Museletter the Eighty-fourth

Museletter the Eighty-fourth

It's fashionable to say Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice is an anti-Semitic play, and some even insist it should no longer be produced. Okay, sure, the merchant is Jewish, and yes much disgusting behavior is directed at him. But this is theatre, which means — and this is important — it's not about a "Jew," it's about a person. The whole point of theater is that it aims to express the universal through the stories of the particular.

Good stories always "particularize the universal" — that is, they tell a particular story about particular people in particular situations; but when done well, they reveal how we're all part of that Story.

In other words, each character in a movie or play or book (or any kind of story-telling) reflects an aspect of ourselves.?

Shakespeare could have written the character of Shylock to be of African descent or Polish or Chinese and it would still be a play about that internal conflict we all have between our own bigotry and our hunger for justice and equity.

Personally, I extend this rule to religious and spiritual stories, too. That is, when I think of Abraham and Jesus and Buddha and Mohammed, the historical specifics are far less interesting to me than the universals — how these stories seem to be about someone else but are actually a special kind of mirror, reflecting aspects of our selves back to us, helping us see and feel and understand more clearly.

I think that's why I cry so often in movies… even Disney films! It doesn't matter if it's an elephant or a fish or puppet or any other character — if the story touches a nerve or strikes a chord, it has done its job.

Restraint

No alt text provided for this image

I've been writing emails for over three decades, but there's one email lesson I seem to have trouble learning: when not to send one. Has this ever happened to you? I get an email, I read it, I get triggered, feel the adrenaline, heart rate increases, and think: I HAVE TO REPLY TO THIS RIGHT NOW AND EXPLAIN EXACTLY HOW UPSET I AM!!!!!

Is it ever a good idea to reply "right now"? No.

Is there any good — any good at all — that will come from me explaining exactly how upset I am right now? No.

I wish there were an app that uses the data from your web camera (which can see the veins pop on your forehead as you type) and perhaps health monitoring from your smart watch (which could notice the spike in pulse and sense the little tap-tap-tap when you're typing), and would put up a big alert on screen that says: "Just step away from the desk and take a deep breath. Or get that lunch you've put off for the past hour. But whatever you do, don't reply."

Fortunately, this doesn't happen to me very often. But dang, you'd think I'd have learned by now.

Is this just me? Have you ever flipped your lid? Any tips for how to stop yourself from pressing Send (until we get that awesome app)?

Bad Words

No alt text provided for this image

Clear communication is based on the idea that if you say or write a word, your audience will understand, right? That's why ambiguous words give me a stomach ache.

Take the word "bimonthly." Does that mean twice a month or every two months? Surprise: it means both, because the prefix "bi" can mean "twice each," "every two," or "having two." The same goes for biweekly and biyearly.

And worse, there are no good alternative words. I guess you could try "semi-monthly" (though to my ear, "semi" makes it sound wishy-washy, like "maybe every month or so"). And a chemist might mumble something about "di-monthly," though everyone would look at them funny.

(Yes, I did just use "them" as a singular pronoun, and yes the ambiguity gave me a stomach ache.)

Of course, context usually helps. For example, I've read that there are 75 different meanings for the word "break" — including whales breaking the surface of the water, a cashier breaking a bill, a boy's voice breaking, and so on — but when you hear the word in a sentence, it's almost always clearly understood.

Nevertheless, there are those words that, even in context, occasionally cause misunderstanding. Something "sanctioned" can mean it's both allowed or prohibited. Something inflammable will catch on fire easily. Dusting something can mean both adding dust or removing it.

Excuse me, I have to go find some antacid…

Thank You!

I enjoy sharing my musings… and I enjoy hearing yours! Please share this newsletter with a friend,?follow me on LinkedIn, and send me feedback. You can always reach me at [email protected]

Skyy Lane

Independent Health, Wellness and Fitness Professional

1 年

Still HERE and enjoying your MUSINGS- They are great to develop a conversation at the MEALS table. Thank UUUUUU!

回复

"Bad Words" reminds me how much I hate when someone says they want to move an event back or forward. This always confuses me because I envision a timeline extending from this moment off into the future. Moving something back means moving it from out there to a point closer in, so that means earlier, right? And forward means further away from this point here right now so that's later, of course? But NO, apparently I'm in the minority envisioning a time line. Just say "earlier" or "later," please. No confusion there . . .

I cheer your comments about good stories particularizing the universal and touching us emotionally. Seems right on to me. About multiple meanings, there is a classic joke about that in the context of our military services as follows: How to Secure a Building: U S Army - The Army would secure a building by locking all doors, put bars on the windows, and establish one entrance with a guard post and armed guards and carefully check the IDs of all personnel who try to enter. U S Navy - The Navy would secure a building by swabbing all decks, turn off all coffee pots, turn off all lights, lock all office doors, and lock all entrances as they leave the building. U S Marines - The Marines would secure a building by assaulting it with a combined arms team, breaking into all interior rooms, shooting all resistance, and planting demolition charges as they evacuate in an orderly manner. They would then level the building to prevent further enemy use. U S Air Force - The Air Force would secure a building by having the Base Contracting Officer negotiate a three-year lease with a option to purchase. ??

Ari M. Weinstein

Making you memorable to advance your career · Author of Personal Branding at Work · Coach · Speaker · ACCP, CEMP · Mostly retired · Follow, and ask me anything! Meaningful connections only please.

1 年

Three good topics, all a bit nerve-wracking yet great to think about. Off to get some Tums!

要查看或添加评论,请登录

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了