Comic Strip of the Day

CSotD: Stifle yourself, Muriel

Skip to comments

Mike Peterson Published: July 27, 2017 1 minute 8 comments

When my boys were young, I sometimes called one by the other's name. 

It didn't mean I didn't know their names. It didn't mean I couldn't tell them apart.

I think this is pretty common. Parents joke about. Kids joke about it.

Similarly, yesterday I wrote "Facebook" when I meant "Twitter." Accidit stercore, as Cicero wrote.

So let's talk about Muriel, the self-righteous busybody in today's Non Sequitur.

The nice thing about switching your kids' names is that, even if you do it in public, few people will know anyway.

But Jesus-Mary-and-Joseph don't dare get typing fast and use the wrong "their" or "your" in something people will see, because Muriel's entire sense of self-worth is based on never having made a mistake and leaping upon those who do.

Having just been caught up in what started as a light-hearted conversation but was taken over by a Muriel, the topic has been on my mind.

First of all, selection of the wrong word is not "grammar" but, rather, "vocabulary," a completely separate form of usage.

We can argue over the way the Muriels of the 19th century attempted to formulate a set of standard rules for what is an extremely non-standard, polyglot language, by which they aligned themselves with those noble Ancient Romans at the expense of ignorant writers like Jane Austen who don't know how to use the language. (And do click on that!)

But if I say "comprised" instead of "composed," it's not a matter of grammar, you damn fool.

And, yes, I should have said "damned" fool, and using a verb in place of an adjective in, indeed, grammar.

But stop calling misuse of "their," "they're" and "there" an issue of grammar, lest you betray your own colossal nitwittery.

My experience is that people who obsess over typos rarely have anything very creative to say, and I say this based not just on personal, anecdotal observation, but on a little over 40 years in the journalistic trenches, some of it editing my own work, some of it editing the work of others.

I certainly care about sloppy use that can mislead. My own bête noire is people — including a lot of Muriels — who don't know the difference between "may have" and "might have." 

The problem with misusing them is that, while context often makes the meaning clear, there is a substantial difference:

"Use of seatbelts may have saved their lives" means that they are alive, they were wearing seatbelts and we're not sure if the two facts are linked.

"Use of seatbelts might have saved their lives" means they are dead, they were not wearing seatbelts and we don't know if that is why they died.

But the odds of anyone being mislead by incorrect usage of "there" and "their" is so minimal as to be not worth commenting on, because there's no connection of one to the other except that they are homophones. You'd be as likely to be baffled by someone writing "berth" instead of "birth."

My practice, as an editor, is to focus on meaning. If a writer consistently gives me headaches, I might ask them to tighten it up a little, but it doesn't make me any smarter or better or, god help us, any more creative.

Though I suppose if I had nothing to say, I'd want to make sure it was spelled right.

Or, "were spelled right," since I'm speculating against fact.

You stay out of this, Anderson. You'll give poor Muriel the collywobbles.

One more thing: Autocorrect, as I know it, is more forgiving than Muriel, and wouldn't catch the wrong word, though in Microsoft Word, you get these green underlinings that I'm henceforth calling "Muriel alerts" for times when it thinks you didn't mean what you goddam well meant.

I hate Microsoft Word and only have it because clients use it. Word is to professional word processing software as Muriel is to professional editing.

Speaking of being an editor

I'm just back from a few days with my crew of young writers in Denver, and today's Deflocked resonates because they agreed with me that we don't need to review books that are based on poop and fart jokes.

When I brought up the topic, one of them mentioned "Captain Underpants" and they all laughed, but they don't mistake that stuff for literature and the flood of books based on farts and pooping are not of real interest, now that they're no longer five years old.

There are a lot of kids' books that are more extruded than written, and my gang of eager readers and writers is probably more choosy than most.

But, man, the publishing industry is sure putting that thing about "as long as they're reading something" to the test, publishing "novels" that read like Madlibs with the blanks filled in by seven-year-olds. 

And I say that as someone who wishes Marvel and DC still catered to kids. Better a thousand silly Mr. Mxyzptlk storylines than another book about farts.

Fool Watch

Trump's proposed transgender ban has had a lot of pushback, but I like Jeff Stahler's take. There have been some clever responses, but he cuts to the quick and I'm not in the mood to waste clever on something so hateful and stupid.

I feel like Dennis the Menace's father, coming in the door every evening after work and asking, "What's he done now?"

What the fool has done now is open up his youngest for abuse by making him one more pawn in the game. I thought we all agreed to keep Barron in the background, but I guess a coward will grab any shield in a pinch.

I'm surprised the cold-hearted bastard got the kid's age right.

And I agree with Michael de Adder: He's only got two settings.

No need for clever rejoinders. The best strategy is to keep asking how much hostile, ignorant, despicable lunacy the GOP is willing to ignore and then bring the charges home in 2018.