Our Gimme Society

There are really a million ways this discussion could go. So many people think they’re entitled when the reality (typically) is that someone down their lineage was either forced to come here against their will or came here against all odds seeking something better for their offspring. In other words, the fact that you were born in a country with affluence and freedom was dumb luck on your part. However, I digress. The point of this particular “gimme” is the lack of effort people put forth to comprehend what they read.

I work in the IT field and I can’t tell you how often people ask for help regarding notifications and errors instead of taking even a moment to try to comprehend the message. For example, a client recently emailed, “What does this mean??!?!” accompanied by a screen shot of a box. The content of the box included some cryptic code but at the bottom in plain English was “It appears the credit card number is invalid.”

This wasn’t even a matter of reading comprehension! This was simply a complete lack of effort to TRY. The client saw "error result status 500 (internal server error)", glazed over and gave up. In case you're curious, I went one step further and counted the digits in her card number. Only fifteen. All credit cards except American Express require sixteen. Don't you wish you had access to IT tech support to help you figure stuff like that out?!

Another example: Recently there was an article about some good Samaritans that are suing the woman they rescued. I won't get into the details, but there were many, many posts about how horrible these men were for suing when it was their "JOB!!" to help her. Only thing, these men were NOT firemen or police as the angry posters seemed to think. Rather, they were just men who saw someone in distress and tried to help. In their complete lack of reading comprehension, the fact that they were firemen was just dreamed up.

My best friend is an aspiring novelist. Her works are thought provoking, edge of your seat adventures filled with rich characters and compelling details. Recently she had a piece of her work critiqued by a fellow aspiring writer. As I read through her edits, I was downright pissed! Why? Simple reading comprehension or should I say, the lack thereof.

Her first critique was of the sentence: The baby’s hair was a soft smattering of auburn silk. (To me, this evokes a clear picture of a sparse amount of delicate brownish red hair.) The critique: Too many descriptors, it ruins the flow. The suggestion: The baby’s hair was as soft as auburn silk. My problem with this: the first sentence tells me how much hair the baby has, what it looks like, what it feels like. Having children of my own, I can even imagine what it smells like. The critic’s sentence, on the other hand, invokes soft red hair. In a word, it’s BORING!

The next critique was in reference to the author’s use of “in the man’s arms”. The critic states, “You can use “his” here since there is no other man in the room.” Please note we are five sentences into the story…yes, that's all, just five. This wonderful critic who tooted her own horn “I did a pretty thorough crit of this”, made an assumption five sentences into the story. It would be like assuming a painting will include a horse and stable when the only thing painted is the sky.

This amateur’s critique continues complaining in many places about the depth of details being expertly weaved into the story. So we’re clear, I’m not talking about sentences like, “and she stepped into the room with orange walls, large TV, and buffet near the door.” We’re talking about a detail rich scene more like, “The plasma TV blared from its perch on the sunset colored walls as she tossed the mail on the buffet.” Totally different way for the reader to picture the room.

The critic then completely flip-flops, screaming for more details where the intent is completely clear to anyone with one ounce of reading comprehension. For example, “She hooked her arm through Jenny’s and practically dragged her though the front door. [Begin new paragraph] Loud music blared through the house.”

The critic was confused and demanded a “transition” to explain how they got from outside to inside. Seriously? Do you need “and they walked through the front door”?

Basically this gal needs the equivalent of: See Jane. See Spot. Spot digs a hole. See Jane yell at Spot.

“Jane’s Dalmatian, Spot, dug a hole in her freshly manicured lawn,” is just too much detail for her to comprehend, and it is easier for my client to email me a message than to actually read the clear details in a message box.

Gimme, gimme cause if it requires the slightest bit of intellect and effort, it’s just too much to ask.