Mr. Brown, Let Me Call your Attention

.

Sa Bawat Pahina ng Literatura

Mr. Brown, Let Me Call the Attention of Whoever Edited Your Latest Book

(On the Grammatical Importance of Definite versus Indefinite Articles)

by aLfie vera mella

The Dan Brown's "the gates of hell" metaphor has generated countless reactions and articles from not only fellow journalists but also bloggers and ordinary readers and spectators.

Most of the reactions, however, delve on the subjective—whether it was offensive or not.

To me, though, Brown obviously erred on the objective side—on the grammatical side, to be specific. He used the definite article 'the' instead of the indefinite article 'a.'

In English grammar, 'the' pertains to specificity; therefore, to claim that a place is "the gates of hell" means that that place is definitely the one and only “gates of hell," nothing else, nowhere else. This makes the claim false, especially in a fictional or figurative sense, because Manila—in terms of traffic jams, pollution, prostitution, and heat--is not unique. These characteristics are apparent also in many other cities in the world, in varying degrees of course; but nevertheless, if anything, Manila is just one of those hellish or horrible cities in terms of the conditions cited.

In fact, according to Forbes.com, the "Five Dirtiest Cities in the World" are the following.

Baku, Azerbaijan

Dhaka, Bangladesh

Antananarivo, Madagascar

Port au Prince, Haiti

Mexico City, Mexico

Manila is not even on the Top 5 list. (Maybe this exclusion might offend some people. Imagine, Manila was left out!)

Therefore, I still stand by my point of view as an editor that Brown erred in his use of the correct article adjective—he should have used “a gate of hell” instead of “the gates of hell” to qualify the fact that Manila is only one of several hellish or horrible cities in the world, whether fictional or not.

Although, Brown is not solely at fault. Remember, for books like that, there must be at least an editor who should have taken care of that.

Such a trivial piece of detail to spend time on analyzing, psychologizing, and philosophizing, some might quip. However, if there would be no one to commentate on things like this, then who would? The world might then be much fuller with less intelligent or critical thinkers, which is also unfavorable for the sake of the progress of the human mind in general.

The Last Leaf

Personally speaking and disregarding grammar, I don’t see any offense in Brown’s depiction of Manila, for that matter, simply because the descriptions that he wrote of Manila (or even the Philippines in general)—sad to say—had sparkling grains of truth to them. The moment we deny that the Philippines has no problems with traffic, garbage/waste management, and prostitution, the more the country would be unable to solve such problems. The logic? If there’s no problem, then no need for solutions.  Then let the country continue to stink and rot with all those glaring truths. Afterwards, blame the delusional and onion-skinned leaders and citizens of the greatest and most beautiful country in the whole wide world.

Bawal ang Bata!

.
Sa Madaling Salita

Bawal ang Bata!
(On Hypocrisy, Rudeness, Insensitivity, and Legality)

Para sa mga nag-oorganisa ng mga pagtitipon at pagdiriwang, kung ayaw niyo ng may batang dadalo e dapat ilagay n’yo sa imbitasyon o tiket para malinaw sa mga magulang na bawal ang bata. At pag sinabing hindi puwede ang bata—dapat maging pantay—talagang walang bata—kahit pa ang batang ito ay anak ni mayor o ng miyembro ng komite. At sa mga dadalo, pag malinaw na walang bata, e wag nang ipilit na magsama ng batang anak. 

(The legal definition of ‘child’ generally refers to a minor, otherwise known as a person younger than the age of majority; in Canada, the age of majority is 18; therefore, anyone who is 17 years old or under is legally considered a minor [Wikipedia].)

O

n June 14, we attended the celebration in Winnipeg of Philippine Independence at Marlborough Hotel as part of the Filipino Journal family.

Funny and annoying detail was, the event's theme was "Celebrating Families," and then one of the organizers upon seeing that Inna and I were with our four-year-old son Evawwen as we entered the hall, she gave us a condescending look of disapproval. And then it did not stop there. When we were requesting for a high chair, we heard the same organizer’s saying that they could not give us an extra chair and commented whisperingly that we should not have brought a child with us in the first place.

This was the second time it happened with the same event and with the same organizer.

For one, Evawwen was as always manageable and relatively behaved and did not stray far from our table and never cried or put a tantrum, ever. Second, as usual, there was no indication on the ticket nor in the event program that children were not allowed; third, we were there not as gatecrashers nor hangers-on so we deserved recognition, and last, there were also another family who came with a child.

Because I am an understanding, well-mannered, and intelligent person, I didn't react untowardly to that person’s disrespectful, discourteous, unethical, and socially unacceptable behavior. Her faults were 1) if the organizers didn’t like children at the event, then they should have indicated that detail clearly on the forty-dollar ticket, 2) if the said organizer didn’t approve of our bringing our kid with us, then she should have  called me in private and expressed her disapproval and gave me her reasons so at least I could have explained my side and been able to tell her that they should have indicated that detail on the ticket if that was very important to them, and 3) uttering unsavory remarks against someone especially in public and at the person’s earshot is plainly rude, unethical, and unbecoming.

Being a well-adjusted and socially and multiculturally oriented person, I knew very well that to react publicly in a confrontational, similarly rude and unethical way would have made me nothing different from her. This was the reason we just ignored her bad behavior and simply went on our business of being there—that was, to enjoy the dinner, socialize with some people we know, and listen to the speakers and watch the performers amidst the noise of some of the attendees who couldn’t care less except for the delicious crème brûlée.

However, the next time I encounter a similar incident with this same person, I will no longer ignore her; I will ensure that I stand up to defend my principles: I will not confront and call her attention in front of the people around, but rather I will ask her if I can talk to her in private, and there shall I discuss with her my issue about her action. I will also write her a formal letter to document the incident, making all the members of the committee copyees so they can discuss about putting the rule “No children allowed” on the tickets for their next event to be fair with the invitees and attendees if having children at such events really bothers them.

Sa Madaling Salita

Ang isyu rito e hindi yung pagdadala ng bata sa mga pagtitipon na ganoon kundi ang pagiging malinaw sa “rules and guidelines” na nais ipatupad ng organizers. Kung ayaw nila ng bata e di linawin nila sa tiket—“Bawal ang bata!” Pangalawa, ang pagpaparinig o pagpapasaring e isang napakasamang kaugalian. Kung may hindi ka nagustuhan sa sinabi o ikinilos o ginawa ng isang tao e tawagin mo sila at sabihan sa pribadong pamamaraan. Kungi di mo ito kayang gawin e tumahimik ka na lang. Huli, wag kang maging ipokrito—kapag nagsalita ka e punung-puno ng ideals at values ang namumutawi sa iyong bibig, subalit hindi mo naman ito isinasakilos.

Final Note

I, Charina, and Evawwen with (1) Chiwee (an RN coworker of mine at Riverview Health Centre who is the president of a community association), (2) Gem Anis (fellow Filipino Journal columnist), (3) Philip S. Lee (24th and current Lieutenant Governor of Manitoba), and Larry Vickar (CEO of Vickar Automotive Group)--all photos taken at the Philippine Independence celebration in Winnipeg, held on June 14, at Marlborough Hotel in Downtown Winnipeg

The person in question was one of the speakers. How I cringed in disbelief and disgust as she peppered her speech with idealistic and rhetorical statements about the importance of ‘family’ and ‘values’ in the Filipino culture and yet had the temerity to express her rudeness and distasteful action to a family who had done nothing wrong in a legal or technical perspective.

But, the question that might be in the minds of many observers: Why did we need to bring our child/ren with us to some social gatherings like that?

So long as an event does not bear the rule "No children allowed," we have the legal right to take him with us--as long also as we are able to manage our child's behavior and take responsibility for his actions. Social events are opportunities for educational experience for the child in the aspect of socialization, enabling him to develop further his social skills.

Too Much Rhetoric Equals...

.
Yesterday, we had a busy yet wonderful day. We had lunch at one of our favorite Filipino resto--Asia Bowl--then we went to Chapters Booksellers (bought Classic Pop issue 4 and NME's 100 Greatest Britpop Songs), had my haircut; and finally in the evening, we attended the Philippine Independence Celebration at Marlborough Hotel (as representatives of 'Filipino Journal,' which is a pillar in the community).

Funny and annoying detail was, the event's theme was "Celebrating Filipino Families," and then one of the organizers upon seeing that Inna and I were with our four-year-old son Evawwen, she gave us a look. And then when we were requesting for a high chair from one of the servers, the same organizer said that they could not give us an extra chair and commented whisperingly that we should not have brought a child with us.

This was the second time it happened with the same event and with the same organizer (last year).

For one, Evawwen is as always manageable and relatively behaved and does not stray far from our table and never cried or put a tantrum--ever. Second, there's no indication on the ticket or in the event program that children are not allowed; third, we were there not as gatecrashers nor hangers-on--we were there to represent Filipino Journal of which I am the associate editor; and last, there were also a few other parents there who came with children--albeit a bit older.

I am an understanding, well-mannered, and intelligent person so I didn't react untowardly to that stupid habit of some people to belittle children and uttering negative remarks at earshot.

However, the next time a similar incident occurs with that same narrowminded person, I will make sure that I stand up and confront that person right then and there.

Ultimately, that person in question was one of the speakers--and how I cringed in disbelief and disgust as she peppered her speech with idealistic but empty statements about how Filipinos' way of valuing their families and their community are one of the best in the world.

Such hypocrisy! Such narrowmindedness. Too much use of rhetoric equals hypocrisy and absurdity!

On Acknowledging Grains of Truth With

.
Balat-Sibuyas Ka Ba?
(On Acknowledging Grains of Truth with an Open Mind and on the Ability to Think Contextually)

Buti na lang ako, hindi pikon!

H

owever, many people—Filipinos or not—seem to be very reactionary to certain trending issues despite the fact that there are grains of truth in such issues. They fail to think in context. They fail to dig more deeply into the meanings and repercussions of things. They easily succumb to their own violent and hostile reaction without analyzing first the situation surrounding certain issues.

Here are two examples of trending issues online these days, at least in the Philippine community, and here are my views on them.

On Dan Brown’s Depiction of Manila as “the gates of hell” in His Latest Fiction Novel Inferno:

I think that the real patriots here are those Filipinos who acknowledge the validity of the criticism--whether in a fictional or a reality sense—and then continue on by suggesting or coming up with possible solutions to the obvious problems that have been ailing the country as depicted in the description, or at least promoting awareness about the decay of the country—decay which may still be alleviated if only citizens contribute to the solution rather than to the problems.

Those who deny the validity of the criticism or cover these up are actually those who hamper progress. Because of their denial of the problems, they prevent themselves (and some other people who they might influence) from coming up with possible solutions. Therefore, they are the real culprits of the country's decay; they are the non-patriot ones--their denial prevents solutions because to them there is really no problem.

They are as bad as those who criticize and do nothing at all.

Dan Brown is an American author who became controversial also for his previous novel The Da Vinci Code (2003), which inflamed many usually religious people.

On Filipino Comedian Vice Ganda’s Distasteful Joke about Newscaster Jessica Soho:

Don't take comedians seriously. That simple. Their talent or chosen profession is just to make jokes about anything at all.

People should learn where to get their dose of intellectual wisdom or useful pieces of advice.

I don't really mind whatever kind of joke the likes of Vice Ganda spits out of his mouth. He's a comedian. That's what he does.

What parents should teach their children is simply this: Don't believe what comedians say. Laugh at them or laugh with them, but don't take them seriously.

If one wants to learn, read a book or watch an educational film or listen to a philosopher, an author, or any other intellectual professional.

A comedian is simply not a recommendable source of valid pieces of intellectual and sensitive educational information.

I am not amused, impressed, nor commend Vice Ganda's style of humor. Actually I am not amused nor impressed by the style of humor of comedians whose topics revolve around sex, racism, cultures, and physical traits—not only in the Philippine comedy but also the comedy shows here in Canada I am not generally impressed.

My issue actually is that I don't want governments to start banning comedians and censoring comedy shows because, after all, comedians and comedy shows must not be taken seriously and are not appropriate sources of educational information and moral values. On the other hand, I don't recommend being onion-skinned and overly sensitive.

Because, the more onion-skinned a person is, the higher the level of his sense of insecurity and the lower the level of his self-esteem.

The more ridiculing a person is of others, the higher also the level of his sense of insecurity and the lower the level of his self-esteem.

But seriously, what is baffling is the fact that amidst all these issues—there are people who cry foul, there are people who can tolerate such antics, and there are those who simply don't care?

Why?

Simply because people are diverse.

Just don't fall in the dangerous folly of thinking that what you think or what you feel is what others also feel. That's a folly I call monopoly of sentiment. Don't think that your sentiment is the only valid sentiment. Express yours, but acknowledge those of others.

Sa Madaling Salita
Karaniwan, kung sino ang mababa ang pagpapahalaga sa sarili, sila ang madalas mapikonn. At kung sino ang malakas manlait e sila rin ang karaniwang medaling mapikon.

Or, in Simple Words
If the level of a person’s sense of security and self-esteem is high, she is less likely to get offended by criticisms made by other people. The more in denial a person is about the negative characteristics of something she likes, the less she is able to find possible solutions to alleviating these problematic issues.

When Childhood Friends Say Goodbye

Back in the 1970s, we lived on Cuangco St,. Barangay Pio del Pilar, Makati, Metro Manila. I had a number of best friends in those days; they were usually my neighborhood playmates, among whom were the brothers Merilles (Joel, Aldrin, Jonathan, and Jeffrey). Their family lived just about three houses away from ours. The eldest of the brood, Joel was my batchmate; we were quite inseparable in those days, especially when we were in Grade Four. However, in 1980, their family relocated to somewhere in Sucat. In those pre-Internet and even pre-cellphone days, when childhood friends transfer residence, that was it--you usually didn't see each other again. After several years more, it was my family's turn to transfer residence; and we never saw each other again.

In those days, when childhood friends said goodbye, it usually meant farewell.

A few years ago, I started searching on Facebook Joel until I stumbled upon someone who knew the brothers. In short, I got in touch with Aldrin again. I felt really sad and surprised when he told me about the death of his Kuya Joel in 1995 because of an illness which rendered Joel bedridden at a hospital for months.

Last week, I messaged Aldrin to invite him to our gig in Sucat. To my delight, he with his friend Joseph Pama showed up. Seeing each other after 33 years was really wonderful especially to someone like me who has a vivid memory of my childhood and who values friendship highly.

Of course, in the passing of time, long-separated childhood bestfriends could never be that close again. That's a reality. But just the fact that we've seen each other again and learning what happened to each other's life was enough to satisfy your sense of wonder about long-lost friends.

To Aldrin: I felt really good meeting you in person after more than three decades. For a fleeting moment we were face to face and talking lively with each other, I felt as if I was back in the 1970s when we were not even 10 years old.

Thanks also to your friend Joseph Pama for expressing delight and appreciation for the music of my band.

May you, guys, continue to live a fairly good life.

Here's to our childhood memories!

I with my '70s childhood friend Aldrin Merilles (in red/white shirt) with his friend Joseph Pama (blue shirt)