Monthly Archives: October 2014

screen

Let’s say you’re in a screening room.

So… what is being screened? Or who is? Screened in? Screened out? Screened for viewing?

What would you say are the defining characteristics of a screen? It’s something flat that comes between two things, yes. Usually it’s a thin, probably flexible thing mounted in a rigid frame. It impedes – usually just partially – the passage of air, light, fluids, solids, that order of thing. Originally, screens were things that you used to protect yourself from too-cold or too-hot air. But rarely now is a screen hard and opaque, permitting no passage of anything. Screens screen things out – and other things in.

A screen door lets some air and sound through, and some light too, passing through its mesh, but it keeps insects and larger life forms out (unless they operate the handle). The lint screen on your clothes dryer lets air pass through but grabs onto the lint and stops it from passing through. Silk screens for printing grab onto the ink and hold onto it until they are pressed to release it. Screening programs aim to act like filters, keeping all but the particularly desirable people out. Movie screens grab onto light and keep it from passing through unimpeded as air would: they glow with their luminous prey and you see it because they give it to you.

A screen grabs. That is what a screen does. It grabs some things and, perhaps, lets others pass. And then you can take what it will let you have.

Even the word screen works with that. It starts with that grabby scr, a very popular word beginning in English; many of the scr words have some taste of clutching, grabbing, or constricting: scrabble, scrape, scramble, scrawny, scratch, scrimp, scrounge, scrub, scrunch, scrutinize… After the scr comes the ee, the high and tight vowel, the one that lets the least air through. Then it closes softly but surely with n. Is this a word that could only have to do with holding tightly? Not necessarily; the word closest to it in sound is scream, which might come with gripping hands but then again might not. But the sound of screen certainly is reasonable concordant with its sense.

A screen is like a fishing net. It catches things for prevention or consumption. How you like what it does depends on whether you are the beneficiary of its catching – or are what’s being caught.

I was thinking of screens today because I was in the Royal Ontario Museum. Yes, in its decorative arts section it has a number of pretty folding screens. But where I really noticed the screens was on its windows. The ROM has many windows. Most of them have black screens on them: the threads of black fabric grab the light; light that does not snag on a thread passes through. You can see through the screens – as through glass darkly.

The more oblique the angle you look from, the less you see; the more the screen obtrudes and presents its own peculiar patterns, moirés and ripples.

A screen is always less than clear. It always selects what you see. It grabs and keep and gives as it will, by design. If you think you’re seeing the world through it, remember that you’re just seeing what it has let go.

Don’t forget that you’re reading this on a screen, too.

pyramid

You know what a pyramid scheme is, right? One guy recruits several who give him a bit of money and who in turn recruit others who pass money to them, some of which they pass on up, and so on. The higher up you are, the richer you get, even though everyone puts in the same amount, and the people at the bottom – the ones who don’t find anyone new to recruit – put in value and receive none back at all. So the number of people at each level broadens out like a pyramid as you go down from the top; the amount of money at each level is the opposite, zero at the bottom increasing to a huge amount at the top – an inverted pyramid.

It’s illegal when you do it so blatantly with money, of course, but how about if you do it with other kinds of value? Say you have a large number of people contributing value at the bottom level for little or no return, while at the top there’s one or a few people getting huge returns for comparatively little contribution of value. The contribution of value can be through, for instance, work done.

Think of it: thousands slaving away, moving large stones, building up a grand structure; one person or a few people watching them slave away and actually receiving the use and value of the grand structure. The original pyramid scheme: the building of the pyramids.

Of course, any social structure is a sort of pyramid if many put in value for little return, others above them get more and more return, and one or a few at the top get massive return for the same or less value put in. Recruit below, send value up. But only the starkest and frankest examples are illegal pyramid schemes; many others are simply companies. And whereas illegal pyramid schemes collapse or stop producing return once the recruitment peters out, the pyramid structure of a company can be sustainable for a long time because it relies on not just recruitment but the ongoing value creation of those in it.

Fair enough. A pyramid is a highly stable structure. There’s a reason pyramids of various sizes have been built by indigenous cultures on almost every continent. Pyramid schemes may have some unsustainability because they draw from the bottom to feed the top, but pyramid structures just hold everything in place and outlast the ages. They are associated with things metaphysical and with timeless rituals.

And so, of course, with death. The pyramids of Egypt are huge mausoleums. Pyramids in Mexico often had human sacrifices done on them. A pyramid is not a living, branching thing like a tree, ever reaching out and multiplying its ramifications; it is a solid thing, fixed and tidy and contained, the epitome of inertia. It does not shake.

No, shaking is extrapyramidal. Or, well, it can be. So can inability to initiate movement. Shakes, sudden jerks, writhing, and lack of intentional control of movement can all be extrapyramidal symptoms of conditions and side effects of medications. Why extrapyramidal? Are they beyond sacrificing, are they deathless, are they from somewhere outside your temple, are they characteristic of someone who knows he’s about to be dragged to the top and slain? Hmm, no, they just happen to affect the extrapyramidal system, a part of the motor nervous system that doesn’t involve the pyramidal tracts of the brain, which so called because they are shaped roughly like pyramids.

And why are pyramids so called? The word comes from Greek πυραμίς puramis, which named those Egyptian structures and their similars; the Greek word may have come from a word for fire, or it may come from a word for wheat or grain, which formed into another word, also πυραμίς, naming a kind of cake (the shape of which is a matter of speculation). Or it may come from an Egyptian word.

Well, whatever. The shape of the word has a couple of reminders – the invertibility of p to d and vice-versa, and the inverted-pyramid-like shape of the y. It also carries a reminiscence of Pyramus, famous for his ill-fated love of Thisbe; of pyromaniac, a person likely stymied by the stone of the pyramid; and of pyrrhic, what your victory is when you have extracted so much value from the labours of others and you find that it has all just built your tomb.

indict

To say or spell indict
or, even worse, indictment
could lead to much excictment
but not so much insict…
If spelling’s your delict,
you know that dereliction
could lead to interdiction
if you don’t keep it tict.
If out loud you indite,
pay close heed to the diction
lest you pronounce a fiction
due to an eye-tongue fict.
But if you will recict
and wrict as indicated,
you will be vindicated –
not derelict but delict.
Pay heed to my invict
and you’ll be an invictus,
your face a grinning rictus
because you did it rict.

Ah, isn’t English spelling a treasure? Sure, like a treasure-hunt in a sandbox – one that’s in current use as a kitty litter box.

But actually the offending nuggets are not so fresh. Most of the worst booby-traps in English orthography came about during and after the English Renaissance (i.e., the time of Shakespeare and thereafter), when various scholars felt that English words that were descended from Latin ought to wear their fine ancestry on their sleeves. (See “What’s up with English spelling?”) The idea that spelling should simply reflect sound was too plebeian; orthography offers such a panoply of finery, why not come out in full dress, unburdened by quotidian chores? 太好了! 你學吧!

So we had a word endyte or endite coming from Old French enditer, which in turn came from Latin in plus dictare ‘say, declare’, and the scholarly pedants of the time felt that it should therefore claim its nobility and sit on the page as indict. The same fellows gave us the o in people (because of Latin populum) and the b in debt (because of Latin debitum).

I do not think we owe a det of gratitude to these peple. I would rather see them indicted.

But not indited. You see, the unaltered spelling indite also persisted, with a slightly different sense: ‘dictate; enjoin; compose; put in words; recite’. It’s a word of literature now, and a rather high-toned precious one. Meanwhile, indict is a word known to the basest members of society. Oh, the irony.

Thanks to Iva Cheung for reminding me that I wanted to taste this one.