You’ll barely regret this

Another Storify experiment, this time about my so-far 71%-successful effort to lobby for followers on Twitter.

 

Amazon!

Wonder Woman - DC Universe

A reminder: Wonder Woman is fucking awesome.

Earlier: Warriors of Themyscira, or why Miss USA is not-so-secretly an Amazon warrior.

 

Line in chalk

I do not like baseball. It holds no allure for me; no resonance; no nothing. Never has. I have no fond baseball memories, no golden-hued shortstop scenes like the main character in Tobias Wolff’s best-ever short story. I cannot remember or visualize any play from any baseball game, ever, in history. If you offer me free baseball tickets, I will not take them.

I do not like baseball—but I will read Angela Vasquez-Giroux on baseball anytime. Hers is the best kind of writing; with baseball, it, like, almost makes it all make sense to me. It suggests a way in.

I was actually moved to link to this bit of her writing specifically because of this graf, tucked into the middle of the piece:

First Joel Zumaya’s beautiful right elbow went supernova, a truly sickening thing to watch in real time, as I did, tearing up because I just want to hug the boy and tell him, it’s ok, son, you’ve got one more brutal recovery and storybook comeback in you.

Joel Zumaya’s beautiful right elbow went supernova.

What is there not to love about that line? It’s all action (supernova!) and juxtaposition (beautiful?) and suspense—er, who’s Joel Zumaya, anyway? And on and on: sickening, real-time, hug the boy. It’s a whole wacky universe wrapped up in a sentence. It could be the first line of a novel. I’d read that novel.

There’s more, too, including a Yeats cross-reference. Get thee.

All of this has come into being over at The Idler, a cool new venture from a posse of Snarkmarket friends. (There’s a promise of writing from Tim, too.) It’s worth a look and worth your time.

 

13,000 characters

Here’s Pomplamoose with Ben Folds (!) and Nick Hornby (!!):

You know I love Pomplamoose, but you might not know that I love Nick Hornby as well. Specifically, I love him for the book that nobody else loves: How to be Good. I liked both About a Boy and High Fidelity tons, too, but it’s How to be Good that really did it for me—and of course at this point, I love it even more because I feel like it’s the diamond in the rough.

 

Paleo-Music

My favorite post that I wrote for Kottke.org might be “Digging in the crates (or Why my generation is into history),” which used a Ta-Nehisi Coates riff on hip-hop’s omnivorous hunger for obscure/great old music as a kind of vernacular historical barometer. 

But of course, crate-digging isn’t just a hip-hop thing; it’s also always been a huge part of indie rock culture. This is why every time I hear M.I.A. growl The Modern Lovers’ “Road runner, road runner” over hip-hop & Bollywood beats at the start of “Bamboo Banga,” or James Murphy shout “Gil! Scott! Heron!” at the climax of “Losing My Edge,” I feel like Sasha Frere-Jones had his head up his ass.

Then I think about Bob Dylan stealing old Woody Guthrie records from his friend’s houses in Minneapolis, and I think maybe my generation just isn’t so different:

Read the rest of this entry »

 

Step aside, Strunk

The problem with giving a book called Writing Tools as a gift is that its recipient assumes you think she’s a bad writer.

writing-tools-2

I do not think you’re a bad writer.

Over the years, I’ve purchased and given away probably ten copies of Writing Tools. It’s, by far, the best book on writing I’ve ever read—smarter, richer and more useful than even (GET READY FOR IT) The Elements of Style. Its author, Roy Peter Clark, teaches at the Poynter Institute, where both Matt and I used to work (and learn), and so I heard many of its lessons in person. But they come across so clearly and crisply in the book that it is almost—almost—a substitute for Roy himself.

A few things worth noting:

  • This is a practical book. It’s not theory or fusty prescription. It’s a box of chewy ideas you can digest and put to use instantly.
  • The ideas are so chewy, in fact, that many of them easily make the leap to other domains. The ladder of abstraction, for instance, isn’t only useful in writing; it’s a great way to build a presentation. (And as you’ll see if you click that link, the L.O.A., like many of the tools, isn’t Roy’s invention. He’s as much a curator as a coach in this book.)
  • The tools apply across the board: from newspaper writing to fiction writing to blogging. Jeez probably even tweeting.
  • Finally, the book is simply a great object. If you buy it, I implore you: buy the hardcover. The materials that Little, Brown chose for this thing are just perfect. It feels good in the hands; it feels like something you could use for years.

I bring it up now because Roy’s new book, The Glamour of Grammar, is out and newly reviewed in the NYT. There’s a Paper Cuts blog post as well, which I like even better because it brings Roy’s voice into the mix. I haven’t read the new book yet—but the old one is sitting here, right next to my keyboard, within arm’s reach.

P.S. I’m really only setting Writing Tools up against Strunk & White for effect, and to clearly communicate its insta-classic character. The truth, of course, is that the books are entirely complementary.

 

A book by any other name

I liked Tim’s recent Gadget Lab post about the Kindle 3. And I really liked his use of the term “reading machine” at the end. Everything becomes clear now: our friend Mr. Carmody has found a perfect platform for the promulgation of a meme.

In other ebook nomenclature news, I am fully on board with the word livrel. Let’s save that search and watch it spread, shall we?

 

A Herald From the Past

It’s nice today, on the anniversary of the March on Washington, while our friends at Longshot are in LA putting together issue #1, to find something small but inspiring that connects those dots:

Bayard Rustin’s first rule of management was to make lists of every conceivable task. If somebody thinks that something can possibly go wrong, come up with a specific solution, and put it on the list. Organizing anything — a massive march, a union picket, a training program, a newspaper — succeeds or fails because of details.

All day long, Rustin and his team crossed off completed tasks and added new tasks to the three– and four-page lists:

Briefing of Marshals
Sy does press release on cars to Negro press
Telephone for top command
Find out when office tent goes up
Wire Mahalia Jackson
Call Joe Rauh on insurance and inspection
Clarify with Washington police Rockwell’s intentions
Small national office at the Statler 

I’m fascinated with Bayard Rustin, have been for years — about a year ago I finally picked up his Collected Writings, Time on Two Crosses. At the end of his life, Rustin became a forceful advocate for gay rights, and a lot of his writing from this period connects the two movements. But in everything I’ve read about Rustin, I’d never heard this story:

At the end of every workday, Rustin convened a staff meeting. Everyone was invited — and expected — to attend, from the heavies like Tom Kahn and Cleveland Robinson down to lowly interns like Peter Orris and Elliott Linzer.

Rustin let everyone else talk. Staffers reported on how many people had written requesting brochures and buttons. They reported on how many buses had been booked for Akron and Albany and New York. They raised questions about security arrangements or coordination with Walter Fauntroy’s operation in Washington.

As others talked, Rustin doodled. As he scribbled notes and crossed out completed tasks, he drew squares and triangles that looked like mazes. Peter Orris, a brainy high school student, was convinced that the doodles helped Rustin think through the relationships between the many-layered tasks. He got Rustin to autograph one of his doodles.

Sometimes, like a herald from the past, Rustin suddenly interrupted the chatter with an old spiritual, his voice sweet and high pitched:

Sometimes I feel like a motherless child,
A long ways from home,
A true believer
Sometimes I feel like I’m almos’ gone
Way up in the heab’nly lan’
True believer

Sometimes he sang alone. But he also called out songs everyone knew. Always the teacher, he told them where the song came from, what it meant. He talked to them, for example, about the syncopation in “Ezekiel Saw the Wheel” and the call-and-response patterns in “Swing Low.” He sang the old spirituals with new words targeting Bull Connor, George Wallace, Ross Barnett, and Jim Clark, the most notorious symbols of segregation in the South.

As Harlem slept, the music of slaves and sharecroppers, sit-inners and picketers, gospel choirs and a capella college ensembles, filled the muggy night air.

 

On Repeat: Language Refracting in History’s Gravitational Well

Listen to this speech.

Listen to it!

I heard King’s “I Have a Dream” on the radio this afternoon. Despite the grandeur of the visuals of the March on Washington, and the power of the text, I think that radio is the best way to experience it. I am amazed, as a writer, teacher, poet, and speaker, at the range of King’s elocutionary instrument.

He doesn’t just use every sonorous rhetorical tool in the book. He makes words rhyme which shouldn’t. He finds transitory consonants and bends them to fit his alliterative schemes. He has the most versatile spondaic foot I’ve ever heard, so much so it could pass for iambic. (Try to find a genuinely unstressed syllable — or unstressed thought — in the way King says “We Will Not Be Satisfied.”)

And he matches and varies his pitch to highlight his parallelisms of matter and mind, in his voice and in the air; a small, thickly built man, speaking from the roots of the trees, from the center of the earth, knowing that the extension of his own gravity stretches like a column from the molten core to the orbit of the moon. He is a single still point with the granted power to bend straight the crooked lines of history.

Originally published January 19, 2009

 

Anémic Cinéma on Your Wrist

I embedded one of these videos and linked to the other in my Gadget Lab article on the near-future of wristwatches, but I thought it’d be worth juxtaposing ‘em here too.

Two quick notes: in case it’s not obvious, “Anémic” is “Cinéma” backwards. And as you can see, Duchamp was never one to limit himself to just vertical OR horizontal reading. (Watch the whole thing.)