Posts tagged as:

Language

Writing is acting

by Bill on March 10, 2010

Comedy and tragedy masks.I’m not big on rules or posts that say “do this” and “do that,” so this post is to simply describe how I approach writing. It might be better to say it describes what writing feels like to me.

What is that approach?

Exactly what the title says: writing is acting. This isn’t an idea I picked up in a book, or in a class, or found online, though there may be people out there who have professed or do profess this approach. It is simply something I found myself doing as I wrote.

What I mean by “acting”

When I refer to writing as being acting I mean every word is delivered by a particular character, or “voice,” even if it is a third person omniscient narrator. It could be the voice found in a business letter, some web copy, a newsletter or poem – anything that involves writing. No matter how objective and dry the text may want to be, it is still a character delivering it – in some cases a very objective and dry one. It always has a voice. The question is, who is that voice?

I’m not talking about going into some great psychological-emotional examination of character as if you were an actor getting into a role (unless what you are writing is fiction and you’re developing a character). For the most part, it’s a kind of variation on the kid’s game, “let’s pretend.”

For whatever you are writing, you put on some kind of persona. I suppose we all do it in our daily lives behaving one way at work, another in a meeting with a client, another at home, another at a party. But it’s the persona that gives you the voice and the voice dictates the style – even the language. And for me, it all becomes much more easy when I’m “in character.”

Mimicry

I think what lies behind it is mimicry. As with many, if not most, writers, I began as a reader. Once started, soon I was reading just about everything I could find – old novels, new novels, science fiction, crime, mysteries, classic literature, books in translation and on and on. Also, when I turned on the radio or watched television, I listened. I also listened to the world around me — immediate family, relatives, friends, neighbours and on and on.

What I heard was a myriad of voices, some with puzzling syntax, unexpected contractions, emphases put in places that were strange (to me).

When I started writing, almost all of it was mimicry, a channeling and regurgitation of all these voices found in words on the page or heard spoken.

Of course, all of the writing I did was utterly wretched. But I was learning and, even better, I was having fun. The best learning is about discovery and the more you discover the more curious you become.

I kept doing it because, for me, it was fun and after a while it ceased to be mimicry. Somehow, it had become mine. I couldn’t tell you how but all of those styles I had come across, all the characters I had found and all the voices I had heard were mysteriously filed away so they could be called upon as persona templates, in a sense. They were starting places, if nothing else.

When I write something like a business letter I become a businessman with his own or her own voice. I write in a business-like fashion less because there are certain expectations and styles associated with a business letter than because that is how the character I become would write – a business person would write in a business-like way.

When I did editing work on some legal documents, I became a lawyer. I was anything but an actual lawyer but I employed his or her voice and his or her way of looking at text because in a sense I was playing a lawyer as an actor would. I was also trying to approximate how a lawyer might think as he or she looked at the text.

In fiction, if I‘m telling a story in the third person I might become my grandfather. He was great at telling stories. He was a natural raconteur (of course, he was Irish). Or I might assume another persona. But all writing comes from someone and I have to become that someone in order to write.

You might say, “Why not be yourself?” The answer is I do. But I emerge from the totality of the writing, the sum and not the parts. To take an example from fiction, ask yourself if you think the narrative voice found in the novels of Cormac McCarthy is the same voice of he uses in the world, the one you would hear him use in a casual conversation or while in a grocery store. His narrative voice comes, I believe, from a persona or character he assumes as he writes. It is both him and not him.

It’s just “let’s pretend”

All writing is acting. Even a narrator is a character – even if he or she is passively objective. A classified ad requires writing and that means it, too, requires a persona/character. For your wallet’s sake, that character will practice brevity. Business writing requires a business person’s approach and their language, unless they are speaking to customers when what they need is a customer’s voice and point of view.

You don’t need to go to acting school. You just have to remember what it was to be a child and playing “let’s pretend.” You need to be the voice you’re using.

A question often asked in marketing about companies, products and services is, “What’s your story?” The other question you need to ask is, “Who’s telling my story?” This second question is often taken to mean whether the teller is you, your customers or your competition. The other way to look at it is, if the answer is that you are telling your story, who are you and do you sound like who you think you are?

It may be that, if there is any trick to writing, it’s in not writing like a writer. That may be the one persona you can’t put on. Unless, I suppose, you’re writing for other writers. But that would be kind of boring, don’t you think?

Listen to this post Listen to this post

{ Comments }

Words and how they sound

by Bill on March 8, 2010

Dancing coupleThe way words sound is critical to their effectiveness. How they are arranged is also critical. Language is musical; sentences are rhythmic. We don’t usually think in these terms though. But poets know it. Rappers know it. And writers of prose, if they’re good, they know it too.

I’m currently reading Seth Godin’s latest book, Linchpin, and it’s clear he knows it. You’ll see longer, sometimes clausal sentences followed by one or two short, punctuation-like sentences. Writers often do this. (I just did it there.) It’s like a joke: set up followed by a quick punchline. Doing this emphasizes your key point. Hopefully, it makes it memorable.

Words acquire their music by an arrangement of consonants and vowels and accents, some hard (“eat”) and some soft (“where”). A word itself has a certain rhythm, a beat or combination of them, and in a sentence can help create a more complex rhythm as it sits side by side with other words and their rhythm(s).

It all combines to create the music of words.

French is an interesting language (sometimes called one of the romance languages). We associate it with softness, I think, and even elegance – especially when we don’t actually speak it. We don’t understand the meaning but we hear how it sounds and the sound alone carries a meaning, though it’s often wrongly interpreted.

For example, let’s suppose a restaurant is opening. We’re going to call the restaurant, La merde de chien. Now, if we don’t speak French and are utterly unfamiliar with it, we don’t know what that means. But it sounds as if it might be elegant. Knowing nothing about the restaurant, we might assume it’s a fine dining establishment. Maybe it specializes in French cuisine.

We just don’t know but we do know that La merde de chien sounds as if it could be a top drawer place. There are so many soft sounds in La merde de chien. We might picture soft lighting. We might imagine a piano or a string quartet playing quietly in a corner.

We would imagine something altogether different if we knew it meant Dog Poop.

If we know what La merde de chien means it will strike us that the sound and the meaning are at cross-purposes. (I’m assuming an English speaking person’s perspective here.) Sometimes that is the effect we want. It’s an effect I wanted here. I wanted sound and meaning to disagree as a way to illustrate how the sound of words works.

The words we choose are guided by our purpose. What do we want them to do? What message are they meant to convey? This should determine the words we choose – not simply for their dictionary meaning but also for how the sound of the words also conveys the meaning.

Two more examples … Why do we usually call them PCs and not personal computers? Because personal computer is six syllables with really only one hard sound (the u in computer). It’s a bit soft and clunky. PC is two syllables, both accented and rolls off the tongue with ease. It has a catchier rhythm, like a jingle or pop song.

Why call a Macintosh a Mac? Why Mac and not Tosh? Mac is one syllable, one beat. Tosh is also one syllable, one beat but Mac ends with a hard sound, Tosh with a soft sound. Macintosh has a better rhythm than personal computer but, like Tosh, ends softly. Mac doesn’t. It is hard and it sounds like what Apple would like us to think about their computers: tough and efficient and effective. It’s a period. All those other words are commas.

abe_lincoln01

A final, perfect example of the music of words, is Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. If you read the text you’ll hear how, while called a speech, it is really a poem. And a poem is really just a fancy word for song.

Why would Lincoln say, “Four score and seven years ago …” and not simply, “Eighty-seven years ago …?” Why would he conclude with the repetition of, “… government of the people, by the people, for the people …?”

It was for the music of it. It was for the sound. When sound and meaning intersect and are one, words resonate. They stick in the mind and they’re remembered.

They work like all get out.

Listen to this post Listen to this post

{ Comments }

Deviled by the wind

by Bill on March 5, 2010

Molly in the morning, hoping the wind has died down.My dog and I are deviled by the wind. Our devilments differ but they have the wind in common. Take note that the word “the” is important. Were we deviled by wind that would be quite another matter, one of social indelicacy.

Molly is made anxious by the wind itself. I think that for her it is the sound it makes as it whooshes through the trees and whistles around the house (sometimes literally). It is the sound and the sense of disruption it conveys. Nothing makes her so anxious as a sound for which she can see no cause and, as W.O. Mitchell might put it, who has seen the wind?

The result is a dog that follows me from room to room in order to remain within a few feet of me. Sometimes, if I’m working in the kitchen, or if she sees I am settled at my desk working, she goes into the bathroom and simply stays there. Relative to all other rooms, in her canine mind, the bathroom is the furthest from the sound of the wind, the safest place to be.

She doesn’t like thunder either. I think, for her, they are the same thing – sounds for which there are no apparent causes.

I, on the other hand, am not bothered by the wind itself. I actually kind of like that temper tantrum-like commotion. What I am bothered by is what the wind is a consequence of: weather systems in collision and wrestling with one another until one cries, “Uncle!” and goes home.

I’m obsessed by weather, in this case wind, for good reason. Until I started taking medication, it often triggered seizures in me. At least, that was how I perceived it. I take Dilantin now (an anti-convulsant) and have had no seizures. There are days, however, when I feel “wonky” and I often say to friends, “This is a day I would have had a seizure.” More often than not, the weather has changed in some significant way. Yes, it changes every day but the changes aren’t always significant.

(By the way, as I type this the wind – which was blowing yesterday and continues today – is whistling and Molly is barking her head off.)

Every Canadian has an interest in weather. It’s a kind of national obligation, something beyond legalities that actually makes you a citizen. Mine, however, is of a particular kind.

That’s why a little over a year ago I started following MediClim, a web site and health alert system based on – you’ve got it – the weather. They describe it this way:

“MediClim® is a warning system that takes into account a multitude of weather parameters known to affect health, such as humidity, barometric pressure and temperature. MediClim® can warn people when they are most susceptible to flare ups from migraine, asthma, arthritis or heart disease. Users subscribe to receive emails that will alert them if specific weather conditions coming to their area may cause them a problem.”

Now, they don’t have any alert system for seizures or epilepsy. I don’t think weather is generally associated with epilepsy. But weather does seem to affect me in ways other than seizures, including bones and muscles that can ache or be sore for no good reason. So I’ve been getting email alerts for arthritis and migraine for over a year just to see what they might show me. (I should point out that I don’t have problems with migraines.)

While it’s anecdotal, and possibly all something I’ve dreamed up in my head, I have noticed a few things. The arthritis alerts are usually associated with weather changes and particularly low pressure (rain days, fog days, snow days). The migraine alerts appear to be associated with high pressure days, or weather changes as high pressure systems move in.

Of course, I’ve no idea what I’m talking about but I think you can see that I have something of an obsession with it. The reason is pretty simple. I want to know why I feel sluggish some days and hugely energetic on others. There are days when my creativity and productivity are off the chart and others when it seems I can’t get anything done. Just a few days ago I experienced one of the latter. When I mentioned it to people, quite a few said something similar. They had a headache. Their stomach was a bit upset. They felt dull-witted.

I’m not alone. But prior to the anti-convulsant, I also had the worry of a possible seizure. Believe me, they are not pleasant and the aura that precedes them is one of the most bizarre experiences you can have.

It appears I’ve rambled quite a distance from what began as little something about me, my dog and the wind. Well, it’s Friday and these things happen.

If you’re at all interested in MediClim, this is their site. And this is their blog. According to the site, I’ve been using it for one year and one week.

Related:

Listen to this post Listen to this post

{ Comments }

Ten off-the-cuff writing rules

by Bill on February 22, 2010

list_150I began this list last Thursday. I finished it off Saturday morning. Surprisingly, on Saturday I also came across Ten rules for writing fiction. It seems I wasn’t alone in putting together a list. (Those writers, by the way, are much better than I am so their lists should carry a good deal more weight than mine.) There is no order to my list. They are “off-the-cuff,” jotted down as they popped into my head. They read as follows:

#1 If you’re the kind of writer so very good that only modesty withholds the modifier “great,” you can ignore rules. By the way, if you’re that kind of writer you’re probably dead and have been for some time.

#2 Writing correctly is not the same as writing well. A sentence can be perfectly grammatical yet fail to communicate its message. Some sentences are ungrammatical yet communicate their meaning immediately and clearly.

#3 Writing isn’t about words, it is about communicating. Words are just the tool. Don’t fall in love with language.

#4 Few things are as discouraging to readers as very long paragraphs. Break it up. Better still, brutally look at what you’ve written and ask if it is really necessary. The answer is usually no.

#5 Get to the point. Immediately. Don’t write long paragraphs to set things up (referred to as exposition or back story). If that material is truly necessary, you can toss it in later (however, see rule #8).

#6 Read everything you write out loud. If you can’t read it out loud easily and fluidly, something is wrong with it. Rewrite it or drop it. (Additionally, read material that is not your own out loud. It will help convey to you how things should read and sound – or the opposite.)

#7 Listen. Everyone has their own way of speaking. They use particular words, phrasing and syntax. By listening, you’ll find new ways of constructing sentences and hear how language can communicate character (among other things). You’ll also notice that people rarely use long, clause-filled sentences.

#8 Edit. Rewrite. Edit. Rewrite. Edit. Rewrite. Repeat until doctors start suggesting Prozac.

#9 Your favourite writing is usually your worst, pretty as it may be. It’s the stuff that needs to be junked. It’s sad but true. On the other hand, it’s a great way to flag material that should be dropped. If you love it, that’s a sign something is wrong.

#10 Getting paid beats compliments every time.

Listen to this post Listen to this post

{ Comments }

A few links worth a look

by Bill on February 20, 2010

I’ve been busy this week and haven’t posted anything. (The web collectively mutters, “Thank heaven!”) But I have come across a few things that caught my attention.

The first is oodles of writers providing their rules for their craft and while it is in a fiction context many, if not all, are applicable to any kind of writing. The second is a brief Seth Godin post that points to how to use clichés (and why they work). Third is a post of my own from my other site, included if only because it has been ages since I’ve added anything new (probably of limited interest). And finally … a post that begins talking about language but soon reveals itself to be about impermanence. It’s interesting, at least to me, and may prompt me to write a lengthy post of my own. We’ll see.

And now the links:

Ten rules for writing fiction

“Get an accountant, abstain from sex and similes, cut, rewrite, then cut and rewrite again – if all else fails, pray. Inspired by Elmore Leonard’s 10 Rules of Writing, we asked authors for their personal dos and don’ts.”

How to use clichés (Seth Godin)

“The effective way to use a cliché is to point to it and then do precisely the opposite.”

A Lady Takes a Chance -1943 (Piddleville)

After having it on my computer for about two months in a half-finished state, I’ve finally posted my take on A Lady Takes a Chance (1943). It stars Jean Arthur and John Wayne and, yes, it’s a romantic comedy.

Let’s Get Radical (thinkBuddha.org)

“… We are, perhaps, not very good at thinking about change. Western thought, in particular, seems to be very wedded to an idea of stasis as the fundamental condition of things.”

Listen to this post Listen to this post

{ Comments }

Puzzled by web design and services

by Bill on January 22, 2010

I’ve been looking at a few sites offering web design and related services and I find myself puzzled, even a bit alarmed. This is not due to what I found (though in some cases it was) but by what I did not find.

I have seen absolutely no reference to content. Do the sites magically populate themselves? If not, who does it? If the client does, is there no consultative service to advise them on what and how to put the content in or maintaining it? If the client doesn’t handle the content, who does? If the web design company does, who handles the research, the writing, the editing? Have they a background in it? Are they good?

There were no references to social media other than “Follow us on Twitter” and/or something similar for Facebook. If a company is moving to or revamping an online presence, isn’t this a crucial aspect? Where do they get help, direction or advice on this?

I found a few web design/web services companies with URLs that required the www preface. Personally, I never use it anymore. I just type in something like writelife.net. No http. No www. I suspect many people are like me. If so, there are a lot of people going to a “page not found” message when they type in the web company’s address. I can’t believe that builds a lot of confidence in a web design company’s awareness of how the web works.

I also found quite a few companies using dated language. In the world of business, marketing and technology, terminology changes almost daily and if you rely on today’s clichés you become tomorrow’s anachronism. Surely “offering solutions” is at least ten years old. I believe current terminology should be avoided at all costs but I do realize it is often unavoidable. But this puts the onus on you to continually assess your site and see where and how it requires revamping. In the online world, static means death.

None of the above is true of all web design sites. Hopefully, I just stumbled on a few that skewed my perception. It is worrying though. On the other hand, from my perspective, maybe it holds the promise of some work. :-)

Listen to this post Listen to this post

{ Comments }

Literacy is a prerequisite for independence

by Bill on September 23, 2009

I’m not sure whether I should thank David Campbell or curse him. A week or so late I came across his post Literacy and have been preoccupied by the topic ever since. Here’s what I put on Twitter and it encapsulates what my thinking has been:

If you are not literate, you cede control over your life to those who are. If that’s not an argument for literacy, I don’t know what is.

I don’t think people are really aware of how much of their every day life depends on what is written. Contracts, for one. If you can’t read, you have to trust someone else to explain what is in it. Laws, electoral platforms and so on – same thing. If the world is inclined to move toward something like video, how do you know what to say and shoot next on that video podcast without a script? Movies and TV use storyboards but what are they if not language?

Letters are signs. Letters in a certain sequence are words, which are signs.

Except for the hardware, everything on our computers is language: the text content we read but also all the coding we usually don’t see. That’s why they refer to programming “languages.”

There are manuals. Business plans. Emails. Licenses. And there is the proverbial “fine print.”

No, we don’t read all these things. But depending on our lives, there are times they become vitally important and it is necessary to understand exactly what is meant. (Lawyers spend their lives niggling over the meaning of laws and a simple phrase, depending on the wording, can change lives.)

And of course, there is written fiction and journalism.

If you are not literate and literate to a certain level, you are not independent. You have to cross your fingers and hope that what someone else is telling you the words mean is what they actually mean. You are dependent.

If people need a reason to learn to read, I think it should be explained to them how much control over their own lives they give up by not being able to read.

My one question regarding Canada’s literacy rates (between provinces) is to what degree are they affected by worker migration? Would provinces like BC and Alberta appear to be performing better on the literacy front due to literate workers from out of province moving to them? And would NB appear worse due to losing skilled workers to other provinces thus making the degree of illiteracy higher? I’m sure, to a degree, it must though I don’t think it would sufficiently to erase the embarrassing rate we have.

Listen to this post Listen to this post

{ Comments }

Four letter words and courtesy: a follow up

by Bill on September 13, 2009

Courtesy.After posting Violence, power and four letter words I continued to muse about the subject and had a few other thoughts. Of course, I’m just speculating here, but …

One of the characteristics of our use of four letter words is that quite often, while expressive of violence, they are also expressions of impotence. It’s related to power again, I think. We’re frustrated with something or someone, are unable to exert control over the situation, and the four letter words are like swinging fists at empty air.

The other thing I wondered about was how the world has changed in how freely we use such language now. There was a time when four letter words (and certain subjects, like sex) weren’t used in “polite society.” I’m not sure what exactly “polite society” would be considered but I do know we use words and phrases, and discuss some things privately and publicly that previous generations, like my parents’ or grandparents’, would not have.

I think it’s generally thought that those generations were more repressed, less free and willing to talk about some subjects, and on the whole the world is better for removing the restrictions and allowing us to talk freely.

I believe that’s true but I don’t think it’s exclusively true. In other words, I don’t think repression was the only thing to account for the verbal restraints or that greater verbal freedom is the only effect of loosened restraints.

In many ways, I think the restraints other generations had represented a more polite, respectful and kinder world. Repression was likely one of the aspects of those generations but I also think linguistic restraint just as often represented respect in the sense that such language wasn’t used until someone was more familiar, even intimate, with you and could be sure you would not be offended. It meant, “I’m going to respect your feelings and not do something that might offend you. I’ll wait until we know each other better and I can be sure you’re all right with certain language and topics.”

In many cases today we simply don’t care what others think. Our focus is primarily on ourselves, not the society that surrounds us and of which we’re a part — that’s secondary. I think that may have been reversed several generations back.

We’re so eager to express our individual freedom not only do we not care who we may offend, sometimes we even take pride in causing offense. It’s as if we shook off the repression we perceived of other generations and kept going past that, moving from one extreme to another. We seem to think that “polite” is something bad, courtesy is something that surrenders our independence.

The end result is that while we have a world less repressed (and I’m not sure that’s even true), with greater freedom for the individual, we also have a world that is less respectful, courteous and, yes, kind. We actually have to organize days and movements to promote them.

Perhaps we’ve paid too great price for the freedom to use four letter words?

One last other thing

I hate to use a word like “properly” but those four letter words do have a positive function when used the right way. I have a cousin who uses them “properly.”

You rarely hear him use them. As kids, I would use them, my friends used them and my other cousins used them. But this one cousin never did. Or almost never.

When he did? You can bet that he got everyone’s attention. We all knew he was upset or felt compelled to say something important. His use of the word had impact. For most of us, because we use them so freely and frequently, they have no impact.

Muhammad Ali and Sonny Liston.In a way, my cousin’s use of those words was like Muhammad Ali and his “rope-a-dope.” Ali would get in the ring and dance around, staying mainly against the ropes, his arms up guarding himself, letting his opponent swing largely ineffectually, having minimal impact. Ali simply waited him out.

When his opponent was inevitably tiring, letting his guard down a bit, Ali would pick his moment. When he swung his fist it was at the right time, in the right place, for the greatest impact.

It’s the same with language — in this case, four letter words. Overuse kills their impact and renders them ineffectual.

Listen to this post Listen to this post

{ Comments }

Violence, power and four letter words

by Bill on August 3, 2009

Hanging boxing gloves.I find our use of four letter words, and some words and phrases using more than four letters, fascinating for what they say about us. We rarely think about what they’re for or what they actually do.

For the most part, four letter words like the f-word and others involving harsh consonants like “ck,” are verbal punches. Or words like shit – they rip or tear. They’re words of destruction, violence and power (or the lack thereof). I suppose that since they don’t actually produce blood or bruises we don’t think of them that way, but that’s what they are – the language of violence.

They don’t describe violence. They express it.

It’s also fascinating how many of them relate to sex. For some reason, we associate sex and violence. We may use a phrase like “make love” but that sounds soft and namby pamby. More often than not, we use the f-word, a term that connotes aggression and power. The way we use it is also intriguing: it’s something we do to someone, or someone does to us. Only rarely do we use it as a term for something we do together. It’s about power and asserting it over someone else.

I wonder what that says about us?

Also interesting: sometimes we don’t use the f-word in terms of sex but rather as a way to describe something bad we’ve done to someone or they’ve done to us. “I f…ed them up!” or “I got f…ed!” Put another way, we use the word to describe sex and also as a way to describe an unpleasant action – done by us or to us.

I wonder why we find sex so disagreeable?

Sex isn’t the only aspect that gets pulled into the arena of “bad language” (as my mother would phrase it). Religion is involved as well and, here in the western world with our history of Christianity, it generally relates to Christianity – and power. Who has it, who doesn’t.

Part of the reason for words and phrases like “God this” and “God that” or “Jesus something-or-other,” is that in our history the Christian church is a symbol of authority. It laid down the rules we were to follow (to put it simplistically). Our profane use of Christian language is, at least in part, an irreverent way to assert our independence — our power — and to take power from that symbol of authority. I suppose today, in our much more secular world, that aspect does not play as much of a role but the power aspect, the element of destruction hidden in the terms, remains.

It’s all the language of destruction and power, aggression and violence.

I wonder what got us so cranky?

(Note: I have no problem using the fully spelled out f-word, especially in this context, but I started thinking about bots and filters and decided it best to do it as I did so this post wasn’t considered something other than it is and get mis-labelled. I don’t believe bots and filters understand context — yet.)

Listen to this post Listen to this post

{ Comments }

Names, writing and the Obama inauguration

by Bill on January 20, 2009

Associated Press/Scott AndrewsNo one likes being left out so this is my Barack Obama post on the day of his inauguration as President of the United States. But what to write that hasn’t been written about already?

At the risk of being slight, and on such a historic day, the writer in me is pleased with all the syllables being added to the Oval Office. Not that there’s anything wrong with monosyllabic names – they have their own place with their single beat, punctuation-like sounds. But polysyllables?

They’re characterized by mellifluous, rhythmic sounds. Say it: “Barack Obama.” Yes, there may be an overabundance of the letter “a,” but said the right way, you almost want to dance. The rap/hip-hop genre of names has come to the White House.

If you speak, write or just like listening to the music of language, how can you not be a bit giddy at the re-introduction of syllables to the office of the President?

They may not solve economic crises, resolve international conflict or even smooth over the rough and tumble waters of political partisanship (that’s up to the man), but they sure sound good.

To reverse the old curse about living in interesting times, I hope President Obama’s tenure is dull and that when all the excitement of the inauguration cools, we all happily experience the tedium of fixing the many things that are broken and move forward, forward, forward.

(And as a Canadian, I hope the passion for change and hope that has taken hold down south finds its way north.)

Listen to this post Listen to this post

{ Comments }