting Americanization of Australia is definitely in progress. It would be different if they had grown up somewhere where the "z" was used, but most of them were born in Australia and grew up in Australia.

Why does this matter? After all, doing a google search for "odours" only yeilds 26.7 per cent of the results "odors" does (based on highly academic research using the advanced methodology of a "google" search). It is part of our culture. And I believe that stands for something.

Also, it's pretty annoying to the people who notice it. So we should all try and appease this whingey minority at the expense of our own time. Because stopping people whingeing would also stop people posting annoyingly long, ranty opinions like this.


*The Australian "Labor" Party information is based partly on an urban legend which few people I have asked (including members of the Labor Party) know of. Most say they aren't sure why there is no "u". The rest of that story is based on my own, clearly educated assumptions.