|
About This Author
I am SoCalScribe. This is my InkSpot.
|
Blogocentric Formulations
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:
Thanks for stopping by! 
August 17, 2012 at 7:26pm August 17, 2012 at 7:26pm
| |
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/magazine/a-critic-makes-the-case-for-critics.h...
I really enjoyed reading this article today, as being critical is something that I struggle with constantly. Those of you who have received reviews from me may find this hard to believe, but it's very difficult for me to be critical when I'm giving feedback to others. Maybe it's just the kind of person I am, or maybe it's the fact that I'm a writer myself and know who devastating it can be to face harsh criticism. Whatever the reason, I often find myself "going easy" on the work of other writers... and I'm particularly guilty of filling in a review with compliments that I don't always 100% believe. Maybe it's the way I was raised, being taught that criticism should be preceded and succeeded by compliments in the wonderfully formulaic model for constructive criticism. Regardless of the reason behind it, I often find myself writing things like, "I thought it was a really unique idea, but..." or "Your characters were really engaging, but..." when I don't really think it's a unique idea or that they're engaging characters at all; I simply needed something positive to say before that "but," after which I can criticize whatever larger issue I had with the writing. After all, when you have a 2-to-1 compliment-to-criticism ratio, it can be very difficult to keep coming up with compliments when it's an average piece, let alone when it's a piece of writing you find particularly lacking.
One of the passages from the article that really stuck out to me was:
The sad truth about the book world is that it doesn’t need more yes-saying novelists and certainly no more yes-saying critics. We are drowning in them. What we need more of, now that newspaper book sections are shrinking and vanishing like glaciers, are excellent and authoritative and punishing critics — perceptive enough to single out the voices that matter for legitimate praise, abusive enough to remind us that not everyone gets, or deserves, a gold star.
On the one hand, I'm terrified at the prospect of being an "abusive" critic. I completely agree that not everyone deserves a gold star, and I detest the modern practice of participation ribbons and the "everyone's a winner" mentality that I feel devalues truly exceptional achievement. But I hate being the person to look at someone's work - to know what a writer invests in that work - and to tell them, "I'm sorry, but this just isn't very good and I don't have a whole lot of positive things to say about it." 
I really want to strive to be a better reviewer. I don't necessarily want to be meaner or harsher... but I do want to be more honest and stop coming up with compliments I don't truly stand behind just to couch the criticism because I feel that twinge of guilt when I know I'm about to say something that will be disappointing and discouraging. Garner ends his op-ed with the following: "Until you work up the nerve to say what you think and stand behind it, young critics and fellow amiable tweeters, there’s always the advice the critic George Seldes gave in the title of his 1953 memoir: “Tell the Truth and Run."
Unrelated... now who needs eyes on a new story they've written?   {e:runs_away}
|
August 14, 2012 at 9:03pm August 14, 2012 at 9:03pm
| |
A couple of great writing-related links today:
25 Things You Should Know About Antagonists:
http://terribleminds.com/ramble/2012/07/24/25-things-you-should-know-about-antag...
FAVORITE EXCERPT: "23. THE "KICK THE CAT" MOMENT. In Blake Snyder’s books, he speaks of giving the hero a “Save the Cat” moment — meaning, we get to rally behind the protagonist early on as we get to see just what he’s capable of because, y’know, he rescues the cat from the tree (metaphorically). Antagonists need the reverse: one requires a “Kick the Cat” moment (see also: “Detonate the Puppy,” “Machine Gun the Dolphin,” or “Force the Baby Seal to Watch a Marathon of the Real Houswives of Fucking Anywhere Ever” moment). We need to see just why the antagonist is the antagonist — show us an act that reveals for us the depths of his trouble-making, his hatred, his perversion of the ethical laws and social mores of man."
The 22 Rules of Storytelling, According to Pixar:
http://io9.com/5916970/the-22-rules-of-storytelling-according-to-pixar
FAVORITE EXCERPT: "#13: Give your characters opinions. Passive/malleable might seem likable to you as you write, but it’s poison to the audience."
And, for the visually minded, The 22 Rules of Storytelling, According to Pixar, Illustrated with Lego:
http://slacktory.com/2012/07/pixar-story-rules-illustrated-by-icanlegothat/
|
August 10, 2012 at 6:56pm August 10, 2012 at 6:56pm
| |
I think it's going to be an troubling election year. With the country still in the midst of an economic crisis and a whole host of other problems, it seems like one of those years where the mudslinging will probably be a huge component of the campaigning, particularly in the Presidential race. On the one hand, Romney can (and has) accused Obama of failing to deliver on the "change" that got him elected four years ago... but on the other hand, Obama can (and has) pointed out that Romney is one of the big business, corporate fat cat, super-rich 1% that are largely responsible for getting us into this economic crisis in the first place.
Honestly, I'm not sure who I'm going to vote for at the moment. I'm not thrilled with Obama's performance over the past four years, but I'm also not impressed by a lot of Romney's stances on political issues. I know that Obama isn't solely responsible for the continued problems our country is experiencing, and he does have a very difficult job trying to make progress in such a volatile, polarized political environment. And I know that Romney isn't just some corporate drone or personally responsible for destroying the housing and financial markets. But I do worry that after a great, passionate election four years ago where people on both sides were incredibly motivated and mobilized by their candidate of choice, that we're heading back into an era where voting becomes about choosing the lesser of two evils and who people think will be the least disappointing or screw up the least.
My dad is always fond of saying there should be a "none of the above" option on the ballot, and if enough people vote for that, the parties have to throw out both candidates and start over. And while I realize that - in practice - that would be a fundamentally terrible idea and we'd probably never get anyone elected if we did things that way, part of me wishes there were an option like that, or something similar, to at least get people engaged in the process and make their voices heard. Because it's a terrible, terrible thing when people unenthusiastically punch a ballot card for a candidate they don't particularly believe in - or worse - stay away from the voting process altogether.
I fervently hope that something happens between now and November to engage the American people and at least give us something to care about. Because right now, with what I'm hearing from a lot of other people, we're headed for another "Well, I voted for him because at least he's not as bad as the other guy" type of elections.
|
| |
VACATION UPDATE: Well, our vacation turned more into a stay-cation. As much as I hate that word, it's applicable here. My wife ended up getting really sick the day before we were supposed to leave, and when we woke up the morning of our flight, she could barely drag herself out of bed. It seems that fate had other plans for us, and our trip to Washington, DC was not meant to be on this particular weekend.  I decided that since I'd already submitted the vacation request, I was going to keep the days off anyway... for the past two I've been taking care of my wife who is improving thanks to some heavy duty antibiotics, and I plan on staying home Monday and Tuesday as well.
As for the main topic of this blog post, I wanted to talk a little bit about the "Chick-Fila-A Situation." Not sure how many of you are following it, but the restaurant chain's COO, Dan Cathy, was quoted on a radio talk show as saying:
"I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage'. I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about."
Personally, I don't really care what Cathy thinks about the topic of gay marriage. I don't even really care that Chick-Fil-A, as an organization, has in the past financially donated to organizations which oppose same-sex marriage rights. As I wrote in my most recent Spirituality newsletter, I don't think religion and politics mix when groups or individuals try to push their political agenda on others, but hey, Chick-Fil-A is entitled to support the causes they believe in, just like the rest of us are. It's not like they're refusing to serve customers who "look" gay or some other kind of social injustice... they're just donating to causes they support.
But all that is just background. What really concerns me is the way people are reacting to Cathy's words... on both sides of the issue. The mayor of Boston claimed he would not allow any new Chick-Fil-A restaurants to open in the city unless they changed their social policies. The mayors of Chicago and San Francisco echoed similar sentiments. Mike Huckabee started a Chick-Fil-A appreciation day, designed to counter an organized protest/boycott of the restaurant by marriage equality supporters by encouraging marriage traditionalists to show up and buy something from the restaurant to show their support. Not to be outdone, marriage equality activists are organizing a day for same sex couples to go to the restaurants (some even encourage them to go in drag) and take pictures of themselves kissing cups of water, sauce packets, or other branded items they don't have to pay for. In Northridge, California a Chick-Fil-A restaurant was vandalized with the words, "Tastes Like Hate" spray painted on the exterior of the restaurant in a style similar to the restaurant's popular ads.
Here's what gets me... does anyone see how childish and polarizing this is? Marriage equality advocates are not going to change the mind of traditionalists by staging their "kiss in." Traditionalists are not going to get marriage equality advocates to say, "Oh, wow. 60,000 people showed up to Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day? I better change my opinion on the issue." It's ridiculous. All of these activity is just lashing out and people expressing their anger over their particular side of the issue. But it does nothing to address the issue and, more importantly, it takes their anger out on the staff of the restaurants, who had nothing to do with Cathy's comments. Directing your anger at the employees of one of their restaurants is like being upset that your baseball team lost a game and screaming at one of the stadium vendors or janitors. They had nothing to do with the issue at hand!
What's more, I think it really portrays everybody in a bad light. Some same sex couples have even come out and said that encouraging gay couples to go to Chick-Fil-A in drag is embarrassing because it identifies homosexual relationships with cross-dressing, and perpetuating the stereotype that all gay couples are flamboyant cross-dressers is just as embarrassing and detrimental as a restaurant making comments against marriage equality. On the other side of the issue, some Christians are ashamed of the fact that people are and continue to use the Christian religion as a basis for encouraging discrimination against others.
At the end of the day, it feels like this battle - like so many others - isn't necessary a battle of large groups of popular opinion against another; it's a battle of extremists of one kind against another, looking around and saying, "If you even kind of believe my point of view, you need to do something outlandish and embarrassing to prove it." I know more than a few people who are caught in the middle... somewhere between standing out in front of a Chick-Fil-A waving a Bible, and going into a Chick-Fil-A in drag to kiss a branded packet of barbecue sauce... are the rest of us. People who may have an opinion one way or another, but who can take a more rational approach of either supporting or not supporting a business with your patronage depending on whether you support their corporate officers and/or corporate culture and politics. People who are embarrassed of confessing their personal beliefs on the issue for fear of being grouped in with these extremists. People like the ones at The Jim Henson Company who, after hearing the comments, considered the options and chose to discontinue licensing Muppet toys for Chick-Fil-A kids' meals, instead donating that money to GLAAD. Not a lot of fanfare or boisterous posturing... just a company that decided they didn't want to be in business with another company after these remarks and quietly went their separate ways.
How great would this world be if everyone else handled things the same way, doing what's best for themselves and in accordance with their own beliefs, without trying to wave all of that in the faces of people who see things differently?
|
© Copyright 2025 Jeff (UN: jeff at Writing.Com). All rights reserved.
Jeff has granted InkSpot.Com, its affiliates and its syndicates non-exclusive rights to display this work.
|
Comment • View 4 comments 
