lurker

Happy Birthday Trebs! Enjoy your special day. P.S. You're old.

Ah, the dreaded school uniforum issue. The local school here just voted in favor of uniforms and it's been a popular topic of conversation among my friends. Here's my take: There is no reason you can't have a dress code rather than a uniform. A dress code would be something like: no shorts, no jeans, no tank tops, etc. Dress codes establish that whole "we're dressed respectably and must act accordingly" advantage just the same as school uniforms do. More concerte dress codes are a good idea if there is a problem with kids wearing 'inappropriate attire' that would be difficult to police in an objective way. I'm talking about micro-mini skirts and tube tops - the types of things that junior high students should NOT be wearing, but you can't realistically enforce a 'don't dress like a ho' policy (and who wants to be the teacher checking out if 13 year old girls are too scantily clad). I don't buy the whole "rich kids can dress in label clothing and it makes poor kids feel bad" reason for school uniforms. There are ALWAYS ways that rich kids will be able to make poor kids feel bad if they are so inclined. If it isn't a shirt or a pair of pants, then it'll be a pair of shoes, a bookbag or handbag, or even the car their parents drive or vacation or house, etc. Requiring school uniforms is a throw-away effort that many school boards resort to rather than figuring out better ways to deter bullying and other crappy behavior that you see in junior high. As far as I can tell, it's a red herring. And allowing SOME parents to waive their kids out of uniforms defeats the whole UNIFORM thing. It just creates hierarchies between kids who get the waiver and those that don't.

This past weekend, someone shared an interesting idea: Just curious.

Damnit. Not sure if you were still in chat at the point where I explained that calling my name is a sure way to get my attention, even when I'm TRYING to be discrete. You're right, though. I didn't want to read it. Good thing it's not the sort of thing I'm posting in my blog about, even though my blog is allegedly about "What I'm reading." Hope you have a great weekend, Dave!

You're asking an interesting question, but to be honest, I think it's almost like asking other people how fast they run and then trying to use those responses to help you run faster (or slower). In both cases, to some extent, the speed is a matter of natural/inate ability and to some extent, the speed is a function of how 'in shape' or 'in practice' you are (how many hours a week are you training/writing) as well as your technique (there are different running/writing styles - not everyone should be the same, but some produce 'quicker' results). Stephen King has written a book called "On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft" that is one part auto-biography and one part how-to (and how-not-to) for aspiring writers. [For those interested: It's a short, quick read, which makes up for the fact that it's a bit pretentious. But even he admits to take everything he says with a grain of salt. I'd extend that to a teaspoon, and we're even.] Anyway, in his book, King describes his own writing environment and daily goals. He mentions that he aims to write 3000 words per day. If I recall correctly, he claims that this task (on average) takes him 3-4 hours, I believe, but that some days it's even more. Very rarely would it take him less than 3 hours. We're talking about solid hours sitting at a desk and writing non-stop for someone who has been writing his whole life and doesn't really take ANY days off. Note that King explains that he doesn't really edit as he writes. He saves most real editing, even self-editing, for when the first draft is finished (and this editing task doesn't 'count' in the daily writing goal). Like his stories or not, Stephen King is a prolific and successful (in a commercial sense) author. This is his JOB. Compare Stephen King's writing pace to another author that many of us know and love, DomLuka. His chapters are LONG (I don't know actual word count), but there tend to be gaps between postings, even though readers tend to want a new chapter every day. Some readers DO forget details between postings and go back to review the last chapter before reading the newest one, but that doesn't mean they don't keep following or liking the story. [some readers, on the otherhand, are particularly aware of every detail of the story and could beat (and have beaten) Dom in a trivia game about his own writing.] I don't think there is anything wrong with producing a consistent 500 to 1000 words/day. The key is really the consistency more than anything. But since you seem concerned, here are two suggestions: 1) You might be 'over-editing' while writing the first draft. This is a matter of technique. You might want to set a goal where you don't allow yourself to edit a portion of a story (or allow yourself one edit) until you complete x number of words. Once you've gotten more down, then you can edit the story (and of course, have a pair of outside eyes edit as well). It's easy to get caught up in revising the same 500 words over and over until they seem perfect. This can be dangerous because you don't move on AND because it gives you the misimpression that the results for those 500 words actually ARE perfect and don't need any subsequent tweaking. 2) I realize that Singularity is already in the process of being posted, but perhaps for future stories, you should wait until you've written more chapters before you even start to post. That way, you can release them on a schedule that isn't dependent on the speed of your future progress. Hope this helps. Keep up the good writing!

I hate it when... some idiot at the supermarket slams a shopping cart into the back of my foot and I'm wearing sandals. I hate it more when... that idiot is me.

That's good detective work, Myr. It very well could be. Of coures, Rowling has no problems using names/terms that the reader really wouldn't be able to figure out, so it doesn't have to be someone we're aware of. As some of you may know from my blog, I've just started the HP series this month. So I don't have the same long-term attachment and anticipation. Nonetheless, this past weekend, I finished HP & The Half-Blood Prince. Here's my perspective:

Happy Birthday, Jules!

Chapter Ten of Observation: The Iverexperience is now posted at: http://www.observationtheiverexperience.so...hapter_ten.html

There are many reasons people may write, but the decision to share the writing with an audience necessarily includes some desire to influence the audience. This can take many forms - to entertain, to amuse, to scare, to educate, to communicate something about the author, to make a broader social statement, etc. Usually, more than one of these effects is intended, whether conscious or subconscious. It is helpful to the writing if writers are honest with themselves about how they intend their writing to influence/effect the audience. I don't think writing for an audience is simply 'expressing what you feel' as an author, even though that may be a component to it. And I agree with Zot that story crafting often requires authors to suppress their true feelings to create a believable world that is specifically NOT real. Given these dynamics, I don't think writers are slaves to their audiences unless they allow themselves to be. I don't think they are required to please an audience. There are plenty of other reasons to share writing. Authors often write solely to express their true feelings (I call it "writing as therapy" and mean that in a non-disparaging way), but they must ask themselves: why am I sharing this? What IS my intention regarding the audience?

Chapter Nine of Observation: The Iverexperience is now posted at: http://www.observationtheiverexperience.so...apter_nine.html

I use green too.

Happy Birthday!

Happy Birthday! First J and now you. I don't think it'll be safe to drive anywhere in this country for some time...

I agree with much of the advice given. Here's another tidbit, especially for your first semester: Do NOT schedule any classes before 10:00 AM at a minimum. But I get up early already for school... But I like getting up... But I really want to take this class... But, but, but... NO! But... NO! Don't do it. You will regret it. Sleep patterns change, and depending on rooming situations, you may not have much choice about going to bed early anyway. Peak socializing hours tend to be late at night. Once you have a semester - or maybe even a year - under your belt, you'll have a better idea about your scheduling, your rooming, and your social life. Then you can decide whether you can honestly pull off the early morning class routine and what classes are so important to you that you must endure it.

Chapter Eight of Observation: The Iverexperience is now posted: http://www.observationtheiverexperience.so...pter_eight.html

I love America (not the rock group, the country), but I have to respond here... The amount of fighting in NHL hockey has declined significantly in the past 20 years. This is true if you look at the number of actual 'fights' on tape, the number of penalties leveled for fighting, OR what is being defined as 'fighting' (it takes far less now). The days of the all-ice brawl are pretty much over. Hockey fights are heavily controlled battles between 2 players, and they are broken up the instant one player hits the ice or gains too great an advantage. Is it the same as international or college competition? No. But without going all Don Cherry on anyone's ass, there are reasons to doubt that the international or college games are actually 'safer' for players either. The problem of hockey violence is not really one of 'fighting.' It's about stickwork that breaks bones, trips/slewfoots that take out knees, and elbows/charging that increase concussions. Can Olympic hockey be more exciting to watch than the NHL? Sure, of course. Because you've taken the absolute elite skaters in the world, and for the top 6-8 countries, their best players are more talented than the NHL average team. But this has nothing to do with fighting. It has to do with a watered-down NHL talent pool due to over-expansion that even the influx of more international players could not keep up with. If the NHL dropped at least 4 teams, you'd see a nice across the board improvement in the quality of play. Of course, we still have the problem that international ice is bigger, and you can't go rebuilding every NHL arena just because players are faster, bigger, and stronger now. I'll happily debate whether two-line passes should be offsides. I'm inclined to think they should be allowed. But the ice would STILL be clogged with players. If you can't make the ice bigger, you need to create more space. The solution? 4 on 4 all the time. So now, we have fewer teams playing 4 on 4 all the time - bam, the hockey starts looking a lot better. Only the NHLPA hates me, because I've cut all those jobs. Icing, btw, is absolutely necessary if you don't want teams to be able to throw the puck ahead to no one in particular. It makes the game more interesting, not less. I've heard that they may be instituting shoot-outs in the NHL (now that a deal has been reached) to avoid having so many regular season ties. I think it's a silly solution to a non-problem. A good hockey game can end in a tie. Go ahead, kiss your sister. Get over it. I'll let JR handle talking to those 'fans' who think shoot-outs are needed because hockey is 'boring' if there is no clear winner to a regular season game. Awarding extra points to the team that has the better goalie or more talented top 5 breakaway types make no sense. Hockey is hockey and shoot-outs are NOT hockey. Let the points be decided by playing hockey. In the playoffs, we have sudden death OT however long it takes and nothing tops that. Now, we can't do that in the regular season, but perhaps OT should be a little longer (10 minutes or even 20). It's more feasible if they drop the number of games in the season, which they should. The hockey regular season is far too long. Maybe 50 games isn't perfect if you want an unbalanced schedule and to play every team at least once. But the number of games should be closer to 50 than 80. Fewer games with more importance - and a longer OT if need be - now the regular season games get more exciting, count more. [The playoffs don't neeed fixing, they are great.] And now, the NHL owners hate me, because I've just destroyed all the revenue from the games not being played. Ok. Must stop now before this turns into a rant...

Not only is it confusing at first, but even once you know where these key points are, it is pretty useless to anyone who lives in the middle. Barring some major accident, they never explain WHERE the tie-ups are clustered. Is it stop and go the whole way? Does it clear up after the merge? Who knows?

Of course I know what an egg cream is. Then again, my folks were still getting seltzer bottles (yes, the glass spritz ones) delivered by the seltzer man until this past year! They only stopped this year because they moved out of NYC. And of course, it's soda...except to all these Midwestern dorks in Ruleland.

Chapter Seven of Observation: The Iverexperience is now posted at: http://www.observationtheiverexperience.so...pter_seven.html

Happy Birthday!

How about this one: There once was a man from Venus...

Happy Birthday, Deb!

Did someone say hockey? <ears perk up> And Snow Dog, hockey isn't just for spectators. It's the greatest sport to play, too!