lightofHis

For all you would-be writers out there, this is fantastic advice from William Safire. He compiled this collection by using some work from George L. Trigg, as well as various other sources that are unknown to me. It’s called the “Fumblerules of Grammar.” Unlike most people who post this list, I will not analyze each one and add my own opinion. I don’t think that’s the purpose of this list. It requires no analysis. So here. Simply read and enjoy:

• Avoid run-on sentences they are hard to read.
• Don’t use no double negatives.
• Use the semicolon properly, always use it where it is appropriate; and never where it isn’t.
• Reserve the apostrophe for it’s proper use and omit it when its not needed.
• Do not put statements in the negative form.
• Verbs has to agree with their subjects.
• No sentence fragments.
• Proofread carefully to see if you any words out.
• Avoid commas, that are not necessary.
• If you reread your work, you will find on rereading that a great deal of repetition can be avoided by rereading and editing.
• A writer must not shift your point of view.
• Eschew dialect, irregardless.
• And don’t start a sentence with a conjunction.
• Don’t overuse exclamation marks!!!
• Place pronouns as close as possible, especially in long sentences, as of 10 or more words, to their antecedents.
• Hyphenate between sy-
  llables and avoid un-necessary hyphens.
• Write all adverbial forms correct.
• Don’t use contractions in formal writing.
• Writing carefully, dangling participles must be avoided.
• It is incumbent on us to avoid archaisms.
• If any word is improper at the end of a sentence, a linking verb is.
• Steer clear of incorrect forms of verbs that have snuck in the language.
• Take the bull by the hand and avoid mixed metaphors.
• Avoid trendy locutions that sound flaky.
• Never, ever use repetitive redundancies.
• Everyone should be careful to use a singular pronoun with singular nouns in their writing.
• If I’ve told you once, I’ve told you a thousand times, resist hyperbole.
• Also, avoid awkward or affected alliteration.
• Don’t string too many prepositional phrases together unless you are walking through the valley of the shadow of death.
• Always pick on the correct idiom.
• “Avoid overuse of ‘quotation “marks.”‘”
• The adverb always follows the verb.
• Last but not least, avoid cliches like the plague; seek viable alternatives.

I think that says it all.

I recently finished reading a book about Elizabeth Barrett Browning and, as with most things, it sent my mind whirling. During most of her life, she was relatively well-known for her intellectual poetry- the type that referenced the Greek philosophers she so greatly admired. Her poetry was thoughtful, but perhaps too thoughtful. For the first part of her writing career, Elizabeth Barrett Browning was a mind writer. And if she had remained so, I’m not sure we would know her name today.

It wasn’t until she met Robert Browning that she began to write from the heart. I don’t mean to imply that her poems became mushy and sappy; rather, that the sonnets she crafted directly before and during her marriage to Robert were eloquent and touching. Her poetry before Robert was carefully written and meant to be analyzed, but her sonnets to Robert were spontaneous, springing from her love for him.

Elizabeth never intended for those love poems to be published. She wrote them only for Robert. Being a writer himself (though one not so devoted to the craft as Elizabeth), he recognized their worth and encouraged her to have them published. These poems are her best-known work. They are referred to as “Sonnets from the Portuguese.” They are one of the main reasons we know Elizabeth Barrett Browning’s name today. Though her intellectual poetry was popular in her day, I wholeheartedly believe they would have faded into obscurity by our time. It was her sonnets for Robert that endured through the ages.

It seems to often be that way for great artists. Though some of their works may be appreciated in their time, it is often the creations that were not meant to be seen, those closely guarded because they spring from the heart, that endear us to them and endure through the ages. Many of these works are unseen for ages until they are rediscovered and introduced to society.

What does it mean? What insight can we glean from the great artists of yestercentury? The main lesson I see is that artistic endeavors flowing from one’s soul hold the greatest value. These creations may be ridiculed or even unknown at first, but they possess an amazing ability to withstand the test of time and own great potential to inspire generations.

So write, draw, paint, create! You never known how God may use your work. Make your primary objective to recognize His prompting and embrace the creative passions he has ingrained in your soul. Waste no thoughts on fame or fortune. Let God decide what is seen and what is not. The creativity He has placed in you is meant to bring glory to Him. Whatever else may transpire is of little importance.

“God’s gifts put man’s best dreams to shame.” ~ Elizabeth Barrett Browning, from Sonnet XXVI of “Sonnets from the Portuguese”

Sometimes my husband and I get into deep, philosophical discussions late at night about everything from the nature of the universe to ethical dilemmas to laws of physics to the educational system. It’s always intriguing to see where these discussions will go. One of our most recent discussions sent me off on a path where I found myself thinking about faith.

I’m not big on science- too many laws and theories to try to remember. But I am confident that when I hold something in my hand and let go, it will fall (assuming it’s not a balloon filled with helium, etc. etc.). Even though I do not fully understand gravity- how it works, why it works- I trust it exists. Why? Well, because I experience it every day. I don’t need to understand it to acknowledge its existence. In the same way, I trust that the air around me contains oxygen as I breathe it in. I don’t require a series of tests to prove that the air is breathable before I breathe it. It’s a matter of faith.

The same is true for God. Though I don’t see Him and cannot fully understand how He works, I feel His presence and see proof of His existence all around me. I do not need to completely comprehend Him before I believe in Him. A good thing too, since that would be impossible. It seems incredibly odd that the same people who demand conclusive proof of the existence of a Creator are the same people who complacently accept a handful of other half-proven theories. If you need concrete proof in one area, do you not need concrete proof in every area?

The bottom line is there are two options. Either you doubt everything and require irrefutable truth before you accept something or you examine the evidence available and then make that step across the chasm between evidence and belief. Faith is not a blind acceptance; rather it is the choice to believe even when complete understanding is not possible.

When there are only two options, a person is characterized by one or the other. How exhausting it must be to need proof of everything! And even if something is proven, is it not possible that more research can prove contrary? Is it really belief when you accept something only on the basis of evidence?

No thank you. I choose faith. I review information and make an informed decision to believe or not believe, even if the evidence is not conclusive. And I have no problem trusting the work of great scholars. I do not need to review all the research to trust that E=mc^2. I do not need to know how the sun works to be grateful for the heat and light it provides. (Okay, maybe I’m not always grateful for the heat.) I have no need to see and visit every planet before I believe they exist.

You get the idea. I do not require complete understanding in order to appreciate something or believe in it. I have chosen to embrace faith. It is in no way the easier path, but requires strength of spirit and peacefulness of soul. Only those two can work with faith to carry you across to a place of true belief.

I’m reading through “Cry, the Beloved Country” and I’m finding it a really beautiful story. Recently there was a quote that stuck out to me: “The tragedy is not that things are broken. The tragedy is that they are not mended again.”

It’s such a beautiful perspective to me. Most of the time, we attempt to keep things from breaking, what novelty to say it’s okay for them to break! Much as we would like to, we can’t keep everything from breaking. Sometimes things break. Sometimes something gets knocked over and shatters on the floor. What happens after that? Is it thrown away or fixed? If it is broken badly, we may decide it is beyond saving.

I guess it all comes down to values. How much we value something determines our treatment of it. If we truly value what has been broken, we make every effort to mend it right away. In many ways, I guess the problem started even before anything was broken, when we didn’t see the value in something fragile.

So I guess one interpretation of this quote is “The tragedy is not that bad things happen. The tragedy is that we don’t value things enough to fix them.” And so they remain broken, shattered pieces of something we never really valued in the first place. What do you value?