Copyright
|
2002/11/29
11:08
Writing a Blog Can be Hard Writing a blog can be hard. Even coming up with a witty title for each blog entry is a challenge, QED. That's not all. I can't manage, each day, to come up with some news tidbit to flap the unflappable, or a discovery to flabbergast the unflabbergastable, or a lurid tale to scrute the inscrutable. So I see why most bloggers end up returning to the original "Web Log" idea of blogging, posting links to interesting sites they've visited instead of concocting their own content. I'm going to do that right now by heartily recommending a guide to critical analysis of claims of amazing breakthroughs. Yes, even more amazing than the Salad Shooter. Check out Bob Park's Seven Signs of Voodoo Science. I've re-read what I wrote so far and ... I think I'll go look for a site entitled "Seven Signs of Bad Writing".
2002/11/26
19:22
Y'know What I Mean? As I observed with great perspicacity in an earlier blog entry, there are a lot of words in the English language. Gee, I sure hope I used the word "perspicacity" right. If I have my doubts (well, not any more – I just looked it up), isn't it likely that many readers will just "blip" over the word, assuming I know what I'm doing? If that's the case, why use the word in the first place? To show off? Yeah, yeah, it was precisely the word I wanted in that litotic context, but ... Uh-oh. Litotic: pertaining to litotes. I stated the opposite of what was true to highlight in an amusing way what ... oh, forget it. I like to think I have a decent grasp of the English language, but maybe I've gone and deludified myself. I have to admit that I "blip" over words. For years I've read articles that used terms such as "semiotics" and I've always expected that I'd eventually glean their meaning from context. Nope. People who use the word "semiotics" might as well be talking to me in American Sign Language. Even words we think we know are open to debate. Hoo, man, are they ever! Check out any newsgroup that deals with spiritual beliefs and watch 'em argue about the definition of "atheism". I assume you've heard of "Godwin's Law". It states that a debate is doomed once it has devolved to the point where one party likens the other to a Nazi. I propose "Campbell's Law of Lexicographic Rhetoric": "Once somebody whips out a dictionary to prove their point, the debate isn't going anywhere." Some words I wish I could use more often, but I can't because so few people are familiar with them. "Immanentize" is a great word for the kind of writing I do, but most folks guess that it means something like "inadvertently swallowing a breath mint". Then there are the words I use kind of wrong. I like to use the word "objectify" to denote the actualization of reification. Gah! Even I'm confused, and I know what I mean! I suppose I'd be safer inventing the verb "objectificate". I'm not against neologisms; I've invented some words in my time. I've written several articles explaining what I call "antiprocess". The problem with inventing a word is that you think you own it, and it's very tempting to make the definition a moving target. Even if you stick to your original meaning, though, difficulties arise. "My" word "antiprocess" gained some currency on an online system during the 80's. At one point, a fellow who'd never heard of me disputed my use of the word. He spent some time berating me for using it wrong. It could have been a delicious moment, akin to that scene in the movie "Annie Hall" where an autodidact is spouting off about what media guru Marshall McLuhan was really saying. At that point, Woody Allen brings forth McLuhan, who tells the guy that he's full of baloney. Allen wryly comments to the camera, "If only life were like this!" The fact is, though, that nobody ever "owns" any word. Language evolves. As recently as 1943 (according to my outdated Oxford dictionary), the word "terrific" meant "engendering terror". Assuming "my" word does gain some popularity, who knows what it'll mean a few decades from now? At that point, I'll be faced with the weird experience of looking up a word I invented to find out if I'm using it right.
2002/11/24
22:10
Living la Vida Modem "Modem"? Who talks about modems, now? It's all about broadband. And what's with that Ricky Martin reference!? With so many of us living the frantic pace of "Internet Time" these days, would any self-respecting blogger make reference to anything that happened prior to last Tuesday? Beats me. Anyway, here's a question: Am I the only one who finds "Ren and Stimpy" frightening? I can't deny that it's brilliant and amazingly creative, but even though I'm 45 years old, it still gives me the willies. Now that I've compromised my net cred by talking about a cartoon from the previous millenium, I'll be even less up-to-the-second by talking about "The Matrix". I recently read a commentary about that film that I found most intriguing. (Click here to check it out.) I had no idea the movie was so deep, and I'm usually pretty good at picking up on this kind of stuff. I guess I was too dazzled to analyze what I was watching. I'm amazed that I didn't spot all the Lewis Carroll references. Gosh, this blog entry is really dredging the past. I guess I shouldn't be telling you that last night I watched an episode of "The Green Hornet". But since I'm time-travelling anyway, I will mention that I've found that sometimes fond memories are best left alone. Case in point: I recently had a chance to watch a rerun of "Roy Rogers", a antediluvian black-and-white Western. The lady star was Dale Evans, and she was my first crush. When I first saw the series in the early 60's, my 4-year-old brain understood that this was a "pretty lady", and to top it off (literally), she wore a cowboy hat. How cool was that? Alas, upon seeing the show again, I realized that her actual image couldn't live up to what I remember. I should have left well enough alone. There's a lot to be said for the "hit of the moment" phenomenon that is characteristic of "Internet Time". To wit: you can't be disappointed by nostalgia if you don't remember anything. Mind you, the same argument also works in favour of being whacked on the head with a rock. |