Search THE READING ROOM

Sunday, February 27, 2011

(10) Facebook rants to make you think about bad English vs good English (41-45)

Rant No. 41: Why are some (many?) of our newspapers so fond of using the non-specific and often inappropriate word "miscreant" in crime stories when there are perfectly serviceable equivalents, which are not only specific but also appropriate?

UNACCEPTABLE: "[A city corporator] was shot dead by unidentified miscreants ... on Sunday afternoon." (Bangalore Mirror, Jan. 17)
January 20 at 10:47am 
    • Ramesh Prabhu
      BETTER: "[A city corporator] ... was shot dead by a group of seven assailants ... on Sunday." (ToI, Jan. 17)

      BETTER: "[A city corporator] ... was shot [dead] by a seven member gang in broad daylight on Sunday...." (DNA, Jan. 17)

      Read veteran journalist Jyoti Sanyal's views on the subject: "Who's this 'miscreant'?": http://goo.gl/HWBGh

      Mini-rant: In the DNA report, it should be "a seven-member gang" -- the sub has left out the hyphen. Also, "broad daylight" is one of the oldest of cliches. Wouldn't "Sunday afternoon" have sufficed?
      January 20 at 10:47am
       
    • Ayushman Baruah I remember I asked you this question in class once...a miscreant means an evil doer...and this word does exist. So is it really wrong to use it?
      January 20 at 11:33am
       
    • Ramesh Prabhu Ayushman: Read veteran journalist Jyoti Sanyal's views on the subject: "Who's this 'miscreant'?": http://goo.gl/HWBGh
      January 20 at 1:41pm

    • Ramesh Prabhu Also, if you read my original rant, you will understand: Why are some (many?) of our newspapers so fond of using the non-specific and often inappropriate word "miscreant" in crime stories when there are perfectly serviceable equivalents, which are not only specific but also appropriate?
      January 20 at 1:44pm
       
    • Ramesh Prabhu
      My point, Ayushman, is that "miscreant" is not specific. In good writing, certainly in journalism, it is the specifics that enable easier and quicker understanding. How tall is a "tall" man? Get it?

      Also, as you have pointed out, "miscreant"... means "evil-doer". Should we then write "A city corporator was shot dead by seven evil-doers on Sunday"? Absurd, isn't it?See More
      January 20 at 7:46pm
       
    • Prashant Nahata Ramesh, after going thru your rants, on the appropriate use of the english language I feel as if I am attending a daily refresher's course.But please keep up the good work as the ilk of your students generation needs it and we guys also need to be periodically given primers for our own perusal.
      January 21 at 1:45am
       
    • Prashant Nahata Feel scared of voicing our thoughts before you as we are more likely to be caught wrongfooted with the use of the "ENGLISH "language
      January 21 at 1:48am

      ***
      Rant No. 42: Why do our newspapers begin hard news reports with "In a bizarre incident... / In an audacious incident..."? Readers can surely infer for themselves if the incident is bizarre or audacious by getting quickly to the heart of the story, which is not going to happen if you persist in delaying the main point by beginning with a pointless comment or subordinate clause.
      ***
      Rant No. 43: Banner headline on sports page of ToI today: "SA survive Pathan pyrotechnic". That should be "pyrotechnics", because it is a noun in this context. (ToI Sports Desk: Ignorance is NOT bliss.)
      ***
      Rant No. 44: It's not "an" university. It's not "a" orange.

      And it's not "an" Eurostar train, as has been published in ToI today (Page 2, caption).
      January 25 at 10:34am
       
    • Shiv Sujir It could be 'a' honest mistake sir ;)
      January 25 at 10:38am
       
    • Nandini Hegde they need a phonetics class!
      January 25 at 2:16pm

    • Ayushman Baruah ‎@Ramesh: I knew about this and also follow it myself but I am not clear about the explanation. Can you help?
      January 25 at 6:11pm

    • Shiv Sujir The usage of 'a' and 'an' depends on the vowel sound at the beginning of the word and not on the vowel itself.
      January 25 at 7:47pm

    • Ramesh Prabhu
      Ayushman: Shiv has got it.

      For example, "unscrupulous" would take "an". "He is an unscrupulous man."

      But "university" would take "a" because, phonetically, "university" begins with a "you" sound.

      For more details (and additional clarity), go to http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/591/1/.
      January 25 at 8:19pm

      ***
      Rant No. 45: Why don't we know the difference between the modifier "everyday" and the phrase "every day"?

      Headline in DNA's After Hrs supplement yesterday: "I am a proud Indian everyday". Wrong. That should read: "I am a proud Indian every day".

      CORRECT: I go to college every day.
      CORRECT: Going to college is an everyday affair.
      January 27 at 10:34am
       
    • Ayushman Baruah How about every one vs everyone and no one vs noone?
      January 27 at 1:12pm

    • Ramesh Prabhu Ayushman: "Use 'everyone' for people when you are talking about all of them ('Hello, everyone!'). Use 'every one' when you are talking about the collection of each individual person or thing (I bought a package of potato chips and every one was broken')." -- From http://www.english-test.net/forum/ftopic34853.html
      January 27 at 1:22pm
       
    • Ramesh Prabhu ‎"No one" is always two words now, though when I first became a journalist in 1981, the Mid Day reporters used to write it as "no-one".
      January 27 at 1:24pm

    • Ayushman Baruah Thanks sir.
      January 27 at 1:24pm

    • Ramesh Prabhu
      Additional notes:

      The one-word modifier everyday and the two-word phrase every day are not interchangeable (despite store ads that say, "Lowest prices everyday" – incorrect).

      Everyday (one word) is an adjective meaning "encountered or used typically or routinely; a synonym is ordinary.

      Every day (two words) literally has the same meaning as "each day."

      A simple way to test which is appropriate is to substitute "each day" in place of "every day / everyday." If "each day" works, we want to use every day (two words); if "each day" does not work, we want everyday. For example, "We have low prices every day" = "We have low prices each day"; therefore, every day is correct – and everyday is incorrect. On the other hand, since we may not correctly rephrase "This is an everyday event" as "This is an each day event," the one-word adjective everyday is correct. (From the net.)
      January 28 at 10:52am
       
    • Ayesha Tabassum Ramesh Sir... I don't know how to thank you enough... I too have corrected so many people every day... ;)
      January 28 at 3:11pm

(9) Facebook rants to make you think about bad English vs good English (36-40)

Rant No. 36: When did "post" become the preferred substitute for "after" (when not used as a prefix)?

UNACCEPTABLE: "I'm filing something tonight, which I just got to know of post our meeting."

ACCEPTABLE: "Post-recession, Europe is a little more open"
January 12 at 11:45am 
  • Shweta Rajan and Tania Sarkar like this.

    • Ramesh Prabhu
      Ankana Chakraborty commented on Gmail Buzz:  "Post" does mean after. So why is "post a discussion" wrong?

      My response: Because it is a prefix and not a standalone word.

      From http://www.ecenglish.com/learnenglish/lessons/using-prefix-post
       
      Post: a prefix meaning after or later than

      Here are five examples of prefixes using "post":

      1. Postpone (verb): "She decided to postpone her vacation until next year."
      2. Posthumous (adjective): "This is a posthumous album by Michael Jackson."
      3. Postnatal (adjective): "There's a good system of postnatal care for mothers in my country."
      4. Postdate (verb): "I'll postdate this cheque until the end of the month when I get paid."
      5. Postmortem (noun): "They had a postmortem to find out how the man was killed.

      *

      My guess is that the IT industry, which has turned the adjective "corporate" into a noun "corporates" is to blame for turning a prefix into a standalone word.

      January 12 at 3:59pm
       

    • Ramesh Prabhu Would you say "pre a discussion"?
      January 12 at 3:59pm · 

    • Shruthi Shiva Who says that?
      January 12 at 6:13pm
       

    • Ramesh Prabhu Shruthi: The same people who say "post a discussion", I guess. :-)
      January 12 at 7:50pm

      ***
      Rant No. 37: Why do we say "cope up with (something") when it should be "cope with" (something)?
       ***
      Rant No. 38: Why don't we know the difference between "maybe" and "may be"? The opening line of Sunil Gavaskar's column in yesterday's Sunday Times reads: "The Tests maybe over in Australia and South Africa, but...." That should be "may be".

      If he wanted to use "maybe", he could have written "Maybe the Tests are over in Australia and South Africa, but...."
      January 17 at 10:27am

        • Sudhir Prabhu Thanks again. Didn't know the difference between the two. :)
          January 17 at 10:28am
           

        • Ramesh Prabhu
          Sudhir: "Maybe" is an adverb meaning "perhaps."

          "May be" is a verb phrase showing possibility.

          Examples:
          I heard that our instructor may be absent today. Maybe class will be cancelled.

          January 17 at 10:30am


        • Ayushman Baruah Excellent insight...this is why I still like to have my final clarifications from you...
          January 17 at 11:06am


        • Tania Sarkar Thank you, sir... I had been looking up the net for this but was not getting anything as clearly explained as this. :)
          January 17 at 11:27am
           

        • Raka Mazumdar Thanks sir.I was getting a little confused over the usage.
          January 17 at 12:03pm


        • Varun Chhabria You taught me the difference a month back. :P
          January 17 at 7:21pm
           

        • Pratibha Chandran This is like Bhaskar Menon's analysis which used to come in PTI.
          January 23 at 9:43pm

          ***
          Rant No. 39: Why don't we know that the @ symbol in email addresses is pronounced "at" and not "at the rate of"?
          January 18 at 11:07am

        • Sudhir Prabhu I wonder how this one started.
          January 18 at 11:17am


        • Vibha Ghai I second that ... gets my goat every time someone says that!
          January 18 at 11:39am


        • Tania Sarkar I knew, sir! :)
          January 18 at 12:12pm  

        • Ramesh Prabhu
          Sudhir: Here's a definition from Yahoo Answers, from somebody whose handle is "Irish (something)":

          *******

          The @ symbol IS NOT exclusively for email addresses. Long time ago the @ symbol was used in commerce and, yes, it already meant "at" ba...ck then.

          It was used to give the price of goods in relation to the quantity of that particular good. For example:

          1 Washer Machine @ $53.00 ea. = $53.00
          (one washer machine at $53.00 each)

          3 Hamburgers @ 5¢ = 15¢
          (three burgers at five cents each)

          4 oranges @ 3¢ each = 12¢
          (four oranges at three cents each)

          Please notice that I am using prices of your prepubescent grandparents' era which is when the @ symbol was more widely used.

          *******

          I think when we were taught this symbol in school, we were told to pronounce it as "at the rate of" in the context given above. And that seems to have stuck in today's email era.

          January 18 at 1:28pm


        • Amrita Dey I KNEW IT!!! :)

          January 18 at 1:38pm


        • Sudha Aries i knew...i knew it!
          January 18 at 5:36pm


        • Princess Sudipta Paul thank god ... i knew atleast this one :)
          January 18 at 10:04pm


        • Ramesh Prabhu ‎"at least", not "atleast", Princess.
          January 19 at 10:30am
           

        • Anagha Gunjal Sir: I can never go wrong with "at least" for the rest of my life.
          January 19 at 8:38pm
           

        • Shaonli Dutta I know this Sir!
          January 19 at 10:30pm


        • Pratibha Chandran This will help everyone
          January 23 at 9:41pm
          ***
          Rant No. 40: Why don't we know how to make simple plurals?

          UNACCEPTABLE: "Daily Bread is looking for franchisee's." (Ad in Bangalore Mirror, Dec. 5)
          ACCEPTABLE: "Daily Bread is looking for franchisees."

          UNACCEPTABLE: "Here are some email ID's."
          ACCEPTABLE: "Here are some email IDs."
          January 19 at 10:40am

        • Ramesh Prabhu UNACCEPTABLE: "Raddi-wala's were enlisted to help...." (Article in Time Out Bengaluru, Dec. 24-Jan. 6)
          ACCEPTABLE: "Raddi-walas were enlisted to help...."

          January 19 at 10:40am


        • Anagha Gunjal
          thank you so much for this one, sir. i am tired of correcting people's plurals and apostrophes. i hope people start getting hints that they need to improve their English at least by reading your rants.

          i am losing friends by correcting their grammar. they have begun to resent me. hehe

          January 19 at 11:15am

        • Bala Murali Krishna This is a biggie. There are so many subs who can never get it right.
          January 19 at 11:32am


        • Anagha Gunjal Bala: really? i am surprised.
          January 19 at 11:34am


        • Bala Murali Krishna Many subs are a lot worse than they get credit for. By the same token, there are great subs who get far less credit than they deserve.
          January 19 at 11:36am
           

        • Nandini Hegde ‎@ anagha: I've the same problem! I keep correcting spellings and grammar! They get annoyed so I just write 'Ted Mosby:' and then correct them! :P
          January 19 at 11:47am
           

        • Ayushman Baruah This is quite an obvious one but ya I guess some do make such mistakes.
          January 19 at 11:57am


        • Anagha Gunjal
          Bala: I am sure the sub is sometimes over-occupied and pressed with deadlines and a few spelling mistakes can be understood by the readers. But getting the basic grammar wrong (something which I can figure out) is something unacceptable which I have learnt from RP Sir.

          Nandini: seriously? haha

          January 19 at 11:59am
           

        • Neil Ima Today I saw someone write CD's for CDs.
          January 19 at 6:21pm


        • Anagha Gunjal Neil: did you correct that person?
          January 19 at 8:39pm


        • Bala Murali Krishna CD's vs. CDs is, I suspect, a style thing with at least some newspapers. I think NYT's style would be CD's, not the simple plural form.
          January 20 at 11:25am


        • Ramesh Prabhu Bala: NYT uses CDs

          http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/arts/music/11choice.html

          (see headline)

          January 20 at 2:03pm


        • Bala Murali Krishna thanks Ramesh for checking it out. NYT style varies from AP in many things.
          January 20 at 4:12pm


        • Bala Murali Krishna On this topic, some of you not already familiar with this NYT blog might want to check it out: http://topics.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/after-deadline/
          January 20 at 4:19pm
           

        • Bala Murali Krishna Ramesh, NYT is inconsistent with its own style. Look at CD's in this headline:
          Pennies That Add Up to $16.98: Why CD's Cost So Much
          http://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/05/arts/pennies-that-add-up-to-16.98-why-cd-s-cost-so-much.html

          January 21 at 12:21pm
           

        • Ramesh Prabhu
          Bala: "CD's" was how the NYT used to spell it, but things have changed. Your example is from 1995, mine from this year.

          Here is an explanation, written in 2007, from the NYT's then director of copy desks, Merrill Perlman:

          As to the question ... of why we put apostrophes in decades (the 1960's) and in the plural of some all-capitalized initialisms (DVD’s), the answer is we don't anymore. Phil Corbett, the deputy news editor who is in charge of the stylebook, eliminated those anachronisms last October, with this comment:

          Our main reason for using the apostrophe had been to avoid confusion in all-cap heds, but with those heds long since eliminated everywhere but Page One, that rationale is no longer compelling. And the apostrophe annoyed many readers, who thought we were mistakenly using a possessive form instead of a plural.

          (To read the complete "Talk to the Newsroom" column, go to http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/business/media/19asktheeditors.html?pagewanted=all)
           

          January 21 at 1:07pm
           

        • Bala Murali Krishna thanks, Ramesh. NYT always has a proper explanation for these things and I am glad it wasn't any inconsistency.
          January 21 at 1:38pm

Sunday, February 13, 2011

From the Bangalore newspaper I admire the most, an idea whose time has come?


The text of the announcement on DNA's front page, February 1:

"FROM TODAY, DNA DOES AWAY

WITH THE EDIT PAGE"

For years many of you have felt that the newspaper edit page has long outlived its usefulness. It's boring, very few read it, and it's a chore to fill. It's more punditry than expert comment. It's become a single-page editorial ghetto; and that makes little sense in this TV/mobile/web age where you're looking for more news validation and analysis.

Thus, DNA has decided to do away with its edit page.

This does not mean DNA will shun analysis: after all, it's part of our title. Instead, DNA will give you more comment, spread across the paper. For instance, today we have articles by experts on corruption and on the China-US presidential meeting. Each will appear on a different news page. Otherwise, they'd appear on two consecutive edit pages. DNA will give you more comment in the days to come; you've already seen it in the Money section, and you will even see it on the Sport pages. And it will all be interesting.

DNA is doing away with the "leaders", the 400-word unsigned editorials. Instead, as and when a news event warrants a stand by DNA, it will appear on page 1.

The letters to the Editor remain. They remain an important interactive forum and will now appear on page 2.

DNA believes the newspaper is a work in progress. Unless it evolves, it will become irrelevant. We are confident you will support our efforts at modernising journalism and staying ahead of the times.

— Aditya Sinha, Editor-in-Chief

***
Has DNA erred in scrapping what many purists might consider the hallmark, even the DNA, of every newspaper? Or is it a sign of the times? With many young people not even bothering to read newspapers, leave alone the Edit Page, doing away with the leader pieces, or editorials, and in-depth "thought articles" may be seen as one (desperate?) way to attract more readers.

To my mind, DNA's move reflects more a paucity of good writers in Indian journalism. Aditya Sinha confesses as much when he writes, "[The Edit Page is] boring, very few read it, and it's a chore to fill." There are very few journalists in India today who can engage, entertain, and enlighten readers in the manner of, say, the New York Times writers. Read the opinion columns by Bob Herbert, Maureen Dowd, Thomas Friedman, and Nicholas D. Kristof, to name just a few of the NYT's distinguished galaxy of writers, and you'll get an idea of what I am talking about.

That is my opinion, though. Sadly, not many people I know share that opinion.

Here are some comments sent to me via email and posted on Facebook in response to my FB status message on the subject:

BALA MURALI KRISHNA (Associate Editor, The New Indian Express): Would be curious to see what non-journos say or how many actually notice or comment on it.

ARCHITA SHASHIKANTH (Commits Class of 2011): I never read the editorial. I do always skim through the headlines and a para on the page but it has never really engaged me. I've read a whole article maybe once or twice. So this suits me just fine. On the other hand, the editorial is something that is always there, something you can just refer to when you need an informed opinion and haven't been following things properly yourself. It's a pity that won't be the case any longer.

SAMARPITA SAMADDAR (Commits Class of 2010):  It makes sense to me. It's better to have DNA's stand on page 1 than just one editorial column, isn't it? :)
(Samarpita Samaddar is the Public Relations Officer of the India Foundation for the Arts, Bangalore.)

AYESHA TABASSUM (Commits Class of 2007): Depressing!
(Ayesha Tabassum is a writer with the Bangalore-based ad agency, Why Axis. She was in television news production in Mumbai for three years.)

FAYE D'SOUZA (Commits Class of 2004): I think it makes perfect sense. In fact, for those who have read the "Quick Edit" on Page 1 of Mint, I think that's a perfect way to voice a newspaper's editorial stand. I never read the main editorials on Mint's Edit Page. I read the "Quick Edit" and move on. :) With TV doing every piece of information to death, I think it is important for newspapers to give readers analysis. But I don’t have that kind of time or mind space in the morning any more. Keep it short, relevant to what I'm reading, and easily accessible and it works.
(Faye D'Souza is the assistant editor of personal finance at ET Now in Mumbai. She also anchors the "Investors' Guide" show on the channel.) 

VARUN CHHABRIA (Commits Class of 2012): "DNA believes the newspaper is a work in progress. Unless it evolves, it will become irrelevant." How true. I think it's about time. I prefer opinions and in-depth analyses to be covered in weekly/monthly magazines. 

SUSHMITA CHATTERJEE (Commits Class of 2007)I think it isn't a very good idea because there are many I know (including me) who love reading the Edit Page for the kind of interesting analysis that's given. Now that it will be spread across all the pages, I don't know how great that would be!
(Sushmita Chatterjee is with Accenture Learning in Bangalore. She was a print and television news reporter for three years.)

DEBMALYA DUTTA (Commits Class of 2011): DNA is not such a well-known entity in Kolkata yet. Most of my seniors at The Statesman don't know about it. I discussed the issue with our deputy editor, Ishan Joshi. He made a relevant observation: "The edit page is for those who want something more than just facts, but do not have regular access to news magazines."

As for The Statesman, the editorial has been a defining factor for the newspaper since the days of the late CR Irani's column, "Caveat", which used to be published regularly as the anchor piece on the front page.

So, I think, as of now, Daily News and Analysis holds the monopoly for fiddling with the DNA of the broadsheet format. ;-P
(Debmalya Dutta is a sub-editor with The Statesman in Kolkata.)

SHAGORIKA EASWAR (Editor, Desi News and CanadaBound Immigrant, Toronto, Canada): I guess as people who run the business they know what they are doing, but the Edit Page is more that just a space in a newspaper that can be put to better use! It defines the paper and often contains some of the best writing in the paper. While the rest of the newspaper provides the news, this space gives you opinions, it is the personality of the paper. This just makes me sad. And as someone who reads DNA online everyday, [my husband and magazine publisher] Easwar, I'm sure, will agree. 

PATRICK MICHAEL (Executive Editor, Khaleej Times, Dubai): From this neck of the woods, I couldn't agree more.

The Op-Ed pages have become a think piece of one man/woman based on their perception of events in relation to their personal/country's stand. Does Henry Kissinger or Philip Knightley or Kuldip Nayar, Asif Zardari (yes, even he!) know any better than the educated man on the street who can decipher for himself what's going on? I think not. Do they shed any new light on events? Perhaps. But then don't all of them come with a bias? Kuldip was an editor and so was MJ Akbar. Indian editors often took sides, toed the management line when needed, heeded to the government in power because their masters wanted them to, ''spiked'' stories, lobbied, adopted a particular line of thinking, and seldom wavered from it and few, if any, saw a story right through its logical conclusion. Some did. I won't deny that and to them I raise my hat. Vinod Mehra is one of them, Busybee [Behram Contractor] another.

So what are they doing on the Op-Ed pages?

Good for DNA. Left to me, a full page of letters from readers makes more sense in this day and age of convergence journalism. Anything that actively encourages and engages people in debates is better than a Hillary Clinton column on MidEast affairs given the US somersaults depending on where their interests lie! (Egypt, for example.)

I was brought up on Op-Ed pages. It was my daily diet. But the years have taught me that one's man's view is another man's counter-view. I love reading the likes of Tom Friedman but not everyone is a Tom. You still have fuddy-duddies lecturing and looking down on youth with that ''I know better'' attitude.

Analysis of any kind should be on the news pages and should be current, not a week old!

EDIT PAGE, OP-ED:  RIP.

The masthead announcement on Page 1 of DNA, February 17. 

Saturday, February 12, 2011

When "lobbying" becomes "fixing", it is no longer PR

NANDITA LAKSHMANAN, SUBROTO BAGCHI
So says Nandita Lakshmanan, founder of the Bangalore-based The PRactice, in an interview with Subroto Bagchi in Forbes India (February 11).

In the wake of the Niira Radia spectrum scam tapes controversy, Bagchi asks Lakshmanan, who has managed the Infosys account for ten years now, to tell him where the line must be drawn between PR and deal-fixing. The answer is enlightening:

When lobbying becomes ‘fixing’, it ceases to be in the domain of public relations. Many PR firms do cross the line; they hire former bureaucrats in the telecom or the retail sector — people who know the ‘right people’, who know how the ‘system’ works. PR can secure meetings with ministries, advise the client what to say, follow up, but there is a line. In India, as in many parts of the world, that fine line between influencing, advocacy and deal making is often trespassed.

Lakshmanan also explains why business must know about PR:

Every company should treat public relations seriously. A conscious corporation puts its reputation among its stakeholders above all else. It may not necessarily be the most visible in the media, nor [does] its recall need to be high in the larger community. Ironically, I have come across many successful companies, with greater market-share, stronger balance sheet than their competition, but they feel weak in public relations because their competitors are more visible in the media. Good PR need not mean constant, high visibility in the media.

And when Bagchi tells her that people think PR is all about managing the media, Lakshmanan's response will give all those thinking of a career in public relations an insight into that PR is really all about:

Media engagement is critical, but it is merely one aspect of PR and it must be used judiciously. PR can enhance your relationship with the financial community, help become a part of the local community, highlight issues to help change policy or behaviour. It can assist in managing and enhancing employee relations, pre-empting and preparing for crises and therefore mitigating their impact on your business.

PR cannot completely subvert a negative impact — if you’ve done something wrong, you have to suffer the consequences like in any relationship. And remember, a relationship is two-ways. You build it irrespective of whether times ahead are going to be good or bad. Sometimes, you need a relationship particularly when times are bad.

Read the interview in its entirety here: "The thin line in public relations".
  • THE COMMITS CONNECTION: Nandita Lakshmanan has taught PR at Commits, and Commitscion Shane Jacob (Class of 2005) is a top executive with The PRactice. The agency has also taken many interns from Commits over the years.
  • Photo courtesy: Forbes India

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

How the lack of a reading habit can be a serious handicap

I wonder if the lack of a reading habit also affects one's verbal skills. For instance, I know many young people who are not able to articulate their thoughts.

Is it because they don't do any reading?

When I ask them, for example, "So how was the movie?" They reply, "Good." If they thought it was really good, they reply, "Awesome." If they are feeling especially loquacious, they might say, "It was an amazing experience."

If I ask them why the movie was "good" or "awesome", or why they thought it was "an amazing experience", I rarely get one complete sentence out of them in response.

Still on the same subject, here's something that I hope young people will find inspirational:

Aakar Patel is a former editor of Mid Day. He is now the director of Hill Road Media, a syndication agency, in Mumbai. He is a top-notch writer and journalist whose columns in Mint Lounge are a delight to read ("Why our media can't explain India"; "Why is Plato known as Aflatoon in the subcontinent?").

In his latest column, published in Mint Lounge last Saturday, he discusses the importance of reading the Classics and gives examples in a matter-of-fact style, which, in this case, lends weight to his argument. And his argument is that the only proper education is a Classical one, and it comes out of reading the primary texts.

And he ends by writing, "If you seek it [a Classical education], no matter how old you are, I hasten you towards these magnificent works."

I hope young people reading this will take Aakar's proposition seriously. Even if they do not, there's something I think they should ponder. Here are the MOST IMPORTANT paragraphs (from young people's perspective) in Aakar's article:

I was driven to all these great works not early in life, for Gujaratis have no use for such education. When I dropped out of high school it was not a matter for concern or comment among my friends and relatives. I do not have a degree and there is not a single graduate in my family.

But I have tried to teach myself, and done so by replicating, however poorly, the method of the Orientalists.

What does this tell us? Aakar Patel became a GOOD journalist, despite not having a degree, because, among other things, he spent a lot of time reading.

Here's the link to his classic column: "An education in the Classics".

PS: What prompted this post was my Facebook status message yesterday (and the comments it attracted): I know some young people who don't like reading. Nor do they like writing. But they insist they want to join the media industry. A few of them even want to be journalists. What do I tell them?

ADDITIONAL READING:

1. If you want to be a versatile writer, here's some practical advice

2. "The five traits of a successful writer"

3. Here's how to make time to read 


4. If you don't read, you can't write  


5. In one quote, the essence of writing