A local radio station likes to play "old school joints." Last night they introduced such a joint by saying, "Back in the day, New York City...1999." When did 1999 become "back in the day"? And if that's old school, what's Run DMC?
This 9 year window of history seems to be a symptom of America's amnesia, or more likely, our preference for the present and the future than the past. That being said, when someone can show intimate knowledge of history, I cannot help but be impressed.
To this end I've been reading two books on Michigan lately and learning a lot. I've been gaining knowledge that I'd like to arm my African protagonists with; knowledge that'll buy them credibility in their work in a foreign land. For instance, Texas has the Alamo, but in Michigan the cry once was, "Remember the River Raisin!" And did you know Michiganians were dubbed wolverines by Ohioans "who likened them to that 'vicious, smelly, ugly northwoods animal'" during the battle for the Toledo Strip? And that wolverines are part of the weasel family? Crazy kids stuff.
On a side note, I hope to share some good news soon. Stay tuned.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Sunday, April 20, 2008
From Point A to Point B
As a religion major in college I enjoyed thinking about what happened between one sentence of scripture and the next. One minute Abraham and Isaac are walking along; the next Isaac is about to be sacrificed. What a second! How'd we get there?
In editing chapter two, I come across similar situations. Do I fill in the gap between one sentence and another or does the absence of detailed explanation add intrigue or humor to the story? Conversely, and more often than not, filling in the space between A & B allows me to make the story richer and more accessible.
It took me a long time as a writer to learn how to write the story I wanted for readers other than myself. I have to thank a corporate public relations job for that. There I wrote detailed copy to be read by a large and diverse audience. Yeah, I had to "know my audience", but I also had to learn how to communicate clearly, consistently and quickly with them. This kind of writing most certainly lent itself to some pretty damn boring print, but it drilled into me some more perspective and restraint that has balanced the loony drivel that I had been previously spilling.
In editing chapter two, I come across similar situations. Do I fill in the gap between one sentence and another or does the absence of detailed explanation add intrigue or humor to the story? Conversely, and more often than not, filling in the space between A & B allows me to make the story richer and more accessible.
It took me a long time as a writer to learn how to write the story I wanted for readers other than myself. I have to thank a corporate public relations job for that. There I wrote detailed copy to be read by a large and diverse audience. Yeah, I had to "know my audience", but I also had to learn how to communicate clearly, consistently and quickly with them. This kind of writing most certainly lent itself to some pretty damn boring print, but it drilled into me some more perspective and restraint that has balanced the loony drivel that I had been previously spilling.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Hypocrites, the whole lot
The first comment I note in the margins of chapter two is to allude to the presidential election more. The book takes place over 90 days from August to early November in a presidential election year. Over the course of the book the story of our two unwanted do-gooders rises up from local to national news with all manner of pundits and politicians putting in their two cents.
Comedically, it's easy to point to politicians and to portray them as hypocrites on any number of issues as the winds of public sentiment shift or new information becomes available. More often than not I have defended politicians' waffling. Why? Because I've managed political campaigns, worked on others and volunteered on many more and have seen how a new piece of information or a new proposal can change an elected official's mind. Does this make this individual a hypocrite? Perhaps, but I'd rather be called a hypocrite and have made an informed decision than stuck with my first opinion despite the availability of additional information.
That being said, the joke here will not only be on our politicians, but most likely the media as well. Have we learned from the wildly inaccurate exit polls of 2000? Nope. Have we learned to avoid sensationalizing bits of stories that may mislead readers rather than performing the due diligence to provide all perspectives and check all facts? Not likely - that doesn't sell newspapers or appeal to advertisers.
At the end of the day, though, the reluctance for Americans to accept help runs deeper than a few defiant politicians or sensationalistic journalists: It runs counter to our country's story; that in light of prosecution, we left one country to find freedom elsewhere; that in light of opportunity in one place, we left to find opportunity elsewhere. When we find that freedom and opportunity are not available in a land that has become synonymous for such things, we question the raison d'etre of this country and by extension, our lives as citizens of this country. As one can imagine, this is not a question any of us would find easy to face or concede to. Addressed seriously this borders on cold, misunderstood French Existentialism; addressed comically and, well, we'll hopefully have more than just the pot calling the kettle black.
Comedically, it's easy to point to politicians and to portray them as hypocrites on any number of issues as the winds of public sentiment shift or new information becomes available. More often than not I have defended politicians' waffling. Why? Because I've managed political campaigns, worked on others and volunteered on many more and have seen how a new piece of information or a new proposal can change an elected official's mind. Does this make this individual a hypocrite? Perhaps, but I'd rather be called a hypocrite and have made an informed decision than stuck with my first opinion despite the availability of additional information.
That being said, the joke here will not only be on our politicians, but most likely the media as well. Have we learned from the wildly inaccurate exit polls of 2000? Nope. Have we learned to avoid sensationalizing bits of stories that may mislead readers rather than performing the due diligence to provide all perspectives and check all facts? Not likely - that doesn't sell newspapers or appeal to advertisers.
At the end of the day, though, the reluctance for Americans to accept help runs deeper than a few defiant politicians or sensationalistic journalists: It runs counter to our country's story; that in light of prosecution, we left one country to find freedom elsewhere; that in light of opportunity in one place, we left to find opportunity elsewhere. When we find that freedom and opportunity are not available in a land that has become synonymous for such things, we question the raison d'etre of this country and by extension, our lives as citizens of this country. As one can imagine, this is not a question any of us would find easy to face or concede to. Addressed seriously this borders on cold, misunderstood French Existentialism; addressed comically and, well, we'll hopefully have more than just the pot calling the kettle black.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
