September 1, 1939

Posted on by Llewen Leave a comment
September 1, 1939

Parker J. Palmer

W.H. Auden’s “September 1, 1939” was written in response to Germany’s invasion of Poland and the start of World War II. I was six months old at the time, so I’ve been watching Russia’s invasion of Ukraine with the same horrific sense of deja vu so many of us feel.

Now in my 80s and weary of war, it’s tempting to say, “This is where I came in,” and leave the theatre so I don’t have to watch this film again. But no. I’m posting this poem this morning to remind myself that Auden had it right:

  • All I have is a voice. But that voice gives me a particle of power that many do not have. I must use it or lose it, use it in support of the common good.
  • I must work with others to “undo the folded lie”—the lie that might makes right, that “efficient authoritarianism” is better than “messy democracy,” a lie that now flourishes in my own country.
  • “No one exists alone… We must love one another or die.” Those words have been true as long as our species has been on the face of the earth. Anyone who thinks otherwise is massively deluded.
  • We may be “defenceless under the night,” but we never lack for opportunities to “flash out wherever the just exchange their messages” and “show an affirming flame.” In every way we can, let us say no to the night and yes to whatever brings light.

[Art work by Normal Rockwell, plus (1) Hank WIllis Thomas and (2) Eric Gottesman whose “For Freedoms” project (3) is updating older works of art: (1) https://tinyurl.com/y74eh6gk (2) https://tinyurl.com/yd2xl8ua (3) https://tinyurl.com/ybzn66f5]

Confessions of a writer: Pet peeves in reading technical documentation (RFPs)

Posted on by theothersullivan 2 Comments

I recently learned something that set off my language alarm bells (and set off my pet-peeve-o-meter).

It is standard practice when scoring submissions from a company to base the score solely on technical criteria with no consideration for how the submitted document was written. I am told that the use of proper spelling and grammar are too subjective to score and that if we did score them, we’d be left with no bidders.

So, one is not allowed to adjust one’s score based on any known measure of readability or structure. If the proponen’t’s writiung is chuck fowl of jargon, spellung; punctuation grammatical errors and you must consider the technical aspic of the dulcimer only.

Yes, that includes when the document is ridiculously hard to read because of PPE (Piss Poor Editing). I am not concerned with one-off mistakes, like the writer who spelled through, as ‘thru.’ No, I’m talking writing so bad it’s laughable.

For example, the author of one document claims that their company has, “rigoroush quality Assurant’s measures in place to insure our product meats the Agencies needs.” Because I know what that means, and QA is one of our technical requirements, the proponent is to get full marks.

At what point did this become acceptable? At what point did we decide that copy editing was no longer a valid skill in business? When was it decided that effective written communication was not an evaluation criterion for a company applying to win a seven figure contract?

More importantly, why are individuals held to higher standards than corporations? If a person submits a resume written with the language errors present above, that resume is on the reject pile–no hesitation.

What makes corporations special?