As important as spelling is, pronunciation of words pretty much equals it in importance. I've been watching a lot of TV over the winter and I've noticed several egregious mispronunciations occurring commonly, unfortunately.
When I was taught how to spell "opossum" I was also taught how to pronounce it: "possum." The o is silent. Likewise "often," where the t is silent: "offen." It has become commonplace to hear people say "opossum" and "of-ten," so I thought I should do a blog about pronunciation. Would that people who mispronounce these words would avail themselves of my blog, but alas, I suspect they won't.
I have also come across "possum" in written pieces, especially on the Internet, that vast repository of bad spelling and sentence structure.
People: Spell the word correctly! Accept the fact that in English we have words with silent letters!
Finally, in the mispronunciation realm, I have heard on more than one occasion the word "especially" pronounced "expecially." I wonder what it is that people think they're saying. This also applies to "espresso," which is commonly mispronounced as "expresso." No, no. When the letter e is the first letter of the word, followed by the letter s, the s doesn't magically become an x. Believe me, it remains an s and should be pronounced that way.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Saturday, March 12, 2011
George Frideric Handel & His Messiah
(One of my main problems with this blog is my inability to manipulate or change the line spaces. In my original of this material, the extract from Wikipedia came in as some kind of sans serif font, I guess Arial. I changed it to Times. All was well until my computer crashed and I had to reboot my blog. Things changed in an unattractive way that I simply cannot fix. I've tried, believe me. Why don't they give us the opportunity to adjust spacing between lines, so that wide gaps don't open up between paragraphs or lines unbidden and unwanted? Well, read on.)
Another swipe from Wikipedia:
George Frideric Handel's Messiah was "Composed in London during the summer of 1741 and premiered in Dublin, Ireland, on 13 April 1742, it was repeatedly revised by Handel, reaching its most familiar version in the performance to benefit the Foundling Hospital in 1754."
The first time I sang excerpts from Messiah I was in high school. I'd been studying voice for a couple of years, and the choir conductor at my church gave me the soprano solos, which at that point in my life, were difficult to perform. But singing the "Hallelujah" chorus was the single most thrilling experience I had ever had, and ever since then I have loved to perform this music. I'm not a formal musician—didn't like to practice—but I sang the oratorio with a local choral group in Massachusetts about twelve or so years ago. Got the timing right and hit every note. A major accomplishment for me, since timing has always been a problem for me.
Here's another quote from Wikipedia about the first London performance of the "Hallelujah" chorus:
In many parts of the world, it is the accepted practice for the audience to stand for this section of the performance. The tradition is said to have originated with the first London performance of Messiah, which was attended by King George II. As the first notes of the triumphant Hallelujah chorus rang out, the king rose to his feet and remained standing until the end of the chorus. Royal protocol has always dictated that when the monarch stands, everyone in the monarch's presence is also required to stand. Thus, the entire audience and orchestra stood when the king stood during the performance, initiating a tradition that has lasted more than two centuries. It is lost to history the exact reason why the King stood at that point, but the most popular explanations include:
The point I'm making with the quote is that this is a piece of music that has been revered and respected by everyone since it was initially performed. This particular part of the entire work has been singled out for respect above the other pieces in the oratorio, and for good reason. It is exalting to sing and exalting to hear. In the very best sense of the word, this is a sacred piece of music. (That last bulleted item is tongue in cheek I suspect.)
So what kind of numbnuts think it is suitable for use in advertisements? I have so far heard it used in a Charmin toilet paper commercial, for Manwich sandwich mixture, and most recently, in a commercial for Oscar Meyer's "Carving Board Turkey" sandwich meat! The Charmin commercial didn't air very many times, and I suspect because they got a lot of flak for using this music, but the food vendors didn't seem to get the same response, since I heard it used several times with their products' airings.
To say I protest is putting it mildly. Before the Charmin commercial I had no real preference about toilet paper; after the commercial I vowed never to use that product. As for the food ads, well, I never eat those kinds of things anyway, so they didn't lose either a steadfast or a possible customer. Nonetheless, I protest! The works of great classical composers, I think, should not be used to sell anything. The main reason to use this music is that it's free, so the ad agency doesn't have to pay any fees. The ultimate effect, though, is to cheapen the music. Using it also demonstrates the ignorance of the people at the ad agency and the company who pays for its services. In particular, using this piece of music seems the worst sort of tacky, kind of an anti-ad expression. I hope, for the sake of art and people's health, they don't buy these products.
Well, let's face it, I can't expect the developers of Manwich to rank very high on the evolutionary scale; much the same can be said about the makers of Oscar Meyer products. After all, a highly industrialized foodstuff is not really food at all; it's just stuff. As such it should be stuck somewhere dark, where the sun don't shine, as Dick Cavett said many years ago, bless him.
Another swipe from Wikipedia:
George Frideric Handel's Messiah was "Composed in London during the summer of 1741 and premiered in Dublin, Ireland, on 13 April 1742, it was repeatedly revised by Handel, reaching its most familiar version in the performance to benefit the Foundling Hospital in 1754."
The first time I sang excerpts from Messiah I was in high school. I'd been studying voice for a couple of years, and the choir conductor at my church gave me the soprano solos, which at that point in my life, were difficult to perform. But singing the "Hallelujah" chorus was the single most thrilling experience I had ever had, and ever since then I have loved to perform this music. I'm not a formal musician—didn't like to practice—but I sang the oratorio with a local choral group in Massachusetts about twelve or so years ago. Got the timing right and hit every note. A major accomplishment for me, since timing has always been a problem for me.
Here's another quote from Wikipedia about the first London performance of the "Hallelujah" chorus:
In many parts of the world, it is the accepted practice for the audience to stand for this section of the performance. The tradition is said to have originated with the first London performance of Messiah, which was attended by King George II. As the first notes of the triumphant Hallelujah chorus rang out, the king rose to his feet and remained standing until the end of the chorus. Royal protocol has always dictated that when the monarch stands, everyone in the monarch's presence is also required to stand. Thus, the entire audience and orchestra stood when the king stood during the performance, initiating a tradition that has lasted more than two centuries. It is lost to history the exact reason why the King stood at that point, but the most popular explanations include:
- He was so moved by the performance that he rose to his feet.
- He stood out of tribute to the composer.
- As was and is the custom, one stands in the presence of royalty as a sign of respect. The Hallelujah chorus clearly places Christ as the King of Kings. In standing, King George II accepts that he too is subject to the Lord of Lords.
- He had grown so uncomfortable in his seat during the entire work that he finally stood to stretch his legs.
There is another story told about this chorus that Handel's assistant walked in to Handel's room after shouting to him for several minutes with no response. The assistant reportedly found Handel in tears, and when asked what was wrong, Handel held up the score to this movement and said, "I thought I saw the face of God."
The point I'm making with the quote is that this is a piece of music that has been revered and respected by everyone since it was initially performed. This particular part of the entire work has been singled out for respect above the other pieces in the oratorio, and for good reason. It is exalting to sing and exalting to hear. In the very best sense of the word, this is a sacred piece of music. (That last bulleted item is tongue in cheek I suspect.)
So what kind of numbnuts think it is suitable for use in advertisements? I have so far heard it used in a Charmin toilet paper commercial, for Manwich sandwich mixture, and most recently, in a commercial for Oscar Meyer's "Carving Board Turkey" sandwich meat! The Charmin commercial didn't air very many times, and I suspect because they got a lot of flak for using this music, but the food vendors didn't seem to get the same response, since I heard it used several times with their products' airings.
To say I protest is putting it mildly. Before the Charmin commercial I had no real preference about toilet paper; after the commercial I vowed never to use that product. As for the food ads, well, I never eat those kinds of things anyway, so they didn't lose either a steadfast or a possible customer. Nonetheless, I protest! The works of great classical composers, I think, should not be used to sell anything. The main reason to use this music is that it's free, so the ad agency doesn't have to pay any fees. The ultimate effect, though, is to cheapen the music. Using it also demonstrates the ignorance of the people at the ad agency and the company who pays for its services. In particular, using this piece of music seems the worst sort of tacky, kind of an anti-ad expression. I hope, for the sake of art and people's health, they don't buy these products.
Well, let's face it, I can't expect the developers of Manwich to rank very high on the evolutionary scale; much the same can be said about the makers of Oscar Meyer products. After all, a highly industrialized foodstuff is not really food at all; it's just stuff. As such it should be stuck somewhere dark, where the sun don't shine, as Dick Cavett said many years ago, bless him.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Hotsy Totsy Art Terms & Other Trivia
This is a quote from Wikipedia. I don't think it needs verification from an outside source, so I'm inserting here in toto:
Giclée (pronounced /ʒiːˈkleɪ/ "zhee-clay" or /dʒiːˈkleɪ, from French [ʒiˈkle]) is a neologism for the process of making fine art prints from a digital source using ink-jet printing. The word "giclée" is derived from the French language word "le gicleur" meaning "nozzle", or more specifically "gicler" meaning "to squirt, spurt, or spray".[1] It was coined in 1991 by Jack Duganne,[2] a printmaker working in the field, to represent any inkjet-based digital print used as fine art. The intent of that name was to distinguish commonly known industrial "Iris proofs" from the type of fine art prints artists were producing on those same types of printers. The name was originally applied to fine art prints created on Iris printers in a process invented in the early 1990s but has since come to mean any high quality ink-jet print and is often used in galleries and print shops to denote such prints.
About a decade ago, in viewing a show in Massachusetts, I saw this term used to describe inkjet prints, only no one knew what it meant. I went to the show—which I've forgotten the name of—with the members of one of my photography classes, since the prints on view were all some kind of photographic images, ranging from huge black-and-white prints made in a darkroom to "giclée" prints that were obviously highly manipulated digital prints. Beyond being confused, I just passed off the convention as affected and continued to call my inkjet prints as I made them, on an inkjet printer.
Now, it seems, this term is accepted usage. This entry is primarily about ramping up the terms used in the fine art world to make silk purses out of what some artist perceived was a sow's ear. But is the term "inkjet print" less high-class than "giclée"? Frankly, I see no difference, except that the former is a description of the process used and the machine used to make the print, while the latter, being Frenchified, sounds more grand than it is. I absolutely cannot abide circumlocutions of this kind. If you check out my art site, you'll find all my inkjet prints so labeled, nor will I change the terminology. At least the viewer knows, from reading the label, how I made the print. I usually name the type of printer I used, furthermore, and my printer, an Epson Photo Stylus 2200, is an inkjet printer. It isn't referred to on the Epson site or anywhere else as a "giclée" printer.
Another Frenchified term is "photo gravure." I came across this one on a site operated by a photographer I met in Massachusetts. Since I know the process he used to make his prints, besides using a special inkjet printer for black-and-white prints, I know that the process refers to what we called "photopolymer plate" printing when I was in art school.
A photopolymer plate, or sun plate as it is sometimes called, is a zinc plate coated with a photoreceptive polymer coating that, after the appropriate processing, can be used to make intaglio prints. I think it's a wonderful process, in that it allows the artist to use photographs or other digital materials to make a plate for producing intaglio prints. (For those who don't know, an intaglio print is made by laying a sheet of dampened printmaking paper or other material on top of a plate that has been inscribed in any of a number of ways with an image that has been inked. When put through a printing press, the image on the plate is printed on the paper.)
In my case, I was in the process of using photopolymer plates with many of the images I inherited from my father to make intaglio prints while I was in art school. Whether I'll ever be able to finish the series I started will depend on whether I can obtain access to a print studio to continue the work.
The process of producing the plate involves printing the image, in black, on a transparency sheet, using either a laser printer or an inkjet printer. If one uses the latter type of printer, one must be sure to print the image with a halftone screen (as you would see in a newspaper). A laser printer automatically adds the screen. The halftone screen (or filter) is needed to get the ink to adhere to the image. Once the transparency is exposed correctly (part of the difficulty of the process), then one lays it on top of a photopolymer plate in a light table. The light table lid closes on top of plate and transparency, locks by having the vacuum sucked out of the space the two items are in, to hold them together, and flips over to be exposed to light, to engrave the image from the transparency onto the plate.
The plate is then placed in water, which as I recall is just plain water, and the person making the plate uses a soft brush to rub the image. After five minutes the plate must be left in a window, to dry and to be exposed to sunlight (hence the name "sun plate") for several hours. After that time, the plate is ready for use. One coats it with ordinary printing ink, blots off the ink as necessary to make the image, and uses it to edition a print. Because of the soft nature of the photopolymer, the plates don't last very long, so the number of legible copies one is able to make is small. I think this contributes something to the precious quality of making plates in this manner.
For me, though, the object of using the plates is not to produce a darkroom-quality photograph so much as what is obviously a manipulated photograph, which may then look "handmade" or rough in some way or another. In one of the plates I made, I hand-wrote one of the stories my grandmother told me about the family to accompany three photographs, all of which were about ninety-five or more years old. I loved the idea that my hand was visible in the work, and that the work did not attempt to emulate a proper photograph that was produced in a darkroom.
But that's my thing. In any regard I would not call this image "photo gravure." It's so pretentious! In general, I believe the artist's touch in a digital work makes that work transcend the medium used to produce it. I can't write on each individual print, but I can write on a piece of paper, scan it into my computer, then print it in an interesting way. Plus, by using this technique, I don't have to write backward, which is what one would normally have to do on a copper plate. There are steps I have to take in making the transparency and the plate that will allow whatever I write to print forward, but here isn't the place to go into a description of that process. Basically, just remember that the image on the plate must be backward in order for the writing in the finished print to be forward. And I'll probably call my image a photopolymer plate or an intaglio print from a photopolymer plate. Longer term, but plainer in its way.
Giclée (pronounced /ʒiːˈkleɪ/ "zhee-clay" or /dʒiːˈkleɪ, from French [ʒiˈkle]) is a neologism for the process of making fine art prints from a digital source using ink-jet printing. The word "giclée" is derived from the French language word "le gicleur" meaning "nozzle", or more specifically "gicler" meaning "to squirt, spurt, or spray".[1] It was coined in 1991 by Jack Duganne,[2] a printmaker working in the field, to represent any inkjet-based digital print used as fine art. The intent of that name was to distinguish commonly known industrial "Iris proofs" from the type of fine art prints artists were producing on those same types of printers. The name was originally applied to fine art prints created on Iris printers in a process invented in the early 1990s but has since come to mean any high quality ink-jet print and is often used in galleries and print shops to denote such prints.
About a decade ago, in viewing a show in Massachusetts, I saw this term used to describe inkjet prints, only no one knew what it meant. I went to the show—which I've forgotten the name of—with the members of one of my photography classes, since the prints on view were all some kind of photographic images, ranging from huge black-and-white prints made in a darkroom to "giclée" prints that were obviously highly manipulated digital prints. Beyond being confused, I just passed off the convention as affected and continued to call my inkjet prints as I made them, on an inkjet printer.
Now, it seems, this term is accepted usage. This entry is primarily about ramping up the terms used in the fine art world to make silk purses out of what some artist perceived was a sow's ear. But is the term "inkjet print" less high-class than "giclée"? Frankly, I see no difference, except that the former is a description of the process used and the machine used to make the print, while the latter, being Frenchified, sounds more grand than it is. I absolutely cannot abide circumlocutions of this kind. If you check out my art site, you'll find all my inkjet prints so labeled, nor will I change the terminology. At least the viewer knows, from reading the label, how I made the print. I usually name the type of printer I used, furthermore, and my printer, an Epson Photo Stylus 2200, is an inkjet printer. It isn't referred to on the Epson site or anywhere else as a "giclée" printer.
Another Frenchified term is "photo gravure." I came across this one on a site operated by a photographer I met in Massachusetts. Since I know the process he used to make his prints, besides using a special inkjet printer for black-and-white prints, I know that the process refers to what we called "photopolymer plate" printing when I was in art school.
A photopolymer plate, or sun plate as it is sometimes called, is a zinc plate coated with a photoreceptive polymer coating that, after the appropriate processing, can be used to make intaglio prints. I think it's a wonderful process, in that it allows the artist to use photographs or other digital materials to make a plate for producing intaglio prints. (For those who don't know, an intaglio print is made by laying a sheet of dampened printmaking paper or other material on top of a plate that has been inscribed in any of a number of ways with an image that has been inked. When put through a printing press, the image on the plate is printed on the paper.)
In my case, I was in the process of using photopolymer plates with many of the images I inherited from my father to make intaglio prints while I was in art school. Whether I'll ever be able to finish the series I started will depend on whether I can obtain access to a print studio to continue the work.
The process of producing the plate involves printing the image, in black, on a transparency sheet, using either a laser printer or an inkjet printer. If one uses the latter type of printer, one must be sure to print the image with a halftone screen (as you would see in a newspaper). A laser printer automatically adds the screen. The halftone screen (or filter) is needed to get the ink to adhere to the image. Once the transparency is exposed correctly (part of the difficulty of the process), then one lays it on top of a photopolymer plate in a light table. The light table lid closes on top of plate and transparency, locks by having the vacuum sucked out of the space the two items are in, to hold them together, and flips over to be exposed to light, to engrave the image from the transparency onto the plate.
The plate is then placed in water, which as I recall is just plain water, and the person making the plate uses a soft brush to rub the image. After five minutes the plate must be left in a window, to dry and to be exposed to sunlight (hence the name "sun plate") for several hours. After that time, the plate is ready for use. One coats it with ordinary printing ink, blots off the ink as necessary to make the image, and uses it to edition a print. Because of the soft nature of the photopolymer, the plates don't last very long, so the number of legible copies one is able to make is small. I think this contributes something to the precious quality of making plates in this manner.
For me, though, the object of using the plates is not to produce a darkroom-quality photograph so much as what is obviously a manipulated photograph, which may then look "handmade" or rough in some way or another. In one of the plates I made, I hand-wrote one of the stories my grandmother told me about the family to accompany three photographs, all of which were about ninety-five or more years old. I loved the idea that my hand was visible in the work, and that the work did not attempt to emulate a proper photograph that was produced in a darkroom.
But that's my thing. In any regard I would not call this image "photo gravure." It's so pretentious! In general, I believe the artist's touch in a digital work makes that work transcend the medium used to produce it. I can't write on each individual print, but I can write on a piece of paper, scan it into my computer, then print it in an interesting way. Plus, by using this technique, I don't have to write backward, which is what one would normally have to do on a copper plate. There are steps I have to take in making the transparency and the plate that will allow whatever I write to print forward, but here isn't the place to go into a description of that process. Basically, just remember that the image on the plate must be backward in order for the writing in the finished print to be forward. And I'll probably call my image a photopolymer plate or an intaglio print from a photopolymer plate. Longer term, but plainer in its way.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Digression: Ups and Downs
Basically, I haven't been keeping up with blog entries because I made a decision in December to stop taking two medications I'd been taking for a while. This decision, while for the long-term good, has caused me to endure weeks of discomfort owing to withdrawal symptoms. When I am better, I'll get back to writing for my readers again.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Root Cause and Other Clichés
I just finished reading Paul Krugman's editorial in the Times today and to my dismay, but of course not surprise, he used the heinous grammatical misconstruction "root cause" on no less than two occasions. Hasn't he read his Words into Type? or any of the other style manuals used by writers?
Something is either the root of a situation or the cause of it, but not both. Why? Because both words mean essentially the same thing, and therefore using both is redundant, as well as wordy. Never use this construction in a written document of any sort, and if you find yourself saying it in conversation, stop. Train yourself to listen to what comes out of your mouth and stop saying things that are grammatically incorrect. That's how I gained an "ear" for grammar. I believe we write as we speak and vice versa, so whenever I learned a new rule in grammar, I incorporated it into my everyday speech.
I think the "root cause" problem was one of the earliest misconstructions I cleaned out of my vocabulary, so whenever I hear it—and that's a lot—it's like fingernails on a blackboard or the hinge of the back door on my Honda when it screeches as I open it. There isn't enough grease in the world to kill a cliché, but a bit of conscious intent helps slow down its proliferation.
Another phrase I hear all the time is "each and every." Well, guess what. Each is one thing. Each child had a hot dog. It carries with it the sense of the individual child. "Every child had a hot dog" has nearly the same meaning, so the phrase is wordy and redundant. Either say one or the other. Most likely, in my example, you'd want to say "Every child had a hot dog," because it sounds more inclusive.
I'm being very emphatic in this discussion because these phrases are a symptom of verbal and intellectual laziness. People say them without giving them a moment's thought. As I said in an e-mail to friends recently, words are not macaroni that you can toss in the air and expect to come down and land randomly, giving meaning to nothing substantial. If you say something, think about it. If you write it, look at it to see whether it's the best way of giving voice to your thought or feeling. Using a mealymouthed, cliché-ridden verbal expression just insults the listener. Worse it perpetuates bad habits of speech and thought.
Now Paul Krugman is a Nobel Prize winner, but that's no excuse for bad grammar. He's an academic and an economist, but still no excuse. Nothing a person does, no matter how noble, is an excuse for bad grammar. Sorry, but I stand by my opinion on this.
Something is either the root of a situation or the cause of it, but not both. Why? Because both words mean essentially the same thing, and therefore using both is redundant, as well as wordy. Never use this construction in a written document of any sort, and if you find yourself saying it in conversation, stop. Train yourself to listen to what comes out of your mouth and stop saying things that are grammatically incorrect. That's how I gained an "ear" for grammar. I believe we write as we speak and vice versa, so whenever I learned a new rule in grammar, I incorporated it into my everyday speech.
I think the "root cause" problem was one of the earliest misconstructions I cleaned out of my vocabulary, so whenever I hear it—and that's a lot—it's like fingernails on a blackboard or the hinge of the back door on my Honda when it screeches as I open it. There isn't enough grease in the world to kill a cliché, but a bit of conscious intent helps slow down its proliferation.
Another phrase I hear all the time is "each and every." Well, guess what. Each is one thing. Each child had a hot dog. It carries with it the sense of the individual child. "Every child had a hot dog" has nearly the same meaning, so the phrase is wordy and redundant. Either say one or the other. Most likely, in my example, you'd want to say "Every child had a hot dog," because it sounds more inclusive.
I'm being very emphatic in this discussion because these phrases are a symptom of verbal and intellectual laziness. People say them without giving them a moment's thought. As I said in an e-mail to friends recently, words are not macaroni that you can toss in the air and expect to come down and land randomly, giving meaning to nothing substantial. If you say something, think about it. If you write it, look at it to see whether it's the best way of giving voice to your thought or feeling. Using a mealymouthed, cliché-ridden verbal expression just insults the listener. Worse it perpetuates bad habits of speech and thought.
Now Paul Krugman is a Nobel Prize winner, but that's no excuse for bad grammar. He's an academic and an economist, but still no excuse. Nothing a person does, no matter how noble, is an excuse for bad grammar. Sorry, but I stand by my opinion on this.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Two Spaces after a Period: Why
This title is an article in Slate. If it brings you to the second page of the article, go back to the beginning.
www.slate.comid/2281146/pagenum/all/#p2
Well said and informative, in case anyone wants to know why it's better to use one space following a period rather than two.
www.slate.comid/2281146/pagenum/all/#p2
Well said and informative, in case anyone wants to know why it's better to use one space following a period rather than two.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Long-Promised Job Search Article
Today's discussion will concern the basic steps and strategies in looking for a job.
Resume
The first thing you need is a good resume. By a good resume, I don't mean one with a lot of bells and whistles, such as decorative borders, oversized type, millions of exclamation points, or exaggerations about things you've done in your life. Like many situations, the easiest solution is the simplest one. A good resume is clean. It's typed with a readable format. Try to avoid using Times, Times Roman, or New Times Roman, among the typefaces with serifs, or Arial and Helvetica among the sans serif faces, as these typefaces are so common as to be cliched before you type the first word.
A serif is the little tail on the letters T, L, F, and so on. A face without serifs has none on any letter, as I believe is used once I post this entry to my blog.
A graphically interesting technique for a resume is to use both kinds of typeface, say one for the heads and another for the text. If you are using Microsoft Word, you can find examples of both in their list of typefaces. They also very nicely show you what each one looks like, which can help you choose. Remember that if you send out your resume as a Word document, it won't be readable as you have typed it if the person receiving it doesn't have your typefaces, so be sure to use the ones Microsoft supplies with the program.
A way to avoid this problem is to make your resume a PDF so that it can be read by Adobe Acrobat Reader. However, some sites do not accept PDFs. I solve this problem by having two versions of my resume, one in Word and one as a PDF. I hope the PDF format will eventually triumph, but who knows?
Cover Letter
The next thing you need is a good cover letter. You can work out a template for your cover letter, of course, but you must always remember to paraphrase the important wording of the ad in the context of your letter. The important wording is that which describes the job. You don't need to quote or paraphrase it in full, but you do need to use enough of it so that the recipient of the letter knows you read their ad, and that you know what job you're applying for and what kind of employee they're looking for.
I usually advise people to save their cover letters and when possible use key phrases from one to enhance what they are saying in another, as makes sense.
A good technique to use is to create a list of key phrases describing your skills. Say the same things several ways, and try to make the sentences count. Give them "punch." Writing and rewriting help you find at least one or two best ways to describe your skills and experience, and you can use those in cover letters to come.
Never send out a resume to apply for a job without including a cover letter. The companies who receive resumes without cover letters will just toss them. Think about it: Why would you be sending them essentially a blind piece of mail? If you don't use your cover letter to introduce yourself and mention which job you're applying for, they have no idea why you've send them a resume, and in the current job climate, they don't need to be bothered to figure it out. Every classified ad generates 100 or more applications.
The Interview
Should you be so fortunate as to get an interview, be sure to dress appropriately. I have gone to more than one temp agency while I was looking for work, only to find myself in a waiting room full of people who look like they've been living on the street. They haven't, but the clothing they've chosen to wear is too casual. Hoodies, droopy blue jeans, athletic shoes (i.e., sneakers), tops that are so tight on a young woman that her bare skin is visible, slacks that are hip height and so tight their handlebars or muffins are blobbing over the sides, or oddly styled shoes that are scuffed. They are looking for temp work, and I couldn't help thinking, What are they expecting to find? Janitorial jobs? Or worse?
In our current job market, I'm absolutely certain that a nicely dressed person, of whatever gender, is going to get the interview and possibly the job, while a slob with similar qualifications will be overlooked. This penchant for dressing slobbily is not a sign of bad breeding or even poverty. It's more a sign of what passes for "style" these days. Tim Gunn called it the "slobbification" of America. I noticed when I was in Paris about fourteen or so years ago that you simply did not see anyone on the streets dressed like this, while here in Chicago, in the Loop area where all the municipal buildings, museums, and several colleges and universities are, it's the prevalent fashion statement (which isn't a statement at all; it's a clause, something unfinished).
If a young woman drops something out of her purse and leans over to pick it up, I personally am not interested in seeing the tops of her buttocks and part of the thong she's wearing. Guys might be, but in a professional work environment, it's simply inappropriate. And even though guys might find the sight sexy and alluring, if the "guys" in question are her superiors, they might also find it unprofessional or worse.
For Men
So if you're a guy and you want to look good for an interview, take into account what kind of job you're applying for, where the interview will be conducted, and what the interviewer might be expecting of you. Obviously you don't show up at a construction site wearing your best shoes and a suit. But you look better if you show up in a clean work shirt, clean work pants, clean shoes and socks, hair combed and cut neatly, and so on. Depending on the type of work you want, you might want to wear a tool belt or some other indication of your trade.
If you are interviewing for a job as a salesperson, check out the business to see what the salespeople are wearing. If it's a Footlocker and the dress is casual, then come casually dressed, but again, everything clean, pressed, neat, and in good order. Footlocker might be one of the few places where sneakers are a good choice of footwear for an interview. It gives the interviewer something to ask you about, and it gives you an opportunity to show what you know about different kinds of athletic shoes.
If you are interviewing for a job in a regular office and you have no idea of the dress code or the kinds of clothing people in the office normally wear to work (is it a formal place where you're expected to wear a suit every day or do the employees wear "dressy casual" clothing, for instance), wear a suit or a sport jacket and neatly pressed trousers. Invest in a comfortable pair of leather work shoes and make sure they're shined and dirt or mud free. If it's raining or snowing, wear appropriate boots.
For any and all jobs, get a good haircut. Shave and use shaving products that don't leave you with shavers' rashes or other skin eruptions. Do not wear any kind of strongly scented perfume or aftershave. Wear a watch but don't wear a stud in one ear until you know whether it's acceptable in the work environment. Avoid necklaces and bracelets. If you were or are in a fraternity or professional organization that has a pin, do wear it in your lapel if you think your interviewer would recognize the organization and it would add to the impression you want to make, but avoid religious decorations such as crosses, the Star of David, or other easily recognizable religious symbols. It's not so much a matter of concealing your religious affiliation as it is keeping your personal life personal.
For Women
Much of the advice I've given for men can be transposed to the women's column too. Make sure your clothes are neat, clean, carefully pressed, and so on. But I've noticed a tendency among women to wear clothes that are too small for them. On the TV program What Not to Wear, it's one of the most frequently aired observations the hosts make: Women these days tend to wear tops and pants that are too tight for them.
When I was a young woman, the goal we had was to conceal the lines of any of the underwear we wore. Unfortunately, this lead to widespread use of girdles and other constricting "foundation" garments, which were ultimately quite unhealthy and actually contributed to loss of muscle tone in areas constricted by the garment, such as the abdominal and upper thigh areas.
Nowadays, it seems that women's clothing and the women who wear it want everyone to see the outlines of their bras and panties, as well as an abundant share of actual flesh protruding from a gap between tops and bottoms of outfits. In fact, I think at least one part of the old way was superior: the insistence on a smooth line from neck to hem, whether of trousers or skirts or dresses. That means, buy a bra that fits properly. If you've never had an experienced saleswoman in the lingerie department fit you for a bra, now is the time to treat yourself. You will undoubtedly be surprised to find out that you've been buying and wearing the wrong sizes of cup and circumference for your entire life, or ever since your breasts appeared. Go to one of the better department stores or places that specialize in lingerie, like Victoria's Secret.
When you choose panties, look for those that are comfortable, that don't leave a panty line showing when you put on your trousers or skirt. Chances are that the size you've been wearing is too small. Just ignore the size markings. There are many differences among brands, and what fits properly in a size five in one brand may be skin tight or feel like bloomers in another. Even within the same brand you will find variations in fit from one style to another. Since you aren't allowed by law to try on panties, the best thing to do is buy one pair, wear it, wash it, wear it again, and see whether it keeps its shape, doesn't shrink or otherwise distort after it's been washed, and most of all, doesn't have elastic that digs into your flesh. If it's too tight and digs in, it'll affect anything you put over it and mangle the line of your body in your garment. Then, if you're satisfied with the panties, go back and buy a dozen pair. They don't have to be all the same pattern or color, but if the style works, it probably works in all of its variations.
The best way to keep lingerie in good shape is to hand-wash it, or to wash it on the gentle cycle, by itself and not mixed in with other laundry, in lukewarm to cold water, using laundry detergent meant for baby clothes. I occasionally toss in some Clorox 2 to brighten things, but that's it. Don't use the dryer to dry it; instead, invest in a rack you can set up in your bathtub or shower and hang it out to dry by itself. Don't use softeners on it because of the possible effects to your privates from these chemicals and scents.
I think most women don't have an understanding of what they look like, front and back, so they aren't aware of how these small adjustments can hinder or enhance the appearance of the clothes they wear. The basic thing to remember is that you should create the effect of being unified when you put on clothing. If a celebrity dresses like a slob and the lines show, whoever prints the photo can Photoshop out all the defects, but for the rest of us, we have to live with faults and no one Photoshops our errors to make them disappear.
Buying clothing that fits is imperative. Clothing that is too tight, because you think you need to wear a certain size, no matter how it fits or feels, is a disaster. You just end up looking heavier than you may actually be. Wearing a smaller size than you need does not magically convert you to that smaller size; it just makes you look like you're wearing clothes that are too small and too tight, or wearing something that shrunk when you laundered it. This type of garment does not make a good impression at a job interview; it makes you look foolish and unaware of how you look. If you are unaware of yourself, how can you become aware of the needs of your employer? The thoughts along this line are not good and will not help you create an impression of yourself as competent.
Use common sense about what you wear to an interview. If it's a sales job in a high-end boutique, wear a good dress or nice suit. Always wear stockings and the nicest shoe with a heel you can stand. Do not wear scent of any kind, and keep the jewelry to a minimum. So wear a nice watch, a pair of earrings that neither dangle to your shoulders nor have blinking headlights, perhaps a bracelet but not an armful of them, and keep the rings to a minimum.
One Last Thing About Clothes
Find out as much as you can about the business where you are interviewing, and dress appropriately. A business suit is a business suit; don't wear it to interview at your local Jewel grocery store; do wear it to an office of any kind. Dress to impress, not to the point of overkill. Dress down, not up.
Before you leave home, take a good look at yourself in a full-length mirror. Would you hire you for this job?
Thank-you Notes
Just as you like to be thanked when you do a good job, so does a potential employer like to be thanked for taking the time to sit down with you and interview you about a job you'd like to do for him or her. Just shaking hands at the end of the interview and saying "thank you" doesn't quite do the trick. Either an e-mail or a note sent by snail mail is what really does. You took the extra time, you thought about what was said during the interview, and you're grateful to have had the opportunity to present your credentials in consideration for being given the job. That's what you need to convey to the interviewer.
Buy a pack of thank-you notes and use them every time you get an interview. They can definitely tip the scales in your favor, so there's no question about whether they're worth the time and postage.
So, to start the year off right, get your ducks in a row and go for it. Get that job you deserve because you've devoted so much time and effort to making yourself into the best employee a business can hire.
Good luck.
Resume
The first thing you need is a good resume. By a good resume, I don't mean one with a lot of bells and whistles, such as decorative borders, oversized type, millions of exclamation points, or exaggerations about things you've done in your life. Like many situations, the easiest solution is the simplest one. A good resume is clean. It's typed with a readable format. Try to avoid using Times, Times Roman, or New Times Roman, among the typefaces with serifs, or Arial and Helvetica among the sans serif faces, as these typefaces are so common as to be cliched before you type the first word.
A serif is the little tail on the letters T, L, F, and so on. A face without serifs has none on any letter, as I believe is used once I post this entry to my blog.
A graphically interesting technique for a resume is to use both kinds of typeface, say one for the heads and another for the text. If you are using Microsoft Word, you can find examples of both in their list of typefaces. They also very nicely show you what each one looks like, which can help you choose. Remember that if you send out your resume as a Word document, it won't be readable as you have typed it if the person receiving it doesn't have your typefaces, so be sure to use the ones Microsoft supplies with the program.
A way to avoid this problem is to make your resume a PDF so that it can be read by Adobe Acrobat Reader. However, some sites do not accept PDFs. I solve this problem by having two versions of my resume, one in Word and one as a PDF. I hope the PDF format will eventually triumph, but who knows?
Cover Letter
The next thing you need is a good cover letter. You can work out a template for your cover letter, of course, but you must always remember to paraphrase the important wording of the ad in the context of your letter. The important wording is that which describes the job. You don't need to quote or paraphrase it in full, but you do need to use enough of it so that the recipient of the letter knows you read their ad, and that you know what job you're applying for and what kind of employee they're looking for.
I usually advise people to save their cover letters and when possible use key phrases from one to enhance what they are saying in another, as makes sense.
A good technique to use is to create a list of key phrases describing your skills. Say the same things several ways, and try to make the sentences count. Give them "punch." Writing and rewriting help you find at least one or two best ways to describe your skills and experience, and you can use those in cover letters to come.
Never send out a resume to apply for a job without including a cover letter. The companies who receive resumes without cover letters will just toss them. Think about it: Why would you be sending them essentially a blind piece of mail? If you don't use your cover letter to introduce yourself and mention which job you're applying for, they have no idea why you've send them a resume, and in the current job climate, they don't need to be bothered to figure it out. Every classified ad generates 100 or more applications.
The Interview
Should you be so fortunate as to get an interview, be sure to dress appropriately. I have gone to more than one temp agency while I was looking for work, only to find myself in a waiting room full of people who look like they've been living on the street. They haven't, but the clothing they've chosen to wear is too casual. Hoodies, droopy blue jeans, athletic shoes (i.e., sneakers), tops that are so tight on a young woman that her bare skin is visible, slacks that are hip height and so tight their handlebars or muffins are blobbing over the sides, or oddly styled shoes that are scuffed. They are looking for temp work, and I couldn't help thinking, What are they expecting to find? Janitorial jobs? Or worse?
In our current job market, I'm absolutely certain that a nicely dressed person, of whatever gender, is going to get the interview and possibly the job, while a slob with similar qualifications will be overlooked. This penchant for dressing slobbily is not a sign of bad breeding or even poverty. It's more a sign of what passes for "style" these days. Tim Gunn called it the "slobbification" of America. I noticed when I was in Paris about fourteen or so years ago that you simply did not see anyone on the streets dressed like this, while here in Chicago, in the Loop area where all the municipal buildings, museums, and several colleges and universities are, it's the prevalent fashion statement (which isn't a statement at all; it's a clause, something unfinished).
If a young woman drops something out of her purse and leans over to pick it up, I personally am not interested in seeing the tops of her buttocks and part of the thong she's wearing. Guys might be, but in a professional work environment, it's simply inappropriate. And even though guys might find the sight sexy and alluring, if the "guys" in question are her superiors, they might also find it unprofessional or worse.
For Men
So if you're a guy and you want to look good for an interview, take into account what kind of job you're applying for, where the interview will be conducted, and what the interviewer might be expecting of you. Obviously you don't show up at a construction site wearing your best shoes and a suit. But you look better if you show up in a clean work shirt, clean work pants, clean shoes and socks, hair combed and cut neatly, and so on. Depending on the type of work you want, you might want to wear a tool belt or some other indication of your trade.
If you are interviewing for a job as a salesperson, check out the business to see what the salespeople are wearing. If it's a Footlocker and the dress is casual, then come casually dressed, but again, everything clean, pressed, neat, and in good order. Footlocker might be one of the few places where sneakers are a good choice of footwear for an interview. It gives the interviewer something to ask you about, and it gives you an opportunity to show what you know about different kinds of athletic shoes.
If you are interviewing for a job in a regular office and you have no idea of the dress code or the kinds of clothing people in the office normally wear to work (is it a formal place where you're expected to wear a suit every day or do the employees wear "dressy casual" clothing, for instance), wear a suit or a sport jacket and neatly pressed trousers. Invest in a comfortable pair of leather work shoes and make sure they're shined and dirt or mud free. If it's raining or snowing, wear appropriate boots.
For any and all jobs, get a good haircut. Shave and use shaving products that don't leave you with shavers' rashes or other skin eruptions. Do not wear any kind of strongly scented perfume or aftershave. Wear a watch but don't wear a stud in one ear until you know whether it's acceptable in the work environment. Avoid necklaces and bracelets. If you were or are in a fraternity or professional organization that has a pin, do wear it in your lapel if you think your interviewer would recognize the organization and it would add to the impression you want to make, but avoid religious decorations such as crosses, the Star of David, or other easily recognizable religious symbols. It's not so much a matter of concealing your religious affiliation as it is keeping your personal life personal.
For Women
Much of the advice I've given for men can be transposed to the women's column too. Make sure your clothes are neat, clean, carefully pressed, and so on. But I've noticed a tendency among women to wear clothes that are too small for them. On the TV program What Not to Wear, it's one of the most frequently aired observations the hosts make: Women these days tend to wear tops and pants that are too tight for them.
When I was a young woman, the goal we had was to conceal the lines of any of the underwear we wore. Unfortunately, this lead to widespread use of girdles and other constricting "foundation" garments, which were ultimately quite unhealthy and actually contributed to loss of muscle tone in areas constricted by the garment, such as the abdominal and upper thigh areas.
Nowadays, it seems that women's clothing and the women who wear it want everyone to see the outlines of their bras and panties, as well as an abundant share of actual flesh protruding from a gap between tops and bottoms of outfits. In fact, I think at least one part of the old way was superior: the insistence on a smooth line from neck to hem, whether of trousers or skirts or dresses. That means, buy a bra that fits properly. If you've never had an experienced saleswoman in the lingerie department fit you for a bra, now is the time to treat yourself. You will undoubtedly be surprised to find out that you've been buying and wearing the wrong sizes of cup and circumference for your entire life, or ever since your breasts appeared. Go to one of the better department stores or places that specialize in lingerie, like Victoria's Secret.
When you choose panties, look for those that are comfortable, that don't leave a panty line showing when you put on your trousers or skirt. Chances are that the size you've been wearing is too small. Just ignore the size markings. There are many differences among brands, and what fits properly in a size five in one brand may be skin tight or feel like bloomers in another. Even within the same brand you will find variations in fit from one style to another. Since you aren't allowed by law to try on panties, the best thing to do is buy one pair, wear it, wash it, wear it again, and see whether it keeps its shape, doesn't shrink or otherwise distort after it's been washed, and most of all, doesn't have elastic that digs into your flesh. If it's too tight and digs in, it'll affect anything you put over it and mangle the line of your body in your garment. Then, if you're satisfied with the panties, go back and buy a dozen pair. They don't have to be all the same pattern or color, but if the style works, it probably works in all of its variations.
The best way to keep lingerie in good shape is to hand-wash it, or to wash it on the gentle cycle, by itself and not mixed in with other laundry, in lukewarm to cold water, using laundry detergent meant for baby clothes. I occasionally toss in some Clorox 2 to brighten things, but that's it. Don't use the dryer to dry it; instead, invest in a rack you can set up in your bathtub or shower and hang it out to dry by itself. Don't use softeners on it because of the possible effects to your privates from these chemicals and scents.
I think most women don't have an understanding of what they look like, front and back, so they aren't aware of how these small adjustments can hinder or enhance the appearance of the clothes they wear. The basic thing to remember is that you should create the effect of being unified when you put on clothing. If a celebrity dresses like a slob and the lines show, whoever prints the photo can Photoshop out all the defects, but for the rest of us, we have to live with faults and no one Photoshops our errors to make them disappear.
Buying clothing that fits is imperative. Clothing that is too tight, because you think you need to wear a certain size, no matter how it fits or feels, is a disaster. You just end up looking heavier than you may actually be. Wearing a smaller size than you need does not magically convert you to that smaller size; it just makes you look like you're wearing clothes that are too small and too tight, or wearing something that shrunk when you laundered it. This type of garment does not make a good impression at a job interview; it makes you look foolish and unaware of how you look. If you are unaware of yourself, how can you become aware of the needs of your employer? The thoughts along this line are not good and will not help you create an impression of yourself as competent.
Use common sense about what you wear to an interview. If it's a sales job in a high-end boutique, wear a good dress or nice suit. Always wear stockings and the nicest shoe with a heel you can stand. Do not wear scent of any kind, and keep the jewelry to a minimum. So wear a nice watch, a pair of earrings that neither dangle to your shoulders nor have blinking headlights, perhaps a bracelet but not an armful of them, and keep the rings to a minimum.
One Last Thing About Clothes
Find out as much as you can about the business where you are interviewing, and dress appropriately. A business suit is a business suit; don't wear it to interview at your local Jewel grocery store; do wear it to an office of any kind. Dress to impress, not to the point of overkill. Dress down, not up.
Before you leave home, take a good look at yourself in a full-length mirror. Would you hire you for this job?
Thank-you Notes
Just as you like to be thanked when you do a good job, so does a potential employer like to be thanked for taking the time to sit down with you and interview you about a job you'd like to do for him or her. Just shaking hands at the end of the interview and saying "thank you" doesn't quite do the trick. Either an e-mail or a note sent by snail mail is what really does. You took the extra time, you thought about what was said during the interview, and you're grateful to have had the opportunity to present your credentials in consideration for being given the job. That's what you need to convey to the interviewer.
Buy a pack of thank-you notes and use them every time you get an interview. They can definitely tip the scales in your favor, so there's no question about whether they're worth the time and postage.
So, to start the year off right, get your ducks in a row and go for it. Get that job you deserve because you've devoted so much time and effort to making yourself into the best employee a business can hire.
Good luck.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)