Showing posts with label Writing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Writing. Show all posts

Saturday, July 16, 2016

Second blog post of the day after 3 month hiatus

How to Blog a Book: Write, Publish, and Promote Your Work One Post at a TimeHow to Blog a Book: Write, Publish, and Promote Your Work One Post at a Time by Nina Amir

My rating: 4 of 5 stars


I am posting my Goodreads review on my blog - my first blog post in 3 months! I'm posting this now, while still working my way through this excellent guide, for the express purpose of "blaming" Nina Amir for this neglect. She says, more than once, to complete all the preparatory work before posting your first post on your blog. Of course she means the blog on which you intend to "blog your book one post at a time," and she differentiates this from a personal blog that roams among various interests of the blogger. Mine has been the latter, but I'm intrigued with the idea of blogging one or more of the books I've intended to write for so many decades. Harry Browne, in his excellent How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World wrote of the "Previous Investment Trap." After putting time and money into a project, you hesitate to stop - even if you should stop. I find it hard to even contemplate scrapping 9 years of work and starting over, and am also too lazy to want to start one or more additional blogs. Thanks to Ms. Amir, I will do one or more of these daunting tasks because I don't want to die with my "music" still in me...



View all my reviews

Saturday, August 9, 2014

This Book can Change Your Life - if you are or want to be a writer!

Robert's Rules of Writing: 101 Unconventional Lessons Every Writer Needs to KnowRobert's Rules of Writing: 101 Unconventional Lessons Every Writer Needs to Know by Robert Masello
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

I gave this one five stars, "It was amazing," because it would have been so easy for this to be a disappointment. Instead, I looked forward to each new "lesson," each of which is its own "chapter." Masello is often tongue-in-cheek in how he conveys his lessons, but deadly serious in giving budding (and experienced) writers a wealth of options for making their work better. I found silly humor in the little slips of paper on the cover, with lesson numbers and bits of the lessons looking like a page of them had bit cut into strips. Humor because (does this count as a spoiler alert?) the lesson numbers on the strips on the cover do not correspond to their numbers in the books. (Who checks these things? I do but don't know if anyone else does, or cares.) For me, this works best when I read just one or a few lessons at a time, so my brain doesn't get overloaded. It only looks like "light" writing - it is actually dense with experience, information and perspectives. I recommend it highly.

View all my reviews

Tuesday, July 15, 2014

EDIT, or Maybe DELETE. Do not hit "Send" right away!

[Spoiler alert] This is the final line in the Boston Globe article below: "Edit thyself. Few of us are so smart or clever that we always get it right the first time." [Second spoiler alert] The following sentence includes a cuss word that I normally would not use, but that is crucial to the quote. In "Bird by Bird: Some Instructions on Writing and Life," Anne Lamott encourages us to write "Shitty First Drafts." This "nasty" prose will never see the light of day, but gives the author a starting point - prose to be edited OR DELETED. When you are outraged or indignant, feel free to hurl invective and expletives ON YOUR OWN SCREEN but avoid the "SEND" button until you count to ten (or more) and then edit, or maybe delete!

TOM KEANE
The stupid stuff we say
By Tom Keane | GLOBE COLUMNIST JULY 15, 2014

[Picture caption] Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert excoriated LeBron James’s decision to sign with the Heat. Now, James is back in Cleveland.

IN 2010, Dan Gilbert excoriated basketball player LeBron James’s decision to sign with the Miami Heat, calling it “cowardly,” “narcissistic,” and a “shameful display of selfishness and betrayal.” Gilbert was not merely an aggrieved fan, however. He was the owner of the Cleveland Cavaliers, the team James was leaving.

Four years later Gilbert is still the owner, and James is now back. The two profess the past is behind them but still, those are thoughts Gilbert has made clear he wishes he’d never expressed. If Gilbert can take any solace in his boneheadedness, though, it’s that he’s not alone. People who should know better — people of power, wealth, and fame — say the stupidest things. They’re helping to give new life to an old cottage industry: the art of the apology. But better, however, would be never to say these things in the first place.

A few days ago, Malaysian politician Bung Moktar Radin congratulated Germany on its recent World Cup win: “Well done … bravo … long live Hitler,” he tweeted. Last month the US Department of Education posted a photo of actor Kristen Wiig, looking obviously intoxicated in a scene from “Bridesmaids,” with a caption saying, “Help me, I’m poor.” “If this is you,” warned the department, “then you better (apply for financial aid).” Also last month, TV viewers saw horse owner Steve Coburn let loose, saying owners who didn’t enter their horses in the first two races of the Triple Crown had taken “the coward’s way out.”

The month before, a Miami Dolphins running back tweeted “OMG,” “horrible” upon hearing the St. Louis Rams had signed Michael Sam, pro football’s first openly gay player. A few days earlier, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts proclaimed “Sexual assault is always avoidable,” ostensibly to mark May as Sexual Assault Awareness Month. And in January, MSNBC expressed its approval of a cute Cheerios ad featuring a biracial family, saying, “Maybe the rightwing will hate it, but everyone else will go awww.”

Predictable outrage, of course, greeted each remark. So did predictable apologies.

After a rebuke from his country’s prime minister, the Malaysian pol somewhat non-grammatically apologized: “I unintentionally said something that hurt d feeling of d ppl in Germany.” “We’re very sorry,” said the US Department of Education, regretting its “insensitivity.” I’m “very ashamed of myself,” a chastened Coburn said two days after ripping into the horse-racing industry.

The Miami Dolphins player, meanwhile, waxed broadly in his well-scripted apology, expressing remorse not only to Sam but to pretty much everyone else as well, promising in the future to “represent the values of the Miami Dolphins organization.”

“Dumb mistake,” said Bay State Governor Deval Patrick, making clear his administration would never blame sexual assault victims.

“I personally apologize,” said the president of MSNBC, terming the anti-conservative gibe “outrageous and unacceptable.”

All well and good, I suppose. But still, the offending comments were made. Some — such as the Department of Education post — were just inadvertent or lame jokes. Others — such as MSNBC’s tweet — were likely more deeply felt. Either way, what once would have been boorish thoughts heard or seen by just a few, are now, with stunning rapidity, spread worldwide as stories, tweets, posts, or emails passed on from one user to the next. That’s what happened to public relations rep Justine Sacco, who last December tweeted “Going to Africa. Hope I don’t get AIDS. Just kidding. I’m white!” immediately before boarding an 11-hour flight to Cape Town. By the time she landed, her tweet had become a worldwide obsession and her job had been lost.

Dan Gilbert wrote and posted his screed in the heat of the moment following LeBron’s much anticipated “Decision.” Coburn the horseman faced the cameras emotionally distraught from his loss. Competing for ever more followers and influence, Twitter and other social media encourage users’ desperate efforts to be distinctive or outrageous.

There’s much to like about instantaneous communication, but not, perhaps, about thoughts instantly expressed. An old piece of advice runs through my head every time I see these now-familiar routines of offending statements and heartfelt apologies: Sleep on it. That notion runs counter to the immediate-response ethos of social media, but it’s worth reviving. Edit thyself. Few of us are so smart or clever that we always get it right the first time.

Tom Keane can be reached at tomkeane@tomkeane.com.

Thursday, June 5, 2014

Should a Writer Hate Amazon?

Alex Beam's Boston Globe article, below, provides food for thought when he reminds us that, "...the interests of authors and publishers do not always align....authors have literary agents...to protect them against publishers, not against booksellers." Full disclosure: I am an Amazon Prime buyer, a very small scale Amazon bookseller ("harrywill") and purchase electronics from them.

ALEX BEAM
Writers love to hate Amazon, but why?
By Alex Beam | The Boston Globe | JUNE 05, 2014

WRITERS ARE an excitable lot; like skittish colts, they can be easily stampeded in one direction or another.

On May 10, just as the dispute between the world’s third-largest publisher Hachette and Amazon was warming up, bestselling author and then-president of the Authors Guild Scott Turow declared: “I stand with my publishers at Hachette in standing up against the Darth Vadar [sic] of the literary world, a.k.a. Amazon.”

A few weeks later, Turow’s successor as guild president, Roxana Robinson, said on TV that trying to deal with Amazon was “like trying to negotiate with Tony Soprano.” As in the Mafia; geddit?

Let’s do a little experiment. I want to buy a paperback copy of Robinson’s wonderful 2009 novel, “Cost.” Two of the area’s five premier independent bookstores carry the paperback for about $17. Robinson’s website asks you to buy the book from bn.com, Barnes & Noble’s online home. With shipping, that costs about the same. (The book is out of stock at the B&N stores at the Prudential Center and Burlington, so you can’t opt for in-store pickup.)

Amazon will offer you a similar deal, except its Prime customers get free shipping, as well as access to streaming movies and TV shows. And for less than half the paperback cost, you can read it on its Kindle, which has decisively trumped B&N’s de-funded Nook in the e-reader wars.

Amazon is competitive, to put it mildly.

I’m a member of the Authors Guild, and I accept that Amazon is a fact of life in the bookselling trade. Just a few years ago, Amazon accounted for 30 percent or less of a writer’s sales. Now, if you include Kindle sales, it often accounts for 50 percent or more. Of course I love bookstores. But it behooves me to love Amazon, too.

(I do love how Amazon has enriched my social interactions. As a recently published author, I’ve learned that “I’m going to download your book” actually means: “I have no intention of buying or reading your book, and — short of searching my Kindle — you’ll never know.”)

The anti-Amazon crowd frames the current debate as authors and publishers versus Amazon. But the interests of authors and publishers do not always align. The reason authors have literary agents, for instance, is to protect them against publishers, not against booksellers.

By coincidence, I met three writers last week who all used Amazon to publish books. Amazon printed Stephen Davis’s fascinating mini-book, “William Burroughs/Local Stop on the Nova Express.” Ellen Leopold used Amazon’s CreateSpace program to publish her collection of essays about breast cancer, “My Soul Is Among Lions.”

Amazon’s famously impenetrable algorithms detected some sales strength in Tom Waite’s self-published novel, “Terminal Value,” and twice offered it as a “Kindle Daily Deal” — at no cost to him. For a while, he was selling more e-copies than “The Hobbit” or “Gone Girl.”

Be careful what you wish for. Waite’s forthcoming novel, “Lethal Code,” will be published by Amazon, which has an execrable record as a publisher, as opposed to a seller, of books.

Could Amazon be a better citizen of BookWorld? Of course. It should pay to advertise in newspapers’ floundering book review sections, which channel plenty of business its way. (The Hachettes of the world hardly ever do this.) Amazon could even invest in a high-quality book review, such as the Barnes & Noble Review.

I hope you buy every book mentioned in this column. How you do so is your own business. Boycotts are for the birds.

Globe contributor Alex Beam is the author of “American Crucifixion: The Murder of Joseph Smith and the Fate of the Mormon Church.”

Sunday, May 25, 2014

Handwritten Notes vs. Laptops in Lectures: Ease vs. Effectiveness!

The article below, from today's Boston Sunday Globe Magazine, really resonated for me. Soon I will record my oft-told metaphors of wise mother birds who push their young from the nest, and the butterfly's necessary struggle to escape its chrysalis. In the meantime, there are many ways to generalize from this specific lesson in "ease versus effectiveness," I find the specific lesson valuable too. I wanted to tell Amy Korim how long ago I narrated "Peter and the Wolf" with the Brockton Symphony Orchestra and discovered my computer calendar from the time (February 11, 2007!) did not survive the transition to new software. My pre-computer, handwritten Journal volumes are intact. As far as remembering lectures, the "editing" the note-writer (as opposed to typist) must do, to capture the most salient points, makes the content their own.

Taking notes? Bring a pen, skip the computer
A little “desirable difficulty” is good for memory, a new study suggests
By Ruth Graham | GLOBE CORRESPONDENT | MAY 25, 2014

JUST ABOUT EVERY professor has complained about students with screens in front of them flitting over to Facebook or Tumblr instead of listening to a lecture. But, those distractions aside, it’s hard to blame the kids for wanting to type their notes instead of write them out longhand. Think of how much quicker you can type an e-mail than write a letter: Digital note-taking is simply easier.

A paper published online in the journal Psychological Science last month, however, suggests that longhand may actually hold an advantage when it comes to the most important reason we take notes—that is, to help us remember what we’ve heard. The researchers—Pam Mueller, a graduate student at Princeton University, and Daniel Oppenheimer, a psychology professor at UCLA’s Anderson School of Management—had students take notes on a lecture, and then quizzed them on it later. In the end, longhand note-takers performed better on quizzes than their laptop-wielding peers, even though the Internet was disabled.

If these findings seem suspiciously Luddite in their implications, it’s because they run counter to what we view as a key purpose of modern technology: to streamline, automate, and simplify tasks for us. But in fact, sometimes the easiest method is not the best. What Mueller and Oppenheimer observed is an illuminating example of what psychologists call “desirable difficulty”—the fact that sometimes, obstacles that frustrate us actually help us learn. It’s a phenomenon that suggests that, instead of rushing headlong into new technologies that make life easier, it may be worthwhile to ask whether they really improve outcomes or in some way sell us short.

Mueller and Oppenheimer started by having subjects watch a lecture on a screen, and assigning them to take notes either by hand or on a laptop. About 30 minutes later, subjects were quizzed about factual and conceptual elements of the lecture. They found that students who took longhand notes performed significantly better, particularly on conceptual questions.

Something even more surprising happened when the researchers waited a week to quiz their subjects, and then allowed them to review their own notes first. Because the laptop users could type faster than the writers could write, they had taken more notes, which other research has shown to be beneficial. “We though we might see [laptop users] rebound because they had extra content,” Mueller said. But the longhand note-takers still outperformed them. “We were really surprised that they seemed to not get any benefit from that.”

All notes are not created equal. Because laptop users are better able to keep up with the pace of speech, it turns out, they are more susceptible to transcribing lectures verbatim, a style of note-taking that previous experiments has shown to be inferior. “If students are taking down notes on everything that’s said in class, they’re just functioning as a stenographer,” said Michael Friedman, a cognitive psychologist who is conducting note-taking research as a fellow at the Harvard Initiative for Learning & Teaching.

Note-taking is a two-part action: creating the notes (“encoding”) and reviewing them later (“storage”), both of which confer learning benefits. When the encoding becomes too easy, that first opportunity to learn is wasted, particularly when it comes to absorbing concepts rather than rote facts. (Some note-takers—say, journalists conducting interviews—do need verbatim notes, of course.) But even when Mueller and Oppenheimer specifically warned their subjects about the perils of verbatim notes, the laptop users couldn’t help themselves. When people have the chance to act like stenographers, they do.

Taking notes by hand, by contrast, forces students to grapple with the material enough to summarize it, since they aren’t physically capable of writing down every word. The constraints enforced by the rudimentary technology of pen and paper force a deeper engagement with the material, the paper concludes.

Twenty years ago, cognitive psychologist Robert Bjork gave this phenomenon a name: “desirable difficulty.” Bjork used it to describe how making learning harder can also make the information stick. For example, Oppenheimer coauthored a 2010 study that found that printing information in hard-to-read fonts helped students remember it later. But it’s tempting to apply the concept outside the world of education, too. A default assumption of modern life is that if technology can make something easier for us, we should use it. Desirable difficulty throws that idea into question.

Oppenheimer points out that we encounter situations where desirable difficulty plays out every day. Cellphones makes calling so easy that we no longer remember our best friends’ numbers. Recent research has shown that when people know they can use a search engine to recall information later, they are less likely to learn that information in the first place, instead opting to learn where they can locate the information. “That isn’t to say that cellphones or Google are disadvantageous,” he wrote in an e-mail. “They both are incredibly helpful and allow us to function much more efficiently. But they may be detrimental for certain goals: If your goal is to memorize phone numbers, don’t use autodial.”

Just as you can dial people’s phone numbers from your cellphone keypad, it’s possible to learn to use modern tools in ways that replicate some of the difficulty of older methods. In the case of note-taking, that could mean taking notes on a laptop but with some adjustments. “Students are notoriously incomplete note-takers,” said Kenneth Kiewra, an educational psychologist at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln who has been studying note-taking since the 1980s. His research has shown that students capture only about a third of important lecture ideas in their notes. “The laptop has potential because people can record more with a laptop, but we need to get them to not do it mindlessly.” In a study currently under review, he found that built-in breaks for note revision during class helped students significantly improve their notes—and their future quiz performances.

Others in the burgeoning scholarly research on note-taking have further suggestions. Mueller, for example, is interested in studying whether stylus-and-tablet devices might combine the benefits of computers and longhand. Oppenheimer speculates that it might be possible to somehow force typers to slow down, ensuring they take digital notes at the speed of longhand.

Meanwhile, the concept of “desirable difficulty” is finding parallels beyond the borders of pedagogy. Oppenheimer’s 2012 book, “Democracy Despite Itself,” locates a similar phenomenon within politics: The “veto players” who make democracy so frustratingly inefficient also protect us from catastrophically terrible policies being swept into law. Malcolm Gladwell used the term in his most recent book, “David and Goliath,” in observing that extremely successful people have often lost a parent in childhood and that many entrepreneurs have dyslexia. And echoes of the concept can be found in the ongoing vogue for “slow” everything: Slow food, slow church, slow parenting—and yes, slow education. It may be human nature to take the easiest route available, but it’s becoming clear that slowness and difficulty can add real value.

Meanwhile, professors and teachers will have decisions to make. Oppenheimer now starts each semester by describing his research on note-taking, and very few students go on to use laptops in his class. Some instructors go even further. University of Virginia history professor James Loeffler banned laptops from his classrooms a few years ago, fed up with how the devices turned even attentive students from big thinkers into transcribers. “My policy stems from my own critical reasoning—precisely what I am trying to teach students—not social science data,” he said by e-mail. But, he added, “It’s nice to have some reinforcement.”

Ruth Graham, a writer in New Hampshire, is a regular contributor to Ideas.

Wednesday, April 30, 2014

Prose must be evaluated by HUMANS

This is one of the most upsetting things I have read in a long time on the subject of contemporary education. Decades ago, when it was already common to purchase essays by ghost writers, and diplomas became less reliable indicators of "being educated," I predicted a time when honored human "examiners" would orally test and interview applicants for "certification." Here we see the opposite approach and its potential for disaster. Shame on anyone who calls him or her self and educator and relies on a machine to evaluate prose!

Boston Globe Opinion Section
LES PERELMAN
Flunk the robo-graders
By Les Perelman | APRIL 30, 2014

“According to professor of theory of knowledge Leon Trotsky, privacy is the most fundamental report of humankind. Radiation on advocates to an orator transmits gamma rays of parsimony to implode.’’

ANY NATIVE speaker over age 5 knows that the preceding sentences are incoherent babble. But a computer essay grader, like the one Massachusetts may use as part of its new public school tests, thinks it is exceptionally good prose.

PARCC, the consortium of states including Massachusetts that is developing assessments for the Common Core Curriculum, has contracted with Pearson Education, the same company that graded the notorious SAT essay, to grade the essay portions of the Common Core tests. Some students throughout Massachusetts just took the pilot test, which wasted precious school time on an exercise that will provide no feedback to students or to their schools.

It was, however, not wasted time for Pearson. The company is using these student essays to train its robo-grader to replace one of the two human readers grading the essay, although there are no published data on their effectiveness in correcting human readers.

Robo-graders do not score by understanding meaning but almost solely by use of gross measures, especially length and the presence of pretentious language. The fallacy underlying this approach is confusing association with causation. A person makes the observation that many smart college professors wear tweed jackets and then believes that if she wears a tweed jacket, she will be a smart college professor.

Robo-graders rely on the same twisted logic. Papers written under time pressure often have a significant correlation between length and score. Robo-graders are able to match human scores simply by over-valuing length compared to human readers. A much publicized study claimed that machines could match human readers. However, the machines accomplished this feat primarily by simply counting words.

Recently, three computer science students, Damien Jiang and Louis Sobel from MIT and Milo Beckman from Harvard, demonstrated that these machines are not measuring human communication. They have been able to develop a computer application that generates gibberish that one of the major robo-graders, IntelliMetric, has consistently scored above the 90th percentile overall. In fact, IntelliMetric scored most of the incoherent essays they generated as “advanced” in focus and meaning as well as in language use and style.

Unfortunately, the problem in evaluating these machines is the lack of transparency on the part of the private vendors and the researchers associated with them. None of the major testing companies allow easy access or open-ended demonstrations of their robo-graders. My requests to the testing companies to examine their products have largely gone unanswered. A Pearson vice president explained that I was denied access to test the product now being considered by PARCC because I wanted “to show why it doesn’t work.” I was able to obtain access to Vantage’s IntelliMetric only by buying its Home School Edition.

PARCC should experiment with much more effective and educationally defensible methods for quality control, such as having expert teachers check readers by reading and scoring 20 percent of their papers. This method, already used by the National Writing Project and some of the Advanced Placement examinations, is more reliable for ensuring accuracy. Moreover, the more the scoring is done by real teachers, the more the process produces a double benefit in providing in-service training for teachers along with assessment.

Education, like medicine, is too important a public resource to allow corporate secrecy. If PARCC does not insist that Pearson allow researchers access to its robo-grader and release all raw numerical data on the scoring, then Massachusetts should withdraw from the consortium. No pharmaceutical company is allowed to conduct medical tests in secret or deny legitimate investigators access. The FDA and independent investigators are always involved. Indeed, even toasters have more oversight than high stakes educational tests.

Our children deserve better than having their writing evaluated by machines whose workings are both flawed and hidden from public scrutiny. Whatever benefit current computer technology can provide emerging writers is already embodied in imperfect but useful word processors. Conversations with colleagues at MIT who know much more than I do about artificial intelligence has led me to Perelman’s Conjecture: People’s belief in the current adequacy of Automated Essay Scoring is proportional to the square of their intellectual distance from people who actually know what they are talking about.

Les Perelman recently retired as director of Writing Across the Curriculum at MIT, where he is now a research affiliate.

Sunday, March 9, 2014

Pity this author's stressful lifestyle (just kidding)

Pity this author's stressful lifestyle (just kidding) "I’m kind of like a cat — I follow the sun around the house and read books and take naps... I’ve had the unimaginable luxury of being able to do nothing but write whenever I want." This is from today's Boston Globe:
new england writers at work [sic]
Paul Harding’s habits all over the map
By Eugenia Williamson | Globe Staff | March 08, 2014
Paul Harding’s 2010 Pulitzer Prize for his novel, “Tinkers,” was a story you don’t hear every day — an unknown writer receiving the nation’s most visible literary prize for a debut book from a tiny independent press. Despite the singularity of his career trajectory, and the resulting media attention, Harding has since managed to settle into a more traditional writer’s life. This fall, he published his second novel, “Enon.” He lives in Topsfield.
REPAIR TO THE STUDY: I moved into a new house about a year and a half ago. Part of the attraction of the house was that it has an honest-to-goodness study. It’s really cool — it has bookcases that go up and over windows that look out over the meadow. It’s wallpapered in this straight-from-central-casting Victorian French-peasant pastoral wallpaper. I never would have deliberately chosen it myself, but since it was there, I rolled with it. It’s the quintessential gentlemen’s study. I feel like I should have cognac and cigars. But since I inhabit it, there’s stuff that doesn’t belong here — piles of books and extension cords. I put a couch in it so I can do my creative napping. I wrote a lot of “Enon” in this room.
GRANDFATHER’S CLOCKS: The desk that I sit at when I write is the desk at which my grandfather repaired antique clocks — like the character in “Tinkers.” He fiddled around with clocks, and I fiddle around with words.
ON THE PROWL: The way the house is set up, I have comfortable couches and piles of books all around. I’m kind of like a cat — I follow the sun around the house and read books and take naps. I ride the updrafts and let things intermingle, and whenever I get the fit to write, I can get the laptop and write wherever the spirit possesses me. Sometimes I think writing is kind of like walking around with a dousing rod, trying to find water.
THE WRITING LIFE: [My writing regimen] is all over the map, but for the past four or five years, I’ve had the unimaginable luxury of being able to do nothing but write whenever I want. I’m sort of on a 24-hour writing cycle. My wife is a teacher, so I get up in the morning with the kids. I give them their breakfasts and make them their lunches and get them off to school, and then I have the day to myself until they get back home at 2:30. Usually, the best time to write is in the morning when my kids leave — that’s when I do my deliberate writing for the day, but [inspiration] can strike at any time . . . I can only write for three hours a day before my brain gets stupid, and then I have to eat a sandwich and look at a newspaper and wait for my kids to get home. Nighttime is a good time for editing.

[Caption to clock picture] Paul Harding moved into a new house less than two years ago and does his writing in the “honest-to-goodness” study.

LOST IN THE FUNHOUSE: Once I open a document and start looking at the language, I [experience] this weird phenomenon where my entire brain ends up being absorbed into the language of the book, and I’m preoccupied. Part of that is just water seeking its own level; I do it because I can do it and because nothing is more engrossing to me than being inside the language [or] a character — keeping my mouth shut and my eyes shut and listening and looking for what’s going on in this wholly invented aesthetic realm. I find it literally engrossing, to the extent that when I’m doing it, I’m not thinking about anything in the outside world.
WORLD OF TROUBLE: I’m always looking for the most paradoxical or impossible yet instantly recognizable human predicaments to write about. When I know I have a good book on my hands . . . [I have a] paradoxical feeling of “I’m not good enough to make this work of art that I want to make, and the only way to be good enough is to actually try to do it.’’
Eugenia Williamson is a writer and editor living in Somerville. She can be reached eugenia.williamson@gmail.com.

Sunday, February 2, 2014

Got Writer's Block?

The short piece below is fun and informative. Any of you struggling with ambitions to "be a writer" may enjoy this. I hadn't read too many sentences before thinking, "She should think of herself as a poet," and not worry so much about the perceived "form" of her work. Then I got to the Penultimate sentence. She says, "The only people I know who write like this are poets." The end of the second paragraph says "she stared writing at traffic lights..." I'm thinking they meant "started writing" but their version makes an interesting image.

"Story behind the book: Jenny Offill wrote her book one index card at a time" By Kate Tuttle, Globe correspondent, February 01, 2014
“Dept. of Speculation” isn’t the novel Jenny Offill set out to write. “I had written a novel that was more of a classic linear novel,” she said in a telephone interview, “and I worked on it and worked on it for years, and it always seemed like it wouldn’t catch fire. At a certain point I just scrapped it all, and I kept maybe 15 percent of it, and I wrote those parts out on note cards.”
The process came, in part, from sheer frustration. “I was Googling writer’s block,” said Offill, when she found an article about Mary Robison. “I had read somewhere that she had had writer’s block for ten years. I came across a thing that said that she stared writing at traffic lights in LA, almost to trick herself into getting these small pieces done and going again.”
Though the book retained its central focus on a marriage, it’s also studded with ideas – “little facts about evolutionary biology, stoic philosophy, astronauts,” Offill said — each on its own index card. “Eventually I felt like I was starting to have the right rhythms and juxtapositions,” she said, “to create this sort of fragmented narrative.”
The result is a novel less than 200 pages, a size of book all too often disparaged even when praised (“a minor masterpiece” is the phrase Offill laughingly cited). “I have a slightly contrarian streak as a writer, and one of the things I was interested in was how distilled could I make a life,” Offill said, “and how I could cross what is kind of trivilialized as a domestic novel with a novel of ideas, a philosophical novel.”
The product, a book Michael Cunningham called “as compact and mysterious as a neutron,” would seem to validate its unusual creation process, but Offill offered a friendly warning: “It’s sort of a terrible way to write a novel. I’m not advising it. The only people I know who write like this are poets.”
Offill will read from “Dept. of Speculation” at 7 p.m. Wednesday at Brookline Booksmith.
Kate Tuttle, a writer and editor, can be reached at kate.tuttle@gmail.com.

Thursday, January 23, 2014

For capturing voice - excellent; For Dragon, not so much.

I purchased the Philips DVT1500/00 2 GB Digital Voice Tracer with 2 Built-In Microphones and Dragon Naturally Speaking Voice Recorder via Amazon. I love the recorder itself and gave it four starts on Amazon. Here's the rest of the story.
I broke my old Digital Voice Recorder and decided to spring for this one. I already had Dragon Naturally Speaking on my computer, and it worked just fine, but this recorder comes with Dragon software to convert the audio files directly into text. No need to create a document by reading - or playing the voice recording - "in real time." Rather the software would process and convert the audio. I had to uninstall the regular version of Dragon, install the DVR version, then "train" the software to recognize the files from the DVR. After repeated installations and "trainings," and hours searching online for hints or tips to improve my results, I deleted the DVR version of Dragon and reinstalled the regular Dragon Naturally Speaking, which I use to transcribe old handwritten Journal volumes into text. On my long walks I use the DVR to capture fleeting thoughts. For that it is an excellent voice recorder.