Logocentric (adj).Regarding words and language as a fundamental expression of an external reality (especially applied as a negative term to traditional Western thought by postmodernist critics).
Sometimes I just write whatever I feel like. Other times I respond to prompts, many taken from the following places:
I have always enjoyed the longer distance running and skiing. The Marathon in Summer Olympics and the 50km Mass Start in the Winter. My wife can't understand how I can watch the same race for several hours. But they are fascinating to me. I like the Downhill Slalom, Bobsled and Luge sports. Attending a Winter Olympics remains on my bucket list.
My favorite sporting events in the Winter Olympics are the Luge, Bobsled, Figure Skating and curling. Initially, I thought I would be bored with curling but I'm not. It's fascinating how they determine each glide's angle and potential score.
When my children were younger we built them a luge course, they loved it. We were lucky that winter to have lots of snow to build up the walls and with some help with pallets that we covered with snow, it kept them and the neighborhood kids busy until it warmed up and melted. I was a lot more at ease with the luge course than I was when they decided to try arial jumps off our house roof. Never a dull moment when you live in Maine.
I am reading ESV through the Bible this time. Like you, I've explored a bunch of translations. My church uses NIV but my women's Bible study group (part of the same church) varies based on what Bible study we're doing.
Hope you enjoy the Olympics! I agree that the every four year thing makes them feel more special.
I read the New American Bible, which is a Catholic Bible. (NABRE) They include Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, which generally aren't included in other versions of the Bible. I would be curious to read an orthodox bible or the Ethiopian Bible as I hear they have differences as well.
As for the Olympics, I love the Winter Olympics. I'm just crossing my fingers I have time to watch!
In terms of the original texts the NASB has the best reputation among conservative scholars. It looks at more translations, has a sensible hierarchy of text selection and the best principles for approaching the translation task. It favors original texts when possible. The ESV and NKJV are on a similar level. The Net Bible gives the best overview of the discussions in its commentary. The NIV renders the original text to make it more readable. It is a more functional text which is why many churches use it but it is also less precise. Greek or Russian orthodox are more Septuagint orientated and there is a considerable amount of ethical or emotional rendering to the text.The disadvantage of the NASB is that it loses much of the Hebrew poetical style in its effort to be precise as this does not translate into the English
I'm very fortunate to have met some practicing and humble Christians. Truly humble people seek to serve, not attain power and influence. The actions of many Christians make me run the opposite way... as fast as I can.
In his book, Sit, Walk, Stand, Watchman Nee states: "Nothing has done greater damage to our Christian testimony than our trying to be right and demanding right of others. We become preoccupied with what is and what is not right. We ask ourselves,' Have we been justly or unjustly treated?' and we think thus to vindicate our actions. But that is not our standard. The whole question for us is one of crossbearing".
Jeff, this is an excellent book. Perhaps one for your reading list?
While this isn't my favorite song of theirs per se (I'm still partial to "Some Nights"), "Carry On" captures why I like the band fun. so much. They've got a fairly unique sound, good lyrics, and an overall upbeat sound that you don't find in a lot of other indie bands. I'm a little bummed that they haven't put out an album since Some Nights way back in 2012 (which is the album this song is from). They briefly mentioned working on a new album, and even played a new song on Jimmy Fallon's late night show in 2014, but that song ultimately went onto lead singer Nate Reuss' debut solo album Grand Romantic. The band claimed they weren't breaking up but rather taking some time to pursue other projects, but that announcement was on their Facebook page back in February 2015 and they've been pretty quiet ever since.
I've always been fascinated by musical artists who jump from project to project. Taking the time to focus on your creative interests is obviously important, but this is just one of so many bands that have a hit or start to take off and then they all go their separate ways to work on something else. Wouldn't you want to keep the success up of the group that broke out and everyone is eagerly following along with, and maybe work on your other passion projects concurrently? But so many of them just full-on put their successful endeavors on hold and change to another project full-time.
It seems to be something fairly unique to musicians too. Maybe that has something to do with the intensity of tour schedules or the cost of recording time or something, because I couldn't imagine Stephen King putting his writing career on hold so he can play his music... or an athlete going, "You know what? I think I need to stop playing baseball for a while so I can focus on golf." Every time they do (*cough* Michael Jordan *cough*), it never seems to go well. Deion Sanders may be the exception, having played both baseball and football for a while, and being halfway decent at both. But for the most part, quitting one thing to do another at the moment where you found success in that first thing seems like a bad idea.
Anyway, I hope fun. gets back together, or otherwise emerges from their hiatus soon because they've got a really great sound and a lot of potential. I'd be excited to see what they do next.
I thought this was an interesting back and forth about the ongoing self-publishing versus traditional publishing debate. I'm always fascinated by people who think that a creative pursuit like writing is one-size-fits-all, and that there's a "right" and a "wrong" path to take in pursuit of one's publishing dreams. I also think it's a little bizarre that people can't seem to grasp the general idea of gatekeepers versus mass competition.
In her response to the comments posted here, the original article's author (Alana Semuels) writes, "But the reality is that the traditional model of publishing excludes many authors. Publishing houses accept a tiny fraction of the books pitched to them, and before Amazon, there was really nowhere for unpublished authors to go to get their books to a giant audience of readers. Many of the authors I interviewed for my story said traditional publishing houses had no interest in their work. I am not happy that the publishing industry is struggling, but I do think it could have taken a page from Amazon’s book and innovated some. Rather than just rejecting many of the works that come in, traditional publishing houses could have..."
This is a similar argument that many aspiring screenwriters make in the film and television industry. "Oh, if only there weren't these gatekeepers who refuse to read my stuff!" "Why can't they just give new voices a chance?" Blah blah blah.
First of all, whether people create their art as part of a traditional business structure like publishing houses or movie studios, or strike out on their own to create their art on their terms, there is no right or wrong. Do what you have to do. However, you have to be aware that both of those options have downsides.
If you're someone who's putting your work out there on your own, congratulations! There are no gatekeepers to tell you that you can't. But that also comes with the trade-off that every other person on the planet can do the same thing. You're not the only person self-publishing a book, or uploading a video to YouTube, or blogging on your website. And since you don't have a traditional, established business supporting you, there are issues of visibility. You have to stand out from the crowd to get noticed and become successful, and that's no easy feat.
If you're someone who's seeking a traditional publisher or a movie studio, they are gatekeepers, which means they're not going to buy just anything. It also means they're busy enough that they don't have the time to look at just anything. In most cases, these companies have a very meticulously curated process where they find agents, managers, executives, etc. they trust and focus on finding the majority of their creative works from those sources, while occasionally dipping a toe into the so-called "slush pile" to hopefully stumble across a new voice. But those slush piles are tall and time is scarce. Without spending an absurd amount of money to manage that process, you can't expect a professional company who's actually in the business of producing creative product, to spend all their time considering product.
In the entertainment industry, for example, screenplays take about 2 hours for a professional reader to read and write up coverage (an analysis sent from readers and assistants to executives letting them know the basic story and pros and cons of a script, as well as a recommendation about whether it's worth the executive's time to read). That's four scripts per eight hour work day, per person. That's 20 scripts per week, per person... assuming that person does nothing but read scripts all day. No assistant duties for their boss, no other responsibilities helping the business run... pure read-write up-and-repeat. Want to take a guess how many scripts a place like Disney or Warner Bros. gets a week? Over a hundred. And those are just the ones submitted by agents and managers from established writers. It's estimated that the Writers Guild of America registers over 50,000 screenplays a year. So we're really talking about a thousand scripts a week if these companies were to open the floodgates and consider anything anyone wanted to submit. At 20 scripts per person, that's 50 employees they would need to have reading full time. Even at, say $35,000 a year, that's $1,750,000 a year in salary a company would need to spend on readers alone to properly consider everything that's submitted to them. Which in turn raises the overhead they have to spend, which means they have less money to spend on the actual writers who have projects they like.
I know that kind of went off on a tangent there, but my basis argument is this... know that you have to choose the course of action that's right for you. Also, know that there is no such thing as an unimpeded rise to the top. Stop lamenting how the writing business doesn't work the way you think it should and accept that, with the advent of self-publishing, success now comes in two flavors... you can either continue along the traditional path of trying to impress gatekeepers who will (hopefully) deliver you to an established company that will put your work out and help you rise above the other rabble... or you can be more entrepreneurial by avoiding the gatekeepers and releasing stuff yourself, with the understanding that you have to find your own way to rise above the rabble.
If success as a writer were easy, everybody would be doing it. So go out there and find that success by whatever means necessary, and stop complaining about how "if only it worked differently." There are reasons why things work the way they do, and it's a far more productive use of your time to spend it figuring out how to succeed within that framework than railing against it.
Comment 
