Wordwork|play

Prolific Professors

I have often wondered about very prolific writers, especially professors who also write books. Thinking about them, I always felt a mixture of admiration, jealousy, and shame. I admired their dedication, energy, and output, and bemoaned my lack.

I am still too angry to write about it properly. Read "A Million Little Writers" on how many writers, especially, though not exclusively, professors, manage to be such prolific writers. I too could be prolific if I had a host of minions to do the work for me--I come up with an idea and they do the research and writing to which I can affix my name.

Advertising in Library Books?

I've read this in several sources now and it really bothers me (see here and here, and a number of litblogs who have picked up on it). It obviously bothers others as well. Advertising is coming not just into public libraries, but indeed into their books. This is beginning in certain libraries in the UK where they will place ad inserts at the first page next to the panel with the review date, thus forcing the borrower to see the ad at least once. Since public funding of libraries seems to be on the decline across North America as well, I would not be surprised to
see library book ads here soon.

I feel a little hypocritical ranting about this as my own litblog has advertising on it, though I have mentioned before how conflicted I feel about it. It is a funding issue here as well. I'm hoping to ultimately restrict advertising here to writing and reading-related content--that would make me feel better. I doesn't sound like library advertising will be restricted that much, though libraries get to approve content. Apparently it will be "fairly respectable, branded offer," according to Mr Jackson, who heads the marketing agency entering/spearheading this new market, and as "fairly generic." Not very comforting.

What really disturbs me about this development is that libraries were/are supposed to be about "free access and impartiality." They were supposed to be a public service, making it possible for anyone, regardless of
socio-economic status, to have free access to literature (used in a very broad sense). This intrusion is simply too much. We already can't walk down the street, take an elevator ride, or even a leak, without being
confronted with advertisements. Now borrowers will have to pay, by looking at advertising, for library books. The question now is, putting the general issue of the intrusion of consumerism into every aspect of our
lives somewhat to the side, whether advertising moneys will end up determining or to some extent influencing material acquisition and offerings.

Book Review: Consider the Source; A Critical Guide to the 100 Most Prominent News and Information Sites on the Web, by James F. Broderick & Darren W. Miller

(Published Oct. 31, 2007 in BC Magazine)

Whether you are a newshound, student, journalist, or writer, this handy guide to news websites should save you a great deal of time.

Whether you are a student, writer, journalist, or newshound, you are often in need of sources. For most of us, the days of spending hours in a library accessing card catalogues, microfiche, and microfilm are over. Not only do most of us no longer need to use such time-consuming and inefficient technologies in search of information, many of us rarely feel the need to physically step into a library. We now have the power of the internet to access, from the comfort of our homes, an almost endless stream of information. Though we may still need to buy or borrow books, magazines, journals or newspapers for our research, the internet once again gives us ready access to information about them, their publishers and authors, and a means to buy or reserve them.

With such ready access to information, and such a dizzying number of sources, how can we know which sources to trust? How do we know the information we access is not only accurate and thorough, but also fair and balanced? How do we know whether a given source has a political, social, ideological or demographic agenda or bias? The long answer is to take the time to read our sources thoroughly and critically, and to research the authors, institutions, publishers, and sponsors behind them. Increasingly, people either lack the critical thinking and analytical skills necessary to judge their sources, and/or lack the time to do so.

This is where Consider the Source; A Critical Guide to the 100 Most Prominent News and Information Sites on the Web by James F. Broderick and Darren W. Miller comes in. They have done much of the work for us. At least for a hundred sites. As the title quite unambiguously suggests, this book examines and guides us through 100 prominent online news and information sites. It purports to give us "a glimpse behind the screens of the most important news and information Web sites--from those connected to global news services to those connected only to the modems of independent journalists and idiosyncratic culture watchers."

Jim Broderick, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of journalism at New Jersey City University in Jersey City, New Jersey. He started his career writing for Indiana State University's newspaper, The Indiana Statesman, and has written for newspapers and wire services in New York City and in the Midwest. Broderick is the author of two books--Paging New Jersey: A Literary Guide to the Garden State (2003, Rutgers University Press) and The Literary Galaxy of Star Trek (2006, McFarland Publishing)--and lectures frequently on New Jersey literature and pop culture.

Darren Miller has worked as a reporter and editor for newspapers in New Jersey and North Carolina. He spent two and a half years covering the people and politics for The Mountaineer. Miller has also been editor-in-chief of The Gothic Times in Jersey City, New Jersey, writing about such topics as the death penalty, murder trials, municipal corruption, and natural disasters. He has appeared in schools and elsewhere to talk about journalism, and writes about the media on his blog, Taking Notes.

Broderick and Miller, having recently written Consider the Source together, are now working on Web of Conspiracy: A Critical Guide to the Conspiratorial World on the Internet, a book about conspiracy theories and the Web. Much more information, as well as links to the 100 sites profiled in Consider the Source can be found on their website, The Reporters' Well.

Consider the Source obviously does not, nor could it, discuss or even list every important sources of news and information on the internet. How then did they decide which sites to cover and which to leave out? The authors do state that the sites chosen have a certain prominence, reputation and importance and, significantly, that they offer content that is largely free. How exactly prominence, importance, or reputation were defined is not entirely clear. These are, after all, subjective terms. Was prominence based on a certain circulation or number of hits, or were polls conducted? How was importance defined? Important in what way and to whom? And what exactly constitutes a certain reputation? However these terms were ultimately defined, having extensively perused the guide, it seems the sources--some of them well-known, others less so--cover a wide spectrum and are treated critically and fairly.

Consider the Source examines the strengths and weaknesses of each site, listed in alphabetical order, and provides links to them. The criteria used to critique the sources are fairly straight-forward: balance, thoroughness, compelling writing, and sensible use of available technology. Each source is covered under the following useful, and fairly brief, sections: "Overview," "What You'll Find There," "Why You Should Visit," "Keep This in Mind," and "Off the Record." These provide the reader with not only a general overview of the source as a whole, but also the site's main features, reasons to visit (or not to visit, in some cases), lesser known aspects, such as it's history or ideological roots or leanings, and other interesting facts. For every source, also, a URL and small visual snapshot are provided. And at the end of each there is a rating displayed as 1 to 5 newspapers.

As important as content in a site's critique is its accessibility and user-friendliness. Some sites, while scoring high in terms of content and historical importance (see AFP--Agence France-Press, "considered to be the oldest news agency in the world"), received a low final rating because their sites were poor (1 newspaper out of 5 for AFP).

At the end, Consider the Source has an appendix listing all sites covered by their ranking, from five newspapers down to one. This is a very handy feature, allowing the reader--perhaps I should say user--quick access to rankings for specific sites. Though handy, I sincerely hope users will read, at least once, the complete critique of each source used. And this leads me to one concern. So many people already don't take the time, or have the critical skills, to adequately determine the value of a given source. This guide, though very useful as a reference for the busy researcher, does not provide, except perhaps by example, access to the tools themselves, to the critical skills needed to analyze sources. There are, after all, many more sites on the internet than the hundred discussed here.

Consider the Source should fit comfortably on the busy researcher's reference shelf. Whether you are a newshound, student, journalist, or writer, this guide should save you a great deal of time in getting a sense of the reliability and usefulness of at least one hundred prominent, important, and reputable news and information sites. Put it next to your writer's guides.

Update: Review of Consider the Source Submitted

My review of Consider the Source has been submitted to BC Magazine. I will post it here as soon as I hear that they have published it.

Thanks for your patience.

Ward Churchill Speaks at the University of Guelph: "Denial of Genocide as Academic Orthodoxy"

Ward Churchill, former Professor of Ethnic Studies and Coordinator of American Indian Studies at the University of Colorado, Boulder, co-director of the Colorado chapter of the American Indian Movement (AIM), and vice chair of the American Indian Anti-Defamation Council, spoke at the University of Guelph on Thursday, October 18th. His talk was on "Denial of Genocide as Academic Orthodoxy." Though not directly related to the focus of this site, I hope it will become clear that it is extremely relevant not only to the integrity of academic discourse and intellectual freedom, but also to critical thinking, a cornerstone of literary criticism and analysis.

I found out about the talk through my partner only two days before the event. We both thought it sounded interesting, having both taken courses during our university days touching, directly or indirectly, on the topic of genocide. So we decided to attend. We are also well aware, despite common perceptions to the contrary (among the general public, the media, even academia), that we--Canadians and Americans--are not post-colonial, post-imperial, or beyond genocide, never mind sexism, homophobia and racism.

We had some basic background knowledge and awareness, but speaking for myself here, I was not prepared for the scope and depth of material he was to cover. I had wanted to take notes in case I decided later to write about it, but ended up forgetting to bring my notebook and pen. Fortunately the organizers there had some little notepads and pens of which I took advantage. I wish I had brought a recorder though. I could not scribble fast enough on my little tear-away pad to capture more than the gist of his talk. But I did get some notes.

Ward Churchill's talk was about both academic orthodoxy and about genocide. His approach to the discussion of the historic, and ongoing, genocide against indigenous peoples in various parts of the world, various settler states including Canada and the United States, was very effective. What made it so effective, in my opinion, was that he did not confine his discussion to Native issues alone. Equally effective was his argument, the thesis, so to speak, of the speech, that genocide denial is academic orthodoxy. To fit into academic orthodoxy, one must deny the genocide against indigenous peoples, or at least not bring it up, discuss it, write about it, or teach it.

Churchill spoke about the difference between the claims to land made by settler states, versus the rights to land of indigenous peoples. He spoke about the hegemonic discourse imposed by institutions--educational, government, cinema, the media--on the populace. Most people, Churchill states, are not even aware of the their cognitive dissonance. And it is in our best interests to play along. That includes academics and educational institutions.

He tells the story of Lynne Cheney's Request for Proposals (RFP) while Chairwoman of the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), and how it was discovered that there was an unofficial rule to filter and throw out all proposals containing the word genocide. This rule, obviously designed to keep out papers referencing America's role in genocide(s), Churchill remarks, also resulted, ironically, in a number of papers being thrown out which argued that no genocide had ever occurred in America, or by Americans. While Churchill did not provide proof of this (perhaps he has elsewhere in his writings), there has been considerable controversy surrounding Cheney's role with the NEH. A 2000 New York Times article mentions that she "used her position as head of the national endowment to assert an increasingly conservative ideology," and "was accused by many scholars of politicizing the endowment's grant-making by favoring traditional over multicultural projects and loading the endowment's peer review committees with conservatives." And the National Coordinating Committee for the Promotion of History writes, again in 2000, that "[d]uring her controversial tenure, she imposed new rules on the scrutiny of some grants at the NEH, and thereby (according to a report in a recent Washington Post article) "imposed her political views on the agency."

Churchill also spoke about the Japanese experience in concentration camps during WWII, and the fact that most scholars of genocide refuse to acknowledge that the Japanese experience in North American concentration camps was genocidal, or that indeed genocide has happened to anyone other than the Jews in Nazi Germany. He gives as an example Deborah Lipstadt's book, Denying the Holocaust. This book, he explains, is very important, and he highly recommends reading it. He really sees the book as both affirming his position and dis-affirming it in the first and second halves, respectively. She dismantles all the arguments used by deniers of the Holocaust in the first half, showing the various ways in which people approach denial, but in the second half goes to great lengths to claim that the Holocaust was unique, that it cannot be compared to anything else in human history. According to Churchill, as important as her work is, as correct as she is in the first half in talking about denial of the genocide against the Jews in Europe, in the second half she herself is guilty of what she calls 'soft-core denial.'

Churchill then went on, providing a point-by-point definition of genocide as first coined by Raphael Lemkin in his 1944 book, Axis Rule In Occupied Europe: Laws Of Occupation, Analysis Of Government, Proposals For Redress. This book, by the way, for all its importance, is apparently very difficult to get. Churchill, while speaking in Toronto, had been told that the Toronto Public Library did not carry it. And on Amazon.com, copies of it sell for $125.00 to $200.00. I will quote the original text here (read it at preventgenocide.org):

By "genocide" we mean the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group. This new word, coined by the author to denote an old practice in its modern development, is made from the ancient Greek word genos (race, tribe) and the Latin cide (killing), thus corresponding in its formation to such words as tyrannicide, homocide, infanticide, etc.(1) Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups. Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity, but as members of the national group.

Genocide has two phases: one, destruction of the national pattern of the oppressed group; the other, the imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor. This imposition, in turn, may be made upon the oppressed population which is allowed to remain or upon the territory alone, after removal of the population and the colonization by the oppressor's own nationals.

Ethnocide, Churchill said, is often used in academic circles these days with a different meaning. Whereas genocide is taken to mean, essentially, mass killing of a people, ethnocide is taken to mean the eradication of their culture. He points out that Lemkin coined both words at the same time, explaining in a footnote that it could be used as a synonym--"Another term could be used for the same idea, namely, ethnocide, consisting of the Greek word "ethnos" -nation- and the Latin word "cide."

After citing the original definition of genocide, Churchill proceeded to explain how the experience of indigenous peoples across the Americas fits exactly the definition of genocide. Just about everything in the definition of genocide above corresponds. Churchill states that killing as a method of genocide is anomalous, in a wide view of history, and that the most common methods are absorption and denationalization, both of which were widely and concertedly practiced in both the United States and Canada with respect to their indigenous peoples, or nations.

Lemkin was, as Churchill puts it, drafted to draft the United Nations General Assembly version of the Genocide Convention. It took the United States until 1986 to ratify it, 40 years after its drafting, and it finally became law in 1988. Canada ratified the Genocide Convention in 1951, but, according to Churchill (I've spent hours trying to find the original version as ratified by Canada, without success), it was implemented so that two out of the five sections were excluded, namely the two the government was guilty of with respect to indigenous peoples, sterilization and the forcible removal of children from their homes, i.e. the residential school system. One out of two children, for five generations, were forcibly removed from their homes and put in residential schools. They were put to work. Many were repeatedly sexually abused. About one in two kids in the system died. This percentage, Churchill pointed out, is higher than the percentage of people killed in most Nazi concentration camps.

The upshot of Churchill's speech was this: 1) genocide of indigenous peoples in the Americas, including, of course, the United States and Canada, did and continues to happen, and 2) academics who speak out about this tend to be silenced or dismissed. He was dismissed. He says there is "thundering silence as orthodoxy on this." What are we to make of academic freedom in a democratic country where this is the case? Genocide denial is, he says, academic orthodoxy. And orthodoxy is rewarded.

-------------------------------------------------
Further reading:
- The Ward Churchill Solidarity Network
- the American Indian Movement of Colorado
- His books
- The book in which the term genocide was first coined--Axis Rule In Occupied Europe: Laws Of Occupation, Analysis Of Government, Proposals For Redress
- Prevent Genocide International
- Deborah Lipstadt's Blog, author of Denying the Holocaust
- the United Nations site, Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
- the Center for World Indigenous Studies
- Fourth World Eye

Just Doing Some Reading Up. Book Reviews are Coming...

I really thought I'd have the review of The Most Dangerous Animal published today, but I am still digesting, still mulling it over. I have already begun reading the next book on my review list, An Ocean of Air, by Gabrielle Walker. Sometimes getting on to other things, putting heavy things on the back burner, letting them ferment a little, makes for a better review (or article, essay, story, poem) when it's finally written. And The Most Dangerous Animal is heavy.

So I used this evening, tired as I was after my day job, to do some research on the evolution (devolution?) of the book review. Though I'm too tired to go into any great detail, I was directed to an article by Steve Wasserman a couple of days ago, entitled "Goodbye to All That." It was depressing, inspiring and intimidating all at once. Sad to see the dumbing-down of society, the plummeting of literacy, and with/because of it, the gradual disappearance of the newspaper book review section. Inspiring to read that there are people still who value thoughtful, thorough reviews of literature, people who recognize the importance of literature and criticism. And intimidating because I know it is now increasingly up to people like me to provide them. That puts me on the spot. I feel like a schoolboy on the stage, deeply engaged and interested, even passionate, but so new to it all that I half seek, half dread, the spotlight.

There are a number of other writers expressing great concern over the erosion of book review sections. Art Winslow, in a post at the Huffington Post entitled "The New Book Burning," though perhaps a bit dramatic, also laments their ongoing collapse. And then there's the NYT article by Motoko Rich, "Are Book Reviewers Out of Print." It, while troubled by the changes in print book reviews, does try to point to literary blogs as perhaps a new incarnation, an evolution (not necessarily vertically) of the book review. Am inspired by the story of Dan Wickett though.

Anyway, I will continue to review here on this blog. In fact I intend, over the next little while, to greatly sharpen the focus of Workwork|play. I want to focus mainly on reviews here, moving forward, with the occasional reflection on writing itself. I realize I have tried to include far too many subject areas on this blog, often leading to a loss of focus. But more on that later.

More reviews are coming...

Researching and Thinking About Old and New Media, and About Digital Freedom

I've been doing a lot of thinking and reading/researching lately about the changing face(s) of media, about the old media (magazines,newspapers, radio & t.v.) versus the new media (blogging, podcasting, etc.). Especially interesting (sometimes concerning) is the role of the editor(s) and the audience. In the old media, there is more of a buffer, or filter, between the author/journalist/artist and the audience. Any response considered inappropriate or non-constructive, not to mention pointless, vulgar or cruel, is filtered out. The public does not get to read these. What they get to read are a carefully selected sample of audience response. This can be problematic.

I've also been thinking and researching a lot about free software, the sharing of science, technology, ideas and thoughts. I've been reading about copyright and copyleft (yes, there is such a thing). I am much intrigued and will share my findings soon. Perhaps I will refrain from divulging too much here until I am ready to publish articles on these subjects.

Wait for it! It will be well worth your while (what does this expression mean, anyway, exactly? fodder for word section perhaps?).

On Thinking...

(originally posted on my other blog, hybrid tumbleweed, 02-24-2006)

I am a thought junkie, of that there is no doubt.  I think about anything and everything.  I question, analyse, critique everything.  Anything that enters my system via any of my senses becomes thought-fuel.  I am quite good at recycling and reusing thoughts as well, but dammit, I just can't reduce them.  I've tried meditation, but then I think about that process too much as well.

I am generally considered a calm, conscientious, reasonable and diplomatic person (I say this not to brag... there is, after all, a downside.)  I have few, if any, enemies.  I have rarely in my life engaged in fights.  Much of this is because I do a great deal of thinking before I act (and after, but more on that later).  In this way I generally avoid doing rash or stupid things that I may regret later.  And once I do speak or act, my speech is edited, polished, ordered, and my actions, if there are any, calm and reasonable.  If there are any... there's the rub.

I can also quite deftly think myself out of action when action is needed.  Indeed, I can think myself out of many a thing that is good for me.  The thought-tool used here is doubt--nit-picky, tedious, repetitive, self-defeating doubt.  Oh yes, I can think myself to inaction as well as action.  I can turn all the critical thinking skills in my mental toolbox against myself.  The nerve.  There are other negative uses of thought as well, but I've said enough.

Thought, especially critical, informed thought, is a very good thing.  It is the cornerstone of understanding, respect, tolerance, and compassion.  It is the difference between closed- and open-mindedness.  It is the difference between the extremist and the moderate.  Indeed, I believe the most important skill-set children ought to be taught at home and in school, besides reading, writing, and math, is the ability to think critically, to question everything, to reason.  For the majority, this does not happen--there are many things teachers, parents, religious authorities, the State, etc., don't want questioned.   

My problem, and I'm sure I'm not alone here, is that I often use thought against myself.  I question my own abilities.  I question the worth of my pursuits.  And sometimes thoughts can turn dreams into flights of fancy a la Walter Mitty.  Fun, but not effective.

Anyway, all this has given me a great deal to think about...

Research: taking the time to read thoroughly

(originally posted on my other blog, hybrid tumbleweed, 03-19-2006)

I just finished reading Marwan M. Kraidy's Hybridity, or the Cultural Logic of Globalization.  It took a while to get through, not because it is a difficult read, but because I find so little time after work when I'm not too tired to read.

As indicated in the introduction to this weblog, I have been interested in hybridity for quite some time.  Only recently have I been able to get back to serious reading.  I needed to get back to something intellectually stimulating--my current job does nothing for the intellect.  I decided, therefore, to begin researching hybridity.  My strategy is to alternately read works of fiction and non-fiction.  The fictional work with which I began my research was Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses.  I followed that up with Kraidy's book.

I decided also to do something that I was rarely able to do at university, namely to read thoroughly, to read a book from cover to cover.  Most research projects at university left no time to read sources, particularly non-fiction ones, thoroughly.  Research usually entailed looking through tables of contents and indices to locate sections from which to extract information relevant to a particular topic of interest.  Novels I always read thoroughly, although I certainly knew people who did not.  I even heard professors remark with a chuckle when asked if they had read a particular novel: "no, I haven't even taught it".      

I always felt very uncomfortable with such research.  It is all too easy to read things out of context, to misunderstand, to misquote, even fail to follow an argument to its conclusion, when reading only sections of sources.  Indeed, I wonder how many academic papers are guilty of taking things out of context and therefore misquoting sources.  Now that I am not rushed, now that I have no deadline, no one breathing down my neck, I have decided that I will read my sources from cover to cover.  It really makes me feel more secure in my understanding of the authors' arguments.   And it makes me feel more intellectually honest.

I regret that the university, an institution charged with passing on proper research skills, often neglects to give students the time to be thorough.