Words, words, words

I thought the assignment quite good actually, even though, in practice, it accomplished something less than I guessed. The poet, John Terpstra, tells a story about creating a cross for a church, on commission. That story morphs into a poem. When you read the story, then read the poem, the poem itself comes alive as poetry can, its choice of words full of the life of the story. The assignment?--in a short essay explain how the poet uses multiple meanings of words in the poem. That job didn't strike me as too difficult, and it might well have taught the students a lot about why poetry is what it is and how it does what it does.

Well, "best laid plans of mice and English teachers." Some students didn't really "get it," understand what I was after, I guess. Maybe they still don't "get" poetry.

But one student's own word usage sticks with me: "Terpstra was asked to create a cross to accessorize his church's sanctuary." There's something about accessorize in that line that feels like a good stiff bite on aluminum.

Something about the word itself is bothersome--accessorize. Its derivation is, methinks, is the fashion industry, and there's something about the ancient story of the crucifixion and contemporary fashion that simply don't mix, the cross at Golgatha something akin to a choice pair of gloves or the perfect divan for the new sun room. It's just wrong.

The student's a sweetheart. I like her. Besides, I can understand why she might use that word; after all, if the church didn't have a cross, it might well feel like an accessory when the idea is introduced. "That would be nice," some committee member might say. People obviously worshipped in that sanctuary previously; undoubtedly, a cross would have been, at least to some, a thoughtful touch, quite fitting after all. It might well accessorize the worship space.

Maybe it's the word itself that's troublesome to me, the hobbled craft of someone who gets his or her kicks out of taking perfectly good nouns and turning them into verbs with little more than an -ize. Maybe it's the word's own newness. But then, maybe this young lady never knew a world without the word "accessorize." Maybe we're talking about connotations here, and mine don't line up at all with hers. Undoubtedly the word doesn't sound cheap to her. Is beauty, finally, in the eye of the beholder?

As an English teacher, a teacher of the language, isn't it my job to point out what I believe to be such errant usages? Should I have docked her for it? Does that word choice at least deserve a quickly scribbed note?

For the record, I put one on the paper. If I'm blessed, she'll read it, but I doubt she'll take it to heart. She doesn't come at her own sentence's diction in the way her ancient teacher does.

Last week, the Pew Foundation released their findings on religions and the religious in America. Here's the way U. S. Today summarized the upshot: "The survey finds U.S. adults believe overwhelmingly (92%) in God, and 58% say they pray at least once a day. But the study's authors say there's a "stunning" lack of alignment between people's beliefs or practices and their professed faiths."

I figured I'm contributing to the malaise if I don't at least mention what I think about this wonderful student's really bad word choice. I'm an accessory to the horror, right?

But then, aren't we all?--accessories to the crime, accessories to the cross, accesories to His death? Maybe if I could teach her that--and me, I'd be doing something with more than words.