Webster, Why Did We Ever Forget You?

I am sure that almost every American, and many other people around the world, have heard the name "Webster" at some point in their life. Webster's has even become synonymous with "dictionary" for many people. I am also sure that fewer people realize that Webster--Noah Webster, to be precise--was a real person living during the infancy of our nation. He made it his life's work to travel throughout the budding United States in order to gather information on all of the local languages spoken throughout the new nation. He noticed that, while the majority of residents spoke English, the versions of English spoken tended to have enough variations that is was sometimes difficult for people from one state to converse clearly with people from another state. Throughout his research he realized that our new country needed a unified language if we were to become stronger and work together to grow. So, he set out to create the first English dictionary based on "American" English. From his dictionary he created his speller.

Webster's Speller is a book, written by Noah Webster in the 1780s, with the last revision in 1824, that was used in schools around the country to teach children (and some adults) everything about the English language. The book was so exact, so complete, that it was used in all classrooms from first grade through high school. It is written in progressive lessons, beginning with the alphabet and each letter's sounds and ending in reading exercises for high school-level readers that include moral and citizenship lessons. Like most people who have ever opened a textbook, I thumbed through the book to find simple lessons to teach my daughter so that she could be brought up to speed. See, she was never properly taught phonics and, as she apparently has a minor speech issue, this has been holding her back significantly in her reading and writing and spelling. She does wonderfully in all her other subjects, but her spelling and reading scores were not up to par for her real level. Her comprehension is great, she just stumbles over words sometimes, often making some up as she goes because she doesn't recognize them. She never learned the tools for basic reading or the rules for combining sounds into real words. That's why I bought the Speller.

I decided that I would take my daughter through Webster's Speller from the very first lesson, even though she already learned the alphabet a few years ago, and go forward one lesson at a time until school started. I don't intend to stop until we start school. Even if we do not make it to her current grade level (she'll be starting 5th grade in August), I want to fill in as many gaps as I can. We began to make progress. I started with the first lessons/tables, which were handwriting lessons in cursive and print for each of the letters. We moved on to the tables of basic syllable sounds. I pronounced them, she repeated. Then we began single syllable words. I read them, she wrote them and spelled them out loud. Before we moved on to the next lesson--disyllabic words--I noticed that I made the same mistake most textbook readers make. I skipped over the "fluff" to what I thought was the "meat" of the book, in this case I was only concerned with the lessons. Yesterday I decided to actually read the "fluff" and I am extremely glad that I did.

Noah Webster wrote his book like a true lecture. It reads like a teacher attempting to educate his class in all of the preliminary nuances and rules of the language before you get into the lessons themselves. If you had a really good math teacher, then you learned the vocabulary of math (quotient, dividend, etc.) before you practiced that skill. It seems boring, but it is actually incredibly helpful in not only knowing HOW to do something, but also understanding WHY you do something. Understanding the WHY gives you the capacity to comprehend what exists and to build new things from these springboards. Yeah, it's fun to build a Lego set following the instructions and you feel proud of yourself because you could recreate the set as it was designed on the box. Yet, if you know why certain pieces work together then you can create new designs that are stable and artistic from the same set of bricks. The same thing goes for math and language. I am just saddened that it took me so long to figure this out.

My whole understanding of English, a language that I tend to struggle with even though it is my primary and almost exclusive language (except for a few words and phrases in other languages that I know), has suddenly grown exponentially. It was all because I decided to go back and read out the paragraphs preceding the lessons. I read the explanations of the sounds of each letter of the alphabet and the distinctions of the types of letters [bet you didn't know there were 3 types of letters, not just 2!] and why each letter fell into its respective category. For those of you who debated this, Y is always considered a vowel, but it can act like a consonant or diphthong. And I found out that the letters are not classified arbitrarily but, rather, based on the mouth movements and opening/closing of the vocal chords required to say their name. When I read this out to my daughter I could see the same light bulb go off in her brain as I felt in mine. For a very intelligent kid in speech therapy, this is a vitally important lesson if you ever expect progress to be made.

We now know why letters are pronounced certain ways in words based on their relative position to other types of letters. In fact, the only letter that Webster states you have to "just be sure to memorize" [quote is a paraphrase of actual wording, but they are used for emphasis] is the letter g because sometimes it doesn't play by its own rules. Every other letter has exact rules that are followed in American English words. Yes, the rules more complicated than Russian, for example, but that's because English uses fewer characters to convey more sounds. In the attempt to simplify the written part of language, English actually made it more complicated to decode. However, it CAN be decoded. The problem is that we stopped teaching people the basic decoding rules.

It's no wonder high school graduates have difficulty reading and spelling! They were never taught the fundamentals. Even phonics, which I have come to understand as a watered down memorization version of comprehensive language education, is no longer being taught in schools. Many education programs have moved on to "whole language," but this only teaches rote memorization of words. The human capacity for straight rote memorization is significantly limited. True understanding comes from comprehension of the rules and tools used to build more complex information. Rote memorization dumps the information into our semantic long-term memory. Skills, including rules for math and language formation, are stored in our implicit memory. We know that implicit memory almost never fades, yet semantic memory is subject to numerous recall failures. So why did we stop building implicit memory? Perhaps it was because it was seen as boring; people don't want to waste time learning when they can be spoon-fed answers. Comprehension is not regurgitation. It is adaptation. The human mind was designed for adaptation, not simply regurgitation.

Think of it another way. Some people can "cook" because they follow the recipe. Occasionally they may experiment and add some new spice because they are curious, but they don't understand why the new spice changes things. A true culinary genius, however, has learned the chemical reactions of different substances, understands how certain ingredients like yeast or baking soda function, so they are able to create novel dishes that not only taste well but that also don't explode or kill you. The same can be said of language. Okay, you can be literate. You can remember the sequences you were taught. You can read the words on the page because you remember the familiar symbols from your earlier education. But if you understand how and why the pieces go together the way they do, then you can recombine them in a new logical sequence and create something new that still works in the preexisting realm of the language.

Language and communication are so very important for our very existence. Don't believe me? Think of any major invention, philosophy, profession, art, etc. and communication was involved. Also imagine your world if you could not communicate at all, if you were 100% reliant upon yourself for absolutely everything and had to "reinvent the wheel" each and every day. I am baffled that we have become so lazy that we don't bother to really understand the fundamental rules of our language so that it will work more efficiently. I don't know why we removed Webster's Speller from schools. Maybe somebody's knickers got all tied into knots when they read the "moral" lessons at the end of the book and didn't want their little Johnny to think like that. For whatever reason, we need to bring it back. We need to have a new generation of thoroughly educated individuals, not just bubble fillers and "good testers" going through the motions. I am so glad I discovered this centuries old textbook. I just really wish others could share in its wisdom as well. I suppose I could find solace that, in a world of 7+ billion people, most of whom now speak English, there will now be a couple who actually understand English.

The Invisible Man Has a Few Loose Ends

Note: I try to be spoiler-lite in my book reviews. It's hard to talk about a story without letting some details slip, but I also don't want to reveal too much so that you can read the book for yourself and make your own judgements.

In my continuing quest to read the source material for Universal Studios' "classic" horror/suspense films of the 1930s-1940s, I picked up H.G. Wells' The Invisible Man. I was a little reluctant at first because I found it very difficult to keep my focus through War of the Worlds. I anticipated a similar difficulty with The Invisible Man, but I was pleasantly surprised. It helps that each chapter is relatively short and the writing is in "cleaner" language, without too much overt description. My surprise ended, however, as I progressed through the story because it left me feeling like I had just watched an air-headed sitcom rather than a moving drama.

Like Dracula, I came into this book with some knowledge of the story, as I vaguely remember bits from the movie and other versions of the story. Interestingly, this original version seemed much simpler than the cinematic translations. Although it takes place over a four-month time span (I'm not counting the exposition of Griffin's back story, which is covered in a chapter or two), it feels as if it covers only a few days. Most of the action also occurs in two different villages, yet it reads like it all happens in the same place.

Though he is the subject of the story, Griffin (the Invisible Man) is not really the main character per se. That distinction does not really seem to fall to any particular character. True, we end up learning the most about Griffin. Yet, even his character is not completely fleshed out. Perhaps it is do to his manic nature--I use this expression in the strict psychological sense, as he does exhibit many behaviors of someone suffering from the mood disorder Mania--that it is hard to grasp his motivations for his behaviors. Just when I felt I understood what he was trying to accomplish through his invisibility, Wells throws in a curve ball and Griffin changes his purposes. This is probably where the movies diverge the most. They tend to portray him as a "mad scientist" bent on discovering something for the sake of pure science and stumbling upon consequences he didn't think about. The literary Griffin doesn't seem to have a real straightforward purpose for his actions. Yes, he wants to make a name for himself. Yes, he wants "revenge" against an "unfair" world. But he comes across as a child playing with a chemistry set (Ooh! What do these chemicals do?) instead of a true researcher.

None of the other characters are described beyond some basic physical and minute personality characteristics. When things go wrong and people are hurt or abused or robbed, etc., I really didn't feel anything beyond the basic "that's not right" sensation. There was no one in the book to sympathize with. There were no real heroes. Even Griffin was not much of a villain. Honestly, what he needed was a good psychiatrist. True, he became homicidal towards the end, but I'm sure with some therapy he could have controlled most of his outbursts. Money seemed to be part of his problem, but at first you believe he's well-to-do, and it isn't until the second half of the book that you find out that he never had any money to begin with. Could this be why he went on a rampage? Not really. This plot point was left hanging wide open.

Other plot points were left as loose ends as well. We do find out what happened to Griffin's elusive notebooks, leaving the story open for a potential sequel. But, it was left open, meaning that  we can only guess whether or not their present owner ever deciphers them. We never find out enough of Kemp's back story to see his complete connection to Griffin. If they were just at university for two years together (Kemp was older) and they weren't roommates or in the same classes, then why would Griffin think he could confide in the brushing acquaintance? There is also the question of who is telling the story. It's written almost as if a reporter were putting together an expose for a magazine. Yet, if that were the case then there ought to have been some mention of said reporter somewhere in the text. Also, if it were a report or article, then you would not get the kind of details we did in the book. The voice of the narrative just didn't fit with any method I've experienced before. The biggest plot hole, to me, was the cause of the Invisible Man's manic behavior. Movie versions state that the transformation into invisibility, mainly the chemical reaction with his brain, is what drives him mad. Yet, Wells never really implies this. There are hints of mania before Griffin's transformation in his back story. Maybe he becomes crazier after becoming invisible. Maybe it doesn't really change him that much. There's really no way to tell the way it was written. Perhaps Wells wants the reader to believe the pursuit of invisibility itself is madness.

As far as monsters go, Griffin is definitely scary because of his unpredictability. He is a pure monster in that there is really nothing about him that makes him sympathetic to the reader. His mania makes him a frightening foe. He is one of the most selfish characters I've ever read and he doesn't even seem to care as much about his survival so long as he gets what he wants. He throws juvenile temper tantrums that would be funny if they weren't so damaging to others. Sometimes I just wanted to grab him by the scruff and slap some sense into him. At least the other characters' reactions to his terrorizing are human, even if they themselves are cardboard versions of people. The panic and fear of the villagers does successfully come across in Wells' writing. But since there's no one to really care for, I ended up with the "at least I'm not as bad off as those poor schmucks" feeling.

This is one time that I would recommend the movie over the book if you're looking for character depth. If you're looking for a series of chaotic fights and unsubstantiated anger galore, then read the book.

Original Sources Are Sometimes Better Than Modern Interpretations

I don't like vampire stories, as a rule. I tend to shy away from them whenever possible. I will admit to a brief liking of the movie "Interview with a Vampire"--I was a teen and had a short-lived fascination with Brad Pitt after seeing "Legends of the Fall," so I can be forgiven. But I haven't really been able to get into the whole vampire craze. You will most likely never catch me reading a Twilight book. I'm not judging those who do. I do know that the premise does not appeal to me. So, I was a little reluctant to read Dracula by Brahm Stoker. I'm really glad I did, though.

Why did I pick it up in the first place if I don't like vampires? I got this crazy idea to read as many of the source materials/novels that formed the basis for the old classic movie monsters from Universal Studios. I happened to have a copy of Dracula that I picked up during one of my book-buying binges many years ago. I thought I should at least give it a shot since it started this whole vampire movement. I don't remember if I actually ever saw the 1930s Dracula with Bela Lugosi in its entirety, though it's been referenced in so many movies, shows, books, etc. that I feel almost as if I have. I do vaguely remember bits and pieces of "Brahm Stoker's Dracula" with Keanu Reeves, mostly because this version was spoofed in a Simpsons Halloween special. Therefore, I did not go into this reading with a clean slate, but a mostly ignorant one at least.

It did take me a while to get into story, as the language is a bit different from what I'm used to reading or hearing or speaking. Then again, as I tend to be quite verbose myself, I could begin to relate after a while. I do love the novel approach of writing the story as a collection of journal and diary entries. At first I thought the entire book would be from Jonathan Harker's journal, but I was pleased when it switched perspectives. Stoker did an excellent job of infusing each journal with the character's personality while still maintaining the flow of the story. You don't worry about missing any story while one character is narrating and you don't have to deal with overlap as journaling characters interact. I would have very much liked to learn a little more background on Dr. Van Helsing and Renfield, however. These two main characters were left shrouded in mystery still. There is a website, Dracula Bites, that attempts to fill in some holes or imagine more background information for the story.

I'm sure some people will complain about the perceived sexist issues in the story. However, you must remember the time in which the book was actually written. This is Victorian England and society, especially middle-class and high society, was quite different from our modern post-sexual revolution American ideas. Even so, Mina Harker is a surprisingly strong individual who embodies both the feminine ideals of caring and tenderness and the more masculine trait of a quick analytical mind. I also like the touch of strong faith she has, even though no character ever seems to go to a church service of any kind. Still, there is more to religion than ritual meetings. It's nice to see the protective stance that the men take toward Mina, while she does her best to make a contribution to their efforts to take down Count Dracula. She does not want to be a pretty bauble under glass. She wants to be a part of the team. And she proves to be a valuable team member indeed.

As a psychologist, I was originally interested in the take on Dr. John Seward and his representation of psychiatry. I was not surprised to find him representative of the stereotype of psychiatrists during this time period--extremely analytical, curious and dying to conduct experiments, sometimes coldly thinking more about the disease than the patient. At least he wasn't a homicidal psychopath like Hannibal Lector or Dr. Johnathan Crane or a wreck when it comes to personal relationships like many modern therapists in the media (e.g. Frasier Crane, Jennifer Melfi, Ben Sobel, Dr. Leo Marvin, etc.). The fact that he has a life outside his asylum, and yet spends so much time thinking of his patients, gives the impression that he has come close to finding a balance between work and home life. This is rare with many portrayals of professionals of any kind; audiences usually see mostly one side of their lives and only a tiny glimpse of the rest.

I also found the quick friendships and the hunters' general dynamic to be quite intriguing. It's amazing how quickly near-complete strangers became so close so quickly. It's endearing how much they actually cared for one another even as they agreed to face potential death in their endeavors. It is also interesting that expertise and ability, rather than status, lead to a change in leadership as the situation warranted. One could argue that Van Helsing was really in charge, yet everyone, even Mina, had a moment in which they directed the others on one point or another during their work.

One thing that really surprised me was the complexity of the superstition about vampires that is contained in this one book. I always thought that only a few powers were granted to Dracula in the original story (turning into a bat, hypnotizing his victims) and any other powers were inventions of later authors. I also assumed that there were only a few weapons that a vampire hunter could use against the Un-Dead. Nope. Van Helsing details a whole slew of other abilities--and weaknesses--of the vampire all in this one story. I guess what happened in subsequent vampire stories was a trimming down of the superstitions around them.Too bad. In Brahm Stoker's version the vampire is a truly formidable foe. There are many good reasons for the characters to fear him.

Overall, this was not nearly as bloody a story (in body count, anyhow) as one would expect from one of the premier horror monster stories. It's a mental thriller and a subtle mystery. Even if you know the story, as I did, from watching many of the other re-tellings over the years, it is refreshing to go back to the source. I found many plot points left out of the reincarnations that made the story that much more enjoyable. If anything, I can appreciate Brahm Stoker's work much more for its purity after having experienced some of the stories that he inspired in later generations. I can say the same thing for Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, as well. Although, Frankenstein did not have as abrupt an ending as Dracula did. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why so many people have built upon the mythology that Brahm Stoker began (in media, anyway) with his novel.

Hamish Macbeth Mysteries by M.C. Beaton

(NOTE: These are my personal opinions and not a paid review or endorsement for any product or works.)

I discovered these books a little while ago and I have been "eating them up" like crazy over the past couple of weeks. There are 27 books in the series and I've read 14 so far. I'm currently reading my 15th title. I haven't really been reading them in order because I grab them from my local library every time I see a title I've not read yet. I've exhausted the titles available at my branch, so I've started reserving them through inter-library loan from other branches within the system. I think the main character of Hamish Macbeth is the primary draw for me. He's very easy-going and relate-able. While everyone in the series constantly wonder why he is so unambitious, it's refreshing to see a character that you can count on to stay put. It's almost like watching a favorite TV series with the confidence that it won't quit on you before you get tired of it. It's true (for me) that sometimes the plots can be a little formulaic, however, I see that as more of a comfort than a nuisance. A little bit of predictability mixed with a few surprises makes the reads so enjoyable. I have found myself reading 2-3 of the novels a week, which is a rare feat indeed for me. I haven't been as voracious a reader since I was in high school, before the cares of (first) full-time college classes and (then/currently) a job and family demanded the majority of my time. I find the writing and welcome pauses in the story make it easy to take "small bites" if I need to or to feast upon many chapters in a single sitting if I can steal the time.

I still have a good number of books to read in the series, but I'm seriously considering giving Beaton's Agatha Raisin series a try once I finish with Hamish. I think the best part for me is that there are so many titles available to fill my curiosity and desire for more time with the colorful, and very human, characters of this Scottish Highland backdrop.

Homework

My husband enjoys a good book, too.

As a teacher, you would think that I don't particularly care for homework because I have to grade it. Part of that is true. It does take a lot of my time to get all 180 of my students' papers graded (that's per assignment, by the way). Being a psychology instructor, however, the type of assignments I hand out gives me the opportunity to get to know my students a little better.

This is not really what this post is about, though. Today I am grateful for my daughter's homework. Yep, I'm glad my daughter's teacher gives her homework every night. The best part is that it is consistent. There is math, reading, and spelling every day. The math my daughter completes after school before I pick her up. The spelling can be fun--if you have the spelling tick-tac-toe assignments, then you know how that works, so she doesn't complain as much this year. And the reading is now a blessing. She does have a specific story she has to read once a week, which she tests on later in class, but she also gets to read anything for 20 minutes each day. At least, that's how we've been interpreting the assignment. :-) This wondrous time allows me to read my book while she quietly reads hers. I don't care if it's a storybook or a comic book, as long as my kid is reading. I actually got to finish the 12th book of the Wheel of Time thanks in part to the reading homework assignment. So, "Yay reading!"

The Printed Word

I am grateful for the printed word. I know that billions of people now have access to information at any second during the day thanks to the Internet. I know that print may seem dead with all of the constant updating of digital information. Perhaps because of all of the bombardment of constant data streams we are inundated with, I find myself more and more appreciative of books. Oftentimes I read books (mostly science fiction or fantasy) that have been around for quite a while. The titles are no longer in vogue, their popularity and streamed Internet and TV headlines have long since been buried by the latest scandal or political upheaval or natural disaster. Some of them, like any of J.R.R. Tolkien's works, have been threaded in and out of society's consciousness throughout the decades. Thanks to print, however, any bound tome can patiently bide its time in a book store or on a library shelf, waiting for a new generation to "suddenly discover" it.

It is true that I am most often not up to speed on any trend whatsoever--being an extreme introvert often leads to this side effect.The great part about reading for your own enjoyment of the story itself is that you don't have to worry about popularity or being up to speed.Each new tome, especially those exceptionally well-written, provides hours of enjoyment and the sensation that I just unlocked an invaluable treasure.

The other great thing about print is it allows the works of great--though now passed--authors to be rediscovered and shared with a whole new generation that may not have had the opportunity to meet with the creative genius behind the words, but who can still enjoy them nonetheless. Prime examples of recently deceased word smiths, and some of my favorite authors, include Robert Jordan and Michael Crichton. And while they are not as recently passed, creators such as the fore-mentioned Tolkien, Frank Herbert, and Robert Louis Stevenson can still be captivating in the works they left behind for as many generations who choose to seek them out.

So, while the constant, in your face, up to the millisecond world we live in may try to convince you that you have to be in the there and then (here and now is SOOO 5 seconds ago!), I will continue to find a retreat in seemingly forgotten, though never truly obliterated works, rediscovering them at my own pace and enjoying them as I would like to think the authors would appreciate.