Something we should stop having done

A news story from London's National Gallery illustrates the trouble with something people say every day.

Olivia Harris/Reuters
Fireworks explode over the Olympic Stadium during the closing ceremony of the London 2012 Paralympic Games September 9.

This column is coming to you live (well, almost) from a London still flush with an Olympic afterglow. The shade of the moment is Paralympic pink; and images of triumphant special athletes, beaming with their medals, are everywhere, splashed across the front pages of newspapers and video screens of whatever size, including the truly enormous ones in places such as Trafalgar Square.

It seems to have been the biggest national outpouring of emotion since the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, 15 years ago; only this time, people have noticed, the emotions are rather happier.

The "Agenda" page in the magazine of The Independent on Sunday shared, under the heading "Lexpionage," this little coinage: "Parasoul, n. An umbrella feeling, extending across the country, encompassing a warm glow that comes from seeing Team GB continue to trounce the rest of the world on the athletics field, in the velodrome, etc etc."

The Games haven't been the only story in London, though, and paging through the papers the other day I spotted an item in The Sunday Times that began: "An oil painting by Albrecht Dürer bought for £10 million by the National Gallery has had serious doubts cast on its authenticity."

Dear Reader, I try to be careful about how many pet peeves I let myself adopt, but I want your support on this one: The idiom "to have something done" does not serve us – or Dürer – well in this instance.

It works perfectly well when we say, "I'm having my hair cut tomorrow," or "They're having their bathroom remodeled." As in a passive-voice construction ("the hair is being cut"), the hairdresser or the contractor is unknown. The one doing the arranging, the "having done," is in charge. So there's a certain alignment between the grammatical subject ("I" or "they") and the logical subject.

Our painting, though, is the logical subject of the sentence but struggles to be its grammatical subject. A painting can't "have its authenticity questioned" in the same way I can have my hair cut. It's just a painting, after all; it can't call up art experts to have them come over for a look.

The geology of the art world is less stable than you might imagine. When I visited the National Gallery myself the other day, our guide was surprised to see a new label on a picture long thought to be a Titian self-portrait, forerunner of a famous Rembrandt self-portrait hanging nearby. Both featured self-confident 30-somethings with quilted sleeves, in three-quarter poses. But the Titian is now thought to be a portrait of someone else.

But back to grammar. A passive construction would get around the problem sentence in the Times: "Serious doubts have been cast on the authenticity of an oil painting hitherto thought to be by Albrecht Dürer...." Passive voice drives many editors around the bend, but there's a place for it, and this is as good an example as any. This recasting also puts "serious doubts" at the beginning, following good newspaper style in leading with what's most important.

The "to have something done" idiom also shows up – awkwardly – in the way people so often talk about property crime: "They had their house broken into while they were on vacation." Unless we're suggesting that "they" are colluding in an insurance scam, there's something not quite right about this sentence. Do you see what I mean?

If I could root this and similar usages out of the English language, I might turn Olympic pink with happiness.

[Editor's note: The original version of this piece referred to Titian (ca. 1488-1576) as having been influenced by Rembrandt (1606-1669).]

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to Something we should stop having done
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today