This week is Banned Books Week, which I am celebrating by reading The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood. It's a book that has frequently been censored and banned for its critical treatment of religion (true), and, more laughably, for its misogyny and its depiction of polygamy and violence (these are all elements that the book portrays negatively). There are many writers who communicate eloquently on the subject of censorship, Atwood included, but I am particularly struck by the following letter, written in 1973 by Kurt Vonnegut to the man who burned his books:
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/03/i-am-very-real.html
We live, as Vonnegut points out, in a country that prizes and was indeed founded upon the ideal of freedom. Freedom of speech and of knowledge is enshrined in the very documents that form the fabric of our government. But true freedom only exists with unfettered access to information. It's horrible that teachers -- those who are responsible for the youngest, most impressionable members of our society -- would seek to restrict any child's learning.
Vonnegut rightly takes censorship as an insult -- to the writer, to the reader, and to the children who should be presumed intelligent and independent enough to read a work and think critically about it. A reader should be free to read -- and disagree with -- whatever she chooses. A reader who is never challenged by concepts that are difficult, disturbing, or opposed to her own perspective will never gain the rich education that reading offers, and will never learn to think for herself. No child should be denied that education on the whim of the adult at the front of the classroom.
And this is why Banned Books Week is important. It reminds us every year that this is an ongoing battle, that censorship still happens in this country, and that ignorance and bigotry must be fought at every juncture.
Showing posts with label horrible. Show all posts
Showing posts with label horrible. Show all posts
Thursday, September 25, 2014
Monday, July 7, 2014
Thoughts on Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, Especially Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Brilliant Dissent
Like many of you, I am greatly disappointed, if not entirely shocked, by the recent Supreme Court ruling in the case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. The decision was a Plessy v. Ferguson of our time, putting an already disadvantaged group, women, at the mercy of discriminatory organizations for superstitious and spurious reasons that should have no place in American public life. Unsurprisingly, all three of the female justices on the Supreme Court voted against Hobby Lobby.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg's scathing, legally scintillating dissent should itself vindicate our sex in the face of a risibly paternalistic ruling that presumes women incapable of making their own decisions about their reproductive health. I dare any of the (all-male) justices on the opposing side to produce a more compelling and well-reasoned argument than this:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/231974154/Ginsburg-Dissent
(It's worth reading the entire way through. Multiple times, if necessary.)
This ruling is a severe blow to women's rights in our country; the earlier comparison to Plessy v. Ferguson is no exaggeration. Under the guise of religious freedom, this Supreme Court decision sets a new precedent of "separate but equal" for employees of companies whose leaders believe that women ought to have less control over their sexual and reproductive lives than men do. Consider that Hobby Lobby is perfectly willing to cover Viagra, circumcision, and vasectomies -- but somehow simultaneously refuses to pay for IUDs and Plan B. This plainly demonstrates that Hobby Lobby is willing to participate in the funding of some forms of birth control and reproductive healthcare, so long as the recipients are male. The Court is essentially sanctioning corporate sexism.
The Supreme Court's majority opinion significantly undermines the credibility of the institution and the ruling, as it is laden with ignorance and misinformation about women's health, contraceptives, and even about Christianity itself. For example, intrauterine devices primarily work by preventing fertilization rather than by causing a woman's body to reject the implantation of an embryo -- which means that, even under the most conservative Christian understanding of "the beginning of life," IUDs do not negatively affect human beings with personal rights. Hobby Lobby therefore does not even have reasonable religious grounds in refusing to cover IUDs. For that matter, Hobby Lobby's 401K plans invest in some of the same medical device and healthcare companies that make the products Hobby Lobby objects to covering. This is blatantly hypocritical, and the five Catholic male justices who sided with Hobby Lobby should have seen right through it. This Economist article does an excellent job of deconstructing the hypocrisies and irrationality of Hobby Lobby's position:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/07/hobby-lobby-and-religious-exceptions
Perhaps even more disturbing, though, is the majority's insistence that a corporation should be allowed to pick and choose the elements of the healthcare it is required to provide for its employees. So long as a corporation operates in this country, it ought to adhere to all of this country's laws, especially where they concern employees who are American citizens and who depend on these laws for protection. This savvy comedian, who spoke out about the Hobby Lobby case before the Supreme Court came to its decision, points out that much as citizens have to pay all of the taxes we owe even though we might not agree with every government function that our tax dollars pay for (such as the Iraq War), a company must similarly pay for everything it is legally bound to provide for its employees, regardless of its owner's personal beliefs:
Yes, I have strong feelings about this decision, as should all women and anyone who supports equal rights for women. Let's hope that, much as Plessy was followed by Brown v. Board, that a future Supreme Court will overturn this abhorrent, misguided ruling.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg's scathing, legally scintillating dissent should itself vindicate our sex in the face of a risibly paternalistic ruling that presumes women incapable of making their own decisions about their reproductive health. I dare any of the (all-male) justices on the opposing side to produce a more compelling and well-reasoned argument than this:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/231974154/Ginsburg-Dissent
(It's worth reading the entire way through. Multiple times, if necessary.)
This ruling is a severe blow to women's rights in our country; the earlier comparison to Plessy v. Ferguson is no exaggeration. Under the guise of religious freedom, this Supreme Court decision sets a new precedent of "separate but equal" for employees of companies whose leaders believe that women ought to have less control over their sexual and reproductive lives than men do. Consider that Hobby Lobby is perfectly willing to cover Viagra, circumcision, and vasectomies -- but somehow simultaneously refuses to pay for IUDs and Plan B. This plainly demonstrates that Hobby Lobby is willing to participate in the funding of some forms of birth control and reproductive healthcare, so long as the recipients are male. The Court is essentially sanctioning corporate sexism.
The Supreme Court's majority opinion significantly undermines the credibility of the institution and the ruling, as it is laden with ignorance and misinformation about women's health, contraceptives, and even about Christianity itself. For example, intrauterine devices primarily work by preventing fertilization rather than by causing a woman's body to reject the implantation of an embryo -- which means that, even under the most conservative Christian understanding of "the beginning of life," IUDs do not negatively affect human beings with personal rights. Hobby Lobby therefore does not even have reasonable religious grounds in refusing to cover IUDs. For that matter, Hobby Lobby's 401K plans invest in some of the same medical device and healthcare companies that make the products Hobby Lobby objects to covering. This is blatantly hypocritical, and the five Catholic male justices who sided with Hobby Lobby should have seen right through it. This Economist article does an excellent job of deconstructing the hypocrisies and irrationality of Hobby Lobby's position:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/07/hobby-lobby-and-religious-exceptions
Perhaps even more disturbing, though, is the majority's insistence that a corporation should be allowed to pick and choose the elements of the healthcare it is required to provide for its employees. So long as a corporation operates in this country, it ought to adhere to all of this country's laws, especially where they concern employees who are American citizens and who depend on these laws for protection. This savvy comedian, who spoke out about the Hobby Lobby case before the Supreme Court came to its decision, points out that much as citizens have to pay all of the taxes we owe even though we might not agree with every government function that our tax dollars pay for (such as the Iraq War), a company must similarly pay for everything it is legally bound to provide for its employees, regardless of its owner's personal beliefs:
Yes, I have strong feelings about this decision, as should all women and anyone who supports equal rights for women. Let's hope that, much as Plessy was followed by Brown v. Board, that a future Supreme Court will overturn this abhorrent, misguided ruling.
Saturday, May 10, 2014
io9: Parenting for Science
I found this story, wherein a professor experiments on his children, hilarious and a bit inspiring (such dedication to the scientific method!), which probably means that I shouldn't reproduce anytime soon...
http://io9.com/questionable-parenting-science-the-tickler-1558053188
Unsurprisingly, this happened two or three generations ago, when it was more socially acceptable for a psychologist to perform experiments on his young and unsuspecting kids in the name of science. (Then again, my father likes to recount the behavioral "experiments" he performed on us when my sister and I were small -- though they were neither as rigorous nor as scientific as Clarence Leuba's.) I'm surprised, though, that his wife was willing to go along with it! Usually, the more responsible parent has veto power over harebrained ideas involving the shared children.
This makes me wonder how many other scientists' children have had rather unorthodox upbringings that have contributed to scientific research. (I read recently in a biography of Alfred Loomis that quite a few members of his extended family, and even occasional house guests, were drafted as test subjects in his experiments.) I hope that in most of those cases, parental instinct would have tempered any potential for lasting damage...
http://io9.com/questionable-parenting-science-the-tickler-1558053188
Unsurprisingly, this happened two or three generations ago, when it was more socially acceptable for a psychologist to perform experiments on his young and unsuspecting kids in the name of science. (Then again, my father likes to recount the behavioral "experiments" he performed on us when my sister and I were small -- though they were neither as rigorous nor as scientific as Clarence Leuba's.) I'm surprised, though, that his wife was willing to go along with it! Usually, the more responsible parent has veto power over harebrained ideas involving the shared children.
This makes me wonder how many other scientists' children have had rather unorthodox upbringings that have contributed to scientific research. (I read recently in a biography of Alfred Loomis that quite a few members of his extended family, and even occasional house guests, were drafted as test subjects in his experiments.) I hope that in most of those cases, parental instinct would have tempered any potential for lasting damage...
Friday, April 11, 2014
R.I.P. Rizzoli Bookstore
As the bibliophiles and New Yorkers among my readers might have heard, the city's iconic Rizzoli Bookstore is being evicted from its iconic Midtown premises, to be replaced by a luxury high-rise. Despite petitions and protests, this historic location was denied landmark status on a pure technicality; the bookstore is housed in what used to be a piano showroom, with vaulted ceilings and massive cast-iron chandeliers that make visitors feel as though they've stepped into the pages of history. (Appropriately, Rizzoli is known for its stock of art books.) Today was the store's last day in business, and it feels a bit like the end of an era.
There's been an outpouring of grief and outrage on the internet, unsurprisingly. One of the most moving and articulate pieces about Rizzoli is this rather personal New Yorker article by Jon Michaud:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2014/01/rizzoli-and-selling-books-to-madonna
It recalls an almost Gatsby-esque old New York, doesn't it? (And of course, the pictures are stunning.) I love the idea -- and it's more than a mere idea -- of a bookstore as the sort of village that raises exemplary young adults. It seems to be a recurring theme both in literature (Christopher Morley and, more recently, Robin Sloan come to mind) and in real life, and it saddens me to think that such an education might no longer be available to coming generations.
I will have more thoughts on this later, I'm sure. For now, though, allow me to wallow.
There's been an outpouring of grief and outrage on the internet, unsurprisingly. One of the most moving and articulate pieces about Rizzoli is this rather personal New Yorker article by Jon Michaud:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2014/01/rizzoli-and-selling-books-to-madonna
It recalls an almost Gatsby-esque old New York, doesn't it? (And of course, the pictures are stunning.) I love the idea -- and it's more than a mere idea -- of a bookstore as the sort of village that raises exemplary young adults. It seems to be a recurring theme both in literature (Christopher Morley and, more recently, Robin Sloan come to mind) and in real life, and it saddens me to think that such an education might no longer be available to coming generations.
I will have more thoughts on this later, I'm sure. For now, though, allow me to wallow.
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
Thoughts on Higher Education, Opportunity, and Systemic Inequality
Education is one of the cornerstones of the American Dream. As a society, we have come to see it as the great equalizer -- a mechanism that, however imperfectly, levels the playing field for children born into different socioeconomic backgrounds and allows individuals to achieve based on talent and effort, rather than on circumstance. This is universally seen as a social benefit. However, the way we discuss education as a culture requires more nuance, particularly with respect to disadvantaged students. This article in The Atlantic raises some interesting and thoughtful points:
http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/01/the-danger-of-telling-poor-kids-that-college-is-the-key-to-social-mobility/283120/
It occurs to me that there are several different but intersecting camps of people who value education: those who see knowledge as a tool and those who see knowledge as a goal; and those who pursue knowledge for themselves and those who pursue knowledge in the interests of the broader community. I conceive of it something like the below (and pardon the primitive ASCII graph):
| Self | World
Theoretical | Truth | Intellectual Discourse
Applied | Advancement | Social Change
In theory, anybody should have the option of choosing any of these four paths (or even multiple paths, if they can manage it) without being told that one is better or more applicable to their situation. It's problematic that a vast population of American students is steered towards the "applied + self" box simply because of the circumstances of their birth. It's inherently unjust, even if it makes sense (especially within the Andrew Carnegie model of the American Dream) that a talented child growing up poor would prioritize climbing the socioeconomic ladder over other intellectual goals, especially compared to an equally talented child growing up in better conditions, for whom such advancement is not as crucial. The latter child is more likely to pursue one of the other three options simply because she wants to. The former child, however, faces significant societal pressures to choose "applied + self," even if she would have chosen one of the other three if fully informed and separated from external influences. After all, people tend to perform better in fields they find genuinely interesting.
This is a fundamental problem because it allows us to perpetuate -- and feel justified in perpetuating -- the systemic limitation of the free will of an entire population of our most vulnerable citizens, disadvantaged youth. It's similar to the idea: "People vote with their stomachs. Only when they are full do they vote with their minds." Just because, in practice, education allows the hungry to fill their stomachs, does not mean that education should be sold to the hungry as a means to fill their stomachs, while it is simultaneously sold to the well-fed as a means to enrich their minds. This, in itself, is a pernicious way that children of different family means are treated unequally, a way that is thus far completely sanctioned within our society. Rather, a truly just society calls for informed and educated citizens who freely choose their life's paths, and whose progress down those paths is determined not by how far behind they started, but rather the distance they are able and willing to walk -- and this will only happen when all children start on a more level field. All students should be allowed to pursue the path they find most rewarding, and to have their successes and failures reflect upon their own effort and talent, rather than on conditions beyond their control. And all students should have the opportunity to make an informed and unencumbered choice for themselves, out of the posited four, at the beginning of their journeys.
http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/01/the-danger-of-telling-poor-kids-that-college-is-the-key-to-social-mobility/283120/
It occurs to me that there are several different but intersecting camps of people who value education: those who see knowledge as a tool and those who see knowledge as a goal; and those who pursue knowledge for themselves and those who pursue knowledge in the interests of the broader community. I conceive of it something like the below (and pardon the primitive ASCII graph):
| Self | World
Theoretical | Truth | Intellectual Discourse
Applied | Advancement | Social Change
In theory, anybody should have the option of choosing any of these four paths (or even multiple paths, if they can manage it) without being told that one is better or more applicable to their situation. It's problematic that a vast population of American students is steered towards the "applied + self" box simply because of the circumstances of their birth. It's inherently unjust, even if it makes sense (especially within the Andrew Carnegie model of the American Dream) that a talented child growing up poor would prioritize climbing the socioeconomic ladder over other intellectual goals, especially compared to an equally talented child growing up in better conditions, for whom such advancement is not as crucial. The latter child is more likely to pursue one of the other three options simply because she wants to. The former child, however, faces significant societal pressures to choose "applied + self," even if she would have chosen one of the other three if fully informed and separated from external influences. After all, people tend to perform better in fields they find genuinely interesting.
This is a fundamental problem because it allows us to perpetuate -- and feel justified in perpetuating -- the systemic limitation of the free will of an entire population of our most vulnerable citizens, disadvantaged youth. It's similar to the idea: "People vote with their stomachs. Only when they are full do they vote with their minds." Just because, in practice, education allows the hungry to fill their stomachs, does not mean that education should be sold to the hungry as a means to fill their stomachs, while it is simultaneously sold to the well-fed as a means to enrich their minds. This, in itself, is a pernicious way that children of different family means are treated unequally, a way that is thus far completely sanctioned within our society. Rather, a truly just society calls for informed and educated citizens who freely choose their life's paths, and whose progress down those paths is determined not by how far behind they started, but rather the distance they are able and willing to walk -- and this will only happen when all children start on a more level field. All students should be allowed to pursue the path they find most rewarding, and to have their successes and failures reflect upon their own effort and talent, rather than on conditions beyond their control. And all students should have the opportunity to make an informed and unencumbered choice for themselves, out of the posited four, at the beginning of their journeys.
Saturday, October 19, 2013
Cover-a-Week #32: "Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots, Pt. 1" by The Flaming Lips
Because it was recently Ada Lovelace Day:
http://youtu.be/K0Y8pf009yo
I have a lot of friends from college who were female computer scientists and engineers. I'm very proud of them -- of what they do, what they represent, and the hard work and extraordinary talent I know it took (I was there, after all). They might not be fighting pink robots, but they are, every day, combating the societal forces that created this unequal world. They're "destroying the status quo, because the status is not quo" -- and I love them for it. This one's for you, ladies.
http://youtu.be/K0Y8pf009yo
I have a lot of friends from college who were female computer scientists and engineers. I'm very proud of them -- of what they do, what they represent, and the hard work and extraordinary talent I know it took (I was there, after all). They might not be fighting pink robots, but they are, every day, combating the societal forces that created this unequal world. They're "destroying the status quo, because the status is not quo" -- and I love them for it. This one's for you, ladies.
Sunday, August 4, 2013
The Problem with Time Travel
I recently saw, and was amused by, this Abstruse Goose comic:
History buffs are often asked (in the process of making an acquaintance) what time period they'd like to inhabit, or at least to visit for a little while. I find that I tend to give answers as if I were white, male, and Christian (my main area of interest is pre-modern and early modern Europe). After all, the Scientific Revolution, or Republican Rome, or the Italian Renaissance are fascinating times to have been alive if you weren't being downtrodden, persecuted, or discriminated against. (I imagine that, being both female and Asian, I would have twice as much difficulty as either of the above characters. I wonder if the probability of death by persecution would increase logarithmically with each undesirable trait?) If I were to actually consider the logistics of visiting a particular time and place, I'd be largely limited to China and, well... there really isn't a good historical era in which to be female.
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
NYTimes: A Religious Perspective on the Newtown Massacre
I have, on occasion, made my views on religion known to readers of this blog. (I don't think religion and politics should be taboo topics of conversation, so long as disagreements are civil and rational.) I consider myself secularly spiritual. I personally think of religion as a blend of mythology and morality, but I have great respect for religious people who live by the true tenets of their creed (which I don't think include holy wars, persecution of minorities, or evangelism), and I believe that the hearts of most religions are benevolent and peace-loving. I appreciate the value of the moral guidance and comfort that religion can bring to believers in difficult times. This is an example of such:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/opinion/dowd-why-god.html?hp&_r=0&gwh=02A7DB3DBD76598A7F25B51569ED6491
This man reminds me of Victor Hugo's Bishop of Digne, one of the first and finest examples of religious men I'd encountered.
Merry Christmas.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/opinion/dowd-why-god.html?hp&_r=0&gwh=02A7DB3DBD76598A7F25B51569ED6491
This man reminds me of Victor Hugo's Bishop of Digne, one of the first and finest examples of religious men I'd encountered.
Merry Christmas.
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Gun Control in the United States, an Open Letter
Dear Mr. President,
I voted for you, because I believed and still believe that your vision for America's future is much like my own: a country where every child has access to a good education, healthcare, and three square meals a day; where we, as a country, promote peace and understanding around the world; where we develop the new technologies that will improve the standard of living here and abroad. This vision is gravely threatened by gun violence, which deprives innocents of the first of the three unalienable rights supposedly guaranteed to all citizens -- life.
It's the Commander in Chief's duty to protect the people of this country. You have demonstrated, Mr. President, that you are capable of doing so; we saw you order the strike on Osama bin Laden with the clear-eyed decisiveness that your job requires. You gave us the rhetoric, the reassurance, and the follow-through on that particular project. You have the chance to do something like that again. It won't be a military exercise this time, where an executive order and a talented team can accomplish, as if by fiat, a coup like your last. It will be a tough slog, a thankless and likely ugly legislative battle that may well demand an aggressive stance against the gun lobby and the far right, rather than the compromise and civility that you so favor. (Perhaps it might be time to unleash our inimitable Vice President on Congress?)
It won't be pretty; it won't be perfect. But it is necessary. Surely you can see this. Surely it is worth fighting for. Please fight for it. We need your boots on the ground as well as your blazing rhetoric. We need your head as well as your heart.
If you need more convincing, or a more professional opinion, this Washington Post column says it better than I did:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-on-guns-take-action-now/2012/12/17/5f300f98-4888-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_story.html?hpid=z3
Yes, we can. We can ensure that these children did not die in vain. Mr. President, yes we can heal this nation. It starts with better gun control.
With hope,
Sarah
I voted for you, because I believed and still believe that your vision for America's future is much like my own: a country where every child has access to a good education, healthcare, and three square meals a day; where we, as a country, promote peace and understanding around the world; where we develop the new technologies that will improve the standard of living here and abroad. This vision is gravely threatened by gun violence, which deprives innocents of the first of the three unalienable rights supposedly guaranteed to all citizens -- life.
It's the Commander in Chief's duty to protect the people of this country. You have demonstrated, Mr. President, that you are capable of doing so; we saw you order the strike on Osama bin Laden with the clear-eyed decisiveness that your job requires. You gave us the rhetoric, the reassurance, and the follow-through on that particular project. You have the chance to do something like that again. It won't be a military exercise this time, where an executive order and a talented team can accomplish, as if by fiat, a coup like your last. It will be a tough slog, a thankless and likely ugly legislative battle that may well demand an aggressive stance against the gun lobby and the far right, rather than the compromise and civility that you so favor. (Perhaps it might be time to unleash our inimitable Vice President on Congress?)
It won't be pretty; it won't be perfect. But it is necessary. Surely you can see this. Surely it is worth fighting for. Please fight for it. We need your boots on the ground as well as your blazing rhetoric. We need your head as well as your heart.
If you need more convincing, or a more professional opinion, this Washington Post column says it better than I did:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-on-guns-take-action-now/2012/12/17/5f300f98-4888-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_story.html?hpid=z3
Yes, we can. We can ensure that these children did not die in vain. Mr. President, yes we can heal this nation. It starts with better gun control.
With hope,
Sarah
Monday, December 10, 2012
Abstruse Goose: The Beneficence of Others
My mother reads the Chinese newspapers, which are chock-full of articles that aren't quite news (recipes, health tips, celebrity gossip, &c.). There was recently a spate of (somewhat alarmist) reports about a few instances of people falling, or even being pushed, onto subway tracks here in New York; she has subsequently warned my sister and I, in all seriousness, that we had to hypervigilant, in case crazy people randomly went about pushing us into the paths of oncoming trains.
I thought this Abstruse Goose was fitting:
Monday, September 19, 2011
Why being an English major is more fun (and more scandalous) than you'd think
I'm looking at my book lists for this quarter, and one of the required readings is called 'Tis a Pity She's a Whore. (It's an English play from the reign of Charles I, and I'm told it's quite good.)
They would never have gotten away with that in grade school.
They would never have gotten away with that in grade school.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
BBC: Ten Strange Ways Tudors Died
Not so much royal Tudors, but Englishmen and women who lived (and died) during the Tudor dynasty:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13762313
Lifespans were significantly shorter back then (the most common culprit being disease, and probably childbirth) but these are some more interesting, historically accurate ways to go. For a fair number of them, I would say they brought it upon themselves. Can you imagine what their families might have had inscribed on their tombstones?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13762313
Lifespans were significantly shorter back then (the most common culprit being disease, and probably childbirth) but these are some more interesting, historically accurate ways to go. For a fair number of them, I would say they brought it upon themselves. Can you imagine what their families might have had inscribed on their tombstones?
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Adverbs, and the Killing Thereof
A humorous take on the not-so-funny problems with the way writing is taught in American grade schools:
http://www.therejectionist.com/2011/02/dear-superior-person_25.html
I remember, vaguely (it was a decade ago), the extremes to which grade school instructors went in instilling "show, don't tell" into the repertoires of their unsuspecting charges. It is, as with most rules, best applied in moderation. Fancy verbs and superfluous adverbs are annoying and frilly, and often make the text that much less readable. Beginner mistakes, to be sure, but ones that are utterly preventable -- and indeed, wouldn't crop up in the first place, if it weren't for these notions about grade school writing.
Mark Twain said it best: "If you see an adverb, kill it!"
http://www.therejectionist.com/2011/02/dear-superior-person_25.html
I remember, vaguely (it was a decade ago), the extremes to which grade school instructors went in instilling "show, don't tell" into the repertoires of their unsuspecting charges. It is, as with most rules, best applied in moderation. Fancy verbs and superfluous adverbs are annoying and frilly, and often make the text that much less readable. Beginner mistakes, to be sure, but ones that are utterly preventable -- and indeed, wouldn't crop up in the first place, if it weren't for these notions about grade school writing.
Mark Twain said it best: "If you see an adverb, kill it!"
Saturday, July 2, 2011
Weird Things Customers Say in Bookshops
Just found this very funny blog post series (thanks to Neil Gaiman's blog):
http://jen-campbell.blogspot.com/search/label/weird%20things%20customers%20say
I'm both amused and appalled. I'll be checking back. :)
http://jen-campbell.blogspot.com/search/label/weird%20things%20customers%20say
I'm both amused and appalled. I'll be checking back. :)
Friday, April 29, 2011
Stanford Themedical Dorms
This is what Frank, Wendy, and I stayed up until 4:00am doing... (It probably won't make much sense unless you attend Stanford/are familiar with our campus.)
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Scientific Attempt To Create Most Annoying Song Ever
This came up at another meal (I think it was Josh who showed this to us, but I could be mistaken):
http://www.wired.com/listening_post/2008/04/a-scientific-at
The opera rap portion is... interesting. Ear-blisteringly so. Give it a listen; it's a bit slow in the beginning, but it becomes hilarious at around a minute and a half.
There has been a lot of scholarly debate over whether our ideas of euphony and cacophony are innate or learned. Music in minor keys, for instance, evokes sadness in western music, but lacks that connotation in some other cultures. I wonder if opera rap might be considered normal, or at least non-comical, to listeners from other parts of the world.
http://www.wired.com/listening_post/2008/04/a-scientific-at
The opera rap portion is... interesting. Ear-blisteringly so. Give it a listen; it's a bit slow in the beginning, but it becomes hilarious at around a minute and a half.
There has been a lot of scholarly debate over whether our ideas of euphony and cacophony are innate or learned. Music in minor keys, for instance, evokes sadness in western music, but lacks that connotation in some other cultures. I wonder if opera rap might be considered normal, or at least non-comical, to listeners from other parts of the world.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
The New Adventures of Queen Victoria: Her Majesty on Angry Birds
There's this iPhone game called "Angry Birds" that seems to be all the rage right now. (It doesn't sound that interesting, but then, I've never played it. A lot of games/shows/songs with really inane premises seem to catch on spectacularly regardless.) Anyhow, here's Queen Victoria's (rather humorous) take on it:
http://www.gocomics.com/thenewadventuresofqueenvictoria/2011/01/24/
I was amused.
http://www.gocomics.com/thenewadventuresofqueenvictoria/2011/01/24/
I was amused.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Literary Drinking Games (yes, you read that correctly)
I don't drink myself, but if you substitute caffeine for alcohol in these frivolities, I'm sure the results would be similarly amusing:
http://jezebel.com/5603364/drink-til-hes-witty-the-readers-drinking-game
The Virginia Woolf one was especially clever, methinks.
http://jezebel.com/5603364/drink-til-hes-witty-the-readers-drinking-game
The Virginia Woolf one was especially clever, methinks.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
SlushPile Hell, the Blog
You may have seen me refer to the slush pile once or twice in this blog; I don't believe I ever actually defined the term. It's basically the influx of unsolicited submissions -- manuscripts none of our editors have expressed an interest in seeing, but which are simply sent to our submissions inbox (which is an e-mail account, rather than a mailing address, these days). A submission consists, usually, of a cover letter (itself consisting of a very brief introduction to the novel being queried, noteworthy accomplishments in the field (such as short story publications, creative writing prizes, &c.), and experience (such as academic degrees or professional expertise) relevant to the novel) and the first ten pages of the manuscript. (Submissions criteria at other publishers may differ very slightly.)
Anyhow, one of the editors at my office showed me a blog that gathers excerpts from some of the craziest and most clueless query letters received (all anonymous, of course). It's a hoot (and for writers seeking publication, a good resource on what not to do):
http://slushpilehell.tumblr.com
I get stuff like this all the time. Of course, this is a sample of the very worst -- quite a few are actually very competent, and I am sorry to have to turn down as many as I do. It's a pretty narrow gate, so the submission has to be really wonderful for us to want to publish it.
Anyhow, one of the editors at my office showed me a blog that gathers excerpts from some of the craziest and most clueless query letters received (all anonymous, of course). It's a hoot (and for writers seeking publication, a good resource on what not to do):
http://slushpilehell.tumblr.com
I get stuff like this all the time. Of course, this is a sample of the very worst -- quite a few are actually very competent, and I am sorry to have to turn down as many as I do. It's a pretty narrow gate, so the submission has to be really wonderful for us to want to publish it.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
NYTimes: Lacrosse, and Iroquois National Identity
I was following this story last week, and am seriously disappointed with the state of tribal affairs in America and in the international arena. This is a travesty, a stain upon the consciences of America and Britain:
The original story: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/us/13lacrosse.html?_r=1&hp
The less-than-satisfactory result:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/17/sports/17lacrosse.html?scp=2&sq=&st=nyt
What is especially ironic is that the sport of lacrosse was actually invented by the Iroquois, who are now being barred from traveling to the international championships. It's appalling.
The original story: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/us/13lacrosse.html?_r=1&hp
The less-than-satisfactory result:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/17/sports/17lacrosse.html?scp=2&sq=&st=nyt
What is especially ironic is that the sport of lacrosse was actually invented by the Iroquois, who are now being barred from traveling to the international championships. It's appalling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)