Which Witch is Which?

Today I was reading papers for the "grammar" side of things, and one of the writers kept using "witch" instead of "which".

The first time it popped up, I underlined it and said "ooh, witch!" and drew a picture of a witch's hat and broom.

The second time, I underlined it and said "a witch! scary". Then in the margin I wrote "witch/which" and using arrows to indicate the word to which I was referring "This one is a noun" and "This one is a subordinating conjunction". I'm sure you can guess where the arrows went.

I circled a few more misuses. The last instance of "witch" in the paper, I drew another witch's hat and broom. I almost drew a black cat, but then I thought maybe it was going over the line.

I wonder if the writer ever confuse the two again...

(PS: Rory returned tonight! Yay for returned kitties).

TWILIGHT Must Die

Yes, I read them. Yes, I watched the movie. But it and its merchandising spawn need to go away.

What has sparked this hatred toward the latest fad in terrible fiction? As I was driving around recently I pulled up behind an annoyingly shiny SUV. As I looked at the monster before, I saw a license plate frame that read: "Warning: I drive like a Cullen". Because vampires have awesome superhuman senses, they can drive like bats out of hell and not get caught.

Robin McKinley sums up her dislike of Stephenie Meyer's abominations by talking about their bad example. I think a book that encourages young women to be passive little twits, wholly consumed by their seemingly undying love for a creepy stalker boy, and empty of any personality or common sense is BAD. Also books that encourage people to continue driving huge pointless SUVs and buying crap related to them are BAD. But whatever.

I feel that my dislike for Twilight, etc. has grown exponentially into hatred. Crappy fiction needs to go away. Luckily crappy fiction tends to fade after a few years, so that in roughly a decade few will remember these silly vampire stories.

If you want a good vampire story, read Sunshine by Robin McKinley. It has a complex female heroine, good writing, and an awesome vampire battle.

Murdering Characters

In the film Stranger than Fiction, an author (played by Emma Thompson) meets one of her characters and finds herself unable to kill him off as she intended. Her novel would have been a masterpiece; however, because she could not bring herself to end her character's existence, the book ended up being mediocre.

I've come to the conclusion that being able to murder one's character-creations is the mark of a good writer and makes for better books. Harry Potter, for example: he has to struggle to achieve the end he needs and he loses good friends along the way. Some grumbled that perhaps Ron or Hermione should have died--and perhaps they're right--but the other deaths Rowling wrote were tramatic for her audience. That tragedy added something invaluable to the book. Tolkien was willing to kill off Gandalf in The Lord of the Rings and some of the dwarves in The Hobbit. Lewis narrated the death of Aslan in a scene that made me cry in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. These deaths elict real emotion from readers, and forge a connection with a story that wouldn't happen without them.

(***WARNING: TWILIGHT saga spoilers ahead***)

So I finished Breaking Dawn, the last in the series of books I wrote about last week. I was dissatisfied with it. It ends all right, but the problem I have is that the main characters all get exactly what they want. Bella becomes a vampire without really losing her humanity, or even having to endure much of a struggle to not murder humans. Edward gets Bella as a vampire without sparking a war with the werewolves because he keeps her from dying instead of turning a healthy human into a vampire. Jacob--a werewolf--gets over Bella by finding his soul-mate with Edward and Bella's hybrid daughter. Bella and Jacob stay best friends, even though the werewolf nature is to destroy vampires. Occasionally, Meyer makes you think there will be difficulties for the characters, but then everything gets smoothed over perfectly. None of the main characters die. Meyer is unwilling to murder any of them.

What's so wrong with getting what you want? Because we know, deep down, that life isn't that simple. You aren't supposed to get what you want without at least a little struggle. It would have interfered with the story if Bella become crazed with thirst when she sees her father a short time after becoming a vampire, so Meyer makes sure that Bella has amazing self-control unheard of for a newborn vampire. No struggle.

Struggle is what makes for interesting narrative, the kind of story you could read again and again. Harry Potter would not have made me feel if Dumbledore hadn't died, if Harry hadn't had to struggle for a family and to find his place. The Lord of the Rings would have fallen flat if their quest to destroy the Ring hadn't been fraught with dangers and tragedy. Stories worth telling have deep struggles, and sometimes (like Frodo) the characters can't go home again.

Meyer's books are entertaining, but they likely won't end up on the same shelf as Harry Potter, The Lord of the Rings, or other great works of fantasy literature. In fact, my paperback copies of the first two novels are destined for Paperback Swap or Bookmooch.

An Awful Book I Can't Shut

This summer, I thought I was going to take a seminar in literacy. Part of that class involved reading YA fiction, which excited me. Some of those books are award-winning Good Books. Some were merely popular to teens and fit the purpose of the unit. Thus, I picked up Twilight with the intention of seeing what all the fuss was about.

From the beginning, these books have bothered me. Meyer's style hearkens back to romance novels, punishing kisses and all, and her descriptions are heavy-handed and dull. The style is such that it calls attention (for me at least) to the language, something that it shouldn't do. The narrative should be the focus of the reader's attention, not the language; I had a hard time concentrating on the story at first because Meyer's style got in the way.

But I can't seem to NOT finish the series. Part of it is my obsession with knowing the end of stories, no matter how horrible. Part of it is the stories are strangely compelling, even with all their narrative and character flaws. Now I'm embarking on the final book in the series, knowing how it's likely to end, but I have this need to finish it, even if the end will annoy me.

The Twilight series has captured the imaginations and hearts of thousands of readers. It's hailed as the "next Harry Potter" due to its popularity. However, they can't touch that series because they lack the depth and complexity of Rowling's work. Rowling carefully spins tales with complex characters and mythological allusions. Part of reading Harry Potter is playing "spot the myth". Meyer's books lack that depth and richness.

I purchased the first two books out of curiosity, and checked the other two out from the library because they were only available in hardback, and my desire to know the end of the saga wasn't enough to justify paying for two books that will end up on Paperback Swap or Bookmooch. I'm into the last book, and I just want it to be done so I know how it ends, and then I can go on with life.

I read these books with nose wrinkled slightly with disgust, but obviously Meyer creates something that's compelling enough to overcome my distaste for her writing style. How can an awful book still be good enough to keep me turning the pages, eliciting anxiety and hope? I always feel the need to justify why I'm reading these books, yet the reason is simple: I've been sucked into a story against my will and better judgment.

I can see the appeal for teenage girls who can't imagine a world beyond high school and age 18: Bella Swan aspires to halt her life right as its beginning. She can't imagine passion and love greater than what she's found at 17, while those of us who are a bit older know that she's a teenage idiot. She wants to give up humanity because she doesn't understand what being human and having a beating heart means--her "soulmate" is more important, and what teenage girl doesn't want to believe they can't find their soulmate at 17? It's silly and awful. Still, I can't look away, and I can't shut the book.

English Arguments

In class on Thursday night, I had to wrinkle my nose as another student (PhD, for that matter) described The Confidence Man as "literary masturbation". The book is difficult and confusing, but I hardly think that term applies to it--Melville's purpose is reasonably clear to a perceptive reader, and he employs devices that achieve that purpose. But mostly I objected to that phrase because something about it strikes me as pretentious and dull, the sort of thing you'd say if you wanted to sound smart but had nothing of meaning to contribute.

Perhaps I'm a bit harsh, but certain phrases and ways of speaking annoy me. As does certain ways of writing, like that of the brilliant-but-terrible-to-read Fredric Jameson. I later argued with the same classmate about what makes good writing: she asserted that Jameson was "wonderful", while I rolled my eyes and said that he had good ideas, but was an awful writer. I personally despise academic writing that is obscure for obscurity's sake, instead of merely dealing with the material as clearly and concisely as possible.

(Perhaps I hate it because I find myself adopting academic-speak, but I still dislike it strongly.)

She argued that it was just how we were supposed to write--the establishment would deny any attempts to write in a "low-brow" way. We're expected to adopt the "high-brow" academic discourse, even if we could be clearer (and better) in our papers. I thought this was bullshit.

Terry Eagleton argues against obscure, empty writing in After Theory. Several other great prose stylists can write engagingly while dealing with difficult material. Why does academic writing have to be so awful sometimes? We study some of the best writing in the world, and yet our own writing is muck meant to mire an unsuspecting reader in jargon, obscurity, and incomprehensibility?

I hope I can be a good writer and show insight into my material. I want to write articles that are both informative and enjoyable to read. It's going to be a long process, but perhaps I'll get there in the end.

How Not to Write, Pt 2

Seriously, readers...you did not take up my call to shred terrible writing. Am I the only one who gets pleasure out of ripping into poor writing and making it better? (Perhaps I am.)

As promised, here is my edited version. I actually could do two--fixing this one while leaving the content largely intact, and then a total rewrite (with the addition of specific, concrete details). I'm too lazy, however, to do the total rewrite, so I'll just leave that one to your imaginations. However, I do make suggestions for good places to stick details.

This letter is in recommendation for [Student Smith], an applicant for the [People Who Gave Us Money] Scholarship.

I have known [Student] for 12 years in several settings: as a student at [X] School District, as a member the [Random Church] Youth Group, and as a [academic discipline] student at the University. I have had the pleasure of working with him as both a youth adviser and as a staff member in the [academic department].

Throughout high school, he consistently ranked at the top of his class. A constant favorite with his high school teachers, [Student] is well-known for his hard work and dedication in academics and extracurricular activities. [Here's a place for concrete examples--awards, etc.]

[Student] fills the roles as both a young leader and a devoted honor student; I have every expectation that he will be successful. As a leader, he sets an example for his peers, [actively participating in class and volunteering for projects]. Since entering the university, he has shown a remarkable level of interest and dedication to his college education. His above average GPA ranks him [nth] in the [level] class, proving [Student's] commitment to his academics and to his future career. I look forward to observing him further develop here at the university and as a future [career title].

I believe that [Student Smith] is an energetic, well-respected, and talented individual who represents the desired qualities in a [People Who Gave Us Money] Scholarship recipient. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

See? Isn't that a bit better? Even if it's too indefinite to be a good recommendation letter, at least it's more active and the sentences are not ugly, though perhaps just a little homely. It's assertive, and unlike the other one, is not repetitive and passive. Hopefully you think it is an improvement as well.

How Not to Write

I helped a friend proofread today a recommendation letter (via Google Talk), and I groaned about it because all the sentences were ugly, clunky, and entirely too vague for a recommendation letter. For one thing, such a letter should contain definite concrete examples of why they are such a great person. Another? Don't use the passive voice.

In the interest of providing concrete examples, I thought I'd post a version of the letter with all the identifying particulars left out to demonstrate how not to write.

I am writing this letter to give my highest recommendation in support of [Student Smith], a candidate for the [People Who Gave Us Money] Scholarship.

I have known Student for 12 years through a combination of ways. I’ve known him as a student through the [X] School District, with the [Random Church] Youth Group as his youth advisor, and last year he came to the [Academic Department] at the University as [department] student. In high school, he ranked one of the top students in the class all four years. This young man was always a favorite with all his high school teachers in the classroom, and he always worked hard with outside activities and projects.

[Student] has always exceeded all expectations as a young leader, an honor student who is devoted to his education, and I have every expectation that he will be successful with his life’s goals. Since coming to the department, he has established the interest to go beyond a remarkable level of interest and dedication to his college career proven by his GPA and ranking [nth] in the [level] class in the first semester. He has always been the type of student that shows leadership and sets a great example amongst his peers.I am confident that [Student] will provide considerable service again to any department and to the University and I am looking forward to seeing him develop here and as a future [career title].

In conclusion, I believe that [Student] is an energetic, well-respected and talented individual who represents the “best and brightest" of [academic discipline] students and is therefore worthy of your consideration.

Please contact me directly if you have any questions regarding my support for [Student Smith] and his application for the 2008 [People Who Gave Us Money] Scholarship.

I know where to start on this atrocity (and I already named a few ways), but I'm interested in what you think. How could this letter be stronger? I'll post a revision tomorrow.

E-Mail Etiquette

(After a scramble to look up how to spell "etiquette", I can now proceed with today's post).

With the advent of the Internet and the ease of electronic communication, e-mail* has been increasingly popular in the workplace. I work. Thus, I receive 50,000 e-mails a day (an exaggeration, yes, but sometimes it feels like that), and have daily opportunities to cringe.

One thing I really hate in an e-mail is when the sender puts their whole message in the subject line. Perhaps it's because I hate long subject lines; I think they should be short and to the point. Plus, then I have to go to all the trouble of opening the e-mail to find that there is nothing there. I'm annoyed--but maybe I'm just picky.

The other e-mail rules that I hate when people violate are when they give you a word. That's all the message is--a word or two. I'm sorry, at least take the trouble to type a proper salutation and sign off. It's communication after all.**

And finally***, the people who obviously don't read over their e-mails before they send them out. We've all seen them--horrible misspellings, lack of punctuation, or just fuzzy sentences that you think you know what they are talking about, but you can't be sure. A simple re-read would catch some of the mistakes. But in their hurry to type something out, individuals often forget that there could be someone who is judging them by the state of their correspondence. I'm always careful when I e-mail people because I know they are aware of me as an English major. I'm also careful when I e-mail other professionals or e-mail authority figures because I want my communication to reflect my quality of work and dedication to my job or pursuits. It's inevitable that we are to be judged based on our communication, and somehow running Spell Check in Outlook before sending an e-mail seems like such a simple step to prevent a bad impression.

*This is actually the proper way to spell the word, since it is a shortened form of "electronic mail". But in their haste, people don't ever put the hyphen. I put it as a small form of protest against careless writing.

**This rule doesn't count if the e-mail is part of ongoing correspondence. In that case, it's like a phone conversation.

***Don't EVEN get me started on those stupid forwards. Since I'm concentrating on e-mail in a professional setting, I'll pretend like those e-mails don't exist.

Books, books (and the World's Worst Poet)

It's that time of year again--the one where I get to buy my school books. Here was the semester's list:

• The Confidence Man (Herman Melville)
• Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (H.S. Thompson)
• Angels (Denis Johnson)
• Housekeeping (Marilynne Robinson)
• Fool's Progress (Edward Abbey)
• Vineland (Thomas Pynchon)
• La Perdida (Jessica Abel)
• Flaming Iguanas (Erika Lopez)
• Elements of Style (Strunk and White)
• Literary Research Guide (Ed. Harner)
• MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers (Ed. Joseph Gibaldi)
  
• Glossary of Literary Terms (Ed. M.H. Abrams)
• Chicago Manual of Style
• Chicago Guide To Your Academic Career
• Poetic Designs (Adams)

Sounds like I have an exciting semester ahead of me, no? I already had two of these books, but the rest totaled about as much as my tuition--though, I do have a tuition discount and all.

*********
How would you like the title of the World's Worst Poet? One William McGonagall (yes, he shares the name of a Hogwarts Professor) has been granted this honor. The Scottish are known to take their poetry seriously. After all, they produced the likes of Robert Burns and Sir Walter Scott, and the Scottish are a little touchy about appearing inept to the rest of the world. They had the English telling them for years that they were nothing but barbarians who didn't know how to open a book.

But seriously--a poet who had to take an umbrella with him to shield himself from rotten vegetables? He must have upset some readers. Also, I'm sure thinking that he was second to Shakespeare in genius didn't help. I mean, really. Even if you're good, you don't go around claiming that you're in Shakespeare's league. And judging from the samples of poetry, he really is a pretty poor poet.

Because Wikipedia is Just Too Liberal

It's every conservative person's nightmare! Access to free information that people can edit? Yikes! The liberals will take over everything!

So they started the much inferior Conservapedia. And what they post is slightly terrifying for its closed minded talk and refusal to face the fact that not all of the liberals are out to destroy the truth. Their motto? "A conservative encyclopedia you can trust. The truth shall set you free." Their logo has an American flag as the background.

One: I don't trust any information because it's conservative or liberal. I'm suspicious unless the information is backed up and substantiated to my satisfaction. That's how you end up with mass genocides and other atrocities: blind trusting.

Two: The writing is terrible*. As in a fourth-grader wrote most of the articles.

Three: The articles are laughable. Check out Pat Robertson for example--the quotations (which they misuse throughout the article) are enough to make you fall out of your chair laughing.

Four: Their rules. (Also known as commandments). They're even better. My personal favorite is that "CE" and "BCE" are unacceptable because they remove the historical basis of "BC" and "AD" (maybe they don't realize that "AD" is anno domini, not "after death".) But I guess they don't understand that not all historians would feel comfortable using a dating system that is based on one religion. Read the comments--they are a hoot.

Five: Obviously bias means nothing to the writers. Because truth must be biased toward the conservative mindset, no? (Why did they feel the need to include that Nancy Pelosi is one of the richest members of Congress?). And obviously they have no better opinion of Hillary Clinton.

Well folks, I'll leave you to it. I simply wanted to shake my head at the anti-intellectual, anti-science madness of this site, where terms such as "objectivity" and "evidence" are disregarded. Luckily, RationalWiki was created to refute their unsubstantiated claims. Check out the Slacktivist's comments on it.

*My original intention was to bash their writing, but I got carried away with myself. Oops.