In the period when I was on my way out of the military, creeds became very popular. There was a Soldier's Creed, an NCO's Creed, a Warrior's Creed, and various creeds for the more specialized jobs. I have an issue with a few points of the Soldier's Creed (which seem to be there more for macho posturing than to actually make a coherent point) but for the most part it's not a bad statement to make. And it's not a bad concept.
A creed establishes what you should be working for. It formalizes the values you claim to believe in. And inasmuch as anything becomes more valuable when you write it down, I started wondering whether there ought to be an Author's Creed. Not one that we recite each morning and before every convention panel, but more like one you could receive a knitted version of and hang up on your wall.
I started to fiddle with the idea but I almost immediately hit a brick wall. What sorts of things are universal values held by every author? Almost nothing. Just in my short experience in the literary world I've already encountered authors from every walk of life, who agree on almost nothing.
I almost feel like I have a better shot at writing a Horror Author's Creed. I could at least say, "Our job is to scare or make the reader uncomfortable." But even that seems a little wishy-washy.
So, being as my blog is, naturally, ground zero of the literary community and a tourist destination for artists from all walks of life, I thought I might crowdsource this one, so...YOU DECIDE!!!™
If we actually followed through and put together an Author's Creed, what points would you like to see included? What points could you not bear to see included? Let me know in the comments.
Here are a few points I came up with at least for discussion:
- "I will always remain true to my artistic integrity."
- "Other authors are my peers, not my competition."
- "The only critic who matters is myself."
- "I will be a responsible and respectful member of the literary community."
- "I will only submit my last draft, and my last draft will be my best draft."
See, even with these I can see some points for disagreement. So let's discuss.
Showing posts with label YOU DECIDE. Show all posts
Showing posts with label YOU DECIDE. Show all posts
Monday, June 8, 2015
Friday, September 12, 2014
THE GHOUL ARCHIPELAGO Fantasy Cast
A commonly recurring question in interviews is "Who would you like to play various characters if your novel is ever made into a movie." I've taken a crack at this once or twice before for BRAINEATER JONES, but to be honest, fantasy casting is something that I'm not very good at. I gather that some authors actually start with an actor in mind, then model the book character after him or her, so fantasy casting is actually the first thing they do. I'm kind of oblivious.
I was very lucky recently to have romance author and friend of the blog Claire Ashby send me her fantasy cast for THE GHOUL ARCHIPELAGO. (Make sure to check out her debut WHEN YOU MAKE IT HOME. This is a seriously great book, and the only thing I've ever read that dealt fairly with the subject of Wounded Warriors.) I just want to say right off the bat, I'm very impressed with Claire's choices. It's a hell of a lot better than anything I would've come up with. So let's take a look at what Claire said, and I'll make a few comments along the way.
.jpg) |
| Henk "Howling Mad" Martigan (Mark Ruffalo) |
 |
| "Tuan" Jim (Charlie Day) |
.jpg) | ||
| Rand Bergeron (Michael Cera) Yup. Rand is not-so-secretly based on our very own Mark Zuckerberg, and I would have to pick either Cera or Jesse Eisenberg to play him. And Eisenberg is probably all zombied-out after Zombieland.
|
 |
| Dwight "Hannibal Mo" (Jason Segel) |
 |
| Leona "Butch" Candiru (Aubrey Plaza) |
***
So, what do the rest of you think? Would you make any changes to this cast? What about Eve? Fall? Zakira? Papi? Kurtz? Chime in in the comments below and let me know!
Monday, September 1, 2014
Revisiting the Double-Spaced Sentence
Okay.
To clarify what we're talking about today:
PERIOD + SPACE
vs.
PERIOD + SPACE + SPACE
The last time I discussed this subject, I confused some folks who thought I was talking about double-spacing your paragraphs, as in, where there is an extra blank line in between each line of horizontal text, as opposed to the block spacing format this blog post uses. So, there, right off the bat I hope we're all on the same page (ha!) We're talking about adding (if you're in one camp) or subtracting (if you're in the other) a space after your final punctuation mark of each sentence.
I never thought I'd have to revisit this subject (I mean, is this really scintillating subject matter for anyone?) but today I came across this rather abusive article. So, clearly this author is taking a somewhat more nuanced approach to the subject than Farhad "FUCK THE WORLD I AM THE ARBITER OF ALL GOOD TASTE" Manjoo, but still not a kind one to the double-spacer camp.
So the Cult of Pedagogy article suggests that this matter is generational. Old fogies who grew up on slide rules, Victrolas, and typewriters, who still hilariously try to push the return bar on their computers, are the only ones who still double-space sentences. And young, hip, presumably urban Twitter-users who grew up on Facebook and don't know who Paul McCartney even WAS, man, are single-spacing their sentences.
Um...
Except...
So, if you read this article (which, God bless you if you could get through it without throwing your device on the ground) the author even admits that she never heard of this no-double-spacing so-called "rule" until 1999. Which means that the only people who might potentially have learned NOT to double space in formal writing are 15 or younger.
I supposedly am a Millennial. The oldest possible Millennial, but still. I never heard of this supposed rule change until 2012. Admittedly, I don't have kids in school and I'm not a teacher, so I wouldn't know what's being taught these days. But even assuming I'm stupendously out-of-touch (which I may be) then this no-double-spacing thing came into vogue at some point between '99 and '12. And Manjoo even admits in his article that it's still a matter of some contention, though he, of course, considers the debate moot.
I'm not going to relitigate this stupid discussion. I mean, feel free to in the comments if you want. I don't believe in prescriptivism in language, so it usually sticks in my craw when someone proclaims there is One True Way to English correctly.
But what it boils down to for me is that, like the Oxford comma, I see no good reason NOT to double space. It adds clarity and there are occasions when not doing it leads to confusion. The worst possible outcome of single-space construction (just like leaving off that last serial comma) is that the reader has to re-read something in order to understand it. But why make your reader do that?
And the only argument for it is...it's hip? You look like you're over 40 if you don't do it? Even though everyone over the age of 15 would've been taught that this was correct for formal writing?
UPDATE:
After writing this entire blogpost, I drilled down into the comments on the Cult of Pedagogy article and discovered these three articles that essentially explode all of Manjoo's supposedly definitive and unassailable opinion piece. More food for thought, anyway.
To clarify what we're talking about today:
PERIOD + SPACE
vs.
PERIOD + SPACE + SPACE
The last time I discussed this subject, I confused some folks who thought I was talking about double-spacing your paragraphs, as in, where there is an extra blank line in between each line of horizontal text, as opposed to the block spacing format this blog post uses. So, there, right off the bat I hope we're all on the same page (ha!) We're talking about adding (if you're in one camp) or subtracting (if you're in the other) a space after your final punctuation mark of each sentence.
I never thought I'd have to revisit this subject (I mean, is this really scintillating subject matter for anyone?) but today I came across this rather abusive article. So, clearly this author is taking a somewhat more nuanced approach to the subject than Farhad "FUCK THE WORLD I AM THE ARBITER OF ALL GOOD TASTE" Manjoo, but still not a kind one to the double-spacer camp.
So the Cult of Pedagogy article suggests that this matter is generational. Old fogies who grew up on slide rules, Victrolas, and typewriters, who still hilariously try to push the return bar on their computers, are the only ones who still double-space sentences. And young, hip, presumably urban Twitter-users who grew up on Facebook and don't know who Paul McCartney even WAS, man, are single-spacing their sentences.
Um...
Except...
So, if you read this article (which, God bless you if you could get through it without throwing your device on the ground) the author even admits that she never heard of this no-double-spacing so-called "rule" until 1999. Which means that the only people who might potentially have learned NOT to double space in formal writing are 15 or younger.
I supposedly am a Millennial. The oldest possible Millennial, but still. I never heard of this supposed rule change until 2012. Admittedly, I don't have kids in school and I'm not a teacher, so I wouldn't know what's being taught these days. But even assuming I'm stupendously out-of-touch (which I may be) then this no-double-spacing thing came into vogue at some point between '99 and '12. And Manjoo even admits in his article that it's still a matter of some contention, though he, of course, considers the debate moot.
I'm not going to relitigate this stupid discussion. I mean, feel free to in the comments if you want. I don't believe in prescriptivism in language, so it usually sticks in my craw when someone proclaims there is One True Way to English correctly.
But what it boils down to for me is that, like the Oxford comma, I see no good reason NOT to double space. It adds clarity and there are occasions when not doing it leads to confusion. The worst possible outcome of single-space construction (just like leaving off that last serial comma) is that the reader has to re-read something in order to understand it. But why make your reader do that?
And the only argument for it is...it's hip? You look like you're over 40 if you don't do it? Even though everyone over the age of 15 would've been taught that this was correct for formal writing?
UPDATE:
After writing this entire blogpost, I drilled down into the comments on the Cult of Pedagogy article and discovered these three articles that essentially explode all of Manjoo's supposedly definitive and unassailable opinion piece. More food for thought, anyway.
Monday, August 25, 2014
Dueling Ice Buckets
So, here, as you've all no doubt seen by now, is Sir Patrick Stewart's rousing ALS ice bucket challenge, date stamped August 22, 2014.
Presented here, without comment, is the same challenge from a somewhat less renowned star of stage and screen, date stamped August 20, 2014.
Presented here, without comment, is the same challenge from a somewhat less renowned star of stage and screen, date stamped August 20, 2014.
Monday, December 31, 2012
Manuscripts Burns's Top 12 Posts of 2012!
In an idea inspired by Chihuahua Zero's blog post here I've decided to bring you not just the top ten rated posts of the year, but the top TWELVE rated posts of the past year.
12. YOU DECIDE!!!!™ (Prologue) - this is my 200,000 word Romney/Obama slash fiction novel
11. Fifty Shades of Copyright Grey Area - a thorough debunking of the myth that oncology recapitalizes philately
10. Bar Mitts (Vah) - a lengthy, Die Hard III-style series of practical riddles that, once entered upon, inevitably results in the reader's cold, painful death
9. "Pre" posterous - at long last I reveal my true identity: Automobile von Bismarck
8. Serial Commas...YOU DECIDE!!!™ - it's just a link to Facebook
7. Maverick, LCSW (p. 1) - two columns get into quite a...row. Get it? Get it?
6. Double-Spaced Sentences...YOU DECIDE!!!™ - when a firefight breaks out between two Salvation Army bell ringers on opposite sides of the street, only a mannequin brought to life by an ancient Egyptian curse can reinvent rock and roll
5. Why I Hate Bangs Redux: Why Everyone Should Hate Bangs - Kevin Bacon
4. THE NOVEL HEARD 'ROUND THE WORLD - Page 1 - a seven hour video of me masturbating for six minutes set on a loop
3. Watch out for my ROOOOOOOOOOOTS!!! - all the lyrics to Led Zeppelin's "Kashmir" written in reverse
2. Weasel Words - free iPads!
And finally (drumroll please) the highest rated Manuscripts Burn post, not just of 2012, not just of the 21st century, but (Ima let you finish, Taylor) the greatest of ALL TIME...
1. Why I Hate Bangs - William Hung's autobiography, in limerick form
12. YOU DECIDE!!!!™ (Prologue) - this is my 200,000 word Romney/Obama slash fiction novel
11. Fifty Shades of Copyright Grey Area - a thorough debunking of the myth that oncology recapitalizes philately
10. Bar Mitts (Vah) - a lengthy, Die Hard III-style series of practical riddles that, once entered upon, inevitably results in the reader's cold, painful death
9. "Pre" posterous - at long last I reveal my true identity: Automobile von Bismarck
8. Serial Commas...YOU DECIDE!!!™ - it's just a link to Facebook
7. Maverick, LCSW (p. 1) - two columns get into quite a...row. Get it? Get it?
6. Double-Spaced Sentences...YOU DECIDE!!!™ - when a firefight breaks out between two Salvation Army bell ringers on opposite sides of the street, only a mannequin brought to life by an ancient Egyptian curse can reinvent rock and roll
5. Why I Hate Bangs Redux: Why Everyone Should Hate Bangs - Kevin Bacon
4. THE NOVEL HEARD 'ROUND THE WORLD - Page 1 - a seven hour video of me masturbating for six minutes set on a loop
3. Watch out for my ROOOOOOOOOOOTS!!! - all the lyrics to Led Zeppelin's "Kashmir" written in reverse
2. Weasel Words - free iPads!
And finally (drumroll please) the highest rated Manuscripts Burn post, not just of 2012, not just of the 21st century, but (Ima let you finish, Taylor) the greatest of ALL TIME...
1. Why I Hate Bangs - William Hung's autobiography, in limerick form
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Announcement: The 2013 Hundie Challenge
I've never read Faulkner. Or Hemingway. Or Joyce, for that matter. But that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to my literary, er, illiteracy.
Generally speaking I think I'm moderately well-versed in Russian Lit (check out the etymology of the blog title if you don't believe me) and I've dipped my toe into some classic sci-fi, but I'm not sure if I've read a proper classic since high school. And even some of those books I just pretended to read. (Sorry, Mr. Huxley, reading your book was like being on soma, and I only know that that's a drug because I paid attention in class.)
Now, I hate to be an ignoramus in general but I hate to be a book-writing guy (is there a word for that?) who is ignorant of his craft even more. Sure, I always mean to get around to reading "The Old Man and the Sea" (read: not really) but if there's a new book out about zombie spiders, guess which one is getting read first. That's right: Hemingway can go get fucked in his clean, well-lighted asshole.
Aaaaaanyway, to correct this considerable character defect, I came up with a resolution last New Year to read a solid hundie of classics from one of those "100 best novels of all time" lists. But, as often happens with the best laid plans of mice and men, that idea got shot in the head by its non-mentally disabled hobo travelling companion. (I mean, what was I supposed to do, put down "A Clash of Kings" halfway through? That shit was GOOOOOOOD and it was only, like, the second book in the series.)
So that never happened last year. (Thanks a lot, George R.R. Asshole.) But this year I am resolved to take a crack at it again. So, here is my plan for 2013:
1. Pick a list. After perusing a few possibilities, I decided on the Modern Library Top 100. Are there problems with this list, up to and including the fact that it's kind of a cheap marketing ploy for novels that only Modern Library publishes and includes precisely zero foreign language works? Yes. But will I ever find a perfect list? No. Besides, of the other top contenders one was almost entirely French works and the other was compiled in 1908.
2. Filter out the books on the list that I've already read. Here's the abysmally short list of books which I've already read. The reason that I'm removing these is because my intent with this experiment is to expand my literary knowledge, not to re-read the classics I already have under my belt.
3. Get a library card. Because fuck capitalism.
4. Read all 87 books on my revised list in 2013. I would say "in order" but that's probably not going to happen unless the library begins catering exclusively to my needs at the expense of every other patron. Besides, the Modern Library's order is more than a little arbitrary to begin with.
5. Blog about each. Yes, indeedy, friends, your favorite blog is about to undergo a sea change, at least for the year 2013. No manuscripts will be burned this coming year (sorry, but it's not like we've been doing it all that regularly since 2010 anyway.) I was also considering vlogging about every classic on the list, but since I'm pretty confident that won't happen either, I'm not going to make that commitment. I will try, though. At least some of reviews will be in a different format than strictly text.
"But Redleg," I can hear you saying, "Surely 87 is a different integer from 100, and, as a prime number, quite a bit lamer. How can you even sleep at night calling this the 2013 Hundie Challenge when the 'hundie' part is such an obvious, vile lie?"
Hold your rhetorical horses there, strawman commenter. I'm not finished. You may have noticed that this post is also a YOU DECIDE!!!™ So, if you'd like to leave a comment on what important classics Modern Library left out I will add them to an auxiliary list that I will try to get to at the end of the year to reach that all-important 100 number. Why 100? Well, partially because it's a nice, even number, but mostly because stupid Flav said it couldn't be done.
Generally speaking I think I'm moderately well-versed in Russian Lit (check out the etymology of the blog title if you don't believe me) and I've dipped my toe into some classic sci-fi, but I'm not sure if I've read a proper classic since high school. And even some of those books I just pretended to read. (Sorry, Mr. Huxley, reading your book was like being on soma, and I only know that that's a drug because I paid attention in class.)
Now, I hate to be an ignoramus in general but I hate to be a book-writing guy (is there a word for that?) who is ignorant of his craft even more. Sure, I always mean to get around to reading "The Old Man and the Sea" (read: not really) but if there's a new book out about zombie spiders, guess which one is getting read first. That's right: Hemingway can go get fucked in his clean, well-lighted asshole.
Aaaaaanyway, to correct this considerable character defect, I came up with a resolution last New Year to read a solid hundie of classics from one of those "100 best novels of all time" lists. But, as often happens with the best laid plans of mice and men, that idea got shot in the head by its non-mentally disabled hobo travelling companion. (I mean, what was I supposed to do, put down "A Clash of Kings" halfway through? That shit was GOOOOOOOD and it was only, like, the second book in the series.)
So that never happened last year. (Thanks a lot, George R.R. Asshole.) But this year I am resolved to take a crack at it again. So, here is my plan for 2013:
1. Pick a list. After perusing a few possibilities, I decided on the Modern Library Top 100. Are there problems with this list, up to and including the fact that it's kind of a cheap marketing ploy for novels that only Modern Library publishes and includes precisely zero foreign language works? Yes. But will I ever find a perfect list? No. Besides, of the other top contenders one was almost entirely French works and the other was compiled in 1908.
2. Filter out the books on the list that I've already read. Here's the abysmally short list of books which I've already read. The reason that I'm removing these is because my intent with this experiment is to expand my literary knowledge, not to re-read the classics I already have under my belt.
3. Get a library card. Because fuck capitalism.
4. Read all 87 books on my revised list in 2013. I would say "in order" but that's probably not going to happen unless the library begins catering exclusively to my needs at the expense of every other patron. Besides, the Modern Library's order is more than a little arbitrary to begin with.
5. Blog about each. Yes, indeedy, friends, your favorite blog is about to undergo a sea change, at least for the year 2013. No manuscripts will be burned this coming year (sorry, but it's not like we've been doing it all that regularly since 2010 anyway.) I was also considering vlogging about every classic on the list, but since I'm pretty confident that won't happen either, I'm not going to make that commitment. I will try, though. At least some of reviews will be in a different format than strictly text.
"But Redleg," I can hear you saying, "Surely 87 is a different integer from 100, and, as a prime number, quite a bit lamer. How can you even sleep at night calling this the 2013 Hundie Challenge when the 'hundie' part is such an obvious, vile lie?"
Hold your rhetorical horses there, strawman commenter. I'm not finished. You may have noticed that this post is also a YOU DECIDE!!!™ So, if you'd like to leave a comment on what important classics Modern Library left out I will add them to an auxiliary list that I will try to get to at the end of the year to reach that all-important 100 number. Why 100? Well, partially because it's a nice, even number, but mostly because stupid Flav said it couldn't be done.
Friday, December 21, 2012
On Stolen Valor
The subject of today’s blog post is stolen valor, but with a special emphasis which I shall address shortly.
I was intrigued to learn today of both the existence and the striking down of the Stolen Valor Act, which was essentially a law banning U.S. citizens from pretending to be veterans, or falsifying their military records. I used to hear a lot about phony Soldiers, especially when I was still on active duty, probably because we knew exactly how ridiculous some of these folks looked. I gather that these people get away with posing as service members because most civilians won’t catch the fact that his medals are out of order or ridiculously inflated for his rank, or that his beret was skewed or that he was wearing a black undershirt.
(Seriously, I remember a picture of a guy wearing a black undershirt. That’s ludicrous in a way I don’t even really know what to compare it to. Like a fireman wearing a chef’s hat, or something.)
Anyway, I don’t mean to belabor this point, I guess I just wasn’t aware that they had a law banning this practice, although I had heard the term “stolen valor” quite a bit. See, sometimes these jerkoffs would really boil my blood because they would, say, make a really offensive statement and then claim they were entitled to be heard because of their fake Medal of Honor from ‘Nam. And then other times it was just Grampa claiming he was at the Bulge when he was really still in France. How pissed can you really get about that?
So earlier this year the Supreme Court struck down the Stolen Valor Act (again, I don’t think I was really aware of it in the first place) on what I would consider the “Grampa forgot which campaign he was in” clause. Basically, if you can prosecute someone for lying about his military record, why couldn’t you prosecute someone for lying to mom and smoking or drinking? (No, really, that was one of the justices’ examples.)
So, okay, I guess I’m on board, I can understand why attempting to ban any lying, even odious lying like claiming to be a vet when you’re not, impedes on the First Amendment. Which basically puts the onus on we, the people, and the Fourth Estate, to get their facts straight and to not let people get away with this shit, or anyway, to not report on it without checking first.
Which leads me in a roundabout way to the direct subject of today’s blog. I’m not sure what the correct method of addressing this subject is, so I’m going to pick a method, and if you disagree with it, please let me know in the comments. So here’s my method: first I want you to read this story, which we’ll call the Medal of Honor in ‘Nam Story from here on out. Now I want you to read this story, which we’ll call the Grampa Fibbing Story from here on out.
Okay, if you actually read them both, you’ll probably guess pretty quickly why I was leery about what order to put them in. Basically, they’re the same story, which boils down to: some weirdo thought he would prove a point by “guarding” an elementary school unarmed while in his Marine Corps uniform. The difference is the first story paints the guy as a piece of shit, while the second story paints the guy as kind of a misguided but well-meaning old fellow.
Why am I bringing all this up? Well, first of all, I’d like to hear your opinion of this practice, if you have one. I personally find it objectionable, and I suspect that the fellows doing it are doing it more to get media attention for themselves, personally, than to in any way “protect” children or put their minds at ease. And wearing your uniform to get attention pretty much runs contrary to most concepts of honor inculcated in the military. Even more offensive is that I suspect (but can’t prove, so I’m not overly excited about it) that these two jokers are actually using their uniforms to support a political cause, which is not just a grey area like being a publicity whore, it’s flat out fucking prohibited by the UCMJ.
(If you disagree with me, please let me know, I’m still trying to parse this out, so feel free to let me know in the comments what YOU DECIDE!!!™)
So, all that being said, back to the subject of stolen valor. The reason I was on the fence about whether to present the ‘Nam Story first or the Grampa Story first is that one really colors the other. Because, fundamentally, neither of these men did anything all that different. Neither was authorized to wear his uniform under these circumstances, but both did so anyway out of a sort of a misguided sense of morality. But whereas Grampa actually served in the marines for a while and just dug his uniform out of the attic, ‘Nam MOH guy apparently got booted out after basic.
So, my feeling is that if you agree with the premise of the ‘Nam Story, which is that a piece of shit stole some valor, it really colors your impression of the Grampa Story, making that guy also look like a piece of shit.
But if you agree with the premise of the Grampa Story, which is that this guy really had his heart in the right place but didn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground, it really colors your impression of the ‘Nam Story, making that guy look like a sort of sad sack with a heart of gold.
Well, I think I’ve said enough about how I feel. What do you think?
I was intrigued to learn today of both the existence and the striking down of the Stolen Valor Act, which was essentially a law banning U.S. citizens from pretending to be veterans, or falsifying their military records. I used to hear a lot about phony Soldiers, especially when I was still on active duty, probably because we knew exactly how ridiculous some of these folks looked. I gather that these people get away with posing as service members because most civilians won’t catch the fact that his medals are out of order or ridiculously inflated for his rank, or that his beret was skewed or that he was wearing a black undershirt.
(Seriously, I remember a picture of a guy wearing a black undershirt. That’s ludicrous in a way I don’t even really know what to compare it to. Like a fireman wearing a chef’s hat, or something.)
Anyway, I don’t mean to belabor this point, I guess I just wasn’t aware that they had a law banning this practice, although I had heard the term “stolen valor” quite a bit. See, sometimes these jerkoffs would really boil my blood because they would, say, make a really offensive statement and then claim they were entitled to be heard because of their fake Medal of Honor from ‘Nam. And then other times it was just Grampa claiming he was at the Bulge when he was really still in France. How pissed can you really get about that?
So earlier this year the Supreme Court struck down the Stolen Valor Act (again, I don’t think I was really aware of it in the first place) on what I would consider the “Grampa forgot which campaign he was in” clause. Basically, if you can prosecute someone for lying about his military record, why couldn’t you prosecute someone for lying to mom and smoking or drinking? (No, really, that was one of the justices’ examples.)
So, okay, I guess I’m on board, I can understand why attempting to ban any lying, even odious lying like claiming to be a vet when you’re not, impedes on the First Amendment. Which basically puts the onus on we, the people, and the Fourth Estate, to get their facts straight and to not let people get away with this shit, or anyway, to not report on it without checking first.
Which leads me in a roundabout way to the direct subject of today’s blog. I’m not sure what the correct method of addressing this subject is, so I’m going to pick a method, and if you disagree with it, please let me know in the comments. So here’s my method: first I want you to read this story, which we’ll call the Medal of Honor in ‘Nam Story from here on out. Now I want you to read this story, which we’ll call the Grampa Fibbing Story from here on out.
Okay, if you actually read them both, you’ll probably guess pretty quickly why I was leery about what order to put them in. Basically, they’re the same story, which boils down to: some weirdo thought he would prove a point by “guarding” an elementary school unarmed while in his Marine Corps uniform. The difference is the first story paints the guy as a piece of shit, while the second story paints the guy as kind of a misguided but well-meaning old fellow.
Why am I bringing all this up? Well, first of all, I’d like to hear your opinion of this practice, if you have one. I personally find it objectionable, and I suspect that the fellows doing it are doing it more to get media attention for themselves, personally, than to in any way “protect” children or put their minds at ease. And wearing your uniform to get attention pretty much runs contrary to most concepts of honor inculcated in the military. Even more offensive is that I suspect (but can’t prove, so I’m not overly excited about it) that these two jokers are actually using their uniforms to support a political cause, which is not just a grey area like being a publicity whore, it’s flat out fucking prohibited by the UCMJ.
(If you disagree with me, please let me know, I’m still trying to parse this out, so feel free to let me know in the comments what YOU DECIDE!!!™)
So, all that being said, back to the subject of stolen valor. The reason I was on the fence about whether to present the ‘Nam Story first or the Grampa Story first is that one really colors the other. Because, fundamentally, neither of these men did anything all that different. Neither was authorized to wear his uniform under these circumstances, but both did so anyway out of a sort of a misguided sense of morality. But whereas Grampa actually served in the marines for a while and just dug his uniform out of the attic, ‘Nam MOH guy apparently got booted out after basic.
So, my feeling is that if you agree with the premise of the ‘Nam Story, which is that a piece of shit stole some valor, it really colors your impression of the Grampa Story, making that guy also look like a piece of shit.
But if you agree with the premise of the Grampa Story, which is that this guy really had his heart in the right place but didn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground, it really colors your impression of the ‘Nam Story, making that guy look like a sort of sad sack with a heart of gold.
Well, I think I’ve said enough about how I feel. What do you think?
Monday, December 17, 2012
And Now it's Time for America's Favorite Guessing Game...
Palin or Romney? YOU DECIDE!!!™
You get the first name, I get the last name and there are no duplicates. For extra points, post your answer in only 60 seconds and, as always, no googling!
Tagg
Todd
Tom
Track
Trig
Tripp
You get the first name, I get the last name and there are no duplicates. For extra points, post your answer in only 60 seconds and, as always, no googling!
Tagg
Todd
Tom
Track
Trig
Tripp
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Well, it's that time again...
Hey kids,
Well, it's that time again. You probably won't be hearing much from me this month, so hopefully you can enjoy catching up on the archives. When was the last time you re-read The Terrifying Revenge of the B-Movie!!!?
Until then, though, why not weigh in on the title of my NaNo manuscript for this year? Here are the choices, and if you can decode my clever naming convention, you can even suggest some more names in the comments.
1. Notes from the Undead
2. Notes from the Above Ground
3. The Insulted and the Interred
4. The Insulted and the Disinterred
5. Gore and Peace
6. The Master and Morgue-arita
7. The Wight Guard
What should my new novel be called?
YOU DECIDE!!!™
Well, it's that time again. You probably won't be hearing much from me this month, so hopefully you can enjoy catching up on the archives. When was the last time you re-read The Terrifying Revenge of the B-Movie!!!?
Until then, though, why not weigh in on the title of my NaNo manuscript for this year? Here are the choices, and if you can decode my clever naming convention, you can even suggest some more names in the comments.
1. Notes from the Undead
2. Notes from the Above Ground
3. The Insulted and the Interred
4. The Insulted and the Disinterred
5. Gore and Peace
6. The Master and Morgue-arita
7. The Wight Guard
What should my new novel be called?
YOU DECIDE!!!™
Friday, May 25, 2012
Double-Spaced Sentences...YOU DECIDE!!!™
If you haven't yet, go ahead and check out this post to find out what we're doing this week. Or don't. It's pretty straightforward. You can also see our last discussion topic here.
Today's topic for YOU DECIDE!!!™ is...
DOUBLE-SPACED SENTENCES!
You may have noticed (or if you haven't before, you certainly will now) that I always double-space my sentences. I can't help it. It's like breathing. Or masturbating. It just happens automatically no matter what I try to do. And up until...shit, maybe two weeks ago? Maybe a month? Up until not that long ago, I never thought anything of it. Or if I did think anything of it, I thought, "Oh, good, you're doing just what you've always been taught."
And I am. But the thing is, now they're teaching something else. Apparently when I was coming up (and I may be betraying my age here, but hopefully not too exactly) computers were still more of an oddity than a necessity. Business was done on typewriters, and we were just starting to edge into using word processing programs instead. It was obvious to pretty much everyone except the congenitally stodgy that the transition would happen some day, but it hadn't happened YET.
So, it turns out that double spacing sentences is, according to some, a relic of the typewriter age. It has something to do with typesetting for novels that only really had to do with the old-timey steam-powered printing presses of yesteryear operated presumably by Victorian-era coal miners with handlebar moustaches. I've got to be honest here, and, once again I may be betraying my obvious bias, warranted or not, in favor of double-spaced sentences, but I just don't get this one. (Hence why YOU get to DECIDE!!!™)
Like the serial comma, I see double spacing sentences as adding clarity and nipping reading comprehension problems in the bud before they happen. So, for instance, you could be buzzing through a book and read "...St. Basil..." as "Saint Basil" when it was really two sentences, one ending in the abbreviation for "street" and the next one starting with the name "Basil." You wouldn't have the same problem with "...St. Basil..."
On the opposing side, I have to admit that while double spacing sentences can be helpful in reading comprehension, it's never strictly necessary. Or, to use a metaphor, double-spaced sentences are helpful in the same way that training wheels are helpful, but once you've learned how to ride a bike you don't need training wheels anymore, even if you fall once in a while. Yes, there are sentences where you might, if skimming, read "...Dr. Johnson..." instead of "...Drive. Johnson..." but there are no sentences where the meaning is impossible to glean, especially after a second reading. (Beloved blogketeers, can you come up with any? I can't, and I'm on the pro side of this debate.)
And so, for those opposed to the double-spaced sentence, it becomes a simply matter of efficacy. Let's say we're writing 50,000 words, the minimum for a novel. Let's take 10 words per sentence as a rule of thumb. By double-spacing this manuscript we add 5,000 spaces, which are characters, about the length of three pages of a book formatted for publishing. So by double-spacing sentences we add three pages of blank space to our manuscript.
So the question becomes, is the length added to the manuscript by double-spacing negligible? Or is the value added to reading comprehension by double-spacing negligible?
Double-spaced sentences: Yea or Nay?
YOU DECIDE!!!™
Today's topic for YOU DECIDE!!!™ is...
DOUBLE-SPACED SENTENCES!
You may have noticed (or if you haven't before, you certainly will now) that I always double-space my sentences. I can't help it. It's like breathing. Or masturbating. It just happens automatically no matter what I try to do. And up until...shit, maybe two weeks ago? Maybe a month? Up until not that long ago, I never thought anything of it. Or if I did think anything of it, I thought, "Oh, good, you're doing just what you've always been taught."
And I am. But the thing is, now they're teaching something else. Apparently when I was coming up (and I may be betraying my age here, but hopefully not too exactly) computers were still more of an oddity than a necessity. Business was done on typewriters, and we were just starting to edge into using word processing programs instead. It was obvious to pretty much everyone except the congenitally stodgy that the transition would happen some day, but it hadn't happened YET.
So, it turns out that double spacing sentences is, according to some, a relic of the typewriter age. It has something to do with typesetting for novels that only really had to do with the old-timey steam-powered printing presses of yesteryear operated presumably by Victorian-era coal miners with handlebar moustaches. I've got to be honest here, and, once again I may be betraying my obvious bias, warranted or not, in favor of double-spaced sentences, but I just don't get this one. (Hence why YOU get to DECIDE!!!™)
Like the serial comma, I see double spacing sentences as adding clarity and nipping reading comprehension problems in the bud before they happen. So, for instance, you could be buzzing through a book and read "...St. Basil..." as "Saint Basil" when it was really two sentences, one ending in the abbreviation for "street" and the next one starting with the name "Basil." You wouldn't have the same problem with "...St. Basil..."
On the opposing side, I have to admit that while double spacing sentences can be helpful in reading comprehension, it's never strictly necessary. Or, to use a metaphor, double-spaced sentences are helpful in the same way that training wheels are helpful, but once you've learned how to ride a bike you don't need training wheels anymore, even if you fall once in a while. Yes, there are sentences where you might, if skimming, read "...Dr. Johnson..." instead of "...Drive. Johnson..." but there are no sentences where the meaning is impossible to glean, especially after a second reading. (Beloved blogketeers, can you come up with any? I can't, and I'm on the pro side of this debate.)
And so, for those opposed to the double-spaced sentence, it becomes a simply matter of efficacy. Let's say we're writing 50,000 words, the minimum for a novel. Let's take 10 words per sentence as a rule of thumb. By double-spacing this manuscript we add 5,000 spaces, which are characters, about the length of three pages of a book formatted for publishing. So by double-spacing sentences we add three pages of blank space to our manuscript.
So the question becomes, is the length added to the manuscript by double-spacing negligible? Or is the value added to reading comprehension by double-spacing negligible?
Double-spaced sentences: Yea or Nay?
YOU DECIDE!!!™
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Serial Commas...YOU DECIDE!!!™
If you haven't read this post yet, go back and read it. I'll wait.
All caught up? Okay, today's topic in YOU DECIDE!!!™ is...
The Harvard Comma!
So. This is one of those "what the fuck, I learned this in elementary school and now they're changing it...uh, fucking why" rules that I mentioned in the prologue to this short series. Basically, here's the deal: when you're making a list you should use a comma between every item in that list to indicate that it's part of the list and not part of the greater sentence. For instance:
This blog post sucks, blows, and makes no sense.
It's pretty basic, and one of the few comma rules that don't amount to, "Uh, I don't know, wherever you would fucking take a pause for breath if you were speaking this sentence out loud." Now, apparently, though, the serial (or Oxford, or Harvard, or, I don't know, fucking MIT) comma has fallen into disfavor because it's supposedly unnecessary. So, for instance, if you're starting a list, and you're using commas for the first couple of items anyway, everyone already gets that you're making a list so there's strictly no need for you to use just that last comma. So our example sentence becomes:
This blog post sucks, blows and makes no sense.
Which is fine, I guess, for what it is, but I'm confused about the value in avoiding use of the serial comma. Is there a severe comma shortage in our country today? Are they like fossil fuels and we only have so many of them before they're all used up? Because if it's a matter of preserving our precious commas, then I don't see why we don't just make the sentence:
This blog post sucks blows and makes no sense.
Why use commas at all in lists if we're not going to use the serial comma?
To play the devil's advocate for the other side (I'm afraid I've betrayed my loyalty to the Harvard comma far too early to continue to pretend to be impartial) I suppose they'd say that there are compound words that could get screwed up if you don't use those first few commas. For instance:
We had turkey bacon ham and pickles laid out for the sandwiches.
Could mean:
We had turkey bacon, ham and pickles laid out for the sandwiches.
Or:
We had turkey, bacon, ham and pickles laid out for the sandwiches.
Which leads us into the whole placement issue. Presumably, in any case where you have hours to slavishly consider whether to use a serial comma or not, for instance if you were a professional writer who doesn't believe in deadlines (I'm looking at you George R.R. Martin and the late Douglas Adams) you could solve all of the problems that the serial comma solves with its mere existence (ahem!) by simply rearranging your list. So with or without a serial comma you could simply clarify this list by making it:
We had turkey, pickles, bacon and ham laid out for the sandwiches.
Thus the favorite bugaboos of serial comma pimpers such as myself are all relegated to the shithouse. For instance, this sentence seems to call out for a serial comma:
President Roosevelt invited the assholes, Stalin and Churchill.
So, to clarify, if we don't wish to imply that our fellow Allies are asshole we should say:
President Roosevelt invited the assholes, Stalin, and Churchill.
However, the anti-serial comma crowd would be quick to point out that the same problem could be solved thusly:
President Roosevelt invited Stalin, the assholes and Churchill.
You know, come to think of it, I think I've represented both sides of this case pretty well at this point. I've certainly represented the anti-Harvard crowd far better than I initially thought I would. Which leads me to ask you, the readers, to tell me what you think in the comments.
Serial commas: Yea or Nay?
YOU DECIDE!!!™
The Harvard Comma!
So. This is one of those "what the fuck, I learned this in elementary school and now they're changing it...uh, fucking why" rules that I mentioned in the prologue to this short series. Basically, here's the deal: when you're making a list you should use a comma between every item in that list to indicate that it's part of the list and not part of the greater sentence. For instance:
This blog post sucks, blows, and makes no sense.
It's pretty basic, and one of the few comma rules that don't amount to, "Uh, I don't know, wherever you would fucking take a pause for breath if you were speaking this sentence out loud." Now, apparently, though, the serial (or Oxford, or Harvard, or, I don't know, fucking MIT) comma has fallen into disfavor because it's supposedly unnecessary. So, for instance, if you're starting a list, and you're using commas for the first couple of items anyway, everyone already gets that you're making a list so there's strictly no need for you to use just that last comma. So our example sentence becomes:
This blog post sucks, blows and makes no sense.
Which is fine, I guess, for what it is, but I'm confused about the value in avoiding use of the serial comma. Is there a severe comma shortage in our country today? Are they like fossil fuels and we only have so many of them before they're all used up? Because if it's a matter of preserving our precious commas, then I don't see why we don't just make the sentence:
This blog post sucks blows and makes no sense.
Why use commas at all in lists if we're not going to use the serial comma?
To play the devil's advocate for the other side (I'm afraid I've betrayed my loyalty to the Harvard comma far too early to continue to pretend to be impartial) I suppose they'd say that there are compound words that could get screwed up if you don't use those first few commas. For instance:
We had turkey bacon ham and pickles laid out for the sandwiches.
Could mean:
We had turkey bacon, ham and pickles laid out for the sandwiches.
Or:
We had turkey, bacon, ham and pickles laid out for the sandwiches.
Which leads us into the whole placement issue. Presumably, in any case where you have hours to slavishly consider whether to use a serial comma or not, for instance if you were a professional writer who doesn't believe in deadlines (I'm looking at you George R.R. Martin and the late Douglas Adams) you could solve all of the problems that the serial comma solves with its mere existence (ahem!) by simply rearranging your list. So with or without a serial comma you could simply clarify this list by making it:
We had turkey, pickles, bacon and ham laid out for the sandwiches.
Thus the favorite bugaboos of serial comma pimpers such as myself are all relegated to the shithouse. For instance, this sentence seems to call out for a serial comma:
President Roosevelt invited the assholes, Stalin and Churchill.
So, to clarify, if we don't wish to imply that our fellow Allies are asshole we should say:
President Roosevelt invited the assholes, Stalin, and Churchill.
However, the anti-serial comma crowd would be quick to point out that the same problem could be solved thusly:
President Roosevelt invited Stalin, the assholes and Churchill.
You know, come to think of it, I think I've represented both sides of this case pretty well at this point. I've certainly represented the anti-Harvard crowd far better than I initially thought I would. Which leads me to ask you, the readers, to tell me what you think in the comments.
Serial commas: Yea or Nay?
YOU DECIDE!!!™
Monday, May 21, 2012
YOU DECIDE!!!!™ (Prologue)
First, let me preface this post by saying I hate writing posts about grammar. I'm the anxious sort and a bit of a perfectionist (also a narcissist and a bit of a drunk, but those are less pertinent personality traits.) Whenever I write a grammar post I sit there and diagram every sentence in it because I don't want to be an ass like this guy. Or this guy. Or this guy. Or, I guess, any Tea Party guy. That being said, I'll try not to overthink it for the next three posts. Allons-y.
I generally like to think of my knowledge of grammar as a little above average. I don't think that's a major boast. I don't descend into lolspeak when texting or l33t on the interwebs (for the most part.) I never really cared for or understood most of that, except for emoticons, which are now sadly kind of extinct.
But when it comes to the Queene's Englishe, I know my way around a participial phrase, if you know what I mean. Still, though, I start sentences with "but" sometimes, and it's often been pointed out by certain wags around this very blog that I may not always necessarily differentiate between the uses of "it's" and "its" properly.
Which is all to say that as a general rule, I at least usually KNOW when I'm doing something wrong, like capitalizing a word for emphasis instead of making better word choices. Part of developing your tone as a writer is making choices, like switching into the second person in place of the rigid (but considered "proper") use of "one."
I also prefer to believe that I'm not an asshole about grammar choices, too, unlike certain wags who hang about this very blog, pointing out proper and improper uses of "it's." Because I don't much care for grammar assholes.
(It's fucking pronounced "sherbert," not "cherbey." "Irregardless" is most definitely in the dictionary, and even if it weren't, organic evolution of language, etc., etc.)
I've never much cared for grammar rules of the so-obscure-that-you-act-like-everybody-else-is-doing-it-wrong-except-for-you variety. But there are people who consider themselves clever for doing so, and after they're done clapping like seals and braying like jackasses, they go back to their sad and lonely lives of poring over Strunk and White's all night by a single candle, searching for, I assume, more things to point out wrong in the writing of others.
How did I get this far without even addressing the topic of this blog?
Ah, well. Lo que es pasado es prologo, as the immortal Bard would have said if he had been Spanish. In any case, the point of all this nattering and mostly finding sidebars to complain about those fucking grammar assholes that I hate so much, especially the ones that hang around this very blog pointing out every instance of misused "it's" is that I recently stumbled upon two grammar rules of which I genuinely was not aware.
And this is because they had changed. (Sentence fragment.)
Or, in any case, conventional wisdom had changed. I learned a rule, probably in elementary school, and in the twenty-odd years since learning it, and following it slavishly, some asshole, probably after pointing out an improper use of the word "it's" had decided that rule was no longer valid. I wouldn't say these are grammar rules that I love like members of my own family, but they are grammar rules that are so deeply ingrained in my psyche that I can't just stop doing them, even though I've heard talk that they are wrong.
So in both of these cases I thought it would be best to pose the question to you, my imaginary readers, of whether these rules are correct, incorrect, convenient, incovenient, mutable, immutable, or whether I'm making a mountain out of a molehill. I have decided therefore to plan a two-part (three-part, now that this prologue has rated its own blogpost) where you decide what's best, called YOU DECIDE!!!™
We will address one of these rules on Wednesday, and the other on Friday, in order to allow the no doubt rollicking conversation in the comments a chance to subside. So, gird your loins, and prepare yourselves...to be the DECIDERS™!
I generally like to think of my knowledge of grammar as a little above average. I don't think that's a major boast. I don't descend into lolspeak when texting or l33t on the interwebs (for the most part.) I never really cared for or understood most of that, except for emoticons, which are now sadly kind of extinct.
But when it comes to the Queene's Englishe, I know my way around a participial phrase, if you know what I mean. Still, though, I start sentences with "but" sometimes, and it's often been pointed out by certain wags around this very blog that I may not always necessarily differentiate between the uses of "it's" and "its" properly.
Which is all to say that as a general rule, I at least usually KNOW when I'm doing something wrong, like capitalizing a word for emphasis instead of making better word choices. Part of developing your tone as a writer is making choices, like switching into the second person in place of the rigid (but considered "proper") use of "one."
I also prefer to believe that I'm not an asshole about grammar choices, too, unlike certain wags who hang about this very blog, pointing out proper and improper uses of "it's." Because I don't much care for grammar assholes.
(It's fucking pronounced "sherbert," not "cherbey." "Irregardless" is most definitely in the dictionary, and even if it weren't, organic evolution of language, etc., etc.)
I've never much cared for grammar rules of the so-obscure-that-you-act-like-everybody-else-is-doing-it-wrong-except-for-you variety. But there are people who consider themselves clever for doing so, and after they're done clapping like seals and braying like jackasses, they go back to their sad and lonely lives of poring over Strunk and White's all night by a single candle, searching for, I assume, more things to point out wrong in the writing of others.
How did I get this far without even addressing the topic of this blog?
Ah, well. Lo que es pasado es prologo, as the immortal Bard would have said if he had been Spanish. In any case, the point of all this nattering and mostly finding sidebars to complain about those fucking grammar assholes that I hate so much, especially the ones that hang around this very blog pointing out every instance of misused "it's" is that I recently stumbled upon two grammar rules of which I genuinely was not aware.
And this is because they had changed. (Sentence fragment.)
Or, in any case, conventional wisdom had changed. I learned a rule, probably in elementary school, and in the twenty-odd years since learning it, and following it slavishly, some asshole, probably after pointing out an improper use of the word "it's" had decided that rule was no longer valid. I wouldn't say these are grammar rules that I love like members of my own family, but they are grammar rules that are so deeply ingrained in my psyche that I can't just stop doing them, even though I've heard talk that they are wrong.
So in both of these cases I thought it would be best to pose the question to you, my imaginary readers, of whether these rules are correct, incorrect, convenient, incovenient, mutable, immutable, or whether I'm making a mountain out of a molehill. I have decided therefore to plan a two-part (three-part, now that this prologue has rated its own blogpost) where you decide what's best, called YOU DECIDE!!!™
We will address one of these rules on Wednesday, and the other on Friday, in order to allow the no doubt rollicking conversation in the comments a chance to subside. So, gird your loins, and prepare yourselves...to be the DECIDERS™!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)