Marketing for our times

 

On Good Friday,  Easter weekend (2026),  Marketing innovator, Seth Godin, published these thoughts, challenging the assumption so many make (especially in our AI age) that marketers obsess over money and care about nothing more than how to make more of it.

Instead of complying with the world’s dominant system(s) and regimes (led by Thatcher, Putin, Trump, Netanyahu, etc. ), Godin argues we should interrogate both: “Can we create the conditions to cause this system to change enough for us to do the long-term work we’re proud of?”

Because when we get our proverbial “foot”  in the system’s “door,” work that can bring longer-lasting change may follow.

To fellow entrepreneurs: how do you use marketing to resist the dominant systems of these times?

“There is no alternative”

Can swearing help us cope with loss? One answer in the mid-March issue of TYSN!

March 2026  Vol 8 Issue 3

Tell Your Story Newsletter:

Teaching English as a Second Language

Let us help you tell your story!

 

Welcome Mid-March 2026.  Spring is coming!

As I prepare this issue of “Tell Your Story Newsletter,” we mark one year from Prime Minister Mark Carney’s election as Canada’s 24th Prime Minister. Even for those who dread international politics (and there’s never a shortage of criticism), Carney has been organized and decisive in strengthening foreign and domestic policy through these tumultuous times. He has started to shift Canadian foreign policy and our economy amidst threats from Donald Trump, the wars in Ukraine and Iran and more.

And less than a week ago, progressive thinkers in the Western world observed “International Women’s Day,” at a time when women in particular have lost much ground under ruling men whose psychopathic behaviours have undermined much of democratic values.

At a time when many of us are facing losses, Canadian-born theologian Kate Bowler has blogged about the importance of “swearing.” Swearing, you might ask? How could that possibly help? It’s personal, Bowler would say; and Friedan was right to connect the personal with the political. (It was feminist Carol Hanisch in 1970 who famously wrote, “The personal is the political.”) . . . The more things change, the more they stay the same . . .

In “Storytellers’ Corner,” I revisit five “common Latin terms everyone should know,” from contributors to the online resource, “Grammar Check.”

Rather than insisting that everyone “should” know such Latin terms, I offer them instead as a source for experimentation and laughter, to be applied (if you wish) at your next meeting with family or friends (haha)!

And, although the wind was bitterly cold in Saskatoon this week, I hope you have found, good readers, the relief that has come with the lengthening of daylight hours and the return of at least some prairie sunshine.

Despite the wars and international governments that instill hatred for, segregate, torture and even murder the vulnerable, may each of us find compassion for ourselves and our neighbours, and to appreciate the blessings we still receive, even as we try to oppose the lawlessness in our world.

As a friend recently wrote: “Three nutritious meals each day, the chance to earn a living that supports my family, and (at night), a warm bed and a good book may be blessings enough to keep going.”

And may we find rest in such blessings each day, before we turn to the work of supporting others in our community, near and far.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Shih

Principal

Storytelling Communications

++++++++

IN THIS ISSUE:

  • ARTICLE 1: Can swearing help us cope with loss?
  • STORYTELLERS’ CORNER: Five Common Latin Terms to Use (or Laugh at)
  • SHOP NEWS
  • ABOUT US

 +++++++

Article One: Can swearing (in Lent) help us cope with loss? Some thoughts from Kate Bowler  

American theologian Kate Bowler writes with great authenticity about anger, pain and the many forms of loss human beings can endure.

She herself endured stage four breast cancer at age 59 (in 2020) and her book titles themselves reflect her questioning of a Divine Being, faith, and life itself:

Have a beautiful, terrible day! Daily meditations for the ups, downs and in-betweens;

The lives we actually have: 100 blessings for imperfect days;

Everything happens for a reason: and other lies I’ve loved;

and

Joyful, Anyway.

Bowler embraces a hands-on, down-to-earth theology on finding hope and grace amidst the most gruelling of life’s challenges (e.g. life-threatening cancer when she was raising a young child).

In a recent blog posting, she testifies that swearing has a therapeutic effect, as she’s found in the “ten years since [she] took up cursing for Lent.”

It may not be “theologically ideal” to curse, she says. But “the greater honesty I have been afforded, the more theological discomfort I have been able to tolerate.”

Lent, for those who do not know, is a season in the Christian calendar when believers try to understand Christ’s own sacrifice on the cross by taking on one of their own: we may give up bad habits, start new spiritual practices, donate funds or time to our local church communities, or simply give up alcohol or chocolate for the 40 days leading up to Good Friday (the day of Christ’s crucifixion).

Bowler writes: “Lent asks us to identify with being on the losing team with Jesus as He walks toward His death, either as a witness or as a fellow sufferer. How difficult or easy is it for you, lately, to figure out where you are in the [Easter] story?”

Bowler says that for Lent 10 years ago, “I started swearing.” And cursing, one might argue, can help to find just where in the Easter story one is.

Bowler swore about “cancer. . . . about dry croissants and coffee that cools too quickly.” She continues: “I swear about people trying to narrate me as part of a heroic battle with cancer. I swear about Curious George seeming a little whiney to the Man in the Yellow Hat . . . .” (she is a mom, after all).

Bowler allowed herself to swear after reading “an article about how people in grief swear because they feel the English language has reached its limit in a time of inarticulate sorrow. Or at least that is what I tell people when I am casually dropping f-bombs over lunch, as I explain the mysteries of Lent.”

Today is indeed a “time of inarticulate sorrow,” whether we consider Russia’s war on Ukraine; Israel’s and America’s war on Iran; the atrocities in Afghanistan (to name only three of the world’s “hotspots”).  Immense sorrow coincides painfully with Christ sacrificing his life for believers, over 2000 years ago.

Closer to home, a woman I know has discovered her husband of 20 years has been unfaithful for at least the last three. Another  friend who is a young mother has been diagnosed with stage-three gastrointestinal cancer but finds her family unwilling to provide her with much support.

A colleague who endured horrific abuse as a small child from both parents, reports that she’ll lose her sight before she turns 55.  Sometimes the world holds more sorrow than a person can bear.

A much-loved family friend told me nearly 30 years ago, anticipating Bowler, that the only way through the trials of life was to swear—that my language of coping was too subtle to combat the emotional pain I was enduring as a student.

As a language teacher, I find the possible coping function of swearing to be fascinating. Perhaps we should include some salty language when we’re teaching ESL/EFL to refugees! (Swearing has been part of more than one BBC comedy on the topic!)

Bowler refers to a 2020 article from Keele University psychologists (Staffordshire, UK) that argues “only ‘traditional’ swearing improves our ability to tolerate pain.”

Dr. Richard Stephens (senior lecturer in psychology at Keele) and PhD student Olly Robertson have published a study that “uttering traditional swear words [worked] in helping to tolerate pain.”

By contrast, while saying “fake swear words” like “twizpipe” and “fouch” elicited emotion and laughter, “fake” curses had little impact when it came to coping with pain. This contrasted the salutary effect of “traditional swear words.” Stephens and Robertson found that only well-established curses induced “stress-induced analgesia and increased pain tolerance by 33%.”

The suffering of immigrants and newcomers to Canada (whom I meet in my ESL teaching) could, according to these findings,  be reduced by the emotional efficacy of swearing.

Stephens concludes that “it’s not the surface properties of swear words, such as how they sound, that underlie the beneficial effects of swearing, but something much deeper, probably linked back to childhood as we learn swear words growing up.”

So when our parents or teachers outlawed swearing to us children, when we faced the calamities of life, that discipline may have done us more harm than good. Those easily offended might rethink this study’s findings.

So, yes, we can give up chocolate or caffeine for 40 days, but Bowler recommends that we also practice swearing, especially about today’s authoritarian world politics and their assault on humankind.

Cursing what we cannot change may allow us to process pain and loss that we’d otherwise suppress or repress, and that would then lead to depression and serious mental illness.

In her blog, Bowler reminds believers and agnostics alike, that swearing may help us to remember three basics that can guide us through any season (including Lent and long SK winters)! She asks us to remember: “(a) You are loved. (b) Life is absurd. (c) It’s hard to be a human.”

And now it’s your turn. What do you think of using swearing as a linguistic practice to endure our pain and suffering?

Which swear words do you appreciate? Please write in; I’d be delighted to share your insights in future issues of TYSN.

++++++++

STORYTELLERS’ CORNER . . . . 

STORYTELLERS’ CORNER: Words, Stories,

Riddles and Jokes on Writing and Editing . . .

Five Common Latin terms to know and use (from grammarcheck.net)

(1) A priori (From what is before). E.g.: ” ‘All bachelors are unmarried’ is an a priori statement.”

(2) Ad hoc (For this situation). E.g. ” ‘The library was turned into an ad hoc shelter, during the storm.”

(3) Ad infinitum (To infinity). E.g. “Sandra complained about her work ad infinitum.”

(4) Ad libitum or Ad lib (As you desire). E.g. “Some actors used to ad lib their parts in certain scenes of the play.”

(5) Ad nauseam (To the point of sickness). E.g. “We heard another ad nauseam rant about his narcissistic political ambitions.”

If you have never studied Latin (or not for long), how might you make use of these terms in common parlance–for entertainment if not edification?

Please share your stories with me; I’d be delighted to cite you in a future issue. 

++++++++

SHOP NEWS:

Special thanks this month to Steve Cavan, whose many hats include those of ESL teacher, mentor and editor.

Steve’s willingness to lend his specialist knowledge of linguistics to support a student with high-level sensitivity has been welcome.

+++++++

Thank you to former editing client and long-time friend, Greg Gilroy, for hosting and sharing details of a beautiful birthday party he held for his elderly mother, who recently turned 97!

Few adult children are as attentive to their mothers’  last years as Greg is;  it was heartwarming to view family photos from the event.

++++++++

These days, I’m thinking of my dear friend Arian in Ontario, whose family and lifelong friends still live in Iran and who are fugitives, due to Netanyahu and Trump’s attacks on that nation and the subsequent reciprocal bombings unleashed, between it and other, Middle Eastern nations.

++++++++

In much happier and healthier news, CONGRATULATIONS go out to new parents, Rev. Roberto and Heather De Sandoli, on the birth of their daughter, Rosanna Marie De Sandoli on March 13th!

Rosanna weighed in at nine pounds and brings her parents, grandparents and friends much joy.

Congratulations, Rev. Roberto and Heather!

And welcome to the world, Rosanna!

There are always more people to thank and new work to promote. But this is a wrap for mid-March!

++++++++

ABOUT US:

Between 2011 and December 2018, Elizabeth Shih Communications chronicled the stories of B2B marketing and communications on the Prairies and across the country.

Effective January 1, 2019, I rebranded as “Storytelling Communications.” I help new and economic immigrants to secure better jobs or contracts by improving their English skills; and I help internationally educated, second language academics to publish more effectivel, so as to increase their success in the tenure system.

Interested in learning more? Please contact me through my CASL-compliant website (www.elizabethshih.com).

After I receive your message, I’ll be pleased to discuss projects with you!

Please visit my website for more information (www.storytellingcommunications.ca).

On better classroom judgment for ESL/EFL teachers: how to optimize learning, from Cecilia Nobre

One of the contemporary problems of ESL/EFL teaching is that teachers or tutors find that language instruction is a messy and inexact “science.”

As Brazilian EFL/ESL teacher (and CELTA trainer), Dr. Cecilia Nobre, argued recently on  Linkedin.com, if language teachers think “covering the [lesson] plan” will have made the lesson work, we “might be measuring the wrong thing.”

She writes that recently “a trainee told me she felt great about her lesson because she had covered everything in her plan. She had followed every stage, used all her slides, managed the timing well and given clear instructions. Yeah, sounds perfect!”

But the trainee’s students spoke for only about 7 minutes out of the 45-minute class.

Uh-oh.

Nobre tells usI have spent years sitting at the back of training rooms watching lesson after lesson and I say this with care: we often confuse control with learning.

I too used to fill silence, rescue too quickly and explain before learners had tried. The lesson looked impressive (but the progress was slower than it could have been).

She lists what should  be “the practices of teachers whose learners actually improve–15 habits,” although she observes she may have “missed a few”:

ESL/EFL teachers succeed when . . .

1- They wait (for learners to respond)
2- They listen more than they speak
3- They recycle language relentlessly (re-teaching and re-applying words or phrases within and between classes)
4- They notice patterns instead of isolated errors (that learners make)
5- They trust learners to try first (knowing that learning comes about through effort and errors)
6- They delay explanations (allowing learners to do their crucial cognitive work)
7- They respond to what emerges (from students’ thoughts and expression, not expecting coherent “wholes” in responses)
8- They use fewer materials more deeply (they don’t distract from learning by changing materials artificially)
9- They value learner effort over correctness
10- They let tasks run longer (when they are succeeding in eliciting student interest and learning)
11- They give feedback selectively (correcting only errors that are relevant and timely, or waiting for later to preserve a learning moment)
12- They build routines for noticing (observation may allow insights)
13- They resist rescuing (intervening only when a learner has reached the end of their capacity)
14- They accept mess (learning does not happen tidily or in a linear movement)
15- They intervene with precision (interventions should be brief, direct and unambiguous)

Nobre writes: “Unpredictability is not failure, it’s evidence of thinking in progress.” That is true of lesson plans for teachers and for the learning process of learners.

She observes that while it’s important to consider “pacing” in a class, simply “covering material (strict adherence to a lesson plan) without uptake from learners is just tidy administration.”

Adhering too much to “rigid planning kills responsiveness and responsiveness is where real teaching lives.”

“What matters is what [learners] carry out of the room, not how polished we felt at the front.”

Teachers use “selective feedback” because declining to correct too often “protects fluency and focuses on meaning before form” (because “meaning” is where fluency lies).

“Control feels safe; thinking feels risky. Guess which works?”

Are you an ESL/EFL learner or a teacher? Does Nobre’s list of 15 habits for English language learning make sense to you? Please write in; I’d be delighted to hear from you. 

What does linguistic “fluency” mean in this month’s issue of TYSN

 

February 2026 Vol 8 Issue 2

Tell Your Story Newsletter

Teaching English to economic immigrants

and internationally educated, non-native speaking academics

Let us help you succeed in English!

Welcome Mid-February, 2026!

As I write this month’s issue of “Tell Your Story Newsletter” (TYSN), we are returning to arctic cold after two weeks of a greatly premature spring: unseasonable warmth and sunny days have made life feel lighter, except from occasions of freezing rain and the subsequent ice-laden sidewalks and roads that have challenged pedestrians and drivers.

At the mid-winter “mixer” of the Saskatoon chapter of the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC) that I thoroughly enjoyed on February 5th,  several wondered aloud about this atypical winter (i.e.”Didn’t February used to be the coldest month of the year?!”).

Others engaged in the other, rueful topic across our country–Canadians’ collective worry and rage about the hair-raising politician (“melon felon”) at the helm, south of the Canada/US border.

While not bracketing off these concerns, I discuss in “Article One” this month, I return to my English-as-a-Second Language services; one of most central issues to language learning and teaching is what we mean when we refer to “fluency.” Finnish scholar, Pauliina Peltonen, weighs in. What does “fluency” really involve and how can we teach it?

In “Storytellers’ Corner,” I share some nerdy jokes in English, some of which (I hope) may be new to you, good readers.

And in “Shop News,” I name some of the folk who make my freelance teaching and writing life supported and possible.

As we begin the third week of February, I wish for you, good readers, that you will continue to find meaning and purpose in your work; and that you’ll find the blessings that still grace our lives, even in these challenging times.

Happy mid-February!

Sincerely,

Elizabeth

Principal

Storytelling Communications

www.elizabethshih.com

+++++++++

IN THIS ISSUE:

 ARTICLE ONE: What does linguistic “fluency” mean? 

STORYTELLERS’ CORNER:  English language jokes 

SHOP NEWS

ABOUT US

+++++++++

Article One: What does linguistic “fluency” mean?

Those who teach and who study English-as-a-Second Language (or English-as-a-Foreign Language or English-as-an-Additional Language, as it’s sometimes called in Europe), we tend to think that the goal of such study is “fluency.”

And by that, we usually mean some version of “smooth and effortless speech” (Peltonen), or a general proficiency in a language (in a research tradition that dates to the 1970s and 80s).

But in a 2023 article called “Fluency Revisited,” Finnish English language specialist Pauliina Peltonen shares much wider and subtler connotations of what “fluency” involves and points to practices that we as language teachers can use, to help learners develop it.

More recent research into second language acquisition (SLA), a narrower sense of the term has developed that relates to “temporal aspects,” like the speed of the learner’s talking and how/whether they pause. Here, “fluency” is associated with a “natural,” relatively fast rate of speech, without frequent pauses as one develops one’s thoughts in words.

In 2010, one researcher posited a three-part concept of fluency, as measured by (1) “utterance fluency,” (2) cognitive fluency and (3) perceived fluency.  What are these and how might they help contemporary English language learners?

Utterance fluency” is measured by the speed of one’s speech, breakdown (pausing) and repair (corrections). “Utterance fluency” is enabled by underlying cognitive processing that is fast and efficient, and called “cognitive fluency.”

Cognitive fluency” forms the basis for listeners’ impressions that a speaker is fluent—i.e. “perceived fluency.”

These three distinctions are based on a concept of “fluency” that is individualistic and thought-based. Such theory tends to be judgmental, however, and blames the learner for their shortcomings in attaining “fluency.”

The 21st century has seen new ways of conceptualizing the term, as developing from interactional settings, as a social process and as a collaborative activity, rather than the sum of two people’s individual abilities.

This has been termed “interactional fluency,” evident in learners’ minimizing silences between their individual turns, collaboratively; and evident in how speakers create linkages across the turns they take, such as through body language and small gestures.

In contemporary times, Peltonen says that “fluency” is built through three themes that pertain to how we teach language and assess it, and how learners learn it: (1) there is fluency in interaction; (2) there is a continuum between fluency and disfluency (even native speakers slide into disfluency, depending on the speaking partner and subject matter); and (3) there is one’s first language speaking style that is a factor that can influence second language fluency.

Peltonen writes that the old pedagogical perception that separates “fluent” from “disfluent” speech is now seen as oversimplified. Some aspects of speech that have historically been classified as signs of “disfluency” are often strategies used by learners to secure time to think, to avoid long silences, and so, to serve fluency (e.g. repetitions, pauses filled by “uh,” “um,” and “you know,” etc.)

Therefore, contemporary researchers (including Peltonen) have established that there is a “continuum” between “fluency and disfluency.” Disfluencies can occur in one’s native language and not only in a second one. Speech doesn’t have to be “perfect,” or “without so-called disfluencies.”

This continuum has allowed more recent language researchers to identify that the speaking style of one’s native language can influence one’s fluency in a second language, instead of comparing second language learners to native speakers of English.

Researchers who take into account a speaker’s (native language) speaking style (formal, informal, academic, etc.) can customize individual learning goals and exercises for studying their second language.

Peltonen concludes by saying that there are three major realities that are important both to learners developing fluency, and to those who teach them: (1) both individual and interactional fluency develop in language teaching; (2) teachers and researchers should reconceptualize “disfluencies” as potentially fluency-maintaining strategies (an “um” is less important than the speaker’s overall comment that follows it); and (3) teachers and researchers should help to raise awareness of learners’ individual speaking styles to facilitate the development of their second language fluency.

How can learning strategies used by native speakers of Spanish, Mandarin, Hindi or Urdu (etc.) help to meet learners’ goals for English fluency? Learners may not achieve, for instance, a fully idiomatic speaking style; but they may develop more idiomatic competency alongside other factors toward fluency, so that they can be easily understood and integrated into their communities.

So if we are developing a more realistic set of ideas around “fluency,” how do we best teach or coach learners to get there?

Unless declined by a learner, I practice not starting language classes with grammar, but instead start with the practical task of reading aloud. I’m influenced in the pragmatic approach of my own mentors, Steve Cavan and Monica Kreuger; and by the Italian language coach (active on Linkedin), Teresa Lara Pugliese.

I’m in favour of a more capacious understanding of what “fluency” involves, since a language is never really learned by starting with traditional categories and rules (some of which international language testing systems use). Instead, as Teresa Pugliese writes, “[language] is learned by entering real, meaningful situations.”

Students are sometimes surprised when (during the first, “discovery” class) I ask about the contexts in which they live and work. They express curiosity about how we’ll proceed from there.

“In that space, between surprise and curiosity,” Pugliese says, “a language stops being a system of rules and becomes a living, usable experience.”

She wrote recently over Linkedin:

Children do not learn through grammar. They live the language first; only later do they become aware of its structures. . . . With adults, the process is different, but not in the way we often assume. Full immersion, as in childhood, is rarely realistic; but that does not mean the adults I work with, need to accumulate, memorize or cite abstract rules.

Adults need functional, usable language. Language that allows adults to act in real contexts; to take part in meetings, to handle professional conversations, to move confidently within a cultural environment.

And to do that, language alone is not enough. Learners equally need to have cultural understanding  (Pugliese).

This is where I too focus my teaching. I draw on the actual personal and professional situations that challenge learners. After I learn about the settings they work and live in, I guide learners to communicate effectively in them.

When contexts are clear, we can purposefully focus on grammar, style of speaking and pronunciation that underpin what they already know they need to express.

Like Pugliese, I find that no two learning paths (classes or meetings) I cultivate with and for my learners are ever the same.

And that’s how it should be.

If you are a language learner, does this strategy sound more clearly applicable to your language learning needs?

And do you agree with a more spacious and flexible view of fluency in either your native or additional language?

If you’re an economic immigrant or second-language academic who struggles with English, please message me to learn how I can help you achieve practical fluency that will meet your goals! 

++++++++

STORYTELLER’s CORNER . . . . 

STORYTELLER’S CORNER: Words, Stories, Riddles

and Jokes on Writing and Editing . . .

This month: twenty-five English language jokes

From “@weareteachers,” some laughter to lighten the “cognitive load” you’re carrying:

(1)   “Your dinner” vs. “You’re dinner.” One leaves you nourished; the other leaves you dead.

(2)   A misplaced modifier walks into a bar owned by a man with a glass eye named Ralph.

(3)   Last night, someone broke into my classroom and stole all of the dictionaries. I’m at a loss for words.

(4)   The passive voice is to be avoided.

(5)   Double negatives are a big no-no.

(6)   Eight vowels, 11 consonants, an exclamation point and a comma appeared in court today. They are due to be sentenced next week.

(7)   Irony is when someone writes, “Your an idiot!”

(8)   I gave a theatrical performance about puns—it was really just a play on words.

(9)   Never leave alphabet soup on the stove when you go out: it could spell disaster!

(10)   Autocorrect has become many writers’ worst enema.

(11)   I avoid cliches like the plague.

(12)   Thanks for explaining the definition of “many.” It means a lot.

(13)   I wrote a song about tortillas. It’s a wrap.

(14)   When two English majors got married, the pastor said, “I now pronouns you, he and she.”

(15)   He was a surgeon with bad punctuation. He got fired for leaving out a colon.

(16)   Seven days without a pun makes one weak.

(17) Every time you make a typo, the errorists win.

(18) The past, present and future walked into a bar. It was tense.

(19) It’s raining cats and dogs out there and I just stepped in a poodle!

(20) Why are so many people bothered by grammatical errors? I couldn’t care fewer!

(21) English is a trying language to learn. It can be understood through tough, thorough thoughts, though.

(22) A mixed metaphor walks into a bar, seeing the handwriting on the wall but hoping to nip it in the bud.

(23) “Let’s eat grandma!” “Let’s eat, Grandma!” Punctuation saves lives.

(24) “I” before “e,” except when you run a feisty heist on a weird, beige, foreign neighbour.

(25) “I like cooking my family and pets.” Commas matter.

Do you have a story, riddle or joke on any aspect of the English language? Please share it with me; I’d be delighted to use it in an upcoming issue. 

+++++++

SHOP NEWS:

The “shop” has felt somewhat quieter this month, since the glow of December’s “holiday scene” has long gone dark. But my sometimes solitary days of work have been happily punctuated by new students, and by visits with (and messages) from fellow creatives (writers, editors, designers, photographers). The latter were featured in the first official meeting of my nearly 15-year-old writers’ group, under the new name of “Saskatoon small business group.” We are currently and very ably led by Ashleigh Mattern.

Special thanks (in no particular order) to the new students I’m teaching/ coaching and learning from; and to local editor, Dawn Loewen; communications director, Aasa Marshall; fundraising communications expert, Richard Kies;  photographers, Debra Marshall and Tara Kalyn; entrepreneurial and governance leader and director, Monica Kreuger; China-Canada trade and business expert, William Wang; the U of S International Medical Graduates’ Support Program coordinator, Leah Buschmann, and administrative coordinator, Carlie Russell; and IT “whisperer,” Jordon MacKenzie.

And in my wider community of friends (with whom I keep “fluent”) — Erin Watson, Nial Willems, Beth Brimner, Sharon Wiseman, Rev. Roberto and Heather De Sandoli, Laura Van Loon, Martha Fergusson, Barbara McEown, Fafali Ahiahonu, Janet Okoko and Trung Nguyen.

Long-distance friends (now in BC) are Christel Jordaan-Schlebusch and Dewald Schlebusch. (Apologies to any I may have missed!)

+++++++

There are always other writers, editors, coaches, entrepreneurs, businesses and programs to promote in Saskatchewan.

Please  write me to share your stories . . . . 

But for now, this is a wrap for mid-February!

+++++++

ABOUT US:

Between 2011 and December 2018, Elizabeth Shih Communications chronicled the stories of B2B marketing and communications on the Prairies and across the country.

Effective January 1, 2019, I rebranded as “Storytelling Communications.” I now help economic immigrants and internationally trained (non-native speaking) academics to communicate more clearly in English–both in writing and by speaking–so they can better succeed in Canadian workplaces, marketplaces and academic settings.

Interested in learning more? Please contact me through my CASL-compliant website (www.elizabethshih.com).

After I receive your message, I’ll be pleased to discuss projects with you!

Please visit my website for more information (www.storytellingcommunications.ca).

“Is training AI to write like you a fool’s errand?” Copywriter Bob Bly weighs in

The legendary B2B Copywriter, Bob Bly (whom I was delighted to meet in the US in 2012), recently blogged on the topic, “Is training AI to write like you a fool’s errand?”

Bly is a lifelong writer, so, he objects (first) that he would never outsource his craft at all, much less to a force whose processes he does not know. (“Why would I want to use ChatGPT . . . when I both enjoy [writing] immensely and do it reasonably well?”). He quotes the writer, Ben Settle, as saying, “The joy of writing is not in speed or style . . . it is in the bleeding, constant rewriting, and burgeoning floodgates of thoughts that can only come from battling the blank page.”

Secondly, Bly says, some marketers and communication-types argue that AI can “take care of the grunt work.”

Bly argues that “writing is not grunt work.” That “Human writing is anything but. . . Essentially, the core of writing is thinking.” And he quotes Plato: “Thinking is the talking of the soul with itself.” Do we really want to give up the fundamentally human processes of thinking and feeling?

True “grunt work,” Bly writes, inheres in prompting and “fixing up” bad ChatGPT prose!

Last year, in conversation with (the brilliant) English copywriter, Nick Usborne, in his “Futureproof Copywriting” course, learners (including me) felt happiest when AI would perform “grunt” background work for us (e.g. researching and retrieving sources, critiquing weak areas in our drafts.) But each of us still absolutely wanted to stay in the driver’s seat of our own writing. We aspired to be “the human in the loop.” One year later, that plan rings utterly naïve.

Copywriters have very little control over how (and how much) they use AI.  Our clients or clients’ companies, including the investors and political players that control them, dictate that.

Thirdly, Bly observes, in his response to the current wave of heavy AI use, few AI writers actually make real money with AI (even under the Amazon book-generating industry). Most of the marketers in this area make money “by creating, teaching and selling ‘how to write with AI’ courses.”

Fourthly, he rejects that anyone should “get AI to write like [they] do.” He says: “I have no desire to train AI to write like me, because I already write like me . . . and have spent 45+ years learning how to do so.” One of Bly’s colleagues observes that “the funny thing about even trying to use AI to do this,  is you will spend more time trying to get AI to do anything right, style-wise, than you would writing the damn thing yourself.”

Even if you can speed up copy generation, “when you’re done, you will find that AI doesn’t write all that well—and doesn’t sound much like you, either.”

Writers who use AI extensively are spending “more time than ever . . . and publishing LESS,” one of Bly’s colleagues has complained to him.

Instead of reckoning with a blank page or screen (something long ago overcome by making “mind-maps” [as writers Ed Gandia and Daphne Gray-Grant have long lauded]), “now [writers] stare at ChatGPT output, wondering how to fix it.”

Fifthly, Bly reminds us that many readers and publishers don’t want to read AI writing. More and more mainstream book publishers are rejecting books that they suspect were written using AI. (The sad dispute over whether writers use em-dashes points to mainstream publishers’ anxieties over AI use.)

Sixthly (and finally, for this round of the AI debate), Bly disputes that AI’s “speed” outpaces its “performance.” Many AI training courses promote how to learn “to use AI to write your book for you in days.” But he intones this logic shows sadly that “what matters most today is how fast you can write rather than how well you can write” (my emphasis).

Bly acknowledges that in many genres and media (such as daily newspapers), writing quickly is valuable when tight and “frequent deadlines” are required. But, he adds, “in other channels and types of writing, quality trumps speed every time.” In Bly’s homegrown territory of copywriting, he says, “clients value landing pages that double revenues much more than those that could be written in half the time, but [which] hardly move the sales needle.”

Now, AI enthusiasts might be tempted to label Bly a curmudgeon and traditionalist. But after earning millions of dollars over more than 40 years of copywriting (including over 100 books on topics including copywriting, all written by himself, and none by AI), we should not dismiss his rebuttal too fast.

As the “Godfather of AI,” Geoffrey Hinton, argued (when accepting the Nobel Prize two months ago today), many of us have become anxious because danger inheres in our building AI that are smarter than we are—and not only in our writing. The manipulation of supra-human technology is easily attained by authoritarian rulers and governments (e.g. the US, Russia, China, North Korea and more). Such regimes can and will–if unbridled–bring the annihilation of any humanity with values and decency.

So “training AI to write like you” is not only a “fool’s errand,” as Bob Bly writes. Training AI to write in place of us (implied in the question)—is to usurp our legitimate space in the creative processes of reading, thinking and writing. Such an overthrow allows AI to outsmart us—it is already doing so (and faster than ever before).

Given the state of our world in the 21st century, that’s not only a “fool’s errand” but a fool’s demise.

Since the “cat is already out of the bag” in this reality, it behoves us creatives to lament all that can be (and is being) lost, before the loss overtakes us all.

And now it’s your turn: what are the implications of the ways you use AI? How do you picture the future of humanity in an AI world?