TheWritersBag.com

Once in a while I stumble across wonderful writing in places I would never have expected. Take, for instance, a gem my daughter and I read on the local online avalanche danger report before heading out for some high-mountain, backcountry snowshoeing yesterday. Here’s an excerpt, as it was written:

Salt Lake Avalanche Advisory

Forecaster: Drew Hardesty

We suffered another fatality yesterday…. There’s this idea going around that we’re out of the woods. That things are stabilizing. A few days ago, it was CERTAIN you would trigger an avalanche. Now, you might get away with it. It’s Russian Roulette, folks. Nothing more, nothing less. With the checkerboard out there, the lingering slopes are hanging in the balance, waiting for the trigger. The slopes that slid during the cycle have reloaded and many are likely to repeat. Even the savviest have used up all the tricks in the bag and are reduced to skipping along slopes in the mid-20 degree slope angle range or walking ridgelines.

If you look at avalanche sensitivity on a bell-curve, I’d argue that it’s most dangerous not at the apex but along the sides of the ‘bell’ where conditions are (1) starting to deteriorate and then (2) “starting to improve”. Because it’s not all about the snow. It’s about us. Here’s what I wrote as we were starting this mess: “These are the conditions that will catch and kill people. No, we are not having a widespread natural cycle. No, we are not seeing more snow and blow. BUT, it is where you and the snowpack intersects on a line of desire and instability that will produce the accident.” And now, word’s on the street that we’re out of the woods. You might get away with it. But, it’s more likely that you won’t.

That’s what I call powerful writing – words that do the job they’re intended to do, and do it with panache. The forecaster used words and phrases like “fatality,” “Russian roulette,” and “catch and kill” with chilling effect, together with the seemingly paradoxical concept of danger being found where conditions are starting to deteriorate and starting to improve. He even used a witty and appropriate cliché: “out of the woods.” Later in the report, Hardesty referred to our mountains as “the war zone that is the Wasatch Range.” Thanks to the forecaster’s engaging, punchy, persuasive prose, we decided to take our avalanche beacons, probes and shovels. No, we didn’t have to use them, but we might have. And we made sure we chose one of the safer backcountry destinations. Hats off to you, Mr. Hardesty.

2008. What a year! As it comes to a close, let’s try one last Word Shot before moving into a brand new year. Here it is:

This photo triggers numerous questions. Who is leaning against the cross? Why? Where would such a large cross be placed? Did sorrow drive this individual there? Gratitude? Remorse? Think about it. Be still and listen to what emerges from your mind-soul. Write it down and submit it as a comment to this post. Just a word if that’s all the comes. Or a phrase. Or a sentence. Or a story.

By the way, you can read the comments to last week’s Word shot here. My thanks to those of you who participated! Your sharing was a gift to us all. 

If you’re not a frequent Word Shot participant, don’t be shy. Weigh in with a comment – even if it’s just a single word. And don’t forget to check other writers’ submissions for this week’s Word Shot in the coming week. Please remember, these exercises are for all of us and will – I assure you – sharpen your writing skills and creativity.

Once you participate in 10 Word Shots, I’ll send you my e-manuals as a prize – all three of them. Just e-mail me to let me know when you qualify.

If you’ve never tried a Word Shot, now’s the time. Get your writing out there for others to read. It’s your last chance in 2008!

Which of the following sentences is correct?

1. Susan, as well as Ginny and Ralph, are born leaders.
2. Susan, as well as Ginny and Ralph, is a born leader.

Sentence #2 is correct. Why? Because the subject for the sentence is “Susan” and that’s a singular subject. Even though “Ginny and Ralph” are plural, they are not the subject of the sentence. They are simply part of a phrase that could be ripped out of the sentence without changing its primary meaning. You would not say “Susan are born leaders,” would you?

Here’s another quiz: Which of the next two sentences is correct?

1. My mortgage payment, in addition to my two car payments, is making me poor.
2. My mortgage payment, in addition to my two car payments, are making me poor.

If you think sentence #1 is right, you’re correct. The reasoning is similar. What is the subject of both sentences? It’s “my mortgage payment.” So the verb should agree with that singular subject. Yes, “my two car payments” is plural, but those two payments are not the subjects of the sentence. They are merely tagging along in a phrase that has been added to the sentence, and which could be deleting from the sentence without changing its meaning.

I just realized that my opening sentence in this post is yet another tricky subject that could cause some subject-verb agreement confusion. Some people might be tempted to write:

• Which of the following sentences are correct?

But not you! You would know that the subject of that sentence is the singular “which,” and the phrase “the following sentences” is part of a tag-along prepositional phrase that could be yanked from the sentence without changing its meaning. So, you would make the verb agree with the singular subject “Which” rather than the plural subject “the following sentences.”

… Wouldn’t you.