Op-Ed: National writing standards vs. the cultural reality

The Common Core State Standards Initiative proposed for US education will have to battle the facts of modern media writing. It’s strange to see that a standard is being set amid the wasteland of modern language. A brave concept facing the real world.

The proposal is based on what used to be a very sound principle, the idea that being able to communicate was an advantage in education. The concept of the National Standard is rooted in a kind thought, at least:

...career-readiness standards for English language arts and mathematics for grades K-12

Educators have their doubts and preferences, (see comments on this link) and although they’re obviously skeptical about the methods, they’re clearly clinging to a hope of possibly passing on the ability to communicate in some way to students. As a pro writer, may I point out that teaching people to do the exact opposite of their society could have a few problems attached to it. As internet and media writing rapidly replaces the much loved Random Enema as a formal qualification and spiritual signpost, we are now seeing possible practical uses for this strange habit. From humble gruntings may come cultural salvation, a chance for humanity. Even the lowest possible standards of written communication may have found a use. If even the combination of the terms “internet and media writing”, “culture” and “humanity” seems a bit far fetched, I can assure readers that there’s nothing intentional about this process, no grotesque misanthropic attempt to impose literacy on anyone. Do not burn down your huts and run screaming back to the trees at this point in the narrative. Wait until later. Humanity’s supernatural ability to make an idiot out of itself in writing has finally borne fruit. If you’ve ever done business writing training, you’ll be aware of the common description of a badly written business letter: “Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing to you specifically to avoid giving you any information or explain my reason for communication.” In terms of national standards, you may see some common elements in this analogy. When this example of bad business writing was first used, it was thought that there was something wrong with this form of communication. That turns out not to be the case. Apparently, the use of superfluous verbiage is actually quite helpful. Similarly the media writer, in enforcing a healthy supply of entirely useless information to the public, is actually performing a valuable public service, providing a cultural consistency in standards. Consider, (wincing where necessary or required by linguistic chiropractors), the average celebrity news article, the epitome of the culture into which the national standards are to be hurled. The celebrity news article has precisely the necessary level of irrelevance to any possible human situation or life experience. Readers may wallow in this endearing slush, and walk or scuttle away feeling superior, contemptuous, whatever emotional effect they prefer. As therapy, it may even have a use as Sneering Practice for people doing assertiveness training. This is the currently imposed standard of communication in global media. For writers, the effects are entirely benign. The byline provides the necessary fix of self importance, and the text allows them to aspire to writing classifieds, or even cutting and pasting ads on forums. (Well, what else would you do with a degree in arts?) Their power base established, megalomania and syndication are only a few turgid articles away. The standard reinforces the culture, which reinforces the standard. A self sustaining paradigm, much like a coma, but requiring less effort. The writers are also removed in career readiness terms from any danger of operating heavy machinery, taking up law and writing education policies, which is an ever present threat among the elite of the profession. Haggard and exhausted by their battle with ignorance, they can rest content knowing that the world has been saved. National standards could accidentally expose these nascent saints to temptation. It seems that the problem is the basic idea of a subject having any meaning. The threat of adequate communication standards is implied, rather than actual. Some people have natural, almost godlike, abilities to get off any topic, however clearly defined. In my commercial writing I was given a brief to translate someone’s response to a brief for a magazine article. This person was a real expert, and the information he’d provided was excellent. There was the required 1200 words of interesting and completely, not to say obsessively, off topic, material. It had exactly and precisely nothing to do with the agency brief he’d been given, which spelled out in detail what was required. It took me two and a half hours, and 1100 words of my own, to complete the brief. That was when I first realized how unkind relevance can be to people, particularly media writers, frolicking and gamboling in their pastures. Really, what a thing to do to anyone, deliberately suggest they be relevant. How tactless. How impractical. I decided to research further, and wasn’t entirely surprised to find that in another part of my commercial work was the perfect proof of my new theory. If I'd been thinking about education standards as well, I'd probably have moved to that cave in Antarctica I've been dreaming of for so long. I also do some work for a site called ETFtips.com, which does analyses of Exchange Traded Funds around the world. I needed to research my materials, so I put on my waders and set off into the professional financial columns. It was proof positive of my theory: Relevance is relative to the reader, not the writer. Talking about professional writing standards: I found technical information and industry-speak which would make one of those sad little “authentic” movie scripts look like Shakespeare. For people trained only to read a known language, it would have been indecipherable, probably mercifully so. If Schliemann had found it in the ruins of Troy, he’d have buried the place again and denied all knowledge of Homer, claiming in the interest of the world’s cultural standards that Troy never existed. In those days, relevance was considered a virtue. He would never have suspected the real use of this form of language as ego fodder for readers. Now, we know better. Those who understand these things can bask in their knowledge of obscure terminology, like discussing a mathematical formula in physics that is so full of theory nobody looks at the arithmetic. Apply a formal standard to things like that, and some poor bastard may have to take it seriously. Unfortunately, I don’t get paid to be mystic about investment, so like a heartless swine I simply based my articles on facts and market performance. If only I’d thought some more at the time about my theory…. I’m sorry to say all I came up with later, having realized my terrible social gaffe, was a rationalization: “I’m a copywriter! What would I do with an ethic, even if I had one?” So much for my standards… Darwin would have approved of media writing as an environmental adaption exercise. People may adapt to this environment with ease, learning all the social skills required to breed while avoiding the threats of predatory facts. To quote from a non existent person in some carefully undefined part of theoretical history: Flutter ye, O writers, among the diversities of subject!

Know not, say not, breathe not!

Write at a remove, lest ye be removed! Or something… I wonder if I wrote that just to prove my social skills... sickening thought... Do we actually want a standard applied to this?