Our FFB AWDoll launched into a tirade against us on Facebook today, responding to an earlier blog post in which we encouraged aspiring writers to "just write" in an effort to improve. We don't know precisely which post she was referring to, but it certainly sounds like something we would say, so we don't deny it.
(DIGRESSION: AWDoll is a paragon of moderation, so her tirades are not so much vitriolic as they are, oh, Canadian. EOD)
At any rate, her point was that students benefit at least as much from thoughtful feedback as they do from the simple fact of writing. We don't deny the benefits of thoughtful, not to say nitpicky, feedback. Indeed, our own students receive extensive (they might say 'obsessive') feedback on everything they write. Nevertheless, we would argue that writing regularly, even without feedback, will prove more beneficial to a writer than, say, not writing.
We go back to Stephen King's advice--
(DIGRESSION: We would say "Stop us if we've told you this before," but you can't, so. . . nyah nyah. EOD)
--He essentially says that writing is a muscle. Just as, if you lift a ten-pound weight fifty times a day, you will build up your arm strength, so, too, will you build up your "writing strength" if you write a few hundred words a day. Of course, writing is different from bodybuilding in that it is a communicative medium and, at some point, you need to show other people what you've done to know if you've done it well. Nevertheless, the simple fact of writing--and, indeed, reading--every day will develop in anyone a sense of rhythm, a sense of language, a comfort with the very act of writing that will, indeed, lead to greater fluency.
Now, if you'll excuse us, we have to go lift some weights.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Friday, March 18, 2011
An Open Letter to TV Writers (and Their Ilk)
Dear TV Writers (and Your Ilk):
Could we have a moratorium on the line, "English, please?" and variations thereon? As in,
Could we have a moratorium on the line, "English, please?" and variations thereon? As in,
SCIENTIST-TYPE: We have to reconfigure the warp-drive so that the tachyon-stream doesn't oscillate asymmetrically; otherwise, the converse slipstream will externally refract the wavelength and set off a nuclear chain-reaction!Seriously, that might have been funny back in the day (and whenever this "day" was, we want nothing to do with it), but now it's just old. We suggest the following dialogue-exchange to put this hoary cliche to rest once and for all:
OTHER-GUY-TYPE: Uh, English, please?
SCIENTIST-TYPE: We have to reconfigure the warp-drive so that the tachyon-stream doesn't oscillate asymmetrically; otherwise, the converse slipstream will externally refract the wavelength and set off a nuclear chain-reaction!Next up, we go to work on the hoary cliche of calling cliches "hoary."
OTHER-GUY-TYPE: Uh, English, please?
SCIENTIST-TYPE: That was English. You're just a moron.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Well-Begun and All Done: Chronic City
The book: Chronic City by Jonathan Lethem
First line: I first met Perkus Tooth in an office.
Last Line: I only hope it doesn't get any smaller.
There may be writers alive who "do" New York better than Jonathan Lethem, but we can't think of any off the top of our head. His Fortress of Solitude evokes 1970's Brooklyn with an eye and ear for detail that brought tears to the eyes of this transplanted New Yorker. Chronic City presents Lethem's take on Manhattan.
Well, sort of.
In this novel, we have a sort of alternate-universe Manhattan: one that is very much like the one you might see if you took a trip to the Big Apple, but. . . yet. . . not quite. In this Manhattan, the New York Times publishes a special "war free" edition. In this reality, the tragedy that struck lower Manhattan was a mysterious "grey fog" that continues to shroud the bottom of the island. Here, it snows in August, and an entire luxury apartment building has been bequeathed to the city's stray-dog population. In this universe, Muppets don't exist, but "The Gnuppet Show" is immensely popular. And in this New York, something that may or may not be a gigantic escaped tiger wreaks havoc on the East Side, destroying bodegas, disrupting subway service, and thwarting any attempts at its apprehension or destruction.
And let's face it, if you're reading a novel whose main characters have names like Chase Insteadman, Oona Laszlo, Richard Abneg, Georgina ("The Hawman") Hawkmanaji, and the aforementioned Perkus Tooth, you know you're not exactly dealing with the world as it is.
The novel centers around Chase Insteadman, a former child-star, now grown up and liiving off of residuals in New York City. He meets Perkus Tooth, a sort of rock-critic-who-isn't, a reclusive marijuana connoisseur who lives in a cluttered East Side apartment and fulminates on film-theory and the nature of reality itself. Reality, indeed, is a major theme of this novel: What is real? The tiger? Chase's imperiled fiancee Janice Trumbull, a cancer-stricken astronaut trapped in a space-station that has been blockaded by Chinese mines? "Chaldrons," an obsession of Perkus'--unattainable objets d'art that may or may not exist in reality and/or in a "Second Life"-type online game called "Yet Another World"? Through Perkus and those around him, Chase comes to understand the nature of his own reality--that which may be "getting smaller" at the novel's end.
Jonathan Lethem is a magnificent writer. If you've never read him, you should start with Fortress of Solitude and Motherless Brooklyn, whose main character is a Tourett's Syndrome-suffering detective. Then quickly make your way over to Chronic City.
First line: I first met Perkus Tooth in an office.
Last Line: I only hope it doesn't get any smaller.
There may be writers alive who "do" New York better than Jonathan Lethem, but we can't think of any off the top of our head. His Fortress of Solitude evokes 1970's Brooklyn with an eye and ear for detail that brought tears to the eyes of this transplanted New Yorker. Chronic City presents Lethem's take on Manhattan.
Well, sort of.
In this novel, we have a sort of alternate-universe Manhattan: one that is very much like the one you might see if you took a trip to the Big Apple, but. . . yet. . . not quite. In this Manhattan, the New York Times publishes a special "war free" edition. In this reality, the tragedy that struck lower Manhattan was a mysterious "grey fog" that continues to shroud the bottom of the island. Here, it snows in August, and an entire luxury apartment building has been bequeathed to the city's stray-dog population. In this universe, Muppets don't exist, but "The Gnuppet Show" is immensely popular. And in this New York, something that may or may not be a gigantic escaped tiger wreaks havoc on the East Side, destroying bodegas, disrupting subway service, and thwarting any attempts at its apprehension or destruction.
And let's face it, if you're reading a novel whose main characters have names like Chase Insteadman, Oona Laszlo, Richard Abneg, Georgina ("The Hawman") Hawkmanaji, and the aforementioned Perkus Tooth, you know you're not exactly dealing with the world as it is.
The novel centers around Chase Insteadman, a former child-star, now grown up and liiving off of residuals in New York City. He meets Perkus Tooth, a sort of rock-critic-who-isn't, a reclusive marijuana connoisseur who lives in a cluttered East Side apartment and fulminates on film-theory and the nature of reality itself. Reality, indeed, is a major theme of this novel: What is real? The tiger? Chase's imperiled fiancee Janice Trumbull, a cancer-stricken astronaut trapped in a space-station that has been blockaded by Chinese mines? "Chaldrons," an obsession of Perkus'--unattainable objets d'art that may or may not exist in reality and/or in a "Second Life"-type online game called "Yet Another World"? Through Perkus and those around him, Chase comes to understand the nature of his own reality--that which may be "getting smaller" at the novel's end.
Jonathan Lethem is a magnificent writer. If you've never read him, you should start with Fortress of Solitude and Motherless Brooklyn, whose main character is a Tourett's Syndrome-suffering detective. Then quickly make your way over to Chronic City.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
[BLEEP]
Students often ask us whether it's OK to curse in essays. We explain that we personally have no problem with profanity; indeed, Mother-of-Solipsist, despite (or perhaps because of) being a junior high school English teacher for some 20 years has one of the foulest mouths known to the English-speaking world. "Little Shit" (said affectionately) was one of her tamer nicknames for the Solipsist.
Our issue is not with the words themselves--there are no bad words--
[DIGRESSION: Actually, that's not true. "Pulchritude" is a bad word: A word that means "beauty" should not be so aesthetically unpleasing. EOD]
--only bad intentions. Our issue is with compositional laziness. Which is to say: One can certainly use scatological vocabulary, but only if those are the best words to use. They're often not.
While we're on the subject of profanity, though, can we have a moratorium on silly censorship? Time was that TV networks, when "bleeping" profanity, would actually "bleep" the profanity. Or they would dub in a less offensive word, so "shit" might become "shoot" (and the character's voice would generally shoot up an octave or two when he said it). More honest, and ultimately less annoying, were simple mutings of the offending word; these provided a "Mad Libs" sort of moment, wherein we the viewers could fill in the blank space with a profanity of our choice.
Over the years, though, this muting has gotten briefer and briefer. In the past, we might have heard a character say, "What the ____ is going on?!?" This gradually became something closer to, "What the ___k is going on?!?" Now, possibly because of the advent of reality-TV fare like "Rock of Love" or "The Jersey Shore"--in which some 50% of the dialogue could get one exiled from an Amish community--you're likely to hear something like, "What the f_ck is going on?!?" Apparently all the evil resides in the vowel.
Seriously, why bother? We all know what the characters are saying? Pro-censorship groups will claim that we are somehow "protecting children" by shielding them somewhat from exposure to vulgarity. But are young children really watching "The Jersey Shore"? And, if they are, isn't that the problem?
Would anyone argue that "A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila"--even if scrubbed of all its profane language--is somehow more culturally acceptable than, say, "Glengarry Glen Ross"?
Fuck no!
Solipsistography
"From Cee Lo Green to Pink, Speaking the Unspeakable"
Our issue is not with the words themselves--there are no bad words--
[DIGRESSION: Actually, that's not true. "Pulchritude" is a bad word: A word that means "beauty" should not be so aesthetically unpleasing. EOD]
--only bad intentions. Our issue is with compositional laziness. Which is to say: One can certainly use scatological vocabulary, but only if those are the best words to use. They're often not.
While we're on the subject of profanity, though, can we have a moratorium on silly censorship? Time was that TV networks, when "bleeping" profanity, would actually "bleep" the profanity. Or they would dub in a less offensive word, so "shit" might become "shoot" (and the character's voice would generally shoot up an octave or two when he said it). More honest, and ultimately less annoying, were simple mutings of the offending word; these provided a "Mad Libs" sort of moment, wherein we the viewers could fill in the blank space with a profanity of our choice.
Over the years, though, this muting has gotten briefer and briefer. In the past, we might have heard a character say, "What the ____ is going on?!?" This gradually became something closer to, "What the ___k is going on?!?" Now, possibly because of the advent of reality-TV fare like "Rock of Love" or "The Jersey Shore"--in which some 50% of the dialogue could get one exiled from an Amish community--you're likely to hear something like, "What the f_ck is going on?!?" Apparently all the evil resides in the vowel.
Seriously, why bother? We all know what the characters are saying? Pro-censorship groups will claim that we are somehow "protecting children" by shielding them somewhat from exposure to vulgarity. But are young children really watching "The Jersey Shore"? And, if they are, isn't that the problem?
Would anyone argue that "A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila"--even if scrubbed of all its profane language--is somehow more culturally acceptable than, say, "Glengarry Glen Ross"?
Fuck no!
Solipsistography
"From Cee Lo Green to Pink, Speaking the Unspeakable"
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Book 'Em
What do Doris Lessing, Joyce Carol Oates, and Sarah Palin have in common? If you said plantar fasciitis, you're only half-right! In fact, they are all mentioned in the same sentence in an article in today's paper. And they're all published by HarperCollins. Which may mean three things in common, depending on how you count. Or only one since we made up the whole plantar fasciitis thing. Anyway, the point is that HarperCollins has begun restricting the way libraries can use e-books.
In the past, when a library would purchase a book (or "book") , the library was free to do all manner of strange and wonderful things with said book: They could boil it; they could use it as sporting equipment; they could even do something called "lending." "Lending" was a ritualized activity, wherein a member of the general public would come to the library, look fruitlessly for a book he wanted, decide to take something else out for the hell of it, wait seven to 94 minutes in a line, and then be allowed by a sharp-faced guardian of literature (unless he were fortunate enough to encounter the rare Tina-Fey-Sexy-Librarian type) to take the book home for anywhere from a week to ten years. (Of course, such longer periods of "borrowing" were discouraged by ever-increasing fines, the largest of which are believed by many to be a culprit in this country's recent foreclosure crisis.) These books were seldom actually read, but clients received a sort of osmotic sense of enrichment simply by toting an armful of them around.
Now, however, with the advent of e-books, one doesn't need actually to cross the lion-guarded threshold of one's local library to borrow books; one can simply download reading material directly to one's e-reader (unless, apparently, it's a Kindle--not sure what that's all about). The books will remain on the reader for the allotted lending period, after which they will simply disappear.
When a publisher sells an e-book to a library, the publisher understands the library will lend the book out. Until now, publishers have treated e-books the same as physical books: When a library buys an e-book, the library owns the book. HarperCollins, though, has instituted a policy whereby e-books disappear from the library's collection after being lent out 26 times--after which the library must buy another copy if it wishes to continue lending it.
The publisher fears it will lose money if it does not engage in such skullduggery. We fail to see how, aside from losing the money libraries would pay to replace lost or damaged physical copies. Indeed, we imagine libararies will lose money by lending e-books. Not only will they be unable to hold as many fundraising book sales, as was noted in the article; they will also, we imagine, be unable to charge late fees. Which, as mentioned above, may run into the billions of dollars.
Now, we know Tea Partiers and Wisconsin politicians will take great pleasure in the thought of fatcat librarians being stripped of their lavish lifestyles, generated on the backs of hard-working, blue-collar late-fee-slaves. But we feel that libraries, although obviously overfunded, are worthwhile institutions. Publishers should thank libraries for the part they play in the uphill battle to promote literacy, not force them to pay (and pay and pay again) for materials they have already bought.
Solipsistography
"Publisher Limits Shelf Life for Library E-Books"
In the past, when a library would purchase a book (or "book") , the library was free to do all manner of strange and wonderful things with said book: They could boil it; they could use it as sporting equipment; they could even do something called "lending." "Lending" was a ritualized activity, wherein a member of the general public would come to the library, look fruitlessly for a book he wanted, decide to take something else out for the hell of it, wait seven to 94 minutes in a line, and then be allowed by a sharp-faced guardian of literature (unless he were fortunate enough to encounter the rare Tina-Fey-Sexy-Librarian type) to take the book home for anywhere from a week to ten years. (Of course, such longer periods of "borrowing" were discouraged by ever-increasing fines, the largest of which are believed by many to be a culprit in this country's recent foreclosure crisis.) These books were seldom actually read, but clients received a sort of osmotic sense of enrichment simply by toting an armful of them around.
Now, however, with the advent of e-books, one doesn't need actually to cross the lion-guarded threshold of one's local library to borrow books; one can simply download reading material directly to one's e-reader (unless, apparently, it's a Kindle--not sure what that's all about). The books will remain on the reader for the allotted lending period, after which they will simply disappear.
When a publisher sells an e-book to a library, the publisher understands the library will lend the book out. Until now, publishers have treated e-books the same as physical books: When a library buys an e-book, the library owns the book. HarperCollins, though, has instituted a policy whereby e-books disappear from the library's collection after being lent out 26 times--after which the library must buy another copy if it wishes to continue lending it.
The publisher fears it will lose money if it does not engage in such skullduggery. We fail to see how, aside from losing the money libraries would pay to replace lost or damaged physical copies. Indeed, we imagine libararies will lose money by lending e-books. Not only will they be unable to hold as many fundraising book sales, as was noted in the article; they will also, we imagine, be unable to charge late fees. Which, as mentioned above, may run into the billions of dollars.
Now, we know Tea Partiers and Wisconsin politicians will take great pleasure in the thought of fatcat librarians being stripped of their lavish lifestyles, generated on the backs of hard-working, blue-collar late-fee-slaves. But we feel that libraries, although obviously overfunded, are worthwhile institutions. Publishers should thank libraries for the part they play in the uphill battle to promote literacy, not force them to pay (and pay and pay again) for materials they have already bought.
Solipsistography
"Publisher Limits Shelf Life for Library E-Books"
Monday, March 14, 2011
Some Things Are Better Left Unsaid
From today's paper:
About three weeks before the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the President proposed the authorization of increased offshore oil exploration.
Note to President Obama: Sir, stop talking about energy!
Seriously, we're all in favor of solar, but if Obama endorses it, we'll probably be engulfed by a supernova before Memorial Day.
Also, when did Republicans decide that if something doesn't happen to Americans, it doesn't happen? Last week, Representative Peter King said the Irish Republican Army shouldn't be considered a terrorist organization because "the I.R.A. never attacked the United States." Today, in defense of the continued development of nuclear power, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said, "we ought not to make American and domestic policy based upon an event that happened in Japan."
Is Senator McConnell under the impression that the laws of nuclear physics are somehow different in Asia? Granted, Japan does have more Godzilla-related incidents than the United States, but we think the scientific fundamentals are generally the same.
Solipsistography:
"For Lawmaker Examining Terror, a Pro-I.R.A. Past"
"Obama to Open Offshore Areas to Oil Drilling for First Time"
"U.S. Nuclear Industry Faces New Uncertainty"
"Until this weekend, President Obama, mainstream environmental groups and large numbers of Republicans and Democrats in Congress agreed that nuclear power offered a steady energy source and part of the solution to climate change, even as they disagreed on virtually every other aspect of energy policy."Then, of course, this weekend happened and Japan melted into the sea.
About three weeks before the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the President proposed the authorization of increased offshore oil exploration.
Note to President Obama: Sir, stop talking about energy!
Seriously, we're all in favor of solar, but if Obama endorses it, we'll probably be engulfed by a supernova before Memorial Day.
Also, when did Republicans decide that if something doesn't happen to Americans, it doesn't happen? Last week, Representative Peter King said the Irish Republican Army shouldn't be considered a terrorist organization because "the I.R.A. never attacked the United States." Today, in defense of the continued development of nuclear power, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said, "we ought not to make American and domestic policy based upon an event that happened in Japan."
Is Senator McConnell under the impression that the laws of nuclear physics are somehow different in Asia? Granted, Japan does have more Godzilla-related incidents than the United States, but we think the scientific fundamentals are generally the same.
Solipsistography:
"For Lawmaker Examining Terror, a Pro-I.R.A. Past"
"Obama to Open Offshore Areas to Oil Drilling for First Time"
"U.S. Nuclear Industry Faces New Uncertainty"
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Bye, Frank
In 1992, DC Comics killed off Superman. Also in 1992, George H. W. Bush was defeated in his bid for re-election. In November of that year, the Solipsist wrote an essay for his college newspaper, drawing a parallel between the two events. Shortly after this article appeared, Frank Rich published an article in The New York Times, drawing a similar parallel. We don't mean to insinuate anything by this. We simply mean to point out that Frank Rich is a thief!
THIEF! THIEF! THIEF!
Today, Frank Rich published his final column in the Sunday Times. We wish him the best of luck in his new pursuits. In all sincerity, we've enjoyed his writing over the years, and we appreciate his fighting the good fight against the retrograde forces in our society.
And hey, if he needs any more ideas, he knows where to find us.
THIEF! THIEF! THIEF!
Today, Frank Rich published his final column in the Sunday Times. We wish him the best of luck in his new pursuits. In all sincerity, we've enjoyed his writing over the years, and we appreciate his fighting the good fight against the retrograde forces in our society.
And hey, if he needs any more ideas, he knows where to find us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)